Midtown Messenger's District 7 City Council endorsement

Marston: the real deal, indeed!

Whatever your affiliation in this technically non-partisan race, she is the best pick for Dist. 7, hands down

© 2007, Quicksilver Publishing Group/The Midtown Messenger. All rights reserved.

For anyone who thought this endorsement was a foregone conclusion, based on our long acquaintance with the endorsee and our alignment of interests given this paper’s mission and scope—we wrestled with it. We had misgivings (see next few paragraphs). And in the end, foregone or not (believe what you will), we think we can defend it, decisively.
Before we get really rolling on the whys and wherefores of the endorsement, we have a confession to make. While City Council elections are officially non-partisan, the reality is, party still matters. As readers may have intuited from our public Valentine to District 4 Councilman Simplot last winter, our only issue with him in his races for his Council seat in 2003 and 2005 was that he wasn’t the Democrat. Perhaps partly for that sin, he came within a few dozen votes of losing to the interim appointed incumbent, Jessica Florez, who replaced Phil Gordon upon his run for mayor.
Here at Midtown central, we’re died-in-the-wool Democrats, a fact of which my parents are proud (they raised three for three, they point out). While on one hand I’m all for personal responsibility, dislike the public K-12 education establishment (teachers unions and colleges) and support many traditional “family values” (and am a biker, a gun rights supporter, erstwhile hunter, etc., blah blah blah)—I also vehemently oppose school vouchers, the current administration, and the Republican tilt in general toward corporate welfare and creeping infringement on civil rights and liberties and the economic well-being of the middle, working and underclasses.
That said, that’s why, faced with two reasonably competent and honest candidates, I will always vote for the Democrat. I am a registered Democrat. I vote a straight ticket in statewide and national elections. There are two other simple reasons for this:
One may personally know, like and feel aligned, sometimes, with the candidate of the other party. To my Dad’s irritation, my mother once softheadedly voted for a Republican candidate for city council (back East) because he had been my piano teacher. However, how would you like to have given someone you wouldn’t ordinarily vote for because of their party affiliation their first elective office, only to find them later rising to high public office as an outed demagogue and fascist? I wouldn’t. That would be adding injury to the “insult” of having crossed party lines in the first place. (That’s the “Oops! I voted for young Hitler or David Duke!” argument.)
Second, as my father always pointed out, in legislatures, the outcome on many critical issues comes down to party-line votes, where with arm-twisting enforcement of discipline by party leaders, the result is often a matter of simple arithmetic. Would you want a key legislative issue to go the wrong way because you helped put a member of the opposite party in the Legislature—just because you liked him or her? As I’ve seen it expressed elsewhere recently, party identification is shorthand for the likelihood that Candidate A probably shares more of your values than the one from the other party. (What’s that you say? Independents? They’re the agnostics of the American political scene, and, as my senior Honors thesis was in philosophy of religion, you don’t want to get me started on agnosticism …)
So, on to the District 7 candidates, who are vying to replace longtime incumbent Doug Lingner. First, let’s note that most of the city’s historic districts and many other vulnerable neighborhoods lie in District 7. And like the city as a whole, there is great change—development and its associated tensions, pressures and controversies—going on in the district. That said, we’re focusing on the Midtown end of the district and what we feel is best for it. (What’s best for it is probably best overall.)
For starters, we’re not endorsing Art Harding. He seems like a good guy, granted—earnest, knowledgeable, experienced in governmental matters and processes. But in his answers to our candidate questionnaires, published last month, he notably seemed less than fully sensitive to the issues raised by last year’s passage of Proposition 207, which authorizes lawsuits over alleged loss of value to properties based on government actions such as historic preservation zoning. While Art has his finger on the pulse of the wider electorate on this issue, he seems to lack a nuanced view of and sensitivity to the excessive impediments such lawsuits throw up against some appropriate, protective rezonings. That position, as well as some other general leanings appertaining to Art’s political persona, was enough for us to rule him out.
Then there’s Michael Nowakowski. Frankly, the guy scares us. (Either it’s him or his shrewd and aggressive communications director, Stephen Molldrem, but in any case, we have to identify a candidate with his campaign’s style and tactics, even if he is not the author of all of them.) Nowakowski’s campaign has seemed to us nakedly and abusively opportunistic from the get-go. OK, it’s nice he realizes the value of campaigning in this end of the district, where educated and informed voters turn out in higher numbers than elsewhere, it’s believed. It’s great that Michael and his aides recognize the existence of the historic neighborhoods, and their activities and issues (and this newspaper). However, we felt beaten over the head right out of the starting gate last winter with notice of Michael’s appearances at the Willo Home Tour, the Encanto Clubhouse, his requests for meetings and coverage, you name it.
You may see nothing wrong with that, and there isn’t, until you also see how the campaign has glommed onto active controversies in the ’hoods to weigh in on, such as the Willo streetscape issue, where he’s apparently going to bang heads together in the city to get it resolved. Sure. And, Mike, can you come fix my leaky dormer? Maybe you’ve also got some front porch benches to hand out. Oh, and my neighbor parks in front of my house. Anything you can do there, if elected?
That’s not to say the Willo issue isn’t a valid one requiring some leadership in the city and in the district’s Council office. It’s the way the Nowakowski campaign has cynically identified some hot-button neighborhood issues to inject himself into that offends us.
For instance, there’s also his participation on one of the 2006 bond committees last year, leading to claims in his campaign literature that he got the big bucks allotted for preservation items. Yeah! Like his campaign signs around Midtown, that he’s “preserving historic homes,” and "enforcing the law" or whatever the wording is. Yep. Mike Nowakowski is out there on the right side of whatever your concern is in Midtown, you betcha!
Seems to me the guy just wants the office real bad.
More seriously, folks, then there’s Laura Pastor. She and Nowakowski have been slugging it out for months, each trying to lock up coveted endorsements: the Firefighters Association, Police organizations, the Chavez family, etc., etc. Still, if these were the sum of the candidates, she’d probably have our vote. She’s the daughter of the effective and respected Rep. Ed Pastor. She’s paid some dues in community, civic, political involvement and educational and professional experiences. But we’re also a little put off at the way the presumed Democratic establishment in central Phoenix has virtually stampeded in her support. It’s a juggernaut! (Except for a few pickings for Nowakowski.) I guess her dad’s position carries corresponding influence, not to mention that in the many officially, putatively nonpartisan power circles in downtown Phoenix, being Democratic is increasingly chic. (Except for Mayor Phil, who in his latest endorsement—we’ll kindly call it a gaffe, though there are other names for it—has said [according to reports] he’s behind Sen. John McCain for president, no matter whom the Democrats field next year. As when Phil endorsed both Earl Wilcox and Democratic primary rival Bill Brotherton for a state Senate seat four years ago … well, what can we say that less restrained rags such as the New Times haven’t already said more pithily?)
But Laura isn’t the last word in this race. We’ve discussed Midtown’s “favorite son” candidates with a number of local neighborhood and community leaders, and some of them like her. They have found her to be a good listener, to be someone who wants to find out from the community (especially from them) what it needs, and act accordingly.
From our point of view, that’s partly because she doesn’t know or understand the community and its issues as well as many others do (including the remaining candidate, Ruth Ann Marston).
Frankly, as nice and thoughtful as I believe she is, our distinct impression is that Laura is not the brightest light in the firmament. Do we want someone who needs to be led, or do we want someone who is a true leader? Do we want someone who needs to have the issues explained to them (and then, who knows from whom she takes her final cues in her votes and advocacy?), or do we want someone who knows the territory and its issues inside and out, and, while opinionated (sometimes immodestly so), at least knows not only the community, but her own mind, and is guided by long experience and sound principles? —Someone who can and will hold their own with community leaders, moneyed interests, Council colleagues and city staff alike (not to mention players in other levels and branches of government). That said, Ruth Ann is always courteous, measured and respectful in her demeanor and interactions.
In my view, we’ve had just about enough of political dynasties in this country. I like the Kennedys, but look at the latest generation—in particular, Patrick. I don’t like the Bushes, and look at Jeb—a competent but highly partisan governor—and worse, his brother, our (I choke on this) president. Let’s not give another Pastor our vote just based on name recognition, family pull and party affiliation, notwithstanding my partisan preamble above. As far as that goes, for Ruth Ann, the District 7 Council seat may be the capstone of her long career in public involvement, to which she can be expected to fully devote her substantial experience and energies. For Laura, it’s probably just positioning herself for higher office—i.e., succeeding her dad in Congress?
Forgetting Laura for the moment, let’s just home in on Ruth Ann’s positive attributes and accomplishments that qualify her for the Council seat: Longtime educator in Midtown, in leadership roles. Longtime member (including as chair) of the Encanto Village Planning Committee, the citizens-level body that gets the first shot to hear zoning and other land use issues, and helps work out the most effective compromises between property owners and other residents. Director of the Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition, a forum for airing and addressing issues facing those neighborhoods. Key participant in the Downtown Voices Coalition, which seeks to support a place in downtown’s cultural and economic life for the vitalizing and civilizing role of artists and small independent businesses, by addressing potential incursions by more powerful interests and attempting to hold the city to its own policies and ordinances, as well as promoting progressive and innovative solutions.
The number of difficult and sensitive public policy issues Ruth Ann has already personally helped mediate and resolve is … innumerable.
Ruth Ann is a longtime Phoenix resident, who raised a family and still lives in a modest house in Willo, where she remains approachable to residents with concerns. She has a vast wealth of knowledge and experience of the city, the state and the district. She, of course, could tell you more about her experience and other qualifications. If you’ve got any doubts or questions, why don’t you let her? We think you’ll become a believer.
With that, we throw out this challenge to Ruth Ann: Whether you win or lose, we urge you, some respectable period of time after the election, to switch parties. You say you’re a “Goldwater Republican,” while acknowledging the party has changed both locally and nationally since that label made much sense—or had much of a place under the tent. In fact we were surprised to learn you’re a Republican. (Likely, in our view, it stems less from a youthful infatuation with Barry than as a holdover from the days when, to be taken seriously politically in this state, to be a real player, you pretty much did have to be a Republican. But the times they are a changin’.) And you can switch. You should. You belong as one of us. Be like Reagan: You can say “You didn’t leave the Republican Party … it left you.” Just do it.

Hometown publisher, international profile

The Midtown Messenger gets a letter printed leading page A13, Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2007

July 10 commentary piece pooh-poohing the furor over the threat Rupert Murdoch's takeover of Dow Jones represents to the Journal's excellence and editorial independence leads this editor to weigh in on the issue

Our letter, those by others, appear above the essay that instigated them. Ours in particular demonstrates that, as an editor ourself, we know how to get a letter published: Flatter the editor of the page, and obliquely disparage his or her right-wing, corporate-toady ass-kissing colleagues across the fold on the editorial page, and the overlords at the top of the masthead. (Note: We didn't write the "Independence Dies ..." headline; they did!)

Independence Dies When a Newspaper Owner Has One Goal—Profit
July 19, 2007; Page A13

Jim Prevor's editorial-page commentary "The Roots of Editorial 'Independence'," July 10, begins with a good premise but draws a conclusion that does not follow. Editorial independence may, in large degree, stem from an editor's willingness to be fired. However, that a publication's owner is for some reason the best guarantor of that independence is a non sequitur. That an owner would hold a publication's credibility uppermost would be the ideal case, from the point of view of editors and most readers.

However, clearly, an owner or publisher considers many things beyond editorial integrity and excellence in his or her decision-making: Currying favor with or not alienating readers, advertisers or policymakers are typically factors that carry weight with owners more than with editors. Whether a board of some kind to insulate editors from the whims, biases or self-interest of an owner is the best solution for Dow Jones, I do not profess to know. But in the specific case of Rupert Murdoch's prospective ownership of the company and of The Wall Street Journal, it seems it is precisely being fired (or interfered with) by him that Journal editors, the Bancroft family, and many members of the public who appreciate the Journal's excellent news coverage if not always its editorial page stances, rightly fear.

David Tell
Editor and Publisher
The Midtown Messenger: News for Phoenix's Historic Districts
Phoenix

Jim Prevor's commentary is a naïve view of the media business and Rupert Murdoch that one can only hope the Bancrofts do not share. He is correct in his assertion that a board designated to protect editorial independence will not work, but his reasoning is seriously flawed.

Reading the New York Post's Page 6 or the The Sun's Page 3 demonstrates the importance of "editorial integrity" to Rupert Murdoch. News Corp. has one goal: profit. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, but let us not kid ourselves into believing that editorial integrity is what sells newspapers.

The Bancrofts must decide to either sell the business and recognize that they will have no say in what goes on at Dow Jones, or keep control of Dow Jones and maintain its editorial reputation. Neither decision is necessarily better than the other, but it is disingenuous to act as if there is any middle ground.

Michael Trachtenberg
Scottsdale, Ariz.

Mr. Prevor's throw-away reference to the tenure of Henry Ford II at the Ford Foundation does a disservice both to Henry II and to the enormous impact he had on the institution his father founded.

Henry II served on the foundation's Board of Trustees for 33 years, both as chairman and president. One of his many great acts of leadership was commissioning a blue-ribbon panel to determine how best the organization could use it vast resources to fulfill its charter. He did this in 1950, already seven years at the helm. The goals he and his fellow trustees unanimously embraced -- reducing poverty, promoting democratic values, striving for peace and building knowledge and understanding -- cleave closely to his father's original vision and remain at the heart of the foundation's mission.

While Henry Ford II did offer incisive, constructive criticism of the foundation at the time he retired in 1977, he also heaped it with praise. "The Foundation already has a magnificent record of achievement," he said. "I'm confident that it is capable of still more significant contributions to the world in the years to come. . . . The future of the foundation is in capable hands."

Marta L. Tellado
Vice President of Communications
Ford Foundation
New York

COMMENTARY

The Roots of Editorial 'Independence'

By JIM PREVOR
July 10, 2007; Page A21

The controversy over the possible sale of Dow Jones and particularly The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. may be predictable, and the efforts of the Bancroft family to maintain the editorial integrity of the publication may be laudable. Yet the complicated negotiations to create a board that would secure editorial independence are a mistake. They misinterpret the nature of editorial independence and miss the point that the owner of a publication is the person most likely to defend its editorial integrity.

Editorial independence is always a function of one thing and one thing only: an editor's willingness to be fired. In his autobiographical book "Making It," Norman Podhoretz, the long-time editor of Commentary magazine, reflected on how he could both have independence as an editor, yet work for a magazine owned by the American Jewish Committee, which had decided interests and opinions:

"The editorial independence which the American Jewish Committee had always granted to Commentary consisted simply in this: no person except the editor or anyone he might voluntarily wish to consult could read articles in advance of publication or could dictate what should or should not appear in the magazine . . . The editor of Commentary, like any chief executive of any operation owned by others, only had as much freedom -- which is to say power -- as he was willing to risk exercising. If he did something he thought right and of which the AJC then disapproved, it was not enough merely to defend himself and hold firmly to his ground; he also had to make certain that he would not be deterred in the future by the fear of similar trouble from taking an action which he believed to be in the best interests of the magazine. There was only one way I or anyone else could be faithful to this principle: I had to be ready at any moment to lose my job. The AJC could fire me at its pleasure; that was its protection against me. My protection against it was my willingness to get fired; the minute I lost that willingness, I would lose my freedom and consequently my power to do the best editorial job I was capable of doing."

All of the mechanisms being discussed as possible ways to maintain editorial independence for The Wall Street Journal in a possible post-Bancroft era are designed to evade this fundamental fact: If the editor in chief of a publication is not willing to lose his job, he will always operate in a manner designed to please those who can assure his employment. The only thing that elaborate mechanisms such as independent committees to hire and fire chief editors, etc., will achieve is changing the names of the people to whom the editor will be subservient.

Now, some would say that Rupert Murdoch is some kind of uniquely sinister force in journalism and they would, in fact, be pleased to see a system set up to make sure that anyone other than him makes the important editorial decisions. Yet the incentive system is such that the owner of a publication, in this case presumptively Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., is the one with the greatest incentive to maintain the publication's reputation.

Readers turn to publications for information and insight on various subjects. If a publication is taken over and is losing money, as in the case of News Corp.'s purchase of the New York Post, the owner may look to change editorial approaches because the old one was not a component of a successful business model. But what is the alternative? Allow an independent board to dictate an editorial approach that does not attract readership and leads to bankruptcy?

A large, reputable and profitable company such as Dow Jones offers a very different set of risks and rewards to an owner. Any attempts to utilize the publication for personal benefit by, for example, talking up friends and attacking enemies, would be greeted with resignations by top editors who refuse to prostitute the editorial content in that way.

These resignations would be widely reported, and the word would quickly get out that readers are being fed propaganda, not news and analysis. This loss of reputation leads to a loss of readership and imposes on the owners an enormous loss of value. So ownership, though perhaps tempted to use editorial coverage to its advantage, has powerful incentives not to do so.

On the other hand, independent, self-perpetuating committees have nothing to lose and so they are not restrained in their actions. Typically, this means the publication will become a bore because the members of the independent board will look to appoint people who are admired by their friends and represent the mainstream viewpoint of their social class.

We should expect that a self-perpetuating board would eventually stray very far from what its founders intended. A good example is the board of directors at major foundations. Henry Ford II felt compelled to resign in disgust from the Ford Foundation explaining that: "In effect, the Foundation is a creature of capitalism, a statement that, I'm sure, would be shocking to many professional staff people in the field of philanthropy. It is hard to discern recognition of this fact in anything the Foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions, particularly the universities, that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant programs."

Publications do not edit themselves, so editors must be hired, and they are always answerable to somebody. Even if the editor happens to own the publication, he is only free to act as he chooses to the extent he is indifferent to the effects of those actions on subscriptions, readership and advertising.

Setting up self-perpetuating boards only serves to switch the names of those the editor is answerable to. A board with a lack of interest in the business success of a publication is unlikely to lead to successful and thus greatly important and influential publications.

This whole exercise of trying to ensure editorial independence is somewhat insulting to the editors of Dow Jones publications, now and in the future, as it implies that they are so desperate for employment that they need to be protected against a demanding or opinionated boss.

Great publications always come from editors on fire with ideas and with a vision for their publication. Their independence comes always and simply from their willingness to be fired. No committee can change that truth.

Mr. Prevor is founder and editor in chief of Phoenix Media Network, Inc.

Archaeologist: 'Apocalypto' more or less accurate

New York Times essay supports our critical deconstruction of Gibson film

In our film review (find link at right), we judged the film a depiction of the clash between the Mayan "Taker" culture (hierarchical, monoculture-based oppressor civilization) and indigenous, forest-based "Leaver" tribes (nomadic, hunter-gatherer types observing a sustainable lifestyle).

Read article on NYT website

Op-Ed Contributor

A Past That Makes Us Squirm

By CRAIG CHILDS

Published: January 2, 2007

Crawford, Colo.

A FEW years back, while traveling in the Sierra Madre Occidental of northern Mexico, I came upon a canyon packed with cliff dwellings no one had lived in since before the time of Christopher Columbus. On the ground were discarded artifacts, pieces of frayed baskets, broken pottery and hundreds of desiccated corn cobs — the ruins of an ancient civilization.

I reached down to pick up what I thought was a dry gourd, and instead found myself cradling the skull of a human child. As I turned it in my hands, I noticed a deliberate hole in the back of the skull, directly above the spine. The skull was not cracked around the hole, which means the child had most likely been alive when a spike or some other implement had been slammed into his or her head from behind.

This is not the only skull like this. Excavations from elsewhere in northern Mexico have turned up other children killed the same way, human sacrifices to an ancient water deity, their bodies buried under pre-Columbian ball courts or at the foot of pillars in important rooms.

With knowledge of such widespread ferocity, I recently saw Mel Gibson’s movie “Apocalypto,” which deals with the gore of the Mayan civilization. I had heard that the movie’s violence was wildly out of control. But even as I winced at many of the scenes, as a writer and researcher in ancient American archaeology, I found little technical fault with the film other than ridiculous Hollywood ploys and niggling archaeological details.

Indeed, parts of the archaeological record of the Americas read like a war-crimes indictment, with charred skeletons stacked like cordwood and innumerable human remains missing heads, legs and arms. In the American Southwest, which is my area of research, human tissue has been found cooked to the insides of kitchen jars and stained into a ceramic serving ladle. A grinding stone was found full of crushed human finger bones. A sample of human feces came up containing the remains of a cannibal’s meal.

It could be argued that “Apocalypto” dehumanizes Native Americans, turning their ancestors into savage monsters, but I think it does the opposite. Oppressed hunter-gatherers in the movie are presented as people with the same, universal emotions all humans share. And urban Mayans are portrayed as politically and religiously savvy, having made of themselves a monumental, Neolithic empire, something more akin to ancient Egypt than the trouble-free agrarians who come to most people’s minds when they think of native America.

To further shatter that popular notion of Native Americans, there’s the scene in which a turquoise-jeweled priest stands atop a staggering temple yanking out one beating human heart after the next. That’s an image that nearly every archaeologist working in Central America has played in his or her head many times, only now it’s on the big screen for everyone to see.

Being told by screenwriters and archaeologists that their ancestors engaged in death cults tends to make many Native Americans uneasy. In Arizona, Hopi elders turn their eyes to the ground when they hear about their own past stained with overt brutality. The name Hopi means people of peace, which is what they strive to be. Meanwhile, excavators keep digging up evidence of cannibalism and ritualized violence among their ancestors.

How do we rectify the age-old perception of noble and peaceful native America with the reality that at times violence was coordinated on a scale never before witnessed by humanity? The answer is simple. We don’t.

Prior to 1492 it was a complex cultural landscape with civilization ebbing and flowing, the spaces in between traversed by ancient lineages of hunters and gatherers. To the religious core of pre-Columbian Mayans, a beating heart ripped from someone’s chest was a thing of supreme sacredness and not prosaic violence.

If “Apocalypto” has a fault, it is not with its brutality, but with us in the audience who cringe, thinking the Mayans little more than a barbaric people. The fault lies in our misunderstanding of a complicated history, thinking we can lump a whole civilization into a single response and walk out of the movie saying, “That was disgusting.”

Craig Childs is the author of the forthcoming “House of Rain: Tracking a Vanished Civilization Across the American Southwest.”

Poor William's Almanack - 12/24/06

More Marciisms

My wife, Marci, usually hears only partial information about news and current events, digests what she hears poorly and later regurgitates it almost unrecognizably.

Marci heard that Time's "Person of the Year" for 2006 is someone called "You." Who's that Asian guy they named?" she asked. Or maybe, "Hu's that Asian guy they named." With her, it's hard to tell.

Believing in Santa—and surnits

Kids not more gullible, says shrink

Psychologist: Children are actually using reason and evidence in believing in Santa—because adults dupe them by planting clues as well as creating the whole social context for the belief. (As well as for other, crazier and more consequential lies, according to this blogger.)

Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times Op-Ed online

Do You Believe in Surnits?

By JACQUELINE WOOLLEY

Published: December 23, 2006, New York Times

Austin, Tex.

We delight in our children’s belief in reindeer that can fly and a fat man who fits through chimneys and travels the whole world in a single night. Many children believe fiercely not only in Santa Claus but also in other fantastical beings like the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy from the time they are about 3 until they are 7 or 8.

Their eager belief contributes to the common view, shared by psychologists and other scientists, that young children are credulous (and conversely, that adults are not). Children believe everything they are told, we assume, with little regard for logic, a sense of the real world or any of the other criteria adults use to debunk such fictions as the Loch Ness monster or Sasquatch.

But are children really that different from us? A study that my colleagues and I conducted at the Children’s Research Laboratory at the University of Texas suggests not. We found that, in fact, children use many of the same cues adults use to distinguish fantasy from reality.

Our experiment was designed to investigate how a young child, upon encountering a fantastical being like a unicorn in a storybook, decides whether it is real or imaginary. Adults often make the call based on context. If, for example, we encounter a weird and unfamiliar insect at a science museum, we are more likely to think it is something real than if we find it in a joke store.

To see if children could also use context in this way, we described “surnits” and other made-up things to our study group. To some of the children, we put surnits in a fantastical context: “Ghosts try to catch surnits when they fly around at night.” To others, we characterized them in scientific terms: “Doctors use surnits to help them in the hospital.”

The 4- to 6-year-olds who heard the medical description were much more likely to think surnits were real than children who were told they had something to do with ghosts. The children demonstrated that they do not indiscriminately believe everything they’re told, but use some pretty high-level tools to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

If children are so smart, why do they believe in Santa Claus? My view is that they are exhibiting their very rational and scientific cognitive abilities. The adults they count on to provide reliable information about the world introduce them to Santa. Then his existence is affirmed by friends, books, TV and movies. It is also validated by hard evidence: the half-eaten cookies and empty milk glasses by the tree on Christmas morning.

In other words, children do a great job of scientifically evaluating Santa. And adults do a great job of duping them. As we gradually withdraw our support for the myth, and children piece together the truth, their view of Santa aligns with ours. Perhaps it is this kinship with the adult world that prevents children from feeling anger over having been misled.

So maybe this holiday season, when the children come rushing in to see what Santa brought, we should revel not in their wide-eyed wonder, but in how sophisticated and clever their young minds really are.

Jacqueline Woolley is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.

Our response:

Hello Prof. Woolley,

Just read your article in the NYT, and I understand its point that it's not that children are more credulous (gullible, prone to fantastic beliefs) than adults.

You point out we actually do a great job of duping them, providing them with at least some evidence and authority for such beliefs as in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. As a psychologist, do you have an opinion as to the harm such beliefs (and our encouraging them) do? Is there any research on whether encouraging children to believe appealing fantasies helps lay the groundwork for irrational future (religious, ideological, etc.) beliefs (many of which are held contrary to moderate standards of logic and evidence)?

Likewise, when children eventually are disabused of many of their incorrect but well-authorized beliefs, perhaps it also weakens their trust in the reliability of their epistemological framework, so that though, ironically, they might be more prone to endorse and adopt beliefs less well supported by the usual markers of truth and factuality. Perhaps these people are then more susceptible to belief in Creationism (Creation "science"), as an example. (Although, admittedly, this scheme and others attempt to adorn themselves in evidence and logic-based raiment. It is their religious underpinnings that are more manifestly anti-rational.)

It seems a truism that belief in Santa Claus is practice for, or an analog to, belief in the theistic God. (Be naughty/nice, get distant-future reward vs. punishment, etc.). However, it seems to me to also be practice for all the other forms of doublethink engaged in and even encouraged by society at large.

I was recent reading the sequel to Prof. Frankfurt's On Bullshit—On Truth—in a bookstore while waiting for my wife to do her shopping. Amid other sensible comments, he then started saying that a society that evidences a disregard for the importance of truth—casualness about whether things said and beliefs held are true or not—cannot flourish.

That's when I put the book down, as obviously (and unfortunately) at odds with the facts. (Of course, a society can't disregard truth in its engineering, scientific, economic and public policy-related activities and long flourish, but apparently those can be somewhat disconnected from other areas of collective life in which truth and falsity also could be operative concepts, but, sadly, generally are not.)

E.g., with you being from the great state of Texas, can you account otherwise for the fact that our current president, a former oilman from a major oil-producing state, etc., was elected twice by people who would not otherwise prefer to be paying 50% to 100% more for their gasoline than when he took office, among all the other burdens heaped on average working people during his administration?

Cheers --and Merry Christmas!

David

Prof. Woolley's response:

Dear David,
Thanks for your thoughtful email regarding my NYTimes op-ed piece in December. My apologies for not replying sooner. You were wondering about relations between Santa beliefs and later religious and ideological beliefs. Unfortunately there is no research of which I am aware that addresses your question. I do plan to conduct research into relations between SC beliefs and God beliefs, tho' it can be hard to get ethics approval for those kinds of studies. Cindy Dell Clark ("Flights of fancy, leaps of faith") argues in her book that SC belief provides the foundation for "faith" and ultimate belief in God. Jehovah's Witnesses and other Fundamentalists discourage SC beliefs for fear that it will negatively impact God beliefs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that children often try to figure out how the two are related, and often think of them similarly. There is some research on children's beliefs in creationism; it may be cognitively "easier" to believe in God than to "believe" in evolutionary theory (Margaret Evans, Pascal Boyer). Re: your final comment re: our great state, I do need to pass along that Travis County (where Austin is) voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the last election; we are a blue county in a red state. Our president presents a fascinating case in point regarding the challenges the fantasy-reality distinction continues to present throughout the life-span.
Best,
Jacqui Woolley
--

Jacqueline Woolley
Professor
The University of Texas at Austin
Department of Psychology
1 University Station A8000
Austin, Texas 78712-0187
Office:SEA 4.212
woolley@psy.utexas.edu
512/471-5196
FAX: 512/471-5935


Blogger's note: There would be value in publishing and commenting here on a column in a Wall Street Journal Personal Journal section from last winter (2008, at this point) a commentator's argument that he encourages his sons' belief in Santa, though Santa doesn't exist, because, "Yes, Virginia, there is a God." You could look it up. Kind of pathetic. –DT

Poor William's Almanack - 12/10/06

APHORISMS, or, notes for a stand-up routine

©2006
David "Poor William" Tell


The suffix of the word “misogynist” seems to imply that merely by adding a little focus, one can refine a general, perhaps casual hatred of mankind into something more a hobby or art.

If the valley in which Phoenix lies were meant for human habitation, the Hohokam would still be living there.

I’ll never forget the time my wife told me the difference between me and her is that she doesn’t dwell on the differences between people.

She also once admitted that once she gets breast implants, she’ll probably find other aspects of her body to be dissatisfied with. “Yes,” I said, “but at least then you’ll be able to take your mind off it by playing with your boobs.”

Filial love probably arises in early childhood from the sycophancy of being “in” or “tight” with the most important person you know.

I like product names. I noticed an RV with the model name “Intruder” emblazoned on it. I imagined the tagline or slogan to go along with this product: “And we’re parking in your neighborhood!”

“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” is “my wife’s and my movie.” It’s about a couple who get a second chance at their relationship because HOW MUCH THEY HATE EACH OTHER HAS BEEN BURNED OUT OF THEIR MEMORIES!

Or, to put it differently, paraphrasing Santayana: “Those who can’t remember the history of their relationship are doomed to repeat it.”

This is true: My toilet paper brand found an innovative place to put a coupon to buy more of their product. Actually, I didn’t notice it right away. But the clerk I hand it to probably will.

Editorial that got me fired from managing the city of Maricopa's weekly paper (Aug-Sept '06, 60-hour-a-week job, while also producing The Messenger)

I go there in my mind

I just read a column in another local publication, titled “There’s no way that just happened!” This was a religion column, and — beyond a number of the doctrinal and hortatory points it made — one of the notable things about it was the number of words printed in all capital letters. (Now, I’m sure this was completely intentional. We sometimes hear the advice as to e-mail etiquette, “Don’t type in all caps, it looks like you’re yelling.” Here, I’m sure that was the intended effect: This pastor was writing as if delivering a sermon, and at various points in that sermon, I know he would be rather worked up and joyously enthusiastic, and he wanted you to feel that, even while reading quietly to yourself. And I did feel it.)
The other thing notable about his column, though, is that, starting with its title, it takes the opposite view from the one in an essay I recently wrote for my evangelical Jewish friend, who lives in Washington. D.C. Yes, you heard me, this is a right-wing, evangelical Jew (no, not a “messianic Jew,” not one of those so-called “Jews for Jesus”). He’s an avid supporter of “intelligent design,” and of President Bush, along with all of his policies (except his refusing to veto excessive spending). He’s also virulently anti-“choice,” considers Jack Abramoff an upstanding fellow, says liberals and the New York Times are all a bunch of liars promoting a radically secular agenda, etc., etc.
He and I have been arguing over a number of these issues, especially evolution, ID and scientific vs. Biblical explanations for things, via e-mail for about 5 years now.
Side note: Interestingly, this friend and I go back to the 7th grade, and in that era, there was no particular clue he would turn out to be a right-wing wacko. Within certain margins, he seemed quite normal, including being normally rebellious. He introduced me to some good rock albums when I first joined a record club. He also sold me his electric guitar. In the 8th grade, we got sent to the principal’s office for gambling on the school bus. (We were just playing gin and Ohell, for a half-cent a point. Is that gambling?! I ask you.) We tried growing pot out at his once-reprobate-bachelor Dad’s old babe-lair cabin in the woods … just to name a few mutual, harmless adolescent exploits. (Actually, speaking of pastors, visiting him at college once, a preacher’s daughter seduced me at a frat party. Dating her later, I took her out to said cabin one weekend. “David, is this wrong?” she drawled, apparently in shock at the now non-drunken, premeditated brazenness of our trysting.)
Back to bizness. Well, I had a brainstorm recently and figured I might finally be able to explain the correctness of evolution to my old friend — to everyone, in fact — in simple, easy-to-understand terms. Like the reverend’s column I just read, it has to do with what’s more likely: improbable things happening by blind, random chance, or, alternatively, “on purpose”? The idea is so easy, so universally comprehensible, I even sent it to Newsweek as a “My Turn” column. Still waiting to hear back on that. In the meantime, I offer it here, where lesser renown and notoriety, or even pillorying may await me:

The proof is now available. Kind of like with profound mathematical and physics theories, I can now prove the veracity of evolution and the falsity of intelligent design “theory” by way of a thought experiment.
In doing this, I think I am emulating the ID proponents. They construct thought experiments that “prove” ID by showing it defies common sense to think certain things in nature could happen by chance; therefore they must have come about due to an underlying, purposeful mind--probably God, but who knows? It could be those aliens who left the monoliths around littering the solar system, in order to further our evolution from dumb, doomed australopithecines to aggressive, therefore thriving, hominids (and beyond!).
Now, in response, scientists tend to come up with points that get around the IDers’ objections to evolution. I’m not going to go into those back-and-forths. I will instead comment on how philosophers of science--and without having to know much actual science either--can also identify the fallacies in IDers’ thinking, at a more fundamental level.
For instance, a few months ago, one of those liberal-secular New York Times contributors pointed out that one reason ID seems appealing as an explanation is because people basically have trouble truly grasping the immensity of time and space--and, I would add, the amazingly fertile hubbub in the realm of the very small and fast. In other words, if people other than cosmologists, subatomic physicists, geologists, microbiologists and so on could really get their heads around how zillions of events (most of them leading to nothing much interesting), over huge spans of time, at a minuscule, frantic scale and pace could and have led and do lead to all observable natural phenomena (even the most complex and autonomous, such as most “higher” animals, and many people), they would have much less problem allowing the explanatory power of evolution.
By contrast, since many people have very little imagination concerning scientific concepts, and limited ability to hold several abstractions in mind long enough to connect them into an intellectual framework, they think a number of what I consider superstitious, pseudo-explanations for things are more likely, and simpler. But pushing the question of complexity back one step to a Mind capable of coming up with nature’s forms and processes doesn’t really explain anything, even if it might perchance be true. That’s probably why the Founding Fathers were Deists, if by it they meant that a God may be the “First Mover,” but the way in which it then all works out over the eons is a fascinating subject for scientific inquiry, not faith-based nostrums. (Nate also disputes what he calls the “propaganda” that says the Founders were Deists and promoted “separation of church and state.” Oy vey, vas ist dis mishugahss?)
So, back to my thought experiment:
I have a concept called, “Couldn’t have done that if you tried.” [Editor’s note: See, there’s the contrast with the pastor’s title, “There’s no way that just happened.”] You know, like when you toss a piece of trash at the wastebasket and it happens to perch precariously on the edge, just barely teetering there (maybe with the help of the wall--but it’s still pretty cool, and highly unlikely). Or something else, say a slightly crumpled envelope, playing card or piece of a box, or a dollar bill (or, for the less flush, a quarter): you toss it or drop it, and it lands--and stands or leans--on its side or in the slot in a way that you could never have achieved in a million years if you were trying. I’m sure everyone can come up with their own examples. (Many of mine have to do with throwing something and it balancing improbably somehow--must be my inferiority complex about how I’ve never been able to get a basketball anywhere near the basket, let alone propped on the rim, against the backboard. By contrast, my old friend was pretty good with a ball, and still has a nickname associated with some player named Hal _____, number 15 …)
But I digress (again). The bottom line is, my thought experiment (really more just a notion, actually) proves that evolution is correct. The most amazing things happen by chance, more amazing than what tends to happen by design, and the more amazing, the more likely it is that it couldn’t have happened “on purpose.” (OK, so it’s just a variation on the old saw, “Truth is stranger than fiction.”)
Same for evolution: Only chance could account for all the amazing occurrences that have led to all the complex and bizarre forms we know in nature. Such as Michael Jackson. (Ta-dum.) No way anyone--even a God, or a super-brainy and unaccountably benevolent alien--could have done it all on purpose. That would defy the odds, for sure.
So, now you’ve been given some exposure to simple, common-sense based, easy-to-understand formulas for the opposing viewpoints on a major issue of our time. Which side do you come down on? Let us know.
— Or, maybe, you happen to have landed kind of on edge, improbably balanced on an ear, shoulder and hip-bone, not even immediately apt to fall over one way or the other. But if you write to tell me about it, I have only one request: Avoid all-capital-letters.
THANKS!!!

--David Tell
© 2006 Quicksilver Publishing Group. All rights reserved.