Pink, pink, gold

When I was in Ecuador in 2019, I was blown away by its natural beauty.  The cloud forests of the mid-altitude Andes are, far and away, the most beautiful place I've ever been, and I've been lucky enough to see a lot of beautiful places.  Combine that with the lovely climate and the friendliness of the people, and it puts the highlands of Ecuador on the very short list of places I'd happily move to permanently.

What brought me there were the birds.  It's a tiny country, but is home to 1,656 species of birds -- about one-sixth of the ten-thousand-odd species found worldwide.  Most strikingly, it has 132 different species of hummingbirds.  Where I live, in upstate New York, we have only one -- the Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) -- but there, they have an incredible diversity within that one group.  Because each species is dependent on particular flowers for their food source, some of them have extremely restricted ranges, often narrow bands of terrain at exactly the right climate and altitude to support the growth of that specific plant.  You go a few hundred meters up or downhill, and you've moved out of the range where that species lives -- and into the range of an entirely different one.

The most striking thing about the hummingbirds is their iridescence.  My favorite one, and in the top five coolest birds I've ever seen, is the Violet-tailed Sylph (Aglaiocercus coelestis):

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Andy Morffew from Itchen Abbas, Hampshire, UK, Violet-tailed Sylph (33882323008), CC BY 2.0]

What's most fascinating about birds like this one is that the feathers' stunning colors aren't only due to pigments.  A pigment is a chemical that appears colored to our eyes because its molecular structure allows it to absorb some frequencies of light and reflect others; the chlorophyll in plants, for example, looks green because it preferentially absorbs light in the red and blue-violet regions of the spectrum, and reflects the green light back to our eyes.  Hummingbirds have some true pigments, but a lot of their most striking colors are produced by interference -- on close analysis, you find that the fibers of the feathers are actually transparent, but when light strikes them they act a bit like a prism, breaking up white light into its constituent colors.  Because of the spacing of the fibers, some of those wavelengths interfere destructively (the wavelengths cancel each other out) and some interfere constructively (they superpose and are reinforced).  The spacing of the fibers determines what color the feathers appear to be.  This is why if you look at the electric blue/purple tail of the Violet-tailed Sylph from the side, it looks jet black -- your eyes are at the wrong angle to see the refracted and reflected light.  Look at it face-on, and suddenly the iridescent colors shine out.

So the overall color of the bird comes from an interplay between whatever true pigments it has in its feathers, and the kind of interference you get from the spacing of the transparent fibers.  This is why when you recombine these features through hybridization, you can get interesting and unexpected results -- as some scientists from Chicago's Field Museum found out recently.

Working in Peru's Cordillera Azul National Park, on the eastern slopes of the Andes, ornithologist John Bates discovered what he'd thought was a new species in the genus Heliodoxa, one with a glittering gold throat.  He was in for a shock, though, when the team found out through genetic analysis that it was a hybrid of two different Heliodoxa species -- H. branickii and H. gularis -- both of which have bright pink throats.

"It's a little like cooking: if you mix salt and water, you kind of know what you're gonna get, but mixing two complex recipes together might give more unpredictable results," said Chad Eliason, who co-authored the study.  "This hybrid is a mix of two complex recipes for a feather from its two parent species...  There's more than one way to make magenta with iridescence.  The parent species each have their own way of making magenta, which is, I think, why you can have this nonlinear or surprising outcome when you mix together those two recipes for producing a feather color."

The gold-throated bird apparently isn't a one-off, as more in-depth study found that it didn't have an even split of genes from H. branickii and H. gularis.  It seems like one of its ancestors was a true half-and-half hybrid, but that hybrid bird then "back-crossed" to H. branickii at least once, leaving it with more H. branickii genes.  All of which once again calls into question our standard model of species being little cubbyholes with impermeable walls.  The textbook definition of species -- "a morphologically-distinct population which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring" -- is unquestionably the most flimsy definition in all of biology, and admits of hundreds of exceptions (either morphologically-identical individuals which cannot interbreed, or morphologically-distinct ones that hybridize easily, like the Heliodoxa hummingbirds just discovered in Peru).

In any case, the discovery of this hybrid is fascinating.  You have to wonder how many more of them there are out there.  The fact that its discovery ties together the physics of light, genetics, and evolution is kind of amazing.  Just further emphasizes that if you're interested in science, you will never, ever be bored.

****************************************

A face from Jericho

It's fascinating to consider what our distant forebears actually looked like.

Realistic paintings are a relatively recent innovation.  The marble statues at the height of classical Greek and Roman civilization were amazingly detailed, in some cases showing almost photographic realism; but it bears keeping in mind that since the people being depicted were often the rich and powerful, portraying them as they actually looked might not have been in the sculptor's best interest if the subject wasn't very attractive.  Any art historians in the audience could comment with far greater authority on the topic, but suffice it to say that in picturing what a great many historical figures looked like, we have little to go on.

Recent advances in reconstruction of faces from skulls has given us some idea of the appearance of our (very) distant ancestors; most notably, the stunning work of my friend John Gurche in creating lifelike models of early hominins has appeared in Smithsonian Magazine, National Geographic, and museums around the world.  This kind of work not only requires incredible artistic ability, but a deep understanding of how the morphology of the human skull, and the arrangement of layers of muscle on top of it, creates the contours of the face -- i.e., a comprehensive understanding of human anatomy.

The reason all this comes up is an article link sent to me by a friend and loyal reader of Skeptophilia about the reconstruction of a face from a skull found in the ancient city of Jericho.  The site of Jericho -- now part of the West Bank -- has been inhabited for a very long time.  The first certain settlement there was eleven thousand years ago, and it's been occupied pretty much continuously ever since.  (If you're curious, the famous biblical Battle of Jericho, in which Joshua of the Israelites allegedly had his men blow trumpets and thereby flattened the walls of Jericho, almost certainly never happened, and that's not even counting the whole magical music thing; the city had already been seriously damaged during a well-documented invasion from Egypt in the fifteenth century B.C.E., and there's no archaeological evidence whatsoever of a later destruction by the Israelites.  The whole Joshua story, said archaeologist and Old Testament scholar William Dever, was "invented out of whole cloth" to bolster the Israelites' "God is on our side" narrative.)

Be that as it may, the city of Jericho does have a very long history, and has laid claim to being the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.  So it was with a great deal of interest that I read the article sent by my friend, which describes the reconstruction of a nine-thousand-year-old skull from Jericho -- and gives us an idea of how its owner might have appeared.

Without further ado, here's what this inhabitant of Jericho, circa 7000 B.C.E., may have looked like:

[Image courtesy of Cicero Moraes, Thiago Beaini and Moacir Santos, and the British Museum]

"With the data we have, which [is] basically structural, we have a good idea of ​​what … this living person’s face would look like," said Cicero Moraes, who led the research.  "But details like the shape of the hair, the color of the hair and eyes are very difficult to do precisely."

Still, the reconstruction brings to life the face of someone who has been dead for ninety centuries, and that's a remarkable achievement.  Even if some of the details aren't quite right, it's closer than anything we've had before.  Looking at his expression makes me wonder who he was, what he was like, how he lived, how he died -- and it connects me to this ancient man who lived in another time and place.  Even if we never find out anything more about him, it links us all across the ages to our shared humanity, and that, I think, is wonderful.

****************************************

Beauty, truth, and the Standard Model

A couple of days ago, I was talking with my son about the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as one does).

The Standard Model is a theoretical framework that explains what is known about the (extremely) submicroscopic world, including three of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force), and classifies all known subatomic particles.

Many particle physicists, however, are strongly of the opinion that the model is flawed.  One issue is that one of the four fundamental forces -- gravitation -- has never been successfully incorporated into the model, despite eighty years of the best minds in science trying to do that.  The discovery of dark matter and dark energy -- or at least the effects thereof -- is also unaccounted for by the model.  Neither does it explain baryon asymmetry, the fact that there is so much more matter than antimatter in the observable universe.  Worst of all is that it leaves a lot of the quantities involved -- such as particle masses, relative strengths of forces, and so on -- as empirically-determined rather than proceeding organically from the theoretical underpinnings.

This bothers the absolute hell out of a lot of particle physicists.  They have come up with modification after modification to try to introduce new symmetries that would make it seem not quite so... well, arbitrary.  It just seems like the most fundamental theory of everything should be a lot more elegant than it is, and that there should be some underlying beautiful mathematical logic to it all.  The truth is, the Standard Model is messy.

Every one of those efforts to create a more beautiful and elegant model has failed.  Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, in a brilliant but stinging takedown of the current approach that you really should watch in its entirety, puts it this way: "If you follow news about particle physics, then you know that it comes in three types.  It's either that they haven't found that thing they were looking for, or they've come up with something new to look for which they'll later report not having found, or it's something so boring you don't even finish reading the headline."  Her opinion is that the entire driving force behind it -- research to try to find a theory based on beautiful mathematics -- is misguided.  Maybe the actual universe simply is messy.  Maybe a lot of the parameters of physics, such as particle masses and the values of constants, truly are arbitrary (i.e., they don't arise from any deeper theoretical reason; they simply are what they're measured to be, and that's that).  In her wonderful book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, she describes how this century-long quest to unify physics with some ultra-elegant model has generated very close to nothing in the way of results, and maybe we should accept that the untidy Standard Model is just the way things are.

Because there's one thing that's undeniable: the Standard Model works.  In fact, what generated this post (besides the conversation with my science-loving son) is a paper that appeared last week in Physical Review Letters about a set of experiments showing that the most recent tests of the Standard Model passed with a precision that beggars belief -- in this case, a measurement of the electron's magnetic moment which agreed with the predicted value to within 0.1 billionths of a percent.

This puts the Standard Model in the category of being one of the most thoroughly-tested and stunningly accurate models not only in all of physics, but in all of science.  As mind-blowingly bizarre as quantum mechanics is, there's no doubt that it has passed enough tests that in just about any other field, the experimenters and the theoreticians would be high-fiving each other and heading off to the pub for a celebratory pint of beer.  Instead, they keep at it, because so many of them feel that despite the unqualified successes of the Standard Model, there's something deeply unsatisfactory about it.  Hossenfelder explains that this is a completely wrong-headed approach; that real discoveries in the field were made when there was some necessary modification of the model that needed to be made, not just because you think the model isn't pretty enough:

If you look at past predictions in the foundations of physics which turned out to be correct, and which did not simply confirm an existing theory, you find it was those that made a necessary change to the theory.  The Higgs boson, for example, is necessary to make the Standard Model work.  Antiparticles, predicted by Dirac, are necessary to make quantum mechanics compatible with special relativity.  Neutrinos were necessary to explain observation [of beta radioactive decay].  Three generations of quarks were necessary to explain C-P violation.  And so on...  A good strategy is to focus on those changes that resolve an inconsistency with data, or an internal inconsistency.  

And the truth is, when the model you already have is predicting with an accuracy of 0.1 billionths of a percent, there just aren't a lot of inconsistencies there to resolve.

I have to admit that I get the particle physicists' yearning for something deeper.  John Keats's famous line, "Beauty is truth, and truth beauty; that is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know" has a real resonance for me.  But at the same time, it's hard to argue Hossenfelder's logic.

Maybe the cosmos really is kind of a mess, with lots of arbitrary parameters and empirically-determined constants.  We may not like it, but as I've observed before, the universe is under no obligation to be structured in such a way as to make us comfortable.  Or, as my grandma put it -- more simply, but no less accurately -- "I've found that wishin' don't make it so."

****************************************

Chewed up and spat out

Seems like I've featured a lot of research about astrophysics here at Skeptophilia lately, and that's not only because I'm really interested in it, but because the astrophysicists keep discovering stuff that is downright amazing.

Consider two papers last week highlighting different bizarre behaviors of one of the weirdest beasts in the cosmic zoo -- black holes. 

Since the first serious proposal of their existence, by German physicist Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, they've captivated the imagination.  Not only are they created in supernovas -- surely the most spectacular events in the universe -- their intense gravitational warping of space makes it impossible for anything, even light, to escape.  If you were falling into one (not recommended), time would slow down, at least as perceived by someone watching you from a safe distance.  From your perspective, though, your own watch would continue to run normally, until it (and you) succumbed to spaghettification -- yes, that's actually what the astrophysicists call it -- the point where the tidal forces across even such a short distance as the one between your head and your feet became sufficient to stretch you into the universe's most horrifying pasta.

As strange and terrifying as they are, they were thought for a long time to be physically quite simple; physicist John Archibald Wheeler said that "black holes have no hair," by which he meant that they have no arbitrary differences between each other that cannot be accounted for by three externally-observable parameters: their mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.  It took no less a luminary than Stephen Hawking to demonstrate that this wasn't true.  In 1974 he showed that (contrary to the picture of a black hole as a one-way-only object) they slowly evaporate through a phenomenon now called Hawking radiation in his honor.  The general idea here is that the extremely warped space near the event horizon generates sufficient energy to facilitate significant pair production -- creation of particle/antiparticle pairs.  Almost always, those pairs recombine and mutually annihilate in a fraction of a second after creation, so they're called "virtual particles" that have a measurable effect on ordinary matter but no long-term reality.  However, in the vicinity of a black hole, things are different.  Because of the extraordinary gravitational field at the event horizon, sometimes there's enough time for the two particles in the pair to separate sufficiently that one of them crosses the event horizon and the other doesn't.  At that point, the one that's fallen in is doomed; the other one just keeps moving away -- and that's the Hawking radiation.  

But what this does is robs a small bit of the mass/energy from the black hole, so its volume decreases.  What Hawking showed is that black holes actually evaporate.  It's on a huge time scale; a massive black hole has a life span many times longer than the current age of the universe.  But it suggests that everything -- even something as seemingly permanent as a black hole -- has a finite life span.

[Image is in the Public Domain courtesy of NASA/JPL]

Even that, though, doesn't begin to plumb the depths of the weirdness of these things.  Take for example the two papers I referenced earlier, each of which shows an only partially-explained behavior of black holes.

In the first, that appeared in The Astrophysical Journal, researchers looked at the odd behavior of an object called X-7 that is close to Sagittarius A*, the massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.  X-7 is a cloud of gas and dust about fifty times the mass of the Earth, and is so close to Sagittarius A* that it orbits it once every 170 years.  The tidal forces are spaghettifying X-7 -- fast enough to observe in real time.

"No other object in this region has shown such an extreme evolution," said Anna Ciurlo of UCLA, who is the paper’s lead author.  "It started off comet-shaped and people thought maybe it got that shape from stellar winds or jets of particles from the black hole.  But as we followed it for twenty years we saw it becoming more elongated.  Something must have put this cloud on its particular path with its particular orientation."

From its current trajectory, the researchers think that it will get close enough to the black hole by 2036 that it will be torn apart completely.

If X-7 is being chewed up, there's another place in the universe where a black hole has been spat out.  The galaxy RCP 28, 7.5 billion light years from Earth, appears to be undergoing something cataclysmic; its central black hole, with an estimated mass of twenty million times that of the Sun, has been ejected from the middle and is moving away at a speed of 5.6 million kilometers per hour, pulling along a streamer of stars behind it like the tail of a comet.

What could possibly slingshot an object that massive at such high velocities remains to be seen; the researchers think it was in some kind of unstable orbit with two or more massive bodies.  (As I described in a post a couple of years ago, the three-body problem -- the mathematics of three or more objects of similar masses orbiting a common center of gravity -- is one of the most famous unsolved problems in classical mechanics, and models show that most of the time, these sorts of configurations are unstable.)  But the authors are clear that more study is needed to confirm the analysis, and then, to come up with an explanation for what exactly is going on.

In any case, what's obvious is that we've only scratched the surface of these strange objects.  Every time we look up into the star-spangled sky, we find new and amazing things to wonder at.  The astrophysicists, I think, are in for a long and exciting ride.

****************************************

Checkmate

I am a truly dreadful chess player.

I know how all the pieces move, and have no difficulty comprehending the basic gist of the game.  My problem is that I have zero ability at strategy.  My understanding is that excellent chess players have an above-average capacity for assessing control of the board holistically -- i.e., they're not simply looking forward and predicting their opponent's moves, they're evaluating the entire layout and planning their moves based on a judgment of what will improve their overall position.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Jyothis, Chess Large, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Wherever this capacity comes from, I don't have it.  My strategy when playing chess is "KILL KILL KILL."  I focus on attacking particular pieces, and therefore walk blindly into traps set by even mediocre players.

True story: I participated in a chess tournament when I was at the University of Louisiana.  It was a single-elimination tournament, but with a twist; the goal of the tournament was to find the worst chess player at the University.  So after a game, the winner was eliminated, and the loser went on to the next round.

I came in second.

The only game I won was the final game, against a player so catastrophically bad she exceeded even my level of strategic incompetence.  At one point, I had (accidentally, of course) put my queen in danger of being taken by her bishop.  I honestly hadn't seen it until I'd already made the move.  So I was sitting there, waiting for her to pounce.  And sure enough, she picked up the bishop, moved it...

... and set it down exactly one space before the queen.

This prompted one of the spectators, who were strictly enjoined against making commentary or helping the players, to burst out in helpless frustration, "What in the fuck are you doing?"

She looked up, gave him a perplexed smile, and said, "What do you mean?"

So.  Yeah.  Her I won against.  Missed getting the trophy by that much.

It's an odd thing, really.  I'm fairly confident that I have a decent brain, and am a reasonably analytical thinker.  But anything involving strategy is absolutely beyond me.  It's why I also suck at most card games.  Games like poker -- where you have to decide your own next move based on what you know about your opponents' cards, and there's a good chance at least some of them are bluffing -- are baffling to me.  I have a great poker face, though.  I'm really good at keeping my expression blank.  But it's not because I've got this great strategy and am keeping it secret.

My expression is blank because most of the time, I have no idea what the hell is going on.

The reason this comes up is a paper in the journal Genes that found a single gene locus -- KIBRA -- that correlates with chess-playing ability (and, the authors suggest, ability in science and technology).  The authors write:

The kidney and brain expressed protein (KIBRA) plays an important role in synaptic plasticity.  Carriers of the T allele of the KIBRA (WWC1) gene... C/T polymorphism have been reported to have enhanced spatial ability and to outperform individuals with the CC genotype in working memory tasks.  Since ability in chess and science is directly related to spatial ability and working memory, we hypothesized that the KIBRA T allele would be positively associated with chess player status and Ph.D. status in science.  We tested this hypothesis in a study involving 2479 individuals (194 chess players, 119 Ph.D. degree holders in STEM fields, and 2166 controls; 1417 males and 1062 females)...  We found that frequencies of the T allele were significantly higher in... chess players compared with ethnically matched controls.  In addition, none of the international chess grandmasters (ranked among the 80 best chess players in the world) were carriers of the CC genotype (0 vs. 46.3%; OR = 16.4, p = 0.005).  Furthermore... Ph.D. holders had a significantly higher frequency of CT/TT genotypes compared with controls.  Overall, this is the first study to provide comprehensive evidence that the rs17070145 C/T polymorphism of the KIBRA gene may be associated with ability in chess and science, with the T allele exerting a beneficial effect.

I find this fascinating from a couple of standpoints.  The first is that it's astonishing a single gene locus can have an effect on a complex set of behaviors such as spatial perception and strategy.  Second, it's interesting that there's also a correlation to attainment of a Ph.D., which is another thing that is beyond my grasp.  I spent some time in my early college days aiming toward a career in research science -- which would have pretty much necessitated my attaining a doctorate -- and after switching around from field to field, finally had the epiphany that the problem wasn't the specific field I was in, it was that I simply didn't have the capacity for narrow, laser focus required to do research.  Nor did I have the ability to synthesize techniques and concepts from disparate fields you see in truly original research -- something that has a lot in common with the holistic strategizing you see in the best chess players.

Put simply, my brain just doesn't work that way.  I'm a raging generalist; someone once described my knowledge, accurately if not particularly kindly, as "a light year across and an inch deep."  I'm positively in awe of people who do scientific research and are blessed with the ability to see dazzlingly brilliant solutions to questions about the universe...

... but I am not one of them.

It's okay, really.  I'm not unhappy with my CC genotype; being an inquisitive sort with a broad general knowledge background is part of what made me a successful teacher.  I have had my pangs of envy when I read about scientists doing amazing work, but deep down, I know I could never have made it as a researcher, any more than I could be a chess grand master.

And at least I can comfort myself in knowing there was one person I went to college with who was worse at that sort of thing than I am.

****************************************

Saucy savagery

Kids these days, ya know what I mean?

Wiser heads than mine have commented on the laziness, disrespectfulness, and general dissipation of youth.  Here's a sampler:

• Parents themselves were often the cause of many difficulties.  They frequently failed in their obvious duty to teach self-control and discipline to their own children.

• We defy anyone who goes about with his eyes open to deny that there is, as never before, an attitude on the part of young folk which is best described as grossly thoughtless, rude, and utterly selfish.

• The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.  Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households.  They no longer rise when elders enter the room.  They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

• Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day.  Increasing urban life with its temptations, prematurities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline, the haste to know and do all befitting man's estate before its time, the mad rush for sudden wealth and the reckless fashions set by its gilded youth--all these lack some of the regulatives they still have in older lands with more conservative conditions.

• Youth were never more saucy -- never more savagely saucy -- as now... the ancient are scorned, the honourable are condemned, and the magistrate is not dreaded.

• Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'.  We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.

• [Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances…  They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.

Of course, I haven't told you where these quotes come from. In order:

• from an editorial in the Leeds Mercury, 1938

• from an editorial in the Hull Daily Mail, 1925

• Kenneth John Freeman, Cambridge University, 1907

• Granville Stanley Hall, The Psychology of Adolescence, 1904

• Thomas Barnes, The Wise Man's Forecast Against the Evil Time, 1624

• Horace, Odes, Book III, 20 B.C.E.

• Aristotle, 4th century B.C.E.

So yeah.  Adults saying "kids these days" has a long, inglorious history.  (Nota bene: the third quote, from Kenneth Freeman, has often been misattributed to Socrates, but it seems pretty unequivocal that Freeman was the originator.)

Jan Miense Molenaar, Children Making Music (ca. 1630) [Image is in the Public Domain]

I can say from my admitted sample-size-of-one that "kids these days" are pretty much the same as they were when I first started teaching 35 long years ago.  Throughout my career there were kind ones and bullies, intelligent and not-so-much, hard-working and not-so-much, readers and non-readers, honest and dishonest.  Yes, a lot of the context has changed; just the access to, and sophistication of, technology has solved a whole host of problems and created a whole host of other ones, but isn't that always the way?  In my far-off and misspent youth, adults railed against rock music and long hair in much the same way that they do today about cellphones and social media, and with about as much justification.  Yes, there are kids who misuse social media and have their noses in their SmartPhones 24/7, but the vast majority handle themselves around these devices just fine -- same as most of my generation didn't turn out to be drug-abusing, illiterate, disrespectful dropouts.

This comes up because of a study in Science Advances by John Protzko and Jonathan Schooler, called "Kids These Days: Why the Youth of Today Seem Lacking."  And its unfortunate conclusion -- unfortunate for us adults, that is -- is that the sense of today's young people being irresponsible, disrespectful, and lazy is mostly because we don't remember how irresponsible, disrespectful, and lazy we were when we were teenagers.  And before you say, "Wait a moment, I was a respectful and hard-working teenager" -- okay, maybe.  But so are many of today's teenagers.  If you want me to buy that we're in a downward spiral, you'll have to convince me that more teenagers back then were hard-working and responsible, and that I simply don't believe.

And neither do Protzko and Schooler.

So the whole thing hinges more on idealization of the past, and our own poor memories, than on anything real.  I also suspect that a good many of the older adults who roll their eyes about "kids these days" don't have any actual substantive contact with young people, and are getting their impressions of teenagers from the media -- which certainly doesn't have a vested interest in portraying anyone as ordinary, honest, and law-abiding.

Oh, and another thing.  What really gets my blood boiling is the adults who on the one hand snarl about how complacent and selfish young people are -- and then when young people rise up and try to change things, such as Greta Thunberg and the activists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, they say, "Wait, not like that."  What, you only accept youth activism if it supports the status quo?

All well and good for kids to have opinions, until they start contradicting the opinions of adults, seems like.

Anyhow, I'm an optimist about today's youth.  I saw way too many positive things in my years as a high school teacher to feel like this is going to be the generation that trashes everything through irresponsibility and disrespect for tradition.  And if after reading this, you're still in any doubt about that, I want you to think back on your own teenage years, and ask yourself honestly if you were as squeaky-clean as you'd like people to believe.

Or were you -- like the youth in Aristotle's day -- guilty of thinking you knew everything, and being quite sure about it?

****************************************

Saving the marriage

You probably saw that Marjorie Taylor Traitor Greene has called for a "national divorce" along red state/blue state lines, splitting the United States into two countries.  Here's her exact quote:

We need a national divorce.  We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the federal government.  Everyone I talk to says this.  From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our throats to the Democrat’s [sic] traitorous America Last policies, we are done.

There are some, in my opinion overly optimistic, people who believe this is just a publicity stunt, another opportunity to increase polarization and ring the changes once again on the whole "Culture War" trope, and that she doesn't actually believe what she's saying.  Myself, I'm not so sure.  For one thing, in the past the woman has shown every sign of having the IQ of a Hostess Ho-Ho.  For another, her voting record is nothing if not consistent.  As long as a bill has the MAGA imprimatur, she'll vote for it.

Also, it hardly matters if she believes it, because apparently a good chunk of her constituency does.  While I doubt that "everyone she talks to" says this, I'm guessing that there are people on the Far Right would love nothing better than to turn the red states into a right-wing, Christo-nationalist enclave.

There are a number of problems with this, though, the main one being a wee problem of money.

The Far Right loves nothing more than to call the liberals a "bunch of socialists," living off of federal government handouts.  Wanting "something for nothing."  You know the talk; it's all over right-wing media.  The truth is, though, that if you look at federal government dependency -- the ratio of money given per capita to the federal government to money received as benefits from the federal government -- an awkward pattern emerges:

While the correlation isn't perfect, it's a curious thing that the states run by Evil Liberal Socialists tend to be least dependent on the federal government for funding, and a good many of the states run by the Stalwart Independent Conservatives are the ones who happily accept the most in the way of help.  (In fact, the nonpartisan study I linked above found that my staunchly-red home state of Louisiana is near the top, and relies on the federal government for 52.27% of its funding.)

So if MTG's loony proposal was followed, the liberated Confederate States of America (version 2.0) would instantly become the Western Hemisphere's newest Third World country.

The other frustrating thing about this is that whenever issues of secession come up, I hear from pissed-off liberals things like "Hell yeah, let 'em go and serves them right."  The problem is that even the reddest of red states is more diverse than the purveyors of polarization would like you to believe.  In Greene's own bright-red district in Georgia, for example, 34% of voters in the last election voted for her Democratic opponent, Marcus Flowers.  

So suppose we did split along red state/blue state lines.  I have liberal and moderate friends in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia (just to name a few off the top of my head).  If MTG's Christofascist MAGA paradise was realized, what happens to them?  What happens to the people of color, the non-Christians, the LGBTQ people?  They're already fighting like hell not to have legislation passed allowing discriminatory practices against them -- how do you honestly think they'd fare under President Greene?

Let me make one thing clear, and hopefully head off at least a few of the hate-comments; yeah, yeah, I know, not all conservatives.  I also have a good many conservative friends, and mostly we get along fine, because they are coming from a position of respecting others and trying to find common ground.  (Otherwise it's hard to imagine we'd stay friends long.)  But that's not where people like Greene (and Ron DeSantis and Lauren Boebert and Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham) are coming from.  They play on divisiveness because it gets headlines, and inflame hatred because fear and anger get people to the voting booth, even if that fear and anger is based on lies.  (And if you object to my saying "lies" outright, recall that recent legal disclosures make it clear that the Fox News hosts are well aware that they're lying to their listeners; text messages from people like Carlson and Ingraham not only state explicitly that they knowingly lied on air, they brutally ridiculed Trump and Trump supporters for falling for those lies.  They're not only liars, they are hypocrites who hold their own listeners in the deepest contempt.)

It's time for reasonable people on both sides to stand up and shout down the ugliness trumpeted by folks like MTG -- and demand the truth, not partisan spin (and outright falsehoods) from media.  Americans of all political stripes have more common interests than we have differences, and those differences can be discussed in a civil manner.  For a good example of this, check out the Twitter account of conservative commentator and former congressperson Joe Walsh.  While there's a lot we disagree on, he is a deeply honorable man and open to finding that common ground.  If more of us on both sides of the aisle approached issues like he does, we'd be a far better nation -- and hate-mongers like MTG would never get elected.

It's easy to feel hopeless.  If you read the news, things certainly seem to be sliding into a nightmare.  But when I look around me, I'm struck by the fact that the vast majority of people I see are decent and kind and want the same sorts of things; stability, peace, a safe place to raise their kids, a roof over their heads, enough to eat.  We might differ about how to get there, but that's stuff we can talk about.

Let's give ourselves a chance at that conversation by turning off the lying, hateful, and divisive voices -- and listening to each other for a change.

****************************************