Francisco "A.J." Camacho
The Daily Times
February 8th, 2022
On January 26, my first op-ed was published in the Daily Times: “Election Voting Change Would Improve Turnout, Save Taxpayer Money.” 1 year and 24 columns in, I took some time to go back through my old publications. I didn’t find any major changes of heart from the original pieces, but I did find a couple of minor mistakes.
First: “The problem with a label is that it makes us forget that the person behind it is greater than any one category. As the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard said, ‘Once you label me, you negate me’” (“The Hot Dog Dilemma and the Problem with Labels,” 2 July 2021). While I stand by my general sentiment, I now believe I failed to capture an important nuance: we need to keep an open mind to labels, but they are fundamentally important to productive conversations.
For example, what we teach in schools is incredibly important, so the role of topics like Critical Race Theory in a curriculum should be debated. The problem is that so many people do not understand what CRT is: a field of legal scholarship focusing on how race and the law intersect and influence each other. I have read several conservative articles that assert CRT is “rooted in Marxism”, but that is a nebulous characteristic rather than a definition. This is problematic because we need to agree on definitions before debating their proper role in society. Though we should be open to changing our perception of them, labels are crucial to oil the cogs of productive discussion.
Second: “Too much meat is bad for your health” (“Any Way You Slice It, Eating Less Meat Is a Good Idea.” 8 July 2021). I think this statement is most likely true, but I wrote it with a certainty I no longer have. I’ve come to learn that practically all nutrition studies are tenuously reliable because of the many confounding variables. While it is clear that people who eat more red meat are more prone to diabetes, cancer, and premature death, it is not clear that diet is the cause of those health problems. People who eat more meat are also more likely to smoke or drink alcohol, for example.
That processed meats like cured bacon and hot dogs are bad for your health is practically uncontested. In fact, the World Health Organization classifies processed meats in the same category as plutonium and asbestos in terms of certainty that they cause cancer. After reviewing more than 800 studies, the WHO concluded that for every additional 50 grams of processed meat you eat per day, your chance of developing cancer rises by 18% (“Red Meat and Processed Meat.” IARC Monographs, 2018). However, it also seems the jury is indefinitely out on whether ordinary red meats like hamburgers or pork chops are drastically detrimental to your health. Still, although the evidence is far from conclusive, most nutrition experts suggest eating red meat only 2 or 3 times a week.
Third: Misunderstandings. In truth, this is less an acknowledgment of a mistake on my part and more of a lesson learned: communication is hard! In response to an op-ed I co-wrote (“Why (and How) the US Should Intervene in the Holy Land”), many called me “anti-Israel” while hurling other insults. If the people who wrote such comments hadn’t been so serious, I might have found the condemnations comical.
The piece in question actively sought to be neutral: it did not argue that Israel is evil but that it rationally acts in its own interest — as any state would. I was only attempting to analyze how the imbalance of power between Palestinians and Israelis inhibits a peaceful resolution to the century-long conflict.
Fourth: “Flaming liberal”. That’s what I was called after my New Year’s op-ed (“A Bell for 2022”). I found this somewhat funny given that many of my friends who identify as “liberals” find me too conservative on many issues. Equally, I understand how my bibliography would easily give a “flaming liberal” impression to the conservative-leaning Blountian. However, that is exactly my intention.
A good opinion page should have liberal, conservative, and libertarian voices. But if any should be presented more, I would argue it ought to be the perspective that most challenges the average reader’s existing beliefs. I write more liberal essays for the same reason I enjoy reading the National Review: I believe the best society is one that does not ignore challenges but confronts them. After all, if our judgment is as sound and our opinions as valid as we think, why would we fear testing them? And if they were weak enough to fail the test, why would we want to maintain faulty beliefs?
Comments