Because we are free

We shouldn't have to worry about censorship

Because we are free

We can speak our mind
We can protest injustice
We can have belief
We can have an absence of belief

Because we are free

We elect our leaders
We have a free press

Because we are free

We can watch watch what we want
We can listen to what we want
No websites are blocked

Because we are free

We can hold officials accountable
We can praise the righteous
We can speak out against the absurd

Because we are free

On this week that began with remembering MLK Jr and all that he stood for,
let us remember how important it is to be free. This week, we protest proposed
legislation that may censor or block parts of the internet. Contact your local
representative and tell them to leave the internet free and open, as a place
where ideas, knowledge and independent voices can continue to exist freely.

Because we are free, we understand how precious this freedom truly is and how
wrong censorship can be.

(Mostly) apolitical musings

This post is just something that I wanted to jot down while it's fresh in my mind. It's probably not going to be popular with many people on either side of the political spectrum (for whatever that is worth). On the other hand, it's not going to get me burned in effigy (or in person), so I'm not really worried.

Anyway, my idea is this: there is a dark side to the concept and experience of "hope" that few people acknowledge. Very often, we are urged to maintain hope at all costs, as hope is the life-blood of the spirit. If we lose hope, part of our souls die. Or so we are told.

To be true, it is often good advice to hold out hope in the face of adversity. This is especially true in a relatively peaceful society, where the rewards of being daring (within the bounds of the law) often outweigh the risks. It is a truism that a man or woman who is sure of their own failure is invariably correct, if only due to the self-fulfilling nature of defeatism.

However, that isn't the whole story. For one, hope can be dangerous when the risks outweigh the possible gains. This is a pretty obvious caveat, though, so much so that it doesn't warrant as an objection. The real difficulties with hope are more subtle.

One problem with hope is that, when it is invested carelessly, it can be squandered like any other poor investment. And if one maintains hope in the face of what are truly impossible odds, isn't that perhaps worse than cutting one's losses and moving on to a more practical goal? Is it is good thing for someone to torture themselves with insisting on what cannot be? Sometimes, I believe that this focus on the next horizon, unattainable or not, can lead us to neglect what is right before us, and take for granted the good things that we already have.

And there is an even darker dimension to hope. Consider this: who is more hopeful than a terrorist? The odds stacked against him, nobody is more romantic than a terrorist, and yet nobody is more pragmatic than a man who slaughters civilians for ideological ends. Who are more hopeful than the Palestinians? In the face of overwhelming force, they will not give up the fight for their homeland. I do not argue that their fight is strictly right or wrong; I believe that it is both, but that is not my point. My point is that you only have to look at the wretched state of the West Bank to see the dark side of hope.

Again, I am acknowledging the positive aspects of hope, which probably outweigh the negative aspects. My feeling is that one must be wise about hope just as one should be wise about any investment. Does a banker succeed by throwing good money after bad? Perhaps it is true that we must maintain some hope to kindle the light of our spirits. But even so, if a cause is truly hopeless, or perhaps simply not worth it, I believe that it is best to cut one's losses and find something more worthy of my hope. But just as hope should not be invested lightly, neither should it be discarded casually.

The spirit of the times would instruct us to invest our hope eagerly, never to relinquish it. This is obviously a very optimistic approach, basically assuming, if it can be believed, that almost everything is going to turn out fine! Do I really have to point out how delusional this is?

New Year, New election, new reason for the fist of reason season. Presenting…

The Bain Capital Capers!

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard about the Bain Capital story in the news media, the problem is, people just don’t have the story straight, for some help to better understand what actually occurred, I suggest this January 6th story from Reuters: Romney's steel skeleton in the Bain closet

In that article, they explain what happened after Mr. Romney became a majority shareholder of a Kansas City steel mill in 1993 which had been in operation since 1888:

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

Yes, steel workers’ pensions were cut, the federal government bailed out the pension plan and Romney still made money off his “investment”. The report goes on with the saddening fact that management was aware of the shortfall in capital that still required a federal bailout. Even with the bailout:

Romney continued receiving dividends from Bain after his departure. He accumulated a personal fortune of between $190 million and $250 million, according to campaign disclosure forms.

(Mr Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics)

Although Bain itself was fairly successful in many of its endeavors, the disgusting conduct that happened in Kansas City left lifelong steel workers in the hurt, leaving them out in the cold while Romney made “a personal fortune of between $190 million and $250 million” in dividends from Bain. Can this man be trusted to do the right thing? You decide.

Poetry is "Gay"

Barbed wires of the past
cut and close in, leaving little room for air.
breathing is labored,
sweat drips from the brow.

Delusional antics begin,
dancing elves and faeries
in the dwindling twilight of
the minds eye.

Candles groan
under
the weight of the growing darkness.

A sudden hippocampian wind
extinguishes the candles leaving
the menagerie of dancers
with nothing left to do but
vanish
into the darkened unconscious abyss.

Open to Interpretation

I was reading a recent Paul Krugman column, one of my few (only) pundit heroes. In it, he says the following:

But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues.

It’s not true, of course. Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt.

With all due respect to the good professor, he's changing the topic a little in midstream. The fact that debt exploded under Reagan doesn't disprove the proposition that cutting tax rates can raise tax revenues. It ignores the possibility that spending skyrocketed under Reagan. To be honest, I'm was a little disappointed in Krugman's argument.

Wondering whether this scenario was true , I went searching for data. I still haven't found the answer to my original question, so any data-rich and rhetoric-light links are appreciated.

So what did I find that seemed worth breaking my "blog silence"? Well, I found some interesting links from the Heritage foundation, a well-known conservative think tank. I say interesting, because the data that they faithfully present seems open to interpretation. I give them credit for providing enough data to provide food for both sides of the debate, although I question the time periods they focus on. More on that later.

Here are the links:

• Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
• Federal Spending per Household Is Skyrocketing

Notice anything about these graphs? Here's a few common elements:

• The worst offenses occurred in Bush's second term
• Things have improved a little bit under Obama's watch
• They aren't improving that fast

The upside of that last one (for me and my ilk) is that indexes like these don't really represent the things that keep me up at night. I'm particularly unconcerned by the increase of government spending at this time. I'd like to see both lines quite a bit steeper on that first graph.

Why? Well, I probably default to certain Keynesian positions, but being a layman, I view it in terms that I can relate to. It seems, to me, that debt is something that you want to incur when you are in need, and pay it off when you can afford to. Isn't it considered prudent behavior to save in times of plenty, and then spend those savings in times of need?

Yes, we need to save more in times of plenty. We used to be better at that. Notice how those two lines in the first graph start to converge as you go back in time? But one thing that catches my attention, again in the first graph, is that those lines tend to widen the most under Republican administrations.

This leads me back to the question of why these graphs focused on the time periods in question. My thought is that, by showing the longer historical arc of these graphs, it will:

• Shrink the scale of the gap between spending and revenue
• Show how this upward climb in both is sustainable, as long as we're just a little more thrifty

More on this, and more links, tomorrow...

Looking for a Label

Just today I was asking myself how I would categorize my political philosophy. I've had a hard time identifying myself as either Leftist or Right Wing, and in general, I avoid relying on this kind of one-dimensional axis. My sense of these two categories is that they represent different clusters of related political philosophies, but there are many philosophies that lay outside these two supposed poles. I would not categorize my own philosophy as being particularly Right or Left, although I have more overlap with the Left in terms of current US policy.

Please believe that I am not (solely) saying these things to appear to be a maverick free-thinker. I'm not trying to "defy categorization" for the sake of itself. So I thought about it some more. I don't know if I came up with a good category, but such exercises are useful at least to make one's vaguely held beliefs a bit more coherent.

I'd say, primarily, that I'm a believer in the "modern project." What this means to me is an evolving expression of the modern experience, for the betterment of all. That, in turn, begs the question: what is the modern experience?

Before I go any further, please be aware that I am using these terms in a somewhat ignorant fashion. I don't have a formal training in politics or philosophy, and although I'm widely read, I've never delved too deeply. I confess to being a dilettante. I give myself credit for only investing an above average level of consideration into these matters. Undoubtedly, in a few years, I'll think a lot of what I said now was rather shallow, believing myself to have found an even deeper level of truth. I guess that what I'm saying is that I don't stand by a single word that I'm saying.

Anyway, obviously the modern experience is pretty hard to simplify, but I'd focus on a certain important characteristics that distinguish it from earlier history. First of all, the formalization of scientific thinking has led to a startling level of technological progress that threatens to overwhelm all other influences. This is probably the most important ingredient of the modern era, and it cannot be overstated. It is equally difficult to answer the question "Is this a good thing?"

The second critical characteristic of the modern experience is the multicultural experience. Basically, as travel and communication have become cheaper and faster, due to the aforementioned technological explosion, people have been confronted with the massive variety of how people can and do live their lives. This has thrown many of the old assumptions completely out of whack, religion most of all. But as this process continues, traditions continue to melt away in the light of the free market of global ideas. Please note that I am differentiating this concept from the term "multiculturalism," which prescribes certain responses to the multicultural experience.

Actually, that sounds a bit overly triumphal. Although I am a strong believer in free expression and the exchange of ideas, we frequently throw the baby out with the bathwater. My faith in all aspects of the modern experience is tempered by an understanding that anything can go too far, and all too frequently, modernity overindulges at great expense.

This is a good lead in to the third critical principle of modernity, and the most recent to emerge: our ability to exterminate ourselves. Perhaps the greatest mitigating factor to technological progress has been our increasing and perverse ability to destroy ourselves as a species. As technology advances, it is inevitable that this will become easier and easier, to the point where we are all mad gods.

Actually, we would be dead long before that. If this continues apace, the only way to avoid this fate will be an increasingly oppressive existence, where technology becomes increasingly invested in controlling our lives and mitigating its own destructive potential. I don't think it would be overstatement to call this the great challenge of humanity. It requires bold thinking, because progress along this path will eventually lead us to destruction or oppression.

Having said this, why do I call myself a believer in modernity? Well, this love is not blind. Most of my misgivings about the modern experience lie in our increasing ability to destroy and enslave ourselves. It may be necessary, one day, to find a way to massively curtail technological development, or otherwise carefully manage it.

But it is the second principle, the uncertainty of truth and tradition, where I find my greatest love for modernity. It is from this that reason and free expression were born. It is because of this that we live in the greatest age of art in all history; we may not currently be at the moment of its most recent peak, but in historical terms, we're pretty close. For all the mindless trash that we are forced to wade through, I truly believe we believe in an age that has produced more beautiful ideas than any that have preceded it. And, for all my misgivings with technology, I have a passionate love for science. I know, I know...

But the social contract, the end of "blood politics," civil rights and all their ilk... I believe that we live in an era of enlightenment. Those who worry about the ignorance of the moment are missing the long view. Historically speaking, we're still in a golden age, and it need not end soon, or even taper off. I confess to being pessimistic about the long term probabilities, but I'm optimistic about possibilities.

There are plenty of aberrations, and plenty of ways that this could go very sour. So-called postmodernism is an example, in my opinion, of modernism astray. I say "so-called" because I believe that postmodernism is really a continuation of what I called the second aspect of modernism, which is the impact of multiculturalism. Postmodernism replaces the notion of a singular truth with a multitude of "narratives." While it cannot be denied that there is something valuable in this realization, I believe that it is often taken way too far, and certainly unworthy of its label.

If there is anything that I would call "postmodern," I would say perhaps that the emerging reality of our self-destructability might earn the label. This is a relatively new development, and how we adapt to this could be the first chapter of a new era. By my estimation, the modern experience in the West has its roots in The Crusades, The Renaissance, The Reformation, and the Age of Exploration. Perhaps it truly is time for a new era. But in any case, it won't have anything to do with "narratives". In fact, our disparate truths should perhaps converge upon the hard reality of possible extinction.

This just scratches the surface, but I've certainly said more than is necessary to determine a short phrase to label my political philosophy. Perhaps "cautious liberal" would work. By "liberal," I refer to both the classic meaning (i.e. a believer in open markets and and open, civil society) and the modern meaning (a believer in the public welfare for its own sake). But as for the "cautious" part, I have grave reservations about taking either of these too far. I am also a bit of a pessimist, but I also believe that the book is far from written.

Let me distill it even further. I believe that, for good or for bad, we are now undergoing the modern experience, and attempts to abort this experience are doomed to fail. That said, there are many things to like about modernity, and I would like to see us make the best of it. In the first part of this age, we were somewhat free to experiment with new social models and projects, many of which failed disastrously. The most recent of these can be observed in the ongoing death throes of Communism (really, at this point they are more like gurgling noises).

But now, we do not have this luxury. We must enter a new era, where we learn to look ahead, and live peacefully with each other. In other words, we much become genuinely wise, as a society. Otherwise, our long term prospects may not be terribly good.

Note: This post is not yet complete, since I still have to add links. I just wanted to compose these ideas while they were still fresh in my mind.

Coffee and Tea

The corniness of the current American right wing knows no bounds. This April fifteenth, they unleashed their dire media creation: the Tea Parties. These conservative tax protests are another example of disproportionate griping - current rate increases are very modest, to the extent that they still leave us rates significantly lower than those imposed during the Reagan years.

This is nothing new in the GOP playbook. Cheesy sloganeering is their stock and trade (e.g. "Slick Willy," "Sore/Loserman," excessive misapplication of the word "socialist," etc.), and the whole oppressed-majority mythology is tried and true; witness the "War Against Christmas" and various other hysterias.

Ironically, they really aren't in the majority this time. Gallup shows that a majority of Americans consider their tax rates to be fair. The reason that I say that's ironic is because, on the Tax Day Tea Party site, one of the main banners I encounter upon arriving there says "Silent Majority No More!" How about "Vocal Minority As Usual"?

On the other side of the coin, I agree completely (as usual) with my blogging hero Bob Somerby, that liberals are ill-advised to counter these protests with puerile mockery. These people represent a movement that is a candidate for the mainstream in 2012: libertarianism, or something like it. I've previously discussed my points of contention with this political philosophy.

So how should we ("we" being those of us who see the inherent madness in this form of economic extremism) react to these Tea Parties? Not by constant references to "teabagging." First of all, I think that we need to argue our case clearly, loudly, and repeatedly. If it is necessary to conduct some kind of political theater, as an alternative to smirky jokes about "teabagging," I would recommend holding counter protests next year: Coffee Clatches. The tagline for these could be "Time to wake up!"

Hard Data for Soft Markets

This post is going to be very short and sweet. I just wanted to share a graph that says a lot about why the housing market imploded. Take a gander -- it speaks for itself:



There's one annoying thing about this graph that you should be aware of. Note that the x-axis starts at 60 instead of 0, ranging up to 200. Remember to visualize the zero-line for price level some distance below the x-axis.

Political Philosophy: The Cult of the Free Market

For some time now, I've been troubled by economic conservatives and libertarians -- basically, free market extremists. From my first encounters with people who thought privatizing the roads might not be a bad idea to the current plague of Obama-haters falling back to the dreaded "socialist" epithet, these people seem to represent a dangerous ideology. I cannot do justice to the legitimate intellectual roots of this movement by summarizing them here, but to distill the conclusions to an essence, the primary (and sometimes, sole) edict seems to be as follows: the government should only have enough money to preserve the peace and enforce the laws, and otherwise have no participation in the economy.

To be honest, there is not much more to it than that, although there is much in the way of justification. I do not say this disparagingly. In certain ways, I admire the purity of the ideology, and the noble faith in economic liberty and private enterprise. There is quite a bit philosophical groundwork behind this principle. In addition to this, for many conservative schools of thought, this is only part of the picture, so I do not mean to say that this is a philosophy unto itself. However, in the case of libertarians, it is almost the entire picture.

For a long time, my objections to this principle were mostly pragmatic. I believed that while the virtues they lauded were admirable, and their theories often sounded reasonable, they just didn't square with the complex field of real human behavior. In other words, in practice, I believe that the libertarian principle leads to disaster. While this is a reasonable objection in and of itself, it begs the question: so where then do we draw the line?

I cannot claim to have a concrete answer for that question, but I do feel that now I can identify at least one theoretical problem with the laissez faire project. The problem lies within one of the free market's most laudable claims: that it is built on voluntary agreements, instead of coercive ones. The problem is that when we examine this claim closely, it begins to lose traction.

Specifically, while it is true that we enter into economic contracts voluntarily, the problem is that our set of feasible options may, by circumstance, coerce certain decisions. By this token, one could say that when a thief has a gun to your head and he demands "your money or your life," you have a choice. In the same manner, a person's circumstances may make it very difficult to substantially better their condition. The classic example is of someone in the working class who is too busy earning enough to survive to train in a skill that will earn him more.

This is not a bad thing in all cases. For instance, it is true that in a free market, we are forced to work, lest we starve. In the case of most people, that is only reasonable. However, even in this example, the exceptional cases are quite problematic (e.g. people without supportive families who are too sick to work).

But a more subtle problem presents itself in the light of the current economic crisis. The problem is that the most successful players in such a system are able to rig the rules of the game in their favor, over time, and thus centralize their power. They accomplish this by constraining the choices of others, and setting up 'games' whereby they encourage behaviors in others that are beneficial to themselves.

As an example, consider the fact that contacts may often mean more than hard work or talent in many industries. This is not to say that, given one's position on a hypothetical "ladder of success" that one's station cannot be improved by hard work. Rather, it is to say that this is not the main determiner. In this case, the game is rigged so the elite maintain their position, while all others are encouraged to strive as hard as they can. An even more common example: stock options. A good employee might be rewarded with stock options as part of a performance-weighted bonus. However, despite the fact that these options convert to stock shares, it is very rare that this could be used to pull oneself up to the next level of corporate authority (e.g. executive or main shareholder). In reality, these just convert to money.

The wealthy do not see anything underhanded or unethical about rigging the game. Since this is all accomplished with voluntary agreements and within the bounds of the law (to the degree that it is within the bounds of the law), they see it as simply playing the game well. It is true, they will admit, that some start life with greater advantages than others. Some are born wealthy, while others are born beautiful or brilliant. But they believe fairness is solely about everyone playing by the same set of rules. After all, it is impossible to equalize starting conditions, so why try? Of course, the consequence is a de facto oligarchy.

My theoretical objection to this is that voluntary is only truly voluntary when one has sufficient acceptable alternatives. Not to mention the fact that a radically free market seems, in practice, to lend itself to radical centralization of wealth and power. As this happens, the game becomes more rigged. These problems detract from the meritocratic nature of a society, and thus its efficiency -- in the end opposing many of the virtues claimed by its adherents.

In my view, radical capitalism is a kind of cult that accomplishes little of what it promises. The high priests are the wealthy financiers, who profit greatly to the extent that their ideology is adopted. The bulk of the cult, however, is made up of the footsoldiers of the free market, who are themselves rarely among the wealthy. They may even understand, to an extent, that the market is rigged, but their faith that the invisible hand of the market will iron out all inefficiencies is absolute. In the long run, they believe, the market will become self-regulating and highly meritocratic -- at least much more so than if it is not left alone.

As an alternative, I think that what we should be doing is not aiming so much at having non-coercive relationships but as many options as possible. I believe that doing so also leads to the most meritocratic outcomes. This means investing heavily in public education, and attempting to equalize opportunity as much as possible. This is one of the big holes in the libertarian project.

Keep in mind, opportunity isn't something only available to children. There are ways we can address the opportunities of adults, as well. For one thing, universal health care makes it easier to start one's own business. A strong safety net, in general, can help to avoid wasting human potential that would otherwise have foundered. And education isn't just for kids -- vocational training is another way to invest in society as a whole.

By enshrining the principle of opportunity, we are keeping our eyes on the prize. Unlike socialism, we're still not guaranteeing outcomes, or attempting to equalize wealth for the sake of it. By being focused on opportunity, we are protected from drifting too far in the other direction, where we will remove the incentives for success. My objective here is to de-rig the game, and that cannot be accomplished by leaving the market entirely to itself.

Note: Please excuse the lack of links in this article. My cheap excuse is that anything labeled "Philosophy" is abstract enough that I can avoid reference to empirical data. This is, of course, just an excuse for laziness.

In Defense of AIG Bonuses

Of late, AIG has come under fire for providing employees in its Financial Products division with $175M total in bonuses. This has produced a great amount of populist outrage and demagoguery, but not much level-headed thinking. As someone who has a healthy distrust and even contempt for our current crop of bungling bankers and financiers, I am well-positioned to defend these bonuses, and to argue against confiscating them through vastly inflated tax bills. After all, nobody can accuse me of being predisposed towards these knuckleheads.

The main reason that I support these bonuses is because they were contractually guaranteed. To me, this means that they were not true "bonuses" in the way that most of us use the word. Rather, they were effectively part of their salaries, as they would have (quite reasonably) budgeted themselves with the assumption that they would receive these funds. If we're going to confiscate these funds, I would ask, then why stop there? Why not just bring them all down to minimum wage? Of course, for consistency, we'd have to do that across the board, to all those who accepted government bailouts. So if we're going to confiscate their salaries, why now, and where do we draw the line? I contend that this whole affairs is motivated by a misunderstanding of the word "bonus."

In addition, we have to keep in mind that, just because AIG-FP has performed so abyssmally, that doesn't mean that all those employees did a poor job. In fact, these bonuses were basically retention bonuses, meaning that they were given to employees who stayed on in these troubled times. If AIG is to mitigate its own disaster, it needs intelligent and motivated employees who will stay the course. Obviously, any competent employees are now fleeing for the hills, and nobody can be expected to take their places. After all, in such a demoralized environment, the only thing you could offer prospective employees would be high levels of compensation. But in this environment, AIG could not guarantee that the new folks wouldn't suffer the same fate as the current batch. Some of the current employees worked for, effectively, the bonus alone. These guys now have nothing to show for a year of hard work.

Let's consider the issue of fairness more deeply. Obviously, not all of the bonus recipients performed poorly in their jobs. In fact, the bad decisions and strategies might well have been formed purely at the highest echelons. Thus, we're applying punishment with a very broad brush with no real regard for fairness. Not only are we not investigating employee performance, but we're denying them a fair hearing in court. Well, this happens to be unconstitutional. For good reason, it is illegal to apply punishments through the legislature without trial. These are called "Bills of Attainder," and they are explicitly forbidden by the constitution.

It gets worse. If the employees of AIG were to sue the government on this basis, they might well prevail. Then, on top of receiving their bonuses, they might also be awarded punitive damages. In other words, this might end up costing the taxpayer even more. Not that it's costing all that much; the total cost of the bonuses are only about .1% of the bailout money that AIG has received.

But at the end of the day, I don't think we need to think this much about it. The fact is, these employees were contractually promised a bonus. The US government should not be in the business of invalidating legal contracts between third parties. It's bad for business, and bad for rule of law. But more importantly, a deal is a deal.

Note that none of this is to suggest that the employees of AIG are a bunch of swell, smart bankers. Obviously, AIG-FP has made some huge blunders over the last decade. They aren't alone, but they are perhaps responsible for the single biggest blemish on the world's financial markets. The only reason that we're bailing them out is because society as a whole simply cannot afford the consequences of their failure.

This is also not to say that we shouldn't investigate and, where possible, prosecute employees of AIG. However, I think performing a proper and legal evaluation of blame is a process that must be done carefully, and will take time. Moreover, such legal procedures must be balanced against the need to restore the company to a semblance of health. The best compromise here is to decouple the two processes (bailout and investigation) as much as possible, and allow the investigations to proceed slowly, and in the background.

Despite all this, it is possible that investigations may yield no evidence of crimes or liabilities. I suspect that they may find some misdeeds at the margins, but for the most part, the entire bungled enterprise was conducted legally, without incurring civil liabilities. If this is true, it will point the way towards future regulation, so we can limit the possibility of this ever happening again. But we may still be unable to find any legal means of punishing the employees and shareholders of AIG-FP. If that turns out to be the case, the best thing to do is learn our lesson, and abide by the rule of law.

Economic Snapshot

Things haven't actually changed that much since I last posted about the state of our economy. However, the few developments that have occurred has provoked some "thoughts" on my part (scare quotes for those who think I'm full of shit).

First of all, there has been increasing chatter about nationalizing the banks, which I view as a good thing. In fact, the government has increased its stake in Citigroup to 36%, which may be the only way to keep this giant from falling and crushing the rest of us. It comes down to this: if it works, it's a good idea.

There has been a faint but constant murmur from libertarians and populists: let them fall. This is perhaps best epitomized by Rick Santelli's "rant" from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. At the least, he captured a certain zeitgeist among fiscal conservatives and libertarians by decrying the "moral hazard" of bailing out people who can't pay their mortgages.

Perhaps this is the not the best example, because there is a certain hypocrisy to it. Santelli didn't have much to say about the moral hazard of bailing out Wall Street titans, which undercuts the sincerity of his case. However, there is no doubt that there are people out there who are more consistent and do espouse condemnation of all bailouts.

In my mind, these people are dangerous. They are committed ideologues who want to implement a very radical, untried agenda. They accuse all those who fall short of their absolutist outlook to be "socialists," which should be one of the first signs that these people represent an extreme and dogmatic position. However, my worry is that they are more than just a fringe. In fact, I believe that if Obama does not, in the long term, convince America of the success of his approach, libertarianism will surge forward and go mainstream.

While I admire the ideals of libertarians and their like, I believe that their philosophy is ultimately problematic. They are living in a different world, where adherence to the constitution and a minimization of government activity will inexorably lead to prosperity and security. More worrisome are those who don't even care whether this will lead to a better future; for in their reasoning, those who fail do not deserve any assistance, and in a perfectly laissez-faire environment, all losers will be deserving of their fate. This radical core doesn't care whether or not libertarianism will make the world, overall, a worse place, because they believe that in such a society, success and failure are automatically deserved by those who experience them. These are the people whose only prescription for this economic crisis is to "cut taxes." This is, in fact, their one-and-only economic prescription in all situations.

What else? There has been a lot of hand wringing over the stimulus bill that passed a little over a week ago. But why? Well, obviously, some of it comes from the radical libertarianism, but plenty of ordinary citizens are concerned. However, if you talk to the average person about the stimulus bill, you don't get many well-considered complaints. Instead, you have some vague concerns about money being spent "wastefully." Occasionally, funding for one program or another is mentioned, always without context. So let's add some context.

People, what is a stimulus bill for? That's right: stimulus. Ask yourself what this is supposed to be spent on. Still scratching your head? That's good, because there is no one answer. The point of the stimulus bill is to spend, and spend fast. It is simply to get money out there, stimulating demand in the economy. Getting something for that money is definitely a good thing, but it isn't the primary objective. The classic example of a stimulus bill is the original "New Deal," which called for an alphabet of Federal programs throughout the country.

Of course, as I said, it is best to get something for your money. This has to be counterbalanced, however, by the "shovel readiness" of the program, i.e. how quickly it can be started up. As a result, some of the programs might seem a bit superfluous, but the question is always: superfluous to what? Certainly not "stimulus." Most government programs have to go through all kinds of steps before they are ready to get their grant and start hiring new people.

On top of all this, you have to consider the numbers. What program do you think is superfluous? In Jindal's response to the President's speech, he criticized a program for "volcano monitoring." It certainly sounds exotic, although I'm less than convinced that it is not needed simply because of Jindal's dismissive tone. Regardless, let's keep in mind that this particular program is funded for $140 million. While that might seem like a lot, consider that the entire stimulus package price tag is $789 billion. That means that volcano monitoring accounts for less than one percent of the bill. Why are we talking about it?

It's not going to be easy for Obama to navigate the sea of misunderstanding and misinformation. There are already positive signs; in the wake of the GOP obstructionist response to the stimulus bill, Obama seems to have moved past token gestures of bipartisanship. This is a good thing, because most of those people never had any chance of being good faith partners. He has to steer around them, while bringing peoples' attention to the issues that matter. It may not be possible.

All this aside, I have one suggestion for readers: if someone speaks about the economic crisis with absolute surety, they are probably wrong. If they are so prescient, then how come they never saw this coming in the first place?

Philosophy 101: The Nature of Consciousness (Introduction)

Here's another set of semi-random ruminations on matters philosophical. Specifically, I'm going to talk about the greatest mystery of them all: consciousness. Bear with me; this might have to be broken into multiple parts.

So why do I say that consciousness is the greatest mystery of them all? The reason is that there are many unique properties of this phenomenon. Before we get into those, it's important to establish a working definition of the term. For the purposes of this discussion, "consciousness" is the phenomenon of localized awareness, i.e. subjective experience restricted to a certain place and time. It is the experience that we all have of being present in the here-and-now, and all the things that surround us.

Note that this definition intentionally excludes quite a few phenomena that people associate with consciousness. We're not talking about thought, or emotion, and we're definitely not talking about behavior or free-will. Perhaps the most important distinction is that we're not talking about self-awareness, which is a particular kind of conscious experience; it could be called consciousness of the self. What we are discussing is simply the raw, passive experience of being, right here and right now.

Even though I am excluding these phenomena from the definition of consciousness, it is perfectly plausible to believe that consciousness is concomitant with one or more of them, or may even depend on them. For instance, some may believe that thought is necessary for consciousness. While I disagree with this view, that discussion is (currently) besides the point. We're talking about the narrow phenomenon as defined, and we'll later consider what are the necessary conditions and all that.

So, having defined the term, we return to the original question; what's so special and mysterious about consciousness? To answer that, I'd like to draw your attention to its many unique aspects. First of all, consider the fact that consciousness doesn't seem necessary, which is to say that it's easy to imagine the universe progressing through time like a giant clockwork mechanism, devoid of subjective observers. Physical law, as we understand it, doesn't seem to depend on consciousness. Thus, at the very least, it strikes me as miraculous that we possess this quality. Philosophers call this aspect of its nature "epiphenomenality".

Another unique aspect of consciousness is its unverifiability in others, contrasted with its undeniable presence in ourselves. Consider that there is no way to know if someone else is actually a mere automaton, devoid of true feeling or experience, merely mimicking the outward signs. This relates much to the epiphenomenality we just discussed; just as it is easy to imagine a universe without consciousness, it is easy to imagine another person without it. The entire concept of "solipsism" demonstrates unverifiability very nicely. The mere fact that one can imagine being the only true conscious being in the universe would not be possible otherwise.

On the other hand, any conscious being can attest to their own consciousness very easily. I experience, therefore I'm conscious (with apologies to Descarte). It seems simultaneously to be omnipresent and utterly elusive, miraculous and commonplace. It is the sum total of everything we know and experience, and perhaps for this very reason, it is hard to perceive or even discuss. And despite its everpresence, it cannot be measured or verified empirically, and is thus impervious to scientific examination. With all this in mind, it should not be surprising that I find consciousness to be so mysterious.

Hopefully, I've primed your interest and shined the spotlight on something you probably take for granted. With this in mind, I'm going to stop for now. Later chapters will explore the inner nature of consciousness, and what causes it, to the extent that we can consider such topics.

Bailout blues

I'm going to keep this one short.

At this time, I'm pretty disappointed with Obama's stated strategies to handling the current financial crisis. No, I'm not talking about the stimulus package, although that does appear to be a bit anemic at this time. What I'm referring to are plans to shore up Wall Street's crumbling prospects. I've been hearing about are plans to purchase bad assets from failing banks, which is precisely what I thought we weren't going to do.

What's so bad about buying up bad assets? My problem with this idea is that it is essentially equivalent to putting money in the banks directly. There's a reason that these assets are valued so poorly. If we buy them for real market value, then it's of no use to the banks, so what we have to do is essentially buy them for more than they are worth, with an almost guaranteed loss.

And what is the result of this? The banks have more money and zero accountability. They can do whatever they want with this money, such as buy more bad assets or keep it in the vault (thus doing nothing to open up credit markets). What we're talking about is a blank check.

Another option being discussed today is the idea of insuring bad assets for private buyers. That may sound different, but in terms of dollars and cents, there is absolutely no difference. This insurance will merely prop up the price of these bad assets, and when they do fall below the guaranteed value, the government will pay out the difference. Yup, exactly the same but with slightly less control over the outcomes.

As I've said before, my preference is to use bailout money for equity swaps. Let the government buy majority stakes in these banks in return for cash. The government can then shepherd them through these tough times, forcing them to act responsibly while giving them some breathing room. We can insure that they don't hold on to bailout money, but instead circulate it back into the credit market. Then, when the crisis is over and the nationalized banks regain solvency, the government can sell back their stake at a profit to the taxpayers. Win-win! Are there any losers in this? Yup: the private shareholders will see a drop in the value of their shares when more need to be issued to the government in return for the cash. But that's what happens when you invest in an underperforming stock, right? Caveat emptor, laissez-faire capitalists.

The government wouldn't need to pass any complex regulations on how bailed out banks can pay their executives or spend the bailout money; since the government would be in charge, it could dictate by fiat on a case by case basis. Of course, the government would need to create a trust corporation to handle these things on a day-to-day basis. But there is a precedent here.

Philosophy 101: The Existence of Free Will

I'm feeling a bit free-wheeling today, and current political news is short on controversial topics that I feel qualified to comment on. As a result, I'm going to make an attempt to explain my views on "free will." This is an old topic for me, but I haven't written about it for a while, so I figured I'd revisit it before I forgot the particulars.

So what is "free will?" Ask ten people and you'll probably get ten answers. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to try to isolate the fundamental ingredients to as broad an understanding of the concept as I can. After a lot of rumination, I believe I've identified two essential traits of free will:

• Nondeterminism: A free actor's actions cannot be predicted ahead of time, even theoretically. If you repeated the same scenario with identical conditions, it is conceivable that a free actor would choose differently each time.
• Primary Causation: Nondeterminism is not enough; alone, it only implies randomness. To distinguish nondeterminism from a mere roll of the dice, the free actor needs to be the sole causitive agent of the choice. To the extent that one is free, one must be the "first cause" of one's choice.
  

I think this leaves us with a good working model. Now, keep in mind that, in practice, even believers in free will tend not to imagine that the aspect of "primary causation" is complete. A choice may be influenced by many external factors, but adherents will claim that despite such external "urging," the final choice is at least partly free, and believe there is a certain aspect of the decision making process that is more than just a set of genes reacting to the environment. The concept of primary causation is an attempt to express "ownership" of a choice; if a decision comes down to a purely random determination, then the actor is no more responsible for it than anyone else.

Ah, that word: responsibility. This word is at the core of the concept of free will. One motivation for the idea of free will is to assign metaphysical responsibility for the decisions we make. After all, if we are not the authors of our own actions, then how can we be morally culpable? Well, the Greeks did not have such a problem with fatalism and morality, but most monotheists (with the notable exception of Lutherans) do not see morality as compatible with predestination. The ideologies behind this could be a long discussion in itself, so we're not going to go too far down that road, but I think it's important to look at one of the motivations for this belief in free will.

Moving right along...

If it's not already clear, I do not believe in free will. The reason for this is as simple as elucidating the two principles that I described; what we are left with is a largely empty and useless concept.

Why is that? Well, if the decision making process is nondeterministic, and entirely self-originated, then the problem with it is that it is ineducable. How is a person to learn to behave properly if the process is isolated from external cause and effect? It should be clear that this is the case when we are using a model of absolute free will. Once you start saying that I can learn to make better decisions, then all of a sudden our process is no longer purely self-originated. We are being influenced by what we see and experience, so the second principle is violated.

But what about in the more common case of a partially free will? I believe that the problem still exists, but to show how, we have to drill deeper, and carefully determine what we mean by "partial." In this case, it could be different things for different people, but I believe the answer is always the same. To demonstrate this, I'll explore a few examples of models of partial free will. To make this discussion easier, for the purposes of this discussion, I will abbreviate the mechanism of free will as the "will."

One typical notion of partial free will is that the will chooses which external influences to listen to. In other words, material factors determine the decision, but their importance is "weighed" by the will. The nature of the will itself may be changed, but only at its own option.

There are a couple of problems here. First, the will is only free for its first few choices; once it "lets in" environmental factors, it becomes merely another mechanistic agent. This threatens to violate the first principle (nondeterminism), although it doesn't really. The real problem here is that one's first few choices are random and uneducated, and they send one on a trajectory for the rest of one's life. Thus, while such a model is possible, it is (1) ineducable during its only free choices, and (2) more of less deterministic thereafter. Responsibility goes out the window.

In another model, the will is only free when it is "stronger" than one's baser urges. This is even more problematic. Firstly, in this model, one is not free when urges are too strong, which absolves one of much responsibility. Second, when one's choices are free, they are still subject to the problems with absolute free will: ineducability. Some people who espouse this view would further claim that the will may "choose" its own strength level. Well, this model easily collapses into the absolute model, since the will chooses when to be free.

I believe that no matter how you look at it, the problem is that no matter how one mitigates the role of the will, however narrow its actions, to the extent that it is "free," it cannot benefit from experience. In the end, it becomes something that one is born with, a more severe version of genetic destiny.

Moreover, I do have a problem with the nondeterministic aspect. To the extent that a choice is nondeterministic, it is hard to distinguish it from randomness. If we are to imagine the free will as a static machine that is mostly cut off from the real world, it would still be deterministic. A nondeterministic process is uncontrollable, especially by itself. Intuitively, the idea of a nondeterministic process seems disjoint from causation as a whole, thus contradicting the principle of primary causation. Even if they are self-originated, if they are truly random, can it be said that I am more in control of my choices than external factors? Random is random, making it impossible to point to a determining cause, primary or otherwise.

In the end, I think that you have to consider free will in terms of its goals; to justify responsibility, yes, and also perhaps to distinguish humans from machines and natural processes like chemical reactions and mountain formation. This last goal is especially wrongheaded to me. The problem here is how we regard animals, machines and other non-persons as somehow less "special" or dignified than ourselves. This might be valid from a strictly anthrocentric standpoint, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see anything to justify this. A common complaint of those who believe in free will, when challenged, is that I'm saying that "human beings are mere machines." My response is that this is the case, so long as you take out the word "mere." There is nothing base or "unspecial" about machines, clouds or animals. Certainly, they all possess sublime beauty when viewed from the proper perspective. Once again, this is rooted in Judeo-Christian metaphysics, which holds humans apart from the rest of the natural world, according us dominion over it.

At this point, it would be fair to ask what I believe in, in place of free will. In my experience, when you profess a lack of belief in free will, one is typically asked "then why do you do anything at all?" The answer to this should be quite obvious, but since questioners rarely share my point of view, it is understandable that they would not see it immediately. The answer is, I do what I do because I have no choice in the matter. I cannot choose to do nothing, because that is not my nature. When you think about it, to ask why a person who disbelieves free will would choose one thing or another is slightly absurd, because they just told you that they don't have a choice.

A more worthy line of inquiry is to ask what kind of moral system I have in the absence of a belief in free will. After all, how can one assign responsibility for an act which has not been freely chosen? The honest answer is that I treat morality as a special branch of aesthetics. A person who commits evil acts is simply undesirable and destructive to the rest of us. Just as I would discard a rotten apple, so would I see such people incarcerated or otherwise corrected. On a metaphysical level, I do not assign them "responsibility," but this does nothing to enhance their likability.

In my view, despicable acts are rarely healthy undertakings for ordinary people. Such action are usually destructive to their own well-being, internally and externally, and require some form of self-deception to justify the actions. For some rare individuals, however, such as psychopaths, this might not be the case. Such people might be genuinely better off when they torment and kill their fellow men. In my mind, such people are not doing the "wrong thing," at least for themselves. From their perspective, these actions make sense, and the feelings of others are of little consequence to them. There is no reason they should not do such things!

But that is merely from their own perspective. For the rest of us, they are despicable, and should be removed like any cancerous growth. They may not be hypocrites, but that is not the only thing that makes a person unworthy.

I do not think that the universe recognizes any kind of coherent moral code. A quick trip through the forest shows that predation and misery are integral parts of life. Morality is a very human concept, useful for organizing a harmonious society. Without it, we would not be able to coexist with each other in a cooperative society. It is man's nature to treat his fellow man decently, within the context of a common group membership. It is part of our instinct; perhaps it is knit into our DNA, but even so, I doubt that it is part of the universe's DNA.

Adventures in Gaza

As you have probably heard, Israel has been pounding the hell out of the Gaza strip with continuous airstrikes over the last week. What to make of all this? To develop a clearer understanding, we need to hearken back to July 2006.

My first impression is that this has been in the planning stages since Israel's disasterous incursion into Lebanon in 2006. There was a great losing of face in that conflict. Israel as a whole came out of it looking weak, unable to effectively deter some rag-tag paramilitaries with crusty old Soviet-era rockets. Within Israel, newly-installed prime minister Ehud Olmert took a political beating as a result. As for Hezbollah, they won by default just by surviving; their position in Lebanon was strengthened. But the biggest losers were the Lebanese. Not only were they on the receiving end of IDF bombs, but native anti-Hezbollah parties were set back at least a decade.

In this light, the campaign to bomb Gaza in retaliation for (mostly harmless, relatively speaking) rocket attacks sounds a lot like an attempt to reverse the failures of 2006. Israel is trying to show that yes, it can keeps its citizens safe, and no, a bunch of rag-tag terrorists cannot stand up to the IDF. At the very least, I am confident that the events of 2006 are weighing heavily on the minds of Israelis at this time.

Of course, it seems like Israel is not going to be satisfied until Hamas is utterly destroyed. Anything less might be interpreted as failure, considering Israel's significant military advantages here. If Hamas is able to survive, they can probably regroup quickly, since the sympathy of the Arab world is now on their side.

I think this demonstrates a certain flaw in political thinking that I have frequently encountered since 9/11. These popular organizations cannot be challenged the same way that you can attack a state. Even if you kill 80% of their members, they can recruit new members to fill their ranks very easily. Money, land and even weapons are of little consequence to groups like Hamas and Al Queda: they can always get more. The only resource that they are utterly dependent on is public sentiment.

In fact, attacking them without public support will invariably strengthen such groups (let's call them VNGO's, for Violent Non-Government Organizations). Why is this? Consider that such VNGO's with popular support will live indivisibly among a civilian populace. In such instances, it is impossible to attack them with precision, so civilian casualties are unavoidable. This produces outrage, which in turn supplies the next generation of recruits. Even if the attacker is tenacious enough to wipe out the targeted VNGO, in the process, they will likely have engendered enough resentment to produce whole new organizations!

Consider the tight extended family networks one encounters in Arab cultures. When you accidentally bomb a family with several children, how many new terrorists have you created? What of the children who survive, but lose their parents? What of the parents who lose their children? Can you imagine this despair?

One may argue that attacks like 9/11 do the same thing for us. However, things are different for nation states for many reasons I won't get into now, but that isn't even necessary to understand. What is necessary to understand is that it is useful for organizations like Hezbollah to incite Israeli violence for two reasons. First, because of what I've already discussed: this weakness strengthens the group itself. Second, by trapping Israel in this cycle, they bring it down to their level, and establish a moral equivalency for their actions. After all, how many people were killed by Hezbollah or Hama rockets? The IDF killed hundreds of times more innocent civilians than either faction was capable of perpetrating.

So will Israel emerge the winner from this conflict? I think they could put a big dent in Hamas in the short term, but in the long term, they are just creating more resentment, fueling another generation of terrorists, no matter which banner they flock to. They might even destroy Hamas, but at this point, do they really think they can intimidate Palestinians and Arabs into submission? I think the only ones who really stands to gain from this conflict are Israeli politicians, who will probably rise in esteem in the eyes of the Israeli populace for standing up to Hamas' provocations.

Geopolitical Dance Partners

Here in the US, the focus of current political conversations is the fiscal crisis, and speculation about what Obama is going to do about it. Heading into our prime retail quarter with signs of depressed public consumption, this is understandably on everyone's minds. Nevertheless, the world keeps on turning, and there's plenty of international situations that are going to demand President Obama's (and our) attention in the coming days. Here's a brief survey of quirky international dance partners, in no particular order:

Russia and Georgia

Russia's recent invasion and occupation of Georgia, and subsequent annexation of minority occupied territories, suprised a great many people. What does this herald? Is Russia sending a warning to would-be NATO signatories among former Soviet nations, or is Putin testing the waters to see what he can get away with? The pretense of 'peace keeping' has me concerned that it is the latter, since a warning shot would not require a continued presence, and would in fact call for a more open statement of intent. I believe that it is hard to know this without knowing the Kremlin more intimately than I. Fortunately, there are good resources out there to get us started.

India and Pakistan

The recent horrible terrorist attacks in Mumbai have us all a bit shocked, and this will certainly affect relations between these two (c'mon, admit it) unlikely nuclear powers. Pakistan is, of course, a setting for many volatile ingredients, such as the previously alluded to nuclear weapons, Muslim extremism at all levels of society, and the probable presence of our good friend Osama Bin Laden. Obama has stated a willingness to send the US military on forrays into Pakistan, and bagging Bin Laden would certainly be a feather in his cap.

Israel and Palestine

The perennial international clusterfuck. What can I say about this? It continue to be bleak, with a forecast of bleak continuing through until Armageddon. My cursory take on the situation is that the dynamics of the situation greatly restrict the choices of even the most progressively-minded individuals. Concessions by either side risk legitimizing any hardline tactics that the other side has taken (terrorism/crackdowns, two sides of the same coin). This gives the whack jobs the power to veto any peace process which does not meet their entirely unrealistic requirements.

The funny thing is that, atheist though I am, I think that this is the kind of situation that stands to benefit from religious leadership. True spiritual leaders are able to appeal to politicians and common people alike to transcend the immediate worldly concerns, life-and-death though they may be. Of course, we all know how this logic does not apply to this particular situation, to put it mildly.

Iraq and Afghanistan

The relationship here is, of course, their role in US strategy in the Bush administration's so-called 'War On Terror'. I think it's safe to say that Obama is going to change the strategic focus of this 'war' from a grand project to reform the Middle East into something far less ambitious. But will it all be quietly put away, or will Obama turn this war machine to some other purpose? What will be the new strategy with regard to Afghanistan? I'd like to hear something about real goals and timetables (be they ever so subject to revision).

Iran and North Korea

Both countries have much in common. For one, they both have taken steps towards developing nuclear weapons, although they vary in terms of how far they are, and how open they are about it (NK goes further in both regards). For both countries, an invasion is an impracticality; North Korea could reduce Seoul to cinders before we could take out their front lines, and Iran's Shi'ite heritage would stir up even more unrest in Iraq, were we to invade. And in both cases, we cannot reliably take out their weapons facilities with targeted strikes.

But that doesn't mean the same thing is going to happen in both cases. Currently, North Korea is further down the road to a diplomatic solution that will take its finger off the nuclear trigger. However, North Korean diplomacy can be charitably called "fickle", so don't be surprised if this romance is on-again/off-again.

But what of Iran? Israel could jump the gun, or otherwise force our hand. And the inevitable pullout from Iraq may free up US forces to 'negotiate' a bit more credibly with Iran. But, who knows?

Economic crisis snapshot

The current worldwide economic crisis is apparently leaving very few players untouched. Yesterday, Citigroup stock dropped so precipitously that it is in danger of falling below the lowest price that mutual funds will hold onto ($5). If it creeps below this line, we could see a whole lot of Citigroup stock hitting the market at once, which would inevitably send the price into a death spiral.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of talk about GM, and it's request for a bailout. Most people seem to be against it, for several reasons: (A) GM is not a financial company, so where do the bailouts end? Can the corner service station apply? (B) GM has been making shitty cars for a couple of decades now; it's not like all their problems stem from the current crisis. Most people feel that companies who are unable to compete in the best of times should be left for dead.

The main case for a bailout of GM is simple pragmatism: if GM goes into chapter 7, it could add up to 3 million to the ranks of the unemployed (including dependent businesses). Still, it seems philosophically troubling. One wonders what this means for the incentives of capitalism. If you're big enough, you're immune to negative consequences? That would seem to encourage irresponsible behavior among our largest corporations.

So, what to do? The best advice I've heard is to let GM go bankrupt, but have the government help it file for chapter 11, avoiding chapter 7. Chapter 7 would call for total liquidation, while chapter 11 would lead to a partial liquidation, which can help with restructuring.

While I'm providing this crisis snapshot, I want to refute the currently-circulating talking point that this crisis is rooted in government promotion of excessive home ownership through Fannie and Freddie. This sounds good on paper, and it was certainly part of the picture. However, what's lacking from this talking point are the numbers. It's just a flat assertion with nothing to back it up. As usual, Paul Krugman, purveyor of truth, comes to the rescue with hard data.

Obama and black people

For a long time, I was completely unmoved by Obama's race. This is the last position in the world where affirmative action should be a criteria for selection, so I tried to think about his swarthy features (and Clinton's ovaries) as little as possible.

I'm still resolute in the fact that competence should be the overriding selection criteria, and in fact Barack Obama's race has almost nothing to do with why I wanted him to be president. But it does have something to do with why I'm glad he's president, if that makes any sense.

Why is this? Well, voter turnout by black people has been incredibly high due to Obama. At first glance, this may seem not only predictable, but a little cynical; after all, many of these black voters are obviously voting on a racial basis, and that seems a bit unenlightened.

However, I think this view doesn't take the black perspective into account. Black people have long felt specially excluded from participation not only in American power, but American identity. It is common sense in many lower class black communities that the deck is severely stacked against them, and that change is impossible.

I say this not to write a blank check for this perspective. Truth be told, I think this impression is dated. I think there are many opportunities that many black people do not avail themselves of, because they have become cynical. Often, a cynic is a former idealist who is tired of feeling like they've been fooled. But this can also be due to the fact that everyone around you has a cynical viewpoint, and if you do not profess the same, you will come to be seen as naive and foolish.

But perhaps Obama's election does show the extent to which this perspective is obsolete. No one is going to say that racism is no longer a factor for black people, but perhaps it is no longer the single most important factor. I think the fact is, perhaps a majority of black people have witnessed something that they no longer dared to dream as possible.

My hope is that this will refute some of the deadly cynicism in the black community, and maybe even inspire some idealism. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new age of black political involvement. And next time, they may be nearly as enthusiastic for a white candidate, not because racism is dead, but because they will have seen that it really is possible for voters to make a difference.

It's been a while! And, Obama!

Hey y'all, like the title says, it's been a while. I'm going to make a couple of quick posts to get the ball rolling again, and we'll see where that takes us.

So, Obama, huh? It could go without saying, but this is a huge breath of fresh air for those of us who have been wondering, for the last eight years, what country we're living in. It's easy to get ahead of ourselves, here. Certainly, many Obamaphiles have done just that, and the man's personality cult is well underway. But is there something more here than not-Bush? I think there is.

Before I go further, I want to qualify my position a little. I've never been head-over-heels with our president-elect, and in fact I supported Clinton for the democratic nomination. In retrospect, I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that I think I was wrong about that, but I'll get to that in a bit.

My opinion about Obama, coming out of the primaries, was that he was basically a highly polished but diluted version of Hillary, with less experience and fewer policy details. Moreover, I felt that she had a better chance in the general election. This, principally because she was polling better than anyone for a long time despite the long history of bitter and irrational attacks aimed in her direction. I figured that she was battle-tested, and that democrats on the national level tend to go through an ugly press hazing. Obama was doing fine so far, I reasoned, but he had nowhere to go but down.

Thus, I was in favor of Clinton over Obama in terms of both policy (health care, foreign policy, plans for Iraq) and prospects for victory. My feelings about McCain were somewhat ambivalent. The man never came across as the antichrist to me, but I went into the campaign with an unclear idea of where he stood on many matters, and that never changed. I know what his stated views were, but given the man's history, I felt that I really didn't know where he stood.

I could go ahead and say that McCain was a liar, but I can afford to be a bit more understanding of his situation. There was no way he was going to make it through the republican primaries without a swing to the right, and he'd need to stay there to keep that base. This would ultimately prove crippling for a "maverick" like McCain, but for me, I never could tell how much was genuine, and how much was a play to the party faithful.

Then again, either way, it did not bode well. If he was play-acting now, when would the charade end? It's not like, once elected, the president can ignore things like polls and constituencies. Thus, rather than puzzle through to the real McCain, I decided to take him on his word.

And what I heard wasn't encouraging, especially when it came to foreign affairs, his supposed strong point. This man was running as an unapologetic hawk with a little sheep's clothing for inattentive independents. When it came to economics, McCain never failed to answer "cut taxes," no matter what the question was. In this he sounded disingenuous, because he hasn't been evangelizing the free market throughout his career, unlike some people on his own staff (i.e. Phil Gramm). But once again, it doesn't matter, because that's a terribly narrow set of policy tools he's talking about.

But as the campaign wore on, I went beyond appreciating Obama for his not-Bushness, and seeing those qualities that make him attractive in his own right. Policy is not what makes Obama particularly impressive. He hasn't conveyed a strong sense of ideology or detail, and when he does announce a policy, it is rarely original.

But in retrospect, this is not a bad thing. When it comes to policy, Obama comes across as careful and pragmatic. While these are not inspiring in this particular arena, these qualities have served him better when it comes to demonstrating his efficacy and dignity. To see these qualities, we turn to Obama's campaign.

It is possible that Obama's campaign is one of the most professional and competent campaigns that has ever been run. I only truly began to appreciate this towards the eve of the election, but this is where it was most in evidence. It was at this point that the polls began to reflect the competence of Obama's strategy. Consider how cleverly he beat the Clinton campaign, fighting intelligently on a state-by-state basis. At the end of the primaries, this left only one doubt: had Obama played the primaries too well leaving himself less room to move in the general election by sacrificing those battleground states?

This concern was obliterated as we approached November 11th. Not only was Obama running strong in battleground states, but he was making McCain fight for states that republicans can generally take for granted. In terms of strategy, this is a massive coup; McCain was forced to spend money for advertising in Montana, which is just unheard of, as I understand it.

When you look at the whole thing through hindsight, it is clear that the Obama team ran a tight long term game both both primaries and general elections. This requires a lot of discipline and insight to pull off, and a lot of patience to stick to your guns during temporary setbacks. The Obama campaign made this look effortless.

Contrast this with McCain's series of Hail Mary passes, starting with his selection of Palin as VP nominee. McCain showed that he would be a poor poker player, risking it all in hand after hand on bluffs, hoping to eventually win one that would recoup all his losses.

Perhaps the most illustrative episode was when McCain temporarily canceled his first debate with Obama so he could focus on the bailout package. This looked to me, at the time, to be a bit desperate and ineffectual, and it seems like I'm not the only one who walked away with that impression. Obama, however, not only refrained from such counterproductive dramatics, but refused to be suckered into any kind of one-upsmanship. This strategy proved itself when McCain was forced eventually to take back his cancellation, and the bailout bill did not pass during the first round of negotiations. McCain partisans tried to salvage this episode by saying McCain was able to "bring House republicans to the table," but there they go again: playing to the base.

So, at the end of the day, Obama has not inspired me with his policies, but rather has impressed me with his demeanor, his discipline, his organization, and his seriousness. He has a lot of very serious challenges facing him, which is perhaps why character does matter more than policy, at this time. But if he rises to the challenge, he will easily go down in history as one of this nation's great leaders. Having never had the opportunity to truly admire my president, I'm waiting with my fingers crossed, knocking on any stray piece of wood that comes within reach.

Can We Get This Over With Already?

As the trainwreck that is McCain/Palin lurches towards the end of the line, I have this to say about election season.
I’m sick of it.

At first it was entertaining to watch the Republican faithful stumble all over themselves to make excuses for McCain, the crotchety, apparently unelectable “maverick” they’d spent the last 8 years vilifying as a “RINO” and a “Loose Cannon”. His ascendancy from outcast to war hero took but a few short months, a field of even less electable GOP idiots, and a press that was in love with his mythology.
Now, it’s just not fun anymore.
Up until the convention, McCain seemed dead in the water. The Republican Party seemed unable to muster much enthusiasm for their candidate of choice, possibly because they were well aware of how ridiculous it seemed to prop him up as the “right choice” after they’d spend the last 8 years shitting on him. Then along came Palin, and the McCain campaign enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and started showing some signs of life, until people got a whiff of what Palin was all about, that is.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of enthusiasm for her out there. She appeals to the most banal, knee-jerk, lower than the lowest common denominator pleasure centers that we, as instant gratification Americans possess. She is a shiny thing, and we Americans like shiny things. Sadly, shiny things are just a distraction, and distractions don’t last long.
A lot of people are blaming Palin for being a drag on the McCain ticket. I respectfully disagree. Palin is the only reason that McCain is still in this race, albeit marginally at this point. I think she’s easily dismissed as an over ambitious rube, but I think she will be thorn in our sides for many years to come. Why? She is far more electable, if only for the reason that she’s easy on the eyes and a lot of Americans relate to her, whether it’s because they see themselves in her, or whether it’s because they can’t see themselves in an Obama, or a Biden, everybody’s got their own reasons. And that’s OK. If McCain’s your guy, and you believe he & Palin will do a better job, damn right you should vote for them, that’s fuckin’ democracy in action, and it’s a lovely thing. (Fuckin' A)
What I find baffling (and tiresome) is how this election has become more about what the other guy is not, than what your guy is. When you’re interviewing for a job, do you spend the interview shitting on the competition? Or do you spend it selling yourself?
I support Obama, but I don’t need to paint McCain as a closet Satanist, a Nazi, or a terrorist sympathizer to make my case for him. Thankfully, neither does Obama. He has done a remarkable job of calling “bullshit” on the attacks against him without crawling into the sandbox with the idiots who’s sleazy innuendoes try to surreptuously pin everything from terrorist affiliation, to outright communism on him. So-called Christians question his faith, and even allude to his race as somehow being a benefit in this election (The affirmative action candidate!!)
Again, at first it was almost amusing to watch as the McCain campaign imploded into a mushroom cloud of desperation and sleaze. Now it’s just sad and tired, and its time for it to be over.
I am voting today for the best man for the job, not for the guy I hated less than the other guy. I am voting for the guy I think will be a better, more rational leader, not against a cartoon character created by a pack of desperate liars.
I hope the rest of you are doing the same.
Now, can I watch reruns of “Friends” and forget about this shit already?

Editorialize This: Embracing fear or humoring emotion?

It’s no surprise that I support Obama over McCain because my reasons are simple: It’s time for a change. Gosh, doesn't that sound stupid?

Maybe not.

After 8 years of George W Bush, the mistakes, the lies, the idiocy and lack of critical thinking, I’m not ready for another conservative in the white house. Let me be clear though: I’m not completely opposed to a conservative presidents but, this is the wrong time considering the choices we have. McCain is a great man, he’s proudly served our country, he’s been a pretty decent senator, but his campaign has taken a pretty rotten turn and now he's forced to tone it down.

Those that know me or follow the few posts I’ve made on FOR know that I am disgusted with the VP pick of Sarah Palin by Senator McCain; The pick alone is reason enough not to vote for him. But that’s not all, he’s sunk to the lowest lows in attacks against Obama, most of them coming from the Barracuda, as she does all the dirty work. The rhetoric of the campaign has worked his supporters into a mouth foaming frenzy with actual attendants of rallies calling for Obama’s death.



Are we joking here? We’ve got a military deeply entrenched in conflict in the Iraq and Afghanistan, a financial crisis of the ages, so many other vastly important domestic issues and they've resorted to irrational and mindless name calling and death threats?

I shouldn't be surprised, perhaps you think I’m naïve, you say, “Politicians have always used these tactics, why act like you’re shocked?” Touché, you got me there. But has it always been this bad?





But I digress, the choice for me is Obama. Why? I have 2 positions; rational and irrational.

Why the Obama/Biden ticket is the rational choice over McCain/Palin:

Intelligence, especially in the VP slot.

Policy. Obama offers specific policy changes over the one of the last 8 years. McCain also stresses policy change but is much less likely to apply many, considering his choices so far. Taking a different look at the national & international landscape from the eyes of the other party in US politics seems to be a good choice right now.

That was very generalized, I know, but I wanted to keep this somewhat brief.

Now, the irrational and emotional: first take a romantic view of the office of President of the United States and add the spice of a first black president. A black president? Come on that’s so fucking awesome, how long have we waited? This is exactly what our country needs.




See? Irrationality. I know it, but I still feel it. Aren’t all of us allowed some shallow part of our being to shine through? The key is separating this emotion from reality. You can hear it from many people, mostly conservatives, “We would love to have a black president, but we need a qualified one with experience.”

You know what? I can dig that. At least you’re taking a rational approach. Then, some of these same conservatives participate in partisan irrationalism and screw the whole thing up, “Look at McCain, the clear choice, we’ve got a great pick of Sarah Palin as VP, wow isn’t she something? A fellow maverick, my and isn’t she pretty too!!”




Alright, perhaps I’m being a bit silly now, but these people are out there!

Look, all I’m really trying to say is that with all these hard questions that need answers and all these feelings taking hold of both parties, it’s hard to sift through the bullshit and find the real answers. There are a multitude of methods; voting for the party we’re registered as, voting for purely irrational reasons or the more complex approach: examining in detail, what really is going on, how we’ve come here and where to go from here. The answer is clear, for some of us at least.

An embarrassment of riches: two good debates (my overview)

So far, I have refrained from analyzing the first presidential and vice presidential debates. The main reason for this has been distraction -- I've been occupied with other things for the last two weeks. Another is the fact that so much has already been written by so many others. But primarily, I've refrained due to the daunting challenge of doing a proper analysis, which is probably the reason that every single newspaper in the US has likewise refrained from a proper analysis.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to fix this here and now (time issues). However, I will discuss my summary reaction to each debate, to be further elaborated. Furthermore, I'm going to go out on a limb, here, and promise to provide something close to a line-by-line analysis of tonight's debate (the second presidential mix-up).

Having said that, let's begin with the first presidential debate. Obama and McCain locked horns in Mississippi for the first time on September 26th. The tone of the debate was fairly non-confrontational, substance-heavy although lacking in policy details. In terms of debate skills, both candidates did an excellent job of presenting their positions and highlighting their differences without any strong rhetorical flourishes.

So what were their stances? In terms of foreign policy, Obama is in favor of creating a drawdown timetable in Iraq and increasing our commitment to Afghanistan. On the home front, most of what was discussed pertained to the current financial crisis, with no mention of social policy issues. What we know about Obama's economic plan is that he is in favor of the bailout package, modest tax cuts for those making less than $250K, and increases (back up to pre-Bush levels) of those making more than that. He is not in favor of offshore drilling, but willing to compromise if he's able to accomplish his other energy-related objectives, which mainly features drastic funding increases for alternative energy research and development.

What of McCain? McCain's foreign policy stance does not seem to differ substantially from that of the Bush administration; he does not want to set a timetable on Iraq, although he promises an increase in our commitment to Afghanistan. While Obama is in favor of negotiating with our enemies, McCain seems to take a harder line, stating that preconditions must be achieved before talks (i.e. unilateral concessions). His energy policy seems very drill-centric, and his economic policy calls for across the board tax cuts, drastic for the top earners and pretty anemic for the lower class. Also, he is in favor of further tax cuts to small businesses.

There wasn't much in the way of debate between the candidates, although Obama's strongest points of the night consisted of several immediate and efficient rebuttals of points that McCain was making. Many people are content to comment on trivial matters such as eye contact, tone of voice and manner of address, so I'll leave that to others, except to say that neither candidate put me off in any way. All said, this debate was a victory for substance, a great forum for undecideds to window-shop for their next president.

Moving right along...last Wednesday, we were treated to the spectacle of the vice presidential debate between Biden and Palin. Going into this debate, there was rampant speculation about Palin's readiness for high office; a pair of high profile interviews showed her in an extremely poor light. Before the debate began, the bar was set low, and expectations were high for some sort of embarrassing spectacle.

On this, the debate failed to deliver. Palin didn't flub any of her lines, rambled confusedly (although ramble she did), cry or run out of the room (or request a lifeline). In so doing, Palin greatly pleased the GOP faithful, while disappointed fans of Obama and televised humiliation.

In a sense, both VP candidates walked into the debate with different, and not mutually exclusive, objectives. Palin's objective was to restore some measure of confidence in the republican presidential ticket via confidence in her, while Biden's objective was to make a strong case for Obama. As a matter of fact, both of them succeeded, or as I like to say, Palin beat expectations while Biden beat Palin.

In this way, the VP debate was as much a pleasant surprise as the presidential one. Once again, matters of substance were discussed by both candidates, although Biden was far stronger in this department. In the beginning of the debate, it would even be fair to say that Palin was winning; she was the one driving the topics and the tempo of discussion. Biden, by contrast, seemed a little taken aback by her competence, and she managed to ambush him with some decent prepared zingers.

However, Palin's victories were fairly shallow. None of her zingers had a lasting effect on the debate, except to showcase her heretofore unobserved competence. Once Biden warmed up, things changed drastically. By the second half of the night, he was the one driving the discussion and capturing attention. Indeed, by the final third of the debate, Biden's rhetoric truly soared. In my personal opinion, I have never before seen such an inspired performance in a political debate.

Here's what Joe managed to accomplish: he seemed sincere and passionate, while delivering complex points. Not only that, but it was possible to follow his somewhat complex details due to an excellent delivery (simply put, he stressed the right words, and reiterated the right points). On top of all that, Biden was able to somehow make these points contribute to three very well-defined themes: (1) Obama will set a timetable for getting out of Iraq, (2) Obama's economic policies tilt towards the middle class, and (3) McCain will continue the policies of unpopular president George Bush.

By contrast, Palin receded into the background in the second half. Once the "talking dog" novelty wore off, her points were vague to the point of being boring. The effect was striking; Biden was able to deliver complex points that grabbed your attention, while Palin couldn't distract me from a plate of Doritos with her numbing rhetoric. Yes, she was likable, and she didn't make any mistakes, but even with the lowered bar, independent voters called Biden the winner in landslide numbers.

I've already discussed Biden's themes for the night, so what were Palin's? By far, her central theme was the "maverick message": she and McCain are bipartisan Washington outsiders who will reach across the aisle to come to pragmatic solutions. This contrasted with the fact that she didn't express many major policy distinctions with the current administration. I thought that Biden did an excellent job of letting her use the maverick label all night before dismantling it towards the end of the night.

What else? I'm hard-pressed to say. Looking back, I think Palin tried as much as she could to avoid articulating anything specific. She was especially reluctant to say that she and McCain don't support extending marriage rights to gay couples, for instance.

Anyways, that's my overview. Next debate, I'll be breaking it down point-by-point, but this will have to suffice for now.

But if you want to dig deeper, here's the transcripts and some fact checking (brought to us by FactCheck.org):

First presidential debate transcript ... fact check
Vice-presidential debate transcript ... fact check

Note: More links to be added later!