Peregrine

Land of the used-to-be-free

2012-01-19T20:05:00.003-05:00

Stereotypes have notoriously bad PR. We tend to think of stereotypes negatively, but they’re useful mental shortcuts that are often accurate and without malice.

For example, politically conservative individuals favor strong national defense, small government, and a return to constitutional values.

It was no surprise to me, then, that the Supreme Court chose to hear an appeal to the constitutionality of the recent health care reform act.

At the heart of the challenge is whether the interstate commerce clause, which gives Congress the right “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” grants the federal government enough power to mandate individual health care.

Traditionally this clause has been broadly interpreted to centralize power within the federal government. Personally, I think that is typically a responsible interpretation. The founders believed the Articles of Confederation too weak to hold the states together and the Civil War outcome set a pretty clear precedent that federal authority trumped that of individual states.

Moreover, I think it’s important to consider what the framers could have reasonably anticipated when delegating state and federal power. In the 18th and 19th centuries, rule under smaller principalities would likely have been more efficient, but with modern advancements in communication and transportation infrastructures, strong, centralized governance over a country as large as the United States is much more feasible.

Still, I admit that such an interpretation is clearly arguable. What I find interesting, however, is that for all the clamoring about an overreaching government trampling the constitution over health care reform – most of which seems to come from those who know little or nothing about “Obamacare,” let alone its actual name (it’s the Affordable Care Act by the way) – little has been said about the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act.

A defense appropriations bill is passed each year to set annual defense budgets. The president is pressed to sign this legislation, particularly during election years, lest he seem weak. That’s why earmarks that typically would not pass on their own merits are often attached to this legislation.

The controversial caveat this year is the “legalization” of indefinite military detention of suspected terrorist without trial, which may include American citizens arrested on American soil.

This bill is a gross overstepping of constitutional privilege. Article One, Section Nine expressly forbids unlawful detention except in cases of “invasion or rebellion,” which, however devastating, a handful of terrorist attacks does not constitute. Also, there’s the Sixth Amendment to consider, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by jury as well as proper legal counsel.

So far this bill has been largely unchallenged though legal channels.

Obama did issue a signing statement in which he said he approved the act “because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Still, if defending our nation and our interests means sacrificing the very rights and principles we claim to defend, it’s hard to see the point in it all.

In all likelihood the defense act will go unchallenged and there’s a damn good chance that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed or overhauled to the point of ineffectiveness, all in a hypocritical defense of the Constitution.

What’s ironic is, if I’m right about the fate of these two laws, suspected terrorists under indefinite military detention will likely have better access to health care than many free Americans. Fewer freedoms to hate us for I suppose.

A Docile Democracy

2011-08-29T11:51:00.004-04:00

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a pretty interesting article on the willful ignorance of Republican presidential candidates. The following quote got me thinking:

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Given our current political climate and what I've seen from Obama, I think it's safe to say that both parties will run a candidate who pretends to believe whatever will likely get him -- or her (God forbid) -- elected.

Americans are slaves to platitudes, and there is no greater lie than this: Americans want to hear the truth.

In the so-called "Malaise Speech," Carter told Americans the truth. We cannot continue down a road of unfettered consumption in which the efforts of many serve the desires of few. Basically, he gave the American people a needed ass chewing.

He called for shared sacrifice in uniting for the common good, particularly in dealing with the energy crisis. In order to combat American dependence on foreign oil -- a phrase that today is all to familiar -- he proposed investing in programs that would create 20% of American energy through solar power by 2000, protecting the environment and revitalizing the economy.

We're not even close to that goal, and Carter lost the election the following year for a lot of reasons. One is that he told the truth about Americans to Americans, which is political suicide.

So why do we fear the truth so much? Because we're lazy. The truth isn't always good. Sometimes we have to see our faults and correct them, but correction means change and change means effort. It's just easier to accept the status quo.

It's easier to say that the current health care system provides an acceptable level of care than it is to suggest a major overhaul that would deliver universal care.

It's easier to say that climate change isn't happening than it is to make drastic changes in our energy consumption habits.

It's easier to say that evolution is just a theory than it is to ask serious questions about our faith.

It's easier to say that government is the problem and must be limited than it is to say that government could be a solution if we only work to make it better.

Carter called this a crisis a confidence, Krugman calls it a stand against science, but at the heart it's really a problem of cowardice and complacency. We don't want to know the truth because the truth is that we're scared and docile, and until we understand that anything worth having is worth sacrificing for, we'll always be in a state of perpetual malaise.

Rethinking Reagan

2011-07-19T13:02:00.006-04:00

I've been posting a lot lately about tax rates and wealth inequality, in part because the debt ceiling issue has dominated the news, but also because I view these issues as critically important.

My thinking is largely Keynesian, which explains my frequent reliance on Paul Krugman as a source. Briefly, Keynesian economics refutes the laissez-faire concept, arguing that public involvement -- particularly from the government in the form of fiscal policy -- is critical to economic growth as it can help correct irregularities in the private sector business cycle.

Keynes fell out of favor during the 1970s when the economy came to a standstill and inflation rates soared, largely due to the energy crisis at that time.

Enter Reagan and supply-side (or trickle-down) economics, which aimed to reduce inflation, cut taxes, decrease government spending and limit regulation.

Reagan unquestionably presided over a period of intense economic growth and he, along with his policies, has been deified to some degree by the modern Republican Party.

So now, when I question Reagan Almighty, several figures get thrown back at me to which I would like to add a bit of needed context.

Here are some commonly highlighted statistics from the Reagan years that I've seen praised by conservatives:

The top marginal individual income tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%
Unemployment fell from 7.1% to 5.5%
The growth rate in America's GDP rose from -0.3% to 4.1%
The federal deficit decreased from around 6% of GDP to 2.9% of GDP

These numbers are all true, and to some extent remarkable, but they don't tell the whole story.

Since America was founded by wealthy aristocrats who didn't want to pay taxes, we'll start there first -- out of respect. First, it's questionable how much tax cuts led to economic growth considering the effects of other policies.

That point aside, however, it's also important to remember that the 42% decrease in the highest tax rate didn't happen overnight. In 1981, Reagan cut the rate from 70% to 50%. The cut to 28% didn't happen until 1986, meaning that for the bulk of his administration -- including the worst Reagan recession years of 1982 and 1983 -- the highest marginal tax rate was 50%.

That 50% is well above the current rate of 35%, an increase to which is apparently off the table and unconscionable because we're currently in a recession. Go figure.

On to unemployment and the GDP. While Reagan did cut unemployment 1.6% during his two terms, it's important to remember that unemployment initially increased to around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983. Most economists credit this spike in unemployment to increased interest rates imposed to control inflation.

I actually have no problem with this policy since controlling for inflation was critically important. Once that problem was under control, interest rates were lowered which in turn led to an economic upturn, job growth, and the subsequent swelling of GDP.

I would, however, like to point out two things. First, statistical regression to the mean is pretty common. In other words, things can only get so bad until, eventually, the only way to go is up. Still, point Regan.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, increasing interest rates to control inflation in order to provide an environment for job growth is a Keynesian approach. It's a good idea, but not Reagan's. Point Keynes.

Finally, there's the deficit. First, it's worth noting that a deficit can be relatively meaningless. It's simply the annual difference between what the government takes in and what the government spends -- and notably negative. Deficits only really become problems when they are consistent as they add to the national debt.

All debt come with interest, and it's a bitch. It really eats at your income, and in the case of America, our annual interest payments on our debt total 6% of the budget. As a reference, consider that education spending accounts for only 3%. That's half for those of you who went to public schools.

I guess what I'm saying is that debt is the bigger issue, and Reagan created a lot of that. During his two terms the national debt rose from $712 billion to $2.05 trillion. Again, for the public school grads, he tripled it.

And how do you accrue so much debt? By spending a hell of a lot of money, particularly in the Department of Defense. Again during Reagan's two terms, government spending averaged 22.4% of GDP compared to the 20.6% average from 1971 to 2009 -- and remember that last number takes the Reagan years into account.

So looking back on what supply-side economics is supposed to achieve, it looks like Reagan got 3 out of 4. He lowered taxes, controlled inflation, and decreased regulation. Government spending, on the other hand, went through the damn roof.

I, however, am not against government spending -- particularly during recessions. Recessions typically occur when private sector funds dry up, causing economic stagnation that can in turn be offset by increased public spending for a limited period. This is the Keynesian approach.

Reagan followed this approach to a degree, but the greatest problem with Reaganomics is that our national love affair with it never really ended. The dual cycle of ever-decreasing taxes and ever-increasing expenditures creates a crippling debt. Raising taxes and limiting certain expenditures during times of prosperity creates a surplus that can be used to pay down debt accrued during recessions. Point Clinton.

I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer a "tax and spend" approach to the Reagan "don't tax and spend like a drunk teenager" approach as a sustainable economic model. Also, I'm wondering how drunk we must be as a nation to consider such a model fiscally responsible.

Trickle-dumb economics

2011-07-11T12:25:00.004-04:00

The debt is dominating economic news lately, and despite accusations of rampant spending, it seems as though the Democrats are the only ones taking debt reduction seriously.

This weekend Republicans scaled back their debt reduction efforts, pulling out of the bipartisan talks. House Speaker John Boehner listed Republican reasoning as follows:

Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.

The most interesting part of Republican reasoning is its complete lack of reason.

Taking tax increases off the table only leaves spending cuts as a means of deficit reduction. And although the Republican Party has done an excellent job of selling "tax and spend" as a Democratic plan of unjust wealth redistribution, they forgot a critical point: you can't redistribute wealth where it does not exist.

Fighting against the so-called tax hikes does not provide security for the middle class; rather, it represent a crusade against it. Nobody would feel the effects of most Democrat-proposed/Republican-opposed tax increases. Notice I said feel. Those with modest incomes would not see tax increases. Wealthy individuals would see tax increases, but I doubt it would meaningfully affect them.

Let's consider a few examples. First, we could eliminate the carried interest loophole. As of late, the stock market has become as much a place to make short-term profits as it is to make long-term investments. In the spirit of encouraging investing, capital gains are taxed at 15% as opposed to the rate in one's typical tax bracket -- 35% for the wealthiest among us. Translation: hedge fund managers like John Paulson, who made nearly $5 billion last year (not to mention his massive profits from betting against the market during the crash) has much of his income taxed at 15% rather than 35%. Nice to see the government looking out for the little guy.

Republicans oppose closing this loophole because...not sure. But my guess is they default to the idea that taxing the wealthy inevitably stunts job growth. Corporations and wealthy Americans must be protected from tax increases so they are free to invest in job creation, so sayeth the mighty theory of trickle-down economics.

My good friend, Stephen Colbert, once said that if the "trickle-down" were a cocktail, the recipe would go like this:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The bartender keeps giving your drink to the rich guy next to you until he vomits in your glass.

Trickle-down economics is certainly excrement of some kind. Republicans are fighting for corporate tax breaks and tax holidays, the argument being that businesses are strapped for cash and freeing up revenue will create jobs.

Horseshit.

First, the premise of this argument is false. Businesses don't exist to create jobs, they exist to turn a profit. If creating jobs leads to profit, they do it. If it doesn't they don't. Tax breaks typically don't lead to job creation, or at least they haven't in the past.

Second, most large corporations are sitting on large cash reserves. Without government or consumer support in economic growth, they likely won't spend it. So giving them more money to do nothing is moronic.

Finally, why do we have such a hard-on for the middleman -- or more precisely the corporate middleman? American workers need our help, so let's give money to big business and let them help America workers.

Why? Couldn't we help both? Why not invest in strengthening national infrastructure via works projects. Programs to better national communication and transportation efforts would provide jobs in the short term while laying a foundation for long-term economic growth, helping both American workers and corporations.

I could throw out ideas all day and someone would probably have a valid counterpoint, but one thing is indisputable: unwavering dedication to a single class of people is detrimental to the whole. The middle and lower classes will likely take a hit in the "spirit of solidarity" and the hope for recovering, while the privileged among us will remain undeservedly privileged. Putting arguments of fairness aside, this approach is just plain dangerous.

U.S.A. number 1?

2011-07-05T11:21:00.002-04:00

If Mario Kart has taught me anything, being number one is a mixed bag. You get first dibs on the latest swag and you can drop trash in the path of other contenders, but everyone is always gunning for you. And then there's the damn blue shell, seeking out first place like a socialist wrecking ball.

I guess I've never really cared if America was, in the words of Sean Hannity, "the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the earth." Since I never cared, I don't suppose I ever asked myself if I believed it. PEW recently asked that question of Americans, and it seems most of us don't.

Just under 38% of Americans believe the United States stands alone at number one. Most respondents (53%) believe America stands among the greatest countries in the world. Then there's the pessimistic 8% who believe other countries are flat out better. Also, as you might expect, conservatives tend to hold the "U.S.A. number 1" view while liberals tend to be more pluralistic with their praise.

Now that I ask myself where I stand, I suppose I don't really know. When you talk about wealth and military might, we're certainly near or at the top. Consider things like education, health care or even happiness indexes, not so much. But does that mean other countries are better than us?

I think the best answer is, "Yes, at some things." Maybe such a statement is blasphemous so near Independence Day, but I don't see it as unpatriotic. Patriotism is simply the love and support of one's country.

I love and support a great many people and things in my life, and with love comes honesty. Looking at the world as it is rather than as you hope it would be allows you to transform those hopes into reality. If we got past the platitudes we could do it.

Thankfully, according to the same PEW study, well over half of Americans believe we can solve the problems we face. I am among those individuals, but recognizing the shortcomings comes first.

Anxious as I am sitting in first place, it's a good place to be because it means your getting something right. In the end, I guess a part of me misses looking over my shoulder for the blue shell.

Is bin Laden still winning?

2011-06-11T00:09:00.004-04:00

I spent most of last month traveling in the South and Northeast, which explains the lack of posts recently, but also prompted this one.

While at an airport in Boston, I experienced the infamous full body scanners. I was not a fan -- probably because I accidentally left a quarter in my pocket, which won me the prize of a figurative and literal groping of my coin purse.

As I sat on the plane on my way back home, I wouldn't say that I felt violated, but I didn't feel any safer.

Before I had even arrived in Boston, I spent several days in New York. While there I took the subway most everywhere I couldn't walk. Also, to save money I decided to take a train to from New York to Boston rather than fly. Once in Boston, I walked most places, but used the train and transit bus system for longer trips.

At no point on either the subway, the bus or the commuter train was I or my belongings inspected. The most I ever needed was a ticket and a drivers license. If someone had the desire, he or she could easily blow any of those transit cars to hell and back.

I'm not saying I want all travel to be like it is in airports or that I want to blow anything up (talking to you government employee who reads every blog), but it did get me thinking about how selective we are in our screening. Airport travel is a bitch because of 9/11 -- or more of a bitch now anyway -- but that's a seemingly random selection.

Many people fear flying naturally, but bin Laden enhanced that fear and scarred our collective memory. But then again, that was the point.

Terrorism, as defined by the American Heritage dictionary, is "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Some people might say that bin Laden's actions failed, that his death marks a victory and that we were not coerced, because as every action movie buff knows, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

I, on the other hand, could care less about negotiating with terrorists. I'm more concerned about how we negotiated with ourselves.

Freedom and security exist in an inversely proportional relationship. As we increase one, we sacrifice from the other. Maintaining that balance is tricky, but we've swung too far in favor of security following 9/11. Hell, even the fact that "post-9/11 America" is a commonly used phrase speaks to some kind of change anyway.

Think of the costs in money, liberty and lives that came from two botched wars, the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, etc. And still we aren't safe -- and never will be. There are too many contingencies and dangers we simply can't prevent without sacrificing the very ideals that make us who we are.

I'm not arguing for a security free-for-all. All I'm saying is that without liberty, it's the pursuit happiness in this life may not be worth it. Also, taking off our fucking shoes before we board a plane doesn't make us safer, it just makes us look stupid.

The golden outhouse

2011-04-19T16:47:00.004-04:00

I have a distinctly postmodern view of the world. I don't really believe we interact with the environment around us as it exists; we interact with the environment around us as we perceive it to exist.

It only makes sense, then, that perception is everything -- or maybe the only thing. It truly governs our behavior.

Consider, for example, how much time we spend projecting our own desired personae. The cars we drive say something about us beyond the fact that we go from A to B. Our clothing communicates different messages beyond the fact that we don't like being naked. Basic hygiene aids in courtship as much as it prevents disease.

So are institutions any different from individuals? Probably not considering that institutions are comprised of individuals.

What you see above is the newly renovated Freedom Park, between Second and Third Streets on the University of Louisville campus. This is one part of several beautification projects the university has undertaken over the past year, the total cost of which is about $7 million.

U of L argues that these projects are "designed to improve student safety and provide more convenient access onto and around campus." That, of course, is untrue. A brick sidewalk is so safer to cross than one made of asphalt, and I never found the campus difficult to access -- at least by foot.

In reality, I believe the university was trying to impress the Phi Beta Kappa Society, whose members -- coincidentally -- appeared on campus this spring for a site visit. If you want the prestige that comes with a PBK chapter, you have to look like you warrant it. The perception becomes important.

But the perception doesn't become the reality.

Looking as though you deserve prestige is not the same as actually deserving it. I don't think the University of Louisville is a bad educational institution. Quite the opposite actually. Still, we could be doing more.

My perception of these beautification projects is that we are wasting money. Imagine what else we could do with $7 million beyond some aesthetic face lift. We could invest in research, technology, extracurriculars, career training, travel, TEACHING or any number of other things that add true value to the institution.

Is upkeep of the campus important? Yes. But is it $7 million important? For four small projects? Probably not.

I could take a dump in an outhouse made of wood or one made of gold. No matter how nice the gold one looks, it's still full of shit.

I'd rather focus on the educational core and build real value at the university, allowing the exterior to merely reflect the learning housed within. Instead, I worry that we're becoming just another golden outhouse, and that stinks.

I can't get no satisfaction guaranteed

2011-04-18T14:31:00.004-04:00

I spent Saturday replacing my 1970s Maytag dishwasher with a new Whirlpool. Apart from the nightmare that is installing anything remotely related to plumbing, I'm largely satisfied with the product.

What frustrates me is the purchase.

I bought the dishwasher from Lowe's, and all in it was about $400. I'm okay with that. What I wasn't okay with was the offer to extend my one year limited warranty to cover me for an additional 2 years. These maniacs wanted another $200 for that privilege.

I was angry for two reasons. First, at that price I'm better off rolling the dice. The added warranty was half the cost of the appliance, which is a ridiculous mark up. What are the odds I'll have repairs totaling more than $200 in the next three years? Slight I would say, especially considering that the average lifespan of a dishwasher is about 10 years.

That brings me to my second point: Why should I have to pay you to stand behind your product? If dishwashers are expected to last a decade, shouldn't some sense of integrity drive you to guarantee my product for at least three years? Apparently not. Instead I have to pay you to be a responsible manufacturer.

And where does Lowe's factor into this equation? Shouldn't you, as a retailer, stock your shelves with products in which you have confidence? I wouldn't want to sell junk to my customers. In fact, many of the local stores that I frequent refuse to stock certain brands because they know them to be shoddy.

I guess I'm just offended by the disrespect manufacturers and retailers routinely show their customers, who are the very people they should respect most. Still, regardless of whether you stand behind your products, your products inevitably stand for you. If this dishwasher falls apart within the next few years, I won't be buying Whirlpool again, and I won't be buying appliances from Lowe's again either.

The deficit of "me"

2011-04-13T10:47:00.003-04:00

With the increasing deficit dominating policy on both sides of the aisle, it's only natural that PEW would have something to say about the debate.

There's been a great deal of discussion concerning budget cuts, but tax increases have been a taboo subject. As of December, however, 65% of Americans favored not only cuts to major programs but also tax increases to combat the deficit.

My guess is that these opinions stem from simple input/output calculations: if you want to balance a budget, limit what goes out and increase what comes in. Makes sense.

Still, what interests me most is the following:

The public's view of the deficit is often summarized as follows: Yes, Americans agree that the nation's finances are in a precarious state and, yes, something needs to be done. Yet they overwhelmingly reject any specific ideas for reducing the deficit -- particularly when it comes to changes in entitlement programs.

In essence: we need to cut back on spending, and by we I mean you.

I can't say I'm surprised. As the "me generation" of baby boomers approaches retirement, it's only natural for self-interest to kick in. I'd like to say that as the millennials age into adulthood that we'd be more selfless, but I don't see it. I'm constantly thinking of ways to trim my budget and I don't even want to give up cable TV; imagine how hard I'd fight for social security.

I think it's only natural that in times of overt selfishness we look back nostalgically to the traditionalists, the so-called "greatest generation." Somehow they seemed more collectivist, more selfless.

Really, though, I think they just had a better understanding of how to make selfishness work. They seemed to focus more on us than me, but consider that definitionally I am a part of us. Therefore, benefiting the whole means I sacrifice for others in some way and others sacrifice for me in another way. In this manner we advance the interest of the self by consistently advancing the interests of the whole.

Some call that selflessness. I'd call it enlightened self-interest. Either way I think it would work. We might all fair better if we understood the numerous and intricate ways that all the "mes" are connected to create the "us." Maybe then we -- and by we I do mean we -- could dig ourselves out of this mess.

Squatters

2011-04-05T15:57:00.002-04:00

It appears that the federal government may be headed for a standstill over budget debates, and all I want to know is this: What are the Republicans smoking and where can I get some?

Actually, I think I can answer my own question. Looking at the Republican proposal and the reasoning for it, I'd say it's a giant joint of cognitive dissonance. I honestly have no idea how heads are not exploding; at lest then they could genuinely talk out of both sides of their mouths.

The argument -- as usually -- is that government is too big and that shrinking it will help us escape crushing debt. Our current government is headed for a downfall, to which the budget plan eloquently speaks:

This is not the future of a proud and prosperous nation. It is the future of a nation in decline — its best days come and gone. The only solutions to a debt crisis would be truly painful. Massive tax increases, sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs, runaway inflation, or all three.

So to avoid this nightmare scenario of sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs, it's critical that we make sudden and disruptive cuts to vital programs. Genius.

But here's the part that is absolute insanity, as quoted from The New York Times:

The plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent.

Jesus...fucking...Christ.

You know what sounds like a great way to get out of debt? Stop levying taxes on those with money. That would definitely work. That's like trying to make a mortgage payment by quitting your job. You'd be thrown out on your ass, or squatting in your own home.

But perhaps that metaphor is appropriate, because that's what these rich bastards have become: squatters. Innovations in communication, transportation, and technology -- many of which were made possible through government-funded research -- led to advances in infrastructure which in turn created fertile environments for business growth.

But now that the rent is due they're crying broke. Being generous landlords we gave them a few extra decades to come up with the money. After all, they had nowhere to go. But you turn around and what do you see? A handful of billionaires squatting on the hard work and achievements of the masses.

I don't know about you, but I'm thin on patience sick of excuses. The first of the month has come and gone, so give me my check or get the fuck of my lawn.

The dangers of great expectations

2011-03-21T09:37:00.002-04:00

I firmly believe in the importance of expecting great things from yourself. Too often people just quit because it's too hard or they think goals are given, not earned. I find that level of apathy irritating.

Yet it's interesting how we can expect so little from ourselves and so much from the things that make up our daily lives. I think comedian Louis C.K. sums it up well.

I'm guilty. I'm always so caught up in matters of money and trying to keep up with the Joneses, but I never stop to ask why. Why do I want this particular thing? Do I really want it? Do I really need it? Or do I just think I do because that's just what people do?

I honestly don't know. I'm not sure if happiness comes from personal satisfaction or the accumulation of stuff. If I had to guess, it's probably both.

Most of the purchases I've made that truly contribute to my happiness have led to self-actualization through connections to others.

I've spent a ton of money on music equipment, but it opened me up to a whole new world of creativity and connected me to a social group that would have otherwise been completely alien.

I've spent a ridiculous of time consuming college sporting events, but they've enabled me to bond meaningfully with my father.

I've spent a lot on video games, but through the power of X-Box and the Internet, those games became kind of a social network that helped me stay connected to friends miles away.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can foster creativity and connectedness, and to me those are the roots of happiness.

In the end, however, I think we'd all be better off if we expected as much from ourselves as we do from the often unnoticed technological miracles that surround us daily. Without such expectations, how fast I can download music from iTunes doesn't really matter.

Now to see if my stupid phone can download that fart noise application. Then my life will be truly complete...

The days after DOMA

2011-03-02T10:40:00.002-05:00

With the unrest in the Middle East and the constant debate over government spending dominating the political and news landscapes, one important story flew under the radar last week -- at least to some extent. President Barack Obama is refusing to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will no longer force the Justice Department to defend the law in court, opening the door for the future legalization of gay marriage and admitting that refusing that right in the first place is a violation of civil rights.

In a word: finally. I've criticize Obama pretty harshly on many of his social policies and his failure to stand up for the electorate. Lately, however, it seems that principle trumps political expedience, which it typically should.

Still, it's a bit odd for the executive branch to declare a law unconstitutional, as that is typically the role of the Supreme Court. Though uncommon, this move is not without precedent. But as one would expect, there are oppositional voices from conservatives.

"Some conservatives questioned Mr. Obama’s timing and accused him of trying to change the subject from spending cuts to social causes," said Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times.

I think this criticism is accurate, but neither party really has grounds to accuse the other of altering national discourse for political gain. It happens constantly. In 2004, the Republicans rode the threat of terrorism and national moral erosion into the White House. Obama did the same in 2008 by shifting the focus to domestic issues. Then there's the 2010 election, when concerns over deficit spending put Republicans back in control of the House. So how is this different? It's not. Moving on.

This is my personal favorite among the dissenters: "This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the president override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land." This statement comes from Republican Texas Rep. Lamar Smith.

Personal views always inform political and legal decision. Why do you think the approval of Supreme Court justices takes so damn long? We vet their personal views. The law is really just a social contract that reflects our collective personal views concerning what we deem acceptable and unacceptable at the time of its writing. As our views change, so does the law, though much more slowly.

My big question in all this goes to the Republicans, supposed champions of personal freedom and limited government: Why do you care about how two consenting adults choose to live their lives and why should the government involve itself in such decisions? To me, their stance it the epitome of hypocrisy. Score one for freedom!

Spend, save or draw?

2011-02-15T11:06:00.002-05:00

Surprisingly, few Americans support decreases in federal government spending.

Have a look at this graphic from the PEW Research Center study:

In only two areas -- unemployment benefits and aid to the world's needy -- does the public favor a decrease over an increase.

I say these results are surprising for two reasons. First, it seemed as though the midterm elections were focused on deficit spending and decreasing federal spending as a whole. As it turns out, most people aren't ready to make those cuts. Perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Second, the wave of Tea Party candidates pushed an agenda of lower taxes. But lowering taxes and preserving the Bush tax cuts, while at the same time increasing spending, will inevitably lead to a deficit. We can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, perhaps we don't want it both ways. In a previous post, I pointed out that most Americans don't feel overtaxed. Again, perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Regardless, until the silent majority finds its voice, we're looking at political deadlock and party-line idiocy.

News and Comedy Central

2011-02-09T10:01:00.004-05:00

There's an interesting study out from the PEW Research Center about viewers of the Comedy Central news programs "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report."

According to PEW:

When it comes to mixing news and point of view, at least seven-in-ten NPR listeners, "Colbert Report" and "Daily Show" watchers and USA Today readers say they want news without a point of view.

As a regular viewer of these programs, I tend to agree, but I recognize the irony. Stewart and Colbert unquestionably present a point of view, and typically a politically liberal one. What makes these programs unique is that these viewpoints are disguised by satire, which has some interesting implications for what results when comedy and information mix.

Personally, I find their views to be logical and well informed and their humor to be...well, humorous. Still, maybe that's a rationalization for my own biases. Something worth thinking about...

Well enough alone

2011-02-02T11:27:00.002-05:00

Americans are split when it comes to what the federal government should do concerning the recent health care bill.

Twenty percent think we should leave it as it is, 35 percent think it should be expanded and 37 percent think it should be repealed, according to findings from the Pew Research Center.

My guess is we'll have a preservation of the status quo. The support for expansion and repeal are roughly equal, so I doubt either side has much to go on -- that is, of course, assuming Democrats don't roll over on this one, which is a damn big assumption.

It's no secret that I'm for expanding to a single-payer system. My few interactions with insurance companies have been unpleasant to say the least, and as I understand it, my insurance is damn good. Maybe my mood is telling or maybe I expect to much.

The politically interesting point of all this concerns the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, the GOP plan to repeal the health care bill would actually increase the deficit by $145 billion over the next 8 years.

Also, consider that the George W. Bush deficits were larger than those of any other president in history and that the RNC debt currently sits at $23 million.

I'm not arguing that this makes Republicans fiscally irresponsible. Deficit spending during times of economic crisis are useful ways to stimulate business growth because of reluctance to spend from the private sector. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Krugman. That Nobel Prize in Economics should carry a bit of credibility.

I am, however, arguing that Republicans are disingenuous. They are engaging in practices similar to those of the Democrats, yet they condemn the opposition. They accuse Democrats of a "tax and spend" philosophy, but at least there is an input for the output. The real Bush doctrine was "don't tax and spend anyway." It doesn't take a financial genius to see how that will play out, but I didn't hear any Republican cries for reduced spending then.

Now the new GOP policy is "don't tax, cut," but the proposed program cuts would put a minimal dent in the deficit -- or even increase it in the case of the health care debate.

In the end, I feel like being the party of "no" is just a hard habit to break. Opposition isn't bad, but when it's blind, it can become stupid and down right dangerous, as my good friends at the Onion point out.

Fatherhood

2011-02-01T11:31:00.004-05:00

Nearly 70% of Americans see the trend toward single-motherhood as societally damaging, according to a study from the Pew Research Center. Continuing with my recent conservative trend, I'm throwing my lot in with the majority.

I'm not saying that being a single mother is necessarily bad, or that entering a loveless marriage or "staying together for the kids" is a good idea. However, there have been numerous studies highlighting the positive social and psychological effects of a two-parent home.

The strengths and weaknesses of one parent tend to balance out in the other, often resulting in more well-adjusted kids. I think family is critically important and that children benefit from positive male role models.

However, I seriously doubt that the nuclear family has a monopoly on producing people of good character. Still, I would bet that a commitment to childrearing beyond just the mother provides a definite boost.

Renewed focus on infrastructure

2011-01-26T11:49:00.003-05:00

President Obama alluded to advancing U.S. infrastructure in his State of the Union address, a change that I find refreshing.

Liberal as I may be, I don't think the federal government can sustainably create jobs. At best it offers a Band-Aid that can't protect a wound forever. It can, however, protect a wound long enough to heal and return to normal.

That's what investments in infrastructure can do for the American economy. Building better roads, rail lines, airports and communication systems offers short-term job opportunities to help workers weather the unemployment storm.

Once these systems are in place, they create new opportunities for the growth of private business and the creation of sustainable, long-term employment. Such growth is good not just for business and for workers, but for the country as a whole. We need to adjust in order to ride the coming wave of globalism...that of be swept away by it.

Vindication

2011-01-25T18:09:00.002-05:00

A new study reports a dramatic decline in study time among college students.

According to authors Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks, college students in 1961 devoted 40 hours a week to study, as opposed to just 27 hours in 2004. And yes, this applies to everyone: "the declines occurred at 4-year colleges of every type, size, degree structure, and level of selectivity."

The article is written for an economics article, so the authors take a "garbage in, garbage out" approach. The concern is that, provided investment in study yields positive results -- which it likely does -- declines in study time will result in a batch of graduates that are unprepared for a competitive job market and uneducated, despite the degrees.

Babcock and Marks provided several reasons for this decline, but my favorite is the following:

Institutional standards may have evolved to meet an evolving market for college students.

In other words, colleges make more money if they admit more students, so they lower their standards to increase the customer pool. What's strange about this whole thing is that the key to a university's success is the devaluing of its own product. Anyone smell another remake of The Producers?

I, for one, am not buying into this game. Earlier this week I actually had a student remind me that I "don't teach at Yale." So I should expect less of you as a student? I don't think so. Expect more from yourself...that or drop out.

But they can't quit. They're trapped. Soon McDonald's will require a college degree from its employees. Societally, in an effort to "leave no child behind," we've let every child down. A Bachelor's degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma. It is expected and valueless, at least for my generation. What pride is there in achieving what so many others achieve?

Our real problem is that too many people attend college. Yeah, I said it, and I'll say it again: too many people attend college.

Let me be clear: I'm not blaming the students. What choice do they have? Some have no interest in the careers a college degree ideally affords, but jobs that don't truly require higher education for some reason require a degree. Other individuals, to be perfectly honest, lack the temperament or intelligence to benefit from college. But again, to get a moderately decent job, a college degree is required.

In my eyes, this system creates two major problems. First, is forces individuals who have no interest in being in the university system to go to college. Second, it devalues the degree students eventually earn because it's not that damn difficult to get one. Does a Bachelor's degree really separate you from the pack anymore? I don't think so...at least not like it once did.

I think a return to a trade-school focus is in order. Let's educate people to do what they really want to do. If a nine-to-five is your only end goal, then train for that. If your interested in something more thought-provoking and mentally challenging, then train for that.

But the incessant dumbing down of curriculum and the perpetually lowering bar are not effective ways to mine human capital or benefit students.

Group interaction and the Internet

2011-01-19T10:34:00.003-05:00

Internet users are more likely to participate in voluntary groups and organizations according to a report from the Pew Research Center. Eighty percent of Internet users are active in groups, compared to 56% of non-Internet users and 75% of the public as a whole.

While there's a lot going on in this report, the following interests me the most:

It seems that Internet use positively correlates with the level of group activity. I am, however, skeptical.

I think there might be a third variable issue here. Does using the Internet facilitate greater group interaction? Probably. But would these same individuals be active in groups without Internet access? Is there something about them that sparks a need for activity that may also drive them to use the Web as a means to placate that need? I don't know. Good questions though.

What bothers me most about this study summary is that "groups" are never operationally defined. Based on the data, I assume the researchers are pointing to more formal groups with clearly defined agendas, but it's hard to tell.

Still, I think it's worth a look.

Bowdlerizing Twain

2011-01-12T11:29:00.002-05:00

The publishers of Twain's classic, "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" -- arguably the quintessential American novel -- are releasing a revised edition, replacing all 219 uses of the word "nigger" with "slave."

I disagree with many individuals who say that such a change won't meaningfully affect the story. One of the major themes is Huck's gradual realization of the full personhood of Jim, as a man deserving of respect. The word "nigger" robs Jim of that personhood, even more so than "slave." I fear such a change compromises the integrity of the work.

Beyond damage to the book, I believe this move to be damaging to us societally. I'm reminded of a classroom debate I had with an African American woman over Faulkner's frequent use of the word "nigger." She argued that word was offensive and should be removed; I argued just the opposite. Of course that word is offensive, but to remove it is to destroy the historical context of stories of the American South during the 19th and even 20th century.

I would also argue that such editing also does a disservice to generations of suffering African Americans. The word "slave" doesn't have the same biting sting that "nigger" does. It's supposed to make us feel uncomfortable because it brings to mind a long, dark chapter of American history. Erasing that chapter of pain and oppression and repressing the memories of centuries-long injustices is far more offensive than any word could ever be.

I leave you with this clip from "The Daily Show," which I believe sums this scenario up pretty well.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mark Twain Controversy

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

Politicizing tragedy

2011-01-10T10:17:00.004-05:00

We all knew it was only a matter of time before the Gabrielle Giffords shooting became a political matter. Depending on how this plays out, it could spell political disaster for either party...or neither party.

Not surprisingly, Sarah Palin is taking the brunt of the political heat. Democrats can ally her enough with Republicans to paint the GOP as fanatical, while Republicans are eager to throw her under the bus because she and the other Tea Partiers create political problems.

At the heart of the controversy concerning Giffords is a map depicting several congressional districts overlaid by crosshairs, Giffords' district being among them. The idea was to encourage voters to remove Democrats from Republican-voting districts because these Democrats had voted in favor of the health care bill. The argument from some on the left is that her violent imagery might easily spur violence.

Palin's speeches have at times had violent undertones as well, oftentimes referred to as lock-and-load rhetoric. In April 2010 she was quoted as saying, "Don't retreat. Reload. And that is not a call for violence."

Many individuals are quick to lay some blame on Plain for the Giffords tragedy. I am not among them. Loughner seems unhinged from what I can gather. The blame should rest with the crazy person who pulled the trigger, not the crazy person with her foot perpetually lodged in her mouth.

Still, I think Palin is guilty of an intentional fallacy here. She may not mean to "call for violence," but violence is occurring, and violently politicized rhetoric like hers is likely feeding the flames.

Also, her qualifier is a bit of a dodge. If I say, "I wish someone would shoot this guy. And that's not a call for violence," it kind of is. Clearly Palin's rhetoric is not so direct, but she calls for channeling anger into action, yet provides no all to action other than to "reload."

While Palin and others may not intend to spark violence, they certainly intend to inspire hatred. At some point, hatred often boils over into violence. I don't believe Palin owes anyone an apology, despite clamoring from the left. I do, however, believe she -- and other pundits as well -- should be more deliberate with her words, as they may not always be interpreted as intended.

Different year, same shit

2011-01-04T11:52:00.004-05:00

Often I'm glad to see that some things never change; unfortunately, stupidity is among those things. House Republicans, led by incoming Speaker John Boehner, are pledging to cut $100 billion from domestic spending over the next year.

I understand the concern about spending money we don't have, and the all-to-common rhetoric of budget cuts doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the following, quoted from The New York Times:

House Republican leaders are so far not specifying which programs would bear the brunt of budget cutting, only what would escape it: spending for the military, domestic security and veterans.

I'd say it's also a fair bet that social security and medicare will go largely untouched as well, unless the GOP plans on committing political suicide. According to the Pew Research Center, Republicans and Tea Partiers likely rode into office on a wave of older voters. Take away those voters' benefits and that same wave will carry them back out to sea.

That said, consider the following breakdown of federal spending:

If GOP members avoid cuts from the military, domestic security and veterans as they say they will -- and from medicare and social security as they likely will -- 53.85 percent of total federal spending will go untouched. While programs beyond these five areas are numerically greater, they are fiscally smaller.

Bottom line: this is just grandstanding. If Republicans were serious about reducing spending, they would address the real issues, and their deafening silence during the health care debate suggests they won't.

In saecula saeculorum

2010-12-08T16:51:00.004-05:00

I know my dozens of readers depend and eagerly look forward to my razor sharp political analysis, but today I'm afraid I must disappoint. As my own disappointment with the Democrats has developed into malaise, I've been reaching for something hopeful to read, so I turned to an old friend: George Orwell.

I recently finished his short essay, The English Revolution. I'm not sure I would favor the level of socialism for which he argues, but he makes several interesting points. Rather than provide some analysis, I thought I'd simply share some quotes which I found either interesting, applicable, or both. You can decide for yourselves which is which.

"Only the intellectuals, the least useful section of the middle class, gravitated towards the [socialist] movement."

"The Labour leaders wanted to go on and on, drawing their salaries and periodically swapping jobs with the Conservatives."

"People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country is in danger. [...] Above all, war brings it home to the individual that he is not altogether an individual."

"Once that is done [nationalizing industry] it becomes possible to eliminate the class of mere owners who live not by virtue of anything they produce but by the possession of title-deeds and share certificates. State-ownership implies, therefore, that nobody shall live without working."

"I only know the the right men will be there when the people really want them, for it is movements that make leaders and not leaders movements."

"Hitherto there has only been [...] Marxism, which was a German theory interpreted by Russians and unsuccessfully transplanted to England."

"But in reality, whatever may be true about democracy and totalitarianism, it is not true that they are the same. [...] And in choosing between them on chooses not so much on the strength of what they now are as of what they are capable of becoming. [...] For there is no such thing as neutrality in war; in practice one must help one side or the other."

"And turning it round to our point of view, we see the vastness of the issue before us, the all-importance of preserving our democracy more or less as we have known it. But to preserve is always to extend. The choice before us is not so much between victory and defeat as between revolution and apathy. If the thing we are fighting for is altogether destroyed, it will have been destroyed partly by our own act."

"Hitler said once that to accept defeat destroys the soul of a nation. This sounds like a piece of claptrap, but it is strictly true."

"By revolution we become more ourselves, not less. There is no question of stopping short, striking a compromise, salvaging ‘democracy,’ standing still. Nothing ever stands still. We must add to our heritage or lose it, we must grow greater or grow less, we must go forward or backward. I believe in England, and I believe that we shall go forward."

Two words: one term

2010-12-06T10:16:00.002-05:00

Last Friday a liberal friend of mine made a post to his Facebook that I was shocked to see, but I found it emblematic of larger issue, so I thought I'd share:

I just removed all my "Barak Obama" links. I know no one will run against him in the 2012 primary, but if anyone does, I will vote for that person. He's proven that he has absolutely no backbone. I regret ever having voted for him.

My response was the following:

I agree that he's a wimp, but I don't regret voting for him. Hindsight is 20/20. I think we should reelect Teddy Roosevelt. That guy knew how to get his agenda passed.

There's two points I like to make right away. First, my friend is not suggesting that we would have been better off with McCain/Palin. Instead, he's arguing we would have been better off with a different Democrat winning in 2008. Second, I'm only half joking when I say we could use another Teddy Roosevelt.

Teddy made the choices he thought were best for the people as a whole and fought tooth and nail with every political tool he had to see his policies passed. I find it incredibly ironic that the great "trust buster" was a Republican, and they hated him for it. But many people think he made the right decision not only for workers but for business as well.

Other TR decisions -- particularly concerning the Panama Canal -- are historically less popular, but he acted with conviction and thought and made a choice without regret or remorse. Say what you want about the Canal, but Teddy never lost sleep over it; I doubt Obama will have the same luxury upon his presidency's end.

Given the picture I've painted of Teddy, he might remind readers of another president we've had recently: George W. Bush. I don't like Bush because I feel his policy decisions were terrible, but they were his and he clearly owns them, and there's something to be said for that.

Do I want another Bush? No. I don't really want another presidency like Bush's because in principle I don't approve of the "bully pulpit" legislative process that his presidency represented. I believe in collaboration and compromise, but the current debate over the Bush tax cuts spurs two interesting caveats to such an approach.

First, you cannot compromise with those who have no interest in comprising with you. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman puts it, the Republican strategy is tax-cut blackmail, which is essentially the opposite of compromise. Krugman argues that the best Democratic strategy is to refuse engagement now before the blackmailing continues further, and I agree.

Second, there is no reason to assume that a compromised position is better than the position for which you currently advocate. Making such an assumption universally places process above principle. Based on the consequences that follow, there are times when compromise is warranted and times when it is not, and wise men know the difference.

Democrats, whether they admit it or not, are attempting to create greater equality of wealth by taxing the rich. Republicans ran in 2010 on reducing the deficit. Extending tax cuts will lead to greater wealth inequality and cost approximately $4 trillion over the next decade, which is anything but deficit neutral.

If Democrats fail to compromise, they actually achieve what they desire while at the same time holding Republicans true to their own campaign promises, so why compromise? Obama needs to understand -- like TR and W did -- that the role of the president is two-fold: making decisions shaped by public opinion and making decisions that shape public opinion. Voting down the tax cuts for the wealthy actually achieves both.

In any case, you have to make a damn decision, and Obama lets others make decisions for him, which makes him appear weak, it leaves Democrats searching desperately for a true leader, and it leaves progressives -- ironically enough -- hopeless. It's decision time for Obama, and the decision is this: "Do I want a second term?"

This pisses me off

2010-12-02T11:37:00.004-05:00

A vague title I know, but there's no other way to describe it. I read in The New York Times today that all 42 Republic senators signed an agreement stating that they would block all legislation for the remainder of the legislative session until a deal is reached to extend the Bush tax cuts.

I am vehemently against extending these tax cuts, but I'm more enraged by the bullying tactics employed here. When you toe the party line, you run the risk of serving only the interests of your constituents, not the interests of the people as a whole. This instance is particularly egregious because all of the Republicans are in lockstep, as though they are of one mind and not 42. Think for yourselves, and more importantly for those you serve.

What's worse is the accusation from Senator Mitch McConnell, who said, "Last month, the American people issued their verdict on the Democrats’ priorities." The implication here is that Democrats are ignoring the will of the people, which is blatantly untrue regarding the tax cut issue. Only 29% of Americans favor extending the Bush tax cuts in their entirety, which is the current Republican position. It appears that the reverse of McConnell's accusation is true: at least on this issue, Republicans are ignoring the people's will.

Regardless, we have some serious problems to deal with both domestically and abroad, and blackmailing the opposition to achieve a single victory at the expense of shutting down the legislative branch of the government is flat out irresponsible. You represent the people. You look out for their interests. You legislate. It's your damn job, so do it. Don't take your ball and go home like a whiny 4 year old. Whether you support the tax cuts or not, this move by the Senate Republicans is essentially a giant "fuck you" to the American people, and that just pisses me off.

I'm religious, but only when it's convenient

2010-11-30T15:09:00.004-05:00

Both the Left and Right are guilty of using religion to further their agendas, but each has no problem strapping on the blinders when religious doctrine runs counter to the cause. Consider the following from the Pew Research Center:

When it comes to opposing same-sex marriage and abortion -- staples of the political Right -- conservatives report their religious backgrounds as important influencers of their decision making, which makes sense. The Bible has spatterings of passages condemning homosexuality -- Leviticus 11:22-23 perhaps being the most commonly cited -- and the New Testament in particular speaks to the sanctity and importance of human life.

Those same passages that support the preservation of life likely lead conservatives to shy away from religion as an influence on beliefs surrounding the death penalty. Consequently, liberals find their religion on this issue because there is greater support for the political Left's view, namely the condemnation of the death penalty.

I don't have a problem with either side cherry picking from religious doctrine in this manner. Anyone who believes wholeheartedly in any philosophy either founded it or is too damn foolish to question it meaningfully.

I do think, however, that it is important to admit that religion is referenced only when it is personally, socially or politically expedient. This selective use means that religion -- at best -- informs our decisions, it doesn't dictate them.

If we can look past belief to justify our positions when necessary, then belief is not enough to codify our positions into law. In other words, a secular society should and does depend on reason to establish law. Religion alone is not enough.

Religion and politics

2010-11-27T12:04:00.003-05:00

The old adage to never talk about religion or politics will be broken here, as I'll be talking about both. Time to offend, I suppose. The spark: an interesting crossover between "politics in the pulpit" as the PEW Research Center calls it.

According to a recent study, 15% of churchgoers said that political information was made available to them during religious services at the time of the 2010 midterm. Even more alarming, 5% said their respective clergymen urged them to vote a particular way.

Regular readers should know that my personal faith is waning, but regardless, I believe a separation of church and state is good not only for government, but for religion too. If religion begins sticking its nose is politics, the reverse is bound to happen -- and arguably already is.

And of course there are individuals ignorant of constitutionally-based separation, perhaps the most famous being former Delaware Senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell. Granted, she is probably the most moronic of the latest crop of political sideshows, but her notoriety provides a platform for disseminating stupidity.

A point of clarification: the phrase "separation of church and state" does not explicitly appear in the constitution, but the First Amendment has been interpreted such a manner almost from its inception. Consider the following from a letter to the Danbury Baptists by Thomas Jefferson in 1802:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Most attribute the notion of separation to this letter, and the reader will notice that Jefferson justifies this notion of separation by quoting the First Amendment, so clearly there is a constitutional precedent.

Religion and politics should be separate in this country, but that wall may be eroding. I'm optimistic to see that 85% of churchgoers aren't getting political messages during services, but are they getting such messages from churches outside the walls of worship? Probably. And is the number of clergymen urging a particular vote on the rise or the decline? I would bet the former, but I hope the latter is true. Maybe a future longitudinal study will provide some answers.

Disbelief on global warming

2010-11-17T10:03:00.006-05:00

Global warming is a hot button and strangely partisan issue according to the PEW Research Center. Apparently, 53% of Republicans do not believe there is any evidence for global warming, up from 31% in 2007.

I find this shift interesting. My perception is that, about a decade ago, most Republicans shared this opinion. Then the rhetoric changed to agreeing that the problem existed, but that it was already too late to take action.

As conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke puts it: "My argument is that we can't do anything [about climate change]. So, my suggestion is to install air conditioning and buy beachfront land in Greenland."

Now we're back to disbelief. Very odd, I think.

By no means am I an expert on climate change, but my perception is that the scientific community believes it is occurring, so I defer to their expertise. Wherever you stand on this issue, I think we could all agree with Bill O'Reily; and no, that's not a typo -- I said Bill O'Reily:

"My opinion is a cleaner planet is better for everyone. So I don't care whether it's the automobiles that are making it dirty or some guys in Ohio with smoke stacks or it's the natural cycle of the universe. It doesn't matter. When we have a cleaner planet it's better for everyone. So let's all work together to get the planet clean. That's all."

That's a good starting point, I feel.

Process over substance

2010-11-15T16:15:00.007-05:00

The expiration of the Bush tax cuts is on the horizon, and since the resurgence of Republican power during the midterm elections, it seems an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy is inevitable. But why would this be, considering that -- at least during the election -- Democrats campaigned on repealing cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy and the political "left" still controls the Senate and the veto power of the presidency?

Paul Krugman offers an interesting solution in an op-ed article in today's New York Times. In short, Obama is a political pussy.

I've been avoiding such emotionally charged language in my posts as of late, but I can't hold back on it any longer. If I vote for a Republican, he or she will take action that is usually in line with the campaign rhetoric. If I vote for a Democrat, he or she will fail to represent my interests in favor of promoting bipartisanship.

As Krugman puts it, Obama "defined America’s problem as one of process, not substance." Obama and the Democrats as a whole have elected to place the process of bipartisanship above the achievement of substantive legislation, and what has that gotten us? Gitmo is still open; "don't ask, don't tell" is still in place; we still lack meaningful economic reform; campaign financing is a mess; the Supreme Court lacks leadership from the left; health care reform stopped short of, well, reform; and now the deficit disaster tax cuts will likely continue.(And isn't reducing the deficit one of your things Tea partiers? I'm just saying.)

And the right has played Obama against himself perfectly. Knowing that he seeks compromise and opens negotiations from a moderate point, they counter with an offer from the extreme right, painting Democratic policy decisions with buzz words like "socialist" or "elitist." The Democratic response is to compromise from an already compromised position, moving legislation to a new center, which is in actuality the political right.

This scenario is maddening. The real outrage from the left doesn't come from a misunderstanding on the part of the electorate, but rather a misunderstanding on the part of the politician. Voters on the progressive side of the isle have no true voice; they are relegated to voting for Democrats, who are legislative centrists at best.

So I guess my holiday wish is for the Democrats we send to Washington to stand up on behalf of their principles, if not for their constituents then for themselves. If it were me, I'd rather lose my position because I fought and failed than because I lacked the courage and political will to do what I thought was right. So sack up!

The nonvoter

2010-11-01T14:01:00.005-04:00

PEW research conducted an interesting study of nonvoters -- and considering that only 40% of adults vote in midterm election, nonvoters become that much more important.

According to PEW, when compared to likely voters, nonvoters are "younger, less educated and more financially stressed." In other words, they're Democrats.

In fact, nonvoters are typically more liberal on most issues than the general population and favor activist federal government. None of that information is particularly surprising. I'm young and financially stressed and I'd welcome a leg up too.

But if your wondering why Republicans may regain control of Congress in the coming days -- and they are projected to -- the answer is very simple. Throw out all the concern over the Citizens United ruling, the influence of corporations, the power of lobbyists, and the persuasiveness of fear, and you're left with a simple truth: Republicans vote, Democrats don't.

Reelecting Obama?

2010-10-26T15:37:00.003-04:00

The folks over at the PEW Research Center published some interesting results concerning midterm opinions about reelecting sitting presidents.

There's a lot in the study to talk about, but this chart is what interests me the most:

PEW argues that, while a majority of individuals don't want to reelect Obama (only 47% favor a second term), Obama's numbers are much higher than Reagan's were during the same time in his presidency (only 36% of Americans favored a second term for him).

There seems to me, however, to be a pattern here that PEW is overlooking. Of the presidents listed -- Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter -- only those with low midterm voter support actually succeeded in winning second terms. The election of a Republican Congress in '94 helped Clinton win in '96, and then for Reagan there was Mondale. Enough said.

If the pattern holds, perhaps a midterm Republican victory would lift Obama to a second term... that or if he runs against a political moron, Sarah Palin being the most obvious fit.

Rebublicans, taxes, and manufacturing opinion

2010-09-23T11:34:00.005-04:00

Today Republicans offered up their "Pledge to America" should they take control of the House in the upcoming elections. According to an article in The New York Times, Republicans are demanding that issues on their agenda be discussed, "including making lower tax rates for all taxpayers permanent, holding back federal spending, repealing the health-care overhaul enacted this year and reducing the federal deficit."

I find the desire to repeal the health care bill a bit odd, particularly because many of the changes it was designed to make have not yet been implemented (in fact, several points of the plan are just going into effect today). There's not much evidence to say this bill is a failure, so repeal seems premature.

Deficit spending is a problem. We should just admit that. However, during recessions and depressions, deficit spending is common and it has been argued that such practices can help economies rebound. The question is not one of should we cut spending, but when. Some feel the time is now; others think it's too soon. This debate is worth having.

This whole thing about cutting taxes and making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just odd. It seems, more than anything else, to be an attempt to placate what we perceive to be a majority view. Perceive is the key word. Consider the following from Pew reported just 3 days ago:

Most people don't feel as though they are overtaxed. This is not to say there is a call for increases, but the idea that the public is clamoring for lower taxes is a manufactured opinion. Moreover, roughly 60% of the population is for either eliminating the Bush tax cuts all together or at least eliminating them for the wealthiest among us.

The saddest -- and perhaps most dangerous -- aspect of this whole scenario is the fact that this manufactured opinion will likely shape media and political discourse during this election season. Unlike past elections which are often based on lies, this one may be based on a fabrication spun out of control, which is much more insidious.

Losing my religion

2010-09-15T09:52:00.007-04:00

It seems this new professor gig I've landed has seriously changed the focus of this blog from blind rage to curious intrigue. Hopefully you handful of readers find both as interesting as I do.

Anyway, yet again, some more numbers from Pew that I found interesting. As it turns out, over two-thirds of Americans believe religion is losing ground as an influential part of society and politics. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

An interesting change over the past 4 years, no doubt. The more intriguing question, for me anyway, is whether this decrease in influence is seen as positive or negative. According to the report, 53% see this shift as bad, while only 10% view it as positive. This is one of the few times that I, as a white male, can consider myself part of the minority. The Man is walking all over me...

Confusion over Republican policies

2010-09-14T17:48:00.004-04:00

The good folks at PEW have an interesting new study out concerning Republican counter-proposals to the agenda of Obama and the Democrats.

Overall, people seem to favor the idea of allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes at their leisure (I agree). Also, people generally oppose the replacing of Medicare with a private voucher system (I agree), yet paradoxically oppose the new health care bill (I disagree. My position on health care reform is that we didn't do enough, not that we did too much).

By far the most interesting results concern the Bush tax cuts:

People are almost evenly split across income levels about repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy; oddly, it seems that the richest Americans favor taxing the wealthy slightly more so than do the poorest. Perhaps people don't always vote their wallets after all, something I've long suspected and even known.

The way I see it, if the wealthy don't generally mind anteing up a little more, I don't see why we shouldn't take them up on the offer, considering we're broke and all.

Opinions about the "Terror Mosque"

2010-08-27T12:15:00.003-04:00

I was looking at an interesting study from the folks over at Pew concerning Americans' opinions about Islam as a whole and the building of the mosque near Ground Zero.

This graphic above I found to be most interesting. Opposition to building the mosque correlated with political conservativism, lower education, and increased age. There are still sizable percentages of liberals, young adults, and educated individuals who oppose the mosque.

I personally have now problem with it, but given my demographic that should be no surprise. My good friend Jon Stewart probably sums up this whole should-we-or-shouldn't-we debate best: "One side says our weakness emboldens jihadis. The other side says our strength embitters jihadis. How 'bout we try a new system where we don't give a fuck about what they think."

Fox commits journalistic suicide

2010-08-17T23:49:00.003-04:00

I thought MSNBC's deal with Starbucks was a horrible decision, and it was, but at least it only compromised the integrity of one show -- Morning Joe -- not the entire network. Rupert Murdoch's call for his News Corporation to donate $1 million to the Republican's Governor's Association is simply mind blowing.

I don't understand how the News Corporation -- the media group that owns Fox News and The Wall Street Journal among others -- can even claim any level of journalistic distance, objectivity, and/or integrity after this one. Unprecedented and unreal.

The only question I have is whether this is just the beginning, not only for the News Corporation but for media conglomerates in general. Is this what happens when news outlets eventually fall under the ownership of a handful of companies with narrow agendas? Say it ain't so.

Arizona and Immigration

2010-07-28T15:31:00.003-04:00

I was reading in The New York Times today that a judge has blocked several controversial parts of Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070.

Among other things, SB 1070 authorizes police officers to detain individuals whom they suspect may be illegal immigrants. It also makes the act of not carrying immigration papers a criminal misdemeanor.

Federal Judge Susan Bolton ruled that such actions allow state laws to supersede federal law and thus must not be enforced, which I feel is a weak argument.

I sympathize with the Arizona state government. Immigration is a huge issue (and potentially a problem) for the state as well as several other states along the Southern border. Federal reform is needed but never seems to come, so Arizona took action because it felt something needed to be done.

Though I sympathize, I certainly don't agree. I think Arizona acted rashly in creating a law that causes a considerable inconvenience to legal residents by mandating racial profiling on an unprecedented scale.

Regardless of your feelings about the law or Arizona's actions, I think you'd be hard pressed to defend SB 1070 as a practical solution. It's impossible to enforce a law of that magnitude; the number of suspects is simply too large. It's a massive drain on the law enforcement officials who could spend their time in more productive ways.

Consider Governor Jan Brewer's response to the ruling: "This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens."

I respect the desire to protect the citizenry, but how much does deporting illegal immigrants protect citizens -- especially when you compare the cost of doing so to a decrease in manpower to combat more serious crime?

To me the solution would be to check the legal status of anyone arrested by the police. If you are in this country illegally and are causing a great enough disturbance to merit an arrest, then a quick paperwork check is merited. If you are here illegally simply going about your day and causing no harm to anyone, why not just leave well enough alone? I just don't believe the problem is of such great magnitude.

We put the "cycle" in recycle

2010-06-28T18:16:00.009-04:00

Transitional periods are a fun part of life, but time consuming -- which explains why I haven't posted in awhile.

I recently graduated from the University of Georgia and uprooted myself from my Athens apartment to move back to my hometown, Louisville, KY. On the plus side, I have a degree. On the downside, I am now unemployed.

Since my income is next to nothing, I've been cutting back. I don't make as many purchases, I'm living in my parents basement, and an expensive beer has been redefined as PBR (which stands for "Preferred Beer of the Recession" for those of you in the dark).

One of the biggest things I've done is convert extra time into extra money by doing regular maintenance on my car myself as opposed to taking it to the shop. Typically this amounts to quick fluid changes, but recently it led to a frustrating adventure that got me thinking, so I thought I would share.

A few weeks back I flushed my car's coolant system, which resulted in about 4 gallons of tainted antifreeze of which to dispose.

Now engine coolant is some nasty stuff. Basically it consists of ethylene glycol, which is fairly poisonous and can easily kill small animals. On top of that danger, once antifreeze has been running in an engine for 30,000 miles, it collects moderately high levels of heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and chromium.

For these reasons, the EPA recommends waste antifreeze be treated as hazardous material. In most states, simply dumping it is illegal. At best you can flush small amounts down your toilet. More often than not, however, states mandate that it be recycled.

I try to be environmentally responsible and do the right thing, so I set about recycling my old antifreeze. First, I called Auto Zone to see if they would take it seeing as they recycle used engine oil. No dice.

Next, I checked the Louisville Metro Government Web site to see if the city recycling program would be of help. Turns out, the city does recycle antifreeze but "only at the staffed recycling locations."

No problem. A quick check of drop off locations and I find that there are five. The Southwest Government Center is nearest my house, so I head there.

"We don't take that," was the unexpected greeting I received. I was told to drive to an E-Scrap recycling center on Meriwether Avenue.

"We don't take that," said the staff at Meriwether. But I was in luck. A liquid recycling center on Grade Lane recycles antifreeze.

"We don't take that," was familiar by this point. The liquid recycling center told me to drive up the road to Waste Management, the company who handles most of the city's garbage disposal.

This time, a slightly different answer: "We don't recycle that." There I was told that I could just throw it away or dump in in my backyard, so long as no one was watching.

The reasoning behind that suggestion was hilarious. "Back in the old days," I was told, "engines used 100% antifreeze. Now we use that 50/50 stuff, so it's no big deal." I'm not sure if engines ever ran with 100% antifreeze in the radiator, but one half of poison is still poison.

Frustrated, I called the Louisville Metro Government for help, and they suggested I go to a staffed recycling location. Back to square one, and explaining my adventure to the nice woman trying to help. She suggested I try the Central Government Center on Outer Loop.

Success! Finally I recycled my antifreeze. It only took me an entire afternoon of crossing the city in what amounted to a 44 mile journey. Hopefully all the carbon monoxide spewing from my 1992 Plymouth didn't cancel out the good.

Now that my ordeal is over, I just have one question: Why was that so fucking hard?! With the right information, that could have been a one and done trip. Instead, I was bounced around Louisville like a damn pinball.

Still, I couldn't help think this whole scenario was a beautiful metaphor for something I'd read recently in Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff. Leonard describes the cycle that our stuff goes through from its creation to the time we simply throw it away.

Wealthier nations have depleted most of their natural resources by now, so we tend to get materials from poorer nations. Similarly, we often pass the trash buck as well because the hassle of disposal as well as the resultant environmental damage are beyond what we want to deal with.

This perpetual story of "not in my backyard" is lazy and irresponsible. That's sort of how I felt about my city when I was trying to recycle my antifreeze: like I was visiting an endless cycle of accountable individuals ducking responsibility.

In my case, however, I think it would have been simpler to just deal with the damn problem. Simply have 5 locations around the city to handle hazardous waste as opposed to one. This would be infinitely more convenient, and inconvenience is probably the biggest obstacle to environmentally sustainable behavior.

I wonder if the "hassle" of simply accepting responsibility for our own waste on the larger scale is actually less of a pain than making it someone else's problem.

Financial Reform

2010-04-22T18:51:00.003-04:00

Apologies for neglecting this blog over the past month. Since the health care bill passed I haven't had much to say about prominent issues (though I still insist that we need universal health care and I am not satisfied with the bill).

Well, the S.E.C. lawsuit against Goldman Sachs and the clear intentions of Obama and Congressional Democrats to institute meaningful financial reform have given me something to reflect upon.

Obama gave a timely speech this week in New York outlining his basic financial reform plan. I thought he did a pretty good job not only laying out his ideas, but also making an argument that banking lobbyists have promoted a false choice between free markets or strangled economy.

To me, these reforms are pretty modest, but they would go a long way at protecting consumers. Limiting executive bonuses, restricting risky investments, calling for greater transparency on derivatives, allowing shareholders a larger say in organizational policy, and shrinking the size of large banks are all good ideas. My feeling is that such measures would help get us off of this boom/bust cycle and back to something more stable, which is more desirable for most people.

This speech comes on the heels of the S.E.C.'s charge that Goldman Sachs fraudulently misled its customers into investing in mortgage-backed securities that the organization knew were worthless. On top of that, Goldman Sachs took out insurance on these securities, essentially betting that they would fail. Turning to our good friend, Jon Stewart...these fucking guys:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

These F@#king Guys - Goldman Sachs

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

It's insane to me that the scenario described above might actually be legal. Even The New York Times is reporting that the S.E.C. may actually have a difficult case in proving Goldman Sachs committed a crime. That is simply unreal.

One of the company's main arguments is that it didn't actually turn a profit on these investments, but that doesn't make its actions any less wrong. That's like saying you shouldn't be charge for robbing a bank because the money fell out of your van during the getaway.

Still, I think this legal battle is a win-win, largely because the story is too big to ignore and its implications are too great. Goldman Sachs has to fight the charges to maintain any credibility. If Goldman Sachs loses, then there is concrete proof that Wall Street banking firms are committing fraud and should thus be regulated further. If Goldman Sachs wins, people will be pissed off that what the company did is actually legal and -- hopefully -- demand reform.

What I don't understand is Republican opposition to even discussing tighter regulation. To some degree or another, most national politician are in bed with these guys, but that doesn't mean you have to get fucked. This move is political suicide. Anger at the financial district is probably the most bipartisan emotion in this country. I could understand defending them through argument (at least in theory), but to not even allow the argument to be made is just nuts. More than anything, I'm curious to see what the Republicans have up their collective sleeve on this one.

Reconciling Senate differences

2010-03-02T11:52:00.002-05:00

I've been hearing a lot about the political process of reconciliation lately, seeing as the Democratic super majority no longer exists -- and for practical purposes never really did. A large tent means diverse views, and it's hard to get everyone on the same page.

I don't really understand the process all that well, but from what I can gather, it began in 1974 to eliminate the possibility of filibustering budget-specific legislation. Since then, the use of the measure has been extended in ways it was never intended, but I like it.

Essentially, it returns us to a simple "majority rules" position. When the filibuster was introduced early in our country's history as a leftover of parliamentary procedure, political parties didn't really exist -- or at the very least they were not so divided. Gaining 60 votes for important measures was probably much easier, but now the game of politics supersedes the importance of progress, health care being just one example.

I don't really have a problem with the Republican standpoint other than the fact that they disingenuously stand for nothing. The claim is that they want to amend the bill, but the ways in which they wish to do so are largely unclear. Mostly we hear about tort reform, which would make it more difficult to sue doctors frivolously and lower the cost of health care by lowering malpractice insurance. Okay. Fine. I like that, but it's not enough.

The only other complaint I here frequently is the idea of pork barrel spending, which is a direct result of trying to set up state-run insurance pools -- which would not be an issue had the public option or single-payer system been set up nationally. The problem of pork resulted directly from a compromise that the Republicans demanded and are now scoring political points for actually landing.

It seems fairly evident to me that Republicans could care less bout health reform; rather, they are interested in defeating Obama and gaining political ground. Our good friend Mr. Stephen Colbert sums it up best:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Health Care Marriage Counseling

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Skate Expectations

It's pure politics. And the Democrats are just as guilty at this point. They need this legislation to save face, but in an attempt to pass it in a bipartisan matter, they've allowed too much compromise to water it down. It seems like everyone has forgotten that keeping their job is secondary to actually doing it.

I say it's time to use the reconciliation measure and slam this thing through. With only 51 votes needed, Democrats could easily get a public option in as part of the bill -- potentially even something resembling single-payer -- and we might see some real change.

Republicans are complaining endlessly about the process of reconciliation, arguing that it undermines the intentions of the founders, but according to The New York Times, 16 of the 22 bills passed using reconciliation were done while Republican were in control, most notably the creation of COBRA, the Bush tax cuts, and welfare reform. Republicans weren't complaining then -- Democrats were. Nobody likes to loose, and reconciliation favors the majority, but so does democracy, so deal with it.

I simply don't buy the argument that reconciliation necessarily leads to bad legislation. Legislating leads to bad legislation because people are flawed and make poor decisions. That doesn't mean, however, that legislating is bad or that reconciliation in the case of health reform will be bad. In all likelihood, we'd be better off passing a more comprehensive bill than rolling over and doing nothing.

The only problem is that it would take some courage on the part of Democrats, a resource they lack seeing as protecting their own jobs appears more important. But the reality is that Americans elected these people to affect meaningful change, and if they don't, we'll fire them just as quickly. The Republicans know this, so they're waiting it out, which is a smart move.

For the Democrats, the smart move is to take a chance and attempt to serve their constituents, to do what they think is best. Even if they lose their respective elections because of it, at least they might maintain some respect.

Growing corporate influence

2010-01-21T14:59:00.002-05:00

According to The New York Times, the Supreme Court narrowly decided (5-4) to allow corporations to give limitlessly to promote or oppose political candidates during election seasons. The ruling overturned several past precedents of campaign finance set by the Court over the last century.

I have already spoken about the danger of expanding corporate rights to the point where they outweigh the rights of the individual. Free speech exists more to protect the minority opinion than to provide grounds on which majority -- and more importantly, moneyed -- voices can drown it out. Not to mention the fact corporations are not people and should not be extended the all the rights of personhood.

The Court sided with corporate interest, which has been a predictable trend under Roberts. Blurring the lines between politics and corporate finance is dangerous ground on many fronts. As far as I can see it, there is nothing to stop the few individuals at the top of an organization from using corporate money to advance personal interests, an unhealthy proposition for organizational stockholders and democratic interests in general.

The 2010 midterm elections should provide a glimpse into how this law will effect future elections, but the bigger tell will probably come with the 2012 general elections, given the scale of the presidential race combined with the "practice round" experience from 2010. My feeling as that we are treading treacherous waters and that, years from now, we may look back on this ruling as a landmark in the erosion of personal rights and a major step in the domination of the democratic process by the wealthiest voices.

"Move Your Money" Movement

2010-01-12T13:52:00.004-05:00

I was watching The Colbert Report yesterday - which sadly appears to feature more news than NBC, CBS, or ABC - and learned about an interesting movement called, "Move Your Money."

Essentially the idea is to get money away from large, seemingly corrupt banks to prevent them from using it to lobby for loose regulation. More implicitly, however, it seems to be a punishment for wrongdoings on the part of banking institutions, which is of greater interest to me.

I've always believed that the most important vote you can make is the one you make with your dollar. For instance, I am a supporter of the American auto industry for numerous reasons, so naturally I am concerned. When manufacturers like GM, Chrysler, and Ford began seeing declines in the middle of last decade, it was because buyers cast an important - and probably correct - vote. They bought more affordable, reliable, and fuel efficient vehicles from foreign manufacturers, which, in truth, is the best thing customers can do not only for themselves but also for industry. By purchasing the best product on the market, it encouraged change on the part of failing competitors (Ford being a notable example) or the weeding out of poor products (GM and Chrysler for instance, who were rescued by taxpayer money).

I don't think people will be making a run on the major banks because doing business with them affords many conveniences (multiple branches, ATM access, etc.), but the idea intrigues me because it is simple and it probably would work: if you don't like it, don't buy it.

"It's Always Sunny" health care plan

2009-12-22T13:00:00.003-05:00

After reading over the concessions the Senate Democrats made to Republicans concerning health care, I'm noticing substantially less reform, yet it's being praised as a complete overhaul. I'm not seeing it. Inspired by the cast of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," I've decided to outline my own health care bill, which I think will work seeing as the title is just damn catch. Who doesn't want health care that is "Always Sunny?"

But first, here's a list of some Senate provisions in the latest bill that make no sense to me, information for which I have lifted directly from The New York Times:

Everyone must purchase insurance

Penalty: $95 a year per person in 2014; $350 in 2015; $750 or 2 percent of a household’s income, whichever is greater, in 2016 and beyond. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.

No Public Option

Regulating Insurance Companies

Premiums for older people cannot be more than three times the premium for young adults.

The legislation would not strip health insurance companies of their longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws.

Insurers would be required to spend more of their premium revenues — between 80 to 85 cents of every dollar — on medical claims. According to a recent Senate Commerce Committee analysis, the largest for-profit insurance companies spends about 74 cents out of every dollar on medical care in the individual market.

Cost and Coverage

$871 billion. Expected to reduce projected federal budget deficits by $132 billion.

31 million people would gain coverage, leaving 23 million uninsured.

No tax increase on the wealthy?!

I think it's good to force everyone to have some type of health insurance, but when individuals have to purchase it directly, it gets tricky. You have to introduce an overly complex system of penalties (and I have no idea what religious objections one might have to not dying) that would likely leave individuals who can't afford insurance having to pay for the privilege of having no coverage. Plus, when all that is said and done, 23 million people still have no insurance. What do we do with them?

On top of that, the regulations on insurance companies are a total joke. You can still charge the elderly a ridiculous premium triple that of young adults, not to mention this half-assed attempt to reduce overhead costs related to profits. Now, instead of 26% of our premiums going to profits for insurance companies, it's 20%; stop the fucking presses.

Medicare has an estimated 3% of overhead costs, so it would seem logical to have some sort of government plan available, but the public option is completely dead because -- God forbid -- it might put the insurance companies out of business.

And I have no idea how these companies are managing to exist beyond antitrust legislation. If you offer exemptions to antitrust laws, they have absolutely no power at all. (Speaking of which, I wonder if our "too big to fail" banks are exempt too.)

Well, I say fuck 'em. If you can't provide a needed service, then you should go out of business. It's ridiculous to profit on someone's health or lack thereof anyhow. Health is the one thing that separates us from death, and we decided to make a buck on that? And then we protect it as though it was a holy establishment? Un-fucking-believable.

And how are we going to pay for it? We're going to increase Medicare payroll taxes (I have no idea where that one came from), tax tanning service operators (I'm not making that up), tax premium health care plans (which makes no sense because it would discourage people from buying better coverage), tax health care companies (which seems logical, but more tightly regulating their profit margins would be better), and then we're going to hope the plan reforms Medicare enough to free up funds there. BUT WE"RE NOT GOING TO TAX THE WEALTHY!

I know some people say it's unfair to tax the wealthy at a rate above the rest of us. I've actually argued for eliminating income taxes in favor of a large national sales tax, but that's a different debate, and probably a fruitless one. The graduated tax system isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Still, when it comes to the rich, fuck them too. Odds are, they stepped over a lot of people to make their fortunes, or they were born into it rather than earning it. If increasing their taxes slightly to pay for universal health care is the only penalty they suffer, they're doing well. Besides, when you tax the rich, they're still fucking rich, so where's the harm?

What I don't understand is the inability to develop a plan that allows every tax-paying U.S. citizen the ability to walk into a hospital and receive care: no hoops, no health insurance exchanges, no nothing. That's the "Always Sunny" health plan, as inspired by this dialogue:

Doctor: Well, actually, Ms. Reynolds, first we need to discuss how you'll be paying for your stay.
Mac: Paying? This is a hospital.
Charlie: Yeah. Since when do you pay to stay in a hospital?
Doctor: Since always.
Charlie: Uh, no, I believe that is what taxes are for.
Mac: Yeah, you don't pay a fireman to put out a fire.
Charlie: Or a cop to shoot a guy.

It could seriously be that simple. What puzzles me the most is the Republican opposition. I understand being opposed to the bill that the Senate is producing -- seeing as I am opposed to it -- but it's their endless bitching that watered this thing down to nothing. Now the complaint is it costs to much and doesn't do enough, which is true, but whose fault is that?

I would love to see something more than a vague, three page document from that side of the aisle. Instead their position seems to be that the current health care system works fine, which is empirically false, a fact which is generally agreed upon. While I don't believe you have to offer an alternative idea to mount a good criticism of an existing one, it would be nice, because right now it feels like the Democrats are failing us and the Republicans just plain don't give a shit. Who are we supposed to vote for in November?

Waging the Afghan War

2009-12-05T13:15:00.004-05:00

I've been silent thus far on Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, mostly because I waiver on this war so frequently. Despite voting for the man, I find myself disagreeing with Obama frequently, but this is not one of those occasions.

I think he made the right decision, but no one seems happy with it. The Right doesn't think the commitment is enough, and the Left thinks it's time to end this whole thing. On this particular issue, Obama's middle ground stance seems to be the best approach.

The most common argument I've heard from the Right is that a president should "listen to his generals." Listen, yes; obey, no. Generals have a great deal of expertise, but the military component is not all that goes into a decision like this.

Americans cannot economically or emotionally handle a drastic troop increase. The current increase would cost about $1 trillion over the next decade, and during a time of 10% plus unemployment, nobody likes to see that kind of money leaving our shores.

And let's not forget the oft-forgotten fact that this war is already eight years in, and patience is wearing thin. During all the chaos of the last administration, the goals for Afghanistan were in a constant state of flux, and nearest I can tell we are yet to accomplish anything of real significance.

The recently stolen election really hurts our credibility, and that could be the most important component of all. In truth, nation building cannot work without the support of those for whom the nation is being built. Early in the war, the response from Afghans was very positive because Americans drove out an unpopular government. The problem is we replaced it with one far less stable and equally corrupt, which leads to waning support and a need for more troops. Still, there comes a point when you can't fight your way through this with force, and to his credit, Obama appears to have recognized this, hence the relatively small "surge."

And now for the Left. Their buzz word is "inherited." The democrats constantly shift the blame for the entire Middle East quagmire to the Bush administration, and for the most part I agree -- though there are several democrats who were in lock-step behind Bush and have since developed amnesia. So democrats, we get it, now please SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Blaming the previous administration for inherited problems is a tactic nearly as old as the presidency itself. It's a great way to win an election, but a shitty way to run a country. It's important to recognize who made mistakes (W, I'm looking at you), but that doesn't change the reality of now. We have to develop a way to get out of this mess, which means being a bit more forward looking.

But if you're going to look to the past, go a little farther back, let's say to the 1980s. Our fight in Afghanistan is teetering dangerously close to the missteps we made concerning the Soviet occupation. We ousted an oppressive dictator, became impatient and frustrated over the amount of invested resources, and withdrew. A country full of abandoned, pissed off young people became radicalized and the next thing you know there's a plane sticking out of a New York skyscraper.

We can't afford this mistake again, otherwise we'll have wasted countless lives and resources only to have failed in capturing the man we set out to find, essentially ending up right where we started. That's the measure of true defeat: to have accomplished nothing at the sacrifice of so much.

My biggest concern is managing the balancing act among all parties concerned. What surprises me most is that no one seems to address the fact that increased American presence in Afghanistan has been the rule rather than the exception. Eventually the point of diminishing returns will catch up to us, probably sooner than later. Hopefully we will have created some stable system in Afghanistan by then, be it democracy, theocracy, or whatever the people are ready to support. If not, we might be fucked. Ideally we can learn from that mistake, but if history is any indication, it appears that we won't

Nazi trial

2009-11-30T11:57:00.002-05:00

Accused Sobibor concentration camp guard John Demjanjuk is on trial in Germany for his alleged involvement in the Holocaust.

Apparently, the state of Israel already acquitted this guy because of a case of mistaken identity, and if Eichmann is any indication of the forgiving nature of the Jewish state, I'd say this guy is probably going to walk.

Actually, I should say roll. He's 89 years old and confined to a wheel chair. Time has done more to this guy that Germany every will. Still, in a lot of ways, he reminds me of Eichmann, particularly Hannah Arendt's famous description in the subtitle of her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.

Demjanjuk, by all accounts, is a very unassuming man. He lived in exile in the United States and is a retired autoworker, reminiscent of Eichmann's Argentinian exile and failed life as a chicken farmer. If Demjanjuk is anything like Eichmann, or at least the picture of Eichmann we get from Arendt's account, he's probably just a semi-skilled man caught up in the evils of a confusing time of national identity.

I'm not saying this excuses Demjanjuk, nor does it excuse Eichmann, but it's important to remember that you're trying a man, not the Holocaust itself. Neither of these individuals seem capable of atrocities of that scale; theirs are crimes of a lower, and perhaps less brutal kind.

At this point, however, I don't see much good sending an 89 year old man to prison. Convict him, sure, but don't send him to -- what for him at least -- constitutes a state-funded retirement home. If you want to punish him, send him back to the United States and let him deal with finding quality care at an affordable price. He'll die of exhaustion before the search is over.

Legalizing marijuana

2009-10-26T11:49:00.003-04:00

Though I remain skeptical, it appears that we could be one step closer to legalizing marijuana. I don't really see the harm in it, and the benefits look pretty good from a lay perspective.

The New York Times article only refers to medical marijuana, but opponents of complete legalization are probably correct that policies of decriminalization regarding medicinal use will eventually lead to looser laws. I don't know, but if I had to guess, moneyed interests in the pharmaceutical industry played a big role at holding up medicinal marijuana for so many years, probably because a cheaply grown plant can treat several illnesses just as well -- if not better -- than a more expensive pill.

I don't understand why we don't just legalize marijuana across the board. The drug itself is less harmful than many over-the-counter drugs and other legal recreation drugs (alcohol comes to mind). And the whole "gateway drug" argument is bullshit. Nothing about marijuana itself predisposes one to further drug use; if you're likely to experiment with one drug, you'd obviously be likely to try others.

Still, according to the PEW Research Center, the country remains divided.

Legalizing marijuana remains a controversial proposal, with 46% saying they favor removing criminal punishments for the possession of small amounts of marijuana and 49% saying it should remain a criminal offense. Support for removing the penalties for minor possession has remained steady since the 1980s, and is down slightly from the 1970s.

I'm most certainly with the 46%. I don't even understand the argument against legalization; the benefits of taxation could be astronomical -- especially for my home state of Kentucky, where we grow that stuff like madness -- not to mention the money saved on prosecution and incarceration of minor drug offenders.

I'm honestly surprised more politicians don't take a harder line on this issue. I'm not sure it would be the political suicide some fear, though Gatewood Galbraith, perennial loser in the Kentucky governor's race (and my favorite candidate because he's bat shit crazy) hasn't gained much traction with it. Someone slightly less blunt might have better luck -- I'm looking at you Schwarzenegger.

"Too big to fail" failure

2009-10-26T11:20:00.002-04:00

The New York Times reported today that Congress is trying to "rein in" companies that are "too big to fail." When I saw the headline, my first thought was, "It's about time." My second was, "I wonder if they've been following my blog rantings." Unfortunately not.

According to the NYT, the plan is as follows:

The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.

In the event that a crisis were to occur, the proposed bill sets up corporate living wills:

It would force such institutions to hold more money in reserve and make it harder for them to borrow too heavily against their assets.

If companies of this magnitude continue to exists, I feel like these steps are good measures to protect the financial system as a whole. But that begs the question, why do we let companies of this magnitude exist? I think it's time for some good ol' Roosevelt trust busting.

I don't want it to be easy for the government to step in and start running a business; that's not how a capitalist system should work, and under that model it can't. Organizations take chances with each decision they make, some leading to greatness and others to failure. Eliminating risky business ventures can slow the failure rate, but it seems to me that it would also slow invention.

Also, the idea of not borrowing too heavily against one's assets is really just common sense. However, even Adam Smith new the value of credit, and he always argued that you would be foolish not to have all of your assets working to turn a profit. Wealth is created by making your money work for you, not by you working for money.

And that's really the principle behind investing, especially in potentially high-yielding ventures like many in the stock market. Speaking of the stock market, it employs this really great method of limiting centralized power and generating wealth: splitting stocks.

Companies' boards of directors typically elect to do 2-for-1 stock splits, meaning they double the number of shares and halve the price of each. This makes stocks not only more numerous, but also more affordable, which encourages additional investing by an increased number of shareholders. This helps to generate capital for institutions and it expands the ownership power base, thus limiting it. Not to mention the fact that stocks often increase in value after a split, so it generates more wealth for shareholders as well.

The same could be done with any company that is "too big to fail." Split them into smaller companies, diversify the power base within that field, and let them compete, grow, or fail as performance dictates.

The problem is less the behavior of these companies than it is the "too big to fail" part, so let's just eliminate that and be done with it.

Resurrecting the public option

2009-10-25T14:51:00.003-04:00

It seems as though the public option might still have a chance at getting through Congress. I was reading this article in The New York Times this Sunday and I got kind of excited.

I've blogged before about the necessity of a public option -- or at least that's how I see it -- and I've been angry with the Democrats for backing down on the issue. After reading the NYT article, I won't say I stand corrected, but hats off Reid and Schumer for keeping up the fight.

I agree with McCain when he says that the Democrats have enough votes to pass a fairly progressive public option plan in the House, but that the Senate is too shaky to guarantee anything of great magnitude. In lieu of of an all-out-government-run insurance plan, we may instead see the inclusion of a "trigger" option in some of the bills floating around the capital.

Essentially, this trigger option would place a time line on insurers to meet certain legally mandated standards -- particularly concerning cost of care. If these conditions are not met, it would then trigger the creation of a government-run or nonprofit plan to enter the marketplace and create a lower, more level playing field.

In the end, this trigger plan is really just public option light, and I feel like it would accomplish the main goal of the public option as it has been described, namely keeping insurers honest. Still, since the creation of a trigger plan would only be a looming threat rather than an actual one I would rather see a true public option (I'm actually in favor of a a single-payer system, as readers already know).

Some -- including Sen. Mitch McConnell from my home state of Kentucky -- feel even the trigger option is too much:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said on "This Week" that "100 percent of Republicans have indicated that they don’t think having government in the insurance business is a good idea."

I think the Republicans are starting to run out of excuses on this one as it becomes increasingly obvious that insurers -- ironically unlike those they insure -- are simply paid up with the right people. I'm curious to see how this whole thing will play out, and I'm hopeful, but I worry that once again the voices of the many will be outweighed by the money of the few.

The social media revolution (?)

2009-10-19T12:48:00.002-04:00

A professor at UGA pointed out the above video to me last week, and though this is a bit off topic for me, I thought I would weigh in with a few observations on social media.

First, this video is not exactly a "reliable" source seeing as it is so poorly cited. I seriously doubt that Generation Y will outnumber baby boomers within the next year given the fact that boomers are just now entering their 60s -- i.e, they're not dying off -- and the birthrate for that generation was so high.

Also, given the fact that younger generations tend to use social media more than those that came before, I feel like the impact of the social media revolution is overstated. It's farcical to compare this change to the Industrial Revolution, which impacted society much more holistically.

It's also deceiving to cite the rate of growth as a real measure of impact. Radio, television, and iPods required users to buy an entirely new piece of hardware. Social networking is typically free and piggybacked off of technology individuals already possessed, namely a computer and an Internet connection.

Finally, the implicit argument that user reviews have bypassed advertisement in trust is incredibly flawed. People have always considered word-of-mouth to be a viable source of information and advertising has been experience declines in trust for decades; the introduction of social media didn't start that process.

I could point out a few other facts that I take issue with, but the ones above are the biggies.

Now, do I think social media is a fad? Absolutely not. I do believe it will change the way organizations do business, but being a student at UGA I am surrounded by what I perceive as continued overstatements of social media's reach and power.

Social media is a powerful way to connect to other individuals, but advertisers, PR practitioners, and organizations as a whole often struggle in their attempts to make social media part of their business models. That's not to say there have not been some successes, but the change is still happening, still many people act as though that change is an event of the past.

Then, there's this to consider:

As it turns out, Facebook users don't really like it when corporations try to contact them via social media. I think that social media occupies a space for users that exists somewhere between the public and private spheres, and where corporate speech fits into that framework is unclear. It seems that if an organization uses Facebook or other social media, the public is okay with that as long as they don't aggressively use that media to grow their consumer base.

Twitter users feel the same way. For organizations to find success with social media, a soft sell approach is probably the best, so the idea that corporations will "seek us out" via social media is either a false premise or a bad idea. One thing is for certain though: corporations are among us, and they are watching.

Measuring the recession

2009-10-14T20:17:00.009-04:00

Today was a good day for investors as the Dow closed at over 10,000 for the first time in longer than a year. Moreover, J.P. Morgan Chase reported some pretty good third-quarter earnings. Hopes are that other major banks, like Citigroup and Bank of America, will report high earnings later this week as well.

Does this mean the banking crisis is over? What about the recession?

That all depends on the scale one uses to measure each. Recovery in the stock market is a good thing. I checked my Scottrade account for the first time in awhile without crying, but it's not like I'm rolling in it, and neither are many other small investors.

Holistically, the economy is still suffering. The housing market is yet to bounce back and foreclosure rates are still high. In my mind, perhaps the most important number for middle-class America is the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.5 percent in September according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -- and it's probably growing.

And what about the banking industry? Well, Chase is claiming that the economic crisis -- which they directly helped cause -- has slowed consumer spending to the point where their credit card department is not expected to turn a profit until 2011. On top of that, let's not forget $25 billion they still owe the taxpayers from the June bailout, which may have been one of the worst decisions in our nation's history.

I think you could make the argument that the banking industry is worse off now than it was a year ago -- or at least it potentially could be. We're seeing a phenomenon now where large, failing banks are being purchased by larger, faltering banks. This means that institutions that were already "too big to fail" are not only continuing to fail, but are getting even bigger. Take a moment to let that settle in.

The very concept of "too large to fail" seems to connote ideas of "trusts," "pools," "monopolies," and other business practices that have been illegal for a century. Why can't we break these banks up and overhaul the system? If we allow these institutions to grow without stiff regulation -- and even with it, because we've seen how quickly that erodes -- we are begging for another meltdown. What's worse is the precedent we've set with the bailout, which encourages institutions to act frivolously know that our dime will rescue them. What the hell kind of capitalism is that?!

I guess what it comes down to is the fact that banks are paid up with the right people, so much so that it often overrides the democratic process itself. The Supreme Court's ruling on the Hilary film could make the current situation that much worse. I just wonder how much our system can stand before it collapses on itself...or maybe even implodes against itself.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T11:34:00.002-04:00

It was announced early this morning that President Obama will be awarded the Nobel Peace prize, and that leaves me in utter shock. Dr. Hollander pointed out this AP story that shows I'm not alone.

Apparently the president himself was unaware that he was even nominated. I have to say, I'm not surprised. He's now the fourth U.S. president to win the prize. Jimmy Carter won in 2002 long after his term in office expired; needless to say he had racked up an impressive resume both in and out of office. The other two presidents to win were still in office. Theodore Roosevelt won in 1906 for negotiating a peace between Japan and Russia. Woodrow Wilson won in 1919 after negotiating an end to WWI and beginning the steps to create the League of Nations, which was later replaced by the United Nations.

Obama seems a bit out of place in that group. I think he is an intelligent, well-intentioned man who most certainly has made "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," as the Nobel committee has stated. But are efforts enough? Other U.S. presidents who won the prize has results, but Obama is yet to deliver on that front.

I find it odd that the prize is going to a sitting president who has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, failed to speedily end the war in Iraq, and is seriously considering escalating the war in Afghanistan. War and peace don't really work together unless you're Leo Tolstoy, but I guess the Nobel committee thinks differently.

I think Obama would do well to decline the award. I know people spend a lifetime of effort to win one of these things, but it's clearly questionable as to whether he is deserving. An exercise in humility would do him that much more good on the international stage.

As for the home front, he's fucked either way, as conservative pundits will have a field day questioning the legitimacy of this award if he accepts(some of them don't even think he's legitimately the president); if he declines they'll argue that even he thinks he's not all that great.

In the end that choice would be mostly a personal one. I like Obama, I really do, but I'm just not convinced that he is the effective leader we all hoped for, and I certainly don't think he has the resume to justify this honor. Hopefully his future endeavors will prove me wrong.

Health Care Reform (?)

2009-10-04T22:29:00.002-04:00

Last week's news that health care reform bills featuring a public option failed to make it out of the Senate Finance Committee left me feeling that much more unsure about health care reform.

I'm a big proponent of a public option, though I'd rather we take a stronger socialist stance that would feature a single-payer plan. A lot of the arguments against the public option are that it would serve as a "Trojan Horse" that would lead to a single-payer system. Naturally, I don't see a problem with that, nor do I really follow the logic.

My figuring is that a public option would be able to provide affordable health care under reasonable conditions and rates. I think private insurance companies could compete, though they would most definitely see a drop in profits. If that means a rise in the quality of care, I'm all for it.

However, assuming private insurance companies could not compete and we actually did end up with a single-payer system, then I'm all for that too. Really all that would mean is that a privatized, profit-driven model could not provide adequate coverage and that the government could. If this scenario led to a rise in the quality of care, then where is the problem?

Still, I don't understand why public and private-run health care institutions could not coexist in a competitive marketplace. Industries like education and parcel services have existed under this model for decades and -- despite problems -- have managed to provide access to these needed services at a level that is usually acceptable. I'm not sure why health insurance would be different.

Nor do I buy into the argument that a public option or a single-payer system would put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We already have insurance executives enacting that role now, so even if the mystical government bureaucrat accusation came to fruition, I don't think things would be much different than they already are.

Insurance essentially serves as a middleman, transferring money from individuals to a pool, and then to a health care provider. Ideally, all that should occur is paying a bill, but since overhead costs for private companies is usually 20 percent higher than those of public institutions, that pool isn't as large as it could be.

Despite all these setbacks to a public option, reform is apparently taking place, and the leading bill from Max Baucus might have a chance. I'm just concerned that without a public option it won't be as sweeping a reform as we need.

The Baucus alternative to a government run plan is to set up state-run exchanges to make shopping for insurance easier. I think the idea is that the people could see if they're getting screwed. My concern is that insurers could artificially inflate their prices as a trust or pool, which would still make insurance unaffordable.

The plan calls for subsidies to help lower-income families purchase insurance but does not require employers to provide insurance to employees, nor does it require individuals to purchase insurance. If these subsidies are not enough to make health care affordable to all -- and they probably aren't seeing as an estimated 25 million people will still be without insurance in 2019 -- and if people are not forced have health insurance, then why bother?

The large expense of emergency room visits will still be shouldered by taxpayers and the system could flounder. Not to mention the fact that this bill does little to provide anything resembling universal coverage. In fact, the tax proposed on high-end plans would probably encourage people to less adequately insure themselves.

The Baucus plan is essentially an extension of Medicaid, but it doesn't seem like the bill calls for enough money to enlarge Medicaid to the required extent. Also, Baucus estimates that American families will still spend roughly 13 percent of their income on health care. I'm not sure what the number is currently, but 13 percent seems high to me.

I certainly don't have the answer to all of this mess, but I do know we need money to make this thing work, and it has to come from somewhere. It seems to me that the extra 20 percent or so that private companies take for overhead and profit would be a good place to make up the difference, but the finance committee apparently doesn't see it that way.

The truth will set you...SOLD!

2009-09-22T22:40:00.003-04:00

The New York Times reports that the Supreme Court is expected to issue a groundbreaking ruling concerning campaign finance.

The debate has been re-energized with the rare request for second arguments in a case concerning "Hillary: the Movie." The film was made by Citizens United, a conservative political group that, in this case, aimed at discrediting Senator Clinton both personally and politically during the 2008 election.

The film was not permitted to be distributed online or via DVD because the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws prohibit corporate money from being used in such a manner. The court could potentially negate those laws as well as overturn the 1990 decision in the case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which originally banned corporate money from being used to either support or oppose political candidates.

Precedents concerning the current case before the Court go much further back. In the 1886 decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, the Court extended the right of personhood to corporations (though there is considerable debate about the intention of the Court in this case, the effect remains the same). Nearly a century later in 1975, Buckley v. Valeo established a seemingly separate precedent that money constitutes a form of free expression and is thus protected under the first amendment.

Those in favor of restricting limitations on campaign finance are using the current case to connect the logical dots between 1886, 1975, and 2008. If corporations are persons, then corporations are guaranteed free speech under the first amendment. Money is a form of free speech. Therefore, limiting the amount of money a corporation can spend on any cause is a violation of the first amendment.

Logically this argument appears sound, and ordinarily I would not be against limiting free speech in any way, but I make an exception here for various reasons.

First, extending financial contributions in such a way would actually make corporations more person-like than people. People are limited to $2,400 donations to individual candidates and $30,400 to political parties per election year. Removing the cap from corporate spending places individuals' "monetary speech" below that of corporations -- though one could argue that system already exists.

Second, corporations are not actually people. The 1886 case extended the rights of individuals to corporations, but none of the responsibilities or consequences that come with those rights. An argument based on the full personhood of corporations is based on a false assumption.

Lastly, to allow infinite monetary contributions to campaigns by corporations would be an affront to representative democracy. Essentially, such a ruling would make a fact what many already assume to be true: a vote for every dollar, not for every person.

Though I am not much for argumentation on the basis of intention, I think it applies here. The creation of a corporation is intended to protect personhood by removing the business from the individual. It safeguards the personal assets of owners in the event of financial collapse or legal action. Incorporated institutions were meant to exist beyond the realm of personhood, not act on its behalf.

Moreover, the passing of the first amendment was intended to protect individuals from tyrannic rule by government; the courtroom logic that will likely play out here will place individuals under tyrannic rule by corporations. In either case, the opinions, beliefs, and values of the public become inconsequential.

Lastly, consider that the founders never considered free speech to be completely unlimited. If it were, the Constitution would not provide instances in which speech becomes criminal (i.e. treason) nor would there be similar situations in the practice of day-to-day law (i.e. perjury).

The sad news here is that we the people are probably fucked. According to The New Yorker, the Roberts Court almost always sides with industry:

In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.

I am not a believer in the idea that corporate America is evil, and I believe corporations deserve a fair shake in the legal system, but to consistently emerge the victor in the highest court in the land points to unfairness in a different direction. This matter is something about which we should all be particularly concerned.

Intelligent (?) Design

2009-09-16T01:55:00.003-04:00

I see the appeal of intelligent design, though it doesn't really make sense to me, at least insofar as I understand it, and although I have only a rudimentary understanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory, it seems more sound. That said, I'm always looking for information to fill the knowledge gaps I have, and recently I saw a NOVA special about both evolution and intelligent design that I found rather enlightening.

As a viewer, you knew going in which side was going to "win" in a science-based program like NOVA, but I felt like intelligent design had a fair chance to defend itself. It just didn't stack up to evolutionary theory.

Many people argue that intelligent design is a convenient repackaging of creationism, a point which I agree with but I feel is most certainly debatable. Sill, I would say intelligent design isn't about creationism in the same way Animal Farm isn't about Stalinist Russia. Orwell never says Napolean is Stalin or Snowball is Trotsky, but we all know the score; similarly, "intelligent design" could easily be "creation" and the "intelligent agent" behind it all could be "Creator" or "God."

Whether intelligent design constitutes religion is a huge issue concerning its potential to be taught in school sciences classes, but perhaps the more important one is whether it is even science. Let's turn to the dictionary, shall we:

science - the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena

Accordingly, for intelligent design to be science, it would have to meet the above criteria. In relation to intelligent design, one could make the argument that notions of irreducible complexity are based on observations that seek to describe and identify phenomena. However, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation are nowhere to be found.

Again, let's consult the old dictionary:

theory - a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena

Experimental investigation is based on falsifiable testing of a phenomena, and intelligent design cannot be tested. Since it cannot be tested it can never assume the status of theory. Period.

Intelligent design seems to have come about from a religious need to provide a counter to Darwinian evolution, even if that counter has no basis in science. The common critique of evolution is that it is "just a theory," as though it is some random idea that is accepted without questioning. Perhaps in the early stages that might have been a fair critique (probably not though), but over 150 years of repeated empirical testing through anthropological records and genetic experimentation have provided a large body of evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory. It has also been used as a successful model for prediction.

The bottom line is that theory is more than an idea; it is a body of work. Evolution meets this standard while intelligent design falls short, aiming only to debunk evolution and replace it with pseudoscience.

The problem is that intelligent design introduces the untestable supernatural element of an intelligent agent (i.e. God) aimed at purposeful creation. While this view could very well be true, it cannot be tested. Once the supernatural enters the debate, you've gone beyond the realm of science. To teach intelligent design in a science class would mean an expansion of the very principles that make science science.

I have no problem with the introduction of a scientific theory to counter evolution; if one exists (and I'm not aware of any that do, though there probably are some) then by all means, teach it. But intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught alongside evolution. That's a humanities course at best, but frankly I'd rather read the mythology that already exists. I see no need to add to it.

Why I hate the Democrats

2009-09-13T22:56:00.002-04:00

The New York Times reported today that the public option for health care is on its deathbed. Most of this has come from an inability of the White House and the Democratically controlled Congress to lead the debate on the issue. If the Democratic majority cannot effectually push through legislation based on a unified agenda its control of American government will be short lived.

But what else would you expect from a party of pussies?

You won the election. You control all the elected branches of government. Your run the country. Those are the rules. Instead, the minority party and the Blue Dogs have pushed the progressive agenda -- the one for which the majority of the country voted -- to the side.

I just don't get it. In every other republic in the world the majority party dictates policy. We did it here during the Bush years, and idiotic and catastrophic as many of those policy decisions were, they made it through and shit got done -- stupid as it may have been.

But that was the one beautiful thing about the Bush years: ruthless efficiency. The answer to the opposing minority was, "Fuck you, we won." That's how democracy works. Individuals are elected based on an agenda (or at least they should be; regardless of the reason for which they are elected, there are always policy plans). If you win, you get to implement your agenda. If they work, or you can make people believe they work, you get to keep your job. If not, somebody else gets a turn, and how glorious is that?

The guy I voted for won. The policies that he supported -- many of which I liked -- won by extension, but are they being implemented. The answer is a resounding "No." The failing health care reform initiative, the legislation about which I am most concerned, is a prime example of my point.

The NYT article had the following to say: “I just want to figure out what works,” Mr. Obama said in March at a White House forum. If he could drive down health costs and expand coverage “entirely through the market,” he said, “I’d be happy to do it that way.” And “if there was a way of doing it that involved more government regulation and involvement, I’m happy to do it that way, as well,” he added.

Well, given the deregulation of the health care industry and the inability of the free market to control costs and increase efficiency, I'd say the latter is the best approach. Why a health care reform bill that includes a public option and stringent restraints can't be railroaded through is beyond me.

My belief is that it could pass easily, it simply won't, and the reason is the crippling concern about public opinion, not what is best for the public. Great leaders take the citizenry down a path its not ready for, a path that ultimately leads to something better. Mediocre leaders just try to keep their jobs, and that's what we've got now.

Again, according to the NYT, the Republican response to health care reform has been one of fear: Conservatives...see the public option as a step toward a single-payer system in which the government would pay most of the nation’s health care bill and could supplant private insurers.

Well, if Obama is right about finding something that works -- and he is -- who gives a shit if the insurance companies go under provided a single-payer system means better coverage?

I know, it's "socialist," and that's scary for whatever reason, but it's not an argument against a policy, it's fear mongering based on a loaded word. I wish that just once someone would just come out and say, "Yep, it's socialist. Why is that bad?" I don't think anyone would know what to say. I'm not sure most Americans even know what socialism means, especially the ones opposed to socialist ideas provided previous arguments are a good estimator.

In the same breath these ignorant lemmings -- who have been paraded around on TV by manipulative bastards -- are calling Obama a fascist and a communist. I don't think he's either, BUT YOU CAN'T FUCKING BE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME!!!

Sill any attempt at a progressive political agenda has to bow to these dumb ass swing voters who couldn't tell their asses from holes in the ground unless Hannity or Beck showed them the way. So I say to Obama, fuck these people, fuck their uninformed political agenda, and give me my goddamn health insurance. That's why I voted for you, and if you don't deliver, then the next guy will get a turn, and that's the irony of this whole mess.

In Principle

2009-09-09T22:02:00.003-04:00

I've always thought the term "in principle" to be an annoying dodge people use to avoid taking a stand, but as of late I've been (ironically) rethinking my stance. I feel it could just as easily be a way to maintain and defend a personal ideology while at the same time adapting to an ever-changing reality.

I guess what prompted this whole thought process has been the most prevalent political idea in my mind: health care reform. I can't say I'm surprised by the amount of emotion proposing such legislation evokes. Any government decision that deals so directly with life and death is bound to have critics, myself being one. While I don't feel we're taking progressive enough action (I favor a single-payer plan), many others think the government plans to go too far.

The result has led to me watching a lot of individuals beg for "their America back." The reality is "their America" never really existed. It's just a nostalgic longing for a past in which, given their youth, these individuals were too naive to notice the corruption and problems that existed during the time. The baby boomer America consisted of Watergate, political assassinations, sanctioned racism, Vietnam, and a ton of other negative things. I do not mean to say that "their America" was any worse than the one we live in now, but how much better could it have really been?

The thing I find most surprising is how willing people are to cling to an ideology even if it leads to their downfall. Yes, America is founded on principles of capitalism and we have a mean libertarian streak in us. Is it best to let "the market" regulate the practices of business and by extension numerous aspects of our personal lives? Yes, in principle.

I don't want the government in my business anymore than they need to be. I don't think the government has the right to tell me when and where I can smoke a cigarette, to regulate marijuana and other drugs so strictly, to make judgments about profane content via the FCC, to violate my privacy through domestic spying, to suspend habeas corpus en mass, or to do a host of other things.

However, this principle falls apart in that there are numerous things I would like the government to run (and tax its citizens to do so): public roads, libraries, police forces, fire departments, public schools, the military, utilities, and HEALTH CARE. The reason being is that, in a privatized business model, responsibility to investors to turn consistently higher profits leads to cuts in the quality of service in order to increase revenue, particularly if competitors are few and services and price are similar among them.

Health care is essential to a high quality of life and should be available to everyone at the cost of everyone. Problem is this view doesn't mesh well with traditional American ideals. It doesn't mesh well with some of my principles either, but their comes a point when defending a principle only leads to shooting yourself in the foot, and God forbid you do that because it will cost too much damn money to go to the doctor and get that treated, leaving you bankrupt financially, though perhaps not ideologically. At least you'll have your principles, but is it worth it?

I'm reminded of a short essay written by George Orwell, I believe. In it, he argues that societies are built around revolution, but that revolution never creates a situation for advancing the lower class. Instead, the middle class merely deceitfully offers advancement to the lower class in exchange for aiding in toppling the aristocracy. The lower class then discovers that the middle and upper classes have simply switched places.

I feel like much of the political scene now is very different. Out of fear that abandoning the commonly asserted ideal (or myth) that is America will lead the middle class into poverty, the middle class is deceived by an elite few in the upper class into fighting its own interests, and all out of principle. Rather than working with the lower class to stand a fighting chance against powerful interests, the middle class is being eroded all in the name of principle. Health care is just the most recent example. Environmentalists could make similar arguments, as could economists concerning the bail outs, or even accountant when one considers the death (estate) tax reform.

I don't stand on either the right or left; I'm an issue to issue guy. I try to follow a libertarian ideology because I feel granting citizens greater freedom is generally the best thing to do. But not always. For certain things freedom causes chaos and suffering, which has been the case for health care, and it has all been for a principle that probably couldn't be identified by most who suffer in its name.

There's a Fox in the newsroom

2009-08-27T12:44:00.002-04:00

Fox News must officially drop the word "news" from its title. Here's a quick definition of "news:" the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television. A "recent event" implies something that is factual, and "report" implies relaying of information, not creating it.

This last year has been unbearable, and I'm speaking from the standpoint of a sane person, not someone on either the left or the right. Fox is not in the business of news, but rather the business of profit. Journalistic integrity is an afterthought.

First, the TEA parties. We got it: you've been Taxed Enough Already. Not to mention your pissed about all the wasteful spending the government does. What better way to display fiscal conservativism than do buy and subsequently waste a shit-ton of tea. In any event, these tea parties were not spontaneous, but rather largely created and propagated by Fox. That is not news.

Second, the healthcare debate. News is about information, not misinformation. If you want to have an honest discussion about the merits of a public option or end of life care from a conservative standpoint, by all means do so. But to advance the notion that healthcare reform is socialist -- which it may be -- and therefore inherently bad -- which is a nonsequitur conclusion by the way -- or that the government wishes to involuntarily euthanize the elderly is unconscionable. This is not news. Christ, Jon Stewart had a more frank healthcare discussion in his interview with Betsy McCaughey than Fox has ever considered.

Third, the birthers. Holy shit. For starters, the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution is outdated and no longer useful, at least in my opinion. Either way, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE OBAMA IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! It's nowhere near true. This is not news. But I get it, you don't like him. Fine. Deal with it. I had 8 years of Bush and better reasons to question his legitimacy (Supreme Court, I'm looking at you) but we let that one go.

Finally, Glenn Beck. I don't even have a punchline for this guy. I can't tell if he is just nuts or just that good a snake oil salesman. Either way, he's in good company with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Murdoch, all of whom are irresponsible in abandoning anything resembling journalism; what's worse is it's working.

In defense of Palin

2009-08-03T13:20:00.003-04:00

I think people have been too rough on Sarah Palin lately, particularly involving her quitting the governorship of Alaska. As much as it pains me to do it, I feel a few words need be said in her defense.

First, to be clear, it is a stupid argument on the sides of both liberals and conservatives to squabble over whether or not she "quit." Here's the dictionary definition of the word, for all curious parties:

quit –verb (used with object)
1. to stop, cease, or discontinue: She quit what she was doing to help me paint the house.
2. to depart from; leave (a place or person): They quit the city for the seashore every summer.
3. to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job.
4. to release one's hold of (something grasped).
5. to acquit or conduct (oneself).
6. to free or rid (oneself): to quit oneself of doubts.
7. to clear (a debt); repay.

Palin fits 4 out of 7. She quit her job; deal with it.

The real question is why, and most of the reasons offered are pretty good ones.

The most plausible is that she has political ambitions at the national level. In order to involve herself in the politics of the country at large, she needs to leave Alaska, but remaining governor while doing so would leave Alaska, well, ungoverned. While it is a common practice to hold one's position while campaigning (Bush, Kerry, McCain, Obama, Palin, Biden, etc.), it is an irresponsible one because it involves neglecting one's constituents. In this situation, quitting is a good call.

Also, if she felt the stress on her family was too much, quitting is perfectly reasonable, although continuing to be a media whore makes little sense after the fact.

Finally, if for whatever reason she felt she was incapable of fulfilling her duties as governor, quitting was the right thing to do. I think Palin is an endearing figure for many people. She is good at several political tricks -- pandering, question dodging, and righteous self-indignation to name a few. Still, she is a goddamn moron. Nothing she has ever said or done could possibly make anyone conclude anything different; she can barely speak in complete sentences.

Still, unless she is leaving office to avoid scandal, I don't think it is a bad decision. Oddly enough, her favorability among Republicans has dropped since her resignation, which could hurt any aspirations at national office she might hold. This disappoints me: I was looking forward to the Republicans running an ignorant religious nutjob as opposed to just manipulating one for his or her vote.

This is why we are stupid

2009-07-22T13:16:00.003-04:00

Obama plans to speak to the nation tonight about healthcare reform, one of the few issues that actually affects all Americans in the meaningful way politicians often claim things do. That said, it would be nice if we paid attention, but apparently several networks were hesitant to carry the broadcast because it interfered with regularly scheduled programming.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Apparently, FOX declined to air it outright, and NBC and ABC only jumped on because the White House "shifted the event's time from the previously announced 9 p.m. to the lesser-watched hour of 8 p.m."

So, if I'm reading this correctly, these networks wouldn't provide their audiences with much needed information on one of the most important issues of the day because they were afraid of losing viewers had they failed to air reruns and reality TV shows. Moreover, by airing it at 8 p.m., this means fewer people will watch.

Following this train of logic, either the networks are wrong if they don't air the news conference and are completely irresponsible in fulfilling their public duty to the American people, or they are right to fear a losing viewers because the American people are that stupid and/or apathetic. I can't decide which is worse.

Thoughts on Uncle Walter

2009-07-21T21:09:00.003-04:00

Last Friday, Walter Cronkite died in his New York home. The Times wrote a pretty solid obit that's worth a look. I was sad to here the news even though I did not come of age during the Cronkite years. The man was a legend, and as a journalism student, it's been a foregone conclusion that he set the standard for what television journalism was supposed to be.

But, I suppose in truth I'm not really sad abouthim dying (seeing as I didn't know him), but rather his work and what it represented dying with him. I suppose that makes his death a bit like Michael Jackson's passing: I'm a few decades late in mourning what we liked him for in the first place.

Still, I think sometimes we give Cronkite's generation more credit than it is due, probably because of what Cronkite and other journalists of the era embodied. That statement merits some explaining.

I think Walter Cronkite was a legend in his field for three reasons. First, you have to give credit to the man. I don't care how much circumstances affect or influence success, somebody's behind it calling the shots. Chalk one up for Walt.

Second on the list has to be the culture. Though Cronkite was managing editor of the CBS evening news for most of the 1960s and 1970s, his most memorable moments -- as well as the country's -- occurred during the 1960s. That decade had a lot going on: civil rights movements (race, gender, sexual orientation), assassinations (JFK, MLK, RFK), the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the explosion of rock 'n' roll, and a MAN WALKED ON THE FUCKING MOON. That time was everything at once. A collision of hope and hate, love and war, and the last moment in American history when straight, wealthy, white patriarchy faced a legitimate challenge to its cultural authority from united countercultural forces. News of that magnitude is historically important no matter who the voice behind it is. In my lifetime the only news events I can even remember are the collapse of the Berlin Wall and 9/11. Most everything else -- O.J. Simpson's trial, Clinton's blowjob, the little Cuban boy, etc. -- seems fairly trivial.

Lastly, the media environment cannot be ignored. CBS was one of only three network stations during most of Cronkite's run as anchor. With fewer television options, Cronkite had a much easier time commanding a larger audience as well as the nation's respect. Having a captive audience gave Cronkite the freedom to run a newsroom with some journalistic integrity.

The business of television has changed since then, though the profit model has not. Now we can just as easily escape the news for something more trivial as we can pay attention to current events. This reality isn't necessarily bad until the news becomes watered down in order to compete with entertainment programming. Television journalism is, for all practical purposes, as dead as Cronkite himself.

But this is what I meant earlier when I said that I think we give earlier generations too much credit. I'm not sure they appreciated the value of actual news more than we do now; I just think it may have been the only thing on during a time when channel surfing took all of three seconds. Would they have given Cronkite the same attention and respect had he been competing against more "entertaining" pundits or reality television? I don't know. Probably no more that we would.

I will say this much: Cronkite knew the business, and he was good at what he did. In the way of news anchors, we don't even come close. Brian Williams is okay, but that's about it. Charlie Gibson seems like a smart man, but unfortunately he doesn't play one on TV; and watching Katie Couric is like watching a trainwreck smile at you. I just hope someone is waiting in the reserves to bring back some of the old Cronkite integrity, but I see no reason to be hopeful, and that's the way it is.

Journalism's death rattle

2009-07-16T13:29:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, The Colbert Report aired one of its funniest episodes ever, which opened with this segment about Stephen wishing to be named the "worst person in the world" by Kieth Olbermann:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Stephen Wants to Be the Worst Person in the World

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jeff Goldblum

This would have been completely hysterical, except for the hint of a very sad truth inherent in his satire. Namely, when Colbert remarks, "And why not hold me to the same standards as others in the conservative media. I'm just as much a journalist as Fox News." I wish that weren't true.

There's a really great scene in the film Almost Famous where Phillip Seymour Hoffman's character talks about the early 1970s as being the final death rattle of rock 'n' roll. The early 21st century may be the final death rattle of television journalism.

There's no question that Fox News is -- for the most part -- a mouthpiece for the right. It slants so far to the right that the Earth would tip off its axis unless MSNBC weren't there to balance the scales. What's worse is that such blatant pandering is becoming an excepted reality and, even more startling, this reality is not the most contemptible slap in the face to journalistic integrity.

Now programs airing under the guise of "TV journalism" are actually selling themselves to overt sponsors. Now we have Morning Joe: brewed by Starbucks and the complete relinquishing of an entire network to a figurative stroke job of Obama's healthcare plan. Ever since the Twenty-One quiz show debacle, not even game shows have had single, overt sponsors. And though I would not argue that understanding the healthcare plan is bad, airing what essentially amounts to an infomercial and calling it journalism is irresponsible as best and outright wrong at worst.

The death of television journalism coupled with declining sales in newspaper subscriptions leaves me to wonder where the hell we're going to get information in the near future. I'm not sure the Internet is always the best answer and I don't see radio making a comeback.

Abortion: The jury is in

2009-07-15T13:33:00.006-04:00

I've been following the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor over the last several days. Her confirmation, as admitted by Republicans, is almost a certainty. It's difficult to argue against her qualifications, so all that's left is an attack on her opinions, which may or may not reflect her judgment.

Today, The New York Times reports that Republican senators are pressing her to speak about her stance on abortion and all the legal precedent surround Roe vs. Wade. This move is idiotic for three reasons.

First, Sotomayor gains nothing from taking a stance one way or the other, so she won't. Republicans know this, and so does everybody else, so go ahead and pander to your constituents, but let's just all acknowledge that it's grandstanding and move on.

Second -- and this one might be my own crackpot theory -- Republicans could give a fuck about making abortion illegal. Overturning Roe vs. Wade just sends the issues to the states, and it's virtually a guarantee that abortion will be legal somewhere in America if the legal precedent is changed. While this move might help local politicians grab single issue voters (and if you are one, please kill yourself, or at least stop voting), it does nothing for pro-life politicians on Capitol Hill. Gaining votes on the promise to abolish abortion is a much simpler -- and a much more renewable -- path to campaign success that actually changing the law. There's too much political capital to be gained in preserving the status quo.

Third, given my strong belief that the status quo will remain, I don't think Roe vs. Wade is going anywhere, and rightfully so. In a country founded on the principals of freedom, it seems counter productive to take certain freedoms away. If one disagrees with the practice of abortion, there are ways to limit it without taking painfully slow legal action -- like moving beyond abstinence-only education for instance. Yes, somewhere along the line adventurous teens make mistakes and shack up with a drifter with a motorcycle (for me it was Bob, but to be fair, prison is a lonely place), so let latex be your savior and prevent the "problem" before it starts.

Perhaps more importantly, the existence of abortion as allocated by Roe vs. Wade is part of our social contract, and it creates a point where we have to address incongruities within our sanctity of life arguments. My stance here is utilitarian and somewhat abstract, so I tend to agree with thinkers like Peter Singer.

According to Singer, not all life is equal, nor should it be. Voluntary euthanasia, abortion, and perhaps even infanticide are justifiable in certain circumstances as acceptable utilitarian reactions in the world in which we actually live, not the world in which we hope to. This means reframing the abortion debate completely.

Logically, there is no significant dividing line between the fetus and the newborn infant. "The location of the being," says Singer, "-- inside or outside of the womb -- should not make that much difference to the wrongness of killing it." Singer doesn't argue this as a victory for conservatives, for he believes infanticide could be justifiable in certain cases since the fetus/baby distinction is so poor. (I won't attempt to explain this argument in full here. It is complicated an typically misunderstood, but if you are interested in further reading, I highly recommend his book, Writings on an Ethical Life.)

Furthermore, given the fact that a fetus or an infant is essentially a blank slate, there are valid arguments for bettering the lives of those involved in killing decisions by invoking ideas of replacement value. "A woman may plan to have two children," says Singer. "If one dies while she is of childbearing age, she may conceive another in its place. Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child and then gives birth to a hemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. It is also plausible to suppose that the prospects of a happy life are better for a normal child that for a hemophiliac."

I'm aware that this is an emotionally cold stance, but I appreciate Singer's ability to jar one's standard way of thinking and force his reader to approach difficult issues from a new vantage point.

If, according to the sanctity of life argument, all life is equal, why should it matter if one aborts a child now and gives birth to one at a later date? Assuming the woman wishes to have only one child, the end result is the same either way. The only change is timing. Is this wrong? I honestly don't know, but it is worth consideration.

And while I disagree with Senator Coburn on many issues, he raised an interesting point about our societal approach toward abortion during the hearings:

At another point, Mr. Coburn observed that "we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception."

"And I don’t expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues," Mr. Coburn continued. "We have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those."

I would argue that lacking those characteristics mark death, but having them is necessary but not sufficient to mark life. But he is right to urge for a clearer understanding of what constitutes life or death. My opinion though, is that we move forward from a framework in which Roe vs. Wade is intact, because I don't see us backtracking.

Lazy post, but funny

2009-07-05T12:57:00.002-04:00

In continuing my theme of posting about Twitter, I thought it pertinent to share a story from The Onion. I'd comment on this one, but I've got little more to say than I think this one is pretty funny.

Twits should back-pedal

2009-06-29T13:56:00.004-04:00

A few weeks ago I made a post to this blog, essentially retracting some earlier statements I had made concerning the usefulness of Twitter. Essentially, I had argued that Twitter was a useless, narcissistically driven media outlet, but with the recent news in Iran, I felt it appropriate to swallow my pride a bit. I'm not a humble person, but I may have been a little overzealous in my condemnation of Twitter and I happily admit that fact.

Then Bill Maher did this bit on "Real Time" on June 19, 2009:

Now I'm really confused. Is Twitter a beacon of democratic hope or a cesspool of idiots? The answer, I feel, is neither. The obsession over the medium has led journalists, bloggers, Twitter users, and society en mass to oversimplify this thing into a black and white dichotomy. I fear we are missing the point.

Twitter is a micro-blog, just one of many subcategories of various social networking sites (SNS). What distinguishes SNS from traditional media is user-generated content. Yes, it's incredibly easy to make fun of Twitter just as it is easy to blame the media for a host of problems for which, at best, they are indirectly responsible. Perhaps our handling discontent concerning traditional media has unduly spread over into the SNS realm.

We treat SNS, and all new media for that matter, as a category of its own in some respects, but in many others our framework of approaching new media is constrained by our old approaches to traditional media. The point is this: blaming the media still works, but who are we ultimately blaming? For traditional media, it typically means throwing charges at faceless of despised corporate bigwigs, but what about new media?

For media that relies on user-generated content, we can only blame the users: us. I'm not sure we realize that. Maher is right that Iran could save Twitter by lending it some credibility, but Americans in coffee shops aren't twittering about Iranian protests; Iranians are doing that. We twitter about how sad it is that Michael Jackson died and that we'll miss him -- though we did't know him; about the poor sexual decisions we made when we were blackout drunk the night before; about our dogs; about nothing.

I can no longer condemn this use though. It has its place. Media serve an escapist function too, and we can't be expected to intellectually attend to every world political event at all times; it is too straining. But escapism only works to a point, and sooner or later we need to embrace the fact that an informed citizenry is a good thing, much like the Iranians seem to be doing.

The bottom line is that SNS, and new media in general, are really only as timely and relevant as their users make it. Twitter isn't all bad, but it certainly isn't the democratic beacon we have made it out to be because we haven't made it that.

Prescription for America Proves Sour Medicine

2009-06-25T12:55:00.003-04:00

"Prescription for America" was billed as a debate by ABC, and its airing proved to be a television event -- if for nothing else its uniqueness -- however, I could smell the bullshit in D.C. from my Georgia apartment.

I just reread Harry Frankfut's "On Bullshit" this week, and here is a brief extract that might make advance my point:

What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.

Bullshitting means misrepresenting what it is you aim to do. ABC bullshitted us, and so did Obama. "Prescription" was not a debate. The other side of the healthcare debate -- namely, alternative plans -- was not represented, and indeed was misrepresented. Most people agree that the current healthcare system is broken, but rather than debating the merits of Obama's plan against alternatives like single-payer healthcare, what we saw was Obama's plan vs. the broken system. We were inundated by it and rhetoric from Obama reinforcing that dyad:

In terms of cost, understand that the system is already out of whack in terms of costs as it is. So if we do nothing, costs are going to keep on going up 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent per year, and government, businesses and families are all going to find themselves either losing their health care or paying a lot more out of pocket. That's going to happen if we do nothing.

I don't think the issue of unsustainability is under much dispute, but simply because the current system is terrible doesn't make Obama's plan the best plan, only a better one. Instead, ABC's format framed Obama's plan as the only alternative, closing the door on what would be a genuine debate.

Gibson and Sawyer appeared to play devil's advocate, but in reality they lobbed Obama a series of softball opposition questions which he either hit out of the park or completely sidestepped -- in true political form he was. But to the credit of Gibson and Sawyer, and I can't believe I said that, they had to navigate tough journalistic waters (though I do not consider Sawyer, a fellow Louisvillian and former Nixon aid, to be a journalist or even a hack for that mater). They had to "report" a story in which they were intimately involved, and without the proper distance it's difficult to maintain objectivity. Moreover, forcing them to act as opposition moves them from moderators to some strange opponent/moderator hybrid that was just awkward and inappropriate.

No, not a debate, but rather a speech with interruption -- some, ironically, paid for by McDonald's. Obama had a chance to pitch his argument against a straw man whom he burned to the ground, all while ABC tried desperately to grasp for journalistic integrity, misrepresenting what amounted to a persuasive speech as a deliberative debate. All this mess gives Obama more weight with the public and, I fear, undue credibility to the viability of his plan as compared to alternatives.

My purpose here, as media student and a bit of a junky, has been to critique the presentation of Obama's plan, not the plan itself. Though I recognize some major problems that could arise -- particularly in terms of cost, implementation, and adequate primary care coverage -- I feel like his plan is workable, and uniquely American, which is not a bad thing. Each country deals with healthcare differently, and though I like the single-payer plan, the competitive platitudes of American business would never allow it. I guess I feel his plan is not the best, but it might be the best we can do. Unfortunately, that is not the sense last night's viewers got.

I will say this in closing. It was nice to witness a few bright spots from Obama, who I feel has been timid about many issues lately (gay marriage, bank regulation, the handling of Guantanamo, etc.). For better of for worse, I feel like he's really going to go to bat for us over healthcare, and it's about time he lived up to his promises and we got something done. Here's and example of what I'm talking about:

GIBSON: "Your critics on the Republican side of the Senate Finance Committee wrote you a letter and said: 'At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook, but also negatively impact American families who enjoy private coverage for their insurance. What do you say to them?"
OBAMA: "They're wrong."

He's finally sacking up and taking command of this wayward bipartisan ship, and it's long overdue. Also, I was impressed with the way he addressed the socialism fear surrounding the public option of his plan:

So we would have -- I think there are some legitimate questions in terms of how the public option is designed. One thing I have to say, though, is, it's not an entirely bad thing if, as long as they're reimbursing doctors in an adequate way, and -- and -- and so not being oppressive on -- on health care providers, and as long as there are not a whole bunch of taxpayer subsidies going into a public plan, if the public plan can do it cheaper and provides good quality care, that's the competition that we talked about.

Though he didn't say it outright, the implication is that if government, in a competitive market can provide a better option, then why shouldn't it? That, I think, is a valid argument. I do wish, though, that in my lifetime a president would out and out say that we already employ several socialist policies (USPS, public schools, social security, medicare, etc.) that have worked well for us in the past and that we also hold dear. Who's to say similar programs would be different, or somehow more socialist?

Still, overall I was incredibly disappointed with this healthcare "debate" and I am fearful of the misinformed discourse it will produce. Obama finally appeared to take a bold stand, and that's an important thing, but I'm not sure it will be worth the potential damaging influence the program could have on even more misinformed public opinion.

Twitter is Useful

2009-06-17T11:27:00.003-04:00

Typing the title for this blog was among the most painful experiences in my life, at least to my pride. I am openly opposed to Twitter's existence because I believe the site serves little practical use -- despite promises to connect people in meaningful ways. Though I still feel Twitter is largely a narcissistic medium, it is crucial for the select few who have found a way to put the medium to good use.

According to The Washington Post, Iranians are using the site to organize protests against their recently reelected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who many Iranians believe stole the election illegally.

Twitter co-founder Biz Stone delayed scheduled maintenance to the site to allow protesters more time to communicate with one another and to provide sources outside Iran with information about the uprising. I have to give Stone credit on this one. Whether you think it is a publicity ploy or not, he's allowing his site to fulfill its democratic communicative promise, which, oddly enough, is realizing itself in Iran.

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire?

2009-06-11T22:22:00.002-04:00

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged...the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared with at least a thousand people...and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest and the most sordid of all vanities , they gradually bartered their whole power and authority."

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

The above quotation is Smith's account of how it is feudal lords came to lose their power and influence and the expense of the growing middle class. To me, this reads like a metaphor for the America's seemingly continual decline in stature worldwide, and I'm not sure how I feel about this. The tension of globalism and nationalism may be the largest political elephant in the room of our generation; maybe one day we'll realize that and come to grips with it - myself included.

A Man without a Party

2009-06-07T20:52:00.003-04:00

Classes started up again here at UGA. During day one of my public opinion course, our professor asked if we considered ourselves either Democrats or Republicans, and I, along with two others, allied with neither. In my estimation, at least in the current political climate - and perhaps always - to consider oneself a Democrat or a Republican is roughly equivalent to a declaring oneself a lunatic.

Personally, I hate to think of living in a country ruled by either. The Bush years gave us the nearest approximation of what an evangelically-backed, self-righteous, and idiot-prone Republican party. Obama-philes seem to await the coming pendulum swing that would provide a Democratic counterpart, but his time in office will be over before the Democrats can develop a workable fiscal policy or locate the backbone to implement it.

That said, I'm not sure bipartisanship is the answer either. Swallowing two shit sandwiches is hardly preferable to eating one.

For, the most frustrating part of following politics isn't the game-like nature by which are lives are dictated; as much as I disapprove, I understand. What I can't grasp is why it is we do much of we do and why we fail in doing so much of what we should. For example, why would we hold GITMO prisoners without trial? I understand the argument that details about torture could result in a mistrial and thus the release of dangerous prisoners, but the answer is simple: so be it. Is it more dangerous to release a potentially dangerous man or to tread the most certainly dangerous waters that come in protecting our principles at the very expense of those principles? The answer seems most obviously the latter, but we pussied out for fear of political suicide.

In contemplating the ongoing policy dilemmas we face as a nation, particularly the balance we attempt to strike between security and freedom, I came across this passage from P.J. O'Rourke's "On The Wealth of Nations:"

Freedom cannot exist without limitation. Adam Smith was not a man to flinch at thin conundrum. In his consideration of banking Smith stated his most fundamental free market principle: "If any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so." However, in his consideration of banking, Smith also stated his most fundamental caveat to that principle: "But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and out to be, restrained by the laws of all governments."

I've always liked O'Rourke because I think he's a sensible and intelligent guy with a pretty good read on our national bullshit. I also like his fervent defense of individual freedom and liberty and people's natural tendency that we want to be left the hell alone. This passage was particularly striking for me because it seemed like an approach to economics that transcended party bullshit.

By this I do not mean it was bipartisan, at least in the sense of parties working together, but perhaps in the sense that party differences are and should be irrelevant when considering what is in the people's best interest. The best political label I can find for Smith is that of a Libertarian who isn't retarded. It's a zero-based approach in which he begins with a proposition of absolute freedom and then restrains that freedom only insofar as it assures stability without strangling the freedom government policies are meant to protect.

I'm not sure if 18th-century thinkers are more intelligent that we are or if they only seem that way in retrospect. Increasingly, I am of the opinion that we aren't nearly as smart as we think we are, but my hope is that we only appear stupid now because the idiot voices of the past have faded into obscurity. Hopefully history's judgment and recollection - or lack thereof - of the Bush administration will renew my faith in the populous and in myself.

Toward an Ethical Life

2009-05-08T15:11:00.003-04:00

"In a society in which the narrow pursuit of material self-interest is the norm, the shift to an ethical stance is more radical than many people realize. In comparison with the needs of people starving in Somalia, the deisre to sample the wines of the leading French vineyards pales into insignificance. Judged against the suffering of immobilized rabbits having shampoos dripped into their eyes, a better shampoo becomes and unworthy goal. The preservation of old-growth forests should override our desire to use disposable paper towels. An ethical approach to life does not forbid having fun or enjoying food and wine, but it changes our sense of priorities. The effort and expense put into buying fashionable clothes, the endless search for more and more refines gastronomic pleasures, the astonishing additional expense that marks out the prestige car market from the market in cars for people who just want a reliable means of getting from A to B -- all these become disproportionate to people who can shift perspective long enough to take themselves, at least for a time, out of the spotlight. If a higher ethical consciousness spreads, it will utterly change the society in which we live.

We cannot expect that this higher ethical consciousness will become universal. There will always be people who don't care for anyone or anything, not even for themselves. There will be others, more numerous and more calculating, who earn a living by taking advantage of others, especially the poor and powerless. WE cannot afford to wait for some coming glorious day when everyone will live in loving peace and harmony with everyone else. Human nature is not like that at present, and there is not sigh of its changing sufficiently in the foreseeable future. Since reasoning alone proved incapable of fully resolving the clash between self-interest and ethics, it is unlikely that rational argument will persuade every rational person to act ethically. Even if reason had been able to take us further, we would still have had to face the reality of a world in which many people are very far from acting on the basis of reasoning of any kind, even crudely self-interested reasoning. So for a long time to come, the world is going to remain a touch place in which to live.

Nevertheless, we are part of this world and there is a desperate need to do something now about the conditions in which people live and die, and to avoid both social and ecological disaster. There is no time to focus our thoughts on the possibility of a distant utopian future. Too many humans and nonhuman animals are suffering now, the forests are going too quickly, population growth is still out of control, and if we do not bring greenhouse gas emissions down rapidly, the lives and homes of 46 million people are at risk in the Nile and Bengal delta regions alone. Nor can we wait for governments to bring about the change that is needed. It is not in the interests of politicians to challenge the fundamental assumptions of the society they have been elected to lead. If 10 percent of the population were to take a consciously ethical outlook on life and act accordingly, the resulting change would be more significant than any change of government. The division between an ethical and a selfish approach to life is far more fundamental than the difference between the policies of the political right and the political left.

We have to take the first step. We must reinstate the idea of living an ethical life as a realistic and viable alternative to the present dominance of materialistic self-interest. If a critical mass of people with new priorities were to emerge, and if these people were seen to do well, in every sense of the term -- if their cooperation with each other brings reciprocal benefits, if they find joy and fulfillment in their lives -- then the ethical attitude will spread, and the conflict between ethics and self-interest will have been shown to be overcome, not by abstract reasoning alone, but by adopting the ethical life as a practical way of living and showing that it works, psychologically, socially, and ecologically.

Anyone can become part of the critical mass that offers us a change of improving the world before it is too late. You can rethink your goals and question what you are doing with your life. If you present way of living does not stand up against an impartial standard of value, then you can change it. That might mean quitting your job, selling your house, and going to work for a voluntary organization in India. More often, the commitment to a more ethical way of living will be the first step of a gradual but far-reaching evolution in your lifestyle and in your thinking about your place in the world. You will take up new causes and find your goals shifting. If you get involved in your work, money and status will become less important. From your new perspective, the world will look different. One thing is certain: you will find plenty of worthwhile things to do. You will not be bored or lack fulfillment in your life. Most important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place."

Peter Singer
from "Writings on an Ethical Life" (pp. 270-272)

Outhouse Lessons

2009-04-23T10:46:00.003-04:00

This past weekend, I was back in my home town for the "Thunder of Louisville" fireworks event, a spectacle which I have always enjoyed. It was here that I realized that life lessons and revelations come at the oddest of moments among the strangest places, namely while waiting in line for to use a fiberglass shithouse.

For those of you who don't know, "Thunder" is the largest fireworks display in North America and nearly 1 million people attend annually. With all the adult beverages, things get a little rowdy and the pisser is in high demand, so I expected the usual 30 minute wait. What I didn't expect was a confrontation with a shirtless man and his harlot/girlfriend.

I had been waiting for some time and they had been behind me for several minutes when, out of nowhere, the couple accused me of line jumping. "We've been here, like, forever," she said, to which I replied, "Well, I've been here for forever and about 15 seconds." Needless to say she did not appreciate the audacity that I suggest she wait her goddamn turn.

Ironically, it was this couple that I saw line jump the man next to me, while simultaneously two angry women cut to the front of my line. I understand that it's a trivial thing, and people exercised good judgment, for the most part, in not retaliating, but I find the whole thing irritating, and here's why.

This whole scenario is just one illustration of the tragedy of the commons, a problem our culture experiences daily at all levels, ranging from the executive suite to the porta-shitter line. The self-entitlement that seems to dictate an attitude of, "My shit is more important than yours, so fuck off," appears dominant. The problem is, once one person stops playing by the rules and we as a group sanction it, then everyone has to break the social contract just to keep even, which leaves the morally right out in the cold.

I realize it's a bit ridiculous to compare a bathroom line to a societal breakdown, but I feel the similarity valid, and the experience was kind of a profound realization for me. I worry that Hobbes might be right in asserting that basic human nature dictates a world that is both "nasty" and "brutish." Law and rules avert that to an extent, and self-entitlement subverts that establishment.

I do not mean to say that all law is just, but governing rules of basic courtesy are reasonable rules to live by, and it would go a long way to making our culture more bearable. In short, I have to piss just as bad as you, so wait your fucking turn you moronic infant!

Executive Assassins

2009-04-08T12:46:00.002-04:00

So I was watching the Colbert Report the other night and was struck by a segment he did concerning an executive assassination ring. Allegedly, a group of assassins traveled abroad and executed U.S. enemies, reporting only to the office of Vice President Cheney and having no oversight by either Congress or the CIA.

I wasn't sure if this bit was a joke, which speaks to the character of Cheney, or at least my impression of him. As it turns out, this is no joke. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh accused Cheney of operating an executive assassination ring during a speaking engagement at the University of Minnesota. Apparently Hersh plans to reveal more details about his findings in his upcoming book.

I'm not sure if the allegations are true, but I don't think a respected journalist like Hersh would accuse Cheney of something so vile without some sort of evidence. We'll see how this plays out, but I find it sad in and of itself that not only is such a thing occurring, but that no one is really that surprised.

The Height of Arrogance

2009-04-02T17:29:00.001-04:00

I firmly believe that debate is the greatest source of learning. You have to challenge your ideas and the ideas of others to discover what holds true for you, but at some point, you might do well to pump the brakes, lest you become a pompous douche bag.

Case in point: religion.

I do not care if you are a strong believer or a nonbeliever, and the idea that religion is a topic of discussion that should be left off the table is completely ridiculous. Please argue. Please debate. But for the love of God (or Science H. Logic if you are an atheist) don't preach to me. If you promote these ideas, fine; but if you evangelize on their behalf, go ruin someone else's day.

The Religious

Here is the text of a mass forwarded e-mail I recently read:

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days...

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days. The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant." The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.

You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Actually, no I don't. Just because someone doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you doesn't make them a fool. If they hold that viewpoint without any reasonable explanation, you could probably make that claim (note that I said reasonable, and by this I do not mean traditionally logical, but rather something that has an explainable cause).

I am not an atheist, and I probably never will be, but I can't argue that individuals that are atheist have reason enough to believe there is no God, just as the theist has a faith-based reason to believe there is. And who the fuck are you to pretend like you know who God thinks is a fool? Just because you memorized an obscure piece of scripture - written by MAN, mind you - does not make you an ultimate authority. Piss off.

The Non-religious

As a Catholic, and lapse one at that, I suppose I am fundamentally opposed to the premise of atheism, but you are entitle to that view if you believe it true, and there is good evidence to that end. However, understand that insulting the religious and calling them ignorant isn't converting anyone to your cause.

The religious people of this country seek explanation for things beyond their level of understanding, which varies for each person. For them, faith is the answer, and sometimes it is a good one.

Christopher Hitchens disagrees vehemently. Hitchens is more than an atheist; he is an anti-theist, actively campaigning against religion. His newest book is entitle "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Thanks Chris. Hyperbole needed a new friend.

Look, I get it. Religion makes no sense to some people, and many see it as a destructive force. I cannot argue that religion has not been a force for destruction. From the Crusades to witch hunts to Islamic terrorism and everything in between, religion has been a breading ground for horrible things.

However, the same is true for secularism. I doubt Stalin went to church very often. And though I haven't read Hitchens' book, the idea that "religion poisons everything" is ridiculous. Again, as a Catholic, I recognize the atrocities of the past and present and condemn them as much as anyone else, but there is good in religion too. Religion offers people a community which they may not otherwise experience, and religious institutions across the globe provide charitable services to the poor and needy. Could this be done without religion? You bet. But religion is undeniably a part of it, so to claim all religion is poisonous is ignorant.

Moreover, the devotion many atheists and anti-theists have toward science is potentially as dangerous. On a recent episode of "Real Time," Mos Def made the argument that everyone has a religion of some kind, a point which Hitchens and Bill Maher immediately refuted based on the misuse of the term religion.

At some level, it probably isn't fair to lump all belief systems under the term "religion." Traditionally, religion is based on faith, while many beliefs have greater logical foundations. Still, the faith many atheists have in science is often as unquestioned as the faith others have in religion.

Everyone looks for a constant in their lives. Religion provides unchanging certainty, so it brings comfort to some. Science - or at least its method - provides something viable to cling to for uncovering truth. I don't question the scientific method, but I do recognize that science changes its mind a bit. What is true today may be false tomorrow. Discovery drives science.

To that end, is it not dangerous to advocate ceaselessly for a cause of science that may be just as false as any religious cause? For example, the inventors of the frontal lobotomy hailed the procedure as a cure for several mental illnesses. They were awarded a Nobel Prize and the procedure gained wide global popularity. Turns out, lobotomies simply destroy part of your brain, making you more docile. And where did all the original scientific support for this procedure come from? One experiment on one gorilla. Imagine if we had individuals advocating as passionately for lobotomies as they do for global warming? We'd all be praying for the Chief to smother us with pillows.

I know what I presented is an unfair comparison; global warming has substantially more supportive evidence for its truth than did the lobotomy procedure. My point, however, remains the same: many people who praise science for its method begin to praise the discoveries of science as ultimate truth. They are not. Science is a game of disproving and questioning, of uncertainty and untruth. So yes, hail science, but do so cautiously.

And atheists, before you criticize others for unquestioned belief, ask yourself how much you question your own, and remember that a religious people may have questioned their beliefs just as fervently and come to a different conclusion. To those on either side of this issues: If you want to debate me, I welcome it, but if you want to condescend to me, you can shove it up your ass.

Cramer vs. Stewart and a continuing debate

2009-03-19T10:54:00.000-04:00

For those of you who haven't seen this episode - and it is painful to watch - you should watch the now infamous Cramer appearance on the Daily Show (advice: never appear on a show with prepared clips of your hypocrisy).

This thing is just background. I read Hollander's post about Tucker Carlson's comments concerning Jon Stewart. I have mixed feelings. First, I agree that the excuse, "I'm a comedian," is a massive dodge. He participates in public discourse and the last few weeks have proven him to be a major player in such discussion.

However, I do not think his role as a political comedian places a proactive responsibility upon him in the same way it would an actual journalist. As "vanguards of democracy," it is the journalists job to stand in defense of the people an act with proactive investigations to prevent crises more than to report on them.

Stewart seems to have positioned himself as a whistle blower on journalist in particular, but anyone who shovels bullshit on a daily basis. I'm not sure what his role really is, but I think he exist somewhere in the realm between comedian and journalist. I see his role as reactive and possibly one of advocating. So in this sense, Carlson is write to say Stewart can't keep using the comedian excuse, but Stewart is right that proactive and preemptive coverage are not his job.

Stewart watches the watchmen, and I think that has value. Though, admittedly, I feel bad for Cramer who has become the face of a much larger problem, not only at CNBC but across the entire economic climate.

I got a fever...

2009-03-16T21:34:00.002-04:00

...and the only prescription is more basketball. Yes, apart from it being Spring Break here at UGA, I've also not posted a thing lately because I've been so consumed with Championship Week and Selection Sunday.

My beloved Louisville Cardinals got the overall #1, so I'm hopeful, but deep down I get the feeling this year will be another "maybe next year." Here are my Final Four picks:

Louisville
Connecticut
Pittsburgh
Syracuse

I'm going with an all Big East group here for a few reasons. First, these teams - while some have individual stars - play more like cohesive units than most others I've seen this year. North Carolina and Duke are both great, as is Oklahoma, but the loss of one player makes too great a difference, and it's hard to be 100% for six games. Second, I have no faith in the Big Ten. Screw Michigan State; nothing good has come from there since Magic Johnson. Third, the ACC has been inconsistent at best, and I'm not sure they have the wherewithal to run the gauntlet. Fourth, who has Memphis played? I mean, really?!

In a month I'll have to eat these words, but I'm going with Louisville. I think the city is due some glory.

The "New" Rhetoric

2009-03-05T10:23:00.003-05:00

I've been noticing this thing a bit on my own and have been really surprised that nobody has made much effort to point it out, but Obama and Bush both have very similar rhetoric and strategies for dealing with the wars in the Middle East. Of all outlets, "The Daily Show" seems to best illustrate this point:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

They did a similar segment following Obama's inauguration and how his rhetoric toward terrorism is eerily similar to that of Bush II:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

We know that Bush's rhetoric was completely empty and that his actions in no way reflected his goals, or maybe it is simply a manifestation of the fact that his goals were unattainable. As far as judging Obama, not enough time has passed to do so, but there is cause for concern. Obama's commitment to Afghanistan, though inarguably a more noble cause than that of Iraq, is a reflection of yet another unwinable war fought with the same ill-advised Iraq surge tactics.

No one talks about these similarities because the two presidents are markedly different in their domestic approaches, and the economy is the greatest concern right now. Still, there is no question that, either intentionally or unintentionally, that Obama has created a cult of personality around himself, and I would argue that inherently such a thing is not a problem, but it most certainly becomes one if our infatuation with the man (or the myth) leads us to stop questioning policy, or at least trying to understand it more fully.

Twitter This!

2009-03-02T16:40:00.005-05:00

Okay, so after Obama's address to Congress several days ago, I was inundated with news stories about members of the House and Senate using Twitter during the speech. I found this to be incredibly rude, but some have argued that they knew what the speech was about beforehand and that listening was not a prerequisite for their understanding; the speech was written for the public. Fine, I'll give you guys that, but I still think it's common courtesy to listen, or at least pretend to do so.

I never paid much attention to Twitter until then. The social media nuts here at the University of Georgia are going ape shit over this thing, but I figured it was just another social networking site. After the speech and the subsequent coverage, I decided to check it out. Here is a video that Twitter put on their homepage explaining how the site works:

Now it's judgment time. Twitter sucks. It is stupid and asinine in every way possible. Don't use it, I beg your.

First, nobody gives a shit. The "little things you do between blog posts and e-mails" are probably very mundane and boring. I'm glad you started a new book. Way to keep that lawn mowed. Sorry you missed the bus. I don't need to know any of these things unless they somehow affect me. If you missed the bus on the way to meet me, I need to know, but don't post on Twitter: call me.

Second, if you feel so compelled to answer the question, "What are you doing?" -- and you shouldn't because it's really just a slightly more interesting version of "hello" -- start a Facebook account. The status feed could give you the rundown on that information concerning your friends (though I'm not sure you get the 140 characters) plus a hell of a lot more. You can blog, share interests, create groups or events, upload photos, and several more relevant things than you can on Twitter.

Third, how does this make you more connected to others? Yeah, maybe people across the world may know what you are doing, but do they need to know? And what about the people across the room? You know, the ones with whom you should be interacting with but are too self-absorbed in your Twitter page. If you weren't so consumed with your petty afairs, maybe you might actually engage in old-fashioned, low-tech conversation. It's all the rage.

The bottom line is that Twitter is a superfluous technology at best, but most likely one that is symptomonious of the growing divide between real-life individuals in interpersonal settings due to increased narcissism. Twitter is the epitome of a culture shifting from reader to writer, in which everyone can publish, and the most insightful of thoughts are juxtaposed with the most pointless. But rather than appropriately abstaining from a discourse in which we have nothing to contribute, we somehow feel compelled to engage even at a trivial level.

We don't have to contribute actively to avoid passivity, we need only participate, and from time to time it might do us all a bit of good -- especially in this economy -- to keep our two cents to ourselves.

Obama Audio Book

2009-02-28T14:43:00.001-05:00

A friend share this site with me featuring some choice excerpts from one of Obama's audio books, self-narrated of course. Enjoy.

Unbe-fucking-lievable

2009-02-26T23:35:00.002-05:00

Congressman Earl Blumenauer from Oregon, following a monkey attack in Connecticut, pushed for legislation to restrict the transport of non-human primates across state borders -- I shit you not. And Congress actually debated this ridiculous issue -- Is hit you not.

I thought the baseball steroid hearings were bad enough, but back then we only had an unnecessary war going on, so what the hell, right?

But sweet Lord, we are in the middle of a massive economic crisis and we have two wars in the Middle East with which to contend. It's like living FDR's first and third terms at the same time.

Congress, step into my office, because you're fucking fired.

"A nation of cowards"

2009-02-25T21:49:00.008-05:00

In a recent speech, Attorney General Eric Holder referred to America as largely a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race. His essential argument is that we don't truly intermingle racially, let alone talk with one another about issues of race.

Holder has been catching a great deal of slack for his comments, but that is often the case when someone speaks a truth that is unsettling and often preferred by many to go unheard. Whether you agree with his statements or not, I think there is little question that Holder is trying to spark a long awaited debate that might end the voluntary segregation in which we so often find ourselves, and that is something commendable.