Charlie Sheen / The Disposable Woman

This column in the NY Times is pretty powerful. It points out the difference between how Chris Brown was treated when he assaulted Rhianna (his girlfriend at the time) and how Charlie Sheen has been treated after assaulting his various wives and girlfriends.

The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.

But there’s something else at work here: the seeming imperfection of Mr. Sheen’s numerous accusers. The women are of a type, which is to say, highly unsympathetic. Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)

Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.

[Edit]

It’s these sorts of explicit and implicit value judgments that underscore our contempt for women who are assumed to be trading on their sexuality. A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.

The only other reason for the difference in treatment is just as appalling: the difference in race between him and Chris Brown.

Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.

McCain's Grudges

I have no idea if this is true - that McCain's politics can be explained by his grudges. True, he did move to the center after losing the primary to Bush II in 2000. And now he has moved far to the right after losing to Obama in 2008 (granted he started that move during the election).

So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.

Huckabee on Single Moms

Huckabee has had some bad press lately - after having some good press. I don't feel the need to talk about his Kenya comments - they are ridiculous and speak for themselves. But I do want to talk about his comments about single moms.

Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.

What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.

Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.

Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.

Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.

The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.

Brooks: Two Good Columns

David Brooks wrote two good columns recently that I want to touch on. Here is a quote from the first one:

A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.

So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.”

I think he is absolutely right that it is terrible policy to disinvest in education and our future. Republicans are portraying it as taking money from overpaid and greedy teachers, which we all know is absurd. We can tweak salary and benefits for teachers, but the real cuts that are coming to education are coming to staffing levels.

I will say though that I don't completely agree with his comment to cuts for the old. I think the only humane policy will support both the young and the old. But maybe it is his tone that strikes me more than his actual proposal. Tweaking pension payouts can make sense, and if that is what he is saying, than I can agree. Although I don't know if we can make a dent with the future cuts through tweaking.

Here are quotes from his second column that I liked:

In retrospect, I’d say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context.

He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface.

It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.

[Edit]

In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. It’s easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all.

I like this, and I like that it is coming from a relative conservative. I think many people overplay culture when talking about peoples' demand for democracy (ie China and Confucius, Muslims, etc). But culture plays a role, especially in what form democracy can take. So yes, we are unique, yet shaped by our culture, but also share many things with others in the human race. And all people want freedom and self-rule.

Obama and the Economy

I agree with this post by Robert Reich. But I think Obama needs to be less moderate on budget cuts for policy as well as political reasons. Instead, Obama has decided to go moderate on the budget and the economy and I think could lose because of it.

I don’t get why businesses aren’t more vocal about the need for government spending. Or do they not believe that cuts in government jobs will decrease consumer spending (or prevent increases in government spending)?

Also - Obama seems just as quiet as during the health care debate. There are real debates going on right now and he is largely silent. Filling the void are Scott Walker in WI and Chris Christie in NJ - both attacking unions - and Congressional Republicans cutting necessary programs.

I will say this again: President Obama, we need leadership. You have so much power over the agenda yet I don't feel like you use it. And this means no one is articulating the other side, my side, our side. We lost the health care debate. Now we are going to lose the government funding debate. For someone that gives such good speeches, you don't seem to do it often enough.

Be more than a great speech-giver. Be a great communicator. Like Reagan - but for the right side.

On the Muslim Brotherhood

I know this is late, but I don’t think the Brotherhood will stay out of the news. Juan Cole describes the Muslim Brotherhood.

Dear Conservative: Compassion

Dear Conservative,

I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.

If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.

Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.

I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.

Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.

So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.

About Jon Stewart

I just realized that I have never actually posted about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. I just want to go on the record with what I think his value is.

First, and probably most importantly, Jon Stewart's satire against the media is amazing. While a lot of his ire is directed at Fox News, a lot is also directed at CNN and related cable news. He is great at bashing fluffy, unreasonable, or contradictory stories. And his take-down of CNBC was great.

Second, Stewart is great at showing the hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. It seems that at least once a week Stewart is able to show politicians railing against political ploys, legislative methods, or public statements that they themselves employed or supported at a different time. Congressman Anthony Weiner (former Stewart roommate) thinks this creates negative impressions of legislators. I strongly disagree. Being hypocritical makes politicians look bad. Showing it just makes sure people are aware of it so they cannot get away with it.

Third, Stewart conducts great interviews - especially with conservatives daring enough to come on his show. Like the John Yoo debates, they are often respectful and honest.

Finally, I like Stewart just for the humor. Politics can so easily cause frustration and burnout. Jon Stewart helps us laugh at it so we can bear it another day.

How to Improve Schools - the Moderate Way

In too many situations, the extremes dominate the debate and make everything seem like a binary world. Education reform is one of them. On one side we have the people that blame teachers and think we can make drastic improvements if we weaken the teachers unions. On the other side we have people who think teacher reforms will do nothing and more funding is the only solution.

Who represents the reasonable middle (or slightly left of middle)? I think unions should give ground. I think tenure is unnecessary and keeps ineffective teachers in the classroom. And I kind of think teacher pay should be more flexible than simple arithmetic based on experience (although experience is definitely important).

But I also think you get what you pay for. If we want big gains in education, we need to spend more money. We need to decrease class sizes and spend more on extras (art, music, drama, second languages, etc), after school programs, and teacher development.

Unfortunately, it seems that neither side is giving ground. And worse, the side that is winning is blaming teachers (and maybe getting some contract changes - maybe) while allowing budgets to get cut. I worry for our future.

More Abortion Nonsense

There is a billboard in New York City that says, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb." There are so many things wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.

But let's start with the most obvious. The groups that sponsor and support this add care little for the safety or well-being for African-Americans. If they did, they would have adds that call attention to gun violence, increased and smarter police patrols, incarceration rates, food insecurity, educational needs, foster care, housing and the need for more jobs in low income neighborhoods people of color.

Instead, these groups care about the fetus but not the child, teenager or adult. Fortunately I think most reasonable people recognize this hypocrisy.

Related to that, the group doesn't even bother think about why abortions might be higher among lower income women in general and lower income women of color. In fact, if they really were concerned, they could strongly advocate for programs that would make raising a child easier for low income mothers and therefore make it less likely that women would feel the need to abort a pregnancy.

If they didn't want to do that, they could at the very least support family planning - even non-abortion family planning like sex education and increased availability of birth control options.

These groups are not interested in any of that. Instead, they want to use people of color as pawns in their righteous message.

The message is also appalling because of where it places the blame. While it tries to highlight the black fetuses as victims, it is also implying that black mothers are the killers. With abortion, you can't have one without the other (at least from the pro-life side). In other words, the group is telling the public that abortion is more often carried out by evil black mothers.

This may not be eugenics but it certainly seems to be saying that black people are more evil. Either that, or they would agree with my earlier point that low income people need more support than they currently receive - not just counseling, but financial support.

I hope the backlash is strong enough that they learn in the future not to blithely trade on racial issues for reasons that benefit themselves and their agenda. And if they want to help communities of color, they should start working there and ask the people what they want and need. This hypocrisy, blame and condescension is appalling.

Party Like It's 1848

So the conventional wisdom of the moment seems to be that the unrest in the Middle East right now is most similar to the revolutions / protests of 1848*. If so, our expectation should be that the revolutions won't be successful in the short term but in a couple decades will lead to more stability for these countries.

I am partial to this analysis because it fits my more long term view of things. Stable democracies don't happen overnight. If you look at our own history, we needed two attempts to create a decent constitution and form of government and we had a major civil war 84 years after our independence.

In fact, this Foreign Policy post shows why the color revolutions from a few years ago have not shown immediate results and have even regressed. However, I think these will also have long term successes.

Basically, I think we should be prepared for the fact that some of these revolutions will regress (assuming they are successful in getting rid of their leaders). But we cannot and should not lose hope and we shouldn't give up on democracy. I just fear that if our hopes are too high and then we are inevitably let down, next time we'll think that the country isn't ready for democracy and we'll be unwilling to support it.

This fear is especially acute in situations when supporting democracy might be less appealing - like another Egypt. If our bar is too high, next time we might not support an Egypt. We must keep faith that democracy works in the long term and at every step we need to support it. In the long term, we'll be rewarded.


*Quite a surprise to me that there was actually a smart and useful Slate post.

Sophistry from Huckabee

So Mike Huckabee thinks abortion is slavery. Let me tell you why that is a stupid analogy.

Let's start with the source of the major disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice folks - the moment that life begins. The pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception - that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, God inserts a soul into the zygote. After this amazing act, God then disappears and allows that zygote to develop into a person that might lead a happy life or might die a horrible death from famine, war or genocide.

Pro-choice folks on the other hand might not have a bright line for when life begins, but feel that it is not right at conception. Maybe it is after the first trimester or maybe it is later and at the point when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb.

So if we take the pro-life position as the starting point, then we can determine an accurate analogy. If life begins at conception, then terminating a pregnancy is ending a life. In other words it is murder. In fact, that is what pro-lifers have been saying for a long time.

Mike Huckabee wants us to believe that it isn't murder but slavery. If I understand slavery right, it is the imprisonment of another person for the purposes of free labor. It seems to me that giving birth to a child then putting it to work might be slavery. But killing the fetus denies it the ability to do work - force or unforced.

So why is Mike Huckabee moving away from calling it murder and saying it is slavery? I have some thoughts. First, I think he realizes that equating it to murder hasn't won the argument (because most people don't agree that life begins at conception).

So if the murder argument isn't working, Huckabee must have decided that he needs another more provocative analogy, even if the logic is insanely tortured and the new comparison is less appalling than murder.

Second, maybe he thinks some people of color, maybe those that are religious, will buy this argument. In other words, he thinks this seemingly clever turn of words will bring new people who have a history with slavery to support the pro-life cause.

Third, he probably thinks it is a clever trap for liberals. For so long liberals have been trying to make southern conservatives feel guilty about slavery. If he can convince people that abortion is slavery, liberals have to either say slavery isn't that bad, or that abortion is wrong.

No matter his reasons, his argument is clearly sophistry. But that isn't Huckabee's biggest problem with this abortion argument.

Huckabee's real problem is that he is looking for an easy win (with obviously flawed logic) instead of putting in the hard work on this issue to change minds. No matter what you call abortion (slavery or murder), the only way people will come to the pro-life side is if they believe that life begins at conception.

That of course is a tremendous challenge (because it goes against science and what feels like common sense). And it is a challenge Huckabee doesn't seem up to.

Is the Mandate Unconstitutional?

The answer is a resounding no according to David Cole. You should read the whole argument, but let me see if I can summarize correctly.

First, although the people that oppose health reform, and the mandate particularly, seem to do so form a libertarian perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the freedom these people want. Instead, their only hope is to appeal to state's rights. In fact, the states themselves clearly have the right to have an individual mandate.

So does state's rights argument work? No. The necessary and proper clause, as it has been interpreted since the New Deal allows Congress to pass such a mandate, as does the interstate commerce clause. The courts have found that the federal government has the ability to regulate individual interactions if they affect bigger interstate interactions. Marijuana laws and laws restricting growing of wheat for individual consumption show that the federal government can regulate people who are not ingaging in the market.

Cole goes on to say that the federal judge that struck down the law did so using jurisprudence that is no longer in use. He therefore thinks the law will be upheld and not by a close vote.

While I am convinced by Cole's argument, I am only moderately reassured. What seems like clear cut legal reasoning, the Supreme Court, especially one as conservative as this one is, is capable of finding arguments for political decisions. My gut is that this decision comes down 5-4, hopefully with Kennedy deciding in favor of the law. Anything more than that is too much to expect.

Glenn Beck is not Harmless

For a long time I thought Glenn Beck was just harmless fool making poor arguments about the evils of liberals. He would boil liberalism to its most crazy state, then oversimplify something evil in a way that made it seem the same as liberalism. But I wasn't worried or that annoyed because painting all liberals with a crazy brush wasn't dangerous.

But I am starting to feel differently now. I don't pay enough attention to Glenn Beck to know whether he has changed or whether I have just learned more about him. Either way, his conspiracy theories now feel pretty dangerous.

Lately, I have heard him proclaiming a number of crazy conspiracies. First, he said that George Soros is plotting to take over the United States government. Second, he has said that a communist academic wants to cause capitalism to collapse and has called for violent protests. Third, he has said that Shiite Muslims want to bring back the 12th Iman, who he says is actually the anti-Christ.

In the first two scenarios, he is suggesting that a person is a grave threat to our government. In the last, he is saying a broad religious group worships the devil and wants to bring about the end of days. In all cases, he is saying that the group is dangerous and implying that we might need to use violence against these people.

Let's compare this to Sarah Palin and the earlier discussion this country was having over rhetoric. Palin's crosshairs map raised a lot of eyebrows (mostly after the fact). However, Palin did not intend, nor would a reasonable person think she intended, to suggest that those people should be killed or were any sort of threat.

However, Glenn Beck is saying that these people are a threat. That is explicitly what he is saying. The only way this isn't dangerous is if we assume that most people will understand that he is stupid and crazy and therefore won't believe what he is saying. And part of me thinks this is true.

But I don't know if we should take this for granted. And the fact that some of his targets have received death threats means there are at least some people that believe Glenn Beck and think these people represent a threat.

Above anyone else on TV, Glenn Beck's rhetoric and conspiracy theories might actually be dangerous. It should be stopped. Instead, I think our only hope is that he continue to lost viewers as people realize that he is a big bucket of crazy and stupid.

Yacoubian Building and Egypt

I want to write about Egypt, but am a bit under the weather. In the meantime, if you want some fiction from Egypt that is well written and can give you a sense of the culture there - read The Yacoubian Building.

Book Report: The Fires, Part I

I am about halfway through The Fires: How a Computer Formula, Big Ideas, and the Best of Intentions Burned Down New York City-and Determined the Future of Cities by Joe Flood. The book is about New York City mayor John Lindsay and his work with the RAND corporation to make the FDNY more efficient. Of course those efforts had disastrous consequences for housing in the Bronx.

Before I get to his story about RAND and the FDNY (Part II of this book report), I want to start with two other things that the author uses as background. First, he does a good job talking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans during the machine / progressive eras. He is clearly on one side, but it is interesting to think about the differences in respect to today's policy decisions. Second, he has a specific narrative about why the Bronx declined as much as it did during the 1960s and 1970s.

Progressive v. Machine
According to Flood, the main difference in methods between machine Democrats and progressive Republicans was the approach to decision-making. The machines received information from the community, through local ward leaders, about problems and then seemingly used trial and error to find solutions. This approach was often clumsy and responsive (and included a fair bit of graft), but according to the author was less prone to overreach and major mistakes of hubris.

Progressives on the other hand believed that data and science could explain everything and all decisions could be objective. Policy solutions would be clear based on the evidence, and government could identify and solve problems broadly and proactively. Flood will explain how often this method lead to bad policy because data is often misread or misunderstood or people don't see negative side effects until its too late.

Decline of the Bronx Explained
Flood's narrative of the decline of the Bronx comes down clearly on one side of this; he blames the decline predominantly on all types of central planning / urban planning / root approaches to policy.

He blames urban planning for driving industry out of the city, chasing hundreds of thousands of jobs out of the city just when African-American and Puerto Rican populations were entering the city. Flood is very critical of the belief that we can / should try centrally to create an ideal city. The urban planners thought we could drive industry out and create a clean and beautiful city. Unfortunately that had disastrous consequences for jobs.

Central planners also created redlining, where the federal government identified neighborhoods (often low income and minority) that were bad risks and therefore should be ineligible for bank loans. This left good building owners in those neighborhoods with no ability to get financing, which left them to sell to slumlords who would milk as much money out of the property as possible and spend as little as possible on the buildings.

Joe Flood also talks about slum clearance. Following the work of Jacob Riis to highlight the living conditions of the poor immigrants in the lower east side, city officials apparently cleared the slums to build new housing. Of course, this likely only shifted the problem and since they didn't create enough to match how much they knocked down, it increased homelessness.

Finally, Flood talks about everyone's favorite urban planner, Robert Moses and his destruction of poor neighborhoods either to create new highways without concern for the effects or for slum clearance to build public housing.

Lessons for the Future
As you can see from his examples, Flood comes down very negatively against the progressive movement and central planning. I think we'll see that the FDNY / RAND example will be the ultimate example against central planning / root approach.

In his narrative, and therefore lessons for current policy, I wonder if he exaggerates the effects of central planners. I don't think we can blame urban planning for the loss of industrial jobs in the city. And while redlining was appalling, I wonder how easy it was to get a loan in those neighborhoods before that. And I would argue that Robert Moses' projects had serious consequences only on some individual neighborhoods. As for slum clearance - I don't think there is an ideal solution for housing - either at the root or branch level - that doesn't involve more money than we are willing to spend or greater tolerance for dangerous conditions.

Either with the branch or root approach, policy makers make bad decisions. Sometimes the exacerbate already troubling trends, or marginally roll back good trends, but I just doubt how much effect they really have over broader trends that are often out of our control.

Basically, despite a compelling story, I am convinced that neither the bottom-up nor the top-down approaches are ideal by themselves. We can and should use data to inform our decisions and have broad solutions for problems. But we also need to have key involvement from people at the local level as a check against hubris, which can lead to very bad decisions. In other words, as is often the case, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Congressional Shooting: One Week Late(r)

I am a week late on this, but I feel the need to post anyway. For the record, my opinion hasn't changed since I first found out about the shooting. Of course the shooting is tragic - and a little scary for those of us that work for elected officials. But in the press the shooting was seen through the lens of a few different issues, which I will give my comments on.

Political Discourse
I think Jon Stewart handled this better than almost anyone (Obama's speech was pretty good, too, but his was more inspiring while Stewart was more honest and without pretense). Basically, I don't think there is any evidence that the shooter was inspired by over-the-top conservative rhetoric, and even if he claimed he was, I maintain that most people know that the commentary is nothing by hyperbole.

At the same time, I think our political rhetoric, while maybe not that unusual throughout our history, is ill-informed and hysterical. I think both sides are guilty. However - and feel free to take this with a grain of salt - I do think Republicans are worse and more hysterical. Or at least there are more lies and fake conspiracy theories than I remember coming from Democrats during the Bush Jr. years.

The point is that I would love it if we could have intelligent and honest debates about the issues. I don't intend to suggest that they should be dispassionate. They can be aggressive as long as they are not personal. It would be great if we lived in a world where we could fight political battles during the day and laugh about it over dinner and drinks at night.

Guns
I don't think guns are the big issue here. Granted, I support background checks and bans on assault weapons. But at some point, you won't be able to stop crazy people from getting a gun.

My bigger concern though is that most gun violence is not perpetrated by people with legal guns but by people with illegal guns. I don't care about guns in Starbucks or concealed weapons laws. I would much rather deal with laws to prevent people from getting guns on the black market.

This is a significant challenge though. Look around at activities that we have tried to ban and see if we have been successful. From prostitution to drugs to guns we are unable to stop market transactions that people want to engage in. This doesn't mean we should give up, but we need to realize that this is the challenge and is one that is far more difficult than our discourse suggests.

Congressman King's legislation is completely absurd and amazingly the rest of the GOP sees that. He wants to ban someone from taking a gun within 1000 feet of a judge or elected official. So King clearly wants to protect himself and people like him from guns, but seems uninterested in the hard fight to protect those that are actually dying from gun-related deaths - poor minorities in urban areas.

I still think that one of the best strategies for dealing with this would be to create a new gun rights group that protects rights of individuals that have passed basic background checks but is really tough on assault weapons and the black market. The NRA seems unwilling to help on that front - especially since the gun manufacturers don't care who buys their guns as long as they make money.

Sarah Palin, et al
Two quick things: Why do we respond and make a big deal about what the crazies say? Why are we obsessed with Sarah Palin's idiotic tweets? Why do we care about Glen Beck's absurd conspiracy theories? And why do we go crazy when Limbaugh makes another racist statement or bold-faced lie?

It's like training a dolphin - if you want it to stop misbehaving, ignore the bad behavior. Trying to condemn the bad behavior only gives it attention, which is what it really wants afterall.

Second - Palin's video after the shooting made it crystal clear to almost everyone that she cares most about herself. She wasn't confronting the issue. Instead she was playing the victim at a time when dozens of actual victims were dealing with a real nightmare.

Dear Conservative: Homeless

Dear Conservative,

It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.

Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.

First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.

Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.

Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).

If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?

I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.

The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.

Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.

Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.

A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.

I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.

See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.


*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.

Steriods and the Hall of Fame

I have written a lot about baseball, steroids, and the Hall of Fame and I am not sure I have been consistent. But here is my current thinking (in response to this NY Times piece).

If we were going to be consistent about how we select people for the Hall of Fame, we would either prevent everyone who used from selection into the Hall of Fame, or we would ignore whether they used or not and vote strictly on performance. The former strategy is impossible and the later, while consistent, feels unsatisfying - like there must be a more just approach.

So if we shoot for something more satisfying, we might decide not to vote for people we know used steroids. This strategy will affect Mark McGwire, Raphael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds. But many journalists are also guessing, which can affect someone like Jeff Bagwell that may or may not have used.

The great struggle with this issue is that each option is imperfect; every choice seems to be an injustice to someone. Voting strictly on performance is an injustice to the players that did not use and are therefore likely being overlooked (as they were likely outperformed by their peers that did use). Punishing those that did use, depending on how strict your standards of evidence are, will either avoid punishing some that have escaped detection or punish some that are accused but did not use - or both.

Out of those three options, none feels much better than the others. But I think I lean towards punishing those where there is good evidence that they used. We have to accept that some got away with it. There is nothing we can do about it. Considering that though, I would hope that voters keep their standards of evidence pretty strict. I would rather not punish someone that used than punish someone that did not.

This means not voting for Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and Clemens. Most others should probably get considered.

I also think that this would be a less contentious issue if the baseball writers that vote were not so publicly sanctimonious after so obviously missing the issue.

DADT

I have been absent for a while; I apologize. I will say that I am happy with the lame duck compromises / legislative victories. And none more so than DADT repeal. And I have to say, I have new faith in Joe Lieberman thanks to his fight for this issue. Somehow, it didn't seem political or calculated; it seemed like he just wanted it. I could be wrong of course, but that is my initial read.

These are the Values Voters?

So let me get this straight - Republicans think that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans is so important that we don't need to identify savings to offset it. But a bill to support people that worked at the World Trade Center following the collapse is not that important and instead, for that, we need to know how we will pay for it. To put it even more simply: tax cuts for wealthy is important, health care for 9/11 responders, not that important. Nice values.

I Don't Hate It

So the Times is reporting an agreement between Obama and GOP on extending the Bush tax cuts - all of them - and aid to lower income Americans including further tax breaks. I think it is a fine compromise and a sign that maybe our government will not completely shut down during the next two years.

However, Obama has been too silent for too long. I completely agree with Frank Rich that Obama needs to articulate his positions, and do it frequently, even if the public is likely to disagree with him. Instead, we have no idea where he stands - or only a vague idea. I envision for him a moment similar to the end of The American President, when President Shepard finally takes a principled stand.

But in reality, Obama should be in front of cameras all the time - so much that we get sick of him. For someone in an office with significant control over the agenda, he seems to cede it to the Republicans. I see myself returning to this theme frequently over the next two years.

But coming back to this issue, Obama and Democrats need some message discipline and they need to repeat over and over again that Republicans went into this negotiation looking to protect the richest Americans and Democrats went in looking to protect middle and lower class Americans and Americans that are out of work. They need to hammer that home the way Republicans managed to hammer every one of their messages home over the last year.

If I weren't so tired, I would be screaming this message. Instead, you'll have to trust me when I say how frustrated I am that this isn't happening.

Politics Night: Wikileaks

We had our third politics night on Tuesday (11/30/2010). We discussed Wikileaks. I will summarize my position. Others can add theirs in the comments if they so choose.

Let me start by saying two things about state secrets that do not directly relate to Wikileaks. First, I think people in government abuse state secrets privileges (see my post on Claim of Privilege). So I am not a zealot on protecting classified documents. And related to that, I think there can be really important instances when leaked documents tell the public what they need to know but the government has been hiding from them.

Now, as to Wikileaks, I don't think that this last release was necessary nor has it been helpful at all. As many commentators have already said, the release was gossip and nothing more. And that gossip hasn't told the public anything useful, but it has potentially hurt our ability to work with partners like Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Governments should be able to talk privately. Of course, in the end, their decisions, and the information that went into making those decisions should be made public. But we don't need to know all private conversations.

I don't remember the previous releases too well, except that in general they didn't say a whole lot that we didn't already know. I think there were certain events that we didn't know about, but overall, there didn't seem to be a message that the government was hiding that came out in the releases.

I believe that the reason the Wikileaks information hasn't been that helpful in general stems from Julian Assange's motives. If we are to believe him, his goal is to make everything government does public. If we are to believe others, he just wants to embarrass the US. Either way, these intentions have lead, and will continue to lead to, unedited information dumps that are mostly useless but sometimes harmful.

When someone's intention is to highlight wrongdoing or bad decision-making, then we are likely to get information that furthers those goals. But when one's motives come from an absurd notion about democracy, or just a hatred of the US, then we will get a lot of information that is not helpful for the public to know and in some cases is harmful.

Update:
One of the Politics Night faithful pointed me to a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood on Democracy Now. Also, so that Julian Assange can speak for himself, here is a link to some of the interviews with him recently.

Shame HuffPo

While I mostly blame cable news for ruining constructive debate in our country, there are definitely on-line news sources that are doing their part. I have seen Huffington Post a number of times, and it always enrages me, present a headline and even a description of someone's talking points that is incorrect and needlessly inflamatory.

In this example, HuffPo says that Juan Williams is saying unemployment benefits weaken regular work values. But in watching the video, I don't see Williams saying that at all. He says that when a person chooses to stay home instead of work, it erodes their work values. And while he might acknowledge that some people are incentivized against working by the extension of unemployment benefits, I don't see him accepting that argument at large.

I know that as Democrats we like to think that only Fox News distorts what people say. But clearly, that isn't the case.

Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

Tom Delay
I’m not sure how I feel about the Delay conviction. In fact, I think I agree with parts of this Wall Street Journal editorial.

Tom Delay certainly seems to have violated the spirit of the campaign finance rules. But it seems like he found a way around them so that he couldn't be convicted of actually violating them.

But I am not convinced that he is guilty of money laundering; at least I don’t think his crime fits in with the purpose (or spirit) of the money laundering law. But if there are experience lawyers out there that feel otherwise, feel free to convince me.

On a related note, I discovered a really good blog on New York State politics the day it shut down. Oh well. Here is a really good post on Joe Bruno's legal issues.

Charles Rangel
I think the Rangel case is interesting if not a little frustrating. I agree with the people that say his crimes don't seem to fit with previous censures. However, his crimes seem worse than behavior that received reprimands.

And as bad as Rangel's actions were, I can't believe for one minute that he is the only one of the 535 members that have used their stationary for private fund-raising or forgotten to count rental income from second or third houses in their taxes. (The rent stabilized apartments situation is probably unique to New Yorkers.)

Basically, I feel that the House is making an example out of Rangel - Democrats to pretend they are tough on ethics violations and Republicans to make a Democrat look bad. But really, there are probably other examples of similar bad behavior that are missed or ignored. In other words, censure only seems strong because of how bad they probably are in cracking down on all violators.

To conclude, to the extent that justice was served in these two examples, it was imperfect justice. Maybe that is all we can hope for.

If I were President: Budget Deficit

I played the NY Times' Budget Puzzle. Here is my first attempt. I fixed the deficit with 43% tax increases and 57% spending cuts. Again, this was just a first cut. I basically went through and checked things I could live with. But I didn't do a great job of comparing all of the options and only choosing the least painful ones. I was surprised how easy it was. Of course, capping Medicare really helped (saving $562 billion!).

It is also surprising how many reasonable things I did not do, which shows that there is wiggle room. I did not choose to decrease the size of the Navy nor reduce Iraq and Afghanistan troop levels to 60,000 or (gasp) 30,000. I did not increase the Medicare eligibility age or the Social Security retirement age. I choose a moderate estate tax proposal (Obama's instead of Kyl's or Clinton's). But since I did choose the millionaire's tax, some of the things listed above could offset that if it is unreasonable.

CEO Pay

A colleague and I were debating about CEO compensation. We were actually talking about the music industry and my colleague suggested that the decrease in revenues could be mitigated if the CEO took a pay cut.

My response, and I am confident that I am right about this, was that a cut in the CEO's salary would have little effect on any companies' overall profit picture. I offered him, and now I offer you dear reader, this challenge: Find me a CEO that makes in salary more than 0.1% of the companies' revenue.

In fact, I'll even give you a head start. This page on the AFL/CIO website lists CEO salaries. Once you have that, you can find the companies' revenue by searching the company name and "annual report".

I am willing to bet though that all CEO salaries will be well below the 0.1% of revenue. In fact, I looked at one random company today and found that the CEO was making 0.03% of revenue.

With salaries this low as a percentage of revenue, cuts to their salaries will not help with budget problems. If the company sees a decrease in revenue of 3%, having the CEO work for free will only cover 1% of that gap. Therefore, even that big cut will only be symbolic.

Now, that isn't to say that symbolic gestures are meaningless. I do believe that symbols can be very important. A salary that is 0.03% of revenue can still be considered obscene and a big cut can send an important message. So I am not suggesting that it shouldn't happen in a company in difficult times. I am just saying that it will do very little for the companies fiscal problems.

Some Music and Some Econ 101

This weekend, I had a pleasant debate about the music industry and downloading of music for free. My overall point was that downloading music is and should be illegal and the government should work to increase enforcement. While I do think the record industry has been slow to evolve with new technology, I don't think stealing music is a good (moral or effective) way to force the industry to change.

Although I do like to recap arguments on my blog sometimes - with the intention of synthesizing my thoughts, not to get the last word - this is not the point of this post. As I was falling asleep last night thinking about the debate, I realized a way to better show a fear I have with the illegal downloading of music - through a supply and demand graph!

One of the points I made was that in the market place, consumers have the choice to show their dissatisfaction with a product by refusing to purchase it. I argued that it gives the consumer an unfair advantage in the marketplace if they can get the product without paying for it (fairness within a transaction is necessary for a well-functioning market system - I can explain further if anyone wants me to). This will drive the price down to an unsustainable level.


Here is where the economics comes in. For a given product, consumers are willing to pay a certain price to have that product as opposed to not having it. That price is shown by the original equilibrium, P1, Q1. When a consumer can choose to have the product without paying for it, or have the product and pay for it, their price is no longer the value of the product, but the value of feeling good about how they obtained the product. Clearly that price will be much less than the previous price.

What you see in this scenario is a shift in the demand curve from D1 to D2. And when the demand curve shifts back, you see a lower equilibrium price, but more importantly, a lower quantity. This means that in this scenario, prices decrease and less music is produced. And I don't think anyone wants that.

A colleague of mine theorized that getting free music mitigates - possibly completely - this shift in the demand curve. He thinks that getting free music leads the consumer to purchase new music. I think this argument is weak and an attempt at justification. Consumers are not so irrational that they spend the same amount of money for the same quantity of music whether there is the option to steal music or not. And if it mitigates but not completely, then all we are talking about is magnitude - but the direction of the effect is still the same.

I also think a musician should have the ability to choose to make that investment instead of consumers forcing that situation on them.

Anyway, enjoy the flash back to Econ 101. And feel free to challenge my model or my assumptions.

My Ignorance of Historians

In my post on Definitive Biographies, I remarked that I was skeptical of Jon Meacham's book on Andrew Jackson because he is a journalist and not a historian. I am embarrassed about my ignorance. I was right that he is not a historian but I had no idea how many of the great popular history writers are also not historians.

I only recently learned this fact that many of my favorite / respected authors of history do not have PhD's in history. David McCollough only has a BA in English Literature. Ron Chernow also has only a bachelor's degree (granted, I haven't read his stuff, but his book on Alexander Hamilton is on the top of my history list). Robert Caro has a degree in English. And Doris Kearns Goodwin has a PhD but in Government.

This article in the New York Review of Books, which by the way is a glowing review of Chernow's George Washington biography, explains this development over the last 50 years or so. It seems that historians are busy specializing in very specific issues and are mostly debating each other. While this is valuable for debates in history, it is usually not very accessible to a non-historian audience.

So Jon Meacham, I owe you an apology. And when I make time to read more biographies, I'll be sure to check out your book American Lion.

What A Liberal Would Have Done

I saw this post by James Galbraith on what Obama should have done to stem the financial crisis.

Law, policy and politics all pointed in one direction: turn the systemically dangerous banks over to Sheila Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Insure the depositors, replace the management, fire the lobbyists, audit the books, prosecute the frauds, and restructure and downsize the institutions. The financial system would have been cleaned up. And the big bankers would have been beaten as a political force.

Team Obama did none of these things. Instead they announced "stress tests," plainly designed so as to obscure the banks' true condition. They pressured the Federal Accounting Standards Board to permit the banks to ignore the market value of their toxic assets. Management stayed in place. They prosecuted no one. The Fed cut the cost of funds to zero. The President justified all this by repeating, many times, that the goal of policy was "to get credit flowing again."

The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. They could boom the stock market. They could make a mint on proprietary trading. Their losses on mortgages were concealed -- until the fact came out that they'd so neglected basic mortgage paperwork, as to be unable to foreclose in many cases, without the help of forged documents and perjured affidavits.

Maybe it wouldn't have been as easy as it sounds here, but the fact is that the bail-out plan was not successful and has not gotten us out of the woods. One of the reasons banks are able to report profits again is because much of their balance sheets are not properly valued. We see this with single-family mortgages, and we definitely see it with the multifamily stock.

The solution so far has been to be easy on banks, lest they fail. But while Obama is going easy, state and local governments - and homeowners and tenants - are paying the price. All so that we didn't have to take over the banks and be accused of being socialists. Except that happened anyway.

What Kind of Teacher?

This post is going to focus on how we recruit the best teachers. President Bush thought all we needed to do was make prospective teachers get degrees and certifications and take tests. This might require decent training and prevent some bad teachers, but it does not in itself recruit good teachers. Instead, we need to focus on incentives that would attract and retain more of the best and the brightest. Teaching can be an exciting and rewarding endeavor. But for public schools, we would need to change some things first.

Salary
Of course salary is a big issue. Granted, teachers, after a couple decades of service, do pretty well. However, I do think it is less than other occupations where workers have similar credentials. I also think though that salary isn't the only thing.

Flexibility
I am confident that most of us highly value flexibility in our jobs. We don't want rote tasks dictated to us from on high. Having direction is good. But no flexibility is bad. With teaching, the more strict curricula become, the less likely people are going to be to want to teach. Teachers should be told generally what the students are expected to learn, and they should be free to operate within that. We lose central control, but we would recruit better teachers. This is one of the reasons talented teachers choose independent / private schools; they have flexibility over curriculum.

Responsibility
With flexibility should come responsibility. A fairly recent David Brooks column has this quote that I agree with:

"What’s needed, Howard argues, is a great streamlining. He’s not calling for deregulation. It’s about giving teachers, doctors and officials the power to actually make decisions and then holding them accountable. Some of their choices will be wrong, Howard acknowledges, but it is better to live in an imperfect world of individual responsibility than it is to live within a dehumanizing legal thicket that seeks to eliminate risk through a tangle of micromanaging statutes."

For teachers, this specifically means eliminating tenure and using test scores and a lot of other measures to evaluate a teachers effectiveness.

Grow and Learn New Things
There are two other things people value in a job: the ability to gain new responsibilities and the ability to learn new things. For the former, there are some opportunities for teachers - move to administration or become a team leader / mentor. But that is about it. So if we want to attract and retain smart people in teaching, we should be heavy on the later. Staff development for teachers is not only good to keep teachers' knowledge up to date, but serves to recruit people to teaching that want to be lifelong learners. We should be prepared to spend a lot more on staff development.

What We Have Now
Instead of the above benefits, we have a system whose main attractions are summer vacations and job security. And when those are the main benefits, you don't attract the best and brightest.

The point isn't to disparage teachers. I do think that most of our teachers are capable, smart, and dedicated. The goal though is to replace the ones at the bottom of the curve with more people at the top of the curve. We can only do this by changing the incentives on the margins.

Many really smart people work in jobs where there is little security because they are confident in their ability and believe that they will have a boss will be reasonable and make the right decision in most cases. Teaching could be the same way. As for summers off - I would not argue that teachers do not deserve it. I just think that right now, absent incentives for more really good teachers, it attracts people to teaching for the wrong reasons.

I will say, and I think I have said it before, that the unions are a serious impediment. In other occupations as well, they go out of their way to protect people from management at all costs. But this means you are not rewarded for good performance and not punished for poor performance. Everyone moves along in a uniform system. This protects everyone, but does nothing to attract the best we can have.

Economy: Lost Decade?

I'll admit that after Obama's election, I mostly sat back and let his administration do their work. I didn't think too hard about whether they were getting things right. Only now that some of their plans - most notably on the economy - am I really trying to understand what went wrong and why.

The person I have been looking to the most is Paul Krugman, but I have lately been expanding my horizons to see what the right thinks (mainly through WSJ and Financial Times). It seems to me that almost everyone agrees the government should do something to help the economy - whether it be through monetary or fiscal policy. Unfortunately, it seems that monetary policy is not very useful at the moment as interest rates are up against the lower bound (ie cannot go lower than zero and are near zero now).

That leaves fiscal policy. As we know however, there is no public support for fiscal stimulus and there are no leaders willing to try to change minds and convince people that fiscal stimulus is necessary. Bernake is unwilling, as is Obama.

I will admit, as Obama should, that the original fiscal stimulus was imperfect - and not only because it was too small. Shovel-ready didn't pan out as planned and Davis-Bacon requirements slowed things down. Plus, the stimulus seemed to replace state and local spending cuts, negating the stimulus effect.

I had assumed it was common knowledge that we got out of the Great Depression with stimulus spending - ie the war - but there seem to be many that think otherwise and are doing a good job of convincing the public of that. (And if you wonder why war spending is a better stimulus, I would argue that it is because we mobilize war spending very quickly and rarely argue about whether it is too much spending or too little so long as the cause is just.)

If I am understanding the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times correctly, they also think that fiscal policy might help but is politically not viable and monetary policy (QE2 - ie Fed will buy long term debt instead of short term debt) will be mostly ineffective.

Only non-economists are saying that less government spending will allow businesses to spend more and that will get us out of the recession. This isn't the answer because businesses are facing surpluses of their products, and only consumer spending will clear those surpluses and cause businesses to re-start production and hire again. Fiscal stimulus is our only way to achieve that.

If fiscal stimulus is a no-go and monetary policy will not be helpful, what is the outcome? Unfortunately, probably a lost decade.

Casualties in Iraq

The Economist has a graph showing the casualties in Iraq based on WikiLeaks. Graphs like this are really good at showing trends - in this case showing how bad it really was in 2006.

Deficit Panel

The chairs of Obama's deficit reduction panel have made their recommendations, and of course they have hit some nerves. Included in the list of strategies are eliminating the tax exemption for health care plans and interest on home mortgages as well as increasing the age to collect social security. I can't really see either of the tax break changes happening - although I do like the later one (mortgage interest) if it is phased in.

I was frustrated by Republicans on the campaign trail (although honestly no more than I have been with Democrats, including Obama, on the campaign) and their vague and useless talk about decreasing spending. Any meaningful decreases will need to cut services for important and widely-used programs. (For a really good sense of the cost of programs, see this "tax receipt".)

Now at least Republicans will have to weigh in. Do they want to increase the age for social security benefits (unpopular but maybe necessary)? Do they want to eliminate popular tax breaks in the name of decreasing overall taxes and simplifying the tax code? We'll wait and see.

Book Report: Omnivore's Dilemma

First, let me say that Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan isn't a perfect book and most of the information is now common knowledge at least to those interested in food policy (though I think it was somewhat groundbreaking at the time it was written - or at the very least reached a new audience). We know that corn is subsidized and driving an unhealthy system where food is heavily processed an animals are treated poorly.

Even if you know most of this information though, this book is still one of the best books on the subject. It is well-organized, well-written, and thorough. And unless you are an expert, there are things you will learn. I thought I had a good general idea of our food system from reading articles (some by Pollan himself) and talking to friends. But there was enough new information it the book to keep me interested.

There were two parts of the book though that were new to me and were worth reading. First, his description of Polyface Farms was great. To see how an ultra sustainable farm can work is amazing. Each part of the farm supports the other parts. And what was truly great was that this type of farm requires a lot of thought and energy. It seems that the industrialization and mechanization of our farms has created a job that is less mentally stimulating than it used to be - not that smart people don't do it, but that so much is uniform and planned. A farm like this could in theory keep smart people from leaving the farm to more exciting jobs. It also shows how smart nature is and how easily things can work if you let nature do what it wants to do.

The second part that was really good and worth reading was Pollan's good discussion of utilitarian animal rights. As I have thought more about animal rights, I haven't always known what I meant or what I wanted. I know animals are not humans. They do not and should not have the same rights and get the same treatment. But I do not think therefore that animals have no rights and are entitled to no consideration about there well-being.

Pollan's description of Peter Singer's philosophy really hit home with me. While I knew animals shouldn't suffer unnecessary pain, I didn't know anything beyond that. Basically, Peter Singer believes that animals and humans should have equal consideration of their interests. Humans interests are different from a chickens interests, but both should be considered. Humans want shelter, health, freedom, and a good job. Chickens want to roost, nest, and have space to move around. Therefore we seek not only to see that chickens do not suffer, but that they are able to do the things a chicken wants to do.

Free range chickens - actual free range, not the definition created by the agribusinesses - seek to give this to chickens. And the same goes for grass-fed beef. Cows want to eat grass - that is what ruminants do. If we care about animal rights, we should let them do this.

I Don't Eat Meat... or Fish

I wrote a post last year about how I had drastically cut back on my meat consumption. Maybe it doesn't surprise anyone, but I have now entirely cut meat and fish out of my diet. Before I go into my reasons, I want to be clear that I write this post to explain my choice but not to proselytize. I don't think everyone can or should be vegetarian. But based on what I know, I have decided that I have to.

When I last wrote about this, I had said that I have cut back on my meat consumption because the way we consume meat in this country in unsustainable; there is intense pollution, significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, and animal suffering due to our current meat consumption practices. I still feel that cutting back on meat and purchasing from sustainable businesses is a great way to deal with these problems.

To be honest, I ended up becoming effectively vegetarian before I had decided that it was a moral necessity for me. The only place that I was eating meat at the time closed for about six months (fire), and during that time I ate no meat. So I realized I could and therefore should stop eating meat altogether.

But it was during that time and since that I realized I had to continue to avoid eating meat. And the main reason was that if I cared about animal rights, I couldn't feel good about the fact that the animals I was eating lead such short lives - even if they were good lives. For example, pigs raised for meat live 8 months, beef cattle 15-20 months, and chickens two months. I don't feel happy eating a chicken that only lived for such a short time.

Now, I recognize there is a problem with my logic. These animals are entirely domestic. Without our food system, they would not likely live at all. I don't have much of a response to this except that maybe in an even more perfect world we wouldn't eat any animal until 5 years. But then again, I don't know what this might do to the quality of the meat. The bottom line though is that I don't feel good about it.

All of this doesn't address why I don't eat fish. For that, I blame scuba diving. I love diving, I love the colors, the beauty and the peace. It is such an amazing way to see nature. And so I can't abide to eat fish when they are caught in a way that destroys these ecosystems. The deteriorating conditions of our seas are well documented and gaining more widespread recognition. Until there is an international solution to the overfishing, I will not contribute to a practice that destroys one of our most valuable and beautiful resources.

So there you have it. No meat. No fish. But I still eat eggs. Only free range and local, in case you were curious.

Collision: A Review

Summary. I just watched Collision, the documentary about the debates on whether Christianity is good for the world between Hitchens and Wilson. In this post I will tell you where my beliefs are and what I thought about the two arguments. Get comfortable, this is going to be a long one.

I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.

First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.

While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.

But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.

I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.

One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.

As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.

Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.

I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.

Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.

Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?

Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.

The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.

Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.

One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.

So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.

Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.

Truman's Bomb

I have been watching the American Experience documentary on President Truman. So far I am half way through and just got to the end of World War II. Since I haven't read McCullough's Truman or any other biography, this is my first study of him. The one thing that sticks out of course is the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima using the nuclear bomb.

Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.

The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.

If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.

The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.

Things Change: 2010

Good Morning! So most of the election results are in, and I have to say I am not too upset by the results. The House went Republican by what will probably be 65ish votes. The Senate has stayed Democrat with as many as 53 seats for the Dems. And in NYS, all statewide seats went Democrat, but the state senate is still up in the air, with a 31-31 split a real possibility. Having to compromise might make the chamber more effective, but I doubt it.

The biggest reason I am relatively happy though is that it looks like the crazy and not-so-bright candidates mostly lost. Sharron Angle lost by 6 percent in Nevada (whereas polls had her in the lead), Joe Miller seems to have lost to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski (a more reasonable Republican), Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, and of course Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, as expected. All of those outcomes comfort me. I don't mind a Republican outcome as long as it is the relatively reasonable people that win and not the crazies.

What about Rand Paul you ask? I think he is on the fringe (and ignorant of macroeconomics), but he is smart and thoughtful, if lacking judgment.

Election Night 2010

This election is really firming my belief in the long run / big picture. Change does not happen overnight (except in rare situations). But it does happen slowly. And while people like Rand Paul win elections, their policies of very limited government have been rejected for well over 200 years now. As a country we have slowly increased the role of government to situations that are appropriate and necessary. The point of all this is to say that I have not lost faith; change will come, but slowly.

As for what we know right now: In the Senate, West Virginia (and as expected so have Connecticut and Delaware) has gone to the Democrats. This means the chances of Republicans taking the Senate are slim (2% according to 538). But I have turned off the TV because I can't bear to watch Republicans that know nothing about economics talk about belt tightening.

Lightning Rounds

I didn't realize it until I saw this post, but I hate lightning rounds at candidate debates. There are very few questions in politics that can be answered with either a yes or a no. Instead, this sort of thing fuels unfair negative attack adds by trapping politicians. And you'll see that most of the questions are not even relevant or meaningful.

I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.

- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?

This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.

- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?

Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?

- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?

This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.

- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?

Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?

- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?

This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.

- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?

Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.

- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?

Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.

- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?

Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.

Tea Party is Bad for Business

I hadn’t thought about this, but yes, the Tea Party is bad for business. They want to abolish the Federal Reserve and strongly opposed TARP. They also oppose federal education funding, which would likely decrease education spending and achievement leading to a less skilled workforce. And they oppose the EPA, which maybe businesses agree with, although if I were a good business, I wouldn’t want to be businesses that pollute to be more competitive than me. Then again, maybe good businesses don’t exist.

Scientific American for Policy Issues

I recently subscribed to Scientific American thinking that it wouldn’t really have any political / policy applications but would be good to keep up to date on major science developments (after reading Bill Bryson). Instead, there are lots of articles about policy*. I feel stupid now for not realizing how much science and policy interacts.

Here are just a few of the recent examples: from the most recent issue, the magazine had stories on the climate change debate, phosphorus in lakes (ie pollution due to fertilizer manufacturing), the super grid, and a brief on chemicals in our environment. Previous issues discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, robots in war, and technology in government, among many other topics. And the beauty is that I feel you can trust Scientific American more than most other sources that might also cover these issues. Amazing.

And yes, tonight is the night of short posts.

*Note: I had originally said "science" here. Clearly I meant to say policy.

Self-Funded

The NY Times blog 538 had an interesting post about self-funded candidates, and here is the line that really caught my eye:

But individual contributions are often a good proxy for grass-roots support, and a candidate who bypasses the routine of building fund-raising networks may also miss an opportunity to build volunteer networks, which can be useful in motivating turnout. Moreover, self-financed candidates have had a fairly poor track record on Election Day in recent years. Ms. McMahon is an unusual candidate running an unusual campaign in an unusual cycle, so we’ll have to see how this all plays out.

I had never thought this way about self-funded candidates. It makes me think of Bloomberg's 2009 campaign in a whole new light and could be another way of understanding his relatively poor showing (and Thompson’s surprising competitiveness) in the 2009 elections. I had chalked it up to voter anger at Bloomberg, but this makes a little more sense - or at least adds another dimension.

Another Note on Moderates

Since the beginning of Obama's presidency, Democrats have been criticizing Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise. The problem is that both parties have been punishing and chasing away moderates in their party that otherwise might be willing to be bipartisan (Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, etc). We can’t expect compromise if both parties punish compromise. I'm just saying.

Another Quick Election Update

The 538 blog on the NY Times, which has great commentary on the election polling, has the Senate at 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans (although I can’t make the math work - looks to me like 51 Dem...) and the House at 232 Republican and 203 Democrat. Not bad, all things considered.

More Thoughts On Obama Year 2

I want to be clear (to myself and to you) about why I think Obama has not been doing a great job. Overall, my problem is not that I feel he has been too moderate (ie that he hasn't been liberal enough). I don’t begrudge compromises on health care, financial services reform, or even a lack of progress on Guantanamo. I do think that on health care in particular, he has failed to defend it adequately.

I do have a problem though with his relatively weak foreign policies. He has not been strong enough with Israel, he has not done much on Darfur, and now this report on child soldiers.

And I think his economic policies have been weak. While his rhetoric with the banks has been strong, his policies with them have been scared (his work on foreclosed homes is a prime example). And his stimulus was too weak, but he is sticking to it instead of fighting for more.

Elections Prediction: 10/24/2010

Traders at Intrade are predicting that Republicans will take the House and Democrats will keep the Senate. Rasmussen has the Senate as 48 solid Democrats, 46 solid Republicans and 6 toss-ups. My prediction is that Democrats will win in Washington and California (and Connecticut). That gives them 50 plus Biden. I think Nevada will be a nail biter. I think Reid might be able to pull it off, although his debate performance seems to have been weak and I read that he isn’t campaigning as hard. I will not be surprised if Rand Paul wins. He seems somewhat smart (if lacking judgement and thoughtfulness). But I will be appalled if Sharon Angle wins.

James Carville et al have an interesting column in today's NY Times comparing this election to the midterms in 1998. I wonder if Democrats have enough time to make the point that Carville thinks voters will listen to (ie middle class and American jobs).

I don't know why we can't once and for all quiet the calls for ideological purity. And I thought we would have learned already from 2006 and 2008 that a big tent is a winning strategy. But of course there will always be people who learn the wrong lessons from history.

There is so much wrong with the logic in the column I linked to above. It blames the Blue Dog Democrats for current legislative troubles, which is completely absurd. If some of the more conservative Democrats had been Republicans, we would have likely gotten an even more moderate health care bill (and stimulus and financial reform), if any at all.

A Blue Dog only wants to moderate Democratic tendencies, where as Republicans want to thwart all Democrat efforts. And thinking that we can make up for the loss of numbers through being better motivated (because moderates apparently demotivate the party) is just naive. The columnist also realizes that Republicans are going to lose some races because of ideological purity, but doesn't see the same for Democrats.

The biggest mistake though comes from not understanding basic human behavior. Whether we are in a center-right or center-left country - we are near the center. And thinking you will be more successful by becoming more extreme is just ridiculous. You make progress by convincing the independents to move a little in your direction, and you can only do that with moderates in your party.

I don't know if there is really a trend of increasing partisanship - it seems like it, but then again, I think we underestimate how partisan the past was. But I did mourn the loss of reasonable moderate Republicans in 2006 (only slightly since it did increase Democratic majorities) and I will mourn the loss of moderate Democrats this year. The moderates keep both parties from going too far to the extreme and actually allow us to make positive changes. Within both parties there are voices calling for ideological purity. Not only is it a losing strategy for elections and governing, but it is bad for compromise and our discourse.