My Anger Will Last

I cannot express the anger I feel right now over today's vote in the New York State Senate on Marriage Equality. And I feel that the anger will not go away soon.

I am not going to launch an explanation for why I think gay marriage should pass. I think I have done that enough already. What I will say is that this is the one issue that I can't understand the other side. For every other issue I can think of, I can understand the other position - I think it is wrong, but I understand it. I understand libertarianism even though I dislike the individuality and selfishness that is its underpinning. I understand those who support small government and have strong faith in markets, even though I think they exaggerate the impact of taxes on businesses and do not fully understand flaws in open markets. I even understand the people who oppose affirmative action even though I think we do everyone a favor by promoting diversity.

But I do not understand opposition to gay marriage. There is no argument that is logically consistent and so any argument must be based on bigotry. Religious arguments hold no water when you consider all the other things in the Bible that so-called religious people ignore. And we don't ban all people who cannot have biological children from getting married, so that argument does not work.

I cannot understand the other side, and therefore I am enraged at how many people, many of them otherwise decent caring people, believe that it is right to deny loving adults the opportunity to the same benefits opposite-sex couples have.

I watched some of the debate today, and the most powerful argument for me came from Senator Squadron. He was married just this summer and he mentioned how emotional that experience was and how he believes everyone should be able to have a similar ceremony. I too was married this summer and like Senator Squadron the wedding was the most emotional day of my life so far. So it matters that we are denying a class of people the right to that experience, and all other benefits that come with it.

I am surprised it was so lopsided (38-24 against), and because of that, the people that oppose this - the people that stand for bigotry against equality - feel vindicated. And that is what makes the most angry. I was expecting it to pass, and I was prepared for the fight that might lie ahead if it was then pushed to referendum. I was not expecting this at all.

The only positive thing that came out of today, was the fact that there was a vote. This way, twenty years from now, when the whole country accepts gay marriage the way the country now accepts inter-racial marriages, those who voted no today will have to explain their votes. Twenty years from now, the grandchildren of the people who voted no are going to walk up to their grandparents and ask them why they stood opposed to the biggest civil rights issue of our time. Today, 38 people voted either on bigotry or short-term concerns about elections and I can take some solace in knowing that in the long-term they will have to face their choice with shame.

Public Adminstrator's Role

Arianna Huffington has written a post about why Biden should resign if Obama does not follow his advice. This view of the role of a public adminstrator - i.e. someone serving an elected official - is oversimplified and makes me think she has never served in that role.

The fact is that the role of public administrators, or civil servants, is to give the best counsel to the elected officials or political appointees they serve. And once they give that advice, their role is to implement the final decision to the best of their ability. Resignation should only occur if the decision is so egregious that the public administrator cannot bring themselves to carry out the orders.

Huffington's tone suggests that one should resign anytime they disagree with the decision of an elected official or appointee, which if everyone followed that advice there would be no civil servants.

To be fair, maybe she is not suggesting that one should resign so easily. But she does not do enough in her post to tell us why a decision to remain in Afghanistan is so wrong-headed that it would be worth resigning over. She does what many far left liberals do, which is wonder why people in government are not as irrational as they are. When you work in government, you are bound to disagree with some of their decisions. The question is, do you disagree enough that you cannot work with them, and that you are willing to significantly weaken the person you are working for.

In addition to her logic about resigning being oversimplified and definitely not objective (I wonder how she would feel if someone resigned in protest of a policy she supported), her arguments against troop increases in Afghanistan are cherry-picked. She quotes pieces of Richard Haas' arguments, but conveniently leaves off parts that do not support his argument. Haas does say Afghanistan is not a war of necessity, but she does not bother talking about wars of choice and when you do or do not commit to a war of choice.

As much as I disagree with her post, I can take some comfort in the fact that Biden is unlikely to resign. If Obama disagrees with Biden, and Biden does not change his mind that it is the wrong decision, he is likely to stay on board anyway because I don't think he, or any other rational person think that staying in Afghanistan is as bad a decision as Vietnam or even Iraq. In other words, I can sleep well knowing Biden is not going to be listening to Huffington.

How Many Died, Really?

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the Iraq War is the immense cost it has had on Iraqis. It makes it even harder when no one, least of all the American military, has been interested in quantifying the impacts on the Iraqi population. Instead, we were left with outside groups indirectly estimating the number of Iraqis killed - with one report concluding that as much as 600,000 Iraqis died.

Well, we finally have an estimate from the Iraqi government. Their report estimates that 85,000 people died, not including insurgents or foreigners. At first blush, I am tempted to trust the Iraqi government more than Johns Hopkins since they presumably have access to more information. (Then again, Johns Hopkins might be less inclined to fudge the numbers for political reasons.)

What is really frustrating about such wildly different estimates though is that it makes analyzing the impact on the Iraqis near impossible. Although 85,000 is not a small number, I could understand how that number might make the invasion worth it in the long run if Iraq becomes a democratic and stable society (not a foregone conclusion yet). But 600,000 is much bigger and seems much harder to forget.

Of course, whether the war was worth will be up to the Iraqis, who should have been the ones to call for our invasion to begin with. And when the Iraqis decide if the invasion was worth it, I imagine it will be the experiences of the people that lived through the invasion and the impacts on their lives that matter more than a statistic. People will likely judge the war by how many people close to them died, or by how many people (or themselves) were forced to flee the country during the height of the violence.

Saudi Arabi... Unbelievable

Remember this post? Well, if you thought that was outrageous, see this headline and article: Saudis Seek Payments for Any Drop in Oil Revenues

Let me get this straight, they want us to pay them if we pass climate change treaty? Somehow it is our responsibility to compensate them because they built their economy - and therefore their autocratic government's ability to rule - around one commodity that is finite and its overuse is harming our planet?

Saudi Arabia kills me.

Beautiful Graphs

This is awesome! I love the way technology is allowing us to see data in ways that make analysis and conclusions much easier.

Healthcare Markets

There have been two articles* I have read about market distortions in America's health care market. These distortions, namely the fact that consumers do not ever see or feel the costs of services, prevent cost savings and efficiencies. The arguments are compelling - certainly, the more we see and feel the costs of our care, the better we would be about choosing only the care that is likely to be effective.

However, the more we feel the costs (in other words, the more responsible we are for funding our care), the more likely it is that some people will not be able to afford certain necessary treatments. Maybe the people calling for this are right and that it would be cheaper to have a system where people pay for more of their care, and then have government support for people who cannot afford certain care that is too expensive. I still fear that people would be left out.

Once again we come back to efficiency versus fairness, the two opposing forces in economics. The question here is how inefficient are we (probably an extreme) and how fair are we (still not so fair - yet). Soon I'll have another post that looks more deeply at the health care proposal and how it does deal with the fairness and efficiency concerns.


*A side note - I do not think I am going to renew my subscription to The Atlantic. I get the feeling that they are trying too hard to be provocative and purposefully publishing articles that attempt to contradict "convention wisdom". I do not have a problem with that in general, however the articles that do have that feeling also seem to have a lot of data and arguments that are purposefully misleading - the healthcare article I linked to being one example and their recent marriage articles among other examples.

Looking for a Friend?

Robert Novak died last month and you might be surprised to learn that I am saddened by his death. Although he was probably a little more pugnacious than I really like, in general I appreciate the smart and thoughtful political commentators.

More importantly for me personally though is that in thinking about his death, I realized again my lack of conservative friends. I truly enjoy debating politics, and while I enjoy debating people farther to the left than I am, I also like debating people to the right of me (note: my definition of debate is an honest and open exchange of ideas).

So, any conservatives out there looking for a friend?

Same as it Ever Was

It is absolutely appalling that there has been no change on Wall Street. You would think that after the chaos they caused, and the huge amount of tax payer money they needed to stay solvent and prevent a major national recession, they would accept that they cannot continue as they were. But no, once again they want complete freedom in their markets, no regulation. Trust us, they say again.

This is all in their interest, because when their reckless bets pay off, they make tons of money. When they do not, they keep the money they have already won (see the graphic on where the major players are now - none seem to be hurting). As the article says, "Heads I win, tails I get bailed out."

President Obama needs to get health care passed, then move right away to implementing regulatory changes on Wall Street. The first change, and the easiest, should be requiring the derivatives to be traded on an open market.

Batteries

Apparently tonight is a learning night. I came across this really good article in the Economist on the state of electric cars.

Journal on Nuclear Power

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the current state of nuclear power. The amazing thing is that it seems really balanced and objective. The bottom line is that there are technological improvements, but some are as yet unproven and many years away. But for now, cost is a major concern, waste is still an issue and safety is less of an issue - with the exception of terrorism.

Obama Health Care Speech

Last night was Obama's speech about health care reform. I did not watch it, but I did read the text here. And here is a link to the GOP response.

It seems like the speech went over well, and I think in general he made all the right points. The only thing that stands out is the claim that we will pay for it with savings and if we cannot, the law will force the government to find the savings somewhere else. Seems to me like he is kicking the can down the road, since I find it unlikely that the savings will pay for the new costs. Although maybe it is smart politics - pass the reform now, then later make the hard choices about cutting programs or increasing taxes.

The Republican responses seem to be all over the map. Their call to start over with a new bill is absurd. Bill Kristol's thinks that this shouldn't be a priority right now - another ridiculous statement. But their concerns over the cost are accurate. We'll just have to see what resonates. In general it seems many want to just kill it, but I think enough want something to happen, which will allow a good bill to pass.

Anyway, for your information, here is the Times' version of fact-checking.

The Problem with Macroecon

The state of macroeconomics seems to be a major topic of discussion these days - mostly focusing on how macroeconomics had been unable to predict the economic meltdown and has been unable to adequately respond to it. The Freakonomics blog has had a number of posts about it. Their overall take on the situation is that there are too few economists focusing on macro issues (and too many working in finance) which has left the field under-explored as of late.

Paul Krugman has a long article in the Times Sunday Magazine on this issue. He attributes problems in macroeconomics to a shift to the right - that too many economists have forgotten about the lessons of the Great Depression because of the lack of a truly serious recession since then. For at least the last few decades, liberal and conservative economists mostly supported the rational actor underpinning to economics and believed that the lack of a serious recession supported this. Krugman also feels that macro-economists have not correctly understood the recessions that did happen and were overconfident in our ability to control them.

The article is great - it isn't nearly as wonkish as his blog posts on this issue. Be aware though that it comes from a very liberal place. That being said, I do agree with most of it. Here is the key quote:

First, many real-world investors bear little resemblance to the cool calculators of efficient-market theory: they’re all too subject to herd behavior, to bouts of irrational exuberance and unwarranted panic. Second, even those who try to base their decisions on cool calculation often find that they can’t, that problems of trust, credibility and limited collateral force them to run with the herd.

There is a lot more to the article, like discussions about unemployment and the influence of capital on the recession, so I highly advise anyone to read all of it. Overall though, I hope that Krugam is right, that economists will spend more time understanding where economic actors actually deviate from the rational actor that we study in theory. Too much of our political debate is a back and forth about whether markets work or do not work. It would be much better if we talked about when they work and when they do not.

Royal Family, Royal Pain

The former ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, has written a piece that is critical of American talk about energy independence. Of course, it is in his interest to talk us out of our search for alternative sources of energy. The less we rely on oil, and therefore Saudi Arabia, the harder it will be for the Saudi royal family to retain their authoritarian and oppressive reign.

Al-Faisal does a good job of describing all the ways Saudi helps stabilize oil prices, and I do not doubt what he says. However, he clearly ignores the other aspects of the Saudi government. He does not defend the way they have spread a violent and hateful form of Islam, one that is intolerant of Shias and western ideology. And he does not defend a government with serious human rights violations and no democracy whatsoever.

The prince says that energy independence is mirage. He clearly means complete independence, and in that he is right. However, the less oil we need, the less dependent we are. We will not completely rid ourselves of oil anytime soon. But we can find ways to insulate ourselves from oil's volatility and from the often corrupt, inhumane, and dangerous governments that export it.

We have a choice coming up. We can do as the Prince says, and remain interdependent with Saudi Arabia and all the baggage that comes with that. Or we can pursue alternatives, giving us the ability to tell Saudi Arabia the truth, and to maybe one day put pressure on the government to provide real change, even if that means having a free government that does not like the US.

Missionary Work

I have to say, I have become increasingly conflicted these days about missionary work. I find it very difficult to balance the good that is done when missionary workers are able to provide food, health care, housing, and training against the way they blithely go in trying to change the existing cultures.

The best meditation on this topic is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible deals with similar themes but is not as balanced as Achebe's book.) What is so powerful about the book is that Achebe, in showing the conflict between the existing tribal culture and religion in Nigera and the christian missionaries and colonialists that come in, does not hide either side's flaws. However, as a reader, I definitely feel that something is lost when Christianity supplants the existing culture and beliefs. (I often feel the same way about Celtic culture and practices, which were also replaced by Christianity.)

On the other side of course is the immense good that is done by missionaries. I need only read an article like this about college football star Tim Tebow or think about the work my Dad's church does in Mozambique to realize that there are a lot of people doing amazing things in the name of religion.

For now, the way I have reconciled this debate in my head is that the good that is done outweighs the bad. But we do need to realize that each culture has its own inherent beauty, and all aid workers need to respect that. There should be policies that prevent groups from requiring conversion to receive help (although I do not think many groups stoop to this). This of course does nothing about the coercion that is inherent when aid is distributed by people with a religious goal. And that I do not have any solutions for - at least at the moment.

Fan of Krugman

I have to say, I am becoming a really big fan of Paul Krugman. I really disliked him in the past because I found him to be another partisan hack lacking in objectivity. This was especially the case during the Obama / Hillary primary. In fact, so many of his columns were not about his specialty - economics - but about politics.

But ever since the economic melt-down and Obama taking office, I have found his voice to be extremely important. First, his economic perspective on the financial crisis has been invaluable. He has been able to explain what is going on as well as fight back against conservative attacks blaming the crisis on liberal policy. Second, his economic analysis of the health care debate is also extremely important since so much of the debate revolves around incentives and markets.

Finally, Krugman has been a good check on the Obama administration. While Republicans have been decrying Obama's moderately liberal solutions to the financial crisis, Krugman has reminded us that options that are farther to the left may be the even better option. This is extremely important since the tendency can be to assume that a policy is sufficiently liberal if conservatives hate it. It's good to have someone telling us that this isn't necessarily the case.

Afghanistan's Future

The news out of Afghanistan is troubling. There appears to have been some fraud in the election, Karzai has chosen to align himself with war lords and people involved in the drug trade, and the violence is not decreasing. Now, things could certainly turn around. After all, Iraq was much worse at one point and has improved significantly. The question though is what if it does not and what is our responsibility there.

I used to feel very strongly about our presence in Afghanistan, but over time I have started to have my doubts. Basically, my doubts stem from my more recent belief that real change takes a long time. I do not believe that democracy and stability can happen overnight. Instead, I believe that it requires many factors that take time to develop. I believe you need a strong middle class to be effective participants in democracy - a middle class that has enough leisure time to be involved in democracy. And debates about how democracy works in the culture that is attempting it also takes time.

If that is the case, then what should we do with Afghanistan? I still believe that we have a responsibility to help Afghanistan recover from decades of civil war - especially since we are partly responsible for the war by arming the Mujahideen and then turning our backs on the country once the USSR left. At the same time, I am not sure that our troops will really be able to pacify the country in the short term. I also think the longer our troops are there, the more they will be resented and resisted.

I think then the solution will be to keep the troops there for a while longer hoping we can improve security to some reasonable level. But more importantly we need to do more to improve the infrastructure and improve the lives of the people in the country. Granted, these two often work hand in hand, and achieving the right balance is key. However, I think in the long run our best bet will be more funding for non-military efforts and slowly decrease our troop levels.

Look Who is Back on Top

I am a little late on this, but this headline about Bank of America, Ciitgroup, and Goldman-Sachs now making significant profits gives me pause. We were told that these groups needed bailouts because without them the economy would collapse and by helping them we will help the economy get back on track. But as the banks seem to be more than back on track, the economy is still declining. I cannot help but feel angry as people who made bad decisions are again reaping huge profits because of government help yet the rest of the economy is still struggling. Maybe that bailout money would have been better spent providing a bigger cushion for those affected by the economy - those losing their jobs or having their hours cut.

Granted, I should try to be more reasonable. The bailout likely prevented a serious economic collapse. But it just feels wrong that the banks are back to doing so well while everyone else is still struggling. That those who need the money the least are once again making it, while those who need it the most have yet to get back on track.

NYS Senate - Conclusion

So the fiasco in the New York State Senate concluded itself, at least for now. What was the solution? Well, for those of you who were not paying attention to this, the person who left the Democrats to help the Republicans become the majority, came back to the Democrats as Majority Leader. Now, that title is apparently different than it is in the US Senate, as the state senate has someone different who is the conference leader and a different president of the senate. So Espada's title may be symbolic. But it is not a very good symbol. Espada is accused of ethics violations and may not actually live in his district.

I am more appalled at the way this situation was wrapped up than I was when it was ongoing. Beyond the injustice inherent in rewarding someone who tried to leave the party simply to get a better position, it is just bad politics. This makes the Democrats look bad in the short term for rewarding him. But it will make them look horrible if and when his ethical transgressions cause his downfall (the same goes for Senator Monserate, who has been given his committee chairmanship back despite facing assault charges).

There is a question about whether voters will remember all this a year from now. But if Espada's troubles come to light later on, they may not have to remember. However, this poll in the Daily News suggests that voters believe they will remember this. (By the way, the blog I linked to is now my favorite blog for up to date NYS news.)

If you think this is the end of the Senate's appalling behavior, you are wrong. After the Senate spent a month doing nothing but arguing over who really holds power, they passed the bare minimum of bills. So of course they did nothing on rent regulation reform or marriage equality. Worse though, they did nothing on Mayoral control of the NYC schools, which expired June 30. Now, I can understand people wanting to negotiate and take some power away from the Mayor (although I don't agree). But doing nothing while the bill expired, then walking away until September because you did not get what you wanted at the last minute is ridiculous.

It is just enraging that these people are adults but yet have not learned the shame that others were taught as kids. You have a responsibility to do your work in a timely manner. If you passed up on the opportunity to participate in a debate until it was too late, you lose the chance to give your input. They should feel ashamed to hold up the process because now, after having months and years to make changes, they want to make changes.

Since my senator is one of the ones now fighting for changes to the NYC school control bill (and one of the ones who welcomed back Espada), I am completely resolved not to vote for him next year. I really hope that survey was right and that everyone else does the same. Otherwise I will lose all hope in state government.

Is Religion Bad?

I have had numerous debates about whether religion in itself is bad. There are many atheist liberals that feel religion is a scourge - a source of problems that delivers few benefits. For a while, before the 2006 and 2008 elections, that group seemed to dominate the Democratic party. Thankfully, that has changed, at least for now. But those people are still out there.

In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.

The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.

The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.

Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.

I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.

One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.

In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).

You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)

What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.

Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.

Powell as Foil

I just finished reading Reputation, the next posthumous book by Marjorie Williams. This book is just a collection of her political profiles. Her ability to analyze a person and really get to their flaws and strengths - to really see the entire person - was amazing. It is one of the many qualities she had that the world is now deprived of. Unfortunately, only some of the people were really interesting, which made the book good, but not great. By far the best profile was the last one - Colin Powell. Her profile of him, before he had decided not to run for President in 1996, is probably the best analysis of him I have ever seen.

In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.

The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.

The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.

This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.

Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.

So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.