A colleague and I were debating education policy the other day at work. If we can transfer that debate here, this blog might actually live up to its name and purpose!
This post is going to be about big picture education ideas, so if you want more specifics from me, look here (be warned, it is probably far more detail than you want). But the big ideas we will talk about get at fundamental philosophies of public education.
Let me start with the least controversial idea (at least in the context of a debate between two avowed liberals). I think if we really want to improve education, we need to spend a lot more money. There is a reason people with means spend $30,000 on private education. They clearly feel that the education is worth that much money. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend that much money per student on public education. And based on how private schools spend their money, we use that money to get much smaller class sizes, more teacher support, and more subjects.
But we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a world with trade-offs and budget constraints. So while I will always advocate for more money for education, I recognize that significant increases are unrealistic in the near term.
While we are not, and cannot, spend as much as we need on education, we need to have policies that give all families the freedom to make educational decisions that are best for their children. And the best way to give families choice is through charter schools and vouchers.
Before I continue, I should say that I do not believe that charter schools and vouchers will necessarily improve the community public schools. My faith in choice and markets is not that blind.
Instead, I believe all families should have the ability to take their kids to other schools - be they charter, secular private, or parochial - when the local community school is failing them. In situations where the local public school is not delivering, middle and upper income families find ways to get their kids out of those schools. High income families usually find private schools while middle income families move to another neighborhood. Lower income families however are often trapped because they cannot afford either option.
The really big problem is that they don't have to be trapped. We could give them the opportunity to attend a comparably priced private school or charter school. Many liberals however believe that by letting poor kids leave public schools, we are hurting the failing public school by taking motivated kids out of the school. I do not think it is fair to require low income students to stay in a bad school in hopes that it won't get worse when we don't require middle or upper income kids to do the same.
That line of thinking seems to rest on the assumption that the government's goal is to protect public schools. I disagree completely. I think the government's goal is to educate children. Allowing children and families the choice over how they are educated fits perfectly within that goal. Protecting public schools that do not provide a good education does not.
I also think, although this argument is on shakier ground, that by giving families choice over their education, you can make them more motivated. After all, if a family's only choice is a terrible public school, what motivation do they have to spend a lot of effort on education. Instead, I can imagine families being more motivated and engaged when they have the choice between the local school, charter schools, and private schools. I of course cannot back this up - it is just a theory of mine.
Some on the left are concerned that vouchers would violate the establishment clause of the constitution since they would allow children to use public money to attend parochial schools. I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Providing funds for children to attend private schools of their choice cannot reasonably be construed as the government establishing the religion of any or all of the parochial schools the children choose.
I am also not convinced that charter schools or vouchers will hurt public schools - at least financially. Most public schools (especially in city and county-wide school districts) are funded based on per pupil formulas. When children move out, the school's budget decreases. So the same thing happens whether a child moves to a different town or uses a voucher to attend a private school. We aren't up in arms about schools losing money every time their population decreases, so we shouldn't think it would be a catastrophe when the same principle is used with vouchers.
The only way that I could see vouchers hurting public schools was if the vouchers were not means tested. If we start subsidizing families that were going to send their kids to private school anyway, it is likely that significant money would leave public education.
I do recognize the problem with "skimming off the top." It is likely that the better and more motivated students would leave the poor performing public schools. But I feel that freedom and choice for the family is a greater concern. And again, I don't see why we should hold low income motivated students hostage at bad schools.
The bottom line is that I believe that all families should have the ability to choose the nature of their kids education. (On a slight tangent, this is why I oppose a national curriculum, even if I was confident that it would be a progressive curriculum. While I want my kids educated in that way, I think parents should be free to chose a different form, even *gasp* one that uses rote learning.) And so it is with vouchers. Low income families should have the same ability to chose what type of education their child gets as middle and higher income families do. They should not be anchored to failing schools in a misguided belief that we need to protect public schools. Giving every kid, or as many as we possibly can, the best education possible is government's goal.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Still Hyper-Partisan
I have already said that I am growing tired of the hyper-partisanship. Unfortunately, I am not sure who to blame, whether it is actually more than usual and whether there is really any way around it. First, let's start with who to blame.
You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.
While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."
I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.
I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.
This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.
On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.
Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.
You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.
While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."
I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.
I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.
This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.
On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.
Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.
Early June Update on 2010 Elections
First of all, I don't see the Democrats dropping below 50 seats (I think we'll win Cali and Washington). So at least it will be split with the Vice President breaking any ties. In fact, though, Democrats could go as high as 52 (Pennsylvania, which I am doubtful about but the Times shows leaning Democrat, and Connecticut which might get better after it gets worse for the Democratic front runner who misled voters about his military history). Illinois doesn't look good right now and neither does Arkansas.
The house is a bit harder to tell, but seems safe to remain with the Democrats. In order to lose the House, Dems would have to win less than 54 of the 64 seats that the Times says are leaning Democrat and all of the toss-ups.
Of course, there is a lot of time.
I also want to say I don't know if I would mind a switch of power in one or both houses. It might lead to some decent compromises and might actually bring out (or force) Obama's bipartisan spirit. Then again, that wasn't the case in Albany, so maybe it is hopeless. I don't have a good frame of reference since I was a little young during Clinton's presidency. After 1994 he worked with Congress on Welfare Reform, but Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were really divisive. I should also consider that a Republican Congress, or even one house, would make it much harder for Obama to fund some of the necessary social programs like housing vouchers.
So maybe I would mind. I don't know. All I know is that I am really tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. More on that later.
The house is a bit harder to tell, but seems safe to remain with the Democrats. In order to lose the House, Dems would have to win less than 54 of the 64 seats that the Times says are leaning Democrat and all of the toss-ups.
Of course, there is a lot of time.
I also want to say I don't know if I would mind a switch of power in one or both houses. It might lead to some decent compromises and might actually bring out (or force) Obama's bipartisan spirit. Then again, that wasn't the case in Albany, so maybe it is hopeless. I don't have a good frame of reference since I was a little young during Clinton's presidency. After 1994 he worked with Congress on Welfare Reform, but Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were really divisive. I should also consider that a Republican Congress, or even one house, would make it much harder for Obama to fund some of the necessary social programs like housing vouchers.
So maybe I would mind. I don't know. All I know is that I am really tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. More on that later.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Book Report: The Logic of Life
I just finished reading The Logic of Life by Tim Harford. The overall point of the book is to show that, in general, people are rational. It is a response, although a moderate one, to critics of the assumption of the rational economic actor.
For a long time, economic theory assumed that all economic actors are perfectly rational - they have full information and can accurately value their preferences. More recently, experiments have questioned that assumption. This is particularly important since the rational actor assumption is necessary to support a pure free market philosophy.
The experiments have shown that people are not always rational. People will sometimes penalize other people, even if it hurts themselves, and sometimes for irrational reasons like team affiliation. Also, people often value two equal things differently if they are presented in a different way. People are also far more charitable than a rational actor theory would expect.
Harford's book seeks to debunk some of these experiments - showing that they are the result of lab experiment conditions that are different from the real world. And he also shows many examples where people are behaving rationally even if at first glance their behavior looks irrational.
While his book does a good job of showing rational behavior, he does not actually show that the rational actor model is accurate. In fact, that is far from his goal. It is clear that what he wants to do is show readers that people do respond rationally to incentives. This is something that liberals and conservatives desperately need to be reminded of.
Liberals tend to dismiss the rational actor model outright and conclude therefore that we need government intervention. Behavior by Wall Street provides a good basis for this - as people tent to undervalue risk the farther away from a market crash we get.
Conservatives on the other hand have an oversimplified view of the rational actor, believing that without government, the rational actor makes perfect decisions and creates a free market utopia.
In truth, the underlying assumption of economics, and Harford makes this point very well, is that people do in fact respond to incentives. This is the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about. However, when people respond to incentives, they don't always behave in the way we expect because we don't always fully understand the incentives.
A great example of this, to my mind, is the current recession. While part of the problem may have been psychological and irrational, there were also incentives that encouraged much of the worst behavior. For example, Wall Street compensation rewards quick, even if fleeting, profits instead of long term sustained growth. This can incentivize risky behavior. Also, home loan originators were able to sell their new loans quickly, giving them no reason to care if the loans would be paid off in the long term.
I do have to say, Harford's book does not actually cover the financial crisis. His examples instead include smokers and drinkers changing behavior in response to taxes and the ability to quit, or people choosing more oral sex as other forms of sex become more risky. I have taken his general theme and extended it to cover our recession and the bubble that caused it.
One example that Harford uses that I wish he spent more time on was voting. He tries to show how choosing not to vote is a rational decision. His logic, strictly applied to what I just wrote, is hard to deny when looking at someone who wants their vote to make a difference. If someone will vote only if there is a chance their vote will make a difference, then it is rational not to vote since it is extremely rare that an election is decided by one vote.
Unfortunately, Harford spends almost no time discussing why voting might be rational. He gives a few reasons, but moves on quickly. In doing so, he gives the impression that not only can choosing not to vote be rational, but that voting is irrational. I don't think that is his intention, but that is how it comes off. I think that if Harford used his incredible logic skills, and his command of statistics, he could point out many reasons that voting is rational.
I finished the book a few weeks ago, so I don't remember all of the examples and data he used. In general though it is a pretty convincing book. And the topics covered in the book (money in politics, crime, social issues, segregation) made it far more useful than Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics (more on that in another post). And it is written to be just as accessible as those books are. In other words, it is poppy, but pretty useful.
For a long time, economic theory assumed that all economic actors are perfectly rational - they have full information and can accurately value their preferences. More recently, experiments have questioned that assumption. This is particularly important since the rational actor assumption is necessary to support a pure free market philosophy.
The experiments have shown that people are not always rational. People will sometimes penalize other people, even if it hurts themselves, and sometimes for irrational reasons like team affiliation. Also, people often value two equal things differently if they are presented in a different way. People are also far more charitable than a rational actor theory would expect.
Harford's book seeks to debunk some of these experiments - showing that they are the result of lab experiment conditions that are different from the real world. And he also shows many examples where people are behaving rationally even if at first glance their behavior looks irrational.
While his book does a good job of showing rational behavior, he does not actually show that the rational actor model is accurate. In fact, that is far from his goal. It is clear that what he wants to do is show readers that people do respond rationally to incentives. This is something that liberals and conservatives desperately need to be reminded of.
Liberals tend to dismiss the rational actor model outright and conclude therefore that we need government intervention. Behavior by Wall Street provides a good basis for this - as people tent to undervalue risk the farther away from a market crash we get.
Conservatives on the other hand have an oversimplified view of the rational actor, believing that without government, the rational actor makes perfect decisions and creates a free market utopia.
In truth, the underlying assumption of economics, and Harford makes this point very well, is that people do in fact respond to incentives. This is the invisible hand that Adam Smith talked about. However, when people respond to incentives, they don't always behave in the way we expect because we don't always fully understand the incentives.
A great example of this, to my mind, is the current recession. While part of the problem may have been psychological and irrational, there were also incentives that encouraged much of the worst behavior. For example, Wall Street compensation rewards quick, even if fleeting, profits instead of long term sustained growth. This can incentivize risky behavior. Also, home loan originators were able to sell their new loans quickly, giving them no reason to care if the loans would be paid off in the long term.
I do have to say, Harford's book does not actually cover the financial crisis. His examples instead include smokers and drinkers changing behavior in response to taxes and the ability to quit, or people choosing more oral sex as other forms of sex become more risky. I have taken his general theme and extended it to cover our recession and the bubble that caused it.
One example that Harford uses that I wish he spent more time on was voting. He tries to show how choosing not to vote is a rational decision. His logic, strictly applied to what I just wrote, is hard to deny when looking at someone who wants their vote to make a difference. If someone will vote only if there is a chance their vote will make a difference, then it is rational not to vote since it is extremely rare that an election is decided by one vote.
Unfortunately, Harford spends almost no time discussing why voting might be rational. He gives a few reasons, but moves on quickly. In doing so, he gives the impression that not only can choosing not to vote be rational, but that voting is irrational. I don't think that is his intention, but that is how it comes off. I think that if Harford used his incredible logic skills, and his command of statistics, he could point out many reasons that voting is rational.
I finished the book a few weeks ago, so I don't remember all of the examples and data he used. In general though it is a pretty convincing book. And the topics covered in the book (money in politics, crime, social issues, segregation) made it far more useful than Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics (more on that in another post). And it is written to be just as accessible as those books are. In other words, it is poppy, but pretty useful.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Impacts of Green Energy
I remember when I first heard environmentalists complain about the effects of wind turbines or hydroelectric damns I thought they were crazy. Their standards seemed to be for perfection. Reading The Last Flight of the Scarlet Macaw, about the woman who founded the Belize Zoo and her fight to oppose a damn that she predicted would wipe out the scarlet macaw in Belize, really changed my mind. It became clear after reading that book that there are extreme effects even from green technologies. Hydroelectric damns ruin the ecosystem downstream as sediment is washed away and not replaced; nuclear power plants, when using once-through cooling systems can also kill our water life; and wind turbines are a threat to species in the area around them (whether it is fish when they are placed in the sea or the birds that fly around them).
Many of us think that if we use the right technology, we can continue to consume as much as we want without affecting the environment. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. On the scale that we are living, everything we do can have big consequences. This is especially the case when we look to move technology into places that are currently free of such human encroachment. This means that we can be smarter about it - by say building green technology in places we have already developed. For example, building solar panels on roofs is far better than in an otherwise untouched desert. But in the end, conservation and self-sacrifice need to get us a long way so that we don't need lots of new green technology that moves further and further into our untouched nature.
Many of us think that if we use the right technology, we can continue to consume as much as we want without affecting the environment. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. On the scale that we are living, everything we do can have big consequences. This is especially the case when we look to move technology into places that are currently free of such human encroachment. This means that we can be smarter about it - by say building green technology in places we have already developed. For example, building solar panels on roofs is far better than in an otherwise untouched desert. But in the end, conservation and self-sacrifice need to get us a long way so that we don't need lots of new green technology that moves further and further into our untouched nature.
My First 2010 Prediction
So I have been checking back in at NY Times political map, as well as InTrade and Rasmussen (which does seem somewhat conservative, but also seems pretty accurate). My prediction in the Senate is 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans; Democrats look like they'll win California, Connecticut and Illinois and Republicans will win the other toss-up states and Pennsylvania. The House looks like it will stay Democrat as well - maybe around 235 Democrats. Of course a whole lot can change between now and next November as issues change and candidates rise and fall (see Scott Brown), so take this with a gigantic grain of salt.
In fact, the thing I will be the most interested to track between now and November is the approval of the health care change - as well as the passion for one side or the other. My sense from past experiences is that people tend to forget about issues pretty quickly. With health care, I think much of the dissatisfaction is over how long it took to get passed, how contentious it was, the political procedures used to get it all passed, and a lack of understanding / believing some of the mischaracterization of it. None of these concerns seem to me to be things that voters would hold on to.
While we are talking about voting, I do want to reference one other related thing. Megan McArdle, writing for the Atlantic after health care was passed, wrote this pretty angry, and completely absurd post. She says we are in a different world because elected officials voted for something that many polls show has a minority of voter support. She seems genuinely shocked that politicians could ignore the will of their voters. Unfortunately, Ms. McArdle does not seem to understand the political system that was formed by our Constitution.
Our system is one of representative democracy - not direct democracy. Elected representatives have two, often conflicting, purposes tugging at them. On purpose is to follow the will of the voters; when politicians vote on something, they need to consider how their voters feel, and how strongly they feel it, if they want to get re-elected. But the other, and just as important, purpose is of an elected official in our system is to do the research and learn the issues and make the best decisions on the policies before them.
This means that sometimes an elected official will vote their conscience, or will have a better understanding of the issue than the voters (ahem, death panels), and will therefore vote differently than the majority of their constituents. At other times though, they will realize their voters feel strongly and will choose to vote against their conscience and best evidence (of course sometimes, maybe even most times, their conscience and the voters' preferences are in line). Either way, it is a regular tension and calculation among elected officials. And in fact it was designed that way. So to pretend that this is something new shows either that Megan McArdle does not actually understand the basic nature of our political system or was so mad about health care that she allowed herself to write an unreasonable, and poorly reasoned, post.
The beauty of our system though is that when politicians do vote against their constituents, their constituents have the ability to vote in someone who will vote differently - which in fact is what conservatives are pushing for. If health care is repealed in that way, I will likely be as mad then as she was when health care passed. But I will hopefully be wise enough to understand that it is part of the system, as opposed to a scary new world.
In fact, the thing I will be the most interested to track between now and November is the approval of the health care change - as well as the passion for one side or the other. My sense from past experiences is that people tend to forget about issues pretty quickly. With health care, I think much of the dissatisfaction is over how long it took to get passed, how contentious it was, the political procedures used to get it all passed, and a lack of understanding / believing some of the mischaracterization of it. None of these concerns seem to me to be things that voters would hold on to.
While we are talking about voting, I do want to reference one other related thing. Megan McArdle, writing for the Atlantic after health care was passed, wrote this pretty angry, and completely absurd post. She says we are in a different world because elected officials voted for something that many polls show has a minority of voter support. She seems genuinely shocked that politicians could ignore the will of their voters. Unfortunately, Ms. McArdle does not seem to understand the political system that was formed by our Constitution.
Our system is one of representative democracy - not direct democracy. Elected representatives have two, often conflicting, purposes tugging at them. On purpose is to follow the will of the voters; when politicians vote on something, they need to consider how their voters feel, and how strongly they feel it, if they want to get re-elected. But the other, and just as important, purpose is of an elected official in our system is to do the research and learn the issues and make the best decisions on the policies before them.
This means that sometimes an elected official will vote their conscience, or will have a better understanding of the issue than the voters (ahem, death panels), and will therefore vote differently than the majority of their constituents. At other times though, they will realize their voters feel strongly and will choose to vote against their conscience and best evidence (of course sometimes, maybe even most times, their conscience and the voters' preferences are in line). Either way, it is a regular tension and calculation among elected officials. And in fact it was designed that way. So to pretend that this is something new shows either that Megan McArdle does not actually understand the basic nature of our political system or was so mad about health care that she allowed herself to write an unreasonable, and poorly reasoned, post.
The beauty of our system though is that when politicians do vote against their constituents, their constituents have the ability to vote in someone who will vote differently - which in fact is what conservatives are pushing for. If health care is repealed in that way, I will likely be as mad then as she was when health care passed. But I will hopefully be wise enough to understand that it is part of the system, as opposed to a scary new world.
Life of Service
Every international vacation I take - or at least the ones I have taken to Zambia, Belize and Mexico - bring up a tension in my life that I cannot, and maybe will not, reconcile. Basically, I believe that because there is so much suffering in the world, those of us that are comfortable should dedicate ourselves to helping those that are suffering (this comes from both Christian - Luke 12:48 - and secular social justice traditions). Unfortunately, the conflict arises in how much one should dedicate themselves to service.
In a world with incredible amounts of misery, it would seem than that one should dedicate themselves fully to service. However, dedicating yourself to service completely prevents you from many of the beauties and joys in life. To deliver a level of service I think the world deserves from me would require me to live a much more modest lifestyle and allow myself much less free time for myself. With that type of lifestyle, having a solid relationship and family is near impossible.
It is also however a standard that I cannot fathom living up to. Mostly because it isn't such an easy moral choice about spending my money on caviar versus donating to charity, or spending my time with worthless pursuits versus volunteering. Instead it can the choice between saving money for the future or donating, and spending time reading, learning music, traveling, and giving myself to family, versus volunteering.
In fact though, I don't even have to look at volunteering because the choice comes through work as well. I work in government trying to make policy that makes peoples' lives better. The longer hours I work, the more I'll be able to improve government services. But again, getting caught up in the work can be exhausting, and takes me away from my family and activities that make me happy.
So many things in life are choices that involve trade-offs - for instance a choice between more liberty or more fairness and between more economic vitality or more social protection. In all of these cases, the extremes are the least desirable options. So is the case with my life. I cannot really see myself being completely dedicated to service of the world, nor entirely dedicated to beauty and family. So the trick is in the constant re-evaluation, constant marginal changes to correct for going too far in one direction.
After Zambia I felt that I was not doing enough to actually make people's lives better. I have a new job since then and I feel I am doing better work and that I am having more of an impact (although not quite enough to completely remove that guilty feeling). But now after Mexico, I wonder if I am getting too caught up in work and not doing enough to just enjoy the beauty of life - not doing enough to find the peace and joy.
This feeling I have now will not impact my immediate future, but has implications on plans for the future. This city can consume you - its blinding speed and sense that it, the city, is all that matters. I compare it to scuba diving in a current - it can be rewarding and exhilarating, but you get swept up in it so much that it is hard to remember that you can go places where there is no current and just float slowly enjoying the tranquility and beauty and peace around you.
The truth is that I prefer calm dives with no current because I prefer slower dives where I can float and explore. I'm not positive though if the metaphor carries over into my work life. Will I enjoy a slower life in a smaller place more than the bustle of NY? There will always be places where there are people that need help, so that won't be a problem. But will it feel insignificant compared to New York, where everything feels like the most significant thing in the world? And will that matter?
The reason I write such a personal post on a political blog is that each individual decision like mine has implications on our society. And most of our political debates revolve around this very issue. Many on the right just want to enjoy their own lives and not be bothered serving other people. Most on the left want society to help other people and are willing to trade some of their income (if not always their time) to accomplish that. There are many more dimensions to our debates, but this is definitely one of them.
In ourselves and our country, as these competing interests pull out ourselves and our politics, you see incremental changes and corrections. My sense is that the changes, when looked at broadly, show a slow but general progression to more service and help so that all can have a basic, decent standard of living.
I also think though that we can have a lot of both. I think I can have a life where I give a lot of myself in service, but also spend enough time with my family and for myself to enjoy the beauties of life. And I also firmly believe that we can raise enough revenue to support programs for the most vulnerable in our society without robbing people of the ability to have a good life and reap the rewards of their hard work and ingenuity.
The devil is in the details, and we often spend a lot of time working and thinking about the exact right combination. But the good news is that if we do not always get it perfect, we get close most of the time.
In a world with incredible amounts of misery, it would seem than that one should dedicate themselves fully to service. However, dedicating yourself to service completely prevents you from many of the beauties and joys in life. To deliver a level of service I think the world deserves from me would require me to live a much more modest lifestyle and allow myself much less free time for myself. With that type of lifestyle, having a solid relationship and family is near impossible.
It is also however a standard that I cannot fathom living up to. Mostly because it isn't such an easy moral choice about spending my money on caviar versus donating to charity, or spending my time with worthless pursuits versus volunteering. Instead it can the choice between saving money for the future or donating, and spending time reading, learning music, traveling, and giving myself to family, versus volunteering.
In fact though, I don't even have to look at volunteering because the choice comes through work as well. I work in government trying to make policy that makes peoples' lives better. The longer hours I work, the more I'll be able to improve government services. But again, getting caught up in the work can be exhausting, and takes me away from my family and activities that make me happy.
So many things in life are choices that involve trade-offs - for instance a choice between more liberty or more fairness and between more economic vitality or more social protection. In all of these cases, the extremes are the least desirable options. So is the case with my life. I cannot really see myself being completely dedicated to service of the world, nor entirely dedicated to beauty and family. So the trick is in the constant re-evaluation, constant marginal changes to correct for going too far in one direction.
After Zambia I felt that I was not doing enough to actually make people's lives better. I have a new job since then and I feel I am doing better work and that I am having more of an impact (although not quite enough to completely remove that guilty feeling). But now after Mexico, I wonder if I am getting too caught up in work and not doing enough to just enjoy the beauty of life - not doing enough to find the peace and joy.
This feeling I have now will not impact my immediate future, but has implications on plans for the future. This city can consume you - its blinding speed and sense that it, the city, is all that matters. I compare it to scuba diving in a current - it can be rewarding and exhilarating, but you get swept up in it so much that it is hard to remember that you can go places where there is no current and just float slowly enjoying the tranquility and beauty and peace around you.
The truth is that I prefer calm dives with no current because I prefer slower dives where I can float and explore. I'm not positive though if the metaphor carries over into my work life. Will I enjoy a slower life in a smaller place more than the bustle of NY? There will always be places where there are people that need help, so that won't be a problem. But will it feel insignificant compared to New York, where everything feels like the most significant thing in the world? And will that matter?
The reason I write such a personal post on a political blog is that each individual decision like mine has implications on our society. And most of our political debates revolve around this very issue. Many on the right just want to enjoy their own lives and not be bothered serving other people. Most on the left want society to help other people and are willing to trade some of their income (if not always their time) to accomplish that. There are many more dimensions to our debates, but this is definitely one of them.
In ourselves and our country, as these competing interests pull out ourselves and our politics, you see incremental changes and corrections. My sense is that the changes, when looked at broadly, show a slow but general progression to more service and help so that all can have a basic, decent standard of living.
I also think though that we can have a lot of both. I think I can have a life where I give a lot of myself in service, but also spend enough time with my family and for myself to enjoy the beauties of life. And I also firmly believe that we can raise enough revenue to support programs for the most vulnerable in our society without robbing people of the ability to have a good life and reap the rewards of their hard work and ingenuity.
The devil is in the details, and we often spend a lot of time working and thinking about the exact right combination. But the good news is that if we do not always get it perfect, we get close most of the time.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
On Guns
There have been a few articles recently about guns rights issues in the states. Frankly, I find them all baffling. The most recent battles are about absurd laws that would ban (or allow) concealed weapons in coffee shops. And a while back there was a big war over guns on Amtrak trains. For the life of me, I can't understand the emotion over this.
When we are fighting over gun restrictions, it seems to me the fights should be over assault rifles, loopholes (like straw purchases) that allow illegal guns to get into the hands of criminals - especially in our cities - and data sharing between the federal government (ATF) and local police. This is where there we could have the most impact on very serious problem of criminal use of guns in our country.
It seems to me that there should a moderate guns rights lobby group to counter the seemingly anything goes policy of the NRA. The group would promote the ability of private citizens to carry guns (concealed if they please) and would only call for some basic background checks. This guns rights group though would also look for ways to prevent criminal from getting and using guns and push for (or not oppose) a ban on assault weapons.
A group like this could give an out to moderate democrats in more conservative districts / states. It would show they promote individual guns rights in reasonable circumstances but do not support the more extremist positions of the NRA. Unfortunately it seems that there is only the NRA or no one. And this leads to silly debates about guns in Starbucks instead of real and public debates about how criminals get guns.
When we are fighting over gun restrictions, it seems to me the fights should be over assault rifles, loopholes (like straw purchases) that allow illegal guns to get into the hands of criminals - especially in our cities - and data sharing between the federal government (ATF) and local police. This is where there we could have the most impact on very serious problem of criminal use of guns in our country.
It seems to me that there should a moderate guns rights lobby group to counter the seemingly anything goes policy of the NRA. The group would promote the ability of private citizens to carry guns (concealed if they please) and would only call for some basic background checks. This guns rights group though would also look for ways to prevent criminal from getting and using guns and push for (or not oppose) a ban on assault weapons.
A group like this could give an out to moderate democrats in more conservative districts / states. It would show they promote individual guns rights in reasonable circumstances but do not support the more extremist positions of the NRA. Unfortunately it seems that there is only the NRA or no one. And this leads to silly debates about guns in Starbucks instead of real and public debates about how criminals get guns.
Latest Election Map
I have been using this feature on the NY Times since the 2006 mid-term elections. And with the upcoming 2010 midterms, I know I'll be checking it regularly. It can give a great sense of worst-case and best-case scenarios. In 2006, I saw that a best-case scenario could result in Democratic control, which of course it did. In 2008, I saw a worst case scenario was the only way McCain could possibly win. And now, it looks like a worst case scenario (at least at the moment) leaves the Democrats with a slim majority. We'll see how things change going forward. After all, things can still get worse (Gilibrand has a challenger) but they could get better (Harry Reid's prospects could improve). It is definitely going to be interesting.
Pres - Dissing on 'Cuse?
I like that Obama fills out an NCAA bracket (no, I don't think he risks overexposure). I don't like that he has Syracuse eliminated before the Final Four.
What I Read
Atlantic has a recent feature where guest writers are describing what they read. Since most are journalists, the entries are pretty similar and focus on which news sources they read. But it seems like a fun exercise, if not a little narcissistic, so I thought I would give it a go.
I always read on my train commute to and from work - but that time is my time; I only read for pleasure and not for work. What I read then varies though. It could be one of the many books I am reading, or one of the magazines I subscribe to.
My book choices vary between non-fiction (something related to, or a mix of, history, current events and policy, including anything by Samantha Power, And the Band Played On, The Power Broker, Team of Rivals, Omnivore's Dilemma, What is the What, and Development as Freedom) and fiction (Murakami, Achebe, Paul Auster, Neil Gaiman, Frank McCourt and since I started at my current job a few children's books that are easier to read after a long day - ie Lightning Thief / Percy Jackson).
For magazines, I subscribe to National Geographic (which I love - great pictures, great animals, great politics / history!), New York Review of Books (great but I can never seem to stay on top of it), and Atlantic Monthly (which I am always debating whether to continue that subscription).
When I get to work, I spend a little bit of time throughout the day checking out local and national newspapers and blogs. I always check Liz Benjamin's blog at the Daily News as soon as I get in, along with the Observer and NY Post. I also check the main page of the NY Times, Wall Street Journal (even though most articles are subscriber only), and Washington Post. Later in the day I will probably check out Huffington Post, The New Republic, Atlantic, the Economist, Foreign Policy, and Slate. Basically, I am looking for as much objective analysis as possible, with as little liberal commentary as possible (and basically no conservative commentary - so no National Review or Weekly Standard).
Surprisingly enough, I don't read much outside of these two times (downtime at work and my subway commute). If I ever lose that commute, I'm not sure when I'll read for pleasure.
I always read on my train commute to and from work - but that time is my time; I only read for pleasure and not for work. What I read then varies though. It could be one of the many books I am reading, or one of the magazines I subscribe to.
My book choices vary between non-fiction (something related to, or a mix of, history, current events and policy, including anything by Samantha Power, And the Band Played On, The Power Broker, Team of Rivals, Omnivore's Dilemma, What is the What, and Development as Freedom) and fiction (Murakami, Achebe, Paul Auster, Neil Gaiman, Frank McCourt and since I started at my current job a few children's books that are easier to read after a long day - ie Lightning Thief / Percy Jackson).
For magazines, I subscribe to National Geographic (which I love - great pictures, great animals, great politics / history!), New York Review of Books (great but I can never seem to stay on top of it), and Atlantic Monthly (which I am always debating whether to continue that subscription).
When I get to work, I spend a little bit of time throughout the day checking out local and national newspapers and blogs. I always check Liz Benjamin's blog at the Daily News as soon as I get in, along with the Observer and NY Post. I also check the main page of the NY Times, Wall Street Journal (even though most articles are subscriber only), and Washington Post. Later in the day I will probably check out Huffington Post, The New Republic, Atlantic, the Economist, Foreign Policy, and Slate. Basically, I am looking for as much objective analysis as possible, with as little liberal commentary as possible (and basically no conservative commentary - so no National Review or Weekly Standard).
Surprisingly enough, I don't read much outside of these two times (downtime at work and my subway commute). If I ever lose that commute, I'm not sure when I'll read for pleasure.
Book Report: Claim of Privilege
I took an undergraduate class on the Federal Courts. For half of the class, we discussed the professor's book. The other half we discussed some of the more recent and important Supreme Court decisions. What I remember most about the class was the discussion of precedent. The professor was constantly, although a little too patiently, reminding us that the facts of the case were not as important as the precedent. For example, in Atwater v. Lago Vista, it is not important whether the mother was just driving in the neighborhood looking for her child's toy. What matters is whether the police do (or should) have the right to arrest (detain) someone for a crime that is only punishable by a fine.
So it should also be case when reading Claim of Privilege and the case of US v. Reynolds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the executive branch to declare state secrets and not have to reveal sensitive information. In fact, the judge does not even have the right to review the evidence to see if it is in fact a sensitive state secret.
Where I disagree slightly with, or at least have a new understanding of, what we were taught in that undergraduate class is that the facts of a case can shed some light on the impact of a particular decision (as Citizens United shows us, the Supreme Court has some latitude in making a decision). In the Reynolds case, the executive branch claimed state secrets, but it seems clear that they were merely trying to avoid culpability in the lawsuit. When the executive branch is able to claim state secrets without showing any of their evidence, even to a judge, it allows them to abuse it and avoids the checks and balances that is a hallmark of our government.
Since Reynolds has been used as precedent for Bush era actions, we can only imagine how the executive branch can, or did, abuse the power that precedent grants. Although as Citizens United shows us, precedents can be overturned, I am not optimistic that this one will anytime soon.
So it should also be case when reading Claim of Privilege and the case of US v. Reynolds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the executive branch to declare state secrets and not have to reveal sensitive information. In fact, the judge does not even have the right to review the evidence to see if it is in fact a sensitive state secret.
Where I disagree slightly with, or at least have a new understanding of, what we were taught in that undergraduate class is that the facts of a case can shed some light on the impact of a particular decision (as Citizens United shows us, the Supreme Court has some latitude in making a decision). In the Reynolds case, the executive branch claimed state secrets, but it seems clear that they were merely trying to avoid culpability in the lawsuit. When the executive branch is able to claim state secrets without showing any of their evidence, even to a judge, it allows them to abuse it and avoids the checks and balances that is a hallmark of our government.
Since Reynolds has been used as precedent for Bush era actions, we can only imagine how the executive branch can, or did, abuse the power that precedent grants. Although as Citizens United shows us, precedents can be overturned, I am not optimistic that this one will anytime soon.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Good Fight
I love this story, mostly because you don't hear much about countries fighting our hypocritical trade policies - at least not South American (aka non-European) countries. But dammit, sometimes they should! And this seems like one of those times. So at risk of being called unpatriotic, Go Brazil! That's what the WTO is for - to force big powerful countries to play by the rules and stop taking advantage of less powerful countries. The only problem is that many countries do not have anything that they can retaliate with.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Book Report: Lies My Teacher Told Me
I finally read Lies My Teacher Told Me, a book in a similar vain to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (which I have not yet read). The main difference between the two books, as far as I can tell, is that Lies is very focused on improving high school history education. The overall message is that hero-worship, feel-good stories about the past, and presenting history as facts instead of arguments do a tremendous disservice to our students.
To present this argument, the author, James Loewen, shows us many examples from American History of ways that high school history text books get history wrong for one of the reasons mentioned above. For example, we often present Woodrow Wilson as a hero without showing his flaws (very racist). In the interest of not showing our own flaws, we show Native Americans as barbarians and uncultured and often avoid talking about our genocide against them (in fact, Loewen spends much time on Native Americans). Frequent depictions of Reconstruction talk about northern interference and not the significant racism and violence.
The book is of course very liberal, and it presents a view of history that is meant to contradict what would appear to be conservative portraits of our history. I don't expect all people to take Loewen's word, but it at least provides a great place to start to investigate and debate different interpretations of our past.
While I was well aware of the way we ignore or misrepresent parts of our past (although I didn't know of all of these examples), what I had not thought about as much was the fact that there is much we do not know about history. For example, while we teach that Columbus was the first to discover America, rarely to teachers or text books talk about the possibility, and different sources of evidence, that others reached America before him. Presenting history as something that is regularly being investigated and debated is to me much more accurate and more interesting for students.
I will be interested to read A People's History and compare and contrast to this. I will also be using Lies as a reference and a starting point for many moments in our American History (first stop, War of 1812, which was different than it is commonly portrayed).
To present this argument, the author, James Loewen, shows us many examples from American History of ways that high school history text books get history wrong for one of the reasons mentioned above. For example, we often present Woodrow Wilson as a hero without showing his flaws (very racist). In the interest of not showing our own flaws, we show Native Americans as barbarians and uncultured and often avoid talking about our genocide against them (in fact, Loewen spends much time on Native Americans). Frequent depictions of Reconstruction talk about northern interference and not the significant racism and violence.
The book is of course very liberal, and it presents a view of history that is meant to contradict what would appear to be conservative portraits of our history. I don't expect all people to take Loewen's word, but it at least provides a great place to start to investigate and debate different interpretations of our past.
While I was well aware of the way we ignore or misrepresent parts of our past (although I didn't know of all of these examples), what I had not thought about as much was the fact that there is much we do not know about history. For example, while we teach that Columbus was the first to discover America, rarely to teachers or text books talk about the possibility, and different sources of evidence, that others reached America before him. Presenting history as something that is regularly being investigated and debated is to me much more accurate and more interesting for students.
I will be interested to read A People's History and compare and contrast to this. I will also be using Lies as a reference and a starting point for many moments in our American History (first stop, War of 1812, which was different than it is commonly portrayed).
Book Report: The Wire
The. Best. Written. Show. Ever.
In fact, the show is so good, I think it is more than fitting for it to be a "book report". The show was pure literature - the story lines and the characters were complex and full of life - not a single two-dimensional character (okay, maybe Carcetti).
Because the characters were so full, I have so many favorites: Bunk, McNulty, Carver, Bubbles, Bodie, Stringer Bell, Snoop and Chris, Avon and D'Angelo Barksdale, Omar, Freeman, Greggs, Prop Joe, Senator Clay Davis, Pryzbylewski, Michael, Randy, Dukie, and Namond - I could go on.
It is also the most intense show I have ever watched - my heart races throughout the whole episode because I don't know what is going to happen. All of the characters are at risk - no one is safe - but it doesn't feel artificial. And the writers make you care about so many, if not all, of the characters.
Of course, the test of any show shot on location is how well they use the location for the show. In the best cases, the location becomes one of the characters of the show. I know of few shows that did this better than The Wire. The way they used Baltimore was perfect - from the accents to the class and race divides and from the neighborhoods to the progress of the city over the last decade.
Unfortunately, although so many people I know recognize this show as one of the best ever, it went largely without any critical acclaim or awards. Hopefully though the show will prove everyone wrong and be remembered long past the shows that did win awards. It certainly deserves it.
Beyond the literary accomplishments of the show - it is also near perfect social commentary. For those who do not know, the show chronicles American urban problems through the lens of the City of Baltimore. Its five seasons swirl around the drug trade, although each season has a slightly different focus and closeness to drugs.
Season one is very much about the drug war between dealers and the police and why each side fails but neither side wins. Season two moves to the docks and the decline of white union shipping jobs and how it leads them into drugs. Season three deals with Baltimore politics and their inability to stop the drugs. Season four, the most intense fictional experience I have witnessed and the hardest season to watch, took place in a Baltimore middle school and shows how the adults we see on the streets might have started out and where we go wrong trying to help them. Finally, season five looked at print journalism and the Baltimore Sun and its declining ability to cover this problem, among others.
The show was especially effective because it was more concerned with being honest than with making good drama (unusual for TV and mainstream movies). And surprising enough, because urban life is full of drama, it was able to accomplish both. And in so doing, it became the only show to give us a glimpse of the real urban life - I say glimpse because the show takes us to close to showing us what really happens, then pulls back because we handle seeing reality and still come back for more.
In the end, we are left knowing that all of our systems are imperfect - or to be more blunt, fucked up. So any belief that we are solving, or even managing, these problems is ridiculous. We can only think that way because we choose not to look too deeply at our problems. The Wire remedies that for us.
In fact, the show is so good, I think it is more than fitting for it to be a "book report". The show was pure literature - the story lines and the characters were complex and full of life - not a single two-dimensional character (okay, maybe Carcetti).
Because the characters were so full, I have so many favorites: Bunk, McNulty, Carver, Bubbles, Bodie, Stringer Bell, Snoop and Chris, Avon and D'Angelo Barksdale, Omar, Freeman, Greggs, Prop Joe, Senator Clay Davis, Pryzbylewski, Michael, Randy, Dukie, and Namond - I could go on.
It is also the most intense show I have ever watched - my heart races throughout the whole episode because I don't know what is going to happen. All of the characters are at risk - no one is safe - but it doesn't feel artificial. And the writers make you care about so many, if not all, of the characters.
Of course, the test of any show shot on location is how well they use the location for the show. In the best cases, the location becomes one of the characters of the show. I know of few shows that did this better than The Wire. The way they used Baltimore was perfect - from the accents to the class and race divides and from the neighborhoods to the progress of the city over the last decade.
Unfortunately, although so many people I know recognize this show as one of the best ever, it went largely without any critical acclaim or awards. Hopefully though the show will prove everyone wrong and be remembered long past the shows that did win awards. It certainly deserves it.
Beyond the literary accomplishments of the show - it is also near perfect social commentary. For those who do not know, the show chronicles American urban problems through the lens of the City of Baltimore. Its five seasons swirl around the drug trade, although each season has a slightly different focus and closeness to drugs.
Season one is very much about the drug war between dealers and the police and why each side fails but neither side wins. Season two moves to the docks and the decline of white union shipping jobs and how it leads them into drugs. Season three deals with Baltimore politics and their inability to stop the drugs. Season four, the most intense fictional experience I have witnessed and the hardest season to watch, took place in a Baltimore middle school and shows how the adults we see on the streets might have started out and where we go wrong trying to help them. Finally, season five looked at print journalism and the Baltimore Sun and its declining ability to cover this problem, among others.
The show was especially effective because it was more concerned with being honest than with making good drama (unusual for TV and mainstream movies). And surprising enough, because urban life is full of drama, it was able to accomplish both. And in so doing, it became the only show to give us a glimpse of the real urban life - I say glimpse because the show takes us to close to showing us what really happens, then pulls back because we handle seeing reality and still come back for more.
In the end, we are left knowing that all of our systems are imperfect - or to be more blunt, fucked up. So any belief that we are solving, or even managing, these problems is ridiculous. We can only think that way because we choose not to look too deeply at our problems. The Wire remedies that for us.
Prodigal Son
We all love a good redemption story. Or at least I do. Each story symbolizes the possibility that any fallen person can be saved. And so it is with my childhood hero, Mark McGwire. When I first started blogging, one of my original posts was about my emotions after first discovering McGwire likely used steroids. It is one of my favorite posts that I have written (which is why I reference it any chance I get). And it only got worse from there - with McGwire refusing to talk about the past during a Congressional hearing (possibly because Bush refused to grant him immunity - just speculation, but interesting to think about).
But now, we have the redemption. McGwire was asked by his old friend Tony LaRussa (manager in Oakland and St. Louis) to come back as a hitting coach for the Cards. There is little doubt that McGwire will be a good hitting instructor since so many say he is a serious student of hitting mechanics. We all knew though that in order to come back, McGwire would have to talk about the past. So he did, and so he admitted to using steroids. He told Bob Costas and the world when he used and why. He seemed genuine and rightly emotional.
But so why do I feel a bit let down? Why is this not actually the prodigal son coming home? Maybe because, no matter how much sympathy I have for him (and all other players that have been thrown under the bus by the complicit owners and oblivious press), I feel like McGwire is still deluding himself and the public. I might grant him that the original reason he started using was because of his string of injuries starting around 1991. But to suggest that steroids did not help him hit home runs is just wrong. Sure, there is more to hitting home runs than strength, but it certainly requires strength to hit a lot of home runs.
So maybe this redemption story isn't as great as it could be. Maybe McGwire held a little back. Yes, I am a little less than satisfied. But I am still glad that McGwire is involved in baseball again, this time showing the world one of his great strengths - his knowledge of hitting mechanics.
But now, we have the redemption. McGwire was asked by his old friend Tony LaRussa (manager in Oakland and St. Louis) to come back as a hitting coach for the Cards. There is little doubt that McGwire will be a good hitting instructor since so many say he is a serious student of hitting mechanics. We all knew though that in order to come back, McGwire would have to talk about the past. So he did, and so he admitted to using steroids. He told Bob Costas and the world when he used and why. He seemed genuine and rightly emotional.
But so why do I feel a bit let down? Why is this not actually the prodigal son coming home? Maybe because, no matter how much sympathy I have for him (and all other players that have been thrown under the bus by the complicit owners and oblivious press), I feel like McGwire is still deluding himself and the public. I might grant him that the original reason he started using was because of his string of injuries starting around 1991. But to suggest that steroids did not help him hit home runs is just wrong. Sure, there is more to hitting home runs than strength, but it certainly requires strength to hit a lot of home runs.
So maybe this redemption story isn't as great as it could be. Maybe McGwire held a little back. Yes, I am a little less than satisfied. But I am still glad that McGwire is involved in baseball again, this time showing the world one of his great strengths - his knowledge of hitting mechanics.
Journal Does it Again
Twice now I have found reasonable articles on the Wall Street Journal about fairly controversial topics. First it was nuclear power, and serious financial costs of using it. Now it is climate change. The article talks openly about the consensus around carbon's role as a greenhouse gas and the human component. At the same time, it describes the large variations in projections of the impact on the planet and difficulties in expressing the uncertainties in a report for public consumption.
Read the article. It is smart and reasonable - or dare I say far and balanced?
Read the article. It is smart and reasonable - or dare I say far and balanced?
Not Convinced Neocons Were Correct
There is a new article in Foreign Policy about what the NeoCons got right. I am willing to be open minded, but this article did not convince me. The author seemed to be trying to hard to find something. Here is what the author says: "So what did the neocons get right? Syria, Iran, and democracy."
I am undecided on Syria. If the author is saying the Neocons were right not to invest any American effort in creating an agreement between Syria and Israel, then maybe I can agree with that. However, I remember the news portraying America as scuttling a potential deal between Syria and Israel. If that is the case, I do not agree.
For Iran, the author says that Neocons knew that Iran was not going to come to an agreement with us on nuclear weapons, therefore they were right not to negotiate. However, getting an agreement is not the only reason to negotiate. Democrats rightly believe that finding an agreement is worth a try (and not beneath our dignity, which the right claimed) and that by trying and failing to reach an agreement, we would get far more international support than had we not tried at all. The author seems to concede this, but yet still claims that the Neocons were right not to negotiate. I'm not sure why.
And so we come to democracy. Yes, Neocons are right that promoting democracy promotes stability. But then again, who disagrees with that? The main disagreement is how easily democracy can be imposed on a country. Neocons were wrong that Iraqis would quickly welcome democracy without any looting, insurgencies or civil war.
The other problem with the Neocons belief in democracy is that many saw this push as disingenuous. Neocons clearly try to balance their support for democracy with their more realist tendencies. Basically, Neocons, and many Democrats as well, support America-friendly dictatorships, but oppose dictatorships or less-than-ideal democracies (Iran) if they are unfriendly. So a push for democracy rings hollow when we do precious little to push countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia towards democracy or when we fail to recognize elections in Palestine that don't go how we want them to.
So to suggest that Neocons got democracy right misses the level of their support for it, and how it is actually perceived by the rest of the world. I would argue that Obama is getting democracy right. While his position on democracy and its positive benefits are the same as Bush and the Neocons, he is talking less about it and coming off less hypocritical.
I'll have to think some more about this, but as of yet, I don't find anything that the Neocons got right. Feel free to try to set me straight.
I am undecided on Syria. If the author is saying the Neocons were right not to invest any American effort in creating an agreement between Syria and Israel, then maybe I can agree with that. However, I remember the news portraying America as scuttling a potential deal between Syria and Israel. If that is the case, I do not agree.
For Iran, the author says that Neocons knew that Iran was not going to come to an agreement with us on nuclear weapons, therefore they were right not to negotiate. However, getting an agreement is not the only reason to negotiate. Democrats rightly believe that finding an agreement is worth a try (and not beneath our dignity, which the right claimed) and that by trying and failing to reach an agreement, we would get far more international support than had we not tried at all. The author seems to concede this, but yet still claims that the Neocons were right not to negotiate. I'm not sure why.
And so we come to democracy. Yes, Neocons are right that promoting democracy promotes stability. But then again, who disagrees with that? The main disagreement is how easily democracy can be imposed on a country. Neocons were wrong that Iraqis would quickly welcome democracy without any looting, insurgencies or civil war.
The other problem with the Neocons belief in democracy is that many saw this push as disingenuous. Neocons clearly try to balance their support for democracy with their more realist tendencies. Basically, Neocons, and many Democrats as well, support America-friendly dictatorships, but oppose dictatorships or less-than-ideal democracies (Iran) if they are unfriendly. So a push for democracy rings hollow when we do precious little to push countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia towards democracy or when we fail to recognize elections in Palestine that don't go how we want them to.
So to suggest that Neocons got democracy right misses the level of their support for it, and how it is actually perceived by the rest of the world. I would argue that Obama is getting democracy right. While his position on democracy and its positive benefits are the same as Bush and the Neocons, he is talking less about it and coming off less hypocritical.
I'll have to think some more about this, but as of yet, I don't find anything that the Neocons got right. Feel free to try to set me straight.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)