I want to write a quick post about last night's primaries here in New York State. Overall, I would say I am mostly satisfied with the outcomes. And there was plenty of excitement.
Let's start with the GOP governor's race. Paladino. Crazy. But don't be fooled. This is one of those races where a candidate won because his opponent was so bad. Lazio was hoping to ride an earned advertising wave based on his Mosque opposition to make up for his anemic fund raising. Unfortunately, that issue won him national media attention, but not much favor among NYS Republicans (despite it being popular among that group). He blew the race big time.
What is going to be really interesting come November is whether these far right candidates, like Paladino, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul, and Sharron Angle, can win in a general election. In one corner, you have unpopular Democrats who seemed to go a bit too far toward government expansion during a recession and have lost the independents. In the other corner, you have some real wingnut conservatives. Moderate liberals who went too far versus extreme conservatives. It is going to be an interesting November.
Now let's look at corruption and ethics issues. I would say in New York State it was a little more positive than negative. Sure Charles Rangel won in the primary. Then again, his next closest challenger struck most as little better. But that can be forgiven since Pedro Espada lost and Hiram Monserrate did not win in his race for the Assembly. In those two races, I have gained more faith in voters than I lost seeing Rangel win. And hey, maybe when Rangel finally retires, he'll support someone really deserving, like Joyce Johnson (who really should have a better Google presence). Also, Bill Perkins won reelection - although part of me wonders if I had him wrong or maybe oversimplified the situation. So I am at peace with that outcome as well.
To conclude - New York State (so long as it doesn't actually elect Paladino) took a step forward last night. But nationally, we have some interesting races to look forward to. Buckle up.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Book Report: A Short History of Nearly Everything
Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything is not so much a policy book. However, I will include it here because it has affected my world view. There are three things that I learned that hit home with me.
First, science is sometimes wrong. This should not be an excuse to dismiss science, but to instill a little bit of humility. The world is a complicated place and we only understand the tip of the iceberg, to use an apt cliche. This is more true in areas where we are developing new information and trying to break new ground.
Second, the world has been around a really long time. We have been around a tiny fraction of that time (if the earth's history were the equivalent of one day, humans would represent 1 minute and 17 seconds and our recorded history just a few seconds). This is just to make you feel a little less significant - to knock you down a peg.
Third, we are here, in this moment, due to a whole lot of luck. The end of the last ice age allowed humans to develop agriculture and thereby expand and we are lucky to not have another one (temperatures would decrease 10F). Too many genetic mutations to count evolved species, which eventually lead to us. I cannot express to you though how random and non-linear that process was. The end of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish. The composition of the earth's crust, with a liquid outer core, produces the magnetic field that likely protects us from otherwise deadly radiation from the sun. And finally, although we suffer from periodic natural disasters, we have been free so far from major disasters that have affected the earth - like meteors or massive volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park.
I highly recommend this book. You will learn a lot about science and the history of how we know what we know. And hopefully it will make you even more curious about how scientific knowledge is developing. One thing is for certain though, you will be thoroughly entertained the whole time. Bryson has a dry wit and a good eye for the interesting part of each story.
First, science is sometimes wrong. This should not be an excuse to dismiss science, but to instill a little bit of humility. The world is a complicated place and we only understand the tip of the iceberg, to use an apt cliche. This is more true in areas where we are developing new information and trying to break new ground.
Second, the world has been around a really long time. We have been around a tiny fraction of that time (if the earth's history were the equivalent of one day, humans would represent 1 minute and 17 seconds and our recorded history just a few seconds). This is just to make you feel a little less significant - to knock you down a peg.
Third, we are here, in this moment, due to a whole lot of luck. The end of the last ice age allowed humans to develop agriculture and thereby expand and we are lucky to not have another one (temperatures would decrease 10F). Too many genetic mutations to count evolved species, which eventually lead to us. I cannot express to you though how random and non-linear that process was. The end of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish. The composition of the earth's crust, with a liquid outer core, produces the magnetic field that likely protects us from otherwise deadly radiation from the sun. And finally, although we suffer from periodic natural disasters, we have been free so far from major disasters that have affected the earth - like meteors or massive volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park.
I highly recommend this book. You will learn a lot about science and the history of how we know what we know. And hopefully it will make you even more curious about how scientific knowledge is developing. One thing is for certain though, you will be thoroughly entertained the whole time. Bryson has a dry wit and a good eye for the interesting part of each story.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Drinking the Sand
"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." - Michael J. Fox as Lewis Rothschild in The American President
I was watching Meet the Press this morning for the first time in a really long time. I was disappointed in two people. First, I was disappointed in Lindsey Graham who did nothing but spout superficial and erroneous talking points. But I was more disappointed with David Gregory who is not living up to the show that Tim Russert ran and was letting Graham get away with it. There was no depth from Graham and no requirement for depth from Gregory.
However, Lindsey Graham did say at least one thing that was true and I have been thinking about for a while. He said Democrats are not talking about the Health Care bill or the Stimulus bill. He is right and he is especially right when it comes to President Obama. I am getting more disappointed in him by the day and mostly because he is not out there fighting for what he believes in.
Democrats passed a health care bill that even got relative support from Ben Stein. It was marginally unpopular when it was passed and seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on. Democrats seem scared to talk about this bill because it is unpopular and can be considered a big government expansion. The bill will not go away and will not get more popular unless they stick up for it.
The health care bill, although probably more complicated than it needed to be (I'll get to that another time), did things that are important. It expanded care to people without insurance and will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. I believe these things were worth doing and Democrats apparently did also. If they are worth doing, they are worth defending.
As the quote above shows though, if we aren't talking about it, people will listen to whoever is. Right now, only Republicans are talking about it and they have only negative things to say. Democrats feel that a fight over the right size of government is a losing fight. That is ridiculous. We believe that there are things government can and should do and many of these things the public supports.
The same thing goes for the stimulus. Why is Paul Krugman the only one out there defending Keynesian economics? The public perception is that because the stimulus did not stop the job losses, it did not work and therefore Keynesian policies do not work. President Obama is choosing to take the road that the stimulus is working, but slowly. Unfortunately, no one is buying this. Maybe he doesn't need to go as far as Krugman is, but he needs to defend Keynes and maybe needs to acknowledge that the stimulus was too small, not too big. And there are plenty of economists who will defend him.
I disagree with David Brooks, Obama does not need to avoid the debate over the right size of government. He needs to enter it. He and the rest of the party need to stop letting Republicans set the terms of the debate and need to argue for what we believe in. Short of that, we are likely in for a really ugly November.
I was watching Meet the Press this morning for the first time in a really long time. I was disappointed in two people. First, I was disappointed in Lindsey Graham who did nothing but spout superficial and erroneous talking points. But I was more disappointed with David Gregory who is not living up to the show that Tim Russert ran and was letting Graham get away with it. There was no depth from Graham and no requirement for depth from Gregory.
However, Lindsey Graham did say at least one thing that was true and I have been thinking about for a while. He said Democrats are not talking about the Health Care bill or the Stimulus bill. He is right and he is especially right when it comes to President Obama. I am getting more disappointed in him by the day and mostly because he is not out there fighting for what he believes in.
Democrats passed a health care bill that even got relative support from Ben Stein. It was marginally unpopular when it was passed and seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on. Democrats seem scared to talk about this bill because it is unpopular and can be considered a big government expansion. The bill will not go away and will not get more popular unless they stick up for it.
The health care bill, although probably more complicated than it needed to be (I'll get to that another time), did things that are important. It expanded care to people without insurance and will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. I believe these things were worth doing and Democrats apparently did also. If they are worth doing, they are worth defending.
As the quote above shows though, if we aren't talking about it, people will listen to whoever is. Right now, only Republicans are talking about it and they have only negative things to say. Democrats feel that a fight over the right size of government is a losing fight. That is ridiculous. We believe that there are things government can and should do and many of these things the public supports.
The same thing goes for the stimulus. Why is Paul Krugman the only one out there defending Keynesian economics? The public perception is that because the stimulus did not stop the job losses, it did not work and therefore Keynesian policies do not work. President Obama is choosing to take the road that the stimulus is working, but slowly. Unfortunately, no one is buying this. Maybe he doesn't need to go as far as Krugman is, but he needs to defend Keynes and maybe needs to acknowledge that the stimulus was too small, not too big. And there are plenty of economists who will defend him.
I disagree with David Brooks, Obama does not need to avoid the debate over the right size of government. He needs to enter it. He and the rest of the party need to stop letting Republicans set the terms of the debate and need to argue for what we believe in. Short of that, we are likely in for a really ugly November.
Politics Night: The Role of Government
For the second politics night, we discussed the appropriate role of government. We emphasized early on that this would be a normative not positive discussion.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.
I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.
I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.
Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.
Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.
There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.
And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.
I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Book Report: Physics for Future Presidents
Physics for Future Presidents is the best book I have read on Global Warming. It really analyzes the data and objectively states what we know and don't know. (Compare this to Super Freakonomics, which throws in random pieces of information, usually out of context, to undermine the case for global warming - or at least the case for urgent action - while also admitting that it is real. Read this book and ignore Super Freakonomics.)
This book also has a really good explanation of nuclear technology and radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and space. In this post though I will focus on global warming. Here is some of the relevant information on climate change from the book. I will go so far as to say that what is listed below are facts beyond dispute.
Carbon
- The earth's atmosphere contains 0.038% - or 380 parts per million - carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of atmosphere and do not absorb infrared radiation.
- In the late 1800s there was only 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 20 million years.
Climate
- The earth has definitely been warming over the last 150 years.
- The hockey stick graph is wrong - it contained poor analysis. Temperatures are not the warmest they have been in the last 1,000 years. But they are the warmest they have been in the last 400 years.
- Temperatures have increased 2F in the last century.
- The earth's temperature over the last 14,000 years has been mostly stable since the last ice age, which was around 12,000 - 10,000 BC. There has historically been an ice age every 10,000 years - some think this is due to a wobble in the earth's axis caused by Jupiter and Venus.
- The 600,000 year CO2 and temperature graph (made famous by Al Gore and a lift truck) is misleading. We do not know which way the causation goes. CO2 may have increased due to the temperature increases. In fact, increase in CO2 seems to lag the temperature increase by 800 years.
Ocean Changes
- Sea level rises can be attributed more to water expanding as the temperature of the ocean increases than to melting ice.
- Antarctic ice is melting. It was originally thought that Antarctic ice would increase, as water vapor increased in the air and more snow fell on Antarctica. Instead, more rain is falling.
- The ocean pH is changing. It is becoming more acidic (actually it is becoming more neutral but the point being that it is moving on the scale to be less basic and more acidic). Increasing acidity interferes with formation of external shells and skeletons for ocean life.
- Permafrost is thawing in some places.
IPCC Conclusions
- The IPCC says there is a 10% chance that humans are not responsible for temperature changes and a 90% chance that we are responsible.
- Temperatures are predicted to rise another 3F - 10F in the next 50 years.
- The predominant reason for the uncertainty is water vapor and cloud cover. There is a chance that temperature increases, which will increase water vapor in the air, might also increase cloud cover, thereby moderating temperature increases.
My Conclusions
- We may not be 100 percent sure that we are causing global warming, but we are sure enough that we should take precautions. It makes no sense to say that we need to wait until there is no doubt before we act. Think of any other example (heart attack) where you were 90 percent sure something bad was going to happen but you refused to act until you were certain.
- Although the models are imperfect, we are confident that temperatures will continue to rise. Again, we need to plan for this and find ways to try to prevent it.
This book also has a really good explanation of nuclear technology and radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and space. In this post though I will focus on global warming. Here is some of the relevant information on climate change from the book. I will go so far as to say that what is listed below are facts beyond dispute.
Carbon
- The earth's atmosphere contains 0.038% - or 380 parts per million - carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of atmosphere and do not absorb infrared radiation.
- In the late 1800s there was only 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 20 million years.
Climate
- The earth has definitely been warming over the last 150 years.
- The hockey stick graph is wrong - it contained poor analysis. Temperatures are not the warmest they have been in the last 1,000 years. But they are the warmest they have been in the last 400 years.
- Temperatures have increased 2F in the last century.
- The earth's temperature over the last 14,000 years has been mostly stable since the last ice age, which was around 12,000 - 10,000 BC. There has historically been an ice age every 10,000 years - some think this is due to a wobble in the earth's axis caused by Jupiter and Venus.
- The 600,000 year CO2 and temperature graph (made famous by Al Gore and a lift truck) is misleading. We do not know which way the causation goes. CO2 may have increased due to the temperature increases. In fact, increase in CO2 seems to lag the temperature increase by 800 years.
Ocean Changes
- Sea level rises can be attributed more to water expanding as the temperature of the ocean increases than to melting ice.
- Antarctic ice is melting. It was originally thought that Antarctic ice would increase, as water vapor increased in the air and more snow fell on Antarctica. Instead, more rain is falling.
- The ocean pH is changing. It is becoming more acidic (actually it is becoming more neutral but the point being that it is moving on the scale to be less basic and more acidic). Increasing acidity interferes with formation of external shells and skeletons for ocean life.
- Permafrost is thawing in some places.
IPCC Conclusions
- The IPCC says there is a 10% chance that humans are not responsible for temperature changes and a 90% chance that we are responsible.
- Temperatures are predicted to rise another 3F - 10F in the next 50 years.
- The predominant reason for the uncertainty is water vapor and cloud cover. There is a chance that temperature increases, which will increase water vapor in the air, might also increase cloud cover, thereby moderating temperature increases.
My Conclusions
- We may not be 100 percent sure that we are causing global warming, but we are sure enough that we should take precautions. It makes no sense to say that we need to wait until there is no doubt before we act. Think of any other example (heart attack) where you were 90 percent sure something bad was going to happen but you refused to act until you were certain.
- Although the models are imperfect, we are confident that temperatures will continue to rise. Again, we need to plan for this and find ways to try to prevent it.
Book Report: Three Cups of Tea
I was skeptical about Three Cups of Tea when I first started hearing about it. In summary, Greg Mortenson, after an unsuccessful bid to climb K2, started building schools in Pakistan and then Afghanistan. And the theme is that schools are a much better weapon against extremism than wars. Knowing that much, I figured I knew it all. I agreed with the message of the book so did I really need to actually read it?
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
An Ideal Marriage?
Ross Douthat wrote an intersting, but wholly wrong column on gay marriage. He seems to be saying that heterosexual marriage at its best offers more than homosexual marriage at its best. It's nice that he isn't saying gay marriage is bad. However, I completely disagree with that. He and everyone else that take this similar position have it all wrong.
Actually, before I comment on the part of his argument I did find interesting, let me deal with a few things that were actually pretty stupid. First, Douthat seems to lump gay marriage in with serial monogamy, and no fault divorce. This is absurd. These things have nothing to do with each other. Second, he seems to suggest that one ideal will replace another. Instead, we are likely to see not one ideal (serial monogamy versus lifelong partnerships) but a realization that both / all are acceptable ways to live ones life.
Now for the interesting part of his argument. Douthat says that society should hold up ideal relationships for everyone to strive for. I agree. However, his ideal form of marriage includes many characteristics that are superficial and unimportant. Ideal family situations should have parent(s) that are loving and supportive and have enough time to provide effective care. This can be a single parent or two-parent, same sex or opposite sex, household. Gender and biological connection are irrelevant.
His article reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker. She was saying to me that she wanted her son would marry someone of the same ethnicity (she and her husband had immigrated from another country). She said marriage was hard work, and having different cultures mixing would just create another challenge that a marriage doesn't need.
I can imagine someone using Douthat's logic to say that ideal marriages are between people of the same ethnicity or race. Since that is the case, society has an interest in promoting that ideal and therefore refusing to confer the ultimate title of marriage to all that do not conform. We long ago rejected this argument against interracial marriages (although a justice of the peace in Louisiana still holds this position).
It is heartening to see people move away from the truly intolerant language on an issue like gay marriage and struggle to find more reasonable ways to oppose it. It means the debate is moving in the right direction. However, you can see the strain in the logic, and it becomes clear that this argument is flawed as well.
Actually, before I comment on the part of his argument I did find interesting, let me deal with a few things that were actually pretty stupid. First, Douthat seems to lump gay marriage in with serial monogamy, and no fault divorce. This is absurd. These things have nothing to do with each other. Second, he seems to suggest that one ideal will replace another. Instead, we are likely to see not one ideal (serial monogamy versus lifelong partnerships) but a realization that both / all are acceptable ways to live ones life.
Now for the interesting part of his argument. Douthat says that society should hold up ideal relationships for everyone to strive for. I agree. However, his ideal form of marriage includes many characteristics that are superficial and unimportant. Ideal family situations should have parent(s) that are loving and supportive and have enough time to provide effective care. This can be a single parent or two-parent, same sex or opposite sex, household. Gender and biological connection are irrelevant.
His article reminded me of a conversation I had with a former co-worker. She was saying to me that she wanted her son would marry someone of the same ethnicity (she and her husband had immigrated from another country). She said marriage was hard work, and having different cultures mixing would just create another challenge that a marriage doesn't need.
I can imagine someone using Douthat's logic to say that ideal marriages are between people of the same ethnicity or race. Since that is the case, society has an interest in promoting that ideal and therefore refusing to confer the ultimate title of marriage to all that do not conform. We long ago rejected this argument against interracial marriages (although a justice of the peace in Louisiana still holds this position).
It is heartening to see people move away from the truly intolerant language on an issue like gay marriage and struggle to find more reasonable ways to oppose it. It means the debate is moving in the right direction. However, you can see the strain in the logic, and it becomes clear that this argument is flawed as well.
Ben Stein on Health Care
I have been meaning to write about the health care bill (and the financial reform bill). But I need to do a lot more reading to make sure I understand what it will do. By the way, I completely agree with and understand the criticisms that the health care bill is too large and complex for most people to understand. After all, our government should be transparent and can only be so if its policies are simple and understandable. But as I have seen, it takes a not insignificant time investment to really get my head around it.
In the meantime, for all those conservatives that read this blog - you know who you are, you send me absurd emails about how Obama wants to ruin the country (instead of Bush who did it by accident) - I thought I would share Ben Stein's take on the health care bill. I do this because some of you are very fond of the famous monotone conservative's position on issues. Enjoy.
In the meantime, for all those conservatives that read this blog - you know who you are, you send me absurd emails about how Obama wants to ruin the country (instead of Bush who did it by accident) - I thought I would share Ben Stein's take on the health care bill. I do this because some of you are very fond of the famous monotone conservative's position on issues. Enjoy.
What to Say and When to Say It
I've noticed in a lot of foreign policy debates, there seems to be a belief, often unspoken, that if the US government supports a certain position, they should necessarily express that position. It is a belief that the world always wants to hear what the US says and that our speaking will always have a positive effect. This is wrong.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
The real test should be - once you determine the government's position - whether speaking out will help or hurt the group of people you support. Iran is the perfect example of this. Many seem to suggest that the reason Obama has not been more supportive of the green revolution protesters is that he wants to work with the Iranian government to stop their nuclear program.
Instead, it seems the Obama administration understands that US public pressure can sometimes hurt movements. In Iran for example, the more the US supports the green revolution, the easier it is for Iranian government to paint it as a US funded operation to take down the government. Therefore, US support undermines the protesters.
There are other considerations of course. For example, if there is a protest that is not getting public attention, US support and condemnation of repression, would raise awareness of the issue. The protesters might be painted as pawns of the US but the world would also pay more attention.
There are always many factors to consider. I just wish more of the people commenting on foreign policy understood this.
Islamic Center Update
The debate over the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan has gotten out of hand and almost nobody looks good. President Obama's support was weak (supports their right but won't speak about the wisdom of building there). This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed says all the right things but has a conclusion that doesn't fit with the rest of the piece - calling for it to move somewhere else. In fact, the only bright spot has been John Stewart and the Daily Show for mocking all those opposed.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.
There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.
However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.
Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.
What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.
Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)
If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.
Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.
Politics Night: Inception (Not the Movie) and Obama
I have realized for quite a while that, although I love the blog, it just isn't enough debate for me. I crave the old lunchroom while also knowing I could have it even better than that. So I finally found enough people that also want to talk politics and started Politics Night. The idea was to choose a topic, have dinner and maybe some drinks, and debate.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
The first topic was the presidency - so far - of Barack Obama. I won't summarize everyone's position; they can do that for themselves if they so choose. I will say though that only one person among four Democrats thought Obama was doing a good job. I was not that person.
I can't fully explain why I am not very satisfied with Obama as president. I can name some things that bother me (which I will do in a moment) but the different parts do not seem to add up to the total amount of disappointment I feel.
I will say first off that although I am happy that health care passed, I was not overly impressed with his role. I understand that his administration wanted to learn from Clinton's mistakes. They did not want to hand Congress a fully drafted plan and expect them to pass it. Unfortunately, I think they overcompensated and went too far towards deference and made Obama seem uninvolved and distant.
I also think that his fights over health care took way too long. Congress was debating the issue and nothing else for a year all while the country was, and still is, in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This did make Congress and the President seem out of touch. I know it seemed like it was then or never for health care, but I fear Democrats will pay a price for that.
I believe Obama should have pushed off health care and spent all of this time and capital on the economy. He got a stimulus passed that appears to have been too small - then moved on to health care. Instead, he should have passed the stimulus, then monitored it and drilled home the message that we might need more. He does not have the political capital now to add more stimulus - especially when he has said that it was going to be enough. Since presidents pay a sever price, even if it isn't their fault, for a bad economy, that should have been his one and only concern.
Another related issue that seems to be hurting Obama was brought up in a recent article in the Times that I really liked. It made the point that Obama looks like a legislative President and legislators are rarely popular. I know it sounds contradictory to say he was both uninvolved and too involved. But here is the thing - Obama, while not weighing in enough during the health care debate, you knew he was watching and his staff was involved. And I can't really name another issue he was working on or pushing for during that time. If he had been off in the Middle East negotiating peace or something similar while Congress was debating, he might not be tied to it as much.
And this gets me to my final point - that Obama doesn't seem willing to fight for things - using his speeches - now that he is president. He was watching health care, but not fighting too hard. He hasn't said much about Don't Ask, Don't Tell, although his administration is working on changing it. His defense of the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan was tepid. And he seems quiet on Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, climate change, etc.
I get the feeling that he is loath to say things that might be unpopular, although maybe he is just more focused on administration. If that is the case - I appreciate having a president that is in the nitty-gritty of running the country. However, I also want my president to stand up and fight for things he or she believes in (popular or not). And the funny thing is that is who I thought I was electing - a person who would disagree without being disagreeable. Instead, it seems Obama is doing the opposite.
They say politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. I disagree - there should be plenty of room for poetry and prose when you are governing. I thought - I think we all thought - that Obama was capable of doing both. Maybe soon he'll show us we were right. Hopefully long before 2012.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Gettleman and Africa
If you have read an article in the NY Times about east Africa, it was almost definitely written by Jeffrey Gettleman. His coverage of the Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, et al has been amazing and one of the few places you can get good information about the conflicts and troubles in those areas.
He wrote a piece in Foreign Policy a while ago I finally got around to reading. It describes how Africa's wars are different. The piece is well considered and haunting. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it is a must read when considering Africa's conflicts.
He wrote a piece in Foreign Policy a while ago I finally got around to reading. It describes how Africa's wars are different. The piece is well considered and haunting. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but it is a must read when considering Africa's conflicts.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Naomi Campbell and Her Blood Diamonds
With the testimony of Naomi Campbell at the International Criminal Court about her gift of blood diamonds, the issue has come back into the public's consciousness.
First, there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal ($) - a piece of pro-diamond garbage. The piece was so disingenuous it almost made me sick. Hopefully most people realized the author was far from objective considering he is a diamond consultant. And even if some people gave him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully they realized his arguments were complete sophistry.
(He says that diamonds do not contribute to conflict - at least no more than many other minerals. If his point is that we should be concerned about how other resources also provide money to warlords and allows them to continue horrible acts of violence, then I would agree. Instead, I gather his point is that we shouldn't think at all about how our consumption feeds violence in parts of Africa, Asia and South America.)
One thing he says that people concerned about blood diamonds would agree with is that the Kimberly process is largely ineffective. This article in Foreign Policy sums it up. Unfortunately, the WSJ opinion author concludes that because the Kimberly process does not work, we should give up and just buy diamonds as before oblivious to the death and destruction. The FP article fortunately looks for ways to improve the process so that people can continue to buy grossly overvalued diamonds (thanks to what is actually very clever advertising going back decades) with less impact on conflict. Let's hope people actually heed the call for change.
First, there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal ($) - a piece of pro-diamond garbage. The piece was so disingenuous it almost made me sick. Hopefully most people realized the author was far from objective considering he is a diamond consultant. And even if some people gave him the benefit of the doubt, hopefully they realized his arguments were complete sophistry.
(He says that diamonds do not contribute to conflict - at least no more than many other minerals. If his point is that we should be concerned about how other resources also provide money to warlords and allows them to continue horrible acts of violence, then I would agree. Instead, I gather his point is that we shouldn't think at all about how our consumption feeds violence in parts of Africa, Asia and South America.)
One thing he says that people concerned about blood diamonds would agree with is that the Kimberly process is largely ineffective. This article in Foreign Policy sums it up. Unfortunately, the WSJ opinion author concludes that because the Kimberly process does not work, we should give up and just buy diamonds as before oblivious to the death and destruction. The FP article fortunately looks for ways to improve the process so that people can continue to buy grossly overvalued diamonds (thanks to what is actually very clever advertising going back decades) with less impact on conflict. Let's hope people actually heed the call for change.
Kagame's Second Turn and Rwanda's Progress
There have been a bunch of articles looking backwards and forwards at Rwanda as the presidential election approaches. The consensus seems to be that Paul Kagame is becoming more repressive and stifling opposition - sometimes violently. At the same time however, he is also showing success rebuilding and improving the country. Corruption is low compared to the rest of Africa, violence is also relatively low and his iron fist may be helping to eliminate the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi (if anything can). Aid donors are happy and international investment is up.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
Jan and I have been having a few conversations about this idea already. Now, this country hardly poses a threat to America. And in this case, we have someone who is autocratic but also seemingly doing a good job for the country apart from the repression of opposition. So not so similar to Cuba / Venezuela / Egypt / Palestine. But it does get at the issue about when we support democracy and when to we let autocratic rulers do their thing.
On Rwanda, I am completely torn. The country experienced a horrific genocide and was involved in the war in the Congo. So maybe a strong ruler is necessary to repair the country. Then again, at what point is Kagame's repression too much? And will he ever be able to stop? What happens when his reforms stop producing results, but he is unwilling to leave? For now I think we are content to let him do his thing, but soon we might face some tough questions.
On Robert Byrd and Prejudice
I want to use the opportunity of Robert Byrd's death to write about a bigger issue - prejudice and forgiveness. It is part of the public record that elected officials like Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, and George Wallace* were strong supporters of segregation and other racist policies. It is also clear that all three changed their views and expressed sorrow for their previous positions. All three were forgiven and enjoyed further tenures in government after segregation and racism fell out of favor.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
While I am a believer in forgiveness, and I also find it comforting that people are able to change their views and admit they were wrong, I find their long legislative careers extremely troubling. The ease with which people forgave their racist views sets the example that politicians will not be held accountable for harboring biased views as long as they eventually turn around after public opinion does.
This has repercussions for current debates - specifically gay rights. Politicians can see by looking at Byrd and Thurmond that they can advocate to maintain obvious civil rights violations now and not be punished for that position later on. Opposing gay rights is both in their short term and long term interests.
It would be much better for this movement and others (tolerance towards Muslims for example) if people were held accountable in the future once the public mood changed. At least then, an elected official would have to balance their short term interests against their long term interests.
If we can be more aware of the incentive this creates against defending minorities whose rights are being violated, than we can decide to forgive but not reelect politicians that were on the wrong side of a very important issue.
*I recommend the documentary George Wallace: Settin' the Woods on Fire. It takes the position that Wallace was not a racist in his early years. Instead, it was his ambition - to become governor - that made him take up the popular white southern cause of segregation and to become its biggest proponent. That doesn't let him off the hook of course. But it does present an interesting (although maybe not surprising) issue - that in seeking power, politicians will exploit fears they don't hold themselves.
Islamic Center and Ignorance
The debate over an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan seems like it will never go away. My position is simple. The only reason one could oppose an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is if you hold the whole religion of Islam responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001. In other words, you would have to think that it was regular Muslims - not radical Muslims corrupting an otherwise decent religion - that attacked us. If however you don't believe that the religion as a whole attacked us, then you wouldn't see an Islamic Community Center that represents moderate Islam as offensive of the memories of the victims (many of which were Muslim by the way).
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.
Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.
The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.
This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.
Monday, August 09, 2010
MPAA Ratings
I watched This Film is Not Yet Rated. I was a bit skeptical - mostly because of how aggressive and confrontational it seemed. But it was actually a good movie and made some really interesting points.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
The movie investigates the Motion Picture Association of America's movie ratings system and finds it to be secretive and full of contradictions. We shouldn't be surprised at the problems the movie raises. Anytime an industry tries to regulate itself, it will often fail when the needed regulations threaten its bottom line.
It seems clear from the movie that the MPAA ratings system has a few significant flaws. The first is of course its lack of transparency. A system that exerts such significant control over a major communication medium should make it clear who is making its decisions and how they arrive at those decisions.
Given the lack of transparency, the MPAA is free to allow conflicts to corrupt the process. It seems clear that studio films are given more guidance and support in navigating the ratings.
What seems to be the biggest problem with the ratings system though is that it tolerates significant graphic violence in an R rating but is highly sensitive to sex and downright censors any homosexual sex or intimacy. This strikes me as completely backwards. As a society, we should be much more concerned with how our treatment of violence influences violent behavior than we are about treatment of sex influences our sexual behavior since violence can have much bigger impacts on peoples' lives than sex.
The movie suggests a reason for why the MPAA might treat sex this way. It seems that the MPAA is risk averse - its goal is to avoid criticism. It seems clear that the loudest voices would be / are conservative christian groups whose main concern is with what they consider aberrant sexual behavior (usually intimacy between same sex couples or sexual positions that deviate from missionary). In fact, the bias in favor of religious groups is clear when the viewer learns that the MPAA includes representatives from the Catholic and Episcopalian churches on their appeals baord.*
To the extent that this analysis is accurate, it is concerning both because religious groups representing views that are likely to be in the minority have an undue influence on our movie choices (coming close to censoring) and because it isn't clear to the public that the rating agencies have this bias.
The solution would be a rating system that is much more transparent - which means it would need to be less simple - and separated from the studios. HBO uses its own rating system, which is actually both more simple and more complicated than the MPAA. Because it is independent of the MPAA, it can air TV shows like the L-Word, which would otherwise likely receive an NC-17 rating. There is another rating system though that accomplishes this, and Netflix is using it: Common Sense Media. It is far more descriptive about what is contained in the movie (and tv shows and music videos). Granted, this wouldn't work for the lazy parent, but seems like a much more transparent, consistent, and independent system.
*Another explanation could be that our society overall tolerates violence more than sex and the ratings reflect that. The movie does a good job of making this explanation seem less likely.
Shrink Government and Help the Poor?
There is an article in the NY Times about Republican Congressional candidate Tim Scott who is likely to become the first black Republican elected to Congress from the Deep South in over one hundred years. While that is somewhat interesting, I am more interested in his overall philosophy.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Tim Scott seems to be of the class of Republicans that want to help those less fortunate but don't think the government should do it. Here is a quote from the article that really got me thinking:
"If you really believe in something and that the government shouldn’t do it, you better be busy," he said.First, let me say that I can understand the feeling that the government isn't always the best at providing services. While this feeling is exaggerated, there are good reasons to feel this way. I might agree that local non-profits, if adequately funded, could provide better services for those in need than government social service agencies.
What I don't understand though about these conservatives that are actually compassionate is how they can stand being in a party where a significant portion believe that government should be doing less not because local community groups need to do more but because they want to keep their own money and not help the undeserving poor.
These conservatives that do want the poor to be helped need to understand, and I am surprised that they do not, that when they work together with other conservatives to shrink the size of government, there will be nothing close to sufficient money to help those in need. They are joining a party to shrink government without considering what happens to the people that need support.
It would make more sense to me if these people joined with Democrats, who also largely feel the desire to help the poor, and try to influence the party to raise the same amount of money but give more to local groups and less to big unresponsive government agencies.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Good Discussion About Wikipedia
I just want to share this really good discussion about Wikipedia and its strengths and weaknesses. It comes through an interview with one of the founders of Wikipedia who left because of a disagreement over how the site should proceed and operate.
And just to give you a sense, here is the best quote, in response to a question about how readers should use Wikipedia as compared to an Encyclopedia Britannica:
And just to give you a sense, here is the best quote, in response to a question about how readers should use Wikipedia as compared to an Encyclopedia Britannica:
“What Wikipedians themselves would say—and I agree with them on this one—is that Wikipedia has finally awakened in people an understanding that even carefully edited resources can frequently be wrong and have to be treated with skepticism and that ultimately we are responsible for what we believe. That means constantly going back and checking what we thought was established or what we thought we knew. Wikipedians often say that you should never trust any one source, including Wikipedia.
That's not anything new; it's always been the case that you should check your source against another source. It's just that the way that the Internet has exposed the editorial process has, for more critical-minded people, made it absolutely plain just how much responsibility we ourselves bear to believe the right thing.”
Friday, June 25, 2010
Not History but the Future
In a previous post, a friend and I had a largely academic debate about what to consider when evaluating whether to support growing democracies. Despite all of our back and forth and a seeming resolution, I still feel like I don't know whether the argument was over semantics and word usage or whether there was a real difference of opinion about American foreign policy. Well, there is no better way to find out than to explore real world examples. Here it goes.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)