First, let me say that Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan isn't a perfect book and most of the information is now common knowledge at least to those interested in food policy (though I think it was somewhat groundbreaking at the time it was written - or at the very least reached a new audience). We know that corn is subsidized and driving an unhealthy system where food is heavily processed an animals are treated poorly.
Even if you know most of this information though, this book is still one of the best books on the subject. It is well-organized, well-written, and thorough. And unless you are an expert, there are things you will learn. I thought I had a good general idea of our food system from reading articles (some by Pollan himself) and talking to friends. But there was enough new information it the book to keep me interested.
There were two parts of the book though that were new to me and were worth reading. First, his description of Polyface Farms was great. To see how an ultra sustainable farm can work is amazing. Each part of the farm supports the other parts. And what was truly great was that this type of farm requires a lot of thought and energy. It seems that the industrialization and mechanization of our farms has created a job that is less mentally stimulating than it used to be - not that smart people don't do it, but that so much is uniform and planned. A farm like this could in theory keep smart people from leaving the farm to more exciting jobs. It also shows how smart nature is and how easily things can work if you let nature do what it wants to do.
The second part that was really good and worth reading was Pollan's good discussion of utilitarian animal rights. As I have thought more about animal rights, I haven't always known what I meant or what I wanted. I know animals are not humans. They do not and should not have the same rights and get the same treatment. But I do not think therefore that animals have no rights and are entitled to no consideration about there well-being.
Pollan's description of Peter Singer's philosophy really hit home with me. While I knew animals shouldn't suffer unnecessary pain, I didn't know anything beyond that. Basically, Peter Singer believes that animals and humans should have equal consideration of their interests. Humans interests are different from a chickens interests, but both should be considered. Humans want shelter, health, freedom, and a good job. Chickens want to roost, nest, and have space to move around. Therefore we seek not only to see that chickens do not suffer, but that they are able to do the things a chicken wants to do.
Free range chickens - actual free range, not the definition created by the agribusinesses - seek to give this to chickens. And the same goes for grass-fed beef. Cows want to eat grass - that is what ruminants do. If we care about animal rights, we should let them do this.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
I Don't Eat Meat... or Fish
I wrote a post last year about how I had drastically cut back on my meat consumption. Maybe it doesn't surprise anyone, but I have now entirely cut meat and fish out of my diet. Before I go into my reasons, I want to be clear that I write this post to explain my choice but not to proselytize. I don't think everyone can or should be vegetarian. But based on what I know, I have decided that I have to.
When I last wrote about this, I had said that I have cut back on my meat consumption because the way we consume meat in this country in unsustainable; there is intense pollution, significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, and animal suffering due to our current meat consumption practices. I still feel that cutting back on meat and purchasing from sustainable businesses is a great way to deal with these problems.
To be honest, I ended up becoming effectively vegetarian before I had decided that it was a moral necessity for me. The only place that I was eating meat at the time closed for about six months (fire), and during that time I ate no meat. So I realized I could and therefore should stop eating meat altogether.
But it was during that time and since that I realized I had to continue to avoid eating meat. And the main reason was that if I cared about animal rights, I couldn't feel good about the fact that the animals I was eating lead such short lives - even if they were good lives. For example, pigs raised for meat live 8 months, beef cattle 15-20 months, and chickens two months. I don't feel happy eating a chicken that only lived for such a short time.
Now, I recognize there is a problem with my logic. These animals are entirely domestic. Without our food system, they would not likely live at all. I don't have much of a response to this except that maybe in an even more perfect world we wouldn't eat any animal until 5 years. But then again, I don't know what this might do to the quality of the meat. The bottom line though is that I don't feel good about it.
All of this doesn't address why I don't eat fish. For that, I blame scuba diving. I love diving, I love the colors, the beauty and the peace. It is such an amazing way to see nature. And so I can't abide to eat fish when they are caught in a way that destroys these ecosystems. The deteriorating conditions of our seas are well documented and gaining more widespread recognition. Until there is an international solution to the overfishing, I will not contribute to a practice that destroys one of our most valuable and beautiful resources.
So there you have it. No meat. No fish. But I still eat eggs. Only free range and local, in case you were curious.
When I last wrote about this, I had said that I have cut back on my meat consumption because the way we consume meat in this country in unsustainable; there is intense pollution, significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, and animal suffering due to our current meat consumption practices. I still feel that cutting back on meat and purchasing from sustainable businesses is a great way to deal with these problems.
To be honest, I ended up becoming effectively vegetarian before I had decided that it was a moral necessity for me. The only place that I was eating meat at the time closed for about six months (fire), and during that time I ate no meat. So I realized I could and therefore should stop eating meat altogether.
But it was during that time and since that I realized I had to continue to avoid eating meat. And the main reason was that if I cared about animal rights, I couldn't feel good about the fact that the animals I was eating lead such short lives - even if they were good lives. For example, pigs raised for meat live 8 months, beef cattle 15-20 months, and chickens two months. I don't feel happy eating a chicken that only lived for such a short time.
Now, I recognize there is a problem with my logic. These animals are entirely domestic. Without our food system, they would not likely live at all. I don't have much of a response to this except that maybe in an even more perfect world we wouldn't eat any animal until 5 years. But then again, I don't know what this might do to the quality of the meat. The bottom line though is that I don't feel good about it.
All of this doesn't address why I don't eat fish. For that, I blame scuba diving. I love diving, I love the colors, the beauty and the peace. It is such an amazing way to see nature. And so I can't abide to eat fish when they are caught in a way that destroys these ecosystems. The deteriorating conditions of our seas are well documented and gaining more widespread recognition. Until there is an international solution to the overfishing, I will not contribute to a practice that destroys one of our most valuable and beautiful resources.
So there you have it. No meat. No fish. But I still eat eggs. Only free range and local, in case you were curious.
Collision: A Review
Summary. I just watched Collision, the documentary about the debates on whether Christianity is good for the world between Hitchens and Wilson. In this post I will tell you where my beliefs are and what I thought about the two arguments. Get comfortable, this is going to be a long one.
I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.
First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.
While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.
But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.
I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.
One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.
As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.
Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.
I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.
Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.
Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?
Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.
The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.
Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.
One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.
So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.
Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.
I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.
First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.
While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.
But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.
I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.
One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.
As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.
Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.
I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.
Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.
Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?
Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.
The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.
Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.
One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.
So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.
Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.
Truman's Bomb
I have been watching the American Experience documentary on President Truman. So far I am half way through and just got to the end of World War II. Since I haven't read McCullough's Truman or any other biography, this is my first study of him. The one thing that sticks out of course is the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima using the nuclear bomb.
Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.
The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.
If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.
The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.
Usually the decision to bomb Japan is contrasted to not using the bomb and invading mainland Japan. That option of course would have lead to many thousands more American deaths. However, that was not the only other option. Truman, as has been well established, could have used the bomb once in Japan where there were no people or at the very least on a military target to show the amazing power of the atomic bomb.
The question is why didn't he chose one of those other options. If I understand the documentary correctly, Truman delegated the decision about where to use the bomb to the military. Only after the extreme destruction of the two bombings did Truman take the power back from the military so that he alone would decide if there was another bombing and where it would be.
If this is true, I find it appalling and very scary. I can admit that I don't have the proper historical context - maybe presidents delegated chores like this frequently during this time. If so, Truman made a grave and stupid mistake not recognizing that his was a new weapon that demanded new protocol.
The nuclear bomb should have been used on military targets until it was clear Japan was not scared, and only then used on civilian populations. And that decision should have come from the President himself. I think we have learned our lesson. What I don't understand is why we (or McCullough) hold Truman in such high regard. Maybe the second half of the documentary will show me.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Things Change: 2010
Good Morning! So most of the election results are in, and I have to say I am not too upset by the results. The House went Republican by what will probably be 65ish votes. The Senate has stayed Democrat with as many as 53 seats for the Dems. And in NYS, all statewide seats went Democrat, but the state senate is still up in the air, with a 31-31 split a real possibility. Having to compromise might make the chamber more effective, but I doubt it.
The biggest reason I am relatively happy though is that it looks like the crazy and not-so-bright candidates mostly lost. Sharron Angle lost by 6 percent in Nevada (whereas polls had her in the lead), Joe Miller seems to have lost to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski (a more reasonable Republican), Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, and of course Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, as expected. All of those outcomes comfort me. I don't mind a Republican outcome as long as it is the relatively reasonable people that win and not the crazies.
What about Rand Paul you ask? I think he is on the fringe (and ignorant of macroeconomics), but he is smart and thoughtful, if lacking judgment.
The biggest reason I am relatively happy though is that it looks like the crazy and not-so-bright candidates mostly lost. Sharron Angle lost by 6 percent in Nevada (whereas polls had her in the lead), Joe Miller seems to have lost to write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski (a more reasonable Republican), Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut, and of course Christine O'Donnell lost in Delaware, as expected. All of those outcomes comfort me. I don't mind a Republican outcome as long as it is the relatively reasonable people that win and not the crazies.
What about Rand Paul you ask? I think he is on the fringe (and ignorant of macroeconomics), but he is smart and thoughtful, if lacking judgment.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Night 2010
This election is really firming my belief in the long run / big picture. Change does not happen overnight (except in rare situations). But it does happen slowly. And while people like Rand Paul win elections, their policies of very limited government have been rejected for well over 200 years now. As a country we have slowly increased the role of government to situations that are appropriate and necessary. The point of all this is to say that I have not lost faith; change will come, but slowly.
As for what we know right now: In the Senate, West Virginia (and as expected so have Connecticut and Delaware) has gone to the Democrats. This means the chances of Republicans taking the Senate are slim (2% according to 538). But I have turned off the TV because I can't bear to watch Republicans that know nothing about economics talk about belt tightening.
As for what we know right now: In the Senate, West Virginia (and as expected so have Connecticut and Delaware) has gone to the Democrats. This means the chances of Republicans taking the Senate are slim (2% according to 538). But I have turned off the TV because I can't bear to watch Republicans that know nothing about economics talk about belt tightening.
Lightning Rounds
I didn't realize it until I saw this post, but I hate lightning rounds at candidate debates. There are very few questions in politics that can be answered with either a yes or a no. Instead, this sort of thing fuels unfair negative attack adds by trapping politicians. And you'll see that most of the questions are not even relevant or meaningful.
I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.
- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?
This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.
- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?
Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?
- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?
This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.
- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?
Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?
- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?
This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.
- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?
Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.
- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?
Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.
- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?
Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.
I've selected the worst questions from the lightning round at the Gillibrand / DioGuardi debate.
- Has the Tea Party movement been good for America?
This is a really stupid question when only allowing a yes or no answer. A candidate should be able to say that almost any public movement addressing government is a good one. And a movement that acts as a counter to government expansion is a helpful check. The candidate should then be able to say that they disagree with most of the tea party stands for - that they are selfish and uncaring and we need energetic government to help those facing difficulties.
- Should Andrew Cuomo debate Carl Paladino one-on-one?
Why would / should either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have an opinion about that?
- Should the Guantanamo prisoners be tried in military tribunals instead of US criminal court?
This is a question that could have a yes or no, but because it is a complicated issue, it deserves a much more nuanced answer.
- Should Alan Hevesi go to prison?
Again, why would either Gillibrand or DioGuardi have a position on this?
- Would David Paterson make a better US Senator than Governor?
This is the worst of the worst. Of course Paterson would be a better Senator - he has less responsibility. He was a good state senator. He hasn't been a good governor. Unfortunately, just acknowledging that, especially by Gillibrand, suggests maybe Paterson should have nominated himself. The real question is whether Paterson would have been a good Senator and why.
- Would you attend the groundbreaking for the Islamic cultural center and mosque near the WTC site?
Ugh. The ground braking is not happening anytime soon. This is such an absurd hypothetical question and so much can change between now and the actual groundbreaking - if it even happens. All this does is gives candidates the chance to get into trouble by saying something now and then circumstances changing.
- Would Hillary Clinton make a good VP candidate in 2012?
Again, poorly worded so much as to render it meaningless. The question should be whether Hillary should be the VP nominee. Lots of people might make good VP candidates, but the real question is who the candidate should be.
- Did Anita Hill tell the truth?
Give me a break. No one knows whether she told the truth. The best we can say is that she raised troubling allegations. Unfortunately, in our world questions like this break down by political affiliation, and that is actually the expectation. Gillibrand knew she had to say yes and DioGuardi had to say no. It is appalling that the questioner would put them on the spot like this and force them to take this position in a way that doesn't allow any nuance.
Tea Party is Bad for Business
I hadn’t thought about this, but yes, the Tea Party is bad for business. They want to abolish the Federal Reserve and strongly opposed TARP. They also oppose federal education funding, which would likely decrease education spending and achievement leading to a less skilled workforce. And they oppose the EPA, which maybe businesses agree with, although if I were a good business, I wouldn’t want to be businesses that pollute to be more competitive than me. Then again, maybe good businesses don’t exist.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Scientific American for Policy Issues
I recently subscribed to Scientific American thinking that it wouldn’t really have any political / policy applications but would be good to keep up to date on major science developments (after reading Bill Bryson). Instead, there are lots of articles about policy*. I feel stupid now for not realizing how much science and policy interacts.
Here are just a few of the recent examples: from the most recent issue, the magazine had stories on the climate change debate, phosphorus in lakes (ie pollution due to fertilizer manufacturing), the super grid, and a brief on chemicals in our environment. Previous issues discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, robots in war, and technology in government, among many other topics. And the beauty is that I feel you can trust Scientific American more than most other sources that might also cover these issues. Amazing.
And yes, tonight is the night of short posts.
*Note: I had originally said "science" here. Clearly I meant to say policy.
Here are just a few of the recent examples: from the most recent issue, the magazine had stories on the climate change debate, phosphorus in lakes (ie pollution due to fertilizer manufacturing), the super grid, and a brief on chemicals in our environment. Previous issues discussed hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, robots in war, and technology in government, among many other topics. And the beauty is that I feel you can trust Scientific American more than most other sources that might also cover these issues. Amazing.
And yes, tonight is the night of short posts.
*Note: I had originally said "science" here. Clearly I meant to say policy.
Self-Funded
The NY Times blog 538 had an interesting post about self-funded candidates, and here is the line that really caught my eye:
But individual contributions are often a good proxy for grass-roots support, and a candidate who bypasses the routine of building fund-raising networks may also miss an opportunity to build volunteer networks, which can be useful in motivating turnout. Moreover, self-financed candidates have had a fairly poor track record on Election Day in recent years. Ms. McMahon is an unusual candidate running an unusual campaign in an unusual cycle, so we’ll have to see how this all plays out.I had never thought this way about self-funded candidates. It makes me think of Bloomberg's 2009 campaign in a whole new light and could be another way of understanding his relatively poor showing (and Thompson’s surprising competitiveness) in the 2009 elections. I had chalked it up to voter anger at Bloomberg, but this makes a little more sense - or at least adds another dimension.
Another Note on Moderates
Since the beginning of Obama's presidency, Democrats have been criticizing Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise. The problem is that both parties have been punishing and chasing away moderates in their party that otherwise might be willing to be bipartisan (Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, etc). We can’t expect compromise if both parties punish compromise. I'm just saying.
Another Quick Election Update
The 538 blog on the NY Times, which has great commentary on the election polling, has the Senate at 52 Democrats and 48 Republicans (although I can’t make the math work - looks to me like 51 Dem...) and the House at 232 Republican and 203 Democrat. Not bad, all things considered.
More Thoughts On Obama Year 2
I want to be clear (to myself and to you) about why I think Obama has not been doing a great job. Overall, my problem is not that I feel he has been too moderate (ie that he hasn't been liberal enough). I don’t begrudge compromises on health care, financial services reform, or even a lack of progress on Guantanamo. I do think that on health care in particular, he has failed to defend it adequately.
I do have a problem though with his relatively weak foreign policies. He has not been strong enough with Israel, he has not done much on Darfur, and now this report on child soldiers.
And I think his economic policies have been weak. While his rhetoric with the banks has been strong, his policies with them have been scared (his work on foreclosed homes is a prime example). And his stimulus was too weak, but he is sticking to it instead of fighting for more.
I do have a problem though with his relatively weak foreign policies. He has not been strong enough with Israel, he has not done much on Darfur, and now this report on child soldiers.
And I think his economic policies have been weak. While his rhetoric with the banks has been strong, his policies with them have been scared (his work on foreclosed homes is a prime example). And his stimulus was too weak, but he is sticking to it instead of fighting for more.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Elections Prediction: 10/24/2010
Traders at Intrade are predicting that Republicans will take the House and Democrats will keep the Senate. Rasmussen has the Senate as 48 solid Democrats, 46 solid Republicans and 6 toss-ups. My prediction is that Democrats will win in Washington and California (and Connecticut). That gives them 50 plus Biden. I think Nevada will be a nail biter. I think Reid might be able to pull it off, although his debate performance seems to have been weak and I read that he isn’t campaigning as hard. I will not be surprised if Rand Paul wins. He seems somewhat smart (if lacking judgement and thoughtfulness). But I will be appalled if Sharon Angle wins.
James Carville et al have an interesting column in today's NY Times comparing this election to the midterms in 1998. I wonder if Democrats have enough time to make the point that Carville thinks voters will listen to (ie middle class and American jobs).
I don't know why we can't once and for all quiet the calls for ideological purity. And I thought we would have learned already from 2006 and 2008 that a big tent is a winning strategy. But of course there will always be people who learn the wrong lessons from history.
There is so much wrong with the logic in the column I linked to above. It blames the Blue Dog Democrats for current legislative troubles, which is completely absurd. If some of the more conservative Democrats had been Republicans, we would have likely gotten an even more moderate health care bill (and stimulus and financial reform), if any at all.
A Blue Dog only wants to moderate Democratic tendencies, where as Republicans want to thwart all Democrat efforts. And thinking that we can make up for the loss of numbers through being better motivated (because moderates apparently demotivate the party) is just naive. The columnist also realizes that Republicans are going to lose some races because of ideological purity, but doesn't see the same for Democrats.
The biggest mistake though comes from not understanding basic human behavior. Whether we are in a center-right or center-left country - we are near the center. And thinking you will be more successful by becoming more extreme is just ridiculous. You make progress by convincing the independents to move a little in your direction, and you can only do that with moderates in your party.
I don't know if there is really a trend of increasing partisanship - it seems like it, but then again, I think we underestimate how partisan the past was. But I did mourn the loss of reasonable moderate Republicans in 2006 (only slightly since it did increase Democratic majorities) and I will mourn the loss of moderate Democrats this year. The moderates keep both parties from going too far to the extreme and actually allow us to make positive changes. Within both parties there are voices calling for ideological purity. Not only is it a losing strategy for elections and governing, but it is bad for compromise and our discourse.
James Carville et al have an interesting column in today's NY Times comparing this election to the midterms in 1998. I wonder if Democrats have enough time to make the point that Carville thinks voters will listen to (ie middle class and American jobs).
I don't know why we can't once and for all quiet the calls for ideological purity. And I thought we would have learned already from 2006 and 2008 that a big tent is a winning strategy. But of course there will always be people who learn the wrong lessons from history.
There is so much wrong with the logic in the column I linked to above. It blames the Blue Dog Democrats for current legislative troubles, which is completely absurd. If some of the more conservative Democrats had been Republicans, we would have likely gotten an even more moderate health care bill (and stimulus and financial reform), if any at all.
A Blue Dog only wants to moderate Democratic tendencies, where as Republicans want to thwart all Democrat efforts. And thinking that we can make up for the loss of numbers through being better motivated (because moderates apparently demotivate the party) is just naive. The columnist also realizes that Republicans are going to lose some races because of ideological purity, but doesn't see the same for Democrats.
The biggest mistake though comes from not understanding basic human behavior. Whether we are in a center-right or center-left country - we are near the center. And thinking you will be more successful by becoming more extreme is just ridiculous. You make progress by convincing the independents to move a little in your direction, and you can only do that with moderates in your party.
I don't know if there is really a trend of increasing partisanship - it seems like it, but then again, I think we underestimate how partisan the past was. But I did mourn the loss of reasonable moderate Republicans in 2006 (only slightly since it did increase Democratic majorities) and I will mourn the loss of moderate Democrats this year. The moderates keep both parties from going too far to the extreme and actually allow us to make positive changes. Within both parties there are voices calling for ideological purity. Not only is it a losing strategy for elections and governing, but it is bad for compromise and our discourse.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Monetary Policy
Many conservatives seem to think that monetary policy is the best way to escape recessions and prevent bubbles. At the moment however, we are limited in our monetary policy solutions since the most powerful tool - lowering short term interest rates - is not workable because those interest rates are near zero.
I wonder though if using monetary policy alone leads to situations like this. I am no economist (ignore the fact that it was one of my majors in undergrad - it wasn't a very rigorous program), but it seems that at least through the 2000s we were willing to decrease interest rates to get out of a recession but were less willing to increase interest rates to slow down a boom.*
If this is true, how often does monetary policy operate like this? It seems similar to how we actually practice Keynesian policies - where government deficit spends in recessions but does not run surpluses in boom times. They call this one-eyed Keynesian policies. Do we use one-eyed monetary policies?
Either way - it seems clear that at times - this being one of them - monetary policy is unlikely to save us. If only we have the political will to use more fiscal policy.
*Paul Krugman says that fed policy did not cause the bubble. I can't tell though if he is saying then that fed policy could not have prevented the bubble. What would have happened if the fed had increased interest rates in 2005ish? Would it at least have allowed them to lower interest rates more now to get out of the recession?
I wonder though if using monetary policy alone leads to situations like this. I am no economist (ignore the fact that it was one of my majors in undergrad - it wasn't a very rigorous program), but it seems that at least through the 2000s we were willing to decrease interest rates to get out of a recession but were less willing to increase interest rates to slow down a boom.*
If this is true, how often does monetary policy operate like this? It seems similar to how we actually practice Keynesian policies - where government deficit spends in recessions but does not run surpluses in boom times. They call this one-eyed Keynesian policies. Do we use one-eyed monetary policies?
Either way - it seems clear that at times - this being one of them - monetary policy is unlikely to save us. If only we have the political will to use more fiscal policy.
*Paul Krugman says that fed policy did not cause the bubble. I can't tell though if he is saying then that fed policy could not have prevented the bubble. What would have happened if the fed had increased interest rates in 2005ish? Would it at least have allowed them to lower interest rates more now to get out of the recession?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Book Report: Definitive History
This is my attempt to create a list of the definitive books on major historical events. I hope to keep this a work in progress, so feel free to comment on my selections and offer up alternatives. So you know, my idea of a definitive book would be contemporary, well written, and if possible not insanely long. In many cases, I will go with authors that have a good reputation. I will also mention good documentaries where available.
You'll notice that the list is heavily America-focused. I'm happy to add other subjects as they come to me. I am tempted to add histories of China and Russia, although I don't even know where to start. And to be honest, those would probably be so long I'd never actually get around to reading them. I'll look for documentaries instead.
American History
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
I actually want to read A Patriot's History of the United States also and see how different it is from Zinn's book. I wonder if the difference is on emphasis. It will also be interesting to compare them to *Lies My Teacher Told Me, which had more of a focus on how to teach history (from a progressive standpoint) although definitely interpreted history from a liberal perspective.
American Revolution
?
Civil War
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPhearson
There are tons of books on the war depending on your angle. Battle Cry of Freedom seems to be the best book since it is popular and pretty brief considering the material. It was first published in 1989, so not that contemporary.
Reconstruction
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner
This book is at the top of my reading list. It is supposed to be the best book on Reconstruction and will paint a different picture (and more accurate) picture than Gone with the Wind.
World War I
The First World War by Martin Gilbert
The First World War by John Keegan
I have no idea which is better. Both books seem to be well regarded. And both authors wrote books on World War Two, as you will see.
Treaty of Paris
*Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan
This is a good book. Many of the problems we face today stem from the seemingly arbitrary decisions of this peace conference. Although the big lesson is probably that the decisions only seemed arbitrary because the decision makers had to choose between idealism (which wasn't even always clear) and pragmatism and old-style spoils.
Great Depression
?
World War II
The Second World War by Martin Gilbert
The Second World War by John Keegan
Nazi Germany
Richard Evans' trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, The Third Reich at War) seems to be replacing the classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Although for brevity, one might choose Shirer's book over the trilogy.
Cold War
The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis
For the Soul of Mankind by Melvyn P. Leffler
Also, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times by Odd Arne Westad, seems a fascinating read and maybe a better study of interventions than Overthrow.
Korean War
The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam
This got really good reviews. When I feel the itch to learn about this war, I will definitely go to this book. And in this case, reading a book by a journalist doesn't scare me because of Halberstam's reputation.
Cuban Missile Crisis
One Minute to Midnight by Michael Dobbs.
This book got really good reviews when it came out. I wonder if people were as thirsty for it as I was, considering that before it was published, RFK's version was the only book available (hardly an objective account).
Vietnam War
Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow
This seems to be the best history book about the war, although it is not very current. A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan and The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam are also about the time period around Vietnam but focusing on some specific people. Vietnam: A Television History seems to have come from Karnow's book. I will probably try that documentary before I try one of the books.
Civil Rights in the South
The Taylor Branch books (Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, At Canaan's Edge - ie America in the King Years) are the most contemporary. I am not sure how much they cover groups outside the King orbit (SNCC and Black Panthers) though. That is something I'll have to investigate.
Civil Rights in the North
Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North by Thomas Sugrue.
I really want to read this book, but it is insanely long. Not sure when I will make time for it. I do think though that it is necessary reading for people who think civil rights was only an issue in the South.
Watergate
All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
Women's Rights / Feminism
When Everything Changed by Gail Collins
I can't say for sure that this is the best book on the subject, but it is the best one I have come across so far. It is on my reading list.
Apartheid
The Rise and Fall of Apartheid by David Welsh
I am not sure if this is the book I have been looking for. I desperately want a well-written history of Apartheid. *Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela's autobiography is not that book. It is a fine autobiography (although a little tedious and has too many trite observations), but not a good history since it doesn't cover many other players (like Desmond Tutu for example).
Indian Independence
I can't tell for sure, but Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann seems to be the most read out there. It focuses on the summer when India won its independence, but hopefully it gives enough background.
* books that I have read
You'll notice that the list is heavily America-focused. I'm happy to add other subjects as they come to me. I am tempted to add histories of China and Russia, although I don't even know where to start. And to be honest, those would probably be so long I'd never actually get around to reading them. I'll look for documentaries instead.
American History
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
I actually want to read A Patriot's History of the United States also and see how different it is from Zinn's book. I wonder if the difference is on emphasis. It will also be interesting to compare them to *Lies My Teacher Told Me, which had more of a focus on how to teach history (from a progressive standpoint) although definitely interpreted history from a liberal perspective.
American Revolution
?
Civil War
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPhearson
There are tons of books on the war depending on your angle. Battle Cry of Freedom seems to be the best book since it is popular and pretty brief considering the material. It was first published in 1989, so not that contemporary.
Reconstruction
A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner
This book is at the top of my reading list. It is supposed to be the best book on Reconstruction and will paint a different picture (and more accurate) picture than Gone with the Wind.
World War I
The First World War by Martin Gilbert
The First World War by John Keegan
I have no idea which is better. Both books seem to be well regarded. And both authors wrote books on World War Two, as you will see.
Treaty of Paris
*Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret MacMillan
This is a good book. Many of the problems we face today stem from the seemingly arbitrary decisions of this peace conference. Although the big lesson is probably that the decisions only seemed arbitrary because the decision makers had to choose between idealism (which wasn't even always clear) and pragmatism and old-style spoils.
Great Depression
?
World War II
The Second World War by Martin Gilbert
The Second World War by John Keegan
Nazi Germany
Richard Evans' trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, The Third Reich at War) seems to be replacing the classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Although for brevity, one might choose Shirer's book over the trilogy.
Cold War
The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis
For the Soul of Mankind by Melvyn P. Leffler
Also, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times by Odd Arne Westad, seems a fascinating read and maybe a better study of interventions than Overthrow.
Korean War
The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam
This got really good reviews. When I feel the itch to learn about this war, I will definitely go to this book. And in this case, reading a book by a journalist doesn't scare me because of Halberstam's reputation.
Cuban Missile Crisis
One Minute to Midnight by Michael Dobbs.
This book got really good reviews when it came out. I wonder if people were as thirsty for it as I was, considering that before it was published, RFK's version was the only book available (hardly an objective account).
Vietnam War
Vietnam: A History by Stanley Karnow
This seems to be the best history book about the war, although it is not very current. A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan and The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam are also about the time period around Vietnam but focusing on some specific people. Vietnam: A Television History seems to have come from Karnow's book. I will probably try that documentary before I try one of the books.
Civil Rights in the South
The Taylor Branch books (Parting the Waters, Pillar of Fire, At Canaan's Edge - ie America in the King Years) are the most contemporary. I am not sure how much they cover groups outside the King orbit (SNCC and Black Panthers) though. That is something I'll have to investigate.
Civil Rights in the North
Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North by Thomas Sugrue.
I really want to read this book, but it is insanely long. Not sure when I will make time for it. I do think though that it is necessary reading for people who think civil rights was only an issue in the South.
Watergate
All the President's Men by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
Women's Rights / Feminism
When Everything Changed by Gail Collins
I can't say for sure that this is the best book on the subject, but it is the best one I have come across so far. It is on my reading list.
Apartheid
The Rise and Fall of Apartheid by David Welsh
I am not sure if this is the book I have been looking for. I desperately want a well-written history of Apartheid. *Long Walk to Freedom, Nelson Mandela's autobiography is not that book. It is a fine autobiography (although a little tedious and has too many trite observations), but not a good history since it doesn't cover many other players (like Desmond Tutu for example).
Indian Independence
I can't tell for sure, but Indian Summer by Alex Von Tunzelmann seems to be the most read out there. It focuses on the summer when India won its independence, but hopefully it gives enough background.
* books that I have read
Book Report: Notes of a Native Son
I recently read Notes of a Native Son by James Baldwin and it was amazing. Well, to be honest, Part I wasn't that easy to read since I hadn't read the books or seen the movies he reviews. Part II (essays on race in America) and Part III (essays on Baldwin's time abroad) however are breathtaking. Although I flagged a number of powerful passages, I will leave you with the ultimate highlight from the title essay:
On another note, discovering Baldwin reminds me how little I know about African-American thought and history. Unfortunately, the common portrayal of African-American thought divides everything into two camps: non-violent strategies lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the violent strategies of Malcom X and the Black Panthers. It takes reading books by Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin (or better yet Malcolm X himself) to start to appreciate what should be obvious - that African-American thought is far more varied and complex.
It began to seem that one would have to hold in the mind forever two ideas which seemed in opposition. The first idea was acceptance, the acceptance, totally without rancor, of life as it is, and men as they are: in the light of this idea, it goes without saying that injustice is a commonplace. But this did not mean that one could be complacent, for the second idea was of equal power: that one must never, in one's own life, accept these injustices as commonplace but must fight them with all one's strength. This fight begins however, in the heart and it now had been laid to my charge to keep my own heart free of hatred and despair. This intimation made my heart heavy and, now that my father was irrecoverable, I wished that he had been beside me so that I could have searched his face for the answers which only the future would give me now.More and more this idea is becoming a huge part of my overall philosophy. The world is imperfect and we cannot make it perfect. But we must fight, slowly but doggedly, for incremental changes. And we cannot ever give in to despair. Baldwin puts this thought to writing so well and it comes at the end of a really powerful essay about race and his father.
On another note, discovering Baldwin reminds me how little I know about African-American thought and history. Unfortunately, the common portrayal of African-American thought divides everything into two camps: non-violent strategies lead by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the violent strategies of Malcom X and the Black Panthers. It takes reading books by Ralph Ellison or James Baldwin (or better yet Malcolm X himself) to start to appreciate what should be obvious - that African-American thought is far more varied and complex.
Responsibility for the Fishes
My colleague and I started having an interesting debate that I want to bring to this forum. The debate was around food policy, but actually has much bigger implications. I was explaining why I don't eat fish - namely because too much if not all of the fish are caught using unsustainable practices. Basically, I don't want to be part of a system that is destroying our oceans - especially now that scuba diving is a big hobby of mine and I have discovered how beautiful and wonderful our oceans are.
My colleague seemed to say that overfishing is government's problem, that he isn't responsible for it, and that even if he stopped eating fish it would make no noticeable difference on overfishing. (If I have misstated his position, I am sure he'll correct me in the comments.)
One of his points is hard to contradict - that when he (or I) stop eating fish it has a negligible effect on the gigantic problem. This is mostly true. Granted, this point depends on your definition of negligible. If we assume he (or I) eats 1/4 pound of fish per week (which I think is 1 serving), that equates to 1 pound per month, 12 pounds per year, and 600 pounds over 50 years. That is a lot of fish, although considering what a trawler likely picks up in one trip, it is mostly negligible.
But it is the other two points that I don't agree with. I might agree that government policy may be the most effective way to deal with it, but I don't agree that without government action, we are absolved of responsibility.
We can think of many similar examples to compare to this one (for example purchasing rare wood from forests that are being legally depleted in a foreign country), but I don't know if we need to go there. The basic question is easy enough to evaluate: are we responsible when our actions contribute to something that has a negative impact and is that responsibility in any way dependent on how much we are contributing to the problem?
I think the answer is obvious - that by contributing, even in a small amount to a very big problem, we are responsible. And I fear that by absolving ourselves of responsibility and leaving it to government to deal with it, it creates an attitude that discourages individual responsibility.
I want to be clear though before I move on that I only expect people to take actions that are practical. Driving cars, using electricity, and throwing out waste have negative effects on the environment. I don't expect people to stop driving cars. But I do expect people to think about when driving the car is unnecessary. Personally, on this issue, I think it is practical, although not as enjoyable, to stop eating fish.
Anyway, this liberal belief that government should do everything for us and can therefore absolve us of responsibility is a terrible mindset. And conservative criticisms of this mindset is one of their most potent points. While I think government can and should enshrine policies like this, mostly because there are people that don't care about the public good and need restrictions, I don't agree at all that if there isn't a government policy against it, we can do it even when we know it has serious negative consequences.
I absolutely do not want to live in a world where people decide they are not responsible for the world around them; where they are so comfortable with government's actions that they feel they don't need to sacrifice in any way to make the world better. Yes, the government has programs to help those in need, but we still should be donating as much as we can to charity and volunteering as often as we can. And yes, the government has good environmental policies, but we still need to be aware of what policies the government hasn't passed yet and what actions of ours are having negative effects on the world.
We cannot wait for government to act. We need to accept responsibility for the ways our individual actions lead to collective problems. And so each individual needs to try to do their part, even if for one individual, it makes small or no noticeable difference.
My colleague seemed to say that overfishing is government's problem, that he isn't responsible for it, and that even if he stopped eating fish it would make no noticeable difference on overfishing. (If I have misstated his position, I am sure he'll correct me in the comments.)
One of his points is hard to contradict - that when he (or I) stop eating fish it has a negligible effect on the gigantic problem. This is mostly true. Granted, this point depends on your definition of negligible. If we assume he (or I) eats 1/4 pound of fish per week (which I think is 1 serving), that equates to 1 pound per month, 12 pounds per year, and 600 pounds over 50 years. That is a lot of fish, although considering what a trawler likely picks up in one trip, it is mostly negligible.
But it is the other two points that I don't agree with. I might agree that government policy may be the most effective way to deal with it, but I don't agree that without government action, we are absolved of responsibility.
We can think of many similar examples to compare to this one (for example purchasing rare wood from forests that are being legally depleted in a foreign country), but I don't know if we need to go there. The basic question is easy enough to evaluate: are we responsible when our actions contribute to something that has a negative impact and is that responsibility in any way dependent on how much we are contributing to the problem?
I think the answer is obvious - that by contributing, even in a small amount to a very big problem, we are responsible. And I fear that by absolving ourselves of responsibility and leaving it to government to deal with it, it creates an attitude that discourages individual responsibility.
I want to be clear though before I move on that I only expect people to take actions that are practical. Driving cars, using electricity, and throwing out waste have negative effects on the environment. I don't expect people to stop driving cars. But I do expect people to think about when driving the car is unnecessary. Personally, on this issue, I think it is practical, although not as enjoyable, to stop eating fish.
Anyway, this liberal belief that government should do everything for us and can therefore absolve us of responsibility is a terrible mindset. And conservative criticisms of this mindset is one of their most potent points. While I think government can and should enshrine policies like this, mostly because there are people that don't care about the public good and need restrictions, I don't agree at all that if there isn't a government policy against it, we can do it even when we know it has serious negative consequences.
I absolutely do not want to live in a world where people decide they are not responsible for the world around them; where they are so comfortable with government's actions that they feel they don't need to sacrifice in any way to make the world better. Yes, the government has programs to help those in need, but we still should be donating as much as we can to charity and volunteering as often as we can. And yes, the government has good environmental policies, but we still need to be aware of what policies the government hasn't passed yet and what actions of ours are having negative effects on the world.
We cannot wait for government to act. We need to accept responsibility for the ways our individual actions lead to collective problems. And so each individual needs to try to do their part, even if for one individual, it makes small or no noticeable difference.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Book Report: And the Band Played On
And the Band Played On is one of the best books I have ever read. It is a pretty quick and easy read considering how big the book is. At times it is enraging, other times dispiriting, and sometimes really, really sad. Maybe most importantly, the lessons on policy and politics are huge.
I think the first take away is that services cost money. This point is crystal clear in this book. The Reagan administration wanted to cut the size of government based on their belief that government is wasteful and does too much. What happens in reality though is that government is prevented from doing the things it should be doing. Of course, Reagan cared little for the populations originally affected by AIDS - homosexuals and IV drug users (why hemophiliacs were not more sympathetic is surprising), but more importantly, Reagan and his budget office did not see the value in government-run medical research and disease prevention.
The author also makes the point often about how the press largely ignored this issue until it seemed like it might affect straight people as well. With the press ignoring the issue, the Reagan administration was able to get off the hook even when Congress pressed. In fact, at times it seems that the author (a journalist himself) blames the press more than he blames Reagan. And so do I; you expect Reagan to be heartless, but not journalists.
Also, quite a few public officials from that time come off looking really bad. Mayor Ed Koch did nothing to help educate people or otherwise prevent the spread nor did he provide funding for services to care for those that were developing it. Mario Cuomo as governor of New York was no better. Diane Feinstein also looks bad - although not quite as bad as Koch and Cuomo (her main flaw was to oppose closing the bath houses until late). Other public officials actually surprised you and did the right thing. The one that comes to mind is Orin Hatch.
What was most dispiriting was how many people acted in their own interest instead of doing what in retrospect was clearly the right thing to save the most people. Bath house owners fought to stay open and blood banks refused to test their blood.
Parts of the medical community also come off looking bad in the book. Actually, it is more accurate to say that research and academics looked bad, while many general practitioners - the few heroes in this epidemic - fought valiantly to raise awareness and help those that were diagnosed.
The author also shows the big fights inside the gay community over this issue, and it is painful to see those that were sounding the alarm getting viciously attacked. I don't imagine that this was an easy issue in the moment, especially the early days, for those in the gay community. But the real lesson should be that when something like this comes up, we need to do everything we can to look at the issue objectively and if not without emotion, than at least with the right kind of emotion.
Everyone should have been most focused on the lives being lost and the great potential for so many more if action wasn't taken (as happened because action was not taken). Instead people focused on petty concerns (money) and non-petty concerns (gay rights / defending against sexual morality attacks) that still paled compared the health risks.
I will say this again - this is one of the best and most important books I have read. I wish everyone would read it.
I think the first take away is that services cost money. This point is crystal clear in this book. The Reagan administration wanted to cut the size of government based on their belief that government is wasteful and does too much. What happens in reality though is that government is prevented from doing the things it should be doing. Of course, Reagan cared little for the populations originally affected by AIDS - homosexuals and IV drug users (why hemophiliacs were not more sympathetic is surprising), but more importantly, Reagan and his budget office did not see the value in government-run medical research and disease prevention.
The author also makes the point often about how the press largely ignored this issue until it seemed like it might affect straight people as well. With the press ignoring the issue, the Reagan administration was able to get off the hook even when Congress pressed. In fact, at times it seems that the author (a journalist himself) blames the press more than he blames Reagan. And so do I; you expect Reagan to be heartless, but not journalists.
Also, quite a few public officials from that time come off looking really bad. Mayor Ed Koch did nothing to help educate people or otherwise prevent the spread nor did he provide funding for services to care for those that were developing it. Mario Cuomo as governor of New York was no better. Diane Feinstein also looks bad - although not quite as bad as Koch and Cuomo (her main flaw was to oppose closing the bath houses until late). Other public officials actually surprised you and did the right thing. The one that comes to mind is Orin Hatch.
What was most dispiriting was how many people acted in their own interest instead of doing what in retrospect was clearly the right thing to save the most people. Bath house owners fought to stay open and blood banks refused to test their blood.
Parts of the medical community also come off looking bad in the book. Actually, it is more accurate to say that research and academics looked bad, while many general practitioners - the few heroes in this epidemic - fought valiantly to raise awareness and help those that were diagnosed.
The author also shows the big fights inside the gay community over this issue, and it is painful to see those that were sounding the alarm getting viciously attacked. I don't imagine that this was an easy issue in the moment, especially the early days, for those in the gay community. But the real lesson should be that when something like this comes up, we need to do everything we can to look at the issue objectively and if not without emotion, than at least with the right kind of emotion.
Everyone should have been most focused on the lives being lost and the great potential for so many more if action wasn't taken (as happened because action was not taken). Instead people focused on petty concerns (money) and non-petty concerns (gay rights / defending against sexual morality attacks) that still paled compared the health risks.
I will say this again - this is one of the best and most important books I have read. I wish everyone would read it.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
NY Times: Op-Ed at 40
The Times has an amazing feature today in recognition of their 40 years of Op-Eds. The feature includes some of the most notable Op-Eds (good and bad) over that time. The highlights include:
A piece by Gloria Steinem on Clinton's impeachment. For the record, I completely disagree with it. Of course yes means yes and no means no. However, it is difficult to think that a supervise has the power to say no to a supervisor - that he or she can actually consent to anything. It seems to me that there was a lot of tortured logic on both sides during the Clinton impeachment trial (one of the few clear voices was Marjorie Williams) and this strikes me as one of them.
A great piece by Harvard theologian Peter J. Gomes. I would give you a quote, but really you need to read the whole thing. It is titled A Bible for All and it is near perfect.
A piece by Henry Louis Gates (of break-in fame) about the poison of bias.
Those are the three that stuck out to me so far. If I notice more, I'll update the post.
A piece by Gloria Steinem on Clinton's impeachment. For the record, I completely disagree with it. Of course yes means yes and no means no. However, it is difficult to think that a supervise has the power to say no to a supervisor - that he or she can actually consent to anything. It seems to me that there was a lot of tortured logic on both sides during the Clinton impeachment trial (one of the few clear voices was Marjorie Williams) and this strikes me as one of them.
A great piece by Harvard theologian Peter J. Gomes. I would give you a quote, but really you need to read the whole thing. It is titled A Bible for All and it is near perfect.
A piece by Henry Louis Gates (of break-in fame) about the poison of bias.
Those are the three that stuck out to me so far. If I notice more, I'll update the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)