Sic faciunt omnes.

Consecutios.

2004-10-12T05:00:00.000-04:00

Well this is frightening; apparently "nuclear program-related materials" have been disappearing in Iraq. The IAEA noticed this, not US authorities nor the vestigial Iraqi governing apparatus.

Are we to blame? Well...

The United States barred the inspectors' return after the [end of the recent] war, preventing the IAEA from keeping tabs on the equipment and materials up to the present day.

I wonder if there is a connection?

What is truly chilling is the extent of the theft.

Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.

Entire buildings??? If entire buildings can be removed with impunity, precisely how are we in control of this country? Its not like someone disassembled and ran off with a Starbucks, these sites were known to contain sensitive materials both before and after the war. Why weren't they under guard?

...council diplomats said the satellite images could mean the gear had been moved to new sites inside Iraq or stolen. If stolen, it could end up in the hands of a government or terrorist group seeking nuclear weapons.

"We simply don't know, although we are trying to get the information," said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

I suppose this is what comes of securing the Ministry of Oil Production building as our first priority once Saddam's forces collapsed. However that is only true in spirit; to the extent that these buildings were removed recently, the excuse that the troops were occupied is hardly credible.

The last bit is just insult on injury:

A new CIA report last week by chief U.S. weapons investigator Charles Duelfer made clear, however, that Saddam had all but given up on his nuclear program after the first Gulf War in 1991.

ElBaradei, whose agency dismantled Iraq's nuclear arms program over a decade ago, drew similar conclusions to the Duelfer report well before the March 2003 invasion.

Deus Scelestus Belli Est!?!

2004-10-12T03:45:00.000-04:00

I am astonished to learn that the term "Immaculate Conception" refers to the birth of Mary, not of Jesus. It does not imply that Mary's parents didn't have sex, rather that while in the womb she was cleansed of all sin. Apparently as she was to be the "vessel" of the "divine seed" she had to be purified of the congenital defect of all human kind, which is to say sin. (What a perk for being God's "baby momma") She was not just absolved of any future sins but purified of those she had already accrued.

Fascinating. Well this revelation provides a neat segue to a much more puzzling dilemma: What kind of religion declares that unborn babies have extant sins? What a bizarre moral philosophy. A divine judge is so particular that even an entity that has literally committed no action is condemned as beneath the relevant standard (unless that baby has "heard the good news" and now "accepts Jesus Christ as his savior")?

The Christian Right and the Republican Party are a good match; they both allow the tail to wag the dog in terms of conforming all facts they accept to their few basic premises.

Rational Person (RP): Why is it important to be a Christian?
Christian Radical (CR): Because no one gets to heaven without accepting Jesus Christ in his heart!
RP: No one??
CR: No one!
RP: Not even a baby who has yet to commit as single action, and thus cannot have transgressed against any sane moral code?
CR thinks about this for a while.
CR: Ah ha! That baby is guilty of being HUMAN! All people have imputed guilt due to the eating of the apple etc etc.

It turns out that the Geneva Convention recognizes that collective punishment is so immoral it is a crime against humanity. Apparently if GOD does it, and goes on to hold each successive generation thus responsible, it IS moral. The answer to the obvious question (But why, Mr. CR??) is apparently that God is axiomatically Good. He can't commit a sin, and thus His acts are peachy regardless of the heinous atrocities that they may comprise.

Sort of how Bush can't be screwing up Iraq; he's the resolute commander-in-chief appointed by God after all!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

2004-09-24T13:40:00.000-04:00

Click on the image to see it full size.
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for the link

Posse Tui Audis Mei Nunc

2004-09-21T14:36:00.000-04:00

Anyone who has a cell phone (which is to say all of us) must read Christine Rosen's article regarding their impact on us, our society and our relationships. The fact that I and people my age - who have probably only had cell phones for a decade - cannot remember how they used to meet and communicate prior to owning one would seem to indicate that this commonplace device that we take for granted should be exposed to exactly the kind of scrutiny that Ms. Rosen applies.

The impacts are not as yet fully realized. Cell phone interfaces are adequate to call someone, but have not evolved to tap their true potential; they are electronic indicators of our presence. A modified device will no doubt someday be our wallet cum credit card, daily planner, phone book, house keys and ID card. That is when the truly visible changes upon our daily routines will come to pass.

Those may be more visually noticeable, but Ms Rosen would argue that the biggest impacts on our psychology and social relationships has already occurred. The dismissal of public space when we are on the phone, the elimination of solitude except by design, these may not be as flashy as paying for your groceries by grabbing food and walking out, pressing a button on your cell along the way, but may indeed be far more profound.

Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for the link to Ms. Rosen's article

Fidei Religiosa Contrari Est Ad Ratio Ac Dialectica? Quid Miratio.

2004-09-17T13:53:00.000-04:00

History at its most inaccessible is a list of dates and events without a narrative. Once one knows why an event matters, one will care enough about it to learn and remember. Everyone knows what happened in 1066 AD, because the impacts of the event reverberated for 400 years.

Few people know anything about the early church, and this is part of the reason. It's hard to find any texts on the subject, and those that are written are generally so lacking in any attempt at analysis (perhaps afraid of potential controversy) that the historical record is impossible to absorb.

In The Closing of the Western Mind Freemen does more than simply advance his argument (that Paul and his cohorts waged a crusade against logic and reason as values and tools); he presents the history of that period with an analysis of what it meant. He provides a broader view of the events than would be strictly necessary to advance his thesis, but that imprecision takes a position piece and renders it a valuable and interesting overview of the Early Christian Church. His digressions and tangents aren't simply errant sections of historical record, but are replete with themes and narratives that, while they do not advance the central thesis, inform the reader in a far more holistic sense.

This book has caused quite a bit of controversy. It does not simply attack Paul; it calls into question inerrancy as a theological idea, (by showing to what extent the current Bible was assembled for political reasons) and thus attacks the Evangelical movement inside the Christian church. What perhaps inflames the book's critics most is that the sources used for the book are generally scholarship from within the theological community.

Some Reviews

NY Times

Washington Times

The New Humanist

Radical Faith

History Today

Houston Chronicle

Exsecrari Ab Religio Omni! Ego Somnias de Mundi Profanum...

2004-09-15T11:02:00.000-04:00

Islam, Christianity and Religious Culture

Cultural Relativism is now so accepted by our society that even a NASCAR fan wearing a wife-beater, swilling beer while sitting in the back of his pickup with like-minded friends will cite its principles to defend his choice of pastimes. As much as advancing Cultural Relativism has been a priority of the Left for decades (and rightly so) in an effort to combat the American tendency towards baseless triumphalism and a certain self-congratulatory myopia, one cannot escape the basic truth that insofar as nothing in nature is exactly equal, neither are cultures and religions (regardless of the analytical framework and value system one uses to examine them). To the extent that they are meaningful, and thus have any real impact on their members and adherents, such membership is itself unequally positive.

The utility of these sorts of comparisons derive primarily from their use as a reality check. We all think we are smart, enlightened and closer to the truth than our neighbors. By extension we believe that our religion is best, the others (and their members) are worth of pity, and perhaps some outreach to bring them back to the One True Path. If one holds that ecumenical tolerance is the sine qua non of a mature, confident religion that deals with religious pluralism in an adult fashion, then comparing one's levels of such to one's peers is the only way to ascertain if this is a baseless conceit or a quality one possesses.

Christianity and Islam are unarguably the most aggressively proselytizing religions. All of the others believe they follow a path laid out by divine mandate, but either believe that their path is still flawed by the flaws inherent to a human understanding of anything, or that there are equally valid paths laid out for others. (Hinduism/Buddhism and Judaism respectively) While the tenets of Islam include the belief that Islam is the way God wants everyone to live and a message that is the obligation of every Muslim to spread, (Christianity implies an identical belief) they also include explicit ecumenism. For a millennium the Islamic world would be more tolerant of other faiths, more progressive in social and economic policy, more open to scientific inquiry and simply wealthier than Christian Europe. (625 AD, the founding of Islam, until close of the Reformation and the beginning of the Enlightenment period, circa 1650.)

This disparity is too easily underestimated. The tension between science and religion that so obsessed Europe early on (with the rejection and suppression of the Greek/Roman intellectual tradition) and continued later to Galileo and Copernicus was never evidenced in the Islamic world. The fields of medicine, physics and biology were all pursued without the threat of excommunication and death, and thus progressed far more rapidly. Via cultural contacts with India and China mathematics and astronomy also progressed at a time when Europe paid these subjects no attention at all, leaving the Islamic world to develop far faster.

The differences were not in science alone. The Muslims were economic progressives, levying a tax upon the rich to pay for feeding, clothing and educating the poor. Public institutions were built to bring the rewards of prosperity to the masses, and coupled with medical insight, public health infrastructure received investment. Little things like closed sewers, public baths and the like improved the average health of a resident of the Ummah to heights that would not be seen in Europe for some time to come.

What happened? Certainly societies can stagnate in terms of technological development without any core flaw in their value system, but in many ways the Islamic world has regressed socially and even economically. What event or movement could so dramatically change the very identity of a culture, from a progressive, tolerant community priding itself on its education and intellectual inquiry to the reactionary, millenial and somewhat xenophobic present completely unable to perform even the most cursory self-introspection. At one time Islam was urbane and cosmopolitan, now it indulges in bizarre conspiracy theories that assert that literally every non-Muslim man woman and child is working to oppress them.

The Christian religious community had a century of violent religious conflict, (1/3 of Germany's population was slain or died of starvation in a thirty-year portion of that period) and came out of it with a firm understanding of the perils of allowing religion into the public sphere. We Americans may pretend that we invented "the separation of church and state", but after 1650 one really can't find a single state action (at least in terms of foreign policy) by any nation in Europe whose primary purpose wasn't secular.

Islam also had a violent division between its adherents; Sunni and Shi'a fought over who should succeed Mohammed and be the first Caliph of the Islamic Ummah (community). The Shi'a believe Ali, his son in law ought have been that successor. Instead three people reigned in turn before Ali was installed, and his throne was usurped not long after. This conflict was fought in 632, perhaps too soon after the founding of Islam for the conflict to be seen as a reason for disassociating the state from the mosque. No real governmental infrastructure existed outside of the religious establishment, and so perhaps there was no indication of an alternative.

All of these seems very circumstantial. Any ideas on the reason for the disparate tracks Islam and Christianity took, and specifically the change in Islam's identity? I welcome your comments.

Virtutis Ex Gratiae

2004-08-15T21:33:00.000-04:00

Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams
by Alfred Lubrano

Excerpt from the book

Our country is very uncomfortable with class. We pretend we have no social classes, and to the extent their existence is alluded to, it is deprived of any ancillary impact. Some of us are wealthier, some less so, but according to popular myth this has little to no impact on our society.

This is polite idiocy. To pretend that people don't change based on their experiences as they grow up is to pretend that "Nurture" (of "Nature vs Nurture" fame) has no impact on a person's psyche, goals, morals and values. It should be the goal of any egalitarian or "meritocratic" society to minimize and mitigate the impact that these differences have on people, but to pretend they don't exist gets in the way of dealing with this issue.

Are some of these "class cultures" better than others? A silly question, but it is very clear that some do generally motivate people to achieve more than others, even controlling for the impact of the differences in wealth and personal contacts. No two cultures can have the same impact on a person in this (or any other arena), unless one posits that culture has no impact at all; insofar as that culture shapes people's desires and decision-making, that claim would just be silly as well.

So granting that each culture impacts widely disparate aspects of our lives, and that some of these cultures advantage us with regards to areas that the others find valuable, while others are comparative disadvantages in their impacts on their adherents, why do we pretend that all cultures, all mores from all walks of life are normatively equal and ought be promoted equally?

Why do we pretend that it is as "good" a choice to choose to be a philistine over being cultured?
Why do we pretend that mass culture is as "good" as, (or better than) high culture?
Why do people pretend that emulating the working class is somehow virtuous, when, given the choice, every member of that class would gladly give up their lives to live in "high society", even as they reject the values that one would have to accept to get there?

There are people who grow up in this country who see no value whatsoever in education. The social emphasis on the enabling qualities of college has convinced them that attending such and obtaining sheepskin is important, but the virtue of the liberal arts education still passes them by. Others, initially interested in the pursuits of the mind but scarred by hazing and condemnation from the knuckle-draggers they grow up with, see cultured hobbies as guilty pleasures, and fairly pointless ones. They grow up twisted, seeing virtue only in the values and preferences of the majority. Both may think to themselves that they have transcended their roots, but will inevitably prefer happy hour to a cocktail party, bowling to attending a lecture on the issues of the day, and "Kill Bill" to Control Room or the National Symphony Orchestra.

Cogitate Aliter

2004-08-12T13:33:00.000-04:00

Switching to Macintosh

Anyone who grew up in the 80s remembers the neverending arguments between schoolmates who favoured Macintosh computers to the "IBM" alternative. At the time, the computer-illiterate bought Mac, and those who were tech-savvy purchased IBM clones. The Macintosh was always too crash-prone, too limited in the power it offered the consumer. Windows 95 came around, cloned the Mac experience, and the question seemed settled.

Comparison Resources
A very detailed comparison of MS Windows XP vs Mac OS X
Apple's take on the issue

How things change. Apple is now a designer label. The Macintosh OS is secure, stable and elegant, beckoning to Windows refugees fed up with crash-prone, virus-infested computers that just won't work right. The hardware is cutting-edge (and attractive to boot!) What is going on here?

Impacts of Mac OS X

The Macintosh has had 10 major versions of its operating system since 1984. 1-9 were all evolutionary, each building and refining the predecessor, and it showed. Mac OS 9 looked somewhat dated when compared to Windows 95. Apple chose with Mac OS X (ten) to try something new; they took a version of Unix, the operating system that runs on most of the computers that one accesses on the Internet, the operating system that runs on mainframes and supercomputers, and gave it a "pretty" face. They took their talent for developing easy to use, intuitive interfaces, and placed that on top of the single most successful computing innovation since the microchip.

The result is that the Macintosh platform truly has the best of both worlds. A power user has as his disposal the resources to have his computer fill any niche need. Simultaneously the casual user finds that everything "just works", without crashes, strange error messages, and is easier to navigate and learn to operate than a Windows PC.

The Virtues of "Just Works"

One of the primary advantages Apple has is that while its products are sometimes revolutionary, some evolutionary; sometimes the most powerful, sometimes quite average, it manages one feat uniformly that no other computer manufacturer can match. Its products "just work". Take the iPod for example; MP3 players have been around for quite sometime, and so have online music shops. What sets the iPod and iTunes apart is how simply and elegantly everything functions. You buy an iPod, charge it and hook it up to your computer. It works, no strange software to install, no odd drivers to download. The music store (iTunes) also functions in this seamless way, pick the songs, pay your bill and they are yours. No strange problems getting them onto your mp3 players (no music stores sell mp3s, all use some strange format. Apple, both owning the store and making the player, ensures they can work well together.) no issues trying to burn the music onto CDs that work in your car. Operating the store and the player is simple and intuitive. Bragging rights may seem to derive from wrestling an appliance down until it works as you would have it, but obviously most or all of us would prefer appliances that work as a stove does. Turn it on, you get what you want. All the settings you need are easy to manage and monitor. You can do whatever you need to with barely a thought as to how to operate it.

This is a trick the PC world has yet to learn. On a more abstract level this is the problem will all of the Windows/PC environment. Their structure is too fault-prone, too poorly-designed to prevent the user from having to fool around with its internals, or face repeated breakdowns. Unix computers often stay on for over a year; it's an axiom that Windows computers should have their operating systems reinstalled every year.

Stability

Speaking of up-times of over a year, one of the huge leads the Macintosh platform has over the PC is its stability. Arbitrary crashes, the "blue screen of death" are all virtually unknown. The reason is that the internals of the operating system is the same as that which runs the computers that authorize credit card purchases and the like, computers that cannot be allowed to crash. The user pays for that stability in small amounts of performance, but Apple solves for that by using better hardware.

The costs of stability are more than they might seem. People who are not totally immersed in the design of the personal computer are often very confused when something "out of the ordinary" happens. A program crashes, another goes into a programmatic spiral, slowing the computer to a crawl, these things happen without the user understanding why, and lead to a fear of the computer itself. They take up the refrain of "It hates me" and "I just don't understand it". Often most of the putative productivity gains that computing is supposed to provide are lost because people do not trust their computers they way they do their cars, ovens or stoves.

Power users on the other hand usually stress their computers somewhat more. No wonder then that stability is such a problem for them. They tend to have more programs open, more applications that are from smaller outfits without the benefit of rigorous testing and quality assurance programs. They tend to use more "hacks" to modify the behavior of their operating systems. Under these, more challenging circumstances, only proper design that isolates critical systems from those the user might overwhelm or subvert can keep the overall system operational. Microsoft doesn't program that way. In the name of performance (long ago) they moved everything they could into "kernel-space", the area that those vital processes are supposed to be such that if MS Internet Explorer crashes, it doesn't take Word with it (thwarted by the conflation of all the OS into that space). Apple has not made that mistake with Mac OS X; every aspect of the system is firewalled from the other, to prevent any mistakes, internally or by lazy third-party programmers, from impacting the stability of the system.

Security

This is just self-explanatory; Unix-based systems are generally more secure, having been designed for 100s of users since the 1970s, as opposed to having networking and multi-user awareness shoehorned in for windows 95. Moreover Apple has paid a lot of attention to this issue, to maximize the lead they have in this area. No viruses currently circulate that can harm a Mac.

Security is not simply a concern of stability and performance. Many viruses are actually damaging on a software or hardware level. Either data loss or potentially even permanent damage can occur on a PC, but not on a Macintosh, all due to Microsoft's flawed design choices.

Intuitive design

We all have different ways of thinking. These differences reflect themselves in how we approach even the simplest of problems. If we have some text in one application and would like to move it to another, we may choose different ways to do so. Some will try to copy it, and then paste. Others will try to "drag" it over, and "drop" it. Some will want a key combination to copy, others a contextual menu (a menu that pops up where the mouse is) and still others a system menu (a menu at the top of the application) option.

All of these should work where possible, and where not, all options for all problems should be accessible the same way. The Mac OS pays attention to this basic rule of human interface design; Windows does not. People should not have to adapt to the application, the application and indeed the computer should be designed to operate as any and all of us would assume it would.

Application Support

For 15 years, the main reason people have bought Windows and Intel is due to application support (to get the programs they want to use). For once, the Mac has everything the PC does. Office, Outlook (express), Photoshop, Quark Express, etc etc. Any major program comes out on the Mac, often in a better form (Ironically Office 2004 for Mac is far superior to Office XP).

Final Thoughts

There is no reason not to at least consider switching, next time you consider purchasing a new computer. I have looked into this issue for the last three months, as I am in the market for one, and by now it is obvious that I have made my decision.

Solum Ac Procerus Quidam Vicinus Est Breve

2004-08-09T16:13:00.000-04:00

What drives people in this modern age? Do we strive to better ourselves, reaching for some Platonic ideal? Are we simply trying to accumulate the material resources we need to live in the manner we would wish?

Alain de Botton says no. In his wonderfully accessible and yet thought-provoking work Status Anxiety, he (unknowingly) agrees with David Brook's comments in "One Nation, Slightly Divisible" (Atlantic Monthly, 12/2001) that people are satisfied or unsatisfied with their lots in life based almost entirely on the circumstance of the people they grew up with, and the people around them. Should the people they see as peers be on their level (or perhaps just a bit below) and accept them as being worthwhile and successful, no shortfall in resources, no general inequity in the wealth distribution of their larger society will shake their self-esteem.

Conversely, should one's childhood friends or neighbors manage to outstrip one's own achievements, feelings of inadequacy and bitterness result. De Botton makes the controversial claim that in this regard, citizens of societies that have hard class stratification actually have a greater personal peace of mind. (Yes, even the poor ones) To be able to say that one has all one could, given the injustice of the system, the will of God or natural order of things, allows one to separate one's own worth from one's economic and sociopolitical standing. If everyone is equal, those who do not achieve pinnacles of accomplishment are failures. There are no excuses for underperformance if there are not barriers to success.

This criticism of meritocracy may be counter-intuitive but nonetheless rings true. A meritocracy is different than an egalitarian society in that the former allows for a hierarchy (even aristocracy) based on performance, whereas the latter posits normative equality even if it does not impose economic equality. While the social opprobrium that failure brings in a meritocracy is a powerful incentive to strive for success, the vast majority of the population must inherently "lose". In the name of economic growth the vast majority of the population must battle feelings of utter worthlessness without the comfort of plausible deniability.

Reviews

Boston Globe
Boston Herald
The Atlantic Monthly (nonsubscribers can get the full article from here
The Independent
The Guardian
another review from the Guardian
The Times Literary Supplement
Jeanette Winterson (author/columnist)
Flak Magazine
Christian Science Monitor

Ut Aliqui Vivant

2004-08-04T12:14:00.000-04:00

WHO, Polio and the UN

Browsing through the BBC News website, I ran across an article discussing the current status of the World Health Organization campaign against polio.

We are on the verge of eliminating another disease.

Polio may seem like a distant memory, but it its last big outbreak in this country, the number of cases per year rose from twenty thousand in 1945 to fifty eight thousand by 1952, before dropping to thirty five thousand cases reported in 1953. By 1956 only five thousand six hundred cases were reported. The Salk vaccine had been found and the March of Dimes had successfully promoted a mass immunization campaign.

Fifty years later, the human race has eliminated the virus around the world. Small pockets exist in Africa, and the WHO hopes that by the end of 2004 or early 2005, even those will be eliminated. It is a stirring story on its own; open wars between nations halted for days while international relief workers vaccinated both sides and the civilians nearby. Entire economies shut down so that everyone in a country can get vaccinated in a 2-3 day span. This is humanity at its best.

This is also the promise of the United Nations. Disease is the great leveler. Wealth can buy more and more medicine, but in the end a virus does not care if you are rich or poor. Only a unified campaign that lifts up all of humanity protects any of it. There are other such threats; global warming, freshwater contamination, WMD proliferation. Perhaps someday these problems will also unite our species.

A good point was raised this past Sunday in a discussion group cum book club to which I belong; the EU exists because its component nations are willing to surrender sovereignty to the whole largely because they perceive comparative advantage versus those outside the group. The UN has no such luxury; there is no one to "beat" by empowering the UN. This one news story crystallizes the argument for it. Some challenges affect us all, and cannot be addressed, conquered or prevented without everyone's cooperation.

Mundas Vult Decipi

2004-08-03T11:46:00.000-04:00

2004 US Elections Pool

Important Resources
RCP Battleground State Polls
Tripias State Poll Tracker
2004 Election Projection
More links to come!

How much more explanation do you need? Potential pools include 2004 Presidential Election, Senatorial Results and House Results. This pool is open to residents of DC and the Maryland DC suburbs.

The pools are still in planning stages, the amount to buy an entry, the scoring rubric, the prize breakdown etc etc are all currently being determined. Air your views, you know you will want to join in!

Presidential Pool

Should we reward just the electoral map choices, or also a special prize for the most correct numerical prediction?
Should there be a popular vote prediction prize?
How many places should we reward on the main electoral map contest? (three is my suggestion)
When should the closing date be for votes?
How much should each entry cost? ($20?)

Senatorial Results Pool

Should the cost and/or closing date be any different?
Should there simply be a reward for the closest map, or should there be an additional prize for the closest numerical count?

House Results

All the Senatorial questions apply here.
Should the House regard only certain races or all 435?

Please post your thoughts on these questions!

Cum Tacent, Clamant

2004-08-02T12:22:00.000-04:00

Casper Star Tribune

"Some Democrats who signed up to hear Vice President Dick Cheney speak [in Rio Rancho, NM] Saturday [July 24th] were refused tickets unless they signed a pledge to endorse President Bush."

...

"...the Kerry campaign had not attempted to screen Bush supporters out of Kerry's appearance at the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque on July 9."

I believe that speaks more to the difference between these two men than any specific policy disagreement. Political expedience often wars with the ideals of democracy in this country. Some presidents (Clinton) sign into law sweeping increases in the amount to which citizens can monitor their government by making requests of information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Other presidents (Bush) clamp down on FOIA requests, trying to keep the public from learning what is going on inside their government, in the name of protecting the government's responsibility to be effective on behalf of its citizens.

Can you really trust any person who aspires to be the most powerful man on Earth, with the personal command of 10,000 nuclear warheads and the most effective military ever developed, and does so secretively, trying to thwart open discourse and freedom of expression?

Can you really vote for someone who wants that power but is afraid to debate his opponents, afraid to expose his positions to criticism and defend them to the public personally?

Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori.

2004-07-30T13:38:00.000-04:00

The recent controversy over the ratification process of the new European Union charter, which has many countries facing widespread public demands for referendums, brought to light an interesting issue. While in most countries national authorities have quickly agreed to place the ratification in the hands of a national plebiscite, German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder has been reluctant, citing a provision of the German Basic Law (their Constitution) that prohibits referenda/propositions/plebiscites.

Given that increased direct participation of a population in the decisions of its government is held to be axiomatically good according to "Liberal Democratic" values (the philosophical underpinnings of every Western democracy), how can the United State have written that prohibition into the German constitution, and why did we do it?

Adolf Hitler's rise to power was not a coup d'etat, nor a military conquest. He ended the political hierarchy within the system. He overthrew the Weimar Republic's democratic apparatus by asking the people to vote for propositions that sounded like good ideas, knowing that the average German, like the average America, does not read the newspaper, and has little idea of the issues of the day other than a few quick soundbites. Very little Adolf Hitler did was illegal, even though virtually all of it was immoral, and he did it with the manufactured consent of his people, as expressed by repeated referenda, the issues cloaked by nationalism and patriotism.

Beyond the danger of a charismatic demagogue overthrowing the republic, when considering propositions and referenda there is also a basic question of utility. If 55% of 280 million people vote for a tailor, I will definitely say that must be a very good tailor, and give him my business. If 55% of 280 million people say that no one should get side vents in a jacket, I will ignore them. That they are many does not mean they are educated on the issues. Representative democracies are based on the premise that governing should be left to professionals, and that the public's ability to vote in elections is useful only to the extent that it keeps those professionals responsive and accountable. We hire politicians to do a job on the premise that they are more educated on the issues than we, just as we hire a mechanic to fix our cars; the majority of us have as little an idea of what the economic implications of immigration are, as we do of how to replace a ball bearing in a wheel assembly.

Why then should we interfere with the process of governing any more than we do in the process of automotive repair?

Vox Clamans In Deserto

2004-07-26T15:24:00.000-04:00

(Arthur at Ad Populum responds to this article thusly)

Text of the MPA
Final Roll Call Vote for the MPA
Article 3 Section 2, US Constitution
Legal Fiction
Andrew Sullivan
Washington Monthly

The Marriage Protection Act

In the aftermath of the passage of this law by the House, there are a few questions that must be asked:

Is this constitutional?
What does this mean for the future?

On the Constitutionality of the MPA

Article 3, Section 2 of the United States constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

....In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Legal Fiction has a great introduction into the issues of this law and the legal games it is trying to play. On the issue of whether this is constitutional, "publius" (the author) makes comparatively few arguments, conceding that it will probably pass constitutional muster, but pleading that SCOTUS find it unconstitutional based on general democratic principles. That argument aside, the only cases to regard this issue that I have ever heard of are:

It is the conclusion of these cases that while Congress cannot legislate a decision on behalf of the Court, it can restrict its appellate jurisdiction regarding both legislative and executive acts. If it can in fact move habeas corpus cases outside the Court's jurisdiction, it is hard to see how cases regarding any other issue are somehow qualitatively different. I have to disagree with "publius"' hopeful opinions in the sense that there is very little scope within stare decisis for the Court to reject this law, and even then really none for DOMA, which is constitutional thanks to Article 4 Section 1. A Roe v. Wadeesque departure from precedent and textualism is not impossible, perhaps not even unlikely, but I can see no legal basis (other than those "democratic principles") for the Court to use.

The Impact of the MPA

It seems a general trend in this country that as time goes by, we see an erosion of all of the subtle customs that allowed us to have a stable government despite what is generally acknowledged by experts in Comparative Constitutional Law as one of the worst constitutions in the First World. These customs were the response to, or the cause of, the vague lack of clarity that the Constitution suffers from, but either way they are rapidly becoming a relic of the past. Whether it be the threatened removal of the filibuster from Senate Rules, the current abuses by the House Rules committee, or this new escalation in the form of the MPA, the gloves seem to have come off.

Without those restraints any controversial law can be passed without any moderating influence. With the removal of judicial review, we have no enforcement mechanism for the precepts of the Constitution, and indeed, no final determination of constitutionality. This apocalyptic image is not so far-fetched; abortion and gun control laws are as likely to be passed w/ A3S2 protection as prayer in schools and criminalization of homosexuality.

Indeed realistically this will not come to a head. Any institution is jealous of its own power, and thus SCOTUS will find some legal fig leaf to strike down this law, and perhaps DOMA as well. The Right will see this as another attack on their precepts by an unelected court, never knowing how close they came to the Left abolishing the private ownership of firearms.

Alea Jacta Est!

2004-07-21T09:36:00.000-04:00

Playing Politics, by Michael Laver

Game Theory, political simulations, and party games that do not require the explanation of endless rules; what's not to like? This book is out of print, and I strongly urge everyone to snap up a used copy (use one of the online used book clearinghouses) before they too leave circulation.

This book, and the activities within, combine the imperatives to entertain people with the idealistic desire to improve oneself. Politics is not just the occupation of people with a direct view of the Washington Monument, but rather a fact of life in any occupation, and any social environment. Thus day labourer or software programmer, secretary or lawyer, this book and the lessons within will be useful to you, and fun to boot!

Reviews

Humanities and Social Science Network

Stromata

Amazon is not a bad place to look for used books, but if you don't want to give them 15% of the sale price (and would rather support the small used book stores out there), once it finds a book for you, go to that merchant's website (without using Amazon's links!) and buy it directly.

Another great resource is the Advanced Book Exchange, a site that maintains listings for 100s of used book merchants, and acts as a lower-overhead intermediary. (Socially Conscious consumerism!) However for this book, at the time of this post, Amazon lists Playing Politics copies and ABE does not.

For the rules to some of the games listed in the book, click here.

Aliis Non Licet, Tibi Si Licet?

2004-07-20T11:59:00.000-04:00

On Independence, Peer Pressure and Self-Delusion

Since early childhood we are taught to abhor peer pressure. Our individualistic society worships the idea that our own internal moral compass and good sense will guide us without the need to see where everyone else is going, and how they feel about our course. It is an important message, working to reduce the rates of underage smoking, drinking and teen pregnancy. Nonetheless, this message has its ancillary costs; people are not able to prevent their subconscious need for self-validation from interfering with their ability to critically examine their own wishes, wants and positions.

All too often, our opinions, goals and feelings are shaped by forces that we would not consciously want setting policy. One person, while a Democrat, may support lowering the tobacco tax because she smokes, and gun rights because she likes to shoot. Another person, ostensibly aspiring to becoming an intellectual, rationalizes her refusal to actual engage in intellectual activity by telling herself that she is at a sweet spot, feeling that people more cerebral than her are engaging in pointless activity, and people less so are simply ignorant. Self-interest is not an immoral criterion to use in determining one's political views, but it is a tragedy when the lack of critical comment leaves a person unaware that their self-interest is clouding a judgment they perceive to be unbiased and selfless. Similarly one need not change oneself for the sake of an arbitrary label; however it is unfortunate if someone does aspire to a certain state of enlightenment and deceives herself as to what that entails.
EDIT: The two examples above are figments of my imagination, and certainly are not allusions to any persons, real or fictional.

Of course this issue transcends these two hypothetical examples. Any moral compass is susceptible to having one's subconscious toy with its headings. Osama bin Laden no doubt feels that he is morally justified in his actions. We being citizens of the United State would beg to differ, and in fact say that he had no reason and no right to do what he did. How can this state exist? Both sides are having their moral compass influenced by their policy agenda, and the plight of those around them. 9/11 blinds us to a possibly valid grievance that was used as a rationale for an invalid act. That grievance blinded the people of al-Qaeda to the fact that their actions were not justified, no matter that the provocation. Now we call him evil, he calls us evil, and this process continues.

The only check to this corruption of our conscious choices, opinions, goals and morals is to have critical discourse with peers. Only when someone disagrees with one, and thus forces one to defend oneself or at least one's point of view, are the reasons for that point of view held up to the light and any such influences made clear. These subconscious imperatives make themselves known in the form of unsupported assumptions or blind preferences. (Comments like "I just like this better, I have no reason") While preferences regarding one's attire are harmless and thus reasonable to leave in hands of blind preference, the same is not true for one's moral and ethical code.

Herein the tragedy of the anti-peer pressure campaign shows itself. In a society that does not accept that one's peers have the right to check someone with a wandering moral compass, or a wavering grasp on reality, how do we prevent people from suffering thus? In a society that worships mass culture and hates intellectual discourse, how can our "marketplace of ideas" ever be anything more than a cacophony of self-serving demands?

Exitus Acta Probat?

2004-07-16T22:12:00.000-04:00

On the Left's Coverage of Israel, and "Western" Anti-Semitism

(for the sake of brevity, pro- and anti-Israeli will be used instead of pro- or anti-Palestinian. Not only is it more familiar, but it's just shorter.)

Anti-Israeli activists often protest that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, but rather a manifestation of the right and responsibility to criticize a nation-state that is behaving poorly. They are, of course, correct in one sense (that one need not be anti-Semitic to take issue with an Israeli policy any more than one need be racist to criticize the behavior of the Palestinian people, a point that is hopefully not lost on them) but wrong in another.

Latent Racism

All humans are racist. We are biologically programmed to like that which is familiar, and dislike that which is "Other". This is the principle behind advertising. Unless you are an utter lack wit, you aren't going to buy a car based on an ad on your TV. However, after seeing months and months of those ads, when do you want to buy a car, even if you look at a comparative ranking of various cars you are far more likely to buy the one that you "recognize" and have seen the most images of, than the highest rated car.

All this means is that one is most comfortable with those who share every aspect of one's culture, and thus "understands" one. Any difference has to be portrayed on a level that is unthreatening, and does not imperil "understanding", or else it makes one uncomfortable. In the last fifty years, Jews in the Western world have made the mistake of both being self-assured and successful (unlike, say, Arab/Muslim populations) and not sublimating and watering down their culture (unlike, say, East and South Asians). Being neither pitiable nor "funny looking WASPs" (and thus not marginalizing their identity), they instead have made their identity pejorative to broader society.

I neither applaud nor condemn this decision (especially as it is no doubt subconscious). As an Indian-American, I have been a party to open discussions within the Indian-American community where people commented approvingly of fellow Indians who had managed to compartmentalize these two identities, and even personally admonished those who were not. An Indian in the United States does not bring up Indian politics, advocate Indian food or in any way "flaunt" that identity in public. I was a member of my university debate team, and Indians on the debate circuit all made a conscious choice never to run cases that regarded India. To do so was to "ethnicize" one, and those who did it lost out.

Neither do I condemn "the larger Western society" for this reality. It simply is a reality of human nature. Any minority, ethnic or religious, in this country who denies that their progenitors and compatriots were/are religious is either lying or ignorant. Across the world people like their own, and sneer at the Other. So why is anti-Semitism different?

Anti-Semitism vs. Racism

In one sense it is not. Western culture has fundamentally pejorative imagery that biases against Jews. There are also similar images that bias against others, and thus in sense there is no difference. So how can Anti-Semitism shape the discussion on Israel-Palestine, without anti-Arab racism doing the same?

The answer is it is not. Both are shaping the nature of the debate, but each according to the stereotype in question. Naturally stereotypes emerge from the past, and as much as the educated person may wish, they are subtly influenced by the rhetoric of old. Jews were traditionally seen as wealthy, amoral or evil (after all they rejected the teachings of Christ) and powerful. (The moneylender always has power after all.) The "traditional" view of Arabs was that of an emotional, somehow childish people. The image of the "Noble Savage" mixed with images of "Arabian Nights", to produce a sense that these people needed to be protected from themselves as well as others. Kipling's "White Man's Burden" meant that these poor benighted heathens were not responsible for their actions. Like children, they needed to be directed, and protected at the same time.

Into this dichotomy add the Left's lingering post-colonial guilt, and you have the manipulative, powerful, wealthy (and amoral) white man (but one with whom the West does not identify very strongly) occupying the lands of the continually-abused, recently-decolonialized, emotional, childlike Arab. When an Israeli helicopter kills a Hamas leader, it is seen as another atrocity by a colonial regime. When the impoverished Palestinian blows himself up on a bus, he is making a poignant protest against the injustice of it all. The Palestinian is not morally culpable for his actions; not only is he occupied, but he is an Arab. That Israel is a nation-state, and the Palestinian bombers are "resistance fighters" only makes the picture more romantic.

Bias, Double-standards and Morality

An interesting question for the reader, especially one residing in the United States, would be "Is there any justification for Al-Qaeda's attacks on September 11th, 2001?"

No one will say yes in public. The nuanced view would be that there were reasons, but that those reasons did not justify the action. Knowing those reasons, understanding them so as to implement policy to reduce the stimuli that provoked this response may be good policy, but is not morally obligated; we didn't "deserve" 9/11. However, transpose actions identical morally, if not in scale (Palestinian suicide bombing) and the calculus changes. "They are fighting for their freedom" becomes le nom du jeu.

This inconsistency defies logic. It is simply wrong to intentionally kill civilians who have not militarized themselves (picked up weapons, or in other ways substituted themselves for soldiers in roles soldiers normally play during war), for any reason. This statement is one that virtually anyone would agree with, should the context be 9/11, 3/11 (Madrid), or even Oklahoma City. Set the stage as Israel, and suddenly the far Left begins to hem and haw. "Surely it's justified if the Palestinians have no other way to fight back?" Morality is now less important than a fair fight??? "Surely it's justified if this is the only way the Palestinians feel they can draw world attention to their plight?" Perhaps I'm labouring under another definition of the words "morality" and "principle" I was under the impression that what separated such from "situational ethics" is precisely that no matter how inconvenient, a moral principle superseded the current context, and restricts action no matter what the reason. Even if that reason is publicity.

Of course there are other alternatives. Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela all managed to get publicity and efficacy against implacable foes without resorting to such tactics. They even managed to restrain their compatriots, who presumptively would otherwise have succumbed to the same despairing bloodlust as Hamas et al. That the world does not expect that of the Palestinians is a further continuation of the subtle racism that is felt against them. "They can't possibly achieve such heights of moral rectitude, after all they're poor decolonialized Arabs." The inconsistency between agreed principle and the rhetoric regarding the Middle East conflict is implicitly due to the dovetailing stereotypes of Arabs and Jews.

This double standard is troubling on its own; what makes it even more dangerous is who it empowers. Even as we are all racist, anti-Semitic, etc etc, some of us are more so than others, both in absolute terms, and more readily obvious, with regards to different groups. (After all, some of us are more susceptible to the impacts of advertising as well) Radical anti-Semitism has been taboo for sometime. Replace in an anti-Semitic screed the word "Jew" for "Israeli" and suddenly a horrific bit of hate speech becomes a public ally acceptable political opinion. On its own, that isn’t necessarily important, but if the person in question is a reporter, an editor or a politician, their words now impact thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

Do remember that racism is not a rational, conscious decision. People don't sit down, examine possible stereotypes, then jump up and yell "I hate Black people"." Perceptions of all groups derive from what we see and hear, in conversation and in the media, and the impact is subtle. Anti-Semitism does not originate from people watching "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", but rather from portrayals of Jewish characters in the media, in plays and the use of stereotypical images of Judaism when discussing other issues.

It is not fair at all to say that everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic to any degree more than those who do not. This latent anti-Semitism is so widespread in the West that everyone who grows up here has been to some degree exposed to it. One is not saying thus that we are all evil, but rather if we are to be fair to both the Palestinians and the Israelis, we must intellectually reject the stereotypes, and the subconscious imperatives they create. Both sides must be held to the same standards, the same standards we hold ourselves to, and those who interact with us. If we can invade a random country on the grounds that they might have someday posed a threat, surely we can understand the Israeli reluctance to give sovereignty to a population that continually attacks it.

This article may seem to be an apologia for Israel and its behavior with regards to the West Bank and Gaza. It is not intended as such; rather the object is to awaken the understanding that any examination of any issue is coloured by subconscious biases that we all have. If we refuse to keep them in mind, we allow them to cloud our thinking. If we recognize them, then we can correct for them, and monitor our analytic and evaluative judgments for their impacts.

To read more of the theory behind this article, look to Charles E Osgood, a psycholinguicist. (Nothing about Judaism, Israel, decolonialized guilt or racism in his writings, just a discussion of how bias forms, and how it impacts us.)

Nihil Est Incertius Volgo

2004-07-12T15:42:00.000-04:00

On the Psychology of Political Choice

Every polity has issues that divide the electorate. We have a slate of issues often used as a "litmus" test for the competing political parties. It is easy to see how behind these slates of positions there must be some sort of common approach to issues.

Much has been made of an alleged lack of coherent philosophy on the part of the parties relevant in the US. The Democrats cobble together leftist populists with "limousine liberals", while the Republicans bring together rightwing religious populists and business conservatives, and thus seem to be representative of no one political philosophy. To say that they represent semi-permanent coalitions of disparate constituencies that in a parliamentary democracy would have separate party affiliations is probably correct, but besides the point.

These parties each have a coherent psychology.

We've all heard of the "body of literature" regarding "Red America" and "Blue America", and the association of cultural values with geography, wealth, population density, etc. It is obviously an oversimplification to look at the US as the home of two cultures, and refutations of Brooks' thesis abound, but it contains a certain truth. While it is hard to say "by their zipcode ye shall know them", the mindset that induced one to choose one party or another is one that will also have left its mark on one's life.

This mindset is far more emotional and primitive than a political philosophy. In its most basic it parallels a discussion that plays out in the national dialogue: values vs nuance. The language of values is powerful; it provides absolute answers to questions, and thus is intuitive. It is definitionally principled. Nuance gains the ability to more directly address the problem. As a vocabulary it better approximates any situation, and as a mindset is better able to find a solution. Nuance is also almost always a shade of grey. It is both impossible to turn into a slogan, and is generally a compromise between principles. Lest the reader assume I am endorsing the latter, (and that is where my sympathies lie) consider that a political approach is only as good as its efficacy; there is no point having a more correct answer if no one will listen or follow it. Nuance is the better answer, but values more certainly provide for the political power to address the problem.

Before I provide caveats to this thesis, consider this: Bush is being roundly excoriated for having virtually no policy staff in the West Wing. All the staff are political in nature, with political (thus ideological, principled) answers to every question. Franklin Foer, in his recent article The Closing of the Presidential Mind) writes:

Since its inception, modern American conservatism has harbored a suspicion of experts, who, through adherence to inductive reasoning and academic methodologies, claim to provide objective research and analysis... ...If there was a theme to their complaints, it was that social science focused too much on material "fact" and ignored the importance of "culture" and "values."

Now obviously if the Republicans had a monopoly on values, and an utter paucity of nuance, they would win all elections, and every policy of theirs would be a disaster. Both parties naturally have a focus on one or the other, and use the reciprocal as a means to enable the psychology that is at their root. Is this balance then the only true difference between the parties?

In a word, no. The other, and perhaps more important difference, is in ends as much as the previous point addressed means. The Democratic party's ethos is easy to understand; from all of us as a group, for all of us as a group. This is not meant to describe some oversimplified economic policy, but rather is the underlying psychology used to come up with positions. Should we be able to burn the flag? Yes, regardless of how it offends any or almost all of us, that speech is important as a tool, and so should be protected for anyone's use. Should we ban hate speech on college campuses? Yes, for we should all sacrifice that right so that no one is too offended or threatened to study.

In contrast the Republicans seem to have invested "moral correctness" into politics as a market. However ironic it is, it appears that as much as the economic good of the whole supposedly derives from each acting in his or her economic self-interest, so too will the political good of the whole arrive if everyone looks after their own, narrow political interest. Yes, abortion should be banned because my religious views say so, and thus it is clearly wrong. I do not think the government has any right to increase the cost of my workers to me by raising the minimum wage.

It would be easy to say this difference is non-existent, after all, one can just rephrase the position: I oppose abortion because of the children/I support flag burning so that I can go out and do so tomorrow. The reason to go with the previous dichotomy is this: by and large, liberals do not personally benefit nor expect to benefit from the policies they espouse. Most Democrats have no intention of getting an abortion (that's what the Pill is for) and most probably have no intention of burning a flag. Few on the Religious Right trouble themselves with what other religions' say on policy, and few corporate lobbyists are tasked with anything other than the specific interests that will advance the company's profitability (in fact they have a fiduciary duty to the company's shareholders to do exactly that).

Self-interest is not evil; even the left concedes that insofar as knowing what is good for the many is difficult, capitalism (aka economic markets) are a preferable system to a command economy. Thus it is not unreasonable to see a parallel with political choice. (The flip side being, Democrats are hardly supporting a command-polity (dictatorship) but rather just self-less decision making.)

Self-interest is appealing, and more over straightforward. For those who do not have the time to evaluate policy, it is easier to look at a policy's impact on themselves than to try to measure for 280 million. A deterministic answer is easier to come by. The collective will of a polity looking for the best interest of the whole will lead to a better choice than the plurality in favor of any one issue for their own benefit (which is half the reason democracies seem schizophrenic), but such a mode of thought is again, a tough sell.

Thus you have the split. A nuanced, group-minded left, unable to convince people that its views are better, and a values-minded, self-interested right, governing with worse, but more easily explained ideas.

Qui Genus Jactat Suum, Aliena Laudat

2004-07-08T09:52:00.000-04:00

On Compensation

People labor for different reasons. Chief among the remunerative qualities of one's career are its material rewards (salary, benefits, etc) and the status that job provides. Why would someone work for the State department rather than be a mortgage salesman? Status compensates him for his lower salary.

Strange isn't it, then, that the two are treated so differently by society. To openly strive for wealth marks you as ambitious, if a bit crass. To court status, on the other hand, brings accusations of insecurity, self-importance and elitism. Inheritance governs the transfer of wealth that one earns to one's progeny (or whomever one wants). Formal recognition of status (titles, etc) used to be able to be transmitted similarly. Feudalism conflated status with wealth, and law enforcement authority. Those few who have titles in this modern age have no automatic wealth or power.

So then why does the world hunger for the elimination of such? When titles only indicate status that one or one's predecessors had earned, what harm do they do?

Status may seem like a silly reason to do anything, and this discussion pointless for looking at formalized status, but truly what could be more noble, in this era, than to strive for status alone? Instead of focusing on material wealth, to work for the regard of one's peers, neighbors, or co-nationals seems positively saintly.

Fere Libenter Homines Id Quod Volunt Credunt

2004-07-04T03:14:00.000-04:00

Lets say there exists a hypothetical country.

A democracy since 1265.

It expands its borders to a new area, unsettled, and allows people to move there. There are no absentee ballots, and these areas, while self-managing, are not formally provinces of the mother country and so no voting rights are devoluted to them. As such neither are they subject to the taxes that are imposed within the old borders of the mother country, such as the head[count] tax.

People move there, cognizant of this bargain. Over 150 years, public costs increase. Maintaining the security of the colonies becomes expensive, and in fact places the mother country on the verge of bankruptcy. To recoup costs, while it still does not impose the basic head-tax that voting citizens pay, it taxes some forms of commerce.

Merchants oppose this, and noticing they owe enormous amounts of money to mother-country bankers, instigate a revolution over voting rights. They would get to cancel their debts without payment, an organized theft of money they had borrowed with the assurance of repayment.

The people who fought the revolution could by and large not vote even after it was over. Thanks to minimum-land-ownership rules, the bulk of the white male electorate was still disenfranchised. In fact, over the next 200 years, consistently larger proportions of the mother country would be enfranchised, vs the successor state, even controlling for proportions of ethnic minorities.

The successor state would claim to be the "most democratic" country in the world, and the "first modern democracy" after Greece. It would claim to be the land of "freedom" and "liberty" while violating civil liberties far more often, a land of "justice" with international watchdogs condemning it every year for failures in its criminal justice system.

Finally it would destabilize elected governments in the name of "democracy", bomb civilians in the name of "liberation", and condemn countries as being "evil" for attempting to acquire nuclear weapons while retaining an arsenal of them sufficiently large to annihilate the world ten times over.

Happy Fourth of July, and God Bless America.
London is looking better and better

Labore Omnia Ditat

2004-06-30T13:05:00.000-04:00

Welfare, and the Minimum Wage Versus EITC

Opponents of Welfare make the argument that welfare benefits create a disincentive to looking for work. While I would suggest that lack of free child-care and the like are larger factors, they are correct in one respect; in some areas, welfare pays better than a job, especially when one has to pay for ancillary costs related to that job, such as transport, childcare, better/more expensive clothing, etc.

Other than changing the level at which non-cash welfare benefits (food stamps, Medicaid) are means-tested, and set them to phase out more gradually as incomes climb, the real problem is that some jobs pay too little to create any kind of incentive.

The standard remedy in the policy vocabulary of the left is a higher minimum wage. The Right argues (reasonably) that insofar as companies will add the higher labor costs to product prices, the minimum wage is directly inflation-causing. The standard response, that competition will force those prices back down, is not only practically inadequate, but besides the point; we don't want to punish industry for hiring unskilled labor in this country.

Instead, why not have a radical expansion of EITC. Instead of forcing companies to pay more, shunt tax revenue to make these jobs more attractive and better able to support a household's needs. This remedy provides for solving the incentive problem, and gives the working poor the relief they need. But is it good for the economy as a whole?

First of, it doesn't have to be; only a moron equates a higher annual GDP growth with a better society. However, such a flat answer is unnecessary, as this policy is actually good for the economy, and don't worry, analysis to that effect follows.

Our economy is not supply-limited. We have no real investment-capital shortfalls, and even current production capabilities (ignoring the ease of expansion through financed investment) are capable of much higher output. This can be seen in the utter lack of real inflationary pressure. Perhaps some of the productivity gains made in the 90s were illusionary, but if that is so, the highest demand we have seen in 30 years was insufficient to cause any real supply inadequacy. We are a demand-limited economy.

What are recessions but shortfalls in demand? To minimize their severity and duration, demand supports are used. Obviously, the marginal dollar is better served being spent on demand stimulus, and the increased monetary velocity that implies, rather that supply stimulus in a situation of overcapacity. The Right may argue that investment in supply regards demand as well, but not only is nonconsumer spending only 35% of private sector spending, but the velocity of money in the nonconsumer arena is much lower; capital stockpiles, escrow accounts pending order completion, it simply takes longer for companies to spend the marginal dollar.

It is axiomatic that the poor accrue greater utility per the marginal dollar, but more relevant to the discussion at hand, they have, equally obviously, the highest marginal propensity to consume. They spend each dollar virtually as it comes in, and thus the velocity of capital is highest when resources are reallocated to income supports for the poor.

Now the costs of this redistribution come in the form of higher costs for capital. However, the increase in demand benefits more than the increased cost for increased supply for several reasons. First, the velocity argument, second the sunk lax capacity in production, and third the exposure of our capital markets to foreign direct investment (FDI) means that an marginal increase in capital cost brings with it a commensurate increase in capital availability. In other words, capital supply is global, but our power to impact demand is local.

All of this admittedly dances around the issue of the simple effect of increased demand. It should be noted that to deal with any drastic increase in consumer demand, supply increases would have to occur to remain inflation-neutral. Thus it would seem that the financing of this proposal should be borne by higher-bracket income taxes, rather than corporate taxes. After all the decreased capital investment by our rich can easily be replaced by foreign capital, but to directly tax the companies will slow capital expansion, and also lead to higher prices as the costs are borne by the consumer.

Last but not least, having this labor in the workforce means that rather than funding their existence through welfare, we are only subsidizing it, and receive the benefits of their labor in return. What we save by not paying out welfare reduces the additional tax burden this implies. It is indeed possible that this policy may in fact reduce the claims on the federal fisc, even without factoring in revenue increases due to economic expansion.

Now EITC is no replacement for the Minimum Wage; to the extent that these wage supports increase the supply of willing labor, we are in effect subsidizing companies that rely on low-income labor. While this has the beneficial impact of increasing the supply of low-income jobs, the companies should not be allowed to freeload by dropping their wage levels, and thus increasing the burden on the federal government.

In the end, while inflation is a general concern, both the humanitarian and economic arguments seem to indicate that low-income wage supports in the form of EITC expansion would be a generally beneficial policy. To the extent that demand could provoke inflation, the government has tools far more efficacious at arresting inflation than it has hitherto possessed to stimulate structural growth in the economy.

In Umbra Omne Tulit Punctum

2004-06-29T12:25:00.000-04:00

On Small-Scale Democratic Decision Making

Ten people stand in a room. Someone makes a proposal, and it is voted upon. Six say "aye", four "nay", and the "ayes" have it. The political egalitarianism of Liberal Democratic societies results in democratic choice being regarded as the only fair way to make decisions in groups of equal-stake individuals. The idea of voting to resolve disagreement has inherent legitimacy, and that the best idea will be the most popular idea is beyond question.

It's tragic.

In the above example, four people lost. The resultant decision they both feel compelled to abide by, and simultaneously have no "ownership" of, leaving a grave dissatisfaction that they cannot resolve or satisfy. The winners have been separated from the losers, and perverse incentives have been created.

The ideal coalition in a voting environment is a block of (N/2)+1 votes, where N is the size of the voting body. Each time you add a voter to your coalition, you add another person who, when they disagree with the party's previous consensus, has to be appeased. If there is "pork" of a sort, some sort of finite quantity resource that has to be allocated to the voter or the constituency that he represents, it has be divvied up between more people, and thus you get less. Even worse, if the new addition is comparatively undemanding as compared to you, your coalition members may decide to eject you and replace you with this individual. Thus after a block is created, everyone else has virtually no traction. The ruling party has no reason to court additional votes.

Now on a small scale, where all of the voting members represent only themselves, the losers have virtually no reason to work within the system. They can splinter, make their own decisions, and the only loss to them is their stake in the larger group, which may be of precious little use to them if they can exercise no control over it. Small associations fragment often, due to this centrifugal forces.

Perhaps there is an alternative. Qualified consensus is a recipe for paralysis in a representative environment. The system has to be codified, and the resultant marginal voting member has too high an incentive to hold the deliberating body hostage. On a small scale, is this the case? Given the ability of all the voters to act as independent agents (being unbound by any constituency to pander to) the voters may create compromise solutions ad hoc. The penalty for trying to disrupt a forming consensus, hoping for a payoff is less; there is no plausible excuse in the form of a demanding public.

The benefit to this system is that, in crafting a proposal, one cannot play demographic politics. Given that one needs N-small to pass a proposal, it must appeal to virtually all of the voters. Even those left out have a stronger position; they only need convince one or two more to break ranks to thwart the initiative, a much easier task given that block discipline breaks down when the advantages are spread among such a high proportion of the voting body.

In short, despite our love affair with majoritarian democratic processes, they are rather-much inappropriate for small assemblies that are not representative bodies.

Silent Leges Inter Arma

2004-06-28T10:37:00.000-04:00

TERRORISM: A Definition
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. For the purposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). That statute contains the following definitions:

* The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
* The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
* The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

- US Department of State

Dresden, 1945
Kobe and Tokyo, 1945
"Tiger Force" in Vietnam

But for the fact that the US Government carried out these attacks, they qualify for the State Dept, and CIA's definitions for terrorism.

Apologists may argue that these bombings helped demoralize a population, and thus aided the war effort. (Al Qaeda could use the same defense in justifying its attacks) They may argue that it was during war time, and thus entirely different than 9/11.

Maybe so. We have declared war on "terror", and specifically on Al-Qaeda.

Does this mean a repeat of 9/11 would now be a justified act of war?
If not by Al-Qaeda, how about Saddam loyalists; surely we are at war with the old Baathist regime?
If not, then oughtn't the people responsible for the above attacks be indicted for war crimes; there is no statute of limitations for crimes of this scale...
Are the insurgents' attacks on "Coalition" forces terrorism?
If a terrorist group "declares war" upon us, are they "allowed" to cause the same sort of damage to one of our cities that we caused in Kobe, Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

After a war is over, those soldiers that killed members of the other side are not punished. Even "acceptable collateral damage" is understood. We expect no retribution for our conduct in Iraq, from the new nation.

If we are not going to punish the people who were involved in the above events, are we saying the "right" to kill one thousand, ten thousand or one hundred thousand civilians and not be held responsible revolves simply on whether one has exclusive control over a piece of land? Al-Qaeda claims to be acting in defense of, and for the interests of, the Arab people. They are analogous to the United States except for having sovereignty over a territory.

Surely that is not the difference between a mass murderer and a hero?

Ut Fementem Feceris, Ita Metes

2004-06-22T15:51:00.000-04:00

EDIT: Arthur at Ad Populum responds to the following article here.

On Criminalizing Hate

It is chic to oppose anti-hate crime legislation and anti-hate speech codes set by universities. The arguments against both are compelling (especially in abstract) and intellectuals on both sides of the political divide condemn both. The case against speech codes is a topic for another time, but the need for anti-hate crime laws is clear, even if it is not a popular, or even classically liberal position.

Is it legal?

Federal and State criminal codes enjoin people against certain actions for several reasons. Most basically if your action harms someone, it is forbidden. If it interferes with their exercise of a more-important right or even interferes with less-important rights gratuitously, it may be forbidden. If it indirectly harms people or society as a whole, it can be forbidden.

We punish those people who commit such acts for several reasons as well. First, we hope to rehabilitate, and thus such programs as parole exist. While people are unrepentant, we imprison them, and we release them when they have seen the error of their ways. This rationale is increasingly ignored, as states abolish parole, and rollback judicial discretion. Second we hope to deter others, by linking bad act with bad outcome in their minds. Third we want to take dangerous people off the street, so that they can do no more harm to others. Fourth, some believe "retributive justice" is a legal principle. I disagree, but even that argues for criminalizing hate.

Many argue that having additional penalties for crimes committed due to hate is unnecessary, and even illegal/unconstitutional/immoral. After all, we do not police thought, and we do not discriminate against ideas. This argument is just false. We don't criminalize thought, but we do care about motive when sentencing people. Someone who kills for money is punished harder than someone who killed their spouse's lover. Someone who kills in self-defense is often not punished at all. The REASON their action was committed is very relevant to sentencing, as above and beyond the action, we want to deter the idea that certain REASONS are valid for that action.

Are Hate Crimes "worse" than standard violent crimes?

In a sense, society is harmed more by hate crimes than garden-variety violence. In the latter case the victim is harmed, and society as whole feels less safe. In the former, both of these impacts accrue, and a specific group feels targeted as well. If tension or misunderstandings exist between one group or another, they can be exacerbated by the crime. The crime can even lead to retaliation.

This does not mollify those who feel that hate-crime laws imply "valuing" some people's lives over others. If this is so, society must also be valuing the life of someone killed in cold blood over someone killed by bad fish served at a restaurant, or someone killed by medical malpractice.

Is it useful?

There is a specific difference between most violent crime and hate crime. Most violent crime has a narrowly tailored justification in the eyes of the criminal. Person A "stepped". Person B "macked on my woman". Person C was "selling drugs on MY turf". While all bad reasons, these reasons apply to the victim, and perhaps a few others. Thus we only have to rehabilitate them to see that that narrow issue is not, indeed, sufficient justification to harm. They are only threats to those people, and thus are less dangerous to society as a whole. Even from a deterrence viewpoint, as their actions have only legitimized a narrow rationale for violence, so to is the deterrence message just a condemnation of that reason, and of violence as a resort for any reason.

On the other end of the spectrum are psychopaths and sociopaths. They harm indiscriminately, and have a mental problem. They go to asylums for the rest of their lives, or at least until they are cured. Deterrence is unnecessary, as no one "chooses" to be misanthropic on that scale. In a sense, they are also not incredibly harmful to society (so long as they are caught) as they won't legitimize bad behavior to anyone.

Hate crimes are unique in that the justification for them encompasses a huge range of people. Left alone, they can harm a great deal, like the criminally insane. However they have a perverse ideology, and thus can attract people to behave like them. Society must thus deter people from choosing this path. It has to fight against an philosophy, not a weak excuse, in delegitimizing the motive involved. They are also generically need longer incarceration than common offenders, as there was no proximate cause for their behavior, and so rehabilitation is more difficult.

Is it safe?

Having dealt with why additional penalties for hate in violence are both allowable/legal/moral and necessary, there is another area to discuss; externalities to this policy. People who oppose this policy have several arguments divorced from the specifics of the case.

Their first is that this will further radicalize the "penumbra" of people who support this behavior, but would never do it themselves. One response is that for every "Klansman in the back" who only watched lynchings until this policy was enacted, and is now motivated to violence, I would say at least one or two more "Klansmen who would have been in front" will drop back. After all, the only thing keeping the first fellow from joining in "the fun" was fear, probably of the state. If he had scruples, he still won't commit the crime. If he believed in a deity, he either has already rationalized his behavior as being supported by that deity, or his faith will stop him from committing the crime. So if fear of the state, and its punitive capacity, is all that kept him "clean", and that fear gets trumped by an increase in anger, it stands to reason that some people will be more afraid of the state as a result of this increase in the punitive capacity, and specific targeting of hate. With some people, fear's increase will once again trump anger. Often hate crimes are committed by people who are under the impression that those they hate are less than human. This sort of law at least tries to get through to them that one way or the other, society as a whole still feels they should not be harmed.

Another response would be that given the difficulty of proving motive "beyond reasonable doubt" either people will be convicted too easily or no one will ever be convicted under this law. If the latter happens, no harm has been done, and symbolically the state has said "we disapprove of hate". The former can't occur; the barriers to conviction are not lowered by any hate-crime law. If the simple allegation of hate is enough to make the jury forget the burden of proof, than existent hate crime cases are still vulnerable to this miscarriage of justice, regardless of whether this law is in place.

One of the last arguments against hate crime laws is that the groups in question will actually lose, as the law will do nothing to prevent crime (arguing that those who are sufficiently angry to forget, misconstrue, or ignore the law won't listen to higher sentences) while increasing resentment. There are two responses to this; first, these laws oughtn't have "protected groups", but rather should simply additionally punish those who commit crimes as an expression of, or as a result of, hating any societal segment. Yes, someone who hates suburban moms enough to kill them on sight is subject to this law. Secondly, the law may not deter those who commit crimes now, but it may arrest the decent of those who may have otherwise done so in the future, by showing them that society does not tolerate this behavior.

Most bigots feel that the "silent moral majority" is behind them. Show them that they are wrong.

Sic faciunt omnes.

Consecutios.

Deus Scelestus Belli Est!?!

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Posse Tui Audis Mei Nunc

Fidei Religiosa Contrari Est Ad Ratio Ac Dialectica? Quid Miratio.

Exsecrari Ab Religio Omni! Ego Somnias de Mundi Profanum...

Islam, Christianity and Religious Culture

Virtutis Ex Gratiae

Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams by Alfred Lubrano

Cogitate Aliter

Switching to Macintosh

Impacts of Mac OS X

The Virtues of "Just Works"

Stability

Security

Intuitive design

Application Support

Final Thoughts

Solum Ac Procerus Quidam Vicinus Est Breve

Reviews

Ut Aliqui Vivant

WHO, Polio and the UN

Mundas Vult Decipi

2004 US Elections Pool

Presidential Pool

Senatorial Results Pool

House Results

Cum Tacent, Clamant

Casper Star Tribune

Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patri Mori.

Vox Clamans In Deserto

The Marriage Protection Act

On the Constitutionality of the MPA

The Impact of the MPA

Alea Jacta Est!

Playing Politics, by Michael Laver

Reviews

Aliis Non Licet, Tibi Si Licet?

On Independence, Peer Pressure and Self-Delusion

Exitus Acta Probat?

On the Left's Coverage of Israel, and "Western" Anti-Semitism

Latent Racism

Anti-Semitism vs. Racism

Bias, Double-standards and Morality

Nihil Est Incertius Volgo

On the Psychology of Political Choice

Qui Genus Jactat Suum, Aliena Laudat

On Compensation

Fere Libenter Homines Id Quod Volunt Credunt

Labore Omnia Ditat

Welfare, and the Minimum Wage Versus EITC

In Umbra Omne Tulit Punctum

On Small-Scale Democratic Decision Making

Silent Leges Inter Arma

TERRORISM: A Definition

Ut Fementem Feceris, Ita Metes

On Criminalizing Hate

Is it legal?

Are Hate Crimes "worse" than standard violent crimes?

Is it useful?

Is it safe?

Limbo: Blue-Collar Roots, White-Collar Dreams
by Alfred Lubrano