Interesting Things
Transformers: The Pentagon is working on developing cool shape shifting robots, maybe transformers will come about in my lifetime after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7863181/Morphing-cars-and-planes-closer-as-Pentagon-develops-shape-shifting-robot.html
Blame it on the vampires: A Colorado drove her car into a canal because she claimed she saw a vampire.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=103074&catid=148
Independent Ideas
What's her "Angle"?: Here is the first broadcast interview of the GOP nominee from Nevada for Harry Reid's seat in full context.
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2010/06/full-sharron-angle-interview
Not Another Depression: Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman argues that the U.S. could be in for another depression. Is he right, you be the judge?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=todayspaper
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Meeting in the Middle
It seems that every day the economic news grows more gloomy and depressing. Some of this is caused by the sensationalist mainstream media, but other times it is caused by our own unwillingness to learn from our mistakes. Though I would hope that the human species could evolve with the understanding of its own needs, sometimes I wonder if this is really the case. Currently, the political system is caught in a paralysis between two extremes, both of which are unwilling to give ground.
These two extremes can be best illustrated through the major social and economic policy debates like healthcare and financial reform. Instead of discussing in an adult fashion the intricate policy arguments at hand, the two sides resorted to middle school antics using stigmatizing labels from calling the left a socialist/Marxist/Hitler reincarnate to the right as a greedy capitalist fatcat that sees regulation as the way to a Stalinist paradise. My question is: can’t we all just get along, and possibly learn from each other?
If one were to sketch a brief history of the U.S. economy from the beginning of the 20th Century to present day, it would look something like this. In the 1900s, the American economic system was a true free market system and all was well, expect for the monopolies and political machines. Then, the progressive era came along with regulation to weed out the irregularities. Next there was The Great Society reforms and more regulation. Finally, the Reagan years brought began the process of deregulation that went all the way up to present.
On the other side of Pacific, China also saw an economic revolution. Although, instead of going from a open market system to more regulation, they started from the opposite pole and moved towards a more capitalistic system, with authoritarian variations. This begs the question, which side will dominate the global economic sphere? Black and white as this debate may seem, I think that we can meet somewhere in the middle of the centrally planned to a totally free market axis.
So, how should the U.S. proceed to navigate this alien terrain? One can start by looking at how we can adapt, and by that I mean moving slowly towards more regulation without feeling left out. My suggestion would be that the U.S. gravitates towards a Scandinavian model, which advocates a larger welfare state without total government control of the public sector. This combines the elements of close regulation with the free market elements that the U.S. citizens know and love.
Most people will complain of higher taxes and the entrepreneurial spirit sucked out of the economy. The latter at least is simply is not the case.
Robert L. Bradley Jr. and Roger Donway in the Independent Review said this, “Denmark, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal’s Index of Economic Freedom (2010), has the world’s ninth freest (most capitalist) economy, even though government spending consumes more than 50 percent of gross domestic product – and much of that goes to welfare.”
Yes, there will probably be higher taxes, but my argument would be that there is a greater chance for happiness and well being with a stronger social safety net.
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman argued it this way, “Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. — which is what matters for living standards — has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95 percent a year here; 1.83 percent there,” Krugman continues, “Taxes in major European nations range from 36 to 44 percent of G.D.P., compared with 28 in the United States. Universal health care is, well, universal. Social expenditure is vastly higher than it is here.”
Now, this not to say that authoritarian states cannot learn from the U.S. about how to give citizens greater social freedoms and more civil liberties. The U.S. by no means should move away from its own system of freedom. My purpose here is to demonstrate that a middle way towards a compromise is possible. I also say that it is easier for the U.S. adopt European economic principles over the Chinese authoritarian ones.
This is not to say that the European system is perfect by any means, but it should be part of the conversation. It is important to always think long-term about our problems. Defining another way for an economic system is hard. With all the social and economic problems facing this generation, it is inevitable that both sides will have to grow up and learn from one another to find the middle path.
Further Reading:
Paul Krugman on Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
CATO Institute on Nordic States, some pros and cons
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf
These two extremes can be best illustrated through the major social and economic policy debates like healthcare and financial reform. Instead of discussing in an adult fashion the intricate policy arguments at hand, the two sides resorted to middle school antics using stigmatizing labels from calling the left a socialist/Marxist/Hitler reincarnate to the right as a greedy capitalist fatcat that sees regulation as the way to a Stalinist paradise. My question is: can’t we all just get along, and possibly learn from each other?
If one were to sketch a brief history of the U.S. economy from the beginning of the 20th Century to present day, it would look something like this. In the 1900s, the American economic system was a true free market system and all was well, expect for the monopolies and political machines. Then, the progressive era came along with regulation to weed out the irregularities. Next there was The Great Society reforms and more regulation. Finally, the Reagan years brought began the process of deregulation that went all the way up to present.
On the other side of Pacific, China also saw an economic revolution. Although, instead of going from a open market system to more regulation, they started from the opposite pole and moved towards a more capitalistic system, with authoritarian variations. This begs the question, which side will dominate the global economic sphere? Black and white as this debate may seem, I think that we can meet somewhere in the middle of the centrally planned to a totally free market axis.
So, how should the U.S. proceed to navigate this alien terrain? One can start by looking at how we can adapt, and by that I mean moving slowly towards more regulation without feeling left out. My suggestion would be that the U.S. gravitates towards a Scandinavian model, which advocates a larger welfare state without total government control of the public sector. This combines the elements of close regulation with the free market elements that the U.S. citizens know and love.
Most people will complain of higher taxes and the entrepreneurial spirit sucked out of the economy. The latter at least is simply is not the case.
Robert L. Bradley Jr. and Roger Donway in the Independent Review said this, “Denmark, according to the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal’s Index of Economic Freedom (2010), has the world’s ninth freest (most capitalist) economy, even though government spending consumes more than 50 percent of gross domestic product – and much of that goes to welfare.”
Yes, there will probably be higher taxes, but my argument would be that there is a greater chance for happiness and well being with a stronger social safety net.
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman argued it this way, “Since 1980, per capita real G.D.P. — which is what matters for living standards — has risen at about the same rate in America and in the E.U. 15: 1.95 percent a year here; 1.83 percent there,” Krugman continues, “Taxes in major European nations range from 36 to 44 percent of G.D.P., compared with 28 in the United States. Universal health care is, well, universal. Social expenditure is vastly higher than it is here.”
Now, this not to say that authoritarian states cannot learn from the U.S. about how to give citizens greater social freedoms and more civil liberties. The U.S. by no means should move away from its own system of freedom. My purpose here is to demonstrate that a middle way towards a compromise is possible. I also say that it is easier for the U.S. adopt European economic principles over the Chinese authoritarian ones.
This is not to say that the European system is perfect by any means, but it should be part of the conversation. It is important to always think long-term about our problems. Defining another way for an economic system is hard. With all the social and economic problems facing this generation, it is inevitable that both sides will have to grow up and learn from one another to find the middle path.
Further Reading:
Paul Krugman on Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
CATO Institute on Nordic States, some pros and cons
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf
Monday, June 28, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - VII
Interesting Things
Space Sex: The International Space station bans sex on its missions. I didn't even know that happened in zero gravity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7858388/International-Space-Station-sex-ban.html
Wait They Get Food?: A recent FDA report shows that many airlines that provide food do so in unsanitary conditions. This begs the question, which airlines are giving real food?
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/numerous-airline-food-kitchens-cited-for-unsanitary-unsafe-conditions/98152/1
Independent Ideas
Victory for the 2nd Amendment: Read the latest Supreme Court ruling to see if you agree that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns locally.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Regulating What?: Read the recent financial regulation bill that merged in conference last week. Is it a good bill, you be the judge?
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/ChairmansMark31510AYO10306_xmlFinancialReformLegislationBill.pdf
Space Sex: The International Space station bans sex on its missions. I didn't even know that happened in zero gravity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7858388/International-Space-Station-sex-ban.html
Wait They Get Food?: A recent FDA report shows that many airlines that provide food do so in unsanitary conditions. This begs the question, which airlines are giving real food?
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/06/numerous-airline-food-kitchens-cited-for-unsanitary-unsafe-conditions/98152/1
Independent Ideas
Victory for the 2nd Amendment: Read the latest Supreme Court ruling to see if you agree that it is unconstitutional to ban handguns locally.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Regulating What?: Read the recent financial regulation bill that merged in conference last week. Is it a good bill, you be the judge?
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/ChairmansMark31510AYO10306_xmlFinancialReformLegislationBill.pdf
Saturday, June 26, 2010
McChrystal: The Myth, The Man, The Legend
General McChrystal’s firing after his blasphemous comments about the civilian leadership have brought to mind a larger question than just the status of troop morale, but a more important question about legend creation. When I first heard of General McChrystal replacing General McKiernan last in Afghanistan last year, all I heard about from the media was the incessant sensationalism about McChrystal’s personal life. His habit about getting up every morning at 4:00 A.M. and jogging nine miles and living on one meal a day grabbed the media’s attention like a politician caught in a sex scandal.
The problem was that the media would often ignore the other scandals surrounding General McChrystal. These little tidbits include the cover up of the death of former NFL player Captain Pat Tillman in 2004 by friendly fire and some prisoner abuse at Camp Nama in Iraq in 2006. Of course, all of this was known to the public, but after the Rolling Stone article called “The Runaway General” appeared, suddenly it was shocking again because the comments wrecked his all-American boy image.
Unfortunately, the American public has a problem when it comes to recognizing the flaws in our heroes, even gaping ones. The main problem is that people are afraid of ruining the image of others for the sake of the truth. For example, Helen Keller was a virulent socialist, something you do not see in The Miracle Worker. If she were alive today, Glenn Beck would definitely call her out on it. Even the sweet old Mother Teresa myth is one that we also do not have the tenacity to question, unless you are Christopher Hitchens.
In an article for Slate in 2003 Hitchens wrote this scathing review of Mother Teresa, “MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty,” Hitchens continues, “And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.”
Besides attacking sweet, old ladies (I apologize in advance), the people have also began to realize that the public persona in the campaigns of politicians does not mean the promise of hope and change. Democrats and liberals are beginning to lose faith in their sainted hero Barack Obama for not being the sweeping change kind of guy they thought he was. His lack of response on the BP oil spill and pushing for alternative energy legislation and his continuation of both wars has his base livid.
On the right, Senator Scott Brown has not been the harrowing hero of the Tea Party movement that all had hoped. In fact, he has been siding with the moderates and, gasp, speaking his mind.
A New York Times article of June 1 said this of Brown, “his willingness to team up with Democrats is already raising eyebrows and ire among some voters in Massachusetts who backed his candidacy. They say he is betraying some of the conservative ideals that he espoused during the campaign — especially in his vote on the financial regulation bill.”
So what causes such delusions in the public’s mind? It could be a lack of information or just ignoring the facts. While this seems plausible, I think it is something much different. I remember hearing Christopher Hitchens discuss in an interview one time about how people will portray a picture upon someone for something that they do not want to do themselves. In the case of Mother Teresa, it is taking the task of helping the third world rise from poverty. Obama and Brown represent a willingness to want to take action on legislation that has been sitting on the docket for decades. Also, being outspoken and having a good public relations consultant to boost your resume does not hurt either.
So, where does this leave McChrystal? To the American public, McChrystal represented the man who would save Afghanistan. It was the forgotten war on Bush’s watch and the good war on Obama’s time. The strategy to most people was unclear, and McChrystal had all the answers. What the Rolling Stone article revealed were the cracks in the system. McChystal’s flaws and backtalk from him and his aids, represent the lowering of troop morale, the less than successful Marja offensive, a corrupt and weak government in Kabul, and even distrust in the military and civilian relations complex. In other words, it was the part of the biography that we chose to ignore.
Further Reading:
The Rolling Stone article that McChrystal fired
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
Christopher Hitchen's on Mother Teresa
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
NYT on Scott Brown
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/politics/02brown.html?scp=2&sq=Scott%20Brown%20%20independent&st=cse
The problem was that the media would often ignore the other scandals surrounding General McChrystal. These little tidbits include the cover up of the death of former NFL player Captain Pat Tillman in 2004 by friendly fire and some prisoner abuse at Camp Nama in Iraq in 2006. Of course, all of this was known to the public, but after the Rolling Stone article called “The Runaway General” appeared, suddenly it was shocking again because the comments wrecked his all-American boy image.
Unfortunately, the American public has a problem when it comes to recognizing the flaws in our heroes, even gaping ones. The main problem is that people are afraid of ruining the image of others for the sake of the truth. For example, Helen Keller was a virulent socialist, something you do not see in The Miracle Worker. If she were alive today, Glenn Beck would definitely call her out on it. Even the sweet old Mother Teresa myth is one that we also do not have the tenacity to question, unless you are Christopher Hitchens.
In an article for Slate in 2003 Hitchens wrote this scathing review of Mother Teresa, “MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty,” Hitchens continues, “And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.”
Besides attacking sweet, old ladies (I apologize in advance), the people have also began to realize that the public persona in the campaigns of politicians does not mean the promise of hope and change. Democrats and liberals are beginning to lose faith in their sainted hero Barack Obama for not being the sweeping change kind of guy they thought he was. His lack of response on the BP oil spill and pushing for alternative energy legislation and his continuation of both wars has his base livid.
On the right, Senator Scott Brown has not been the harrowing hero of the Tea Party movement that all had hoped. In fact, he has been siding with the moderates and, gasp, speaking his mind.
A New York Times article of June 1 said this of Brown, “his willingness to team up with Democrats is already raising eyebrows and ire among some voters in Massachusetts who backed his candidacy. They say he is betraying some of the conservative ideals that he espoused during the campaign — especially in his vote on the financial regulation bill.”
So what causes such delusions in the public’s mind? It could be a lack of information or just ignoring the facts. While this seems plausible, I think it is something much different. I remember hearing Christopher Hitchens discuss in an interview one time about how people will portray a picture upon someone for something that they do not want to do themselves. In the case of Mother Teresa, it is taking the task of helping the third world rise from poverty. Obama and Brown represent a willingness to want to take action on legislation that has been sitting on the docket for decades. Also, being outspoken and having a good public relations consultant to boost your resume does not hurt either.
So, where does this leave McChrystal? To the American public, McChrystal represented the man who would save Afghanistan. It was the forgotten war on Bush’s watch and the good war on Obama’s time. The strategy to most people was unclear, and McChrystal had all the answers. What the Rolling Stone article revealed were the cracks in the system. McChystal’s flaws and backtalk from him and his aids, represent the lowering of troop morale, the less than successful Marja offensive, a corrupt and weak government in Kabul, and even distrust in the military and civilian relations complex. In other words, it was the part of the biography that we chose to ignore.
Further Reading:
The Rolling Stone article that McChrystal fired
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
Christopher Hitchen's on Mother Teresa
http://www.slate.com/id/2090083
NYT on Scott Brown
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/politics/02brown.html?scp=2&sq=Scott%20Brown%20%20independent&st=cse
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - VI
Interesting Things
Tea and Coffee's Greatness: This recent study shows that just a few cups of tea or coffee is good for you. It can prevent heart disease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/10350373.stm
The Next Foreign Policy Challenge is Zombies: This article from Foreign Policy discussing international relations theory in a theoretical framework using a zombie attack.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/night_of_the_living_wonks
Independent Ideas
McChrystal's Mistake: Here is the Rolling Stone article that got general McChrystal fired. Were his comments out of line, you be the judge?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
More Stimulus?: This week's Time Magazine cover story talks about states having to cut local programs to balance their budgets. Should more federal stimulus be give, you be the judge?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997284,00.html
Tea and Coffee's Greatness: This recent study shows that just a few cups of tea or coffee is good for you. It can prevent heart disease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/10350373.stm
The Next Foreign Policy Challenge is Zombies: This article from Foreign Policy discussing international relations theory in a theoretical framework using a zombie attack.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/21/night_of_the_living_wonks
Independent Ideas
McChrystal's Mistake: Here is the Rolling Stone article that got general McChrystal fired. Were his comments out of line, you be the judge?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
More Stimulus?: This week's Time Magazine cover story talks about states having to cut local programs to balance their budgets. Should more federal stimulus be give, you be the judge?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997284,00.html
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Austerity and Audacity of Hope
On July 15, 1979, President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation with his famous “Malaise Speech.” It was a speech that was supposed to focus on his new energy policy, and it did to some degree. Surprisingly, Carter gave a carping criticism of the American people’s “gluttonous lifestyle.” Carter’s polemicist rhetoric received mixed reviews, but most people agreed that the attacks themselves were not totally off base. I would even argue that today that speech is still relevant, perfectly illustrating how little our materialist attitudes have not digressed.
Since that daring social analysis, most presidents have taken the tone of the modern parent. You know, the “everybody’s a winner” nonsense. Opinion polls and editorial boards would ban together to burn the president’s picture in effigy if the American people were addressed in any other fashion. Sadly, this is what is needed to push Obama’s ambitious “hopey, changey” agenda through the bloody coliseum known as Congress.
Now, many commentators have argued about the President’s address last Tuesday about his own “Katrina.” Some said that it was just an update speech on the oil spill cleanup efforts. Others argued it was an opportunity, crucially missed by Obama, to lay out his new energy policy. While all of these are valid points, I think the President needed a “Malaise Moment.” What I mean by that is a speech that says we are in a try or die situation when it comes to solving this problem - and many others.
Let me explain. To me, the oil spill is a metaphor for the rest of the country’s ills. The gushing oil is the economic and social problems that have been stacking up for decades. This laundry list includes the current economic crisis, global warming’s evils and the need for a better energy policy, the declining American education system, crucial immigration reform, two wars, and even gay marriage. Each president since Richard Nixon, as Jon Stewart so hilariously pointed out two nights ago, has decided to pass over these problems and instead passed them on to the next guy. Simply put, the cause of all these problems is bad regulation and quick fix solutions, similar to the terrible oversight and corruption in the oil industry that bore the Gulf oil disaster. Finally, the solutions to these problems are temporary band aids, like the healthcare bill that does not create the full effect of reform that is necessary to stop the hemorrhage or the stimulus that only worked for a one night stand.
What is needed by Obama now is some austerity and progress, not contradictory terms. The President must overcome this constant fear to tell the American people to “kick their own asses.” Other world leaders have the audacity and hope to tackle such problems.
David Cameron, Britain’s newly elected prime minister, recently stated in regards to the financial crisis, “Around the world people and their government are waking up to the dangers of not dealing with their debts. And Britain must be part of that mainstream,” even adding that British citizens were “paying the price” for terrible behavior in the past and too large of a public sector.
Cameron is not the only one. Greece’s leaders have passed austerity measures limiting the public sector spending, despite raucous protests from its people. Japan has also been trying to counteract the trend by instituting new reforms for its social and economic ills.
Japan’s new leader, Naoto Kan, even said, “Our reforms are becoming more concrete. The hopes voters had for the Democratic Party will not end up as a mere dream. They will be realised. That is what I want people to know.”
The point is that President Obama cannot sit on the sidelines and pander to the American people. I know that the president is scared that the American public will lash out at him; especially conservative talking heads who would call him un-American for saying the U.S. should apologize for its excessive behavior, yet, paradoxically, using the same language to scare the American people. Mitt Romney would even have a sequel to his book, No Apology II: Now it’s Domestic and Personal.
In the end, economic austerity and social growth is what is necessary to get this nation back on the path towards greatness. Austerity in the sense of cutting back on energy consumption (not driving a hummer), spending less on personal items (trust me, you do not need a new iPhone every two months), and axing more military spending (even by cutting it in half America will still have the strongest military in the world). For social growth, America needs a strong education system, a new energy policy, and moving past our homophobic ideas to let gays marry. The president missed a crucial opportunity on Tuesday to face the problem head on with the perfect forum, the important setting of the Oval Office, and the rhetorical skills for a true “ass kicking speech.” All I ask is that you be your campaign, Mr. President. The rest of the world is, why aren’t you?
Further Watching:
President Obama's Oval Office speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh76oepKFc8
President Carter's "Malaise Speech"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g
Since that daring social analysis, most presidents have taken the tone of the modern parent. You know, the “everybody’s a winner” nonsense. Opinion polls and editorial boards would ban together to burn the president’s picture in effigy if the American people were addressed in any other fashion. Sadly, this is what is needed to push Obama’s ambitious “hopey, changey” agenda through the bloody coliseum known as Congress.
Now, many commentators have argued about the President’s address last Tuesday about his own “Katrina.” Some said that it was just an update speech on the oil spill cleanup efforts. Others argued it was an opportunity, crucially missed by Obama, to lay out his new energy policy. While all of these are valid points, I think the President needed a “Malaise Moment.” What I mean by that is a speech that says we are in a try or die situation when it comes to solving this problem - and many others.
Let me explain. To me, the oil spill is a metaphor for the rest of the country’s ills. The gushing oil is the economic and social problems that have been stacking up for decades. This laundry list includes the current economic crisis, global warming’s evils and the need for a better energy policy, the declining American education system, crucial immigration reform, two wars, and even gay marriage. Each president since Richard Nixon, as Jon Stewart so hilariously pointed out two nights ago, has decided to pass over these problems and instead passed them on to the next guy. Simply put, the cause of all these problems is bad regulation and quick fix solutions, similar to the terrible oversight and corruption in the oil industry that bore the Gulf oil disaster. Finally, the solutions to these problems are temporary band aids, like the healthcare bill that does not create the full effect of reform that is necessary to stop the hemorrhage or the stimulus that only worked for a one night stand.
What is needed by Obama now is some austerity and progress, not contradictory terms. The President must overcome this constant fear to tell the American people to “kick their own asses.” Other world leaders have the audacity and hope to tackle such problems.
David Cameron, Britain’s newly elected prime minister, recently stated in regards to the financial crisis, “Around the world people and their government are waking up to the dangers of not dealing with their debts. And Britain must be part of that mainstream,” even adding that British citizens were “paying the price” for terrible behavior in the past and too large of a public sector.
Cameron is not the only one. Greece’s leaders have passed austerity measures limiting the public sector spending, despite raucous protests from its people. Japan has also been trying to counteract the trend by instituting new reforms for its social and economic ills.
Japan’s new leader, Naoto Kan, even said, “Our reforms are becoming more concrete. The hopes voters had for the Democratic Party will not end up as a mere dream. They will be realised. That is what I want people to know.”
The point is that President Obama cannot sit on the sidelines and pander to the American people. I know that the president is scared that the American public will lash out at him; especially conservative talking heads who would call him un-American for saying the U.S. should apologize for its excessive behavior, yet, paradoxically, using the same language to scare the American people. Mitt Romney would even have a sequel to his book, No Apology II: Now it’s Domestic and Personal.
In the end, economic austerity and social growth is what is necessary to get this nation back on the path towards greatness. Austerity in the sense of cutting back on energy consumption (not driving a hummer), spending less on personal items (trust me, you do not need a new iPhone every two months), and axing more military spending (even by cutting it in half America will still have the strongest military in the world). For social growth, America needs a strong education system, a new energy policy, and moving past our homophobic ideas to let gays marry. The president missed a crucial opportunity on Tuesday to face the problem head on with the perfect forum, the important setting of the Oval Office, and the rhetorical skills for a true “ass kicking speech.” All I ask is that you be your campaign, Mr. President. The rest of the world is, why aren’t you?
Further Watching:
President Obama's Oval Office speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh76oepKFc8
President Carter's "Malaise Speech"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCOd-qWZB_g
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - V
Interesting Things
Anger Management: When North Carolina Senator Bob Etheridge gets mad don't get in his way as this student did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60oNUoHBYM
The Kennedy Files: The late Senator Ted Kennedy's FBI files were released this week with some interesting information about the senator's life.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/14/the-kennedy-files-new-tidbits-on-america-s-political-royalty.html
Independent Ideas
Livin' on a Prayer?: On Tuesday night, President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval office about the BP oil spill and energy policy. Was he strong enough? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh76oepKFc8
Alvin!!!: Here is the crucial interview with Keith Olbermann that is making the country question Alvin Greene's legitimacy. Is he legitimate? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxnTYPZOmK0
Anger Management: When North Carolina Senator Bob Etheridge gets mad don't get in his way as this student did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60oNUoHBYM
The Kennedy Files: The late Senator Ted Kennedy's FBI files were released this week with some interesting information about the senator's life.
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/14/the-kennedy-files-new-tidbits-on-america-s-political-royalty.html
Independent Ideas
Livin' on a Prayer?: On Tuesday night, President Obama addressed the nation from the Oval office about the BP oil spill and energy policy. Was he strong enough? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh76oepKFc8
Alvin!!!: Here is the crucial interview with Keith Olbermann that is making the country question Alvin Greene's legitimacy. Is he legitimate? You be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxnTYPZOmK0
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Comparative Disadvantage
For the past month, the mainstream media has incessantly called the Gulf oil spill “Obama’s Katrina” because of the federal governments slow reaction time, although when is the federal government really fast at doing anything. More to the point, before the latest environmental catastrophe the media called the economic crisis the worst since the Great Depression, even going so far as to call it “The Great Recession.” Even the War in Afghanistan has been compared to the Vietnam War.
What is striking to me is how the media makes the problem much worse by writing in the history books how terrible one event is compared to another event. When, in reality, the comparisons indubitably make the problem worse because it alters the public mindset about the event. Now, this is not to say that the general public is tableau rasa, Latin for blank slate, when it comes to having preconceived notions about events, but the comparisons made by the sensationalist media definitely do not help.
On the one hand, comparisons are a useful tool. Psychologically, comparisons provide a frame of reference to guide how one views the world. It is only through such heuristic devices that a person can decide whether to take decisive action. In other words, it sets a paradigm as to how a crisis should be solved.
I should also mention that it provides a great tool for writers. I often use comparisons in my own work for a guide, sometimes too much some would argue. So, I am not arguing for the death of the rhetorical art of comparison. Most writing would die a painful death otherwise. My point is the responsible usage of a comparison is very important.
The other side of the coin is that comparisons can have devastating consequences. First, it can make an event look worse than it actually appears. For example, the current recession is not like the Great Depression. Unemployment now is currently 9.7% while it was around 25% during the Great Depression, never getting below 10% under President Roosevelt’s watch.
Second is that bad comparisons often make someone look foolish. Calling President Obama as “nasty, brutish, and short,” to steal Hobbes great line, as Hitler is not a very good comparison. Nor is this comparison good to talk about any U.S. president. It also makes a person look like a historically ignorant imbecile.
Third is how comparisons will raise false hopes. Paul Fussell wrote an excellent book called The Great War and Modern Memory discussing how World War I was reflected in modern literature. He points out that with the development of trench warfare the old 17th Century style of writing about battles seemed archaic and unrealistic. It gave the public an almost mythical perception about war.
In an interview in 1996 with Humanities magazine Fussell stated, “after every war, there’s an immense overhaul of language, which in the Western world has created really the culture and artistic phenomenon of what we call modernism; that is pairing down everything to minimal size…everything you cut out deceives you.”
Fourth is the usage of the comparison to make bad decisions. For example, after Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Adolf Hitler before World War II the result ended not as planned. This has always been used as a justification to not negotiate with the enemy, when in some instances it could be rather successful. Examples include stalled Six Party Nuclear Talks with North Korea and amnesty programs for Taliban fighters. Although not perfect, it can work.
Finally any good comparison or standard is hard to live up to. I would argue that it prevents progress. The reason that science advanced very slowly after the generation of Aristotle was because people would not leave old Aristotilian ideas behind, making the ideas of elements very hard to come up with afterwards. So, living in Aristotle’s shadow was not a good thing in this instance.
The comparison is a deadly tool and should be used with caution. Drudging up bad memories is not a very healthy objective, it only makes people act more frightened. I will say that Franklin Roosevelt nailed the point by not making a comparison, but stating the matter of fact situation when he lamented, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Sadly, the trend has never really gained in popularity.
Further Reading:
The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell
Paul Fussell interview
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1996-11/fussell.html
Six Party Talks explanation
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13593/sixparty_talks_on_north_koreas_nuclear_program.html
Note: I apologize for the lateness of this post. I had internet trouble last night.
What is striking to me is how the media makes the problem much worse by writing in the history books how terrible one event is compared to another event. When, in reality, the comparisons indubitably make the problem worse because it alters the public mindset about the event. Now, this is not to say that the general public is tableau rasa, Latin for blank slate, when it comes to having preconceived notions about events, but the comparisons made by the sensationalist media definitely do not help.
On the one hand, comparisons are a useful tool. Psychologically, comparisons provide a frame of reference to guide how one views the world. It is only through such heuristic devices that a person can decide whether to take decisive action. In other words, it sets a paradigm as to how a crisis should be solved.
I should also mention that it provides a great tool for writers. I often use comparisons in my own work for a guide, sometimes too much some would argue. So, I am not arguing for the death of the rhetorical art of comparison. Most writing would die a painful death otherwise. My point is the responsible usage of a comparison is very important.
The other side of the coin is that comparisons can have devastating consequences. First, it can make an event look worse than it actually appears. For example, the current recession is not like the Great Depression. Unemployment now is currently 9.7% while it was around 25% during the Great Depression, never getting below 10% under President Roosevelt’s watch.
Second is that bad comparisons often make someone look foolish. Calling President Obama as “nasty, brutish, and short,” to steal Hobbes great line, as Hitler is not a very good comparison. Nor is this comparison good to talk about any U.S. president. It also makes a person look like a historically ignorant imbecile.
Third is how comparisons will raise false hopes. Paul Fussell wrote an excellent book called The Great War and Modern Memory discussing how World War I was reflected in modern literature. He points out that with the development of trench warfare the old 17th Century style of writing about battles seemed archaic and unrealistic. It gave the public an almost mythical perception about war.
In an interview in 1996 with Humanities magazine Fussell stated, “after every war, there’s an immense overhaul of language, which in the Western world has created really the culture and artistic phenomenon of what we call modernism; that is pairing down everything to minimal size…everything you cut out deceives you.”
Fourth is the usage of the comparison to make bad decisions. For example, after Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Adolf Hitler before World War II the result ended not as planned. This has always been used as a justification to not negotiate with the enemy, when in some instances it could be rather successful. Examples include stalled Six Party Nuclear Talks with North Korea and amnesty programs for Taliban fighters. Although not perfect, it can work.
Finally any good comparison or standard is hard to live up to. I would argue that it prevents progress. The reason that science advanced very slowly after the generation of Aristotle was because people would not leave old Aristotilian ideas behind, making the ideas of elements very hard to come up with afterwards. So, living in Aristotle’s shadow was not a good thing in this instance.
The comparison is a deadly tool and should be used with caution. Drudging up bad memories is not a very healthy objective, it only makes people act more frightened. I will say that Franklin Roosevelt nailed the point by not making a comparison, but stating the matter of fact situation when he lamented, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Sadly, the trend has never really gained in popularity.
Further Reading:
The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell
Paul Fussell interview
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1996-11/fussell.html
Six Party Talks explanation
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13593/sixparty_talks_on_north_koreas_nuclear_program.html
Note: I apologize for the lateness of this post. I had internet trouble last night.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - IV
Interesting Things
Whose ass will the president kick?: This funny remark by the president demonstrates that you can say "kick ass" even in a formal setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXBSotezfc4&feature=popular
Let Freedom Sing: This clip from a tea party rally was really stunning and touching to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ
Wifi trouble: When Steve Jobs unveiled the new iPhone 4, well let's just say that he had problems connecting to wifi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vbp4_h8B8Y
Independent Ideas
Chomsky on the Tea Party: In this video, Noam Chomsky, the famous American intellectual, says that the left should work with the Teabaggers instead of mocking them. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE
Humanities majors unite: New York Times columnist decided to talk about the benefits of being a humanities major in college. Is it a good career move, you be the judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=todayspaper
Whose ass will the president kick?: This funny remark by the president demonstrates that you can say "kick ass" even in a formal setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXBSotezfc4&feature=popular
Let Freedom Sing: This clip from a tea party rally was really stunning and touching to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_bP219ehQ
Wifi trouble: When Steve Jobs unveiled the new iPhone 4, well let's just say that he had problems connecting to wifi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vbp4_h8B8Y
Independent Ideas
Chomsky on the Tea Party: In this video, Noam Chomsky, the famous American intellectual, says that the left should work with the Teabaggers instead of mocking them. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2zYaKXeyXE
Humanities majors unite: New York Times columnist decided to talk about the benefits of being a humanities major in college. Is it a good career move, you be the judge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/08brooks.html?ref=todayspaper
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Commission for the Future
We live in a world of mistakes and miscalculations. The financial crisis was caused by greedy, fatcat bankers behaving badly and a "mistaken" loan program. The recent oil spill was caused by BP's 700 plus safety "mistakes." Even the new wave of terrorist attacks was caused by "mistakes" in the intelligence community. While we are all human and make unfortunate errors, what really matters is how we handle crisis afterwards. A common mistake, but a good common sense idea never the less, is to appoint a commission to study the past to understand what caused the terrible calamity.
This week, President Obama decided to appoint former EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush, Bob Graham, and Bill Reilly, also an EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush and the leader of the Exxon Valdez cleanup response team. The purpose of this commission is to look into what happened and who is to blame for it. The commission itself is also a way to have a check on the oil and gas industry.
In other commission news, the Vatican is appointing a team to look at several Irish parishes who had sexual abuse problems to understand what went wrong. The New York Times on Tuesday of this week reported that while some people say that this investigation should have happened earlier, at least it is occurring now.
Both of these examples illustrate a problem of looking into the past and not far enough into the future. Actions like this need to happen sooner rather than later. Also in both examples are clear patterns of misconduct and violations that were problematic. This means that these issues should have been dealt with earlier or at least recognized as a problem.
We have a problem in our society with wanting to wait until it is too late to solve an issue. Leaders often wait until after a crisis, then make a commission. Then, the commission will usually look at the past crisis and not anything current. This should change.
I know that people cannot see into the future to predict the next big catastrophe, but usually there are recognizable patterns that point to trouble in paradise. So, instead of creating commissions just after a big accident, leaders should appoint commissions to study disturbing trends now. For example, if a financial indicator is not where it should be have a commission study it. If there is a disturbing weather pattern in an area many people know to be unsafe, study it before disaster strikes. If there is a corporation that has numerous violations in a particular area, study it to find out if it will collapse and the repercussions of that collapse.
Some will criticize this as an impossible task. I say neigh. What gets in the way of solving simple problems is political trade offs and the classic sin of omission. Think about this, it would be great if for once we could tell a generation of students in history class that our leaders saw a pattern and prevented the next war or financial meltdown. History would then become about heroic, competent moves and not a record of egregious, boneheaded moves.
The word "mistake" seems to permeate the world as the underlying cause of everything, but instead of attacking yesterdays mistakes why not attack tomorrow's mistakes today?
Further Reading:
Obama's speech about the oil commission
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-after-meeting-with-bp-oil-spill-commission-co-chairs
Another article about the oil commission
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9G3LBGO0.htm
New York Times article about the Vatican's investigation team
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/europe/01vatican.html?ref=todayspaper
This week, President Obama decided to appoint former EPA administrator under President George H.W. Bush, Bob Graham, and Bill Reilly, also an EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush and the leader of the Exxon Valdez cleanup response team. The purpose of this commission is to look into what happened and who is to blame for it. The commission itself is also a way to have a check on the oil and gas industry.
In other commission news, the Vatican is appointing a team to look at several Irish parishes who had sexual abuse problems to understand what went wrong. The New York Times on Tuesday of this week reported that while some people say that this investigation should have happened earlier, at least it is occurring now.
Both of these examples illustrate a problem of looking into the past and not far enough into the future. Actions like this need to happen sooner rather than later. Also in both examples are clear patterns of misconduct and violations that were problematic. This means that these issues should have been dealt with earlier or at least recognized as a problem.
We have a problem in our society with wanting to wait until it is too late to solve an issue. Leaders often wait until after a crisis, then make a commission. Then, the commission will usually look at the past crisis and not anything current. This should change.
I know that people cannot see into the future to predict the next big catastrophe, but usually there are recognizable patterns that point to trouble in paradise. So, instead of creating commissions just after a big accident, leaders should appoint commissions to study disturbing trends now. For example, if a financial indicator is not where it should be have a commission study it. If there is a disturbing weather pattern in an area many people know to be unsafe, study it before disaster strikes. If there is a corporation that has numerous violations in a particular area, study it to find out if it will collapse and the repercussions of that collapse.
Some will criticize this as an impossible task. I say neigh. What gets in the way of solving simple problems is political trade offs and the classic sin of omission. Think about this, it would be great if for once we could tell a generation of students in history class that our leaders saw a pattern and prevented the next war or financial meltdown. History would then become about heroic, competent moves and not a record of egregious, boneheaded moves.
The word "mistake" seems to permeate the world as the underlying cause of everything, but instead of attacking yesterdays mistakes why not attack tomorrow's mistakes today?
Further Reading:
Obama's speech about the oil commission
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-after-meeting-with-bp-oil-spill-commission-co-chairs
Another article about the oil commission
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9G3LBGO0.htm
New York Times article about the Vatican's investigation team
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/europe/01vatican.html?ref=todayspaper
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Interesting Things and Independent Ideas - III
Interesting Things (Brain edition)
Einstein's brain: This article from NPR talks about the journey of Einstein's brain and what scientists have discovered from it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305
Being creative or schizophenic: A story from the BBC shows that schizophenia and creativity share similar brain patterns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10154775.stm
Independent Ideas
Were liberals wrong on crime?: Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, discusses his change of heart on the causes of crime. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053101640.html
Vatican's sovereignty: Christopher Hitchens has no problem attacking the Catholic Church, and even played the role of devil's advocate in the sainthood process of Mother Teresa. Here, Hitchens says that Vatican should not be a sovereign state or if it is then it should be treated like one. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255270/
Einstein's brain: This article from NPR talks about the journey of Einstein's brain and what scientists have discovered from it.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126229305
Being creative or schizophenic: A story from the BBC shows that schizophenia and creativity share similar brain patterns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10154775.stm
Independent Ideas
Were liberals wrong on crime?: Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, discusses his change of heart on the causes of crime. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053101640.html
Vatican's sovereignty: Christopher Hitchens has no problem attacking the Catholic Church, and even played the role of devil's advocate in the sainthood process of Mother Teresa. Here, Hitchens says that Vatican should not be a sovereign state or if it is then it should be treated like one. Is he right, you be the judge.
http://www.slate.com/id/2255270/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
