|
pnrj
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Patrick
Country: United States
State: Michigan
Metro: Ann Arbor
Gender: Male
Interests: My greatest passions are for relationships (both friendly and romantic), creative writing, and theoretical physics. Indeed I plan to write my autobiography: I, Love, Writing, Physics.
Expertise: My skills are primarily in writing and mathematics, though I have a fair knack for Latin and I'm not atrocious at drawing or composing. Not much of an athlete, nor do I care to be. I'm still working on that whole relationship business. Making good friends is far harder--and far more important--than writing stories or solving equations.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Literature
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
5/3/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| laissez-faire is incoherent."Let it be." Let what be?
Typically, we use concept this to mean that government should not regulate or interfere with corporations.
But what, exactly, is a "government"? And what is a "corporation"?
If we define "government" as "a structured system of elected and appointed representatives," then the UM Board of Regents is a "government"---and a monarchy or dictatorship is not.
If we define "government" as the people who are allowed to use military force, then Blackwater is "government."
Indeed, there is really no difference between the widest definition of a "government" and the widest definition of a "corporation." Both are smaller groups of people with social and economic authority over larger groups of people.
Put another way, the "market mechanism," His Great and Inviolable Holiness the One True Market Mechanism of classical economics, applies just as well---and just as poorly---to the behavior of governments and individuals as it does to corporations. If it were really true that the market mechanism naturally settles itself out into an ideal result---then it would do that for governments as well, and there would be no difference between "laissez-faire" and any other system.
Now, as it turns out, classical economics is wrong, and the market mechanism, if it does reach an equilibrium ever, takes so many million years to do it that human civilization may not exist when we finally hit the Ultimate Nash Equilibrium. Classical economics may or may not work in the "long run," but we don't live in the "long run." People are suffering and dying right now! We don't have time to wait!
Indeed... total destruction of the human race may turn out to be the only stable equilibrium in the system! We may have to annihilate ourselves to reach equilibrium. (Another problem: What is counted as an "externality" in classical economics pretty much accounts for everything that matters in real life, such as health, happiness, environmental sustainability, fairness, equality, justice, ethics... basically the word "externality" means "that which is not available for monetary exchange." The price of everything and the value of nothing, anyone?)
Now, on the one hand, self-described "laissez-faire" economics understand this---they don't want to "let it be" when it comes to government structure, social regulation, foreign policy, or (usually) ethical and environmental standards. They realize that this would be a horrible idea, that millions of people would suffer and die (not to mention the millions of people who suffer and die already), and that a good citizenry always works vigilantly to prevent abuses by its government.
So why not do the same with our corporations? Why not use the power we have---both in protest, in purchasing, and, yes, in supporting government regulation---to prevent abuses by corporations? Why is a "laissez-faire" mind so compartmentalized in this regard? Why don't they realize that breaking monopolies, limiting pollution, and upholding ethical standards for corporate conduct is precisely what a government needs to be doing?
Now, it's an open question whether any given government manipulation on business is wise; some things (a law that says each business must make exactly $10 million of profit each year, no more, no less) would obviously be bad, and we should certainly carefully consider arguments that other things, e.g. minimum wage laws, are damaging to the economy. But first, we should recognize that some regulations are good and others bad, and therefore evaluate each policy on its own merits and demerits, rather than assume that regulation is intrinsically evil and that everything would work if we just pulled out all the stops; second, we must also consider whether the social benefits of these regulations in fact outweigh their economic costs. If the US GDP would drop 15%, but starvation would be ended in the world---I would support that policy wholeheartedly. Money isn't all that matters.
Hopefully, the current economic crisis, largely the result of foolhardy forms of deregulation, will spur a greater social understanding of this fact, that regulation comes in both good and bad forms, and any policy which tries to be "laissez-faire" is ill-defined and probably incoherent.
| | |
| On rhetoricElection years always bring out the use of a lot of rhetoric. They also bring out the use of a lot of meaningless platitudes in the name of actual policy ideas.
I would like to point out that it is the latter, not the former, which is the problem.
Rhetoric, combined with good ideas, can be more effective than good ideas alone; compare:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
"Recently, people in the United States have come to expect a certain entitlement from their government, even when they are not willing to stand up to support and improve that government; it is time that we change this, and enter an era in which people are willing to work to improve their nation as they ask that their government provide for them."
The content is essentially the same; yet the former is much more memorable, and much more powerful. It's not just rhetoric; it's rhetoric combined with good ideas.
This would be just rhetoric:
"Ask not what apple pie can be against terrorism, but what terrorists can be against apple pie."
I'm not quite sure what this means, but I'm pretty sure it's not that useful. It is however the same form of rhetoric as used in Kennedy's speech above.
To use more contemporary examples:
"maverick" and "hockey mom" really don't mean anything... they just sound good to some people apparently, or at least the people managing the Republican campaign think they do. "yes we can" means something... but still not a lot.
However, compare these segments from Obama's website versus McCain's website:
"The teenagers and college
students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and
Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a
long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's
kitchen — they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their
grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the
beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted;
whether their civil rights would be protected by their government;
whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs. . . .
We have more work to do."
"John McCain understands that today’s changing economy is making it
harder for parents to balance the demands of family life and their
jobs. He believes that strong families require that parents be involved
in the lives of their children. Flexible work arrangements can help
families strike the right balance.
John McCain was proud to support the Family Medical Leave Act in
1993 that ensured men and women are able to take leave to care for a
newborn child, adopt a child or care for an immediate family member
with a serious health condition and return to a position that is
substantially equal in pay, benefits, and responsibility. This was a
needed minimum standard to ensure that parents were not penalized for
making the important decision to raise a family.
John
McCain co-sponsored the Family Friendly Workplace Act, which sought to
allow employers to provide flexible work schedules to help employees
balance the demands and needs of work and family, such as allowing
employees to take compensatory time-off rather than be paid overtime
and to work more than 40 hours in one week and correspondingly less in
another week."
Are these both rhetorical? Absolutely. Indeed, I'd say Obama is a good bit better at using rhetoric; whereas McCain just seems to enjoy repeating "McCain, McCain, McCain," Obama's words conjure vivid images of the struggles in the civil rights movement.
But if we analyze the content, Obama does better on that as well: these are different issues, obviously (I chose this pairing for two reasons: first, McCain has no stated civil rights policy, suggesting basically he doesn't care about civil rights; and second, Obama's stated policy on economics is so tightly described that it doesn't even really use any rhetoric!), but the content of the first seems to be something like this:
"Americans have worked very hard and suffered a great deal in the past to achieve civil rights and equality for people of different races and ethnicities. Yet as recent events have shown, in voter disenfranchisement, repealing of government regulations against discrimination, and the lack of enforcement of equal opportunity legislation, there is still much work that needs to be done, and the Obama administration is planning on doing some of this work. Civil rights is important to us, and we will work toward it."
The content of the second, in contrast, seems to be:
"Flexible work arrangements are good for families because they allow parents to be more involved in their children's lives. McCain voted a few times in the past to support legislation that would offer some degree of increased flexibility in work arrangements."
The first, one might argue, is obvious; but since McCain has no stated civil rights policy... maybe it's not so obvious to Republicans!
The second, inarguably, is trivial; on this one particular issue that has only the most incidental relevance to the economy, McCain, in the past, voted a few times to support it. Yay? What's he going to do now? In the present? In the future? By the way, this is only a small segment of what's on McCain's site; the site spends several pages of text discussing flexible work arrangements. Honestly, who cares?
Or we can look at the debate on the economy. [CNN transcript]
Obama:
"So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've
put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect
taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort. No. 1, we've got to make sure that we've got oversight over this whole process; $700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money.
No. 2, we've got to make sure that taxpayers, when they are putting
their money at risk, have the possibility of getting that money back
and gains, if the market -- and when the market returns. No. 3, we've got to make sure that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes.
And, No. 4, we've got to make sure that we're helping homeowners,
because the root problem here has to do with the foreclosures that are
taking place all across the country. "
This is a tightly argued, rhetorically forceful statement; yet it also has a lot of content, about oversight, return on investment, restrictions on CEOs, and home foreclosures. Would that this had been the actual bailout policy!
Compare to McCain:
"And, Jim, I -- I've been not feeling too great about a lot
of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges.
But I'm feeling a little better tonight, and I'll tell you why.
Because as we're here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the
first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting
down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we're in.
And have no doubt about the magnitude of this crisis. And we're not
talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We're talking
about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and
their credits, and their homes, if we don't fix the greatest fiscal
crisis, probably in -- certainly in our time, and I've been around a
little while. But the point is -- the point is, we have finally
seen Republicans and Democrats sitting down and negotiating together
and coming up with a package. This package has transparency in
it. It has to have accountability and oversight. It has to have options
for loans to failing businesses, rather than the government taking over
those loans. We have to -- it has to have a package with a number of
other essential elements to it. And, yes, I went back to
Washington, and I met with my Republicans in the House of
Representatives. And they weren't part of the negotiations, and I
understand that. And it was the House Republicans that decided that
they would be part of the solution to this problem." The rhetoric here is, if anything, weaker; McCain seems to lose his way in the argument a few times. (He also jokes about his age, "I've been around a little while"?)
But more importantly, there is very little content here! "There should be a bailout package with oversight and the opportunity for privatization, and it's important that this be a bipartisan vote; also, remember, I went back to Washington." Now, I could go on for awhile about how idiotic it would be to allow privatization in a bailout proposal that was trying to rectify the problems of privatization, or the fact that McCain's trip to Washington did far more harm than good, or the fact that bipartisanship in this case is just a way for both parties to cover their asses, [note my paralepsis, a clever form of rhetoric!] but more importantly, McCain just spent more time saying less, less compellingly.
Overall, what I'm trying to say here is that we shouldn't be attacking the "rhetoric" of campaigning; rhetoric is useful, and necessary. We should be attacking the emptiness of content which so often characterizes campaigning; that's the real problem here.
| | |
| Yes, I’m a goddless queer liberal intellectual.Yes, I’m godless.
I’m a proud atheist, a-Thor-ist, a-Zeus-ist, a-unicorn-ist,
and non-astrologer; I believe in science, in human beings and other living
things; I do not believe in invisible magical beings.
Yes, I’m queer.
I’ve been sexually involved with both men and women in the
past, and I intend to be in the future.
I identify as bisexual and participate in LGBT activism.
I’ve read the Kinsey Reports in their entirety.
I understand the Klein scale.
I masturbate to porn involving men, women, or both, and I’m
not ashamed to say it.
I know a lot of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, and a few
trans people. Some are my friends; many are not.
Yes, I’m liberal.
I believe that sex is good, between men and women, between
men and men, between women an women; I even think sex can sometimes be good
between men and dogs or between little boys and little girls.
While I think many drugs are dangerous and abortion is
usually bad, I don’t think that illegalization is the answer.
I believe in free speech, even when it hurts; not just for
politics, but for porn, and for racism, and for homophobia, and for “hate
speech” and the “obscene.” I except only—only—the
performative, the proverbial “fire in a crowded theater.” People must literally
be physically hurt by the consequences of speech before speech can be
restricted.
I believe that men and women are morally equal and
ontologically not that different; indeed, I believe that “man” and “woman” are
not the only or the best categorization scheme we could be using.
I believe that life, liberty, food, shelter, and health care
are fundamental rights that we have an obligation to provide for everyone.
I think that capitalism support greed over human rights, and
I continually search for ways to reform or eliminate it.
I don’t eat meat and I buy fair trade and sweatfree.
I vote Democrat, and I’d vote Green if I thought they had a
chance, or if we had a voting system (like range voting!) in which votes couldn’t
be spoiled.
I believe in renewable energy and the power of technological
innovation—in 2030, when we invent stable fusion, you oil barons are going to
look pretty stupid!
I support stem cell research on adults, embryos, and
everyone in between. I believe in the power of genetic testing and therapy to
treat and prevent disease.
I don’t care about cloning; it’s a non-issue.
I support war only in the most extreme circumstances, when
all alternatives have failed and military action is necessary to protect human
rights. I support violence only in last-resort defense of self or innocents,
and my policy on war is no different.
For the time being, I oppose capital punishment. If our
courts can be reformed to accurately decide guilt and innocence based on sound
evidence (DNA, polygraph, Bayesian reasoning) instead of showy, meaningless
reasons (witness testimony, lawyer rhetoric, prejudice), and if capital
punishment can be shown to be more effective or more cost-effective at
deterring violent crime than imprisonment, I might change my mind.
Yes, I’m intellectual.
I’ve had 16 years of schooling so far, and I plan at least
6, maybe even 10 or more, to come.
I have studied physics and neuroscience, and excelled in
both; put another way, rocket science is easy for me, and I could be a brain
surgeon if I had steadier hands and less squeamishness around blood and
internal organs.
I am studying a field (cognitive science) which is so new
and esoteric I usually have to explain what it is.
I hope to someday help solve the Hard Problem, which is,
well, probably the hardest problem ever encountered in science; and I’m in the
right field to do that.
Unlike most Americans, I recognize that Darwinian evolution
is every bit as strong a theory as Einsteinian gravitation—and I have studied
both.
Unlike 40% of Americans (Gallup, 2004), I recognize that the
Earth is 4.5 billion and not 6 thousand years old.
I know what the Hardy-Weinberg equation is and why it is
trivial. I can derive E=mc2
from first principles, and I wrote a book which does just that.
I have a full-tuition scholarship to an internationally
renowned research university.
I understand that anthropogenic climate change (what most
people call “global warming” as if the Earth where in a giant microwave) is not
only a real phenomenon, but one of the major problems facing human
civilization.
I know what a correlation coefficient is, and how to
calculate and interpret one.
I’m working on designing a portable human-powered generator.
I initiate my own research projects on religiosity and
sexuality.
Unlike most people, I know the difference between
correlation and causation, and between a difference in mean and a categorical
distinction.
I’ve studied four foreign languages: Arabic, Japanese,
Spanish, and above all, Latin.
I can translate Vergil in about 2-3 minutes per line. I can
read Caesar at about half the rate I read English.
I could point out your gastrocnemius, your uvula (I don’t
have one; it was surgically removed), your occipital lobe, and your pituitary
gland.
Yes, the stereotypes
are true (to some extent).
Liberalism and atheism are correlated:
Correlation between religious index and Republicanism: 22%. Hadden, J.K. (1963) “An analysis of some
factors associated with religion and political affiliation in a college
population.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 2(2): 209-216.
Correlation between atheism and leftism: 10%. Geissbuhler, S. (2002). “No religion, no
(political) values? Political attitudes of atheists in comparison.” Journal for the Study of Religion and
Ideology 2(2): 114-122.
Liberalism and LGBT status are correlated: Stonewall
Democrats has 90 chapters, while Log Cabin Republicans has only 47.
Religious belief is correlated negatively with education,
especially across denominations. Sacerdote, B. and Glaeser, E.L. (2001). “Education
and Religion.” National Bureau of
Economic Research working paper W8080.
If that’s too much science for you, I’m sorry I don’t have
any Bible verses to quote. The gist is this: Liberals really are more likely
than conservatives to be godless, queer, and intellectual. Of course, it’s a
correlation… we don’t know the causation. There could be many factors at work.
(though LGBT and liberalism seems pretty obvious!)
And you know what? I’m
proud.
It’s good to be
liberal, good to be godless, good to be intellectual. It’s not even
so bad to be queer.
I’d much rather be who I am than any fundie right-wing
redneck—and if that makes me less “American,” I’ll happily move to Canada, the
UK, Australia, Sweden, or Norway as soon as I can. I just wish it wasn’t the rednecks who
control the nuclear launch codes.
| | |
| Should we use the word "Feminism"?So I attended a mass meeting of The F-Word today, and it got me thinking about some things, especially that "F-word" itself: Feminism. Should we use it? Why or why not?
On the one hand, feminism can mean, and does mean to many people, including the majority of The F-Word, a philosophy of egalitarianism regardless of gender, e.g. "the radical notion that women are people." Anyone who disagrees with this kind of "feminism" is frankly a bigot, and has views which do not deserve any respect in a civilized society.
But on the other hand, feminism has come to mean many other things besides this. There really are "feminists" who consider women superior to men, who think that all heterosexuality is rape, even ones who believe that logic and the scientific method are instruments of patriarchal hegemony. All of this nonsense is also wrapped up in that word, "feminism."
Even the literal meaning of the word is problematic: why "feminism"? Why are we emphasizing the female, the feminine? What does "feminine" even mean in a society which really rejects gender norms?
I think a comparison with another taboo word is in order: The N-Word, "nigger." This word is, rightly I think, highly offensive to the majority of Americans today. It has connotations representing oppression and slavery and racism. Yet, it can also be used amicably, as a term of endearment between members of the Black community. It can have a positive meaning... yet its negative meaning nearly always outweighs its positive meaning, and therefore the word should be used sparingly, if at all. The Q-Word, "queer," is similar, being used positively within the LGBT community and quite negatively outside it.
Feminism is similarly problematic. It has acquired connotations that are so negative and inextricable that the use of the word "feminism" may actually be detrimental to the advancement of social justice and gender equality. The fact that many people think that no male can truly be a "feminist" is just a small part of the unfortunate connotations this word has acquired.
I don't think we should use it. I think we should use "humanism," or "egalitarianism," or specify "gender egalitarianism" if we are focusing on that; perhaps "anti-sexism" or "gender equality activism." It's almost impossible for anyone to twist "egalitarianism" so that it sounds like one group is being privileged over another; yet this is exactly what the word "feminism" has come to mean for many people.
A "feminist" might oppose changing draft law to include women as much as it includes men; a "feminist" might oppose scientific research that appears to show human sexual dimorphism; a "feminist" might argue that no woman can ever be in a positive relationship with any man. (Actually, that appears to be the central message of The Vagina Monologues.) Or not... but that's the problem; it's ambiguous.
An "egalitarian" would never do these things. And that's why I think we need to use this clearer term instead.
[Another little thing bothers me: Period on the Diag Day. While I acknowledge that menstruation is stigmatized in contemporary society, and I don't think it should be... SO IS EVERY OTHER HUMAN BODILY FUNCTION, GENDERED OR NOT. It would be unacceptable to hold up posters about saliva, or urine, or feces; it would be unacceptable to hold up posters about ejaculation or foreskin, and at least weird to hold up signs about erectile dysfunction. People at F-Word are talking about handing out signs about how, if men could menstruate, it would be celebrated; bullshit. When people are standing in public spaces cheering for nocturnal emission, you may join them with your cheers for menstruation.]
| | |
| Range voting: Why aren't we using it?Range voting. It fits naturally with the way people think ("I like 60% of what Obama says, and 10% of what McCain says, and 70% of what Nader says"; thus, I write that on my ballot, giving Obama a 6, McCain a 1, and Nader a 7). Because it isn't a preferential voting system, it escapes Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. (No, it doesn't always choose the Condorcet winner; however, often there isn't one, and when there is and range voting doesn't choose it, that means a bunch of people really didn't like that candidate!) It's easy to understand and easy to implement. It would tend to elect candidates by pseudo-consensus: hardly anyone gets their favorite, but almost everyone gets someone they can live with. It is fair to third parties without being artificial.
In short, it is plainly, hands-down, the best voting system ever devised. I used to think this was just my own idea, that nobody else had thought of it before; now I realize that it is well known, but still no one uses it!
This is something that needs to be amended. Preferably as soon as possible.
| | |
|
