Apparently, things are going pretty darn well in the conservative blogosphere. Just head on over to Instapundit.com and see what's happening: Reynold's deftly disposes of the strongest arguments from the most cherished and respected members of the Democratic establishment in such posts as "a response to Rosie O'Donnell" and "More Celebrity Global Warming Hypocrisy." Take that, Senator John Travolta!
But that's not all. If you thought that the White House firing public servants in order to influence Federal corruption investigations was a big deal, wait until you hear about Sandy Berger! And if a three year old non-scandal doesn't interest you, don't lose faith, because the conservative blogs are hard at work fabricating a new one. The "Dianne Feinstein Scandal" has apparently been so well covered up that no one can even find any evidence of wrong doing! Just wait until the Mainstream Media gets a whiff of that.
I almost (but only almost) feel bad for them.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Howard who?
Peter Suderman at the Corner has apparently never heard of Howard Dean. His interest is piqued by the idea that engaged citizens might actually organize outside of a traditional campaign structure and... well, God only knows what might happen.
"But the prospect that popular political ad campaigns might no longer be officially approved leads to all sorts of interesting possibilities. How does a campaign control its message when independent parties are out there working without oversight? What happens when an election is won even partly on the basis of an ad that a candidate didn't create or approve? My inner 13 year old boy is extremely curious."
It makes sense that his inner 13 year old might be curious, given that when Peter was 13 a campaign for the Democratic nomination hadn't yet been run on exactly the principles he's talking about. But it is pretty amusing that the grown-up conservatives are just noticing this crazy phenomenon now.
"But the prospect that popular political ad campaigns might no longer be officially approved leads to all sorts of interesting possibilities. How does a campaign control its message when independent parties are out there working without oversight? What happens when an election is won even partly on the basis of an ad that a candidate didn't create or approve? My inner 13 year old boy is extremely curious."
It makes sense that his inner 13 year old might be curious, given that when Peter was 13 a campaign for the Democratic nomination hadn't yet been run on exactly the principles he's talking about. But it is pretty amusing that the grown-up conservatives are just noticing this crazy phenomenon now.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Edwards still in
Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has returned. The campaign will continue. She looks and says she feels fine. Best wishes to them.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
A Toe for a Toe
I just read a super interesting article in the Times on the development or evolution of morality in primates. Often using words like morality confuses things a fair amount, but the the subject of the article, Dr. Frans de Waal, makes a very convincing case that various apes and monkeys can empathize, enforce social rules, and can take actions for the good of the community, not just the individual.
What rights animals should have is, to be sure, a complicated issue, but in the case of chimpanzees it seems almost impossible to draw a distinction between us and them that would render their wellbeing worthless.
Of course, given the variation between human populations on issues of rules and punishment, its not surprising that other species have modes of enforcement we would never consider. I learned that "Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment."
What rights animals should have is, to be sure, a complicated issue, but in the case of chimpanzees it seems almost impossible to draw a distinction between us and them that would render their wellbeing worthless.
Of course, given the variation between human populations on issues of rules and punishment, its not surprising that other species have modes of enforcement we would never consider. I learned that "Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment."
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Accountability
I just Youtubed (yes, it's a verb) Alberto Gonzalez's press conference on this whole "sneakily firing lots of competent federal employees in order to politicize their positions" scandal. In response to the first question, which was inaudible on my speakers, he said "As we can all imagine, in an organization with 110,000 people, I am not aware of all the information that passes through the halls of justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. "
Then, in response to the next question, he says "I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department." Well, this really shouldn't need to be said, but the fact that he didn't know what the hell was going on in his own department is not an excuse for anything. In fact, it's a fairly good reason for him to resign. The idea that an event of the magnitude we're talking about could have taken place without Gonzalez's knowledge is totally absurd unless you assume that he isn't doing his job at all. I'm not particularly interested in whether he's lying or slacking, because either way, he should not be the AG of the United States of America.
Here's a fun analogy. Lets say at Oberlin College, there was suddenly no electricity on North Campus. Nancy Dye could hold a press conference and say "I'm really not in charge of electricity." That would be totally true, but also totally irrelevant, because as president of the college, a disaster of that magnitude would ultimately be her responsibility. And if it was obviously preventable, or the motivations behind it were less than pure, or if she proved unable to effectively solve any of the resulting problems in the aftermath, it would certainly be cause for her to resign. It also would have been much more dramatic than her decision not to return next year was in real life.
Anyway, I suppose it's inevitable that the term accountability will be butchered by people who refuse to be held accountable for anything, but at its core, it does actually mean something. Gonzalez is saying that he's "accountable", but um... nothing will happen to him even though he utterly failed his job. That sounds an awful lot like a little thing I like to call being "not accountable".
Then, in response to the next question, he says "I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department." Well, this really shouldn't need to be said, but the fact that he didn't know what the hell was going on in his own department is not an excuse for anything. In fact, it's a fairly good reason for him to resign. The idea that an event of the magnitude we're talking about could have taken place without Gonzalez's knowledge is totally absurd unless you assume that he isn't doing his job at all. I'm not particularly interested in whether he's lying or slacking, because either way, he should not be the AG of the United States of America.
Here's a fun analogy. Lets say at Oberlin College, there was suddenly no electricity on North Campus. Nancy Dye could hold a press conference and say "I'm really not in charge of electricity." That would be totally true, but also totally irrelevant, because as president of the college, a disaster of that magnitude would ultimately be her responsibility. And if it was obviously preventable, or the motivations behind it were less than pure, or if she proved unable to effectively solve any of the resulting problems in the aftermath, it would certainly be cause for her to resign. It also would have been much more dramatic than her decision not to return next year was in real life.
Anyway, I suppose it's inevitable that the term accountability will be butchered by people who refuse to be held accountable for anything, but at its core, it does actually mean something. Gonzalez is saying that he's "accountable", but um... nothing will happen to him even though he utterly failed his job. That sounds an awful lot like a little thing I like to call being "not accountable".
Monday, March 5, 2007
Those Greasy, Greedy, Hook-Nosed, Jew States...
The debate about the "new" anti-Semitism has been had so many times on the internet I hate to even delve into it. But I will, because Stanley Fish is wrong, and bad at math, and for some reason he still gets to write on the Times website.
The whole argument centers around the question of people like me, or people who take slightly more extreme views that I'm ambivalent or disagree with. These people sometimes claim that the occupation of Gaza and the West-Bank is illegal and a human rights violation, that Israel and the Zionist movement are imperialist, and that they don't deserve the support of the United States, that a state reserved for a Jewish majority shouldn't exist, or that it was a mistaken product of imperialism that should never have been created, that there should be a "one state" solution involving the incorporation of the West Bank, etc.. So, are these folks who oppose the state of Israel or its policies anti-Semitic?
Well, he cites a study by Small and Kaplan which claims that in Europe “Those with extreme anti-Israel sentiment are roughly six times more likely to harbor anti-Semitic views than those who do not fault Israel on the measures studied, and among those respondents deeply critical of Israel, the fraction that harbors anti-Semitic views exceeds 50 percent.” The fact that the hostility to a country would coincide to hostility towards the people living there is not terribly surprising, I think. Fish then goes on to completely butcher the study. "Small and Kaplan are careful to disclaim any causal implications that might be drawn from their analysis ... [If you] scratch an opponent of Israel and you are likely – 56 percent of the time – to find an anti-Semite. This does suggest that if opposition to Israel increases, there will be an increase in anti-Semitism because the population of the 56 percenters will be larger. Is this something Jews, even Jews living in the United States, should be apprehensive about?" Well, it's not something to be apprehensive about because it doesn't make any effin' sense. If two groups (anti-Semites and Israel critics) have no causal relationship, then guess what happens to one group when the other grows? Nothing! Or, as my roommate put it, "hasn't he ever heard of a Venn-diagram?"
The way that the study measures anti-Semitism seems rather fair, but brings up a big pet peeve of mine. If the respondents agree with statements like “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” or “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country” or “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” they are considered anti-Semitic. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I would like to point out that when people say similarish statements about blacks (that they are lazy, should work harder, aren't owed anything etc.) in the U.S., we call it "racial conservatism." I wish we recognized those stereotypes as racism as easily as we recognize the first set as anti-Semitism. But I digress.
Fish goes on to say that he basically believes in this New Anti-Semitism, and critics of the occupation are using it as a pretext for their desire to gas the Jews. He fantasizes about being dispossessed. Apparently, his experience on College campuses has convinced him that this movement of covert anti-Semites exists. I find this interesting because my experience on a college campus is that I meet a lot of other Jews from all over the country, many of whom have been to Israel and identify much more strongly than I do, and they almost universally reject a brutal occupation being carried out in their name.
I think it's a good rule that if a majority or sizable minority of an ethnic group believe something, that belief probably isn't motivated by racism against that same group. For example, one could say that the states of Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina should be a Black State, and that all the whites currently living their should be forced to live in an area the size of Rhode Island under Jim-Crow conditions. One could also say that everyone who disagreed with that is motivated by hatred of black people. The problem here would be that most black Americans would think that was insane. Similarly, plenty of American Jews (I count myself among them) think the occupation of Palestine, and the invasion of Iraq (and possible invasion of Iran?) are just plain crazy. Not good for the Jews, just crazy.
Finally, he brings up a good friend of his who believes that you can be politically opposed to Israel and not a racist. He says "He is 10 years my junior. I remember World War II. By the time he was born it was history. Maybe it’s that simple." I wonder how well he really remembers WWII, because I'm pretty sure Hitler sounded a lot more like Marty "We have higher standards of civilization than they do" Peretz than like Tony Judt.
The whole argument centers around the question of people like me, or people who take slightly more extreme views that I'm ambivalent or disagree with. These people sometimes claim that the occupation of Gaza and the West-Bank is illegal and a human rights violation, that Israel and the Zionist movement are imperialist, and that they don't deserve the support of the United States, that a state reserved for a Jewish majority shouldn't exist, or that it was a mistaken product of imperialism that should never have been created, that there should be a "one state" solution involving the incorporation of the West Bank, etc.. So, are these folks who oppose the state of Israel or its policies anti-Semitic?
Well, he cites a study by Small and Kaplan which claims that in Europe “Those with extreme anti-Israel sentiment are roughly six times more likely to harbor anti-Semitic views than those who do not fault Israel on the measures studied, and among those respondents deeply critical of Israel, the fraction that harbors anti-Semitic views exceeds 50 percent.” The fact that the hostility to a country would coincide to hostility towards the people living there is not terribly surprising, I think. Fish then goes on to completely butcher the study. "Small and Kaplan are careful to disclaim any causal implications that might be drawn from their analysis ... [If you] scratch an opponent of Israel and you are likely – 56 percent of the time – to find an anti-Semite. This does suggest that if opposition to Israel increases, there will be an increase in anti-Semitism because the population of the 56 percenters will be larger. Is this something Jews, even Jews living in the United States, should be apprehensive about?" Well, it's not something to be apprehensive about because it doesn't make any effin' sense. If two groups (anti-Semites and Israel critics) have no causal relationship, then guess what happens to one group when the other grows? Nothing! Or, as my roommate put it, "hasn't he ever heard of a Venn-diagram?"
The way that the study measures anti-Semitism seems rather fair, but brings up a big pet peeve of mine. If the respondents agree with statements like “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” or “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country” or “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” they are considered anti-Semitic. I'm inclined to agree with that, but I would like to point out that when people say similarish statements about blacks (that they are lazy, should work harder, aren't owed anything etc.) in the U.S., we call it "racial conservatism." I wish we recognized those stereotypes as racism as easily as we recognize the first set as anti-Semitism. But I digress.
Fish goes on to say that he basically believes in this New Anti-Semitism, and critics of the occupation are using it as a pretext for their desire to gas the Jews. He fantasizes about being dispossessed. Apparently, his experience on College campuses has convinced him that this movement of covert anti-Semites exists. I find this interesting because my experience on a college campus is that I meet a lot of other Jews from all over the country, many of whom have been to Israel and identify much more strongly than I do, and they almost universally reject a brutal occupation being carried out in their name.
I think it's a good rule that if a majority or sizable minority of an ethnic group believe something, that belief probably isn't motivated by racism against that same group. For example, one could say that the states of Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina should be a Black State, and that all the whites currently living their should be forced to live in an area the size of Rhode Island under Jim-Crow conditions. One could also say that everyone who disagreed with that is motivated by hatred of black people. The problem here would be that most black Americans would think that was insane. Similarly, plenty of American Jews (I count myself among them) think the occupation of Palestine, and the invasion of Iraq (and possible invasion of Iran?) are just plain crazy. Not good for the Jews, just crazy.
Finally, he brings up a good friend of his who believes that you can be politically opposed to Israel and not a racist. He says "He is 10 years my junior. I remember World War II. By the time he was born it was history. Maybe it’s that simple." I wonder how well he really remembers WWII, because I'm pretty sure Hitler sounded a lot more like Marty "We have higher standards of civilization than they do" Peretz than like Tony Judt.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Walmart, Galbraith
I'm slowly working my way through John Kenneth Galbraith's American Capitalism, the Concept of Countervailing Power. He's a wonderful writer, and I'd have finished it in a few days if I didn't have so much homework and access to a Game Cube.
The book is slightly out dated, though it only makes Galbraith seem smarter. He argues that, with some exceptions, all industries will tend towards monopoly, or at least an oligopoly of a few large businesses (which disrupt the supply and demand system of competition). The exceptions listed in my 1956 edition of the book are "... agriculture, the textile and garment industries, soft-coal mining, wholesale and retail trade, shoe manufacturing..." That's right, the industries dominated by Kraft, Nike and Walmart were at the time his examples of industries unimpeded by a few dominant companies.
What really interests me is his discussion of how the competitive system is supposed to work vs. the reality of the American markets. The forces of supply and demand and the competition between producers are supposed to determine prices, which can only work if no single business can effect prices on its own. If I, and 3000 other people, are selling wheat, I can't raise the price because no one will buy it, and if I lower it it won't force anyone else to do the same, and I'll just lose money. This ideal system, according to JKG, breaks down in a monopoly or oligopoly, where there are so few producers/suppliers that any of them can affect prices. To me, it sounds spot on.
What surprised me is that I was basically aware of the fact that large companies can choose to affect prices, and it was never portrayed as anything other than a good thing. Walmart's "Always Low Prices" don't result primarily from innovation, but from the fact that as the world's biggest retailer, they can simply force wages and prices down. What to do about that is something that there will be wide disagreement on (Galbraith certainly has his own solutions) but it seems fairly important to recognize that Walmart has an influence on the market that violates the competitive model just like Big Government(!) intervention or a Union might.
The book is slightly out dated, though it only makes Galbraith seem smarter. He argues that, with some exceptions, all industries will tend towards monopoly, or at least an oligopoly of a few large businesses (which disrupt the supply and demand system of competition). The exceptions listed in my 1956 edition of the book are "... agriculture, the textile and garment industries, soft-coal mining, wholesale and retail trade, shoe manufacturing..." That's right, the industries dominated by Kraft, Nike and Walmart were at the time his examples of industries unimpeded by a few dominant companies.
What really interests me is his discussion of how the competitive system is supposed to work vs. the reality of the American markets. The forces of supply and demand and the competition between producers are supposed to determine prices, which can only work if no single business can effect prices on its own. If I, and 3000 other people, are selling wheat, I can't raise the price because no one will buy it, and if I lower it it won't force anyone else to do the same, and I'll just lose money. This ideal system, according to JKG, breaks down in a monopoly or oligopoly, where there are so few producers/suppliers that any of them can affect prices. To me, it sounds spot on.
What surprised me is that I was basically aware of the fact that large companies can choose to affect prices, and it was never portrayed as anything other than a good thing. Walmart's "Always Low Prices" don't result primarily from innovation, but from the fact that as the world's biggest retailer, they can simply force wages and prices down. What to do about that is something that there will be wide disagreement on (Galbraith certainly has his own solutions) but it seems fairly important to recognize that Walmart has an influence on the market that violates the competitive model just like Big Government(!) intervention or a Union might.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)