Topic: Life repeats itself

So…I went to see the movie Sideways today with my mom. (I’m back home for the first time since Thanksgiving).  For starters, I really enjoyed the move.  I don’t give movie critic type summaries, but I enjoy any movie where I start placing myself into the shoes of the characters, and I start thinking this movie was written with me in mind, forgetting that it wasn’t, and there’s 1 million + other people who watched the same film. (i’m about to reveal parts of the movie…for those of you who haven’t yet seen it)

Anyways…the main character Miles (Paul Giamatti) is an English teacher trying to get a novel published.  In one scene, someone asks, “is your book fiction or non?” he responds, “it’s fiction, but some of it is based on my life.”  The first guy responds, “There’s so much to learn about the world, I don’t understand why anyone would read anything that someone just made up.”  In another scene, while dealing with the struggle of getting his book published, his publisher responds, “getting a book is all about what can be marketed.  It has nothing to do with how good your book is, and everything to do with what will sell.”  His friend comments, “you should publish it yourself…just get it out there and let the public decide.” 

The characters I tend to identify with in movies, also tend to be depressing characters at times (which makes me shy away from identifying with them, such as Cameron from Ferris Beuler’s Day Off).  The two main characters represent the two poles in my life, the “if it’s not fun, why do it?” “you’re only young once,” “life is too short to take seriously,” side, and the, “there’s so much to know, i just want to soak it all up, but i can’t,” side.

Anyways…everytime I come home, i go through old photos and journals.  It actually amazes me that I thought with the same passion for understanding and with the same confused mind that I have today.  Old notes from college where I expressed my hatred for traditional education, and wondered what else there was.  Pictures of me when I wasn’t as burdened with my current confusions about my future, although with equal confusions for where I would be where I am currently.

There’s another great scene, where Miles says, “I feel like a fingerprint on a window of a tall building…” to express his insignificance in life.  He also has another good metaphor about feeling like a shit stain on a piece of toilet paper in a sewage plant…really found that to be a great line.

I started skimming an old book a friend gave me in college about Judaism.  I’ve been an athiest since I was probably 6, but the fact that there mystery of it still draws me occassionally to learn more about it.  It addressed the question of being a good Jew and being an athiest.  Essentially…it said it was more important to act as a Jew should (following the commandments…), than to necessarily believe in god.  What was interesting, was the point that without god, all of life is subjective, arbitrary, relative.

There really is no point to life accept the purpose we create ourselves.  I realize that I’ve come to this realization time and again.  Actually…i’ve realized that I’ve re-realized this time and again.  It’s like I keep re-inventing my own wheel of life. 

I was speaking to a friend recently about politics, and realized that while it’s good to learn, it’s pointless if not applied.  What difference does it make that I know certain things about politics, (and what about the fact that what I know isn’t really based on a deep understanding, but mostly ideology, and I might read something tom. to alter my views).  Another friend of mine once commented he doesn’t follow politics, “I affect what I know,” he siad. 

If there’s one thing that I KNOW, it’s that much of what there is to know or think about in life hasn’t been shown to me.  For example…I find it interesting how the biographies of most famous people, politicians, activists, journalists, etc., reveal a family life or a community where they were surrounded by “intellecturals,” or had some form of role models for the life they would eventually enter.  I’m constantly reminded that I have never been exposed to the right number of people that would propel me beyond being a finger print on a skyscraper window.

Ahhh…my good friend Drew just called me, to get me “out of my head,” and excited about life again.  We just talked for almost an hour about travelling…this Sept. we want to do something for a month.  We started w/ abroad ideas, then driving the States, then hitching the States, then living in a differet city every month for a year, then going to Hawaii…I love travellers and people that love travelling, and I realize that’s another thing I haven’t been surrounded by, except when travelling.  It’s like there’s this other converyerbelt of life going on that I stepped off, and I have so few people around me who are aware of the wonders of that path.

Another interesting quote i forget where i heard it recently: “There’s a reason why it’s the path less travelled.”  Made me think for a bit…

Also…John Stossel’s book, “Give Me a Break,” has been a refreshing read.  The book reveals his evolution from a corporate watchdog, to a gov’t watchdog, which has resulted in his evolution from a liberal to a libertarian.  Interesting book considering the recent debates, and interesting because you can see how his experiences led him to his political ideology, and he gives a picture of how capitalism is not perfect, however, gov’t efforts to pick up for capitalisms failures are often just as bad.  I think various examples give legitimacy to the libertarian side, while any consideration of the benefits of gov’t were left out.

Also…watched Question Time last night, which is a weekly parliamentary debate in England, where Tony Blair responds to rapid questions from the minority party, and from all members of parliament.  His ability to speak clearly, to argue with evidence, as well as the general good nature of the debates and the frequent laughter by all, made me smile at how that country must benefit from having that opportunity to actually have a political discussion amongs politicians.

Also watched Howard Dean speak, nominated as the DNC chairman.  Reassuring to see some coverage of all the things that are being written about, finally being addressed by a recognizable political face.

Oh year…C-Span is an interesting channel to watch.

Saw a 60min special on the gates in NY.  I saw them the other day…thought they were alright, but it was interesting to hear the creators of the project speak.  They said there was no “purpose or meaning,” it was just to make people see the park differently.  mission accomplished, i’d say. 

Topic: New York

I’m in NY…enjoying the change in scenery.  Trying not to hemmorage money, found myself a Barnes & Nobles, saw a really good show last night, Donovan Frankenreiter, who is Jack Johnson’s roommate from Hawaii played at the Bowery Ballroom, had shabbat dinner w/ my religious cousin and some other family tonight, had good NY pizza last night and NY bagels for lunch, still thinking about the libertarian vs. welfare state debate, getting in touch w/ people i haven’t spoken to in ages, feeling a lot more confident as a person now that I have some direction both job wise and intellectually (especially enjoying the personal attacks about my actions in college, and now having a good understanding of both where I’ve gone since then, and a good understanding of those who make generalized attacks on my life without really knowing a thing about me), windy as hell outside, gonna try to post throughout the week, thank you to all who have made it to my site, and enjoying the varying points of view!

Lekker my bru. (South African for, very good times, my friend).

And…to my debaters…I want to add another question.  How have your personal life experiences, encounters, readings, etc. developed you into a liberal/libertarian?  Are there any issues where you can see the benefits of the other system?  Do you believe your ideology is 100% right, or can you see cases where in reality it does not work so well? 

ex) I came across a book, “Give me a break,” byJohn Stossel, who did investigative reporting for 20/20 I believe it was.  Became a big name for uncovering corporate wrongdoings.  I was actually re-assured by his testament that his time in Princeton was uneventful, he said he didn’t get a whole lot from his classes, and graduated not even thinking he’d go into journalism. 

Anyways…he also wasn’t political after college, and you wouldn’t expect this book to be political, but i guess eveyone wants to discuss this stuff.  Looks like Stossel has joined the libertarian team, and his book discusses his political evolution.  His personal story helped open me up to his political views.  Turns out, he was largely responsible for the growth of consumer reports, and even some gov’t agencies that served as corporate watchdogs.

However…he began covering those gov’t agencies, and found them to be not only inefficient, but actually counter-productive.  He spoke of the unintended consequences of gov’t regulation as a substitute for the free-market.  I grew troubled by his ideology line, giving nasty labels to liberals, praising the free-market for its wonders.  It’s interesting (and i’m following right in line) how we observe a few things in the world, and generalize that a certain system is 100% the right system.  Stossel made some great observations about how regulations are often less about safety, and more about reducing competition (which i see more as an argument to cut-out corporate influence in regulatory agencies, than proof that the free-market beats gov’t intervention everytime).  He observed how it now takes medicine 10+ years to develop, which means that people are dying because regulation makes companies develop “perfectly safe,” products that meet all the regulations.

My roommate keeps reminding me that things tend to be in the middle.  Stossel will highlight every example of gov’t inefficiency to oppose regulations, while the left will highlight every example of the harm done by un-regulated corporations.  We need to work extra hard to overcome our ideology to see where the other side has made some points, and that’s probably where we’ll discover that there is a common ground that we can both live with.

Proof of ideology run wild is in one of the example Stossel likes to use for the need for personal freedom.  He discusses seatbelts as an intrusion in personal freedom.  “The gov’t can’t force me to wear a seatbelt.”  Now…i don’t think there’s much dispute that seat belts save lives (ok you libertarians…i know you have statistics to show otherwise) so why use that as a primary example of the gov’t taking your freedom away.  Do i think it’s stilly that you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt…yeah (although if this acts to encourage people to wear seatbelts, and if your decision to not wear a seatbelt results in you dying, which is a massive social and economical loss, then i can see the point). 

And…to show how i think liberals have played the ideology card a bit too much, i think some of the criticisms of the Patriot Act are a bit silly.  Michael Moore showed how an FBI agent infiltrated a peace group that baked cookies.  I say, “big friggin’ deal.”  Does this make the gov’t look stupid, sure, but is the shock of learning that an FBI guy was in your meetings the worst thing in the world?  Or the library thing…I personally don’t care if the FBI tracks what I read.  If the FBI decides to pull someone in because they’re reading certain books, well, i think the inconvenience sucks, but as long as it’s not front page news, and as long as i was quickly released when they realized that despite whatever books i took out i wasn’t a terrorist, then i really don’t think my privacy is being violated.

So…do i think people should have the freedom to do all kinds of drugs and to commit suicide if they want.  Sure.  but…i also feel people (and the gov’t acting in the interest of the people) should have the freedom to discourage you from killing yourself.  So…for those who thought banning smoking in bars was infringing on freedom, it’s not as if cigarette smoking has been banned.  Those elected into office by the people simply decided to ues their freedom to create a healthy smoke-free environment…

and…just to think about foreign policy for a second.  As I arrived by Greyhound in NewYork, 9/11 quickly entered my mind.  “The terrorists struck the WORLD TRADE center, and the PENTAGON.”  I’ve taken a rest from foreign policy for a bit, but it’s clear that 9/11 was not an innocent old lady getting mugged at an ATM.  I’m not saying the individuals who died in 9/11 were not innocent, (as a controversial college professor has recently been fired for arguing that they were not) but the targets themselves, world trade, and the US military, were not innocent targets.  The fact that 9/11 was limited to those narrow targets is something most in DC have not discussed.  I think Bush & Co. have benefited largely from a public that generally suppports the idea that the US has done no wrong in the past, and is incapable of doing wrong, period.

Topic: conversations with a libertarian

I’ve been having a great dialogue Craig, it’s too long to post here, but you can read through most of it through the link.  Several themes are starting to arise regarding domestic politics…taxes, charity, gov’t spending, social programs, hard work vs. laziness, market outcomes, regulations…What’s interesting is that most points have 3 componants, history, economics, and sociology. 

…but now I’m looking for more concrete examples for those points.   

One issue is regulation.  I personally believe that there are many safety regulations that we take for granted, without which, we may not be as safe today.  The right believes regulations are bad economically…we can argue that.  But…right now economic arguments aren’t as convincing to me, since both sides can grab different numbers and spin them differently, but the social arguments attached to them interest me.  The social argument of the right against regulations is that people have enough common sense to not need regulations, and if they don’t, well…that’s their fault.  It’s my belief that, like social programs, we take for granted what good gov’t regulations do for us.  So…please share some regulations you know of that keep us safe almost everyday, without which, even bright people like ourselves, could still be harmed by.

Another interesting thought.  The right has managed to hijack patriotism from the left, regarding foreign policy at least.  The right (here i mean conservatives, not libertarians) praises all US military action, while the left is most often anti-war.  Domestically, things play out differently.  Here, it’s the left who are the patriots, who believe the US gov’t is a force for good, while it’s the right who is vehemently anti-government.  The right will say things like, “government isn’t the solution to problems, it’s the source of the problems.”  Kind of ironic, don’t you think?

 

Topic: the magic eye comes into focus

(if you haven’t read my last post “the heart of the debate,” i recommend reading that first, and then this NYT article… )

Spearing the Beast

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 8, 2005

resident Bush isn’t trying to reform Social Security. He isn’t even trying to “partially privatize” it. His plan is, in essence, to dismantle the program, replacing it with a system that may be social but doesn’t provide security. And the goal, as with his tax cuts, is to undermine the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.

	Advertisement

Why do I say that the Bush plan would dismantle Social Security? Because for Americans who entered the work force after the plan went into effect and who chose to open private accounts, guaranteed benefits – income you receive after retirement even if everything else goes wrong – would be nearly eliminated.

Here’s how it would work. First, workers with private accounts would be subject to a “clawback”: in effect, they would have to mortgage their future benefits in order to put money into their accounts.

Second, since private accounts would do nothing to improve Social Security’s finances – something the administration has finally admitted – there would be large benefit cuts in addition to the clawback.

Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the guaranteed benefits left to an average worker born in 1990, after the clawback and the additional cuts, would be only 8 percent of that worker’s prior earnings, compared with 35 percent today. This means that under Mr. Bush’s plan, workers with private accounts that fared poorly would find themselves destitute.

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. “Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,” declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. “If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.”

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it’s trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

The attempt to “jab a spear” through Social Security complements the strategy of “starve the beast,” long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn’t seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.

To put that budget into perspective, let’s look at the causes of the federal budget deficit. In spite of the expense of the Iraq war, federal spending as a share of G.D.P. isn’t high by historical standards – in fact, it’s slightly below its average over the past 20 years. But federal revenue as a share of G.D.P. has plunged to levels not seen since the 1950′s.

Almost all of this plunge came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These are the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes – and in 2003 and 2004, their combined take as a share of G.D.P. was at its lowest level since 1942. On the other hand, the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, remains at near-record levels.

You might think, given these facts, that a plan to reduce the deficit would include major efforts to increase revenue, starting with a rollback of recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the budget contains new upper-income tax breaks.

Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts. Many of those cuts won’t make it through Congress, but Mr. Bush may well succeed in imposing cuts in child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers. He may also succeed in severely squeezing Medicaid – the only one of the three great social insurance programs specifically intended for the poor and near-poor, and therefore the most politically vulnerable.

All of this explains why it’s foolish to imagine some sort of widely acceptable compromise with Mr. Bush about Social Security. Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America F.D.R. built. Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads, although they may use F.D.R.’s image in ads, want to destroy it (end of article).

As my last post noted, numbers matter, but different ideologies will use numbers for their own gain.  That’s why the fight isn’t just over the numbers of Social Security, but over the legacy of FDR.   “Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America FDR built.  Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads…wants to destroy it.”

Remember the quote from the Cato institute, a libertarian think tank that is one of the leading influences on the Republican agenda:

“Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,” declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. “If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.”

We are a welfare state, and there are problems with our welfare state.  Some programs are inefficient, some are underfunded, some are overfunded and wasteful.  But, the reason we have a welfare state, as does Canada, England, Brazil, Sweden…is to do the best we can to give everyone, especially the poor, an opportunity for a good education, for a healthy life, for a decent standard of living.  Now…when we find problems with our social programs, and there are, we should aim to improve those programs. 

The Republicans, supported by libertarian think tanks, think differently.  They want to do away with all social programs.  The state should not provide, things should be privatized, taken care of by the individual, an “ownership society.”  On a philosophical level, there may be some justification for their thinking.  But…on a practical level, knowing what we know about human nature, we are forced to have these social programs.  And…on a practical level, knowing what we know about who tends to support which ideology (seniors, workers unions, oppose privatizing Social Security…Wall Street and big business supports it), we see again why we are forced to have these social programs.  A government that operates for the people is better at taking care of its people than businesses whose only concern is with profits (which, often goes against the interests of people). 

“The attempt to “jab a spear” through Social Security complements the strategy of “starve the beast,” long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn’t seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.”

Here we see how liberals and conservatives can come up with two different formulas for growing the country, the economy, and taking care of its people.  Intellectuals will debate till they’re blue about whether cutting taxes and social programs is better, or whether a progressive tax and social programs is better.  But…you don’t have to be an economist to understand what the differences are.  It all comes down to whether or not you believe in a social safety net, whether or not you believe that to help the poor, we must create certain social programs for them, to be paid for through taxation.  

That’s why you hear a lot from Bush and co. about lowering taxes as a way to raise the economy.  People hear that, think it’s good, and support it.  However, you never hear Bush and co. arguing the second part of their argument, “cutting social programs is also going to improve the economy.”  Many libertarians might support that argument, but your average Republican only voted for tax cuts, not cutting social programs.  A strong economy is worthless if the poorest in society do not benefit from it.

At the end of the day, Republican economics is simply not honest economics.  Libertarians are more honest, but that’s probably why most people haven’t heard of them.  “Vote for me…I’ll cut your taxes, and cut social programs, that’s what’s best for society.”  Instead, you get Republicans covering for them, “We’ll cut taxes, and save those starving social programs by privatizing them, or, we’ll starve them some more since they’re doing very poorly and don’t deserve any more funds (see No Child Left Behind).”  It’s a cruel logic, but, it’s a logic that must be revealed for what it is.   

In another article, Mr. Bush promised to hold “federal programs to a firm test of accountability” and take “the steps necessary to achieve our deficit reduction goals.”  

Now…synthesizing what we’ve discovered, what can we extract from Mr. Bush’s promise.  Does Mr. Bush want to see federal programs flourish, but also make sure they’re being held accountable?  Or…is it more likely that Mr. Bush wants to hold them accountable for their very existance? 

Is the deficit (federal spending is more than federal revenue) that Mr. Bush is trying to reduce, a product of a slow economy where high taxes actually caused federal revenue to decrease?  Or, is the deficit a product of federal spending, period.  End of sentance! 

Is Mr. Bush interested in lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy, so that there are more federal revenues available for programs?  Or…is Mr. Bush interested in lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy, but rather than using a strong economy to increase federal revenue and spending, to instead keep those things small too?

In future posts…I hope to examine some federal programs, to see whether these programs should be starved to death or not. 

 

TOPIC: THE HEART OF DEBATE

Why will intelligent people come do 1000 different views.  Say you had 2 equally smart people, one one a liberal, one a conservative (let’s not nit-pick on the terms for now).  On Social security, on tax policy, on the economy, foreign policy, you name it, you’ll get 2 different views.  How can this be?

I’m a liberal.  If I were to debate a conservative who knew more than me, it would seem they would twist me in knots.  However, if we move beyond the academic, beyond facts, dates, statistics, and policy, there is an underlying thesis of human nature and society that underlies each side.  And as they begin to reveal itself, we can begin to have a fair debate about those underlying things.  This debate is the heart of all other political debates, because given the same objective history, economics data, and news, the varying views about the heart, will result in varying views in everything else.

As I said…people on both sides will have all sorts of different interpretations of the world, and as we try to one-up each other with facts and figures, I’ve come to realize what it is that makes us unable to look at social problems such as unemployment, poverty, the environment, etc. and work together towards a solution. 

The following comment by Craigramblings led me to this line of thought:

“Being poor alone is not merit.  Being poor and unlucky is not merit.  Being poor, talented, and hard working is a person with merit in crappy circumstances.A lot of people can be down, but from what I observe, those with merit can live in a spartan fashion and overcome adversity.  In societies where the government takes care of people, there are still homeless on the streets.  There will always be the extremely unfortunate whose lives cannot be helped.  Then there are those that can be helped, but because their lives can be helped, they also have the ability to help themselves.  I believe a society that stresses the ability of the individual will in the end have the most individuals living to how they want and choose and to me, this is the ultimate success.  Social programs and spending hinders this, such as FDR’s new deal.”

So…now it becomes easier to see why one person sees FDR as a hero, and one sees him as a villain, and why one person would see Ronald Reagan as a villain, and one would see him as a hero.  It’s not as simple as addressing poverty.  It’s the way you do it that counts.  I liken this to parenting.  Some people spank their kids, some would never.  Is one right?  (oddly…when I watched Meet the Falkers, I couldn’t help but think about this.  Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro are a perfect model for the differences between liberals and conservatives.  Now how about that for a college thesis!!!)

Anyways…here were my thoughts:

It seems a person cannot separate their views on human nature and society, from their theoretical views on government.  It sounds like you would be in favor for welfare for those who were poor, but also talented and hard working.  Would you support welfare if it were designed in a way that fit your moral views on govt?  I agree…people can get by on very little and in difficult conditions, and I agree, that people can still throw it all away and end up on the streets.  But…isn’t there another moral element that says we should take care of even those who won’t take care of themselves?  Should we not still try to care for the homeless, trouble-making kids, etc. and at least give them some reason to look forward to waking up each day.  Or…do we say, “if they really didn’t want to be homeless, they’d do something about it themselves.”  Or…do we say, “if they really didn’t want to be going to juevenile hall, they’d have done their homework and passed school like they were supposed to.”

Libertarians i believe would say…”individuals can choose to use their private wealth to help others, they should not be forced to do so through the gov’t.”  However…take the tsunami for example…many people gave money, but people are altruistic to a point, gov’t aid is then able to play are large role in aiding crises.  Also…in some ways, the government represents a country.  That’s why people around the world hate America…not because of the people, who have displayed their generosity, but because the gov’t has not always acted in such ways.  The gov’t represents the people.  What message does it send if the gov’t doesn’t help its poor?  I guess it’s a question of what kind of parent to be.  In some ways…the spartan way works to toughen people up and make them hard-working.  Everyman for themselves, rugged individualism.  That works if that’s what you believe.  But…if you view a country as a collective whole similar to a family, then letting people go hungry would be like letting your own children starve because they didn’t take care of themselves. 

Also…when you’re surrounded by poverty, it’s harder to rise above it.  There’s reasons poor schools do worse than schools w/ money. 

When I was in S. Africa, i worked for a gov’t funded program that helped poor young adults develop important life skills such as self-reliance, perseverance, compassion…and after my program, they went to another gov’t funded program to teach them job skills, welding, mechanic, tailoring…My students were poor, and many had made bad decisions to do drugs, join gangs, steal, etc.  Were my students not merited to receive gov’t help because of the type of people they were?  I found…all my students were capable of doing amazing things, if provided with the right opportunity.  Growing up in poverty, the only opportunity that they had was to join a gang.  Do I think they deserved a check w/ no strings attached, “NO”, and that’s probably why conservatives are anti social-programs, but, if done properly, social programs are the only opportunity these people have to rise out of poverty.  As the last post on my site shows, it’s easy to label a person, or an entire group of people, “lazy,” because of their actions, but it’s harder to look at how society may have created the conditions for those actions, and it’s even harder than that to look for solutions.  I believe with the right kind of schools, plagiarism and laziness would never exist, because there’d be no grades, and work would be relevant to real life (and i’ve spoken to people who have created such schools).  I also believe, w/ the right kind of gov’t programs, such as the gov’t funded program I will be working for this spring and summer, we can also help those people who are poor (and regardless of their work ethic may still need help), to succeed in life.

I think what you wrote here says something very important.  Economics can be interpreted 1000 ways, and the same data can be spun 1000 ways (see the social security debates).  What truly underlies those debates…is a vew of human nature, culture, and society.  I think here I feel I can speak more comfortably, since it’s less a debate about history and economics, and comes down to personal opinion and values.  I 100% disagree with Craig’s statement that the extremely unfortunate cannot be helped.  This is a statement that has nothing to do w/ statistics, or policy, but just a belief about human nature.  There’s a good book called “How to be Good,” by Nick Hornby, i read it a while ago, but it involes this middle-class guy adopting a homeless man off the street.  Point being…if our culture cared for all human beings to the point where we did such things, we would do exactly what Craig says we cannot, which is to care for even the extremely unfortunate.

Then you say that those who can be helped, can also help themselves.  What does this logic mean?  example) A child is drowning in a pool.  I can help him, therefore he is able to help himself, therefore I should not help him.  Does that make sense?  Rather, a person in need of help is in need of help for just that reason, they are unable to help themselves. 

Your philosophy rests strongly on the ability of the individual, and the freedom to choose how to live.  If you believe a person living in poverty (say they’re making $20,000/year) can use their individual ability to overcome their hardships and live their life as they choose, then a middle-class person who gets taxed (say they started w/ $60,000, and ended up w/ $50,000 after taxes), should be able to overcome the hardship of having some money taxed, and, like the person living in poverty, they should still be able to live how they want.  Now…as you said, there are different types of people living in poverty, some who are hard-working, some who are not.  If your definition of a successful society is one that has the most people who are able to live a life of their choosing, then your main concern should be with the poor.  Clearly…the very rich, say those making $100,000+ a year, have virtually no hardships to overcome, and they can pretty much choose from a wide variety of lifestyles.  Going back to our person in poverty, making $20,000/year, he could go either way.  If he’s living in a poor neighborhood, odds are he may not rise above it, even if he is hard working.  He may become a drop-out, and eventually a drug using homeless person, or he may start a successful business.  So…to use your definition of a successful libertarian society, taxing the person making $100,000 so he ends up with $90,000 will not redcuce the number of individuals who live how they want and choose, while providing social programs to ensure our friend on the poverty line can rise above it, will increase the overall number of individuals who can pursue life as they wish. 

Now…what thenarrator was probably getting at when he labeled conservatives as greedy, is the view that someone making, say, $100,000 and being taxed down to $90,000 is having his liberty infringed on, while creating a social program to aid someone in poverty, is unecessary, because any hard working person can get by on $20,000.

I believe this to be the heart of most political debate.  What do you think?

TOPIC: A RARE PERSONAL CONFLICT

After reading the beginning of my book which is critical of Wash U., another blogger had this comment for me:

would you really like to know why I would love to scream at you?  (Not that you’ll ever read this)

Because you are a CHEATER.  You are a LAZY BUM who should have been expelled from WashU, but weren’t because they like to keep their graduation rate as high as possible.  You are an unaccountable jerk who blames society for your own shortcomings and laziness.  Many people I know were able to complete their WU education in four years and participate in extra-curriculars as much as they might have hated some of their classes.  Even myself (and I am far from one of the best students I know), I managed to get out in four years with two majors, 150 credit hours, and a 3.0.  I also studied overseas for a semester and both wrote for and served as treasurer for the Washington Witness.  Oh, and I held a work-study position too and generally attended church.  I don’t have a lot of sympathy for underachievers who complain about having to study 15 hours a week and how it’s so hard and boring that they feel driven to plagiarize (and to plagiarize so blatantly that the professor didn’t even have to read their paper to know it was from a different year) and still feel hopeful they’ll be let off easy.  You are a common cheater, and, like I say, you should have been expelled.  And as for your writing, well, let’s say I’m not impressed.  Had I known the standards for writing at WU were significantly lower than those at my high school, I’d have chosen somewhere else for my undergraduate education. 

So yes, Dan, I would like to scream at you because you are a spoiled, lazy, slacking underachiever who blames the world for your inadequacy.  In fact in some ways it would appear that I just did. 

Here was my response on her site:

TOPIC: THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT ECONOMIC FREEDOM

The Times had an article today, “Bush Is Said to Seek Sharp Cuts in Subsidy Payments to Farmers” which wouldn’t have caught my attention 3 months ago.  Essentially, the US gov’t spends its budget on two things, public needs, and business needs.  It seems to me, that both needs are useful to each other, therefore, we should look to balance the needs of both, rather than to destroy one or the other.  The fact that Bush is cutting back on agribusiness is just a fact that the overall budget will show cuts in a wide range of programs.  The sacrifices of war, are essentially coming down to budget sacrifices (except military expenditure).

There was an economist quoted in the article from the Heritage Foundation, who supported the move to lower subsidy payments to farmers, because farm subsidies had become “America’s largest corporate welfare program.”  I thought that was interesting, so I checked out their website, and it’s becoming pretty easy these days to see what ideology is behind different websites.

There’s a part of their site that has a “2005 Index of Economic Freedom,”  This is a code word for libertarian economic policy, meaning as little gov’t taxes, regulation, and programs as possible.  I wonder how old the term “economic freedom” is, or if the libertarians have just recently marketed their economic policies with Republican foreign policies of “spreading freedom,” around the world.

Organizations like this are a good place to go and find certain facts, and to observe the spin that comes with it.  Any fact can have 1,000 spins, but it’s become so interesting to me how the two dominant ideologies of the left and right are able to either spin facts differently, or find different facts.

For example, here is an excerpt on South Africa:

The ANC holds a commanding majority of parliamentary seats and controls seven of South Africa’s nine provinces. South Africa is Africa’s economic and military powerhouse; it generates some 40 percent of GDP in all of sub-Saharan Africa and is the only country in the region capable of projecting significant military force. The economy faces major obstacles to long-term growth and stability, including unemployment that is estimated to be as high as 40 percent, violent crime, and an HIV/AIDS infection rate of over 11 percent. Liberalization of rigid labor markets and privatization of South Africa’s many state-owned enterprises has been slowed by opposition from powerful unions and lukewarm political support. Regional instability, over-regulation, and relatively high taxation hinder foreign investment. The crisis in Zimbabwe places economic strains on South Africa; an estimated 3 million Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa due to instability and economic disaster in their home country.  Regional instability, over-regulation, and relatively high taxation hinder foreign investment.

Which parts are fact, and which parts are spin?  I’ll take at face-value South Africa’s economic strength.  I’ll take at face-value that the economy has obstacles including high unemployment, violent crime, and a high AIDS rate.  The part about “liberalization of rigid labor markets and privatization of South Africa’s many state-owned enterprises…” is the spin.  It’s not untrue, but it’s context within a broader summary of the country represents the libertarian ideology.  In this context, rigid labor markets and state-owned enterprises are a bad thing.  Rigid labor markets I take to mean, strong unions, since those are the groups described as opposing the “liberalizing” of labor markets. 

The last line about the factors that hinder foreign investment, is another observation high in spin.  South Africa has risen from the ranks to be a pillar of what is possible within South Africa.  They’ve obviously created a model for success within their own country, and they’ve done it without a libertarian ideology.  Despite (over)regulation, despite (high)taxation, South Africa most likely receives more foreign investment than any African country. 

My question for libertarians is, if the system ain’t broke, why fix it?  The problem I see here with the libertarian ideology, is that despite South Africa’s decision to not follow the libertarian economic ideology, they still remain the strongest economy in South Africa.  I have yet to come across a libertarian site that shows support for either gov’t subsidies of gov’t programs such as regluating certain utilities such as water, or public education, or national health care.  They will blame these gov’t expenditures for “hindering foreign investment,” for putting a drag on the economy, and as a result, for creating unemployment.  And…I have yet to understand the libertarian ideology behind a free labor market, unfettered by unions.  Unions are created for the very reasons that a free labor market does not allow for a decent quality of life for blue-collar workers. 

While I can see value in certain libertarian policies, I think the real world does not match a universal libertarian ideology.  Interferance with free-markets is a response to free-markets failing.  Most libertarian sites would have you believe that ALL of societies failing are a result in interferances with the free-market, and only by interfering with those interferances, and having an interferance-free free-market, and we address the failings of society.  But, although failures exists, America is the world’s economic superpower, and it didn’t get that way by prescribing itself with a libertarian ideology.  South Africa is the strongest country in Africa, and again, it wasn’t libertarian, but mostly a rejection of libertarian ideology that got it there.

This isn’t to disregard in anyway the belief that the libertarian ideology is a strong ideology.  Just because history hasn’t followed its path, does not make it irrelevant.  Just because we don’t live in a libertarian world today, doesn’t mean people can’t dream of a libertarian world.  It might be utopian, but it might not be pragmatic.

It’s like me with education.  I have my ideal views of education, and they don’t come close to existing in society today.  If communists can’t stand a world with capitalism, I’m an education person who can’t stand a world with grades.  The difference is, I don’t believe violence is the best means to achieve my ends.  I’m not going to blow-up existing schools because they run counter to all I believe in in schools, because the schools do have some existing value, and because my use of violence instead of peaceful means would stand to justify violence in many other instances.  However, through a mixture of idealism and pragmatism, I can hope to shift education, even if its on a small scale, towards the ideals I believe in.  The ideals of Outward Bound, of experiential education, of “educational freedom.”  Because you can’t out-market something with the word freedom.

So…where do I go from here?  I think the Cold War fear that an economic system based on a Communist ideology would spread like falling dominoes is apparent today, with the fear that an economic system based on libertarian ideology will spread.  What distrubs me the most, is that violence has become a means of spreading an economic ideology.  I know many liberatarians are not Republicans, but Republicans (and the Dems have done the same), are using hte libertarian ideology as an excuse for war. 

To show a bit of my pro-libertarian ideology…I think Amtrak, the national railroad that receives $900million in gov’t subsidies, is an example of a failing gov’t program.  The free-market has created bus services, (mostly Chines owned) that can get me from Washington D.C. to New York for $30 round trip.  Amtrak costs about $80…ONE WAY!!!  Plus, you always here about them crashing.  Point being, I don’t think we should be paying tax-payers money to fund Amtrak.  Amtrak now needs more tax-payer money since they’re not profiting, and a bad cycle develops.

There is a difference, however, between trains and schools.  The purpose of public schooling is to ensure even the poorest student can get a quality education.  Trains are not a public good.  When I was in Denver, they have a free train that runs up and down the main street.  At that point, it becomes a public good, since it can be used by anyone.  Public schools should not be constrained by libertarian ideologies, they should not be viewed as businesses.  Students should not be viewed as customers.  Just as a publicly subsidized train system is a drain on the free-market of train transportation, free-market views of education are a drain on public schools.  It’s amazing how much effort is going on right now by educators to fight for public schools, to fight for funding, to fight against high-stakes standardized testing.  Unlike Amtrak, free public schooling should be here to stay, because, as even libertarians will admit, it is the bedrock of all strong economies.  Now…while my utopia has no schools that resemble those of today, I believe it is more practical to reform schools than to do away with them and expect the community or private schools alone to do the job.

 

 

Topic: Super Bowl?

Probably the leading indicator of the changes going on in my life, is the fact that I have no plan to watch the Super Bowl tom.  But…bigger than that, is the fact that I feel no emotions when watching sports on tv anymore, with the exception of soccer.  So…I haven’t become anti-sport, I’ve just become numb to the very thing I grew up obsessing about.

And…I guess that last line explains it.  I was growing up.  I wasn’t in college yet.  There was always the dream of being a pro-athlete while tossing a tennis ball over and over at the brick-side of my house, the white paint indicating the strike zone.

I used to worship the month of March.  After following the college basketball season minimally, I’d suddenly be doing extensive research on all 64 teams.  Of course…I always picked Kentucky to win it all, not a bad bet, as they’re always a Final Four threat, and always a top 3 seed.  I’d sit in class obsessing over the hundreds of possible brackets.  Which 5-12 upset to pick?  This can’t be the year all 4 #1 seeds make it out of their brackets, or is that what everyone else thinks, and this really is the year? 

Then…there’s obsessing over the games themselves.  Players and schools.  I’ve never heard of.  Come on Marquette!!!  Gonzaga!!!  UNC Wilmington!!!

It’s not just March Madness I’ve lost interested in…it’s all of it.  I don’t even go to the ESPN website anymore.  I don’t keep up w/ my teams players.  Why have I fallen off the sports bandwagon…am I losing touch w/ “reality,” with myself?

The first thing that happened, is I traveled.  I realized, life goes on even when you can’t follow sports.  I also realized, soccer to global sports what English is to a global language.  I may not be able to have a conversation w/ someone about their fantasy football team, but I know enough to discuss the Premiership, Champion League.  Even the Super 12 I know a bit about.  That’s a rugby league with 12 teams, I think 5 are from New Zealand, 4 are from Australia, and 4 are from South Africa. 

My loss of interest in American sports often makes me feel small.  Sports is the almighty ice breaker for so many people.  Then there’s tv, movies, etc.  Oh yeah…I’ve also abandoned tv.  I just don’t watch it anymore, except Friends, Seinfeld, and Family Guy dvd’s.  I’m trying to rent movies.  But on the whole…my knowledge of American pop-culture is bollocks.  My knowledge of words like bollocks, however, reminds me that there’s a world out there where, “I fit in.” 

Anyways…I’m thinking of going to New York in a few days.  I’m looking at it more as a vacation than as a homecoming, even though I’ll get to catch up w/ some family and friends.  I grew up in Long Island, but I never lived in New York City, and, to be honest, I don’t think I lived at all until recently, and I’m still trying to learn how to live properly.  Gonna start researching some fun things to do there.

I was really tired when I wrote the last post…and so I screwed it up, I put new instructions down, try it again, see what you get.

Think of a #, 1 through 10
Take that #, and double it. 
Take the new #, and double it again
Take this new #, and divide it by whatever your original number was
Now…with that number, think of the corresponding letter, (ex. 1 = a, 2=b, 3=c…)
Now…with that letter, what’s the first country you can think of that begins w/ that letter?
Now…with the last letter of that country, what’s the first animal you can think of?
Now…with the last letter of that animal, what’s the first color you can think of?

Ok…ready for the punchline?  Click on the comment box.