Okay, random is never the right word - rather, these are thoughts that I had that I don't want to have their own post.
1) Failures of the Democratic Party
When I look at what has gone wrong over the past four years of Democratic control of Congress, and the past two years of controlling all of government, I am struck by how ill-prepared the Democratic Party was to rule. And here's what I mean - whereas the GOP has a governing philosophy, the Democrats define themselves by not being the GOP. Sure, there is a laundry list of things to do, but Democrats can't agree on their own political philosophy, while Republicans do their best to comport to "conservativism," consequences be damned.
So, when the Democrats took power, their only goal was to dismantle everything Bush did, and then they got caught up in the storm of economic crises, wars, etc. But there was and is no clear economic vision. To this day, I don't know what Obama's vision for America is, and that's largely because he's been trying to keep the economy afloat.
This failure of leadership and vision is probably what's killing us now. The economy is stable, businesses have the cash to invest and move forward, but no one knows what the future will hold, so these companies are holding back. Had Obama set forth his vision, a vision in line with a Democratic Party philosophy of economics, we would be in a different spot then we're in now.
2) Padres Trading Away Adrian Gonzalez
As a Padres fan, this trade was painful. I knew it was bound to happen, but this trade lays bare all the problems in baseball. Here, the Padres traded away their best player, a team leader, a local boy done good (he credits his power to carne asada burritos), and an all around good guy, for prospects because they couldn't afford to resign him in a year. This may be a broken record, but when a mid-market team like the Padres can't afford to pay its best player, then there are serious problems in baseball.
3) The Yankees are Douchebags
There are two reasons why the Yankees didn't sign Cliff Lee: 1) their fans spit on and heckled Cliff Lee's wife during the playoffs; and 2) the organization went out of its way to embarrass Derek Jeter. Now sure, Jeter is overrated as a baseball player, but Jeter is Mr. Yankee - a guy who willingly took up the Ruth/Gerhig/DiMaggio mantle and wore it proudly. There are maybe 5 guys in baseball who could do the same. . .no fuck that, there's only Derek Jeter. So, if I was not a Yankee, but offered money to be one, I would have to think long and hard. If the Yankees are willing to throw Jeter under the bus, they'd throw anyone under the bus. There was no way in hell Lee was joining the Yankees after that spectacle.
4) I'm having a hard time getting excited for football this season
Maybe its a reaction to how up and down the Chargers are this year, maybe its because my dog reacts whenever I yell at the TV (he thinks I'm barking at a squirrel or something and goes nuts), but I'm just not into football this season. Sure, I'm enjoying it, but I'm not as into football as I have been in the past.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
A Case for a Higher Marginal Tax Rate*
I could write this post and discuss why Obama is a dumbass, etc., but rather than parrot what everyone else is saying, let me say this - having a high marginal tax rate (the rate on the highest income earners) is good. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that, since Phat Jim is a liberal/leftie/commie/pinko/socialist, that I support high taxes so as to take from the rich and give to the poor. After all, I'm a tax and spend liberal right?
Wrong.
A high marginal tax rate has the added benefit of redistributing wealth, and paying for social programs, and it makes sense to take money from the wealthiest people who can afford to go with less so that the government can pay its bills. But that's not why I think a high marginal tax rate is good.
What its really about is changing behavior. Specifically, its about getting CEO's and bank executives to look long-term instead of short term. When the marginal tax rate is relatively low (35% right now), high income earners have every incentive to maximize profit now - and before any feared income tax increase. So, rather than putting profits into shoring up the company for downturns, or investing in research, or whatnot, the motivation is to make money NOW.
The end result, as we've seen over and over again, is that more and more money goes to the executives and fewer and fewer money goes elsewhere. Or, worse yet, the company pursues short term profit over long-term gain. Then the company collapses into itself. We have seen this boom/bust cycle move from industry to industry for the past twenty years - twenty years that have coincided with the drop in the marginal tax rate. Not surprisingly, this boom-bust cycle we're seeing now is almost exactly the same cycle as we saw prior to the economic reforms of the New Deal, when the marginal tax rate increased, and which had come to an end after taxes were raised.
Now, don't get me wrong - paying taxes sucks major donkey di. . .okay to humor my fourth reader, I will avoid profanity here. Paying taxes, for the individual, is a terrible thing, and no one wants to pay taxes. But like speed limits, a higher tax rate is good for the country as a whole. Additionally, if we raise the marginal income tax rate, but keep other tax rates lower, such as capital gains on long term investments, etc., we can funnel money towards capital investment (which is what would happen anyway), and ease the burden. What you will definitely see, though, is a sudden and precipitous drop on executive pay, which everyone agrees is too high.
*****WARNING DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE BELOW DO NOT READ***********
So, paying taxes may suck major donkey dick, but that donkey is the United States, and it is in desperate need to get off.
*****END OF DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE RESUME READING*******
And that is why a higher marginal tax rate would be a good idea.
*Also known as "Bogart Baiting"
Wrong.
A high marginal tax rate has the added benefit of redistributing wealth, and paying for social programs, and it makes sense to take money from the wealthiest people who can afford to go with less so that the government can pay its bills. But that's not why I think a high marginal tax rate is good.
What its really about is changing behavior. Specifically, its about getting CEO's and bank executives to look long-term instead of short term. When the marginal tax rate is relatively low (35% right now), high income earners have every incentive to maximize profit now - and before any feared income tax increase. So, rather than putting profits into shoring up the company for downturns, or investing in research, or whatnot, the motivation is to make money NOW.
The end result, as we've seen over and over again, is that more and more money goes to the executives and fewer and fewer money goes elsewhere. Or, worse yet, the company pursues short term profit over long-term gain. Then the company collapses into itself. We have seen this boom/bust cycle move from industry to industry for the past twenty years - twenty years that have coincided with the drop in the marginal tax rate. Not surprisingly, this boom-bust cycle we're seeing now is almost exactly the same cycle as we saw prior to the economic reforms of the New Deal, when the marginal tax rate increased, and which had come to an end after taxes were raised.
Now, don't get me wrong - paying taxes sucks major donkey di. . .okay to humor my fourth reader, I will avoid profanity here. Paying taxes, for the individual, is a terrible thing, and no one wants to pay taxes. But like speed limits, a higher tax rate is good for the country as a whole. Additionally, if we raise the marginal income tax rate, but keep other tax rates lower, such as capital gains on long term investments, etc., we can funnel money towards capital investment (which is what would happen anyway), and ease the burden. What you will definitely see, though, is a sudden and precipitous drop on executive pay, which everyone agrees is too high.
*****WARNING DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE BELOW DO NOT READ***********
So, paying taxes may suck major donkey dick, but that donkey is the United States, and it is in desperate need to get off.
*****END OF DISGUSTING MENTAL IMAGE RESUME READING*******
And that is why a higher marginal tax rate would be a good idea.
*Also known as "Bogart Baiting"
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
On the tax cut deal. . .
So, with great sadness, all Democrats have finally realized that Obama isn't a progressive, but rather a pragmatist more interested in getting small things done than providing the reform the country needs. This tax cut deal is a disaster on so many fronts - it encourages the Republicans to become more intransigent on other issues, such as Social Security, it demoralizes the Democratic base, and most importantly, its just bad policy. Yes, it could be worse (and that was Obama's point), but not by much.
Q: So, what should good progressives do about this?
A: We need to ratfuck our President.
Simply put, the Democrats on Capitol Hill should completely reject the plan. When the President calls to get people on board, they should dodge his calls. This needs to be a complete and utter loss handed to him by his own party, similar to how the GOP killed Bush's immigration reform bill in 2006.
My reasoning here is simple - right now, the President is negotiating with an intransigent GOP, and a more or less flexible Democratic Party. Democrats, by and large, are less interested in means than they are in ends. So, where a Republican will insist on tax cuts no matter the situation, a Democrat will be willing to discuss a variety of policy decisions to meet the sought after ends. As a result, the President and the policies are pushed further to the right - further than the American people want, by measure of the polls.
However, if Democrats ratfuck this deal, then the President will start having to worry about how the Left will react to his negotiations, and will adjust his behavior accordingly. In so doing, we might see real bipartisan compromise, or we might see no action whatsoever. But we will better negotiations.
Q: So, what should good progressives do about this?
A: We need to ratfuck our President.
Simply put, the Democrats on Capitol Hill should completely reject the plan. When the President calls to get people on board, they should dodge his calls. This needs to be a complete and utter loss handed to him by his own party, similar to how the GOP killed Bush's immigration reform bill in 2006.
My reasoning here is simple - right now, the President is negotiating with an intransigent GOP, and a more or less flexible Democratic Party. Democrats, by and large, are less interested in means than they are in ends. So, where a Republican will insist on tax cuts no matter the situation, a Democrat will be willing to discuss a variety of policy decisions to meet the sought after ends. As a result, the President and the policies are pushed further to the right - further than the American people want, by measure of the polls.
However, if Democrats ratfuck this deal, then the President will start having to worry about how the Left will react to his negotiations, and will adjust his behavior accordingly. In so doing, we might see real bipartisan compromise, or we might see no action whatsoever. But we will better negotiations.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Pre-Thanksgiving Rant
For what seems like an eternity, the corner of 6th and Broadway, about two blocks from where I work, was empty or in construction. About a month ago, they finally put in a brewery and restaurant. Now being a bit of a beer snob, I was pretty stoked. A decent brewery right by work would be kickass.
But then I walked by the place today and saw the name: Beer Company Restaurant and Brewery. Seriously, "Beer Company?" What, were the owners too lazy to come up with a cliche Irish name? And it gets worse - the house beers are called: Brown Ale, Pale Ale, Hef, IPA, and Red Ale. And the menu? Well, its literally the standard pub fare. There is absolutely no originality in the menu, in the name, or anything.
And that pisses me off because the whole point of the craft brewing movement was specifically to avoid generic beer. Don't get me wrong, the macrobrews are just fine, but craft brewing is all about experimentation, fun, and some profit. What's the point of brewing beer if you're going to brew the exact same beer as everyone else. More to the point, why have a restaurant when you don't even have a name for it? Just call yourself Applebee's and be done with it. Actually, wait, Applebee's has an original name.
Ugh.
But then I walked by the place today and saw the name: Beer Company Restaurant and Brewery. Seriously, "Beer Company?" What, were the owners too lazy to come up with a cliche Irish name? And it gets worse - the house beers are called: Brown Ale, Pale Ale, Hef, IPA, and Red Ale. And the menu? Well, its literally the standard pub fare. There is absolutely no originality in the menu, in the name, or anything.
And that pisses me off because the whole point of the craft brewing movement was specifically to avoid generic beer. Don't get me wrong, the macrobrews are just fine, but craft brewing is all about experimentation, fun, and some profit. What's the point of brewing beer if you're going to brew the exact same beer as everyone else. More to the point, why have a restaurant when you don't even have a name for it? Just call yourself Applebee's and be done with it. Actually, wait, Applebee's has an original name.
Ugh.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
I. Am. So. Pissed. Off. Right. Now.
Okay, that's not quite true. In the wake of the complete and utter disaster that was last night, I am more or less depressed. But to make a few of you happy, here are my thoughts:
1) Anger With Obama and the Democratic Leadership: In the last two years, Democrats had proof, actual, real proof, that Republican economic policy was a complete and utter failure, and they did nothing with it. No mortgage foreclosure reform. No bankruptcy reform. A stimulus that was completely limp and relied on tax cuts (which, by the way, don't do shit in a deflationary cycle). All we could do was stop the economic bleeding. Now, that would have been enough to explain to the voters, but oh, fucking, no, we can't do that.
Instead of actually governing, the Democratic "Leadership" fought amongst themselves - okay the Democrats in the Senate did the fighting - and we ended up with watered down everything. Anyway, it wasn't the liberals who fucked everything up. It was the moderates. The half-measures didn't help enough people, pissing off the moderates, and deflated the Democratic base. And guess what, when you lose even some of the base, you lose the election. The GOP figured this out thirty years ago.
So, I'm very, very angry with the Democratic Leadership right now. Okay, not with Nancy Pelosi, who did everything she was supposed to do.
2) Depressed Over Good People Losing: There were lots of good, smart people who lost yesterday. Russ Feingold worked his ass off for the people of Wisconsin, and lost because of the weak-kneed bullshit of his more conservative fellow Democrats.
Worst of all, for me personally, Howard Wayne lost to Lorie Zapf in the race for San Diego City Council. Howard Wayne was overqualified to be a City Councilman, and who cares about people. He might have dressed like a schlub, and wasn't a good public speaker, but Wayne is a true public servant who, when he isn't a public official, he is a public servant (literally - he is an Assistant AG). And he lost to Lorie Zapf, who hasn't done a goddamn thing in her life for the public good, and speaks in talking points. Ugh.
And here's where I get upset really - it would be one thing if Democrats lost to good, hard-working, smart, and well-deserving conservatives. But they didn't, for the most part. With the exception of Brian Sandoval - the next Governor of Nevada (and potentially huge problem for the Democrats in the future) - the GOP candidates were the dregs of the conservative movement. Let's face it, good conservatives don't run for office, they go out and make money. So instead of intelligent discourse, we're going to have talking points and lunatic conspiracy theories. Fucking great.
3) Fear for the Future: We have big, big problems in this country, and this next Congress isn't going to help fix any of them. If there's a government shutdown, we're going to end up in a full-blown deflationary cycle, and the economy will get worse. That's for certain. At best, we're looking at two years of gridlock. At worst, two years of Democratic capitulation. Fuck.
4) Hope: At least in California, we got Jerry Brown, almost passed Prop. 19, and rejected Prop. 23. There is some hope for the future. Some.
1) Anger With Obama and the Democratic Leadership: In the last two years, Democrats had proof, actual, real proof, that Republican economic policy was a complete and utter failure, and they did nothing with it. No mortgage foreclosure reform. No bankruptcy reform. A stimulus that was completely limp and relied on tax cuts (which, by the way, don't do shit in a deflationary cycle). All we could do was stop the economic bleeding. Now, that would have been enough to explain to the voters, but oh, fucking, no, we can't do that.
Instead of actually governing, the Democratic "Leadership" fought amongst themselves - okay the Democrats in the Senate did the fighting - and we ended up with watered down everything. Anyway, it wasn't the liberals who fucked everything up. It was the moderates. The half-measures didn't help enough people, pissing off the moderates, and deflated the Democratic base. And guess what, when you lose even some of the base, you lose the election. The GOP figured this out thirty years ago.
So, I'm very, very angry with the Democratic Leadership right now. Okay, not with Nancy Pelosi, who did everything she was supposed to do.
2) Depressed Over Good People Losing: There were lots of good, smart people who lost yesterday. Russ Feingold worked his ass off for the people of Wisconsin, and lost because of the weak-kneed bullshit of his more conservative fellow Democrats.
Worst of all, for me personally, Howard Wayne lost to Lorie Zapf in the race for San Diego City Council. Howard Wayne was overqualified to be a City Councilman, and who cares about people. He might have dressed like a schlub, and wasn't a good public speaker, but Wayne is a true public servant who, when he isn't a public official, he is a public servant (literally - he is an Assistant AG). And he lost to Lorie Zapf, who hasn't done a goddamn thing in her life for the public good, and speaks in talking points. Ugh.
And here's where I get upset really - it would be one thing if Democrats lost to good, hard-working, smart, and well-deserving conservatives. But they didn't, for the most part. With the exception of Brian Sandoval - the next Governor of Nevada (and potentially huge problem for the Democrats in the future) - the GOP candidates were the dregs of the conservative movement. Let's face it, good conservatives don't run for office, they go out and make money. So instead of intelligent discourse, we're going to have talking points and lunatic conspiracy theories. Fucking great.
3) Fear for the Future: We have big, big problems in this country, and this next Congress isn't going to help fix any of them. If there's a government shutdown, we're going to end up in a full-blown deflationary cycle, and the economy will get worse. That's for certain. At best, we're looking at two years of gridlock. At worst, two years of Democratic capitulation. Fuck.
4) Hope: At least in California, we got Jerry Brown, almost passed Prop. 19, and rejected Prop. 23. There is some hope for the future. Some.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Law School Hell(?)
This article from Slate about the oversupply of law school grads scared the hell out of me. Seriously, I wanted to crawl under my desk, rock back and forth in the fetal position, and vomit at the same time. Not because I am currently experiencing the hell of unemployment, but rather, because I know how precarious life as a new attorney is.
The first thing that everyone should know is that when it comes to starting salaries, there are two types of lawyers in the U.S. - big firm attorneys and everyone else. Big firm attorneys, starting from day one, are paid six-figure salaries, and make big bucks (there's also an element of soul-selling involved, but whatever). Everyone else generally makes around $100,000 less than that. But regardless of what the new lawyer makes, he/she starts out with a mortgage-sized debt called student loans.
From personal experience, I graduated from law school with around $85,000 in student loan debt (and I was able to get it that low because I worked part-time throughout law school and lived with my parents). Because I am a liberal sort, I went to work for a non-profit, civil rights organization, that paid me $32k per year. During this time, my monthly student loan payments were approximately $900 per month, or about half of my take-home pay. I then consolidated my federal loans (so it will take me 25 years to pay them off), and cut my student loan payments to a more manageable $500 per month. Even then, I was living with my parents and asking for student loan assistance from my law school.
I share this because I was "doing the right thing" - taking out only student loans that I needed, saving as much as possible, had no credit card debt, and working to make the world a better place. Even then, I stuck living with my parents until I was 32 years old. It was only until I got a job at a law firm, which still pays significantly less than what partner-track, first year associates get from large firms, that I was able to move out of my parents' house. Oh, but I need a roommate to make the rent.
Again, I did everything right - I went to a good (Order of the Coif) law school, got good grades, passed the California Bar on the first try, etc. - and I still was too poor to afford my own place. If I did the "wrong" things (the things that most law school grads do) even just one or two of the wrong things, I would be in serious trouble right now.
I say all of this, despite the fact that I have absolutely no regrets about going to law school. I love being a lawyer, I love being a litigator, and I still love the law. Of course, my practice for the past seven years has been either in civil rights litigation or class action litigation. I've never had to defend a DUI to pay the rent, or represent a client I found odious. And that's a good thing, because this job is one of the most taxing, most difficult jobs around. I rarely have time to date, see friends, work in politics, and I had to get a dog to create some work/life balance.
Still, I understand how lucky I am to be where I am. And that's why when I read the Slate article, I thought, "There but the grace of God, go I." I get the same feeling whenever I read about a lawyer falling into drug or alcohol abuse - because every lawyer comes so close to falling into the abyss.
On a broader, policy oriented scale, we now have an opportunity to do some good for people, and I think we should take it. Here are my ideas to help out the legal profession:
1) Treat Student Loan Payments Like Mortgage Payments: Only $2500 of my student loan payments are currently deductible, which is totally ridiculous. Even after consolidation, I regularly exceed the max deduction every year. That's ridiculous. If I had a mortgage, I could deduct the amount I pay from my taxes in full. Keep in mind that I cannot walk away from my student loans like I could with a bad mortgage, and even if I declare bankruptcy, my student loans will never be discharged. Ever. So, give me a break.
2) Lawyers who work for non-profits should have their loan repayment suspended - Look, we want lawyers to do good in the world, from fighting injustice, to helping people with wills, trusts, etc. And we have a growing pool of unemployed attorneys out there who need something to do. Why not help by suspending repayment of the federal loans for as long as they work for a nonprofit?
3) Law School Transparency - Let's be clear. Being a lawyer is not the best way to make money. Those rich lawyers who drive BMW's and whatnot, really do work hard for their money. Now, there are harder jobs out there, but this idea that graduating from law school is the ticket to wealth is a total fiction for 99% of the law students out there. So, law schools should be clear about that. And they should be clear about how much the MEDIAN income of the 1st year attorney is (not the average income, which would be skewed by big firm salaries). The thing that helped me was that I was working for a non-profit, and I knew going in that I was going to get screwed financially.
So to all you newbie attorneys out there - good luck, and keep on hustling.
The first thing that everyone should know is that when it comes to starting salaries, there are two types of lawyers in the U.S. - big firm attorneys and everyone else. Big firm attorneys, starting from day one, are paid six-figure salaries, and make big bucks (there's also an element of soul-selling involved, but whatever). Everyone else generally makes around $100,000 less than that. But regardless of what the new lawyer makes, he/she starts out with a mortgage-sized debt called student loans.
From personal experience, I graduated from law school with around $85,000 in student loan debt (and I was able to get it that low because I worked part-time throughout law school and lived with my parents). Because I am a liberal sort, I went to work for a non-profit, civil rights organization, that paid me $32k per year. During this time, my monthly student loan payments were approximately $900 per month, or about half of my take-home pay. I then consolidated my federal loans (so it will take me 25 years to pay them off), and cut my student loan payments to a more manageable $500 per month. Even then, I was living with my parents and asking for student loan assistance from my law school.
I share this because I was "doing the right thing" - taking out only student loans that I needed, saving as much as possible, had no credit card debt, and working to make the world a better place. Even then, I stuck living with my parents until I was 32 years old. It was only until I got a job at a law firm, which still pays significantly less than what partner-track, first year associates get from large firms, that I was able to move out of my parents' house. Oh, but I need a roommate to make the rent.
Again, I did everything right - I went to a good (Order of the Coif) law school, got good grades, passed the California Bar on the first try, etc. - and I still was too poor to afford my own place. If I did the "wrong" things (the things that most law school grads do) even just one or two of the wrong things, I would be in serious trouble right now.
I say all of this, despite the fact that I have absolutely no regrets about going to law school. I love being a lawyer, I love being a litigator, and I still love the law. Of course, my practice for the past seven years has been either in civil rights litigation or class action litigation. I've never had to defend a DUI to pay the rent, or represent a client I found odious. And that's a good thing, because this job is one of the most taxing, most difficult jobs around. I rarely have time to date, see friends, work in politics, and I had to get a dog to create some work/life balance.
Still, I understand how lucky I am to be where I am. And that's why when I read the Slate article, I thought, "There but the grace of God, go I." I get the same feeling whenever I read about a lawyer falling into drug or alcohol abuse - because every lawyer comes so close to falling into the abyss.
On a broader, policy oriented scale, we now have an opportunity to do some good for people, and I think we should take it. Here are my ideas to help out the legal profession:
1) Treat Student Loan Payments Like Mortgage Payments: Only $2500 of my student loan payments are currently deductible, which is totally ridiculous. Even after consolidation, I regularly exceed the max deduction every year. That's ridiculous. If I had a mortgage, I could deduct the amount I pay from my taxes in full. Keep in mind that I cannot walk away from my student loans like I could with a bad mortgage, and even if I declare bankruptcy, my student loans will never be discharged. Ever. So, give me a break.
2) Lawyers who work for non-profits should have their loan repayment suspended - Look, we want lawyers to do good in the world, from fighting injustice, to helping people with wills, trusts, etc. And we have a growing pool of unemployed attorneys out there who need something to do. Why not help by suspending repayment of the federal loans for as long as they work for a nonprofit?
3) Law School Transparency - Let's be clear. Being a lawyer is not the best way to make money. Those rich lawyers who drive BMW's and whatnot, really do work hard for their money. Now, there are harder jobs out there, but this idea that graduating from law school is the ticket to wealth is a total fiction for 99% of the law students out there. So, law schools should be clear about that. And they should be clear about how much the MEDIAN income of the 1st year attorney is (not the average income, which would be skewed by big firm salaries). The thing that helped me was that I was working for a non-profit, and I knew going in that I was going to get screwed financially.
So to all you newbie attorneys out there - good luck, and keep on hustling.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Myth of Collegiate Athletics
With the most recent study out that states that full-ride scholarships don't actually pay for all collegiate expenses, I thought it was high time to castigate the NCAA.
First of all, let's discuss the myth that collegiate athletes are amateurs - that they are not paid to play athletics. Most notably, this myth goes hand in hand with the argument that a college education is priceless. Both arguments are without merit. First, of course, college athletes are paid to play - they receive scholarships from the institutions they play for. That scholarship (which is considered income by the IRS*) is an actual dollar amount going from the college to the player. In other words, every school pay its players.
Now yes, an education is an investment in the future, but that doesn't make education priceless. In fact, every year, every college and university throughout the country puts a price tag on the value of their education. That price tag is called "tuition." And said tuition is paid by every non-scholarship student, either through their parents or through loans. By the way, that price is the price just to attend the storied institution, and does not include costs for books, living expenses, etc. In other words, USC does, in fact, pay its players more than UCLA, because the tuition costs to go to USC are much, much higher.
Because this is entirely obvious, and because the value of some players is much, much, higher than others, some college athletes, acting as economic actors, actually seek additional compensation for their services. We castigate these players for either cheating, or being greedy, but let's face it, they are acting rationally. In fact, given that many collegiate players lack the skills to play in the pros effectively, and that injuries are so common, I would argue that it is more rational to take money under the table than to not.
And here I come to one of my major rules - people are going to do what is perceived to be more rational economically speaking, than they are going to do what is considered more moral. Moreover, the market will modify and change itself to eliminate an obvious inefficiency (as opposed to an obscure inefficiency or an externality). Here, everyone knows college athletes are paid for their services (tuition), and everyone knows that in a few select sports (football, basketball), the star athletes are grossly underpaid. This is especially true when it comes to basketball, where 1-2 stars can make the difference between going to NCAA Tournament (and getting the school to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars), and not.
So, let's not kid ourselves, collegiate athletics is professional athletics.
First of all, let's discuss the myth that collegiate athletes are amateurs - that they are not paid to play athletics. Most notably, this myth goes hand in hand with the argument that a college education is priceless. Both arguments are without merit. First, of course, college athletes are paid to play - they receive scholarships from the institutions they play for. That scholarship (which is considered income by the IRS*) is an actual dollar amount going from the college to the player. In other words, every school pay its players.
Now yes, an education is an investment in the future, but that doesn't make education priceless. In fact, every year, every college and university throughout the country puts a price tag on the value of their education. That price tag is called "tuition." And said tuition is paid by every non-scholarship student, either through their parents or through loans. By the way, that price is the price just to attend the storied institution, and does not include costs for books, living expenses, etc. In other words, USC does, in fact, pay its players more than UCLA, because the tuition costs to go to USC are much, much higher.
Because this is entirely obvious, and because the value of some players is much, much, higher than others, some college athletes, acting as economic actors, actually seek additional compensation for their services. We castigate these players for either cheating, or being greedy, but let's face it, they are acting rationally. In fact, given that many collegiate players lack the skills to play in the pros effectively, and that injuries are so common, I would argue that it is more rational to take money under the table than to not.
And here I come to one of my major rules - people are going to do what is perceived to be more rational economically speaking, than they are going to do what is considered more moral. Moreover, the market will modify and change itself to eliminate an obvious inefficiency (as opposed to an obscure inefficiency or an externality). Here, everyone knows college athletes are paid for their services (tuition), and everyone knows that in a few select sports (football, basketball), the star athletes are grossly underpaid. This is especially true when it comes to basketball, where 1-2 stars can make the difference between going to NCAA Tournament (and getting the school to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars), and not.
So, let's not kid ourselves, collegiate athletics is professional athletics.
Friday, October 8, 2010
The Myth of the Swing Voter
In my continuing series of how Democrats are total dumbasses, I'd like to take a quick look at the myth of the "swing voter" - the alleged voter who doesn't know who to vote for right up to election day, who is a moderate, and runs around with unicorns in his or her spare time. I mention the last part because, like Karl Rove, I don't believe swing voters exist. Or, if they do, taking moderate positions or trying to please David Broder isn't going to help. Once again, Rove figured this out in 1994-ish, but the Democrats are still trying find these votes.
The reality is that the two parties are so polarized over issues like abortion, unions, health care, education, etc., that virtually everyone has made up their minds about the party they're going to vote for IF THEY VOTE. And that's the rub. The choices going into any election is not simply Democrat or Republican, its Democrat, Republican, or not voting (or voting for a random independent candidate). And may "swing voters" are, in fact, disengaged voters who have a preference when they vote, but are so disgusted by politics that they don't vote.
See, that's what Karl Rove and the GOP has long since figured out. So rather than play to the "mythical middle," they reach out to their base, pump them up, and get them out to vote. That's how the GOP has won almost every national election since 1994. It was only in the latter days of the Bush Administration, when the Conservative base was demoralized and the Liberal/Progressive base was energized, that Democrats starting winning again.
To the extent that swing voters exist, they do so only because they are so disengaged from politics that they don't know who to vote for, but at the same time still vote. Those voters are simply going to go with the whichever base is more fired up. Of course, everyone Republican knows this. So why is it that only bloggers on the Democratic side know this? Ugh.
The reality is that the two parties are so polarized over issues like abortion, unions, health care, education, etc., that virtually everyone has made up their minds about the party they're going to vote for IF THEY VOTE. And that's the rub. The choices going into any election is not simply Democrat or Republican, its Democrat, Republican, or not voting (or voting for a random independent candidate). And may "swing voters" are, in fact, disengaged voters who have a preference when they vote, but are so disgusted by politics that they don't vote.
See, that's what Karl Rove and the GOP has long since figured out. So rather than play to the "mythical middle," they reach out to their base, pump them up, and get them out to vote. That's how the GOP has won almost every national election since 1994. It was only in the latter days of the Bush Administration, when the Conservative base was demoralized and the Liberal/Progressive base was energized, that Democrats starting winning again.
To the extent that swing voters exist, they do so only because they are so disengaged from politics that they don't know who to vote for, but at the same time still vote. Those voters are simply going to go with the whichever base is more fired up. Of course, everyone Republican knows this. So why is it that only bloggers on the Democratic side know this? Ugh.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Insensitivity?
I have a quick nit to pick with the media - stop referring to animus as "insensitivity." Today's example comes from ThinkProgress.org, which refers to Mike Pence's claim that stopping gay marriage is more important than the economy as "insensitivity to gay Americans." But Mike Pence isn't being insensitive to the LGBT community, he's declaring outright war against them.
Unfortunately, I see this time and time again when it comes to describing what politicians said. When Senator DeMint says that gays and sexually active women shouldn't be allowed to teach, he's not being insensitive to their interests, he's actively saying that all unmarried women are sluts, and gay men are pedophiles. That's not "insensitive," its an expression of antipathy (go ahead, look up the definition of antipathy, I'll wait). Is the KKK insensitive to African Americans and Jewish Americans? No, the KKK actually wants to forcibly remove all non-White people from the United States in as violent a way as possible.
All this leads to the ultimate non-apology, apology - I'm sorry if I said anything that offended you. My favorite examples of this include Trent Lott saying that he wished segregation still existed, the University of Colorado football coach who said it was okay for the kicker to be raped because she was a terrible kicker (definitely a reason to either quit the team, or play your best at all times), and let's see. . .I'm blanking now. But even though these guys said horrible things, its apparently the fault of the listener that they got offended. Um, no.
So please media, stop saying that someone is "insensitive" when in reality, the person is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe.
Unfortunately, I see this time and time again when it comes to describing what politicians said. When Senator DeMint says that gays and sexually active women shouldn't be allowed to teach, he's not being insensitive to their interests, he's actively saying that all unmarried women are sluts, and gay men are pedophiles. That's not "insensitive," its an expression of antipathy (go ahead, look up the definition of antipathy, I'll wait). Is the KKK insensitive to African Americans and Jewish Americans? No, the KKK actually wants to forcibly remove all non-White people from the United States in as violent a way as possible.
All this leads to the ultimate non-apology, apology - I'm sorry if I said anything that offended you. My favorite examples of this include Trent Lott saying that he wished segregation still existed, the University of Colorado football coach who said it was okay for the kicker to be raped because she was a terrible kicker (definitely a reason to either quit the team, or play your best at all times), and let's see. . .I'm blanking now. But even though these guys said horrible things, its apparently the fault of the listener that they got offended. Um, no.
So please media, stop saying that someone is "insensitive" when in reality, the person is a racist, a sexist, a xenophobe, or a homophobe.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Whining?
Rolling out its big political message for the month, President Obama and VP Biden have both, to varying degrees, expressed frustration at the base of the Democratic Party for "whining," and are telling Democrats everywhere to get out and vote. As much as I like Obama and his Administration, I have to say this total argument is completely idiotic, and goes back to what I have said about the Democratic Leadership - they don't listen to their base at all.
First of all, and to be clear, I am a Democrat. I have always been a Democrat, and I have voted in almost every election held since I turned 18 (the 1994 General, and the 1996 Primary are the exceptions because absentee ballots were hard to come by when I was in college). I'm going to vote in November, and I will vote Democrat down the line. Moreover, almost every whiner is going to vote Democrat in November as well. That's because we're engaged in politics and we have always been.
But you know who isn't engaged? The Obama voters. In 2008, Obama did the unthinkable - he drew millions of people, who would not have otherwise voted, to the polls. Each and every one of those voters were not deeply engaged, and had been discouraged from politics before. And rather than whining about the economy, or health care, or any number of the issues the Administration has floundered on, they will stay at home come election day. That is, unless Obama reengages them, encourages them, inspires them, and draws them in the way that only Obama can.
That said, let me add a few additional points - the problem with the whining isn't that liberals are whining, its that the whiners have been right, and the Administration has been wrong. Bloggers like me have been right about the size of the Stimulus, right about bipartisanship, right about health care, right about DADT, right about Blanche Lincoln, right about Joe Lieberman, and right about virtually everything else. Okay, maybe "right" is too strong of a word. Perhaps a better word is "more correct." Regardless, the point remains - virtually every liberal blogger can pull up an old post, show it to the Administration and say, "I told you so."
But more than being right, the Administration forgets that it needs people like me to do more than just vote - the whole operations of the Democratic Party depends on people like me volunteering time, donating money, and drumming up the support of my friends. If we're not engaged, (and I have almost checked out of this race), then the whole Party operation collapses.
First of all, and to be clear, I am a Democrat. I have always been a Democrat, and I have voted in almost every election held since I turned 18 (the 1994 General, and the 1996 Primary are the exceptions because absentee ballots were hard to come by when I was in college). I'm going to vote in November, and I will vote Democrat down the line. Moreover, almost every whiner is going to vote Democrat in November as well. That's because we're engaged in politics and we have always been.
But you know who isn't engaged? The Obama voters. In 2008, Obama did the unthinkable - he drew millions of people, who would not have otherwise voted, to the polls. Each and every one of those voters were not deeply engaged, and had been discouraged from politics before. And rather than whining about the economy, or health care, or any number of the issues the Administration has floundered on, they will stay at home come election day. That is, unless Obama reengages them, encourages them, inspires them, and draws them in the way that only Obama can.
That said, let me add a few additional points - the problem with the whining isn't that liberals are whining, its that the whiners have been right, and the Administration has been wrong. Bloggers like me have been right about the size of the Stimulus, right about bipartisanship, right about health care, right about DADT, right about Blanche Lincoln, right about Joe Lieberman, and right about virtually everything else. Okay, maybe "right" is too strong of a word. Perhaps a better word is "more correct." Regardless, the point remains - virtually every liberal blogger can pull up an old post, show it to the Administration and say, "I told you so."
But more than being right, the Administration forgets that it needs people like me to do more than just vote - the whole operations of the Democratic Party depends on people like me volunteering time, donating money, and drumming up the support of my friends. If we're not engaged, (and I have almost checked out of this race), then the whole Party operation collapses.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
About that Tea Party. . .
Holy crap - the Tea Party's victories last night were simply astonishing. Astonishing in how absolutely crazy the candidates are. Right now, there seems to be race to out crazy each other on the Senate side. From O'Donnell's anti-masturbation stance to Angle's objections to Reid's linking to her website, crazy is out and about on the Right. Don't get me wrong, Alvin Greene, the Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina is also crazy, but he's not getting any institutional support (unlike the Republican candidates).
That said, to call these candidates conservative is a complete misnomer. Rather than have a philosophy of governance, the Tea Party candidates espouse positions without any ideology behind it. So cutting taxes, for instance, has become an ideology in and to itself, rather than a long term goal. It is policy without any philosophy behind it. And that's a shame because it removes any hope of compromise, because the policies aren't a means to an end, but an end to themselves. It is also where a Tea Partier differs from movement conservatives like my friend Bogart, who takes positions based upon an ideology of smaller government. If O'Donnell has her way, government will be anything but small (as it attempts to prevent masturbation).
But I suspect that there is something else at play. In the 2008 Election, the electorate chose the safe, establishment nominee of John McCain, rather than an insurgent like Huckabee. As a result, most of the die hard, grassroots Republicans were demoralized until McCain selected Sarah Palin. But, I get the feeling that there's a lot of leftover anger towards the GOP establishment over the Presidential election and over the last four years of the Bush Administration and the Tea Party is playing into that anger.
How this all plays out is anyone's guess, but I remain concerned.
That said, to call these candidates conservative is a complete misnomer. Rather than have a philosophy of governance, the Tea Party candidates espouse positions without any ideology behind it. So cutting taxes, for instance, has become an ideology in and to itself, rather than a long term goal. It is policy without any philosophy behind it. And that's a shame because it removes any hope of compromise, because the policies aren't a means to an end, but an end to themselves. It is also where a Tea Partier differs from movement conservatives like my friend Bogart, who takes positions based upon an ideology of smaller government. If O'Donnell has her way, government will be anything but small (as it attempts to prevent masturbation).
But I suspect that there is something else at play. In the 2008 Election, the electorate chose the safe, establishment nominee of John McCain, rather than an insurgent like Huckabee. As a result, most of the die hard, grassroots Republicans were demoralized until McCain selected Sarah Palin. But, I get the feeling that there's a lot of leftover anger towards the GOP establishment over the Presidential election and over the last four years of the Bush Administration and the Tea Party is playing into that anger.
How this all plays out is anyone's guess, but I remain concerned.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Foodie Blogging
This idea is kinda been playing in my head for awhile. Like half the country, I grew up eating Chinese food, and loving it. For the most part, though, I don't eat Chinese much anymore because the Chinese restaurants in my neighborhood aren't great (though the Mandarin House isn't bad). And that's completely strange because my neighborhood, and the surrounding neighborhoods, are some of the best restaurant areas in all of San Diego. Its like all of the Chinese restaurants have been replaced with Thai restaurants. Part of the problem, I think, is that many restaurants are either ridiculously outdated, cater almost exclusively to Chinese patrons.
Its the latter of these two types of restaurants - the one that caters almost exclusively to Chinese patrons - that holds the most promise. The food at China Max, Spicy City, Ba Ren, Emerald, and others, is quite good - and its food that draws people in. So, here's my restaurant idea for San Diego's interior - a Chinese restaurant that uses local produce as much as possible (playing into the locavore movement), and serving craft beer and cocktails.
I got the idea from San Diego Beer Week when Ba Ren presented a beer tasting menu. Now sure, this would be a blatant rip-off of the Linkery - and I'm sure Jay Porter has this on his agenda - but how cool would it be to have a place that could serve good beer with good Chinese food? Look, if Jayne's Gastropub and Shakespeare's can make English food cool, how hard would it be to make Chinese food, with all of its complexity and depth of flavor, cool?
Its the latter of these two types of restaurants - the one that caters almost exclusively to Chinese patrons - that holds the most promise. The food at China Max, Spicy City, Ba Ren, Emerald, and others, is quite good - and its food that draws people in. So, here's my restaurant idea for San Diego's interior - a Chinese restaurant that uses local produce as much as possible (playing into the locavore movement), and serving craft beer and cocktails.
I got the idea from San Diego Beer Week when Ba Ren presented a beer tasting menu. Now sure, this would be a blatant rip-off of the Linkery - and I'm sure Jay Porter has this on his agenda - but how cool would it be to have a place that could serve good beer with good Chinese food? Look, if Jayne's Gastropub and Shakespeare's can make English food cool, how hard would it be to make Chinese food, with all of its complexity and depth of flavor, cool?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
And Now For Something Completely Different. . .
With the political realm getting more and more depressing day by day, I figured I'd turn to a happier subject - the Padres! Not only are the Padres in first place, but they just swept the Dodgers to right the ship after a painful 10 game losing streak (though, to be fair, the Dodgers have given up).
Now, I have a theory about why the Padres have done so well this year - the weather. Okay, so last year, the Padres did very well down the stretch, having one of the best records in baseball for the second half of the year. Unfortunately, their first half of the season was so awful that it didn't mean all that much. Regardless, it looked like going into this year, the Padres would do about the same, or better, if they got good production from their young players.
Here's the thing - they didn't. Everth Cabrera, Will Venable, Tony Gywnn, Jr., and Kyle Blanks have all underperformed this year. But the Padres have been in first place since May for one big, big reason - totally and completely ridiculous pitching. If you look at the stats, you'll see that the Padres lead the league in almost every pitching category, and their bullpen has an ERA of around 2.* So, to win, the Padres' offense doesn't need to be good, just not terrible. And the offense this year falls between mediocre and reasonably good.
A lot of people point to Petco Park as the key reason for the Padres' success, others point to the Padres' talent in the bullpen. Both of those are factors, but the key difference, the one that is getting the Padres to the playoffs (hopefully), in my humble opinion, is the weather.
The weather in San Diego this summer has been completely bizarre - the low cloud formation that plagues us every spring (aka, "May Gray," "June Gloom" or "El Velo") lasted until mid-August. With the low clouds comes relatively cool weather, and higher humidity, both of which make the baseball break more when its pitched, and move less when its hit. So as the pitcher throws the baseball to a hitter at Petco, his curveball curves more in the cool, humid air at Petco, making the ball harder to hit. And then when the ball is hit, because its traveling through thicker air, the ball travels less than it normally would. All of this makes for a superior pitching. The Padres' hitters, meanwhile, are used to the conditions and have already adjusted for it.
Part of what makes me think that the weather has a role here is that when the low cloud thingy stopped in mid-August, the Padres went on a ten game losing streak, with the bullpen giving up leads almost every night. Then, the low clouds and cool weather returned, and suddenly the Padres are back to playing as they have all season.
*For you stat geeks, I know that ERA is a bad indication of a pitcher's abilities, but I don't understand all the sabermetrics stuff. I'm sure that there are a few statistics to describe how awesome the bullpen has been, and please share them if you want.
Now, I have a theory about why the Padres have done so well this year - the weather. Okay, so last year, the Padres did very well down the stretch, having one of the best records in baseball for the second half of the year. Unfortunately, their first half of the season was so awful that it didn't mean all that much. Regardless, it looked like going into this year, the Padres would do about the same, or better, if they got good production from their young players.
Here's the thing - they didn't. Everth Cabrera, Will Venable, Tony Gywnn, Jr., and Kyle Blanks have all underperformed this year. But the Padres have been in first place since May for one big, big reason - totally and completely ridiculous pitching. If you look at the stats, you'll see that the Padres lead the league in almost every pitching category, and their bullpen has an ERA of around 2.* So, to win, the Padres' offense doesn't need to be good, just not terrible. And the offense this year falls between mediocre and reasonably good.
A lot of people point to Petco Park as the key reason for the Padres' success, others point to the Padres' talent in the bullpen. Both of those are factors, but the key difference, the one that is getting the Padres to the playoffs (hopefully), in my humble opinion, is the weather.
The weather in San Diego this summer has been completely bizarre - the low cloud formation that plagues us every spring (aka, "May Gray," "June Gloom" or "El Velo") lasted until mid-August. With the low clouds comes relatively cool weather, and higher humidity, both of which make the baseball break more when its pitched, and move less when its hit. So as the pitcher throws the baseball to a hitter at Petco, his curveball curves more in the cool, humid air at Petco, making the ball harder to hit. And then when the ball is hit, because its traveling through thicker air, the ball travels less than it normally would. All of this makes for a superior pitching. The Padres' hitters, meanwhile, are used to the conditions and have already adjusted for it.
Part of what makes me think that the weather has a role here is that when the low cloud thingy stopped in mid-August, the Padres went on a ten game losing streak, with the bullpen giving up leads almost every night. Then, the low clouds and cool weather returned, and suddenly the Padres are back to playing as they have all season.
*For you stat geeks, I know that ERA is a bad indication of a pitcher's abilities, but I don't understand all the sabermetrics stuff. I'm sure that there are a few statistics to describe how awesome the bullpen has been, and please share them if you want.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Short and Obvious - Messaging the 2010 Campaign
Okay, in a nutshell, every Democratic incumbent should have the following message to the voters for 2010:
"The Great Recession is bigger than anything any of us expected. After thirty years of deregulation, spending on unnecessary foreign wars, and financial bailouts, the economy crashed. In one fell swoop, trillions of dollars walked out of the economy, creating economic conditions not seen since 1934. While the Stimulus and Health Care Reform did a lot to stabilize the economy, there is much, much more to do. That's why, I promise to do whatever it takes to get our economy moving again. Unlike my opponent, I will not let my Party's politics interfere with your family's well-being."
Naturally, no Democrat outside of Alan Grayson will say any such thing. Grayson might, but that's because he actually understands the whole point of politics and political messaging. Ugh.
A quick note for Bogart - not only does the GOP have an easier sell, but really all they have to do is convince voters that they're not completely crazy. That might be too tall an order for some Republicans (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Dan Maes), but most will probably do okay - unless John Boehner manages to fuck it up. Seriously, that guy must have gotten his political lessons from Harry Reid.
"The Great Recession is bigger than anything any of us expected. After thirty years of deregulation, spending on unnecessary foreign wars, and financial bailouts, the economy crashed. In one fell swoop, trillions of dollars walked out of the economy, creating economic conditions not seen since 1934. While the Stimulus and Health Care Reform did a lot to stabilize the economy, there is much, much more to do. That's why, I promise to do whatever it takes to get our economy moving again. Unlike my opponent, I will not let my Party's politics interfere with your family's well-being."
Naturally, no Democrat outside of Alan Grayson will say any such thing. Grayson might, but that's because he actually understands the whole point of politics and political messaging. Ugh.
A quick note for Bogart - not only does the GOP have an easier sell, but really all they have to do is convince voters that they're not completely crazy. That might be too tall an order for some Republicans (Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Dan Maes), but most will probably do okay - unless John Boehner manages to fuck it up. Seriously, that guy must have gotten his political lessons from Harry Reid.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Don't Get Fooled Again
During my freshman year at William & Mary, my freshman seminar class had a debate between a country lawyer Democrat and an Wall Street Republican. In the debate, the Republican crushed the Democrat when he attacked Bill Clinton over the weakening dollar. Now, the beating didn't occur because the Republican was right, but rather because the Democrat didn't have the foggiest understanding of economics. And when the Republican came to our class the next day, I managed to get the Republican to admit he was bullshitting about the weakening dollar because he knew the Democrat had no knowledge of economics.
From that moment on, I realized that if Democrats were going to win debates about the economy, they have to know economic theory, or else they'll get rolled by Republicans. And finally, we're in a situation where knowledge of economics is a good thing, and we end up getting cowed by the Republicans again. This tweet by John Boehner is the single most ignorant thing about the economy ever. He wants to create jobs by cutting government spending. . .Ugh.
Here's the problem with Boehner's prescription - we're not in an inflationary cycle, we're in a deflationary cycle. Yes, the Budget Deficit is huge, and normally that would mean that there would be large inflationary pressures, but there aren't. Inflation is phenomenally low at 1% (ish), and the economy still sucks. That's because we have a demand side recession - businesses and customers aren't spending - rather than a supply side shock - where there's no money to invest. Or, think 1940's instead of 1970's. So cutting government spending is like giving a laxative to someone who has diarrhea - its only going to make things worse because now no one will be spending.
Cutting taxes is a less stupid idea, but not exactly brilliant either. Again, there is no problem with the money supply - if anything, there is too little money in the economy right now, so increasing the monetary supply through tax cuts won't help at all. It might encourage some people to spend a little more, but not enough to help.
No, the only thing that will work here is a massive increase in domestic spending. Maybe not New Deal big, but close. That way, government spending will increase overall demand, and people will have jobs, etc. Now, I understand the whole, if we spend it, we'll end up spending it for a lifetime theory, so write in Sunset clauses into the spending legislation. But do something.
And ultimately that's the problem - right now there's no Democratic leader who's saying this. They're all cowed by the GOP rhetoric on the economy, even the dumb rhetoric. If I was Obama, I would make this case in a national address every single week until Congress passed the right legislation. Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what Paul Krugman, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN ECONOMICS has been saying for the PAST YEAR AND A HALF, but what the fuck to we know. Ugh.
From that moment on, I realized that if Democrats were going to win debates about the economy, they have to know economic theory, or else they'll get rolled by Republicans. And finally, we're in a situation where knowledge of economics is a good thing, and we end up getting cowed by the Republicans again. This tweet by John Boehner is the single most ignorant thing about the economy ever. He wants to create jobs by cutting government spending. . .Ugh.
Here's the problem with Boehner's prescription - we're not in an inflationary cycle, we're in a deflationary cycle. Yes, the Budget Deficit is huge, and normally that would mean that there would be large inflationary pressures, but there aren't. Inflation is phenomenally low at 1% (ish), and the economy still sucks. That's because we have a demand side recession - businesses and customers aren't spending - rather than a supply side shock - where there's no money to invest. Or, think 1940's instead of 1970's. So cutting government spending is like giving a laxative to someone who has diarrhea - its only going to make things worse because now no one will be spending.
Cutting taxes is a less stupid idea, but not exactly brilliant either. Again, there is no problem with the money supply - if anything, there is too little money in the economy right now, so increasing the monetary supply through tax cuts won't help at all. It might encourage some people to spend a little more, but not enough to help.
No, the only thing that will work here is a massive increase in domestic spending. Maybe not New Deal big, but close. That way, government spending will increase overall demand, and people will have jobs, etc. Now, I understand the whole, if we spend it, we'll end up spending it for a lifetime theory, so write in Sunset clauses into the spending legislation. But do something.
And ultimately that's the problem - right now there's no Democratic leader who's saying this. They're all cowed by the GOP rhetoric on the economy, even the dumb rhetoric. If I was Obama, I would make this case in a national address every single week until Congress passed the right legislation. Of course, what I'm saying is exactly what Paul Krugman, a NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN ECONOMICS has been saying for the PAST YEAR AND A HALF, but what the fuck to we know. Ugh.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Early Week Thoughts. . .
I know that right now, I should be working - my workload this week is going to be immense, and by Thursday, I'm going to be completely fried. However, in this moment of relative calm, I have a few thoughts that have been dancing in my head, aching to get out. So here goes:
Art and Communication - I had an amazing conversation the other day with someone who works in the advertising field about subliminal advertising. In essence, good advertising is subliminal - it plays to your emotions in subtle ways to get you to buy the product. For instance, red and yellow, apparently, are colors that make you hungry. So as a result, all fast food joints use red and yellow in their color scheme. Then I bought a painting from a nice young fellow by the name of Tyler Cristobal - my first purchase of a painting ever (and so now I have one thing on my living room wall). And overall, I really like the painting - not just because it was cheap, but because, like a dream, it stirs up a bunch of thoughts all at once.
Anyway, all of this brings me back to an old concept I remember talking to my roommate in college about - that art is communication. The best artists - be they writers, painters, sculptors, actors or advertisers - can communicate a wealth of thoughts and feelings in a single moment. Its why when we come across great art, we are immediately struck - our minds are trying to figure out the entirety of the message. When we come across bad art, we immediately forget it - there's nothing for our minds to consider. Interestingly enough, it is commercial art that is the most self-aware of this aspect. I suspect its because commercial art isn't driven by artistic desire, but by cold, hard cash.
Religion and Extremism - My oldest and one of my dearest friends, consistently posts on Facebook about Islamic extremism across the globe. While I don't like Islamic extremism anymore than the next liberal, I think his focus on Islam is somewhat misplaced. The truth is, the extremists of all religions are equally problematic. And, it doesn't really matter what the religion is, either. For instance, Christianity is truly a religion of peace - to the extent that when faced with imminent death, Jesus Christ healed the wounds of his attackers after they arrested him. Yet, as you look throughout history, Christians have committed atrocity after atrocity literally in the name of Jesus Christ. Similar examples can be found in literally every religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, Muslim extremists - from the Saudi clerics, to the Taliban, to the Iranian regime, are all repressive douchebags. But, they're not repressive douchebags because they are Muslims, they're just douchebags. The problem with focusing on their religion is that its too easy for douchebags to dismiss the criticisms as chauvinism, and it serves to ignore douchebaggery in our own religions. Of course, there are some religions more likely to be subject to extremism than others, but the nature of worship tends to get people to accept all kinds of douchebaggery.
That said, religion is not necessarily a bad thing. A kernel of faith to help through the bad times, and religion fills a deep seated need of all people to connect with something greater than themselves.
Art and Communication - I had an amazing conversation the other day with someone who works in the advertising field about subliminal advertising. In essence, good advertising is subliminal - it plays to your emotions in subtle ways to get you to buy the product. For instance, red and yellow, apparently, are colors that make you hungry. So as a result, all fast food joints use red and yellow in their color scheme. Then I bought a painting from a nice young fellow by the name of Tyler Cristobal - my first purchase of a painting ever (and so now I have one thing on my living room wall). And overall, I really like the painting - not just because it was cheap, but because, like a dream, it stirs up a bunch of thoughts all at once.
Anyway, all of this brings me back to an old concept I remember talking to my roommate in college about - that art is communication. The best artists - be they writers, painters, sculptors, actors or advertisers - can communicate a wealth of thoughts and feelings in a single moment. Its why when we come across great art, we are immediately struck - our minds are trying to figure out the entirety of the message. When we come across bad art, we immediately forget it - there's nothing for our minds to consider. Interestingly enough, it is commercial art that is the most self-aware of this aspect. I suspect its because commercial art isn't driven by artistic desire, but by cold, hard cash.
Religion and Extremism - My oldest and one of my dearest friends, consistently posts on Facebook about Islamic extremism across the globe. While I don't like Islamic extremism anymore than the next liberal, I think his focus on Islam is somewhat misplaced. The truth is, the extremists of all religions are equally problematic. And, it doesn't really matter what the religion is, either. For instance, Christianity is truly a religion of peace - to the extent that when faced with imminent death, Jesus Christ healed the wounds of his attackers after they arrested him. Yet, as you look throughout history, Christians have committed atrocity after atrocity literally in the name of Jesus Christ. Similar examples can be found in literally every religion.
Now, don't get me wrong, Muslim extremists - from the Saudi clerics, to the Taliban, to the Iranian regime, are all repressive douchebags. But, they're not repressive douchebags because they are Muslims, they're just douchebags. The problem with focusing on their religion is that its too easy for douchebags to dismiss the criticisms as chauvinism, and it serves to ignore douchebaggery in our own religions. Of course, there are some religions more likely to be subject to extremism than others, but the nature of worship tends to get people to accept all kinds of douchebaggery.
That said, religion is not necessarily a bad thing. A kernel of faith to help through the bad times, and religion fills a deep seated need of all people to connect with something greater than themselves.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Fuck Tolerance
Here at this blog, I have been excoriating Democrats for being chickenshits* about every major policy decision. As a result, we have had half-measures in health care reform, the stimulus, and in foreign policy. Now, I would argue these half measures are better than what the GOP has pushed for, but while the house is burning you either throw everything you have to fix the problem, or you walk away (or, you do what the GOP is proposing, which is to throw gasoline on the fire). As a result, voters get to choose between the chickenshits and the nutjobs. Great.
But I wonder, where did this chickenshit attitude come from? I think one of the beginnings was the idea of "tolerance" - that is, everyone should tolerate each other's presence because we're all diverse, and so on. But the problem with tolerance is that there's condemnation for racism. If I was a racial separatist, and I chose not to shoot every non-White person on the spot, I would be considered a paragon of tolerance. Fuck. That.
Like a lot of liberal arguments, tolerance is a chickenshit half measure. The real goal isn't tolerance, its acceptance. We should accept our fellow citizens regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation as fellow citizens. There should be no difference between a Muslim American, and a Catholic American, or Straight American and a Gay American - we are all Americans. And we have to accept the fact that not every American looks the same, prays the same, or loves the same. Otherwise, we will slip constantly into fear and violence as people's tolerance fades.
Look at the following video:
This poor guy is simply walking through a protest to go to work - he's actually a carpenter working at Ground Zero. But since his skin color is not white, and he's wearing a skullcap, everyone assumes he's Muslim, and a few of the people at the Ground Zero protests want to kick his ass. The insane thing is that because they didn't kick his ass, technically, this angry crowd was "tolerant." Again, fuck that. The only way to go forward is to say, "This guy has the same right to be here as you. He's an American, and if you don't like what he believes, or what his skin color is, well, then fuck you, you racist fucktard." End of story.
Now, this may not be nice, and it may hurt people's feelings, but just because we're liberal doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a stand. Inherent in Obama's line, "There is no Red America, or Blue America. There is the United States of America," should be a condemnation of all people who try to split us into groups. Not a chickenshit condemnation, but a "if you don't like it, move to fucking communist China, you fucking fuck."
But I wonder, where did this chickenshit attitude come from? I think one of the beginnings was the idea of "tolerance" - that is, everyone should tolerate each other's presence because we're all diverse, and so on. But the problem with tolerance is that there's condemnation for racism. If I was a racial separatist, and I chose not to shoot every non-White person on the spot, I would be considered a paragon of tolerance. Fuck. That.
Like a lot of liberal arguments, tolerance is a chickenshit half measure. The real goal isn't tolerance, its acceptance. We should accept our fellow citizens regardless of race, creed, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation as fellow citizens. There should be no difference between a Muslim American, and a Catholic American, or Straight American and a Gay American - we are all Americans. And we have to accept the fact that not every American looks the same, prays the same, or loves the same. Otherwise, we will slip constantly into fear and violence as people's tolerance fades.
Look at the following video:
This poor guy is simply walking through a protest to go to work - he's actually a carpenter working at Ground Zero. But since his skin color is not white, and he's wearing a skullcap, everyone assumes he's Muslim, and a few of the people at the Ground Zero protests want to kick his ass. The insane thing is that because they didn't kick his ass, technically, this angry crowd was "tolerant." Again, fuck that. The only way to go forward is to say, "This guy has the same right to be here as you. He's an American, and if you don't like what he believes, or what his skin color is, well, then fuck you, you racist fucktard." End of story.
Now, this may not be nice, and it may hurt people's feelings, but just because we're liberal doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a stand. Inherent in Obama's line, "There is no Red America, or Blue America. There is the United States of America," should be a condemnation of all people who try to split us into groups. Not a chickenshit condemnation, but a "if you don't like it, move to fucking communist China, you fucking fuck."
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Lamentations of the Progressive Movement
With Harry Reid's recent statement that he wishes that the Cordoba Mosque would be built elsewhere, I am reminded of the problems inherent in the Progressive Movement in this country - our leaders are weaklings. Every step forward, like Obama saying, people should build their mosque wherever the fuck they want (obviously paraphrasing) is hurt by someone taking two steps back. Thanks, Harry.
And of course, this isn't the first time. From health care reform to the too-small stimulus package, to virtually every issue, the leaders of the Progressive and/or Liberal movement have done more to handicap themselves than the GOP. Its completely maddening from my perspective. Moreover, it explains why Obama is flailing around. His whole schtick is being the good cop in any negotiation. And, as we all know, he's really good at it. So, to be successful, he needs a bad cop - someone who refuses to compromise, and who is slowly brought around to the idea. Nancy Pelosi, for all her faults, plays this role well. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is a total failure. Ugh.
What we need in the progressive movement are more bad cops at the leadership stage. Alan Grayson and Howard Dean are good starts, but we need more. Until that happens, we're going to keep fucking up. Ugh.
And of course, this isn't the first time. From health care reform to the too-small stimulus package, to virtually every issue, the leaders of the Progressive and/or Liberal movement have done more to handicap themselves than the GOP. Its completely maddening from my perspective. Moreover, it explains why Obama is flailing around. His whole schtick is being the good cop in any negotiation. And, as we all know, he's really good at it. So, to be successful, he needs a bad cop - someone who refuses to compromise, and who is slowly brought around to the idea. Nancy Pelosi, for all her faults, plays this role well. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is a total failure. Ugh.
What we need in the progressive movement are more bad cops at the leadership stage. Alan Grayson and Howard Dean are good starts, but we need more. Until that happens, we're going to keep fucking up. Ugh.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Top Chef, Prop 8, and Education - Random Thoughts Blogging
Rather than a long intro, here are few of my thoughts about things, I kinda, sorta, care about:
This Season of "Top Chef" is Mediocre
Readers of this blog (all four of you, Hi Mom!), will note that I am an avid watcher of "Top Chef" on Bravo. Thus far, I have watched all the episodes of every season. . .okay, I'm a foodie nerd. Anyway, I haven't commented so much on this season of "Top Chef" for one reason - its been pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, its not awful, but none of these chefs are remotely as talented as the finalists from last season. Last season, the chefs were routinely producing dishes that, not only could I not cook, but I couldn't even possibly conceive. This season, its been pretty much blah.
Judge Walker's Decision May Go to the Supreme Court, But. . .
On Wednesday, Judge Walker issued a ruling with regard to his stay that said effectively, I'll give the Proponents of Prop. 8 a week to ask the 9th Circuit for a stay. Okay, that much is known. However, lost in translation from legal opinion to news story is the part where Judge Walker indicates that he doesn't think the Proponents have standing to appeal, because the State of California wants out. If he's right, and he may be, then the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court may very well walk away from the decision on procedural grounds. And that makes sense - after all, why make a Defendant stay in the case when it's thrown in the towel? I could readily see Kennedy sidestepping the issue of same-sex marriages by saying that, with good authority from the Conservative members of the Court, that because the Proponents of Prop. 8 have no standing, there's no appeal. So, keep an eye on the case from that prospective, if you can.
Failures of Public Education
My Mom is a public school teacher, and a damn good one. Unfortunately, the public school system she works for is a mess. There are lots of reasons for the mess from lack of funding, to mismanagement, to outside social factors, but there's a big factor no one talks about. Economically, the value of a high school diploma has dropped significantly over the past thirty years because we've moved from a manufacturing economy to a service based economy. When I think about the jobs available to high school graduates, as opposed to high school dropouts, I can't really think of any difference.
To compensate for this fact, schools have been pushing students towards college. But the cost of college is so large that, for many students, its beyond their means. Or, worse yet, they're burdened with a mountain of student loan debt. Having $85,000 or more in student loan debt is okay if you are, like me, an attorney making decent money (but even I can't afford to buy a house). If you're a college grad making $30k per year, that kind of debt is staggering. Plus, graduating from college is no guarantee of a high paying job anyway. So, from the perspective of a kid growing up in a poor area (inner city or rural area), college is a complete fantasy, and so there's no reason for them to stay in school. Not surprisingly, these areas have huge dropout rates.
So, to fix education in this country, we need to make the high school diploma more valued. Not, a mind is a terrible thing to waste value, but actually worth more in an economic sense. Until that happens, the education system is going to be problematic.
Case in point, in Chicago a few years ago, they had a voucher program where kids could choose to go to a public school, a private school and a trade school. The kids in the public and private schools performed at the same levels, which were generally crappy. But the kids who went into trade school outperformed everyone by a lot - even in areas that had nothing to do with the trade they were learning. The reason, to me at least, is obvious - the kids were told that they needed to do x and y to get a good job, not in an abstract sense but in a literal sense, and they were motivated.
This Season of "Top Chef" is Mediocre
Readers of this blog (all four of you, Hi Mom!), will note that I am an avid watcher of "Top Chef" on Bravo. Thus far, I have watched all the episodes of every season. . .okay, I'm a foodie nerd. Anyway, I haven't commented so much on this season of "Top Chef" for one reason - its been pretty mediocre. Don't get me wrong, its not awful, but none of these chefs are remotely as talented as the finalists from last season. Last season, the chefs were routinely producing dishes that, not only could I not cook, but I couldn't even possibly conceive. This season, its been pretty much blah.
Judge Walker's Decision May Go to the Supreme Court, But. . .
On Wednesday, Judge Walker issued a ruling with regard to his stay that said effectively, I'll give the Proponents of Prop. 8 a week to ask the 9th Circuit for a stay. Okay, that much is known. However, lost in translation from legal opinion to news story is the part where Judge Walker indicates that he doesn't think the Proponents have standing to appeal, because the State of California wants out. If he's right, and he may be, then the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court may very well walk away from the decision on procedural grounds. And that makes sense - after all, why make a Defendant stay in the case when it's thrown in the towel? I could readily see Kennedy sidestepping the issue of same-sex marriages by saying that, with good authority from the Conservative members of the Court, that because the Proponents of Prop. 8 have no standing, there's no appeal. So, keep an eye on the case from that prospective, if you can.
Failures of Public Education
My Mom is a public school teacher, and a damn good one. Unfortunately, the public school system she works for is a mess. There are lots of reasons for the mess from lack of funding, to mismanagement, to outside social factors, but there's a big factor no one talks about. Economically, the value of a high school diploma has dropped significantly over the past thirty years because we've moved from a manufacturing economy to a service based economy. When I think about the jobs available to high school graduates, as opposed to high school dropouts, I can't really think of any difference.
To compensate for this fact, schools have been pushing students towards college. But the cost of college is so large that, for many students, its beyond their means. Or, worse yet, they're burdened with a mountain of student loan debt. Having $85,000 or more in student loan debt is okay if you are, like me, an attorney making decent money (but even I can't afford to buy a house). If you're a college grad making $30k per year, that kind of debt is staggering. Plus, graduating from college is no guarantee of a high paying job anyway. So, from the perspective of a kid growing up in a poor area (inner city or rural area), college is a complete fantasy, and so there's no reason for them to stay in school. Not surprisingly, these areas have huge dropout rates.
So, to fix education in this country, we need to make the high school diploma more valued. Not, a mind is a terrible thing to waste value, but actually worth more in an economic sense. Until that happens, the education system is going to be problematic.
Case in point, in Chicago a few years ago, they had a voucher program where kids could choose to go to a public school, a private school and a trade school. The kids in the public and private schools performed at the same levels, which were generally crappy. But the kids who went into trade school outperformed everyone by a lot - even in areas that had nothing to do with the trade they were learning. The reason, to me at least, is obvious - the kids were told that they needed to do x and y to get a good job, not in an abstract sense but in a literal sense, and they were motivated.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Current Events Blogging. . .
Okay, so all my blogging has to do with current events, but here are a few things that have been bugging me over the past few days.
The Cordoba Mosque - For the past several weeks, conservatives from around the country, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, have created an uproar over the fact that a Muslim group wants to build a community center (which will include a mosque) a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Worst of all, the ADL and the Museum of Tolerance have joined in the spectacle.
I find the whole thing utterly distasteful, and quite frankly, Unamerican. A quick history lesson - 9 of the 13 colonies were founded as a result of religious prosecution in Europe (the rest were founded to make money, but that's for another day). And indeed, until the 20th Century, the most common reason for immigrants to come to the U.S. was religious persecution. As a result, the Framers of the Constitution invoked the Rhode Island rule about separating Church and State, because that was the best way to protect religious minorities. And yet, here we are, attacking religious minorities.
Yes, we were attacked on 9-11 by Muslim extremists, but look at what they attacked - the World Trade Center (a symbol of American economic dominance) and the Pentagon (the center of American military might). They didn't attack a church, or a synagogue, or whatnot. You know why? Because is a nation that separates Church and State. There is no church or synagogue that could be attacked in this country that would have the same kind of emotional punch as attacking either of these buildings.
What's more, we forget that Muslims were also victims of the 9-11 attacks. Indeed the reason why the Cordoba Mosque people want to build the mosque in Lower Manhattan is because there's a substantial Muslim community living there. Of course, to people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, Muslims are not "Real Americans" and so they don't deserve any rights. And yet, they call Obama a fascist. Lovely.
Lastly, the ADL and the Museum of Tolerance really, really look bad here. First, the Museum of Tolerance is actually building on hallowed ground - its tearing up a Muslim cemetery (and moving bodies) to build a house in Israel. To then complain about the Cordoba Mosque is the height of hypocrisy. The ADL, although a Jewish organization, used to fight for everyone's civil rights. Not anymore.
Gibbs' Bitch Session
This just came out today, I guess, but its been brewing for a long time. For the past two years, the Liberal grassroots have been asking questions like - isn't the stimulus too small? why aren't you pushing for a public option? what's your plan for Afghanistan? when are you going to close Guantamo Bay? why are you leaving Health Care Reform in the hands of Max Baucus? - and every time, the Administration says, essentially, trust us. Here's the thing - we have been largely right, and the Administration has been wrong. So, we keep asking the same questions, and we're getting a bit antsy. In the meantime, the Obama Administration has been largely clueless and rudderless. Where is Obama's statement regarding the Cordoba Mosque? Where is the powerful argument for a new round of stimulus? Where is the communications discipline we saw during the campaign? Instead of bitching about the Left, Gibbs and the boys should figure out what they're doing wrong on the communications side and fix it. Because. That's. His. Fucking. Job.
Afghanistan
Ugh. Its a total fucking mess over there. The Taliban are they're typical douche nozzle selves, but the Afghani people have determined that the only thing worse than the Taliban is Hamid Karzai, and we're kinda stuck. So, allow me to kindly make a suggestion - the CIA should create, or empower an insurgent group that aren't total Taliban douche bags, drug runners, or warlords. There has to be some one in Afghanistan that fits the bill. Surreptitiously provide money and arms to this non-douche bag insurgent group, have them "kick our ass" and "force us out" of various areas of Afghanistan, hold peace talks with the group, declare them to be non-douche bags, and get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Of course, this assumes that the CIA is capable of pulling this off without completely fucking it up.
The Cordoba Mosque - For the past several weeks, conservatives from around the country, including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, have created an uproar over the fact that a Muslim group wants to build a community center (which will include a mosque) a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Worst of all, the ADL and the Museum of Tolerance have joined in the spectacle.
I find the whole thing utterly distasteful, and quite frankly, Unamerican. A quick history lesson - 9 of the 13 colonies were founded as a result of religious prosecution in Europe (the rest were founded to make money, but that's for another day). And indeed, until the 20th Century, the most common reason for immigrants to come to the U.S. was religious persecution. As a result, the Framers of the Constitution invoked the Rhode Island rule about separating Church and State, because that was the best way to protect religious minorities. And yet, here we are, attacking religious minorities.
Yes, we were attacked on 9-11 by Muslim extremists, but look at what they attacked - the World Trade Center (a symbol of American economic dominance) and the Pentagon (the center of American military might). They didn't attack a church, or a synagogue, or whatnot. You know why? Because is a nation that separates Church and State. There is no church or synagogue that could be attacked in this country that would have the same kind of emotional punch as attacking either of these buildings.
What's more, we forget that Muslims were also victims of the 9-11 attacks. Indeed the reason why the Cordoba Mosque people want to build the mosque in Lower Manhattan is because there's a substantial Muslim community living there. Of course, to people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, Muslims are not "Real Americans" and so they don't deserve any rights. And yet, they call Obama a fascist. Lovely.
Lastly, the ADL and the Museum of Tolerance really, really look bad here. First, the Museum of Tolerance is actually building on hallowed ground - its tearing up a Muslim cemetery (and moving bodies) to build a house in Israel. To then complain about the Cordoba Mosque is the height of hypocrisy. The ADL, although a Jewish organization, used to fight for everyone's civil rights. Not anymore.
Gibbs' Bitch Session
This just came out today, I guess, but its been brewing for a long time. For the past two years, the Liberal grassroots have been asking questions like - isn't the stimulus too small? why aren't you pushing for a public option? what's your plan for Afghanistan? when are you going to close Guantamo Bay? why are you leaving Health Care Reform in the hands of Max Baucus? - and every time, the Administration says, essentially, trust us. Here's the thing - we have been largely right, and the Administration has been wrong. So, we keep asking the same questions, and we're getting a bit antsy. In the meantime, the Obama Administration has been largely clueless and rudderless. Where is Obama's statement regarding the Cordoba Mosque? Where is the powerful argument for a new round of stimulus? Where is the communications discipline we saw during the campaign? Instead of bitching about the Left, Gibbs and the boys should figure out what they're doing wrong on the communications side and fix it. Because. That's. His. Fucking. Job.
Afghanistan
Ugh. Its a total fucking mess over there. The Taliban are they're typical douche nozzle selves, but the Afghani people have determined that the only thing worse than the Taliban is Hamid Karzai, and we're kinda stuck. So, allow me to kindly make a suggestion - the CIA should create, or empower an insurgent group that aren't total Taliban douche bags, drug runners, or warlords. There has to be some one in Afghanistan that fits the bill. Surreptitiously provide money and arms to this non-douche bag insurgent group, have them "kick our ass" and "force us out" of various areas of Afghanistan, hold peace talks with the group, declare them to be non-douche bags, and get the fuck out of Afghanistan. Of course, this assumes that the CIA is capable of pulling this off without completely fucking it up.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Prop. 8 Goes Down. . .
Unless you are far from the internets, you know by now that Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. Specifically, the Court finds no rational basis to deny LGBT couples the right to marry. As a lawyer with a civil rights background, here are a few points I'd like to highlight:
1) The Findings of Fact are Significant
Typically, in a case like this, the legal decision overturning or affirming a statute is done early on in the litigation process. The Plaintiff files his or her complaint, the Defendant files an answer, some investigation is done, and the parties and the Court more or less agree to what the facts are. From those facts, the Court makes its decision. Then upon review, the appellate court is able to review the same facts and determine if the trial court made the right decision. Decisions of that nature get overturned all the time.
Here, though, the legal decision comes after a trial on merits - at the end of the litigation. Because the parties did not request a jury trial, the Judge was tasked with making findings of fact. Now, this is significant because appellate courts don't usually overturn findings of fact, and they particularly don't do so when the trial court makes determinations of credibility. That's because the trial court Judge is the one who saw the witnesses testify, and saw their body language during the proceeding. So, any determination of fact on the basis of credibility is basically bulletproof.
The only way the appellate courts can overturn a finding of fact is when they determine the factfinder (Judge Walker in this case) abused his discretion, and that no reasonable person could make that finding based upon the evidence presented. Um, that's not happening. Like ever.
2) The Scope of the Decision is Huge
Okay, this decision relates to California, and only California. It is fact-based, and strictly tied to California. However, the path of attack for anyone who wants to overturn a same-sex marriage ban is clear - go for the facts. Indeed, when given the opportunity to present a multitude of witnesses to present their case, Prop. 8's proponents presented an expert on ballot initiatives and a self-described "expert" on homosexuality who the Judge found to be completely full of shit. So, I have the feeling that the opponents of same-sex marriage don't have a lot in the tank, evidence wise. The lesson here is take the case all the way to trial.
More importantly, the Court held that there was no rational basis for banning gay marriage. Now, in civil rights litigation, the rational basis test is the easiest test a jurisdiction must pass to do whatever. So, if the City of San Diego passed an ordinance prohibiting people with red hair from being out during daylight hours, it would be challenged under the rational basis test. And the City would probably win because people with red hair are more likely to get skin cancer, and that would be bad for the tourism business, etc. In other words, a government has to work pretty hard to fail the rational basis test. In fact, even if a government had a discriminatory motive, if it can come up with a reason after the fact, that's considered a rational basis. For the past seventy years of American civil rights jurisprudence, the words "rational basis" were always coupled with cases against the Plaintiff.
So, when the Court finds no rational basis, its using the absolute lowest standard possible. But the Court then explains that sexual orientation discrimination is equivalent to gender discrimination, which has a higher standard of review. To get overturned, the 9th Circuit and/or the Supreme Court will have to hold that Judge Walker is incorrect about the standard of review AND that there is evidence of a rational basis. I don't see the 9th Circuit doing that, and I don't think Justice Kennedy would do that either.
3) Don't Let the Judge Sexual Orientation Fool You
Upon hearing that Judge Walker is openly gay, you might be persuaded to think that he was inclined to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. However, Judge Walker was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan, was blocked by Democrats, in part for being anti-gay, was renominated by George H.W. Bush, and has built a reputation of being one of the most conservative judges in the State of California. My boss was stunned to hear that Judge Walker came down with this decision - absolutely stunned.
So, all in all, this is an amazing decision.
1) The Findings of Fact are Significant
Typically, in a case like this, the legal decision overturning or affirming a statute is done early on in the litigation process. The Plaintiff files his or her complaint, the Defendant files an answer, some investigation is done, and the parties and the Court more or less agree to what the facts are. From those facts, the Court makes its decision. Then upon review, the appellate court is able to review the same facts and determine if the trial court made the right decision. Decisions of that nature get overturned all the time.
Here, though, the legal decision comes after a trial on merits - at the end of the litigation. Because the parties did not request a jury trial, the Judge was tasked with making findings of fact. Now, this is significant because appellate courts don't usually overturn findings of fact, and they particularly don't do so when the trial court makes determinations of credibility. That's because the trial court Judge is the one who saw the witnesses testify, and saw their body language during the proceeding. So, any determination of fact on the basis of credibility is basically bulletproof.
The only way the appellate courts can overturn a finding of fact is when they determine the factfinder (Judge Walker in this case) abused his discretion, and that no reasonable person could make that finding based upon the evidence presented. Um, that's not happening. Like ever.
2) The Scope of the Decision is Huge
Okay, this decision relates to California, and only California. It is fact-based, and strictly tied to California. However, the path of attack for anyone who wants to overturn a same-sex marriage ban is clear - go for the facts. Indeed, when given the opportunity to present a multitude of witnesses to present their case, Prop. 8's proponents presented an expert on ballot initiatives and a self-described "expert" on homosexuality who the Judge found to be completely full of shit. So, I have the feeling that the opponents of same-sex marriage don't have a lot in the tank, evidence wise. The lesson here is take the case all the way to trial.
More importantly, the Court held that there was no rational basis for banning gay marriage. Now, in civil rights litigation, the rational basis test is the easiest test a jurisdiction must pass to do whatever. So, if the City of San Diego passed an ordinance prohibiting people with red hair from being out during daylight hours, it would be challenged under the rational basis test. And the City would probably win because people with red hair are more likely to get skin cancer, and that would be bad for the tourism business, etc. In other words, a government has to work pretty hard to fail the rational basis test. In fact, even if a government had a discriminatory motive, if it can come up with a reason after the fact, that's considered a rational basis. For the past seventy years of American civil rights jurisprudence, the words "rational basis" were always coupled with cases against the Plaintiff.
So, when the Court finds no rational basis, its using the absolute lowest standard possible. But the Court then explains that sexual orientation discrimination is equivalent to gender discrimination, which has a higher standard of review. To get overturned, the 9th Circuit and/or the Supreme Court will have to hold that Judge Walker is incorrect about the standard of review AND that there is evidence of a rational basis. I don't see the 9th Circuit doing that, and I don't think Justice Kennedy would do that either.
3) Don't Let the Judge Sexual Orientation Fool You
Upon hearing that Judge Walker is openly gay, you might be persuaded to think that he was inclined to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. However, Judge Walker was nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan, was blocked by Democrats, in part for being anti-gay, was renominated by George H.W. Bush, and has built a reputation of being one of the most conservative judges in the State of California. My boss was stunned to hear that Judge Walker came down with this decision - absolutely stunned.
So, all in all, this is an amazing decision.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Amending the 14th Amendment
I've been thinking about this post for awhile, but every time I write, it comes out wrong. Now that revoking the 14th Amendment's birthright provision is apparently a mainstream Republican policy (ironic, considering that the Republican Party was responsible for its creation and ratification), I had to write something.
The birthright provision of the 14th Amendment is one of the hallmarks of America's post-Civil War policy. It says that no matter your race, your color, your creed, or your gender, if you are born in the United States, you are an American and are entitled to the full rights are privileges therein. This provision separates America from all other countries in the world, and carries with it the promise that the American Dream is open to all people. It was a clean break from our racist and slave-owning past, and a statement for the future.
Many of those who attack the 14th Amendment hate the fact that its definition of American opens the door to everyone. Contrary to the hysterical statements of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others, America is not a Christian country. It is not a White country. It is a country that is made stronger by the polyglot of peoples and religions and cultures that are within its borders. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment, and that's why it must stay unscathed.
It is this promise that gives us an opportunity in the Middle East - a promise left unfulfilled by our own bigotry. We can and should remind the Muslim World that an American can be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu. An American can follow his or her beliefs, guided only by his or her conscience. We should remind the Muslim World that in America, what is or is not proper Islam is not defined by sheikhs and imans, but only by the internal belief of its practitioners. Where bin Laden offers intolerance, we must offer freedom.
Instead, we fight amongst ourselves over what constitutes a "Real American." But guess what, San Francisco is a real part of America, as is Northern Virginia. There is no real America or fake America, there is simply America. And yes, there are differences between Americans over pretty much everything. But those differences are our greatest strength.
The birthright provision of the 14th Amendment is one of the hallmarks of America's post-Civil War policy. It says that no matter your race, your color, your creed, or your gender, if you are born in the United States, you are an American and are entitled to the full rights are privileges therein. This provision separates America from all other countries in the world, and carries with it the promise that the American Dream is open to all people. It was a clean break from our racist and slave-owning past, and a statement for the future.
Many of those who attack the 14th Amendment hate the fact that its definition of American opens the door to everyone. Contrary to the hysterical statements of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others, America is not a Christian country. It is not a White country. It is a country that is made stronger by the polyglot of peoples and religions and cultures that are within its borders. That is the promise of the 14th Amendment, and that's why it must stay unscathed.
It is this promise that gives us an opportunity in the Middle East - a promise left unfulfilled by our own bigotry. We can and should remind the Muslim World that an American can be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu. An American can follow his or her beliefs, guided only by his or her conscience. We should remind the Muslim World that in America, what is or is not proper Islam is not defined by sheikhs and imans, but only by the internal belief of its practitioners. Where bin Laden offers intolerance, we must offer freedom.
Instead, we fight amongst ourselves over what constitutes a "Real American." But guess what, San Francisco is a real part of America, as is Northern Virginia. There is no real America or fake America, there is simply America. And yes, there are differences between Americans over pretty much everything. But those differences are our greatest strength.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Evolution and the Arts. . .
So, like so many other people, I saw "Inception" the yesterday and was suitably impressed. I guess a better way of saying it was that my mind was completely blown. To balance four (or five) separate dream sequences in the mind of the viewers simultaneously was totally fucking awesome.* My initial thought was that the acting was solid, but not great, while the plot was brilliant. Upon reflection, the acting was far better than I had realized. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance, in particular, was amazing and subtle. Anyway, Christopher Nolan is a genius, hands-down.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
And in that realization, I began to think again about the evolution of art, in general. For instance, if you look at the cave paintings of our early ancestors, which have depth and perspective, and compare them to the paintings of the Middle Ages (which lack either depth or perspective), and then compare that to the later works of the Renaissance, you get totally confused. Are we evolving or moving backward, or going back to where we've been?
Biologically speaking, there's not a whole lot of difference between humans today and humans 25,000 years ago (especially since, outside of Africa, the family tree doesn't branch out a whole lot). The same abilities and same brains are at work. The hunters in the caves made art because they were felt compelled to by the same motivation that drove Leonardo and Christopher Nolan - to make art. And as hunters, they had a lot of free time on their hands (look this one up people - hunting and gathering is ridiculously easy compared to agriculture), so they could take the time to paint.
But as people spent more time farming, less time was spent on painting. So, art began to suck. Additionally, the good artists were probably drawn to other types of art. If painting is a drag, then artists will go into sculpture, or performance art, or writing. And when it comes to the painting art of the Middle Ages, I think that's what happened. The good artists were probably sculpting, and the hacks were painting. Once there was some money in painting, the good artists, like Leonardo or Michelangelo became painters.
Comic books in the 20th Century is a good example of this. When the 20th Century rolled around, probably the lowest form of art was the comic book, and the authors of comic books wrote crappy plotlines and two dimensional characters. But, these comic books were popular, and some kids who actually had artistic talent went into the comic industry (such as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman), and then comic books became more and more complicated and complex. Similarly, Nolan's rewriting of the summer action film is probably the result of being inspired by earlier, crappier films.
So, I guess to sum up, I think that art, or rather the production of art, is a fluid evolution and devolution of thoughts and techniques, all depending on what inspires the artist. Who knows, maybe the "Jersey Shore" will inspire some genius down the road. . .or not.
*Ed. Note - The author has a tendency to turn into a total fanboy sometimes. Our apologies.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Holy Crap, Have I Really Not Posted Anything in a Month?
"[The law] is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship. It is not to be won by trifling favors, but by lavish homage." Justice Joseph Story, 1829.
If Justice Story heard about my month, he'd say something to the effect of, "Damn, dude, slow down." In the past month, I sent out an average of two substantive briefs (written reports to the Court where I actually had to think about the legal issues involved) ever week, for three weeks. As a result, I have neglected friends, family, and most importantly, my blog. ;)
Anyway, I am still alive, and still thinking about all things politics, food and baseball. So, rather than write a full-fledged post, here are a few quick thoughts:
1) GO PADRES - Homerism aside, my favorite baseball team is in first place at the All-Star Break, and is doing it all with epic pitching - giving up a mere 314 runs in 91 games (the fewest, by far, of any team in the majors). Sure, the offense is nothing special, but it doesn't have to be. Most baseball writers are expecting to Padres to fall apart in the second half, but if you look at the total run differential, the Padres are winning as many games as they should win. In other words, they are as good as they're playing. Hopefully, everyone will stay healthy.
2) OBAMA - Ugh. When I was in college, I remember one of my professors stressing to us that most decisions of significance are made by people below the President. And here, I think the biggest problem with Obama is that the people surrounding him are less aggressive than Obama. There has to be a good cop/bad cop element to every negotiation, and Obama is a piss-poor bad cop. I thought that Rahm Emmanuel would be the bad cop, but he's too moderate in his politics. So as a result, Obama keeps caving to the Right.
3) THE ECONOMY - I am a Keyesian, so let me state the following to all potential federal decision makers - SPEND MORE FUCKING MONEY. Oh, and spend it within the U.S., not abroad. Yes, it'll hurt us in the long term, debt-wise, but not spending the cash and ending up in a long-term deflationary cycle is worse.
4) RANDOM QUESTION - Why hasn't anyone on the Left thought about organizing the long-term unemployed to march on Washington for more benefits, etc. Its not like they have anything to do right now.
If Justice Story heard about my month, he'd say something to the effect of, "Damn, dude, slow down." In the past month, I sent out an average of two substantive briefs (written reports to the Court where I actually had to think about the legal issues involved) ever week, for three weeks. As a result, I have neglected friends, family, and most importantly, my blog. ;)
Anyway, I am still alive, and still thinking about all things politics, food and baseball. So, rather than write a full-fledged post, here are a few quick thoughts:
1) GO PADRES - Homerism aside, my favorite baseball team is in first place at the All-Star Break, and is doing it all with epic pitching - giving up a mere 314 runs in 91 games (the fewest, by far, of any team in the majors). Sure, the offense is nothing special, but it doesn't have to be. Most baseball writers are expecting to Padres to fall apart in the second half, but if you look at the total run differential, the Padres are winning as many games as they should win. In other words, they are as good as they're playing. Hopefully, everyone will stay healthy.
2) OBAMA - Ugh. When I was in college, I remember one of my professors stressing to us that most decisions of significance are made by people below the President. And here, I think the biggest problem with Obama is that the people surrounding him are less aggressive than Obama. There has to be a good cop/bad cop element to every negotiation, and Obama is a piss-poor bad cop. I thought that Rahm Emmanuel would be the bad cop, but he's too moderate in his politics. So as a result, Obama keeps caving to the Right.
3) THE ECONOMY - I am a Keyesian, so let me state the following to all potential federal decision makers - SPEND MORE FUCKING MONEY. Oh, and spend it within the U.S., not abroad. Yes, it'll hurt us in the long term, debt-wise, but not spending the cash and ending up in a long-term deflationary cycle is worse.
4) RANDOM QUESTION - Why hasn't anyone on the Left thought about organizing the long-term unemployed to march on Washington for more benefits, etc. Its not like they have anything to do right now.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
How to deal with GOP Obstructionism - Open Letter to Harry Reid
Dear Senator Reid,
I realize that you and I aren't particularly close, but I am a long-time Democrat, and a watcher of all things political for a number of years. I'm not a blogger by trade, actually, I'm an attorney and prior to that I worked in politics for a few San Diego candidates you've never heard of. I also have lots of ideas that you probably disagree with - but that's a topic for another letter.
With that said, I am the kind of out-of-the-box thinker you need right now, because if the reports are right, if the current reports are correct, the Senate Republicans are about to filibuster the Senate jobs bill. Not having this bill pass would be a disaster. We all know people who are hurt by the "Great Recession" (or at this time, "The Less Than Ideal Recovery"), and they need help. Moreover, the loss of income would probably plunge the economy back into a recession. Given that the American people generally don't follow politics, and expect things to get done, the American people will blame the failure of doing something on the Democrats, and it is going to hurt the Democrats in November.
But there's a way out. Right now, not only does the Democratic Party have the Senate, but they hold the White House. So, in concert with President Obama, do the following:
1) Force a real filibuster - that is, if the GOP wants to filibuster the jobs bill, make them stand on the floor and debate the bill. Now, yes, this will stall the passage of the bill, but bear with me here, you actually want that. Shutdown all business in the Senate if you have to, but keep the GOP filibustering the bill.
2) While the GOP is filibustering, get every Senate Democrat possible on every news show possible, slamming the GOP for shutting down business in the Senate to deny jobless Americans their benefits.
3) Every week that the filibuster goes, have President Obama address the country from the Oval Office and criticize the GOP for the filibuster.
Now, the benefit of this approach is that the Republican Senators, most of whom have never actually filibustered anything, may end up folding. But even if they don't, you will have spent months demonstrating to the America people that the Republican Party is causing the double dip recession. Its a win-win communication strategy.
Thanks again,
Phat Jim
I realize that you and I aren't particularly close, but I am a long-time Democrat, and a watcher of all things political for a number of years. I'm not a blogger by trade, actually, I'm an attorney and prior to that I worked in politics for a few San Diego candidates you've never heard of. I also have lots of ideas that you probably disagree with - but that's a topic for another letter.
With that said, I am the kind of out-of-the-box thinker you need right now, because if the reports are right, if the current reports are correct, the Senate Republicans are about to filibuster the Senate jobs bill. Not having this bill pass would be a disaster. We all know people who are hurt by the "Great Recession" (or at this time, "The Less Than Ideal Recovery"), and they need help. Moreover, the loss of income would probably plunge the economy back into a recession. Given that the American people generally don't follow politics, and expect things to get done, the American people will blame the failure of doing something on the Democrats, and it is going to hurt the Democrats in November.
But there's a way out. Right now, not only does the Democratic Party have the Senate, but they hold the White House. So, in concert with President Obama, do the following:
1) Force a real filibuster - that is, if the GOP wants to filibuster the jobs bill, make them stand on the floor and debate the bill. Now, yes, this will stall the passage of the bill, but bear with me here, you actually want that. Shutdown all business in the Senate if you have to, but keep the GOP filibustering the bill.
2) While the GOP is filibustering, get every Senate Democrat possible on every news show possible, slamming the GOP for shutting down business in the Senate to deny jobless Americans their benefits.
3) Every week that the filibuster goes, have President Obama address the country from the Oval Office and criticize the GOP for the filibuster.
Now, the benefit of this approach is that the Republican Senators, most of whom have never actually filibustered anything, may end up folding. But even if they don't, you will have spent months demonstrating to the America people that the Republican Party is causing the double dip recession. Its a win-win communication strategy.
Thanks again,
Phat Jim
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Profiles in Fucktatude: General Stanley McChrystal
Well, talk about a turn of events - suddenly, the General in charge of the Afghanistan campaign is quoted in Rolling Stone criticizing the President, and is being recalled to Washington. And by recalled, I mean the General was told under no uncertain terms to get his ass on a plane to DC ASAP. While I'm not sure what will happen to McChrystal when he gets here, I sure as hell don't want to him right now.
Let's face it, Obama has easily moved into the most-shit-on President sweepstakes. I'm not saying he's the most shit upon, but he's definitely in the top five or six (FDR, Hoover, Lincoln, Bush, and maybe Madison). He starts off having to rescue the economy, fix health care, deal with the BP oil disaster, fight two wars, and deal with the morons in Congress. All the while, he also has to fend off accusations that he is a foreign Manchurian candidate who's going to turn over the country to theIslamists Socialists. Ugh. Hell, even I've criticized his actions.
In other words, this guy probably has A LOT of reserved anger (which, by the way, I'm okay with him playing golf and basketball - he needs to get the anger out so he doesn't bomb some poor country into the stone age). And here comes McChrystal criticizing him, not for substantive issues, but because Obama took time to listen to other opinions BEFORE GIVING MCCRYSTAL EVERYTHING HE WANTED.
So, as McChrystal makes the slow flight back to DC, Obama is going to seriously think about what he's going to do with the General. His options are: 1) fire the guy immediately; 2) hear McCrystal out, and after getting the General to grovel, keep him on; or, 3) Be a total dick.
Given that McChrystal is coming back to DC, option 1 is out of the question. Option 2 is still possible, but if I were McCrystal, I wouldn't bet on it. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Obama will go with Option 3 - be a total dick. He's going to make McCrystal grovel for his job, let him twist in the wind for a week, and then reassign him to the most humiliating job Obama can find. And if McChrystal tries to resign, Obama will refuse the resignation (he can do that).
Now, in reality, Obama will probably not go as far as I just did, but he can. And the problem with being a maverick like McChrystal is that there isn't anyone to back him up. Thus, I'm fairly certain that McChrystal is going to get a taste of the shit Obama has been eating. Good luck, General, you're going to need it.
Moral of the story - Never purposely shit on your boss when your boss is getting shit-on by the world.
UPDATE - McChyrstal has offered his resignation, and Obama has refused to consider it until after he speaks with the General directly. My new bold prediction is that Obama gets his pound of flesh tomorrow, and then accepts the resignation.
Let's face it, Obama has easily moved into the most-shit-on President sweepstakes. I'm not saying he's the most shit upon, but he's definitely in the top five or six (FDR, Hoover, Lincoln, Bush, and maybe Madison). He starts off having to rescue the economy, fix health care, deal with the BP oil disaster, fight two wars, and deal with the morons in Congress. All the while, he also has to fend off accusations that he is a foreign Manchurian candidate who's going to turn over the country to the
In other words, this guy probably has A LOT of reserved anger (which, by the way, I'm okay with him playing golf and basketball - he needs to get the anger out so he doesn't bomb some poor country into the stone age). And here comes McChrystal criticizing him, not for substantive issues, but because Obama took time to listen to other opinions BEFORE GIVING MCCRYSTAL EVERYTHING HE WANTED.
So, as McChrystal makes the slow flight back to DC, Obama is going to seriously think about what he's going to do with the General. His options are: 1) fire the guy immediately; 2) hear McCrystal out, and after getting the General to grovel, keep him on; or, 3) Be a total dick.
Given that McChrystal is coming back to DC, option 1 is out of the question. Option 2 is still possible, but if I were McCrystal, I wouldn't bet on it. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Obama will go with Option 3 - be a total dick. He's going to make McCrystal grovel for his job, let him twist in the wind for a week, and then reassign him to the most humiliating job Obama can find. And if McChrystal tries to resign, Obama will refuse the resignation (he can do that).
Now, in reality, Obama will probably not go as far as I just did, but he can. And the problem with being a maverick like McChrystal is that there isn't anyone to back him up. Thus, I'm fairly certain that McChrystal is going to get a taste of the shit Obama has been eating. Good luck, General, you're going to need it.
Moral of the story - Never purposely shit on your boss when your boss is getting shit-on by the world.
UPDATE - McChyrstal has offered his resignation, and Obama has refused to consider it until after he speaks with the General directly. My new bold prediction is that Obama gets his pound of flesh tomorrow, and then accepts the resignation.
Monday, June 21, 2010
A Wild and Crazy Way to Stimulate the Economy
Okay, so with everyone freaking out about spending (including Germany's totally insane request for all governments to cut spending), and with the World (save South America) still in economic doldrums, and with long-term unemployment booming, let me add my two cents.
First, cutting government spending right now is madness. There are three reasons to cut government spending: 1) Inflationary pressures, as in there's too much money in the economy and prices are going up; 2) High interest rates - Government is crowding out private investment by increased spending; or 3) No one will lend the country any money (See Greece). Right now, NONE of these reasons exist. Inflation is nonexistent (and deflation is still a threat), interest rates are low, and we still have countries willing to give the US money (and given the fact that we have the world's most powerful military, no one is really going to cut us off).
Given that a national economy is a mix of consumer spending, business investment and government spending, cutting government spending when consumers and businesses aren't spending is a recipe for economic doom. In fact, the Great Depression was extended by several years when FDR decided to cut government spending.
That said, I don't necessarily like the idea of having people on unemployment for as long as they are. Unemployment payments are, by their very nature, temporary solutions. Right now, unemployment benefits are stretching 99 weeks - almost two years. And so, I don't think we can continue to go down this path. Moreover, many of these long-term unemployed are long-term unemployed for a reason - the jobs they lost are, most likely, gone forever.
But that doesn't mean that we should lose hope. I have one of those wacky, no-one-will-ever-consider-it ideas. Let's give these long-term unemployed individuals small business loans of $10-$20 thousand dollars (or more, depending). Give these people the capital to start their own business. Now, most of the money, without question, will go down the drain. But even if one-tenth of one percent of the loans actually works out, it'll be worth it because for that short period of time, we will have hope.
In the meantime, the U.S. should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements, and encourage local governments to streamline their regulatory processes. Anyway, that's my idea. Your thoughts?
So, how do we stimulate the economy?
First, cutting government spending right now is madness. There are three reasons to cut government spending: 1) Inflationary pressures, as in there's too much money in the economy and prices are going up; 2) High interest rates - Government is crowding out private investment by increased spending; or 3) No one will lend the country any money (See Greece). Right now, NONE of these reasons exist. Inflation is nonexistent (and deflation is still a threat), interest rates are low, and we still have countries willing to give the US money (and given the fact that we have the world's most powerful military, no one is really going to cut us off).
Given that a national economy is a mix of consumer spending, business investment and government spending, cutting government spending when consumers and businesses aren't spending is a recipe for economic doom. In fact, the Great Depression was extended by several years when FDR decided to cut government spending.
That said, I don't necessarily like the idea of having people on unemployment for as long as they are. Unemployment payments are, by their very nature, temporary solutions. Right now, unemployment benefits are stretching 99 weeks - almost two years. And so, I don't think we can continue to go down this path. Moreover, many of these long-term unemployed are long-term unemployed for a reason - the jobs they lost are, most likely, gone forever.
But that doesn't mean that we should lose hope. I have one of those wacky, no-one-will-ever-consider-it ideas. Let's give these long-term unemployed individuals small business loans of $10-$20 thousand dollars (or more, depending). Give these people the capital to start their own business. Now, most of the money, without question, will go down the drain. But even if one-tenth of one percent of the loans actually works out, it'll be worth it because for that short period of time, we will have hope.
In the meantime, the U.S. should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements, and encourage local governments to streamline their regulatory processes. Anyway, that's my idea. Your thoughts?
So, how do we stimulate the economy?
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Big Spill, Obama and Joe Barton
For the longest time, I believed that one political party in the U.S., the Democratic Party, my party, was exceptionally skilled at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. Like a jilted sports fan, I can go on and on about the various miscues and missteps made by members of my party. But after seeing Joe Barton's performance yesterday - where he APOLOGIZED to BP for the perceived "shakedown" of the Obama Administration, and then had to retract the apology, I have learned that snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is common to both sides of the aisle.
Mere mocking aside, I cannot emphasize enough how damaging Joe Barton's apology was. For the past several months, Obama has taken a beating on his handling of the BP oil disaster. He's a consensus builder, a back scratcher, a strategist, but he's not a great tactician. To use a "Godfather" analogy, he's a Michael - you might be able to spit in his face, but you and your family will be dead within six months. In a disaster, people want the tactician - they want a Sonny (or a George Patton) - and Obama isn't that guy. As a result, bullshit like this statement from Inhofe are coming from the GOP stating that this is "Obama's Katrina." That's ridiculous, but it does play into the idea that Democrats are weak executives. That's a good narrative for November.
But here comes Joe Barton. When Obama finally looks like he's going somewhere, Barton APOLOGIZES TO BP. BP, the FOREIGN OIL COMPANY who's negligence (at best) has destroyed fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for probably a generation, and who promises to look after "the small people." And why did Barton apologize to BP? Because Obama pushed BP to put $20 billion into escrow to pay for its own mess. Um, what?
And now ladies and gentlemen we have a new narrative - the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil. Every time a Republican criticizes the President, someone is going to bring up Joe Barton. The narrative is completely broken.
Mere mocking aside, I cannot emphasize enough how damaging Joe Barton's apology was. For the past several months, Obama has taken a beating on his handling of the BP oil disaster. He's a consensus builder, a back scratcher, a strategist, but he's not a great tactician. To use a "Godfather" analogy, he's a Michael - you might be able to spit in his face, but you and your family will be dead within six months. In a disaster, people want the tactician - they want a Sonny (or a George Patton) - and Obama isn't that guy. As a result, bullshit like this statement from Inhofe are coming from the GOP stating that this is "Obama's Katrina." That's ridiculous, but it does play into the idea that Democrats are weak executives. That's a good narrative for November.
But here comes Joe Barton. When Obama finally looks like he's going somewhere, Barton APOLOGIZES TO BP. BP, the FOREIGN OIL COMPANY who's negligence (at best) has destroyed fishing in the Gulf of Mexico for probably a generation, and who promises to look after "the small people." And why did Barton apologize to BP? Because Obama pushed BP to put $20 billion into escrow to pay for its own mess. Um, what?
And now ladies and gentlemen we have a new narrative - the GOP is in the pocket of Big Oil. Every time a Republican criticizes the President, someone is going to bring up Joe Barton. The narrative is completely broken.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
A Better Way to Study Political Science
As you might have heard, last night in California was an election night - we finally dispensed with the June primaries so that brought both the inevitable (Meg Whitman winning the primary after spending $110 MILLION), and the surprising (Prop. 17's loss). Like most election nights since I became involved in politics, I went to the Downtown/Gaslamp section of San Diego, and watched the election results with friends.
On my way there, I began thinking about how little attention I paid to these elections. I had a vague notion of what was at stake, but really, I have been much more focused on national politics. And that's when it hit me - there are really two kinds of politics with vastly different approaches - macropolitics, or politics of nation-states, etc., and micropolitics, the politics of local elections. While the two types of politics influence on another, they are completely different.
Macropolitics is all about policy. Okay, its about policy and the candidate's control of mass media. But because no one will ever actually meet or have a substantive conversation with a Presidential candidate, we are largely focused on things like where the candidate stands on various issues, and how good (or bad) they look on television. So, crafting the right argument, making the right statements, polling, all play substantial roles in determining the outcome.
Micropolitics, by contrast, is almost all about personality and social networks, because unlike races on a national level, local elections have much fewer voters, can be swayed by a candidate's connections. For instance, a friend of mine was "killed" in a local election yesterday, but lost only by six thousand votes. Take a look at the local election results for San Diego here. So a key endorsement here, or a personal tiff there, can make all the difference between winning and losing a race. Moreover, on the national stage, we know everything there is to be known about the candidates. At the local level, the candidate will probably know more about the voter than the voter will know about the candidate.
In light of these substantial differences, I think the study of politics would be better served to acknowledge these differences in the same way economics splits a national economy (macroeconomics) from the study of business behavior (microeconomics). Moreover, micropolitics, which is really the study of relationships within social networks, has a large part to play in study of comparative politics, because unlike macropolitics, micropolitics is not as affected by institutions, because again, its all about social relationships. So, when looking at Iran, for instance, you don't study who has what vote, you study who's backing who, and by how much.
So, for those of you out there who are interested in politics, don't forget about your local races. They are often more dynamic and interesting than the national affairs.
On my way there, I began thinking about how little attention I paid to these elections. I had a vague notion of what was at stake, but really, I have been much more focused on national politics. And that's when it hit me - there are really two kinds of politics with vastly different approaches - macropolitics, or politics of nation-states, etc., and micropolitics, the politics of local elections. While the two types of politics influence on another, they are completely different.
Macropolitics is all about policy. Okay, its about policy and the candidate's control of mass media. But because no one will ever actually meet or have a substantive conversation with a Presidential candidate, we are largely focused on things like where the candidate stands on various issues, and how good (or bad) they look on television. So, crafting the right argument, making the right statements, polling, all play substantial roles in determining the outcome.
Micropolitics, by contrast, is almost all about personality and social networks, because unlike races on a national level, local elections have much fewer voters, can be swayed by a candidate's connections. For instance, a friend of mine was "killed" in a local election yesterday, but lost only by six thousand votes. Take a look at the local election results for San Diego here. So a key endorsement here, or a personal tiff there, can make all the difference between winning and losing a race. Moreover, on the national stage, we know everything there is to be known about the candidates. At the local level, the candidate will probably know more about the voter than the voter will know about the candidate.
In light of these substantial differences, I think the study of politics would be better served to acknowledge these differences in the same way economics splits a national economy (macroeconomics) from the study of business behavior (microeconomics). Moreover, micropolitics, which is really the study of relationships within social networks, has a large part to play in study of comparative politics, because unlike macropolitics, micropolitics is not as affected by institutions, because again, its all about social relationships. So, when looking at Iran, for instance, you don't study who has what vote, you study who's backing who, and by how much.
So, for those of you out there who are interested in politics, don't forget about your local races. They are often more dynamic and interesting than the national affairs.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Rant on BP. . .
So last week, I finally broke down and ordered HBO from my local cable outlet. In the orgy of television watching the followed, I saw "Treme," David Simon's show about New Orleans post-Katrina (great show by the way). Just as Simon's beloved Baltimore, New Orleans is basically a fucked up place, but beloved nonetheless.
One thing that got me is how New Orleans has now gone from mostly fucked - as in, sure the town is destroyed, but there needs to be a city around the largest American port - to totally fucked. The BP oil rig disaster is currently devastating a way of life - fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida - in ways beyond our comprehension. Worst of all, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that BP, with the okay of the Feds, ignored all possible safety precautions that could have prevented the disaster.
So, another day, another mess for the Obama Administration. Never have I ever seen an Administration have to deal with so many crises at once. And thanks to decades of deregulation, we're going to see one crisis after another pop up seemingly from nowhere. Worst of all, our leaders are stuck in the Clintonian era of paying down deficits and deregulation. Morons.
In this instance, and rather than consensus building, Obama needs to bring down the hammer. Order the government to seize all of BP's assets to insure that BP has the money to pay for the cleanup. Fire every Federal employee that he can, and who is responsible for this mess. Push the DOJ to file criminal charges against all parties involved, and hire the local fishing fleet to clean up the mess. Hire Samuel L. Jackson* to act as his spokesman for anything BP related. "Yes, the President stripped BP of all of its drilling contracts, and I HOPE BP BURNS IN HELL!!!"
*Editor's Note: My suggestion of Samuel L. Jackson has nothing to do with anyone's race, but rather has everything to do with Mr. Jackson's ability to express righteous indignation better than anyone else alive.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. The thing is, the people are pissed, and someone needs to be made an example of. And given that BP is an oil company, and a foreign company, and they've totally ruined the fishing industry in the Gulf for at least a generation, why not completely fuck them up?
One thing that got me is how New Orleans has now gone from mostly fucked - as in, sure the town is destroyed, but there needs to be a city around the largest American port - to totally fucked. The BP oil rig disaster is currently devastating a way of life - fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida - in ways beyond our comprehension. Worst of all, it becomes clearer and clearer every day that BP, with the okay of the Feds, ignored all possible safety precautions that could have prevented the disaster.
So, another day, another mess for the Obama Administration. Never have I ever seen an Administration have to deal with so many crises at once. And thanks to decades of deregulation, we're going to see one crisis after another pop up seemingly from nowhere. Worst of all, our leaders are stuck in the Clintonian era of paying down deficits and deregulation. Morons.
In this instance, and rather than consensus building, Obama needs to bring down the hammer. Order the government to seize all of BP's assets to insure that BP has the money to pay for the cleanup. Fire every Federal employee that he can, and who is responsible for this mess. Push the DOJ to file criminal charges against all parties involved, and hire the local fishing fleet to clean up the mess. Hire Samuel L. Jackson* to act as his spokesman for anything BP related. "Yes, the President stripped BP of all of its drilling contracts, and I HOPE BP BURNS IN HELL!!!"
*Editor's Note: My suggestion of Samuel L. Jackson has nothing to do with anyone's race, but rather has everything to do with Mr. Jackson's ability to express righteous indignation better than anyone else alive.
Anyway, I think you get the idea. The thing is, the people are pissed, and someone needs to be made an example of. And given that BP is an oil company, and a foreign company, and they've totally ruined the fishing industry in the Gulf for at least a generation, why not completely fuck them up?
On Israel (part 2), Helen Thomas, and the Right of Return. . .
One of the best criticisms of Zionism that I've heard, and somewhat clumsily stated by Helen Thomas recently, is that while a homeland for Jews is all well and good, but why put it in Palestine. I can imagine my reaction if I was told that I was being forced to move from my apartment because the land was wrongly taken from the Sycuan Band a hundred years ago (which it probably was), would be something like "Wait, what?"
Now consider the rationale for Israel as presented to the Palestinians:
From the perspective of everyone else, though, putting a Jewish homeland in Israel/Palestine makes perfect sense. First, it was where the Jews wanted to set up their homeland. Second, Israel/Palestine has little to no resources, and its chief economic engine - that it sits smack dab in the middle of trade routes - has already been negated by modern technology. In other words, the land in Israel, in the eyes of everyone but the Palestinians, is pretty much worthless, except for religious and historical tourism. Given that the Jews could've asked for much, much more (and gotten it), everyone (except the Palestinians) recognized this solution as being a good one.
This is especially true given that much of the discrimination against Jews came from their without a nation status, and providing a homeland would alleviate the core problems that bred the environment which produced the genocidal behavior found in Europe, and culminated in the Holocaust. Given the history of the Jews, having a place to go when shit starts to get bad is a phenomenal idea.
At the same time, let's not forget that the Palestinians are basically getting fucked in the deal. While its true that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews, thanks to the efforts of some of my ancestors (*ahem*), Palestine is the actual homeland of the Palestinians. And when the Jews moved in, most Palestinians ended up in refugee camps - where they've lived for over fifty years.
And before I get to what should be done about the Palestinians, let me make this very clear - the whole line about Palestinians being Arabs, and that they should simply move to other Arab countries is ridiculous. It would be like arguing that the Austrians should all move to Germany because they're Germans. The fact is, Germany and Austria are different countries for a reason - the people have different histories and have developed different traditions.
Of all the countries in the Arabic World, real or imagined, the would-be Palestinian state is probably the closest to an actual nation-state. The Palestinian people share the same religion, the same ethnic identity, and the same culture. During elections, the Palestinian political parties (Hamas and Fatah) are formed around ideological differences, not sectarian ones. The debate is over what to do, as opposed to who we are. So, I could see the Palestinian state succeeding if it managed to get past the whole have absolutely no economic resources thing. (Seriously, look it up. Palestine and/or Israel is like Ireland without the acres and acres of arable land).
So what should be done? Well, first, the right of return (allowing Palestinians to go back to their homes) is basically DOA. The whole point of Israel is that its a Jewish state, and an influx of Palestinians would fuck up everything. But, I do think some kind of reparations need to be made to the Palestinians. In this country, when the government takes property, it pays fair market value for what was taken. Given that these people lost their homes, its only fair that the international community (particularly the EU) pay for their loss, particularly in light of the fact that the creation of Israel is a good thing. Second, any time Israel wants to create a settlement or whatnot, the rule should be that the Israeli Government has to pay the Palestinians affected by the new construction fair market value of the property its taking.
Doing those two things would help alleviate the economic problems inherent in the region. Give these guys a passport to wherever along with the chunk of change, and people are less unhappy. Who knows, maybe they'll find land that is, you know, arable and has some natural resources.
Third, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state. How to connect Gaza to the West Bank, I don't know, but for the good of all parties involved, the occupation must end. Otherwise, Israel will continue to devolve into an apartheid system akin to South Africa, and the Palestinians will continue to get shit on, be upset and engage in acts of terrorism.
Now consider the rationale for Israel as presented to the Palestinians:
"Two thousand years ago, one group of Europeans (the Romans) utterly and completely destroyed Israel, and then for the next two thousand years, other Europeans had either shit on the Jews, or sought their complete annihilation. So, to prevent any problems in the future, the Jews are setting up a homeland on your property. Leave now."Their reaction has been pretty much what you expect - either the desire to destroy the invaders, or to point out the fact that it would make more sense to punish Germany and/or Europe by putting the Jewish homeland on German and/or European soil. Which, I have to admit, makes some sense.
From the perspective of everyone else, though, putting a Jewish homeland in Israel/Palestine makes perfect sense. First, it was where the Jews wanted to set up their homeland. Second, Israel/Palestine has little to no resources, and its chief economic engine - that it sits smack dab in the middle of trade routes - has already been negated by modern technology. In other words, the land in Israel, in the eyes of everyone but the Palestinians, is pretty much worthless, except for religious and historical tourism. Given that the Jews could've asked for much, much more (and gotten it), everyone (except the Palestinians) recognized this solution as being a good one.
This is especially true given that much of the discrimination against Jews came from their without a nation status, and providing a homeland would alleviate the core problems that bred the environment which produced the genocidal behavior found in Europe, and culminated in the Holocaust. Given the history of the Jews, having a place to go when shit starts to get bad is a phenomenal idea.
At the same time, let's not forget that the Palestinians are basically getting fucked in the deal. While its true that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews, thanks to the efforts of some of my ancestors (*ahem*), Palestine is the actual homeland of the Palestinians. And when the Jews moved in, most Palestinians ended up in refugee camps - where they've lived for over fifty years.
And before I get to what should be done about the Palestinians, let me make this very clear - the whole line about Palestinians being Arabs, and that they should simply move to other Arab countries is ridiculous. It would be like arguing that the Austrians should all move to Germany because they're Germans. The fact is, Germany and Austria are different countries for a reason - the people have different histories and have developed different traditions.
Of all the countries in the Arabic World, real or imagined, the would-be Palestinian state is probably the closest to an actual nation-state. The Palestinian people share the same religion, the same ethnic identity, and the same culture. During elections, the Palestinian political parties (Hamas and Fatah) are formed around ideological differences, not sectarian ones. The debate is over what to do, as opposed to who we are. So, I could see the Palestinian state succeeding if it managed to get past the whole have absolutely no economic resources thing. (Seriously, look it up. Palestine and/or Israel is like Ireland without the acres and acres of arable land).
So what should be done? Well, first, the right of return (allowing Palestinians to go back to their homes) is basically DOA. The whole point of Israel is that its a Jewish state, and an influx of Palestinians would fuck up everything. But, I do think some kind of reparations need to be made to the Palestinians. In this country, when the government takes property, it pays fair market value for what was taken. Given that these people lost their homes, its only fair that the international community (particularly the EU) pay for their loss, particularly in light of the fact that the creation of Israel is a good thing. Second, any time Israel wants to create a settlement or whatnot, the rule should be that the Israeli Government has to pay the Palestinians affected by the new construction fair market value of the property its taking.
Doing those two things would help alleviate the economic problems inherent in the region. Give these guys a passport to wherever along with the chunk of change, and people are less unhappy. Who knows, maybe they'll find land that is, you know, arable and has some natural resources.
Third, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state. How to connect Gaza to the West Bank, I don't know, but for the good of all parties involved, the occupation must end. Otherwise, Israel will continue to devolve into an apartheid system akin to South Africa, and the Palestinians will continue to get shit on, be upset and engage in acts of terrorism.
Friday, June 4, 2010
On Israel. . .
There have been a lot of articles written about the most recent incident involving Israeli commandos attacking a flotilla of ships heading for Gaza in international waters, and from a variety of perspectives. So, to add to the cacophony, I figured I should add my own two cents.
Fundamentally, the attack on the flotilla was phenomenally stupid. Supernaturally stupid. For the past forty years, Israel's Arab enemies have stated that Israel is an aggressive, oppressive regime that commits human rights abuses in violation of international law. So, what does Israel do? It attacks a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters, killing several people in the process in violation of international law. All this to prevent the people of Gaza, one of the most shit on people on Earth, from getting some form of aid.
Now, I could go on and on about the moral issues involved here. And certainly Israel has the right to defend itself from threats. But there's a right way, a wrong way, and a stupid way to go about it. Israel is choosing the stupid way. And unlike the U.S., Israel can't afford to be stupid.
The thing we have to remember is that Israel is a very small country. Its about 8,000 square miles of territory, holding around 7.5 million people. By contrast, San Diego County is around 4500 square miles, and has 3.5 million people. That's tiny as far as countries go. Because its so small, Israel's internal market cannot provide enough of a market for what goods its produces and so, Israel depends on foreign trade to survive economically. Additionally, because its neighbors are or were hostile, Israel spends a lot on its military. To do that, Israel depends on infusions of cash from the United States. Israel is the number one recipient of American foreign aid, and has been for some time.
In other words, to survive and thrive, Israel needs international support. More importantly, it needs American support. To that end, Israel has been exceptionally skilled - it has appealed to the Jewish elites of the American left while simultaneously appealing to the Christian conservatives on the American right. Through AIPAC, even criticizing Israel is politically risky. It helps that several of Israels founding politicians, like Golda Meir, were Americans by birth. But Israel was also smart about using force, unlike the recent attack on the flotilla.
As Israel becomes more and more aggressive (and it really has been aggressive), it has alienated potential allies in Europe, Russia, and the moderate Arabic World. Moreover, it is progressively losing the support of American Jews. If Israel were to become an international pariah, its economy would completely fall apart.
Now, this is a risk that might be worth it if Israel was facing enemies like Syria and Egypt, but its not. In fact, Israel is at minimal risk of the kind of attacks it faced in the 1960's and 1970's, because the State actors have simply decided its not worth the effort. Israel's military is ridiculously powerful, it has nukes, and if push came to shove, the U.S. would help out. So, military action isn't worth the effort.
Instead, Israel is facing the Palestinians, and that's a big, big problem, because for the Palestinians, the fight is worth the effort. These people are literally fighting for everything they have (which ain't much to begin with). And when the Palestinians have nothing left, they commit suicide by strapping a bomb to themselves so that they can take a few Israelis with them. I can't stress this point enough - the suicide bombers aren't just killing themselves to spread terror - they're killing themselves for the same reason people everywhere kill themselves - to put an end to their own suffering. Sure, the terrorist organizers are exploiting the opportunity, but the opportunity was there to be exploited.
Machiavelli wrote, and wisely I think, that the worst place for a leader to be in is to be hated by his people. Or mathematically: Fear > Love > Hate. The problem with hate is that it overwhelms fear. People with hate in their hearts don't care about themselves or their families anymore. All that matters is killing the enemy. And the less people have, the less they have to lose, and the more likely they are to lash out. That's what we've been seeing from the Palestinians for the past twenty years.
The attack on the flotilla was so awful because it reminded everyone of how shit-on the Palestinian people (particularly the Gazans) have it. So they look like victims, while at the same time, are shit-on even more. In this environment, Israel looks like assholes or worse, and the Palestinians remain in a position to be exploited by terrorists. The whole thing is a shitstorm.
Let me end this by saying that I support the existence of Israel. In modern history, no one has been braver than the Jewish people and the founders of Israel. And no one kicks more ass. But the fight that Israel is in right now isn't about bravery or asskicking, its about being smart. Its about seeing that your enemy has something to live for, as opposed to something to die for. To survive, Israel has to get smart - and it has to seek peace. Otherwise, Israel will be turned into a pariah, and it will collapse.
Fundamentally, the attack on the flotilla was phenomenally stupid. Supernaturally stupid. For the past forty years, Israel's Arab enemies have stated that Israel is an aggressive, oppressive regime that commits human rights abuses in violation of international law. So, what does Israel do? It attacks a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters, killing several people in the process in violation of international law. All this to prevent the people of Gaza, one of the most shit on people on Earth, from getting some form of aid.
Now, I could go on and on about the moral issues involved here. And certainly Israel has the right to defend itself from threats. But there's a right way, a wrong way, and a stupid way to go about it. Israel is choosing the stupid way. And unlike the U.S., Israel can't afford to be stupid.
The thing we have to remember is that Israel is a very small country. Its about 8,000 square miles of territory, holding around 7.5 million people. By contrast, San Diego County is around 4500 square miles, and has 3.5 million people. That's tiny as far as countries go. Because its so small, Israel's internal market cannot provide enough of a market for what goods its produces and so, Israel depends on foreign trade to survive economically. Additionally, because its neighbors are or were hostile, Israel spends a lot on its military. To do that, Israel depends on infusions of cash from the United States. Israel is the number one recipient of American foreign aid, and has been for some time.
In other words, to survive and thrive, Israel needs international support. More importantly, it needs American support. To that end, Israel has been exceptionally skilled - it has appealed to the Jewish elites of the American left while simultaneously appealing to the Christian conservatives on the American right. Through AIPAC, even criticizing Israel is politically risky. It helps that several of Israels founding politicians, like Golda Meir, were Americans by birth. But Israel was also smart about using force, unlike the recent attack on the flotilla.
As Israel becomes more and more aggressive (and it really has been aggressive), it has alienated potential allies in Europe, Russia, and the moderate Arabic World. Moreover, it is progressively losing the support of American Jews. If Israel were to become an international pariah, its economy would completely fall apart.
Now, this is a risk that might be worth it if Israel was facing enemies like Syria and Egypt, but its not. In fact, Israel is at minimal risk of the kind of attacks it faced in the 1960's and 1970's, because the State actors have simply decided its not worth the effort. Israel's military is ridiculously powerful, it has nukes, and if push came to shove, the U.S. would help out. So, military action isn't worth the effort.
Instead, Israel is facing the Palestinians, and that's a big, big problem, because for the Palestinians, the fight is worth the effort. These people are literally fighting for everything they have (which ain't much to begin with). And when the Palestinians have nothing left, they commit suicide by strapping a bomb to themselves so that they can take a few Israelis with them. I can't stress this point enough - the suicide bombers aren't just killing themselves to spread terror - they're killing themselves for the same reason people everywhere kill themselves - to put an end to their own suffering. Sure, the terrorist organizers are exploiting the opportunity, but the opportunity was there to be exploited.
Machiavelli wrote, and wisely I think, that the worst place for a leader to be in is to be hated by his people. Or mathematically: Fear > Love > Hate. The problem with hate is that it overwhelms fear. People with hate in their hearts don't care about themselves or their families anymore. All that matters is killing the enemy. And the less people have, the less they have to lose, and the more likely they are to lash out. That's what we've been seeing from the Palestinians for the past twenty years.
The attack on the flotilla was so awful because it reminded everyone of how shit-on the Palestinian people (particularly the Gazans) have it. So they look like victims, while at the same time, are shit-on even more. In this environment, Israel looks like assholes or worse, and the Palestinians remain in a position to be exploited by terrorists. The whole thing is a shitstorm.
Let me end this by saying that I support the existence of Israel. In modern history, no one has been braver than the Jewish people and the founders of Israel. And no one kicks more ass. But the fight that Israel is in right now isn't about bravery or asskicking, its about being smart. Its about seeing that your enemy has something to live for, as opposed to something to die for. To survive, Israel has to get smart - and it has to seek peace. Otherwise, Israel will be turned into a pariah, and it will collapse.
Friday, May 28, 2010
One More Thing About Immigration. . .
Yes, its another immigration post, but there's something that's been bothering me for awhile. Immigration reform opponents oppose the law because it will "reward bad behavior." Its almost as if immigrating to the country is the result of a moral failing, and thus, in the minds of immigration opponents, the crime of undocumented immigration must be punished. I've even heard some say that we shouldn't reward criminals.
Of course, immigrating to a country in violation of the country's laws is not inherently wrong. There is no 11th Commandment of "Thou shalt not cross into the United States without a proper visa." Not surprisingly, there's nothing in Leviticus, the Koran, or any other religious document about America's immigration regulations. Illegal immigration, particularly illegal immigration to provide economic benefit to one's family is not morally wrong, and the people who do it have not offended God.
The best analogy I can think of is speeding. Environmental concerns aside, driving in excess of the speed limit is not a moral hazard, and its not treated as such. Should the government go to great lengths to ticket all speeders? Of course not. At the same time, speed limits are important for the health and welfare of the country. But there's nothing morally wrong with speeding.
We have immigration procedures in this country for mostly good reasons as well. But people who violate those laws are doing aren't morally bankrupt, they're (for the most part) just hungry.
Of course, immigrating to a country in violation of the country's laws is not inherently wrong. There is no 11th Commandment of "Thou shalt not cross into the United States without a proper visa." Not surprisingly, there's nothing in Leviticus, the Koran, or any other religious document about America's immigration regulations. Illegal immigration, particularly illegal immigration to provide economic benefit to one's family is not morally wrong, and the people who do it have not offended God.
The best analogy I can think of is speeding. Environmental concerns aside, driving in excess of the speed limit is not a moral hazard, and its not treated as such. Should the government go to great lengths to ticket all speeders? Of course not. At the same time, speed limits are important for the health and welfare of the country. But there's nothing morally wrong with speeding.
We have immigration procedures in this country for mostly good reasons as well. But people who violate those laws are doing aren't morally bankrupt, they're (for the most part) just hungry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)