This is one of my favorite arguments ever. History is unlike Science in that you often only get one shot at a particular experiment. So, Communism doesn't work because post-world war II communism didn't work. What else do you need to know?
Right now, we are entering a grand new experiment of a really unequal society. Historically, we've done well with capitalism because we had a large and prosperous middle class. Can capitalism thrive without consumers? Will we end our regressive tax policies in time? Or will there be another truism about capitalism that everyone will be uttering 100 years from now?
Interestingly, corruption is one of those things that we haven't just gotten one chance to experience. It appears in virtually all time periods and virtually all forms of government. It also appears (gasp...no) in supposedly competitive markets. And cronyism and corruption are a big deal because, if unchecked, they will kill the host that feeds them. A decent society where everyone has a chance to succeed is by definition a society where goodies go to the qualified and not the connected.
Unlike capitalism and communism (both fairly theoretical economic systems that have never existed in a pure form), cronyism is something we have lots of historical experience with. And it has never been a viable long term option and it can tear apart a wide range of governments and societies.
I think once upon a time in America there was something called the goo-goos. It was some sort of good government coalition that came out of the progressive movement. I think that's what the democrats need to do. The problem of course is that the Dems are just as implicated as the Republicans in all this....
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Having = Deserving or How to Sleep at Night if You're Really Rich
I'm reading "Flat Broke With Children" by Sharon Hays. It strikes me that when we say "everyone should work," we don't mean people with trust funds or stay at home Moms (with husbands to support them). If you're a woman without a man, you should work. If you're poor, you should work.
The ethics of drug use is more of the same. Drug offenders should rot in prison but frat boys shouldn't.
And of course there's stealing. Stealing from the government is apparently OK when a Bush crony does it, but it's completely immoral when a poor person does it.
It must be nice to be a rich person. Not only do you get to wallow around in piles of money, but you can wallow guilt free. By virtue of belonging to the golden class, your good morals are beyond question.
According to Hays, in 2002, the top 1 percent of American households earned on average over a million dollars. The bottom 10 percent earned less than 10,000 dollars. If everyone earning more than a million were taxed an additional 100,000, the average income of the desperately poor could be doubled. But that would be income redistribution which is deeply wrong because people who have money deserve to have their money. They are, in fact, the deserving rich. People who don't have money...well...the fact that they don't have any shows that they are not so deserving.
The ethics of drug use is more of the same. Drug offenders should rot in prison but frat boys shouldn't.
And of course there's stealing. Stealing from the government is apparently OK when a Bush crony does it, but it's completely immoral when a poor person does it.
It must be nice to be a rich person. Not only do you get to wallow around in piles of money, but you can wallow guilt free. By virtue of belonging to the golden class, your good morals are beyond question.
According to Hays, in 2002, the top 1 percent of American households earned on average over a million dollars. The bottom 10 percent earned less than 10,000 dollars. If everyone earning more than a million were taxed an additional 100,000, the average income of the desperately poor could be doubled. But that would be income redistribution which is deeply wrong because people who have money deserve to have their money. They are, in fact, the deserving rich. People who don't have money...well...the fact that they don't have any shows that they are not so deserving.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Women's Issues
I've been reading the latest issue of Oprah's magazine and a recent issue of Wired. It's a weird experience. We're a very gender segregated society when it comes to reading material. Somehow reading got to be an unmanly thing to do. Oprah apparently believes that her audience will read long articles. Wired doesn't think so. Oprah has stuff with heavy emotional content--domestic violence, breast cancer, etc. Wired is mostly about gadgets.
It would be super funny if these magazines had to take each other's topics for a month. I can just picture Wired trying to explain domestic violence with some sort of hip graphic. And Oprah would have to go into excruciating detail about tech companies and their drama.
Po-mo Koan of the Day: Does the form of these magazines dictate their substance? Or does the substance lend itself to a particular form?
It would be super funny if these magazines had to take each other's topics for a month. I can just picture Wired trying to explain domestic violence with some sort of hip graphic. And Oprah would have to go into excruciating detail about tech companies and their drama.
Po-mo Koan of the Day: Does the form of these magazines dictate their substance? Or does the substance lend itself to a particular form?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Would I want to know?
I'm (after the Bush administration) probably a life long Democrat. Supposing the shoe were on the other foot and I'd helped elect an incompetent and corrupt bully. Would I want to know?
The answer is yes. I would not want the press to tell me only what I wanted to hear. I would not want the press to pretend like bullshit and the truth deserve equal time. Ultimately I would respect the press a lot more right now if I felt that they'd even attempted to tell the truth.
The answer is yes. I would not want the press to tell me only what I wanted to hear. I would not want the press to pretend like bullshit and the truth deserve equal time. Ultimately I would respect the press a lot more right now if I felt that they'd even attempted to tell the truth.
Monday, September 12, 2005
On Propaganda
The press is back to towing the line with "hopeful" stories about the relief efforts and New Orleans recovery and "not as many dead bodies as previously thought." For a few brief moments there it looked like we might actually have a free press and that the free press might actually provide a useful service for our democracy. But they're back to being Republican lapdogs a mere one week after Katrina.
I also thought for a brief moment that the press might start investigating things. Because FEMA is not the only can of worms in the Bush administration. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major agency that hasn't suffered an outflow of professional talent and an influx of party hacks.
As our news looks increasingly like propaganda, it is worth asking what it means to have a society where journalists tow the party line and fear falling out of favor. Because it is emperors and dictators who refuse to allow criticism. It is emperors and dictators who don't discuss their decisions with those they rule. An interesting dynamic (repeated in places as diverse as imperial China, the Roman empire, North Korea, Ethiopia) is that the emperor who makes a poor decision can remain popular with ordinary people because the ordinary people believe that he has made the poor decision because of bad information from his advisors.
Bush is one of the least accessible presidents in American history by design. He can get away with (apparently) virtually anything because the press must choose between distributing propaganda or getting no information at all. In this, the Bush administration has behaved like they are dictators rather than elected officials and they have gotten away with it.
I also thought for a brief moment that the press might start investigating things. Because FEMA is not the only can of worms in the Bush administration. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major agency that hasn't suffered an outflow of professional talent and an influx of party hacks.
As our news looks increasingly like propaganda, it is worth asking what it means to have a society where journalists tow the party line and fear falling out of favor. Because it is emperors and dictators who refuse to allow criticism. It is emperors and dictators who don't discuss their decisions with those they rule. An interesting dynamic (repeated in places as diverse as imperial China, the Roman empire, North Korea, Ethiopia) is that the emperor who makes a poor decision can remain popular with ordinary people because the ordinary people believe that he has made the poor decision because of bad information from his advisors.
Bush is one of the least accessible presidents in American history by design. He can get away with (apparently) virtually anything because the press must choose between distributing propaganda or getting no information at all. In this, the Bush administration has behaved like they are dictators rather than elected officials and they have gotten away with it.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
A Liberal Jeramiad
There is something in this country's innocence that leads inevitably to hypocrisy. In my darker moments I think that we somehow deserve this president with his pretend ranch, his pretend courage, and his pretend innocence. If there is a God, maybe this is how he chooses to punish us.
The Blame Game
The Blame Game-- What a wonderful phrase. It implies that the person playing it childish and frivolous. It implies that person being blamed is only being blamed because of this frivolous game and not because he deserves it.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Charity and Justice
It's interesting that President Bush has taken to emphasizing the outpouring of donations and support for the victims from religious organizations. That fits in neatly with what Greedy Corporate Republicans want (we'll donate, just don't tax us) and with what Evangelical Republicans want (church as the cornerstone of society, not government).
But these victims are not refugees or charity cases. They are citizens. Furthermore, they are citizens who paid into our society by laboring and building and paying their taxes. Admittedly, these from red state citizens that grumbled about their taxes and voted for GW. But that doesn't take away from their claims that they are citizens deserving of human dignity and new start. Their government owes them that. It's another Christian value called justice that we've not been hearing so much about in the rush to say that it isn't the government's fault and the government won't have to fix it.
And by the way what are former presidents Bush and Clinton doing raising money for state governments? Are governments charity cases too? Are we going to stop taxing and start donating to our government?
But these victims are not refugees or charity cases. They are citizens. Furthermore, they are citizens who paid into our society by laboring and building and paying their taxes. Admittedly, these from red state citizens that grumbled about their taxes and voted for GW. But that doesn't take away from their claims that they are citizens deserving of human dignity and new start. Their government owes them that. It's another Christian value called justice that we've not been hearing so much about in the rush to say that it isn't the government's fault and the government won't have to fix it.
And by the way what are former presidents Bush and Clinton doing raising money for state governments? Are governments charity cases too? Are we going to stop taxing and start donating to our government?
Monday, August 29, 2005
Sinclair Lewis Novels
Because I think I've finished most of them...
and because I know you all care...
Here is my ranking:
1.Elmer Gantry--womanizing preacher
2. Arrowsmith--idealistic doctor
3. Main Street-- boosters
4. Babbit--more boosters
5. Cass Timberlake--old judge marries young thing
OK, I just looked him up on wikipedia, and I guess I haven't read most of them.
and because I know you all care...
Here is my ranking:
1.Elmer Gantry--womanizing preacher
2. Arrowsmith--idealistic doctor
3. Main Street-- boosters
4. Babbit--more boosters
5. Cass Timberlake--old judge marries young thing
OK, I just looked him up on wikipedia, and I guess I haven't read most of them.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
On death
I know, kind of a heavy topic. And I'm not thirteen and I don't dress all in black. I left Emily Dickenson behind in college.
I got to thinking about the subject today in the context of my favorite authors. I seem to prefer them dead--probably because I don't have to worry about them saying something really dumb or publishing something really bad. Also, there's something spooky about reading words from a dead person. I'm a pretty firm believer that Art (the real thing with a capital "A") is about communication. So, the writings of dead people are the best shot at communicating with people across the generations.
I got to thinking about the subject today in the context of my favorite authors. I seem to prefer them dead--probably because I don't have to worry about them saying something really dumb or publishing something really bad. Also, there's something spooky about reading words from a dead person. I'm a pretty firm believer that Art (the real thing with a capital "A") is about communication. So, the writings of dead people are the best shot at communicating with people across the generations.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Terrorists and Anarchists
The Economist ran an interesting piece last week comparing today's terrorists with the anarchists of the late 1800s. The similarities are striking.
Given its political bent, the Economist did not go into the striking similarities between the maladaptive government reactions to the anarchists and our current expensive and maladaptive anti-terror policies.
A quick run down:
We now have a very expensive government bureaucracy (with color coding).
We now have a very expensive war/occupation in Iraq (without enough body armor).
We now have fewer civil liberties (because its easier to catch people saying or reading something than bombing something).
With the anarchists, it was a case of a misperceived threat. They were not organized. They liked attention. But they were not going to take over the world any time soon. Freaking out about them probably prolonged their reign of terror.
Having just come off of a colossal misjudgment about the cold war, we should be more cautious in judging threats and less quick to decide that we need to freak out and change everything. Of course with a hotheaded cowboy in the white house, it was sort of inevitable.
Given its political bent, the Economist did not go into the striking similarities between the maladaptive government reactions to the anarchists and our current expensive and maladaptive anti-terror policies.
A quick run down:
We now have a very expensive government bureaucracy (with color coding).
We now have a very expensive war/occupation in Iraq (without enough body armor).
We now have fewer civil liberties (because its easier to catch people saying or reading something than bombing something).
With the anarchists, it was a case of a misperceived threat. They were not organized. They liked attention. But they were not going to take over the world any time soon. Freaking out about them probably prolonged their reign of terror.
Having just come off of a colossal misjudgment about the cold war, we should be more cautious in judging threats and less quick to decide that we need to freak out and change everything. Of course with a hotheaded cowboy in the white house, it was sort of inevitable.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Explosion in Downtown SF
So, this has to be an incredibly random thing. An underground transformer exploded today and blew off several manhole covers and started a store awning on fire. It sounds like the one person who was hurt was hurt pretty badly. She was just walking down the very same street that I walk down everyday and all of a sudden things are on fire and manhole covers are hurling through the air.
Sacrilegious thought for the day: Maybe some people believe in God in order to have someone to blame for this kind of thing.
Sacrilegious thought for the day: Maybe some people believe in God in order to have someone to blame for this kind of thing.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Why can't anyone from the Clinton administration write?
I'm now 0 for 3 in the category of books written by Clinton administration officials.
Strobe Talbot's "The Russia Hand" was all about Strobe and he didn't even bother to develop his own character.
"I'll be short" by Robert Reich managed to wander in circles for 100 pages (or however long the thing was).
Finally "The Roaring Nineties" by Joseph Stiglitz was too nice by far. Clinton's policies failed but everyone in the administration was nice, earnest, smart, competent and hemmed in by evil Republicans.
It's all very muddleheaded without being remotely idealistic or bleeding heart. Actually a little bit of heart and soul would go a long way towards redeeming any of these books not to mention the Democratic Party.
The tone of these books taken together leads me to believe that the Clinton administration just didn't get it. They sacrificed their principles because the principles weren't based on a deeply felt emotional and intellectual base. They abstractly understood that things like unfair trade agreements and ending welfare would hurt people but they didn't understand it on a human level.
Their inability to understand what might interest an audience is symptomatic of their personal failings and the failure of Clinton and his administration to speak to Americans as individuals.
Strobe Talbot's "The Russia Hand" was all about Strobe and he didn't even bother to develop his own character.
"I'll be short" by Robert Reich managed to wander in circles for 100 pages (or however long the thing was).
Finally "The Roaring Nineties" by Joseph Stiglitz was too nice by far. Clinton's policies failed but everyone in the administration was nice, earnest, smart, competent and hemmed in by evil Republicans.
It's all very muddleheaded without being remotely idealistic or bleeding heart. Actually a little bit of heart and soul would go a long way towards redeeming any of these books not to mention the Democratic Party.
The tone of these books taken together leads me to believe that the Clinton administration just didn't get it. They sacrificed their principles because the principles weren't based on a deeply felt emotional and intellectual base. They abstractly understood that things like unfair trade agreements and ending welfare would hurt people but they didn't understand it on a human level.
Their inability to understand what might interest an audience is symptomatic of their personal failings and the failure of Clinton and his administration to speak to Americans as individuals.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Pondering Puritans
After reading Hellfire Nation, I got to thinking about whether the puritan impulse is a healthy thing and where it should be directed.
By the puritan impulse I mean the impulse to make oneself or society better, purer, more just, closer to perfection. It is a religious impulse, but non-religious people have it too.
Currently, watching the religious right mess up the this country, its hard to see this impulse as a good thing. It seems so misguided for a bunch of people to decide that they have a god-given right to hunt small animals but that women's reproductive lives should be regulated by the state. Another theory might be that they've picked the wrong things to direct their puritan impulse at. Maybe they should be concerned with the personal rather than other people. If they concentrated on perfecting themselves as individuals (and there is plenty of room for that), they could go off into the woods with their pick up trucks and King James Bibles and could stop bothering the rest of us.
Yet, I don't think that about liberals when they exhibit the Puritan impulse. If you spend your whole life perfecting yoga poses and developing vegetarian cooking skills, you haven't made much of an impact on society. Having the noble ideas with no action seems selfish.
So, my thinking on this is massively inconsistent. I don't want everyone to direct their puritan impulses in the same way. The main reason I want conservatives to direct it inwards is because I think they have dangerous ideas.
By the puritan impulse I mean the impulse to make oneself or society better, purer, more just, closer to perfection. It is a religious impulse, but non-religious people have it too.
Currently, watching the religious right mess up the this country, its hard to see this impulse as a good thing. It seems so misguided for a bunch of people to decide that they have a god-given right to hunt small animals but that women's reproductive lives should be regulated by the state. Another theory might be that they've picked the wrong things to direct their puritan impulse at. Maybe they should be concerned with the personal rather than other people. If they concentrated on perfecting themselves as individuals (and there is plenty of room for that), they could go off into the woods with their pick up trucks and King James Bibles and could stop bothering the rest of us.
Yet, I don't think that about liberals when they exhibit the Puritan impulse. If you spend your whole life perfecting yoga poses and developing vegetarian cooking skills, you haven't made much of an impact on society. Having the noble ideas with no action seems selfish.
So, my thinking on this is massively inconsistent. I don't want everyone to direct their puritan impulses in the same way. The main reason I want conservatives to direct it inwards is because I think they have dangerous ideas.
Best depressive coffee guys
Tullys at Market and Sansome.
The whole atmosphere is about getting you in and out without jarring you into awakeness quite yet. Not as friendly as Starbucks. Coffee is not as good as Pete's. But the two coffee guys at Tullys have that elusive quality in coffee guys--I'll call it the friendly but not freaky quality. They neither love nor hate their jobs. They just serve coffee.
The whole atmosphere is about getting you in and out without jarring you into awakeness quite yet. Not as friendly as Starbucks. Coffee is not as good as Pete's. But the two coffee guys at Tullys have that elusive quality in coffee guys--I'll call it the friendly but not freaky quality. They neither love nor hate their jobs. They just serve coffee.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Things I saw at 24 hour fitness Part III
A girl on a treadmill who would get off every 5 minutes or so and hit the control panel...with her fist...hard....
Monday, August 01, 2005
Cheesy Books
So this weekend I managed to go through more than a book a day starting with a Pearl S. Buck novel about a quarter Chinese kid growing up in Vermont, The Patron Saint of Liars by Ann Patchett (good, but Bel Canto was better) and The Secret Life of Bees which everyone went on and on about but it seems like just a cheap and unbelievable version of To Kill a Mockingbird.
These books will all be easily and gratefully forgotten in a few years because the characters are fundamentally unbelievable and shallow. I don't even know why I read this stuff other than I have to read something and I get weirdly sucked in to finishing these books to see if they are going to get any better (See review of Ha Jin's War Trash--It didn't get any better for the record.)
So here's the thing. Nobody was ever motivated by just one thing unless they are crazy. If your character is going to be motivated by just one thing it should probably be something like revenge and not something like an inexplicable desire to lie (The Patron Saint of Liars) or an equally inexplicable desire to take your black nanny to a town your mother (who you accidentally shot and killed) may have visited in order to escape white racists who your nanny (again without reason) threw a spitoon at (which she wasn't even carrying until the moment she threw it). This is (and I'm not even kidding) the premise of the Secret Life of Bees.
And yet I'm sucked in. I think its the desire to see if anyone can redeem these godawful plots and these unbelievable characters. It never happens. If an author thinks that telling a really great whopper is enough to motivate someone for 20+ years that author is not going to be able to get her character out of the mess she created.
And here's another rant--If you, as an author, have chosen an interesting subject, you should try to live up to it. For example, Middlesex is about a hermaphrodite and yet I was bored. Same problem with the Virgin Suicides--teenage girls offing themselves right and left and yet I'm not entertained. Oh and the Confession of Max Tivoli. The man lives backwards and manages to seduce a woman three times while going from an old man to a young man and yet I came away with the impression that his real misfortune was to be born such a godawful whiner.
Geek Love is the one book I can think of that had a gimmick and is truly great. Can anyone think of another one?
These books will all be easily and gratefully forgotten in a few years because the characters are fundamentally unbelievable and shallow. I don't even know why I read this stuff other than I have to read something and I get weirdly sucked in to finishing these books to see if they are going to get any better (See review of Ha Jin's War Trash--It didn't get any better for the record.)
So here's the thing. Nobody was ever motivated by just one thing unless they are crazy. If your character is going to be motivated by just one thing it should probably be something like revenge and not something like an inexplicable desire to lie (The Patron Saint of Liars) or an equally inexplicable desire to take your black nanny to a town your mother (who you accidentally shot and killed) may have visited in order to escape white racists who your nanny (again without reason) threw a spitoon at (which she wasn't even carrying until the moment she threw it). This is (and I'm not even kidding) the premise of the Secret Life of Bees.
And yet I'm sucked in. I think its the desire to see if anyone can redeem these godawful plots and these unbelievable characters. It never happens. If an author thinks that telling a really great whopper is enough to motivate someone for 20+ years that author is not going to be able to get her character out of the mess she created.
And here's another rant--If you, as an author, have chosen an interesting subject, you should try to live up to it. For example, Middlesex is about a hermaphrodite and yet I was bored. Same problem with the Virgin Suicides--teenage girls offing themselves right and left and yet I'm not entertained. Oh and the Confession of Max Tivoli. The man lives backwards and manages to seduce a woman three times while going from an old man to a young man and yet I came away with the impression that his real misfortune was to be born such a godawful whiner.
Geek Love is the one book I can think of that had a gimmick and is truly great. Can anyone think of another one?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Hellfire Nation by James Morone
This is the most fun I've had with a history book in ages. Mr. Morone traces the oscillation between religion as a democratizing tendency and religion as a method of social control for the elites.
The Democrats anti-populist rhetoric about the people in pickup trucks in red states is actually part of a long standing elite/enlightenment critique of the more untempered varieties of evangelical religious expression.
Republicans have so effectively captured populist rhetoric to accomplish elitist goals in large part because they speak the language of religion and Democrats don't. Morone makes the point that as far back as the Puritans, religion was about who belonged and who didn't. A counter current (evident in the Great Awakenings) was religion as a leveling and democratizing force. The Republicans have put together a winning formula of talking like they are from the democratizing version of Christianity and also playing on fears of the "other" whether it be Willie Horton, Mexican immigrants or gay people.
In my angrier moments I think that the solution might be for Democrats to take back the moral high ground--to point out that the Republicans are hypocrites who win elections by encouraging Americans to hate their fellow citizens. They've turned good Christian people into warmongers and hateful people. I'm pretty sure that if there is a hell, a special level has been reserved for GW and his cronies. But that may be a trap...Somehow when I think thoughts like that I really feel that I'm living George W. Bush's America.
The Democrats anti-populist rhetoric about the people in pickup trucks in red states is actually part of a long standing elite/enlightenment critique of the more untempered varieties of evangelical religious expression.
Republicans have so effectively captured populist rhetoric to accomplish elitist goals in large part because they speak the language of religion and Democrats don't. Morone makes the point that as far back as the Puritans, religion was about who belonged and who didn't. A counter current (evident in the Great Awakenings) was religion as a leveling and democratizing force. The Republicans have put together a winning formula of talking like they are from the democratizing version of Christianity and also playing on fears of the "other" whether it be Willie Horton, Mexican immigrants or gay people.
In my angrier moments I think that the solution might be for Democrats to take back the moral high ground--to point out that the Republicans are hypocrites who win elections by encouraging Americans to hate their fellow citizens. They've turned good Christian people into warmongers and hateful people. I'm pretty sure that if there is a hell, a special level has been reserved for GW and his cronies. But that may be a trap...Somehow when I think thoughts like that I really feel that I'm living George W. Bush's America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)