Age of Reason

Conservative vs Liberal Concepts of Morality

2012-02-05T09:54:00.004-07:00

I have been following the work of Jonathan Haidt for some time -- TED videos and articles. I think he has, perhaps, the best explanation of human morality that I have heard articulated.This interview with Bill Moyers is excellent -- and addresses mostly how our different moral elements impact political ideology.He also, I think, makes an excellent case for how the Republicans have managed to win the support of so many people whose personal interests seem to be being directly harmed by Republican policies.

How do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Quantum life: The weirdness inside us

2011-10-04T17:36:00.000-06:00

Interesting and thought-provoking article from New Scientist

Abandoned Love - Rare Dylan

2011-10-03T10:40:00.002-06:00

I can hear the turning of the key
I've been deceived by the clown inside of me.
I thought that he was righteous but he's vain
Oh, something's telling me I wear a ball and chain.

My patron saint is fighting with a ghost
He's always off somewhere when I need him most.
The Spanish moon is rising on the hill
But my heart is telling me I love ya still.

I come back to the town from the flaming moon
I see you in the street, I begin to swoon.
I love to see you dress before the mirror
Won't you let me in your room one time before I disappear?

Everybody's wearing a disguise
To hide what they've got left behind their eyes.
But me, I can't cover what I am
Wherever the children go I'll follow them.

I can't play the game no more, I can't abide
by their stupid rules which kept me sick inside
They've been made by men who've given up the search
Whose gods are dead and whose queens are in the church.

I march in the parade of liberty
But as long as I love you I'm not free.
How long must I suffer such abuse
Won't you let me see you smile before I cut you loose?

Send out for Saint John the Evangelist
All my friends are drunk, they can be dismissed.
My head says that it's time to make a change
But my heart is telling me I love ya but you're strange.

So step lightly, darling, near the wall
Put on your heavy make-up, wear your shawl.
Won't you descend from the throne, from where you sit?
Let me feel your love one more time before I abandon it.

Are the people who love you the most the least likely to follow through on their promises?

2011-04-29T08:25:00.002-06:00

Perhaps that is the case, as this link suggests:

Barking up the Wrong Tree

Loving Her Was Easier....

2011-04-28T10:56:00.000-06:00

RIP Phoebe Snow

2011-04-26T09:42:00.000-06:00

Here's Lookin' at you, Kid

2010-08-13T11:25:00.001-06:00

You can tell Gayle, if she calls,
That I'm famous now for all of these rock and roll songs.
And even if that's a lie, she should've given me a try.
When we were kids on the field of the first day of school.
I would've been her fool.
And I would've sang out your name in those old high school halls.
You tell that to Gayle, if she calls.

And you can tell Jane, if she writes,
That I'm drunk off all these stars and all these crazy Hollywood nights.
And that's a total deceit, but she should've married me.
And tell her I spent every night of my youth on the floor,
Bleeding out from all these wounds.
I would've gotten her a ride out of that town she despised.
You tell that to Janey, if she writes.

But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
That will cut you to ribbons sometimes.
And all you can do is just wait by the moon
And bleed if it's what she says you oughta do.

You remind Anna, if she asks why,
That a thief stole my heart while she was making up her mind.
I heard she lives in Brooklyn with the cool,
Goes crazy over that New York scene on 7th Avenue.
But I used to wait at the diner, a million nights without her,
Praying she won't cancel again tonight.
And the waiter served my coffee with a consolation sigh.
You remind Anna, if she asks why.
Tell her it's all rigtht.

You know it's hard to tell you this.
Oh it's hard to tell you this.
Here's looking at you, Kid.

The Moral Roots of Conservativism and Liberalism

2010-08-07T11:51:00.000-06:00

I Told You When I Came I Was a Stranger

2010-08-07T11:18:00.001-06:00

It's true that all the men you knew were dealers
who said they were through with dealing
Every time you gave them shelter
I know that kind of man
It's hard to hold the hand of anyone
who is reaching for the sky just to surrender
who is reaching for the sky just to surrender.

And then sweeping up the jokers that he left behind
you find he did not leave you very much not even laughter
Like any dealer he was watching for the card
that is so high and wild
he'll never need to deal another
He was just some Joseph looking for a manger
He was just some Joseph looking for a manger.

And then leaning on your window sill
he'll say one day you caused his will
to weaken with your love and warmth and shelter
And then taking from his wallet
an old schedule of trains, he'll say
I told you when I came I was a stranger
I told you when I came I was a stranger.

But now another stranger seems
to want you to ignore his dreams
as though they were the burden of some other
O you've seen that man before
his golden arm dispatching cards
but now it's rusted from the elbows to the finger
And he wants to trade the game he plays for shelter
Yes he wants to trade the game he knows for shelter.

Ah you hate to watch another tired man
lay down his hand
like he was giving up the holy game of poker
And while he talks his dreams to sleep
you notice there's a highway
that is curling up like smoke above his shoulder
and suddenly you feel a littlt older

You tell him to come in sit down
but something makes you turn around
The door is open you can't close your shelter
You try the handle of the road
It opens do not be afraid
It's you my love, you who are the stranger
It's you my love, you who are the stranger.

Well, I've been waiting, I was sure
we'd meet between the trains we're waiting for
I think it's time to board another
Please understand, I never had a secret chart
to get me to the heart of this
or any other matter
When he talks like this
you don't know what he's after
When he speaks like this,
you don't know what he's after.

Let's meet tomorrow if you choose
upon the shore, beneath the bridge
that they are building on some endless river
Then he leaves the platform
for the sleeping car that's warm
You realize, he's only advertising one more shelter
And it comes to you, he never was a stranger
And you say ok the bridge or someplace later.

And then sweeping up the jokers that he left behind ...

And leaning on your window sill ...

I told you when I came I was a stranger.

Sagan, Hawking and Clarke on the God of Science

2010-07-01T16:57:00.001-06:00

Sagan, Hawking and Clarke on the God of Science

2010-07-01T16:57:00.000-06:00

PARDONNER EST-CE TOUT ACCEPTER ?PARDONNER EST-CE TOUT ACCEPTER ?

2010-06-19T11:35:00.002-06:00

My friend, Angela Savage, tagged me with this note on Facebook this morning:

~~translated, by angela savage , june 18, 2010~~

Energie Et Groupes D'âmes:
PARDONNER EST-CE TOUT ACCEPTER ?PARDONNER EST-CE TOUT ACCEPTER ?

Pardonner ce n’est pas tout accepter
Accepter tout et n’importe quoi
Diriger contre soi
Tout accepter serait ne pas se respecter

Voulez vous être maltraitée, humiliée ?
Que ressentez vous quand on vous a mal parlé ?
Plus vous l’acceptez plus vous vous sentez rabaissée
Est-ce que vous avez déjà été trahie, volée, insultée, trompée ?

Connaissez vous le terme « vampiriser » ?
Ces personnes qui vont contre vous leur colère diriger
Parce qu’elles n’ont pas d’ailes pour s’envoler
Elles vont vouloir couper les vôtres pour vous contrôler

Elles se nourrissent de votre énergie
Cela leur fait tellement envie
Elles voudraient vous ressembler
Mais comme elles n’y parviennent pas elles préfèrent vous briser

Détruire ce que l’on ne peut pas posséder
C’est ce que l’on fait quand on ne sait pas aimer
Cessez de vous faire manipuler
Etre aimé ne peut jamais vous blesser

« Oui » Vous pouvez pardonner
Mais cela ne signifie pas accepter
Qui a le droit ?
De vous faire ça ?

Ne plus vouloir subir
Ce n’est pas fuir
C’est au contraire avoir le courage d’aller vers soi
Et de ne plus jamais accepter ça

Alors leur pardonner
Ne veut pas dire que l’on va rester
Comme ça sans rien dire
On peut choisir de partir

Pardonner c’est ouvrir son cœur
A l’amour et au bonheur
Mais ne pas tout accepter
C’est se respecter et avancer vers la sérénité…

Does "forgiveness mean :"to forgive "all"" ?

Does "forgiveness mean :"to forgive "all"" ?

Forgiveness is not accepting all.
Accepting everything and anything
Going against ourselves
To accept any kind of treatment
isto disrespect our very being

Would you be mistreated, humiliated?
What do you feel when you are wronged ?
The more you accept the more you feel demeaned
do you want to be betrayed, robbed, insulted, deceived?

Do you know the term "vampirize?
These people will direct their anger against you
Because they have no wings to fly
They will want to cut yours to control you

They feed on your energy
It makes them feel so weak
They want to be like you
But as they fail to do they prefer to break you

Destroy what you can not have
This is what we do when we can not love
Stop trying to manipulate
Being loved can never hurt you

"Yes" You can forgive
But that does not mean
bowing to accept cruelty
Who is right?
if you do that?

Do not want to step beneath yourselves
This is not to flee
On the contrary, have the courage to go stand
And never accept

So to forgive others
Does not mean that we will remain
taking all, this lying down
One can choose

Forgiveness is to open his heart
To love and happiness
But do not accept everything
Be true to yourselves
and move towards serenity ...

Does "forgiveness mean :"to forgive "all"" ?

I have my own words to add here:
Forgiveness is also to "forgive ourselves"
for having let ourselves be abused
and then we get rid of the anger
that is directed towards ourselves,
then we can truly feel forgiveness
although no one ever forgets,
but to hate the person who has done wrong to us
is still to have a "tie" to him
HATE IS THE OTHER SIDE OF LOVE
SO BLESS THE PERSON WHO HAS HURT YOU
IT SETS YOU FREE
FORGIVE YOURSELVES
AND TRULY FREE YOUR HEART AND SOUL
AND THEN YOU CAN MOVE ON .
THANK YOU,
SINCERELY,
Angela Savage

Does "forgiveness mean :"to forgive "all"" ?

J'ai mes propres mots à ajouter ici:
Le pardon est aussi «nous pardonner"
pour avoir abusé de nous laisser
et puis nous nous débarrassons la haine
qui est dirigé vers nous,
alors on peut sentir vraiment le pardon
Bien que personne n'oublie jamais,
mais à haïne la personne qui nous a fait de mal
est toujours d'avoir un «lien» pour lui
La haine est l'autre cote de l'amour
alors benissez la personne qui vous a blesser
C'est VOUS libère
ous donner le pardon a vous-memes
Et véritablement liberer cœur et l'âme
Et puis vous pouvez avancer.
Merci.
Sincerement
Angela Savage

¿El "perdón significa:" perdonar "todos"?

Perdonar no es aceptar todas.
La aceptación de todo y nada
Ir en contra de nosotros mismos
Para aceptar cualquier tipo de tratamiento
Isto falta de respeto hacia nuestro propio ser

¿Estaría usted maltratado, humillado?
¿Qué sientes cuando estás ofendido?
La más acepte la más siento menospreciado
¿quieres ser traicionado, robado, insultado, engañado?

¿Conoces el término "vampirize?
Estas personas dirigen su ira contra vosotros
Porque no tienen alas para volar
Ellos quieren reducir el suyo para que el control

Se alimentan de su energía
Esto los hace sentir tan débil
Ellos quieren ser como tú
Pero como no lo hacen prefieren rompes

Destruir lo que no se puede tener
Esto es lo que hacemos cuando no podemos amar
Deja de tratar de manipular
El ser amado nunca te puede hacer daño

"Sí" Se puede perdonar
Pero eso no significa que
inclinándose a aceptar la crueldad
¿Quién tiene razón?
si haces eso?

No quiero el paso por debajo de ustedes
Esto no es huir
Por el contrario, tienen el valor de ir de pie
Y no aceptar nunca

Así pues, para perdonar a los demás
No significa que vamos a seguir siendo
tomando de todo, esta acostado
Uno puede elegir

El perdón es para abrir su corazón
Para el amor y la felicidad
Pero no aceptan todo lo
Ser fieles a sí mismos
y avanzar hacia la serenidad ...
¿El "perdón significa:" perdonar "todos"?

Tengo mis propias palabras para agregar aquí:
El perdón es también a "perdonarnos a nosotros mismos"
por haber abusado de dejarnos
y luego deshacerse de los ange
r que se dirige hacia nosotros mismos,
entonces sí puede sentirse forgivenes
aunque nadie olvida,
pero a odiar a la persona que ha hecho mal a nosotros
sigue siendo tener un "empate" para él
ODIO ES EL OTRO LADO DEL AMOR
SO bendecir al que lo ha lastimado
IT os da la libertad
PERDONAR USTEDES MISMOS
Y de derecho libre su corazón y alma
Y entonces usted puede seguir adelante.
GRACIAS,
Atentamente,
Angela Savage

Is it Too Much to Ask?

2010-06-12T09:54:00.001-06:00

Vintage Kathy Mattea -- Knee Deep in a River

2010-06-12T09:35:00.000-06:00

Amelia

2010-05-26T06:13:00.001-06:00

I was driving across the burning desert
When I spotted six jet planes
Leaving six white vapor trails across the bleak terrain
It was the hexagram of the heavens
it was the strings of my guitar
Amelia, it was just a false alarm

The drone of flying engines
Is a song so wild and blue
It scrambles time and seasons if it gets thru to you
Then your life becomes a travelogue
Of picture-post-card-charms
Amelia, it was just a false alarm

People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
Oh Amelia, it was just a false alarm

I wish that he was here tonight
It's so hard to obey
His sad request of me to kindly stay away
So this is how I hide the hurt
As the road leads cursed and charmed
I tell Amelia, it was just a false alarm

A ghost of aviation
She was swallowed by the sky
Or by the sea, like me she had a dream to fly
Like Icarus ascending
On beautiful foolish arms
Amelia, it was just a false alarm

Maybe I've never really loved
I guess that is the truth
I've spent my whole life in clouds at icy altitude
And looking down on everything
I crashed into his arms
Amelia, it was just a false alarm

I pulled into the Cactus Tree Motel
To shower off the dust
And I slept on the strange pillows of my wanderlust
I dreamed of 747s
Over geometric farms
Dreams, Amelia, dreams and false alarms

Feynman: Take the World from Another Point of View

2010-05-18T15:16:00.002-06:00

Use of the Word "Fuck"

2010-05-11T08:25:00.000-06:00

Newton on Immigration Policy

2010-05-06T13:16:00.002-06:00

I have long held the view that the laws of economics are nearly as immutable as are the laws of physics. I particularly like to draw the parallels between the Law of Supply and Demand and the Law of Gravity: the attraction between Supply and Demand seems nearly as inescapable as that between massive objects in close proximity.

Of course, the Law of Gravity does not mandate that we are bound to the surface of our planet Earth, but it does mean that we need to utilize other forces, other laws of physics, if we wish to leave the Earth’s surface, most commonly, the Bernoulli Principle. But whatever method we use, airplane wings, rocket thrust, a lighter-than-air container, etc, we always have to keep the force of gravity as part of the equation.

On the other hand, man-made laws – whether religious or political -- are not nearly so immutable, and our track record of success in outlawing transactions where strong demand and ample supply exist in reasonable proximity is not very good. The prohibition against non-marital sexual relations is a classic example. So long as there are available partners, significant numbers of people have always found ways to break those laws – even in situations where punishment for being caught is death.

For the most part, our religious and civil laws rely on imposing some form of punishment after the fact, on adverse social, corporal, economic or spiritual consequences for violating the law. In some cases, they also take more direct, more proactive, steps to prevent the possibility of the law being violated in the first place, but even in the most repressive social systems, these are usually less than 100% effective. The fact that even a staff of armed eunuchs often was insufficient to preserve the chastity of the women of the harem was a good illustration of this. And since most of us are unwilling to live in such a repressive structure, we must recognize the limitations of our ability to intervene between strong demand and ample supply.

Our failed experiment with Prohibition, our equally failing “war on drugs” and our efforts to eliminate prostitution are examples. Even the most repressive and authoritarian governments on Earth today have not been able to eliminate prostitution or prevent the use of alcohol and illegal drugs. That does not mean that society should just give up all attempts to limit such things, but it does suggest that we need to be realistic about what we can and cannot actually do.

The point I want to focus on today is how this concept applies to immigration. Labor is just as much subject to the Law of Supply and Demand as is cannabis, and if I need hard working, low cost labor and there are many people able and willing to do that work at a low price, our efforts to prevent the supply and demand to meet up is subject to the same limitations as is our effort to outlaw weed!

One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is the free movement of capital and labor. If I have the necessary capital and need labor for a planned venture, I will try to hire the best workers I can find at the lowest cost. And if I am in Chicago and there is a surplus of workers in rural Mississippi, the expectation is that significant numbers of those workers will migrate to Chicago – which is exactly what happened and coincidentally, how Chicago got to be a center for the Blues.

For much of our country’s history, it has been the newest immigrants who did the least desirable work, usually at the lowest pay and under the worst conditions. Waves of immigrants from Ireland, from Poland, from Italy, Jews from all of Europe, Chinese, and of course, African slaves did the work that those better established were unwilling to do, or at least at wages and under working conditions not acceptable to them. And there is no doubt that those having the most economic power used the steady supply of new workers as a means to hold down wages and dampen the push for better working conditions for all labor – a factor that probably goes a long ways toward explaining much of the anti-immigrant feeling that has so often characterized our culture.

For much of our history, there was no legal restriction on immigration to this country – I believe that the first immigration law was passed in 1875, and that until the mid 1920s, there was virtually no restriction on non-Asian immigration to the US. Of course, there is a fundamental difference between a developing, sparsely-populated nation like we were in the 19th Century and the more mature US that now exists, and we do not have infinite capacity for population growth as may have seemed the case at those earlier times.

Realistically, we DO need to have controls on immigration, both as to the absolute numbers and as regards the specific individuals allowed to immigrate (eg education, skills, personal character, etc). My point is that our attempts to accomplish that by arbitrary legislation are about as likely to succeed as has been our efforts to stop the marijuana trade.

Yes, we can leave the earth’s surface, but we did not accomplish that by passing legislation invalidating the Law of Gravity, and we will not stop illegal immigration simply by passing laws which attempt to invalidate the Law of Supply and Demand.

The Pope Song

2010-04-30T12:25:00.001-06:00

Tim Minchin's Pope Song, with lyrics, at Skepchick's blog.

And if you look into your motherfucking heart and tell me true
If this motherfucking stupid fucking song offended you
With its filthy fucking language and it’s fucking disrespect
If it made you feel angry, go ahead and write a letter
But if you find me more offensive than the fucking possibility
That the Pope protected priests when they were getting fucking fiddly
Then listen to me, motherfucker, this here is a fact:
You are just as morally misguided as that motherfucking
Power-hungry, self-aggrandized bigot in the stupid fucking hat

Thanks for the Link, EG

2010-04-29T08:43:00.001-06:00

I Pity the Poor Immigrant

2010-04-29T08:01:00.001-06:00

From Slate Magazine's Procrastination Fray:

On migrating to the USA...
by Woolley
04/28/2010, 1:51 PM #

I am a migrant of sorts to the USA. I was born in Tangier, Morocco to an American father and a Spanish mother. My mother was dirt poor, father was by comparison rich. I was an American citizen by birth because of the citizenship of my father. At the time, I had to spend 6 months of time in the States before the age of 15 to keep my citizenship. The laws must have been drafted to deal with all those war babies all over the world. We came here on the USS Constitution in 1961. Because our Spanish side was dirt poor and any American was considered to be God, we were extremely excited to come here. My mother's family cried at the dock in Tangier when we left, my mother was 22 with three little boys. None of us spoke a word of English. This story is about what it used to be like for European migrants to come here so bear with me for a second.

When we landed in NYC harbor, my mother did not know how to get powdered milk for my little brother. She went into a bathroom and saw a container by the sink that had a powdered substance. She thought it was milk because she thought America was so rich, they give out milk in bathrooms. She mixed it up for my 1 year old brother (the one that just died recently) and fed him the soapy concoction. She found out quickly when another passenger asked what she was doing.

We took the train to Miami to meet up with our Father who did not make the trip with us. Everyone thought my mother was Cuban and we got our asses kicked in the yards and playgrounds. Since we did not speak English, our father was embarrassed to bring us to social events. Every time we went, my mother would end up serving the others, cleaning up, doing the dishes and crying because it was very apparent to her that we were low class. Now, my mother may have been poor and uneducated but she spoke French, Spanish and Arabic fluently, worked in the best casino in Tangiers and was drop dead gorgeous to boot. Impeccable manners and dressed like a movie star, total Euro chic bombshell.

I was learning English as fast as possible and actually told my mother that I was ashamed to be Spanish. She never forgot that to her dieing day.

Our father moved our butts to Garden Grove and then Santa Barbara in 1962. Six months later, he divorced my mother and left us alone, no income, no alimony, no child support, nothing. I have not seen him since. What did we do? We were kicked out of our house and went on welfare in the worst part of Santa Barbara. We practiced English at home. My mom spoke with a heavy Spanish accent. She ended up marrying a man who raised us.

So, when someone talks about coming here as an immigrant, I get a little excited. Was it easy? No. Did we assimilate? Yes. Am I proud of my mother and Spain? You are damn right. I forgot most of my fluent Spanish in my rush to fit in and despite having taken years of tutoring, my Spanish is now just more conversational than it is fluent. My mother never did become a citizen saying with pride that she was a Spaniard and that while she loved America, her heart was in Spain.

We paid dearly for that later when Newt passed that Welfare Act that Clinton signed. They nixed her because she was a resident alien. When mom had a stroke in Miami in 98, her insurance was only good in Dade County. She could no longer live alone and could not talk due to the stroke. So, we ended up bringing her to California and I paid for her care at my sisters home until it got really bad. The state did kick in a bit but only after we went through massive hoops. Nice local doctors felt sorry for her and also helped a bit. We took her home to Spain in 2000 where she immediately got free health care.

So, there is one story of an immigrant family. How is this different than a poor Mexican family? Well, my mother did marry an American. That is one difference. We followed the visa laws for my mother, that is another difference. But we went through the exact same financial problems, racial and cultural prejudices, the poverty and so on that these poor souls endure to this day. Some wonder why I am a liberal. Well, this story is a bit of background into it. We were abandoned here and welfare gave us a heads up. We were taught in public schools for free. We were subjected to scorn, ridicule and racism based upon our language, skin color, food, you name it, we went through it. Had my mother given up and went back to Tangier, we would have been even more destitute. But this country gave us a chance, California gave us a little break and we did the best we could. At the end of this saga, we were again confronted with the nasty jingoism we started out enduring in that my mother was denied any help simply because she did not have the right papers. Despite living here for 40 years, she was nothing.

There but for the Grace of God go I.

Link to thread

On Trying New Things....

2010-04-28T13:55:00.003-06:00

Greta Carolina writing at Blowfish (again):

...Maybe the “This isn’t my thing” reaction is just a reflexive rejection of the newness itself; just my lizard hindbrain, reacting with fear to the unfamiliar. Maybe I need to let myself engage with the new experience, explore it, let my tongue get familiar with it . . . without immediately pushing it away, and deciding that I never want to try that again.

Link

What if You are Wrong?

2010-04-25T15:04:00.000-06:00

Stolen from Camels with Hammers

2010-04-25T14:57:00.000-06:00

not sure just where he stole it from.....

Facebook Cyberterrorism

2010-04-23T09:45:00.002-06:00

I have recently learned that extremist Muslim groups are targeting the Facebook accounts of atheists (ex-Muslim or others writing in Arabic) as well as progressive and secular Muslims (especially feminists) by reporting them to Facebook and getting them blocked.

Facebook allows any member to anonymously report any other member for violation of the terms of service, and, while they do not specify just what criteria they use, it appears that when they receive a specific number of complaints, the account is automatically disabled.

There are several criteria a complainer can cite in reporting another, and it appears that what is being used most commonly are:

1. That the individual (or group) is promoting hate, and/or

2. That the poster is not using his/her real name as required by the terms of service.

This second one is especially problematic, in that, for understandable reasons, many Arabic atheists and other activists are hesitant to use their real names, out of concern for legal consequences, and for their personal safety. Of course, anyone on Facebook will soon realize that a great many accounts are under pen names, and clearly Facebook makes no effort to screen them, but when someone complains, they DO act.

Jillian C York, a blogger who writes about digital activism, free expression, politics, and media, & the Arab World, and who works at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society (at Harvard University), recently wrote about this at some length.

As she points out, it appears that these same tactics are being used against other groups as well.

LINK

God and the Tsunami

2010-04-22T17:01:00.002-06:00

Tom Honey, the Canon Pastor of Exeter Cathedral, provides a rather thoughful view of how modern mankind might look at God. Not my point of view, but interesting and thought-provoking:

Are We Having Sex Now or What?

2010-04-22T14:54:00.003-06:00

Yesterday, I linked to Greta Christina's blog post regarding couples with incompatible libidos, and cited her suggestion to "redefine sex." As a more complete explanation of what that might include, I am linking to an old article she wrote.

LINK

As an aside, it occurs to me that perhaps part of the fascination that we heterosexual males have with lesbians is based on the fact that they define sex differently from how we are conditioned to do -- by definition, for them it is not the insertion of a penis into a vagina. Maybe part of the appeal in watching, or imagining, lesbian sex is that it opens up a much larger window of erotic opportunity.....

So What is Wrong With Reason?

2010-04-22T10:39:00.003-06:00

In todays Guardian, Christian apologist Theo Hobson critiques theologian Alister McGrath's book Mere Theology. The article itself is of some interest, I suppose, but I more enjoyed some of the comments submitted by readers. I particularly liked this, by supertec:

LINK

It is more like a myth that can (and to my mind should) find cultural expression. And advocates of this myth (this true myth as I see it) should be honest: in certain respects it comes into sharp, shocking conflict with reason.

So why defend it? What's so bad about reason? This sounds like a desperate rearguard action against sanity, admitting that your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny, but clinging to them like a comfort blanket nonetheless.

2010-04-21T17:31:00.000-06:00

Age of Reason has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

Can Mixed Marriages Ever Work?

2010-04-21T16:17:00.002-06:00

No, not those between Christian and Jews, or Catholic and Protestant, or believer and atheist -- between partners with significantly differing libidos. That is the question Greta Christina addresses on her recent post @ Blowfish.

Interesting for a heterosexual male such as I am to consider a lesbian's approach to the matter.....in particular her suggestion regarding "redefining sex."

Stolen From Facebook

2010-04-21T15:50:00.002-06:00

Posted by Greta Christina on Facebook just a few moments ago:

Throughout history, supernatural explanations of phenomenon have never once proven to be right. Upon careful examination, they have always been replaced with natural ones -- thousands upon thousands of times. So why would we ever assume that any unexplained phenomenon is probably supernatural? Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Safe, Legal and Common

2010-04-21T11:22:00.002-06:00

I have only recently become acquainted (via mutual friends) with Angie Jackson.

I found her blog entry for today to be an interesting perspective:

I'm pro-choice, but that label has gotten so muddled, so dampened, so infused with "I'm pro-choice BUT..." that I feel a need to clarify my position. I am PRO-CHOICE. I'm for your choice, and my choice, and my other choice. And I'm pro-abortion. Read More

I admit that I have been one of those "pro-choice, BUT" voices -- I would like to see fewer abortions because I prefer to see unwanted pregnancies prevented in the first place, but I do see her point, and I agree that there should be no apology required for abortion -- not for supporting it, and not from chosing to have one.

Giordano Bruno 1548 - Forever

2010-04-19T14:11:00.000-06:00

Giordano Bruno from Mato Atom on Vimeo.

Giordano Bruno
Burned at the stake on February 17th, 1600

What I Know of Islam

2010-04-18T11:22:00.000-06:00

Stephen Fry - Is the Church a Force for Good?

2010-04-16T14:38:00.001-06:00

Let's Not Forget John-Paul II

2010-04-16T13:07:00.004-06:00

Mano Singham's Web Journal today makes the case for the role of the late Pope John-Paul II in the Catholic Church sex scandal -- not to let Pope Ratzo off the hook in any way, but....

He writes:

While a lot of the attention and blame for the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church has focused on Pope Ratzinger's role, John Paul II has had a shameful history as well. Yesterday, I wrote about his lack of action against, and even the promotion of, an abusive Canadian priest Bernard Prince. Even more shocking are the recent revelations of his close relationship with Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of a powerful order known as the Legionaries of Christ. ....

This expose by Jason Berry in the April 6, 2010 issue of the National Catholic Reporter lays out the awful details. I will give only a few details. You have to read the whole thing to get a sense of the scale of the corruption. If you did not know better, you would think that this article was describing the workings of some weird hybrid organization made up of the Mafia and a cult. It is a shocking story of money, sex, power, intrigue, and corruption in the Catholic Church. Religion plays hardly any role except as a cover for the corruption.

Why Can't My Congressional Representative be Like This?

2010-04-15T10:10:00.003-06:00

From Joe.My.God, quoting Rep Anthony Weiner:

Every single moment that we are stroking our beards and gazing at our navel and thinking about the world we’d like to be and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is another day we’re not punching Bill O’Reilly in the nose.

Read the rest

Rep Weiner was Jon Stewart's college roommate, BTW

An Oldie from BOTF....

2010-03-25T12:58:00.002-06:00

....that someone just happened to stumble across and post to today. Whatever happened to BaldTony anyway?

Why Christianity is what it is.
by BaldTony
07/16/2007, 5:37 PM #

Imagine. Imagine a Christianity where the "bastards" never get what's coming to them. Imagine a Christianity where there's no real percentage in buying the Jesus T-Shirts and Jesus bumper stickers because God is not keeping score on anybody. Anybody! If you like the shirt, you buy the shirt and God is happy for you because the shirt makes you happy. But really God doesn't give a shit about T-Shirts, so if you don't buy the Don't Be Caught Dead Without Jesus T-shirt it doesn't matter one bit.

Imagine that God gave us all free-will. Not the kinda of free will where you're free to worship God or not worship God right up to the moment when your wicked, heathen ass hits the griddle. Not that free-will. But real free will. The kind where there is no down side to not loving God or even liking God or even believing God exists. The sort of free will you'd have if God were less of an asshole than Pat Robertson.

Imagine a Christianity where all the folks who disagreed with Christianity were just allowed to go blissfully on their merry way and never got what's coming to them.

Not only could you not get people to pay for that sort of religion, you couldn't pay people to believe in it. Especially not angry, bitter, white, middle-aged male people. That's a sissy religion.

I guess that would have to be a Christianity that was not invented in medieval times largely to support whoever was in power.

Out of Habit

2010-03-20T12:56:00.000-06:00

the butter melts out of habit
the toast isn't even warm
the waitress and the man in the plaid shirt
play out a scene they've played
so many times before
I am watching the sun stumble home in the morning
from a bar on the east side of town
and the coffee is just water dressed in brown
beautiful but boring
he visited me yesterday
he noticed my fingers
and asked me if I would play
I didn't really care a lot
but I couldn't think of a reason why not
I said if you don't come any closer I don't mind if you stay
my thighs have been involved in many accidents
and now I can't get insured
and I don't need to be lured by you
my cunt is built like a wound that won't heal
and now you don't have to ask
because you know how I feel
you know how I feel

art is why I get up in the morning
but my definition ends there
and it doesn't seem fair
that I'm living for something I can't even define
there you are right there
in the meantime

I don't want to play for you anymore
show me what you can do
tell me what are you here for
I want my old friends
I want my old face
I want my old mind
fuck this time and place

the butter melts out of habit
you know, the toast isn't even warm

No Matter How Much I Wanna Comment....

2010-03-19T14:10:00.001-06:00

....I gotta bite my tongue!

One More Thing for Women to Feel Guilty For

2010-03-11T18:45:00.000-07:00

LINK

Baby, Can I Hold You Tonight?

2010-03-04T17:30:00.001-07:00

Sorry
Is all that you can't say
Years gone by and still
Words don't come easily
Like sorry like sorry

Forgive me
Is all that you can't say
Years gone by and still
Words don't come easily
Like forgive me forgive me

But you can say baby
Baby can I hold you tonight
Maybe if I told you
the right words
At the right time you'd be mine

I love you
Is all that you can't say
Years gone by and still
Words don't come easily
Like I love you I love you

Guess He Finally WAS Ready....

2010-03-04T16:32:00.002-07:00

...I heard Vic Chesnutt interviewed on NPR perhaps a month before his death by suicide, and when he played this song, I had the distinct impression that his end was very near:

A Brief History of Violence

2010-03-02T13:25:00.002-07:00

Making a pretty convincing arguement - and pretty well skewers the idea that morality comes from a belief in one or more gods. Kinda long, but worth watching.

Sam Harris -- Faith vs Reason in the Modern World

2010-02-24T14:06:00.002-07:00

Warmest Decade on Record - per NASA

2010-01-26T14:33:00.003-07:00

From Neurologica:

Steven Novella opens with what is very close to my own perspective:

I have never had a strong opinion on global climate change. The data is too esoteric and complex for a non-specialist, in my opinion, to have a firm grasp on it. So climate change is one area where I am content to defer to the consensus of expert opinion. I understand the basic arguments, and find them plausible and even compelling. I have listened to the dissidents, and do not find their arguments compelling. Maybe they have a point about the limitations of our ability to project climate into the future and understand all the consequences and remedies. Otherwise I find their argument severely wanting.

It seems to me that a significant portion of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) skeptics and deniers fall into two (or perhaps 3) sometimes overlapping catagories:

1. Those who have an economic or other personal stake in AGW NOT being valid -- this includes, for example, those in the carbon fuels industry and those who do not wish to be forced to change their lifestyles.

2. Those who have an ideological stake in the issue -- for example, those who see AGW as part of socialist agenda -- an excuse to undermine market-based capitalism etc. This might also include those who object out of religious reasons -- perhaps asserting that the idea that humans could alter God's creation to such an extent borders on blasphemy -- and/or the idea that God will end this world soon in any case.

3. The general distrust of "experts" -- especially academic experts. One common manifestation of this meme is the observation frequently made that meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather tomorrow, so why should be believe they can tell what will have in the coming decades?

Thought for the Day

2010-01-22T16:02:00.001-07:00

"If you speculate on phenomena that are already scientifically understood for the purpose of undermining or delegitimizing the scientific data, it is no longer philosophizing, it is bullshit."

Stolen from todays Slate Magazine Faith Based Fray

Fiscal Conservatives - Continued Further

2010-01-21T13:20:00.004-07:00

I guess the point I really want to make is that fiscal prudence should be looked at more broadly than just being a matter of government revenues and expenditures. It really is a matter of what our community (however defined) does with its resources.

If someone proposes doing something for the common good, one of the first questions is whether it would actually be desirable. Opinions on that are often not as close to being unanimous as the proponents might think -- and as a side note, I suggest that a lot of conservative opposition to liberal social programs is not really motivated by the economics so much as a lack of enthusiasm for, if not outright antagonism towards, the objectives themselves.

If we DO feel there is a consensus that the objectives are desirable, the next issues are to consider the resources required and whether the proposed approach is likely to actually achieve the desired objectives.

This is the point where, in my opinion, the role of fiscal conservatism is most important -- raising the hard questions, maintaining a healthy skepticism, probing the assumptions, identifying potential pitfalls..... Is this likely to work? Are there better approaches? Are there more important priorities? Do we have the needed technology? All of these are important questions.

Note that nothing so far has addressed what role, if any, government might play in the process. There are any number of ways this could be structured, and I will only touch on a few examples to illustrate.

At one extreme, the whole thing can be private -- an entirely capitalistic venture where investors put up the capital, and offer the service to those who wish to pay for it. If the objective is to provide skim milk mocha lattes on every corner of every American city, that seems a reasonable approach -- with governmental involvement mostly limited to zoning approvals, health and building codes, labor laws etc. Not even most hard-core conservatives object to some regulation in these areas. Of course this model assumes that not everyone will wish to avail themselves of the service, or that all who wish to will be able -- either because they cannot afford the cost or because they live in Moose Fart Montana where there may not be a Starbucks, or in Orem Utah where the local would run the proprietor out of town for trying to serve coffee. Since most of us do not consider immediate access to skim milk mocha lattes to be of sufficient import to mandate universal access, most of us are content to let the capitalistic system sort out who gets access.

At the other extreme, we might conclude that we do want universal access, and further that the services should be provided by agencies of the government, to be paid for out of general revenues (ie via taxes). Police and fire protection would probably be amongst the more non-controversial examples. Not to many hard core conservatives would suggest that police and fire protection should only be available to those who can affort to pay, and not too many would really want us to contract this out to private firms based on the cheapest bid.

Any number of other services fall between these extremes. For example, you can have services provided by governmental agencies but funded (in whole or in part) by user fees assessed on those who actually use the services, or the opposite approach, where you have governmental funding but where the services are provided by private parties. And there are any number of cases where government simply mandates the result, and others have to figure out how to pay for it (eg auto safety and emission standards, that indirectly get passed on to purchasers in the price of their cars).

Then you have the hybrid private/public projects, where the government may put up some or all of the funding, or may guarantee loans etc, or where there are various tax or other incentives to subsidize the desired result (energy credits, as an example).

There is pleanty of room for debate as to the merits of HOW to structure these arrangements for any specific situation, but such a debate really has nothing directly to do with fiscal conservatism.

Fiscal Conservatives - Continued

2010-01-20T14:34:00.002-07:00

As I wrote previously, my point is that fiscal conservatism is not, or should not be, a matter of limiting governmental involvement in economic matters, not just a matter of lower taxes.

I would also maintain that fiscal conservatism should not mean across the board opposition to deficit spending -- although I agree that deficit spending should be at least a concern. If we are gonna pass on huge debts to our children and grandchildren, we should be pretty damned sure that it is for a good purpose. Incurring deficits in order to provide a better society, a better environment, a better infrastructure for our children and grandchildren might well be the fiscally prudent thing to do: incurring them because it is politically more attractive to hand out benefits than to impose taxes to pay for them, not so much.

As as the great economist, Robert Heinlein said "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Not addressing problems, from our education system, to energy independence, to transportation to carbon emissions etc does not make them go away. We can shift the cost to someone else, me may be able to postpone the costs but simply ignoring them does not make them go away. And I would say that dumping the effects of a shitty education system, of an inadequate transportation system, of degraded air and water quality and climate change on our children and grandchildren is no more fiscally conservative than is saddling them with massive government debt.

To be continued

Fiscal Conservatives

2010-01-18T16:50:00.005-07:00

Many of my friends, in both the real and virtual worlds, describe themselves as being fiscal conservatives, and I have quite frequently described myself as being such. But I think there is considerable confusion about what a fiscal conservative really is.

In my professional capacity, I need to be a fiscal conservative -- I am a CPA who works as Controller or CFO or as a consultant for various business ventures (including not-for-profit organizations) and my primary function is to be sure that they are making prudent financial decisions, that the financial risks are appropriate for the mission of the venture.

That is the sort of role that every venture needs, whether it is your household, your church, synagogue or temple, your golf club, your homeowners' association or your business. Somebody needs to ask the hard questions, to challenge the recommendations made by others, to help ascertain whether the group is best utilizing the financial resources that it has.

Being fiscally conservative does not always mean that you want to spend less. Sometimes, admittedly less frequent than the opposite, I have to press managers to spend money, to make investments. For example, if your son or daughter has been accepted to Harvard Law School and wants to go, it might not really be fiscally prudent to advise them not to make that investment. Same thing holds in business.

It seems that most self-described fiscal conservatives really mean that they favor lower taxes and less government involvement in economic matters. Depending on the context, this may or may not really have anything to do with being fiscally prudent.

For one thing, the real issue is not how much the government spends, it is how much society spends. Shifting the responsibility from the public sector to the private might or might not be more financially responsible.

There are any number of basic services, including education, emergency services, transportation, etc that are typically provided by some governmental agency, but which could be provided by the individuals themselves, or by private enterprises. There is nothing INHERENTLY more fiscally conservative about privatizing these than having them operated by the government. I should note that fiscal soundness is not the sole factor in determining what should be privatized, however. Probably most of us, even my biggest gun nut friends, would draw the line at returning to the (largely mythical) wild west where each of us needs to carry a six-shooter for protection and where suspected cattle theives are strung up without bothering with a trial....

But even if one is only considering the economics of the issue, there is not anything inherently more fiscally prudent in having services provided via some governmental agency compared to those same services being provided by individual arangement.

If there are services for which the consensus says should be made available to all, or nearly all, the community, the economic questions should be 1) can the community really afford the resources to provide that service, 2) what is the most effective way to deliver those services, and 3) how do we allocate the cost to those receiving the services.

To be continued.....

Gotta Pass This on From BTC News

2010-01-07T15:11:00.002-07:00

LINK

The opening paragraph reads:

...that not all Palestinians are Muslims, that not all Palestinians and Muslims hate Jews, that not all Jews hate Palestinians and Muslims, that not all anti-Semites are Palestinian or Muslim or Arab, and that reflexive support for Israeli violence against Palestinians is no more sane or useful than reflexive support for Palestinian violence against Israel, no matter the disparity in resources, and that in fact it infantilizes Israelis in particular and Jews in general by suggesting that they are incapable of behaving otherwise.

I am Not a Lawyer – Although I Play One on TV

2010-01-06T13:57:00.000-07:00

Well, that is obviously not true (the “play one on TV” bit, not the “not a lawyer” part), but for what it is worth, it seems clear to me that the guy with the exploding underpants, and similar accused terrorists, are best tried in the US criminal courts rather than as “war criminals.”

For one thing, if we were to claim that such accused terrorists are at war with us, then they are allowed rather wide legal discretion to attack and kill Americans, and under international standards, can only be detained, under humane conditions, for the duration of the hostilities. Did we prosecute German Luftwaffe pilots for targeting civilians in WWII London? Or for that matter, did we prosecute American or Allied pilots for the firebombing of Dresden or the A-bombing of Japan? In fact, I believe that most of the war crimes for which we prosecuted enemy forces post WWII were for either crimes against their own people (eg Jews) or against prisoners of war they held.

It seems to me that the legal status of these guys is pretty much the same as was that of accused members of Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Front – who were all prosecuted under applicable US law in state or Federal courts.

Note that I am not referring to Taliban, etc fighters who might be captured in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Those present their own issues.

Terrorism: Some Perspective Please

2010-01-06T12:08:00.000-07:00

A number of people have recently criticized President Obama for not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough. Of course, some of those critics are motivated as much by politics as by real security concerns, but the general idea seems to be getting some traction in the mainstream media and the general population.

I see this quite differently, and if anything, feel that concerns over terrorism are now getting too much attention.

That is not to suggest that the threat of large-scale attacks – for example based on nuclear devices, or, say, poisoning the water system for a major metropolitan area – are not real concerns, but the sort of attacks that have been attempted so far are NOT serious threats to most of us.

Of course, the 9/11 attacks are the most significant in the minds of most Americans, but even those attacks were, in themselves, statistically insignificant. Probably 10 times as many Americans die every year as a result of obesity, and yet nobody is declaring a national war on fat! Certainly far more die due to lack of healthcare, which suggests that perhaps Obama is correct in putting health care reform ahead of the so called “War on Terrorism” in his administration’s priorities. (Not to say that the programs currently being proposed will very effective -- that is a seperate topic.)

For most of us, the reality is that we are at far more risk of being killed by a lightning strike or by bee stings than we are to be killed as a result of a terrorist attack.

When I get on a plane, I am happy to see that reasonable precautions are taken to insure my security, but I suspect that a fraction of what has been spent on screening etc would have provided a better payoff in terms of reducing risk had it instead been spent of better training and screening of pilots and on more rigourous aircraft maintenance schedules.

Just sayin'......

Debate or Change

2009-11-11T15:05:00.002-07:00

Butterflies and Wheels is a blog that I used to follow quite closely, but for some reason, I had stopped reading it some months ago and only recently rediscovered it.

This article was one of the best I have read recently:

Debate or Change

This comment really struck home:

Unfortunately, apart from reassuring the sceptical reader that they are on the right page, recitations of the evils of religion will do little to change matters. To the faithful they only confirm the hostility and ignorance of "New Atheists".

2009-07-13T19:10:00.002-06:00

This sounds like something that one of the hard-core conservative posters at BOTF might post (eg the Joke from Dallas):

Link

I would say unbelievable, except I have seem too many comments just like those......

Grave Danger, Use Round Wheel Now!

2009-07-02T08:22:00.001-06:00

Round wheel rolls

Shocking Revelation: Humans Do Not Always Act Rationally!

2009-06-09T15:22:00.004-06:00

A recent NPR report on economists who do not assume that humans always act rationally:

Using Psychology to Save You From Yourself

...behavioral economics — a school of economic thought greatly influenced by psychological research — which argues that the human animal is hard-wired to make errors when it comes to decision-making, and therefore people need a little "nudge" to make decisions that are in their own best interests.

What I found interesting is that this approach is not exactly the traditional liberal, managed economy approach, although it does involve a degree of intervention that is probably offensive to the Ayn Rand school of economic conservatives. What they suggest in not so much taking decision-making power away from those irrational people who otherwise might make bad choices, but rather in considering behavorial understanding to steer them towards the "right" choices.

They cited as an example, that if you want people to participate in their companies' retirement plans (eg 401(k) etc), rather than having them elect to do so, as is the current norm, that they be automatically enrolled unless they opt out. Same choices, in theory, but clearly many more people would actually participate.

For more on this, see NUDGE, coauthored by Carl Sunstein, Obama's choice to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the main subject of the NPR story linked above.

Enhanced Obfuscation Techniques

2009-05-22T13:09:00.001-06:00

I Have a Dream

2009-05-22T12:43:00.002-06:00

What a Dick

2009-05-21T14:22:00.001-06:00

Click on the picture to see the whole thing.

Don't Let the Bastards Get You Down

2009-05-19T07:45:00.002-06:00

Perhaps not terribly timely, but still, a great song. Kris still has some great songs to write.

They're killing babies in the name of Freedom
We've been down that sorry road before
They let us hang around a little longer than they should have
And it's too late to fool us anymore

We've seen the ones who killed the ones with vision
Cold-blooded murder right before your eyes
Today they hold the power and the money and the guns
It's getting hard to listen to their lies.

Chorus:
And I've just got to wonder what my Daddy would've done
If he'd seen the way they turned his dream around
I've got to go by what he told me, try to tell the truth
And stand your ground
DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GET YOU DOWN

Mining roads
Killing farmers
Burning down schools full of children
Fighting communism

Chorus:
And I've just got to wonder what my Daddy would've done
If he'd seen the way they turned his dream around
I've got to go by what he told me, try to tell the truth
And stand your ground
DON'T LET THE BASTARDS GET YOU DOWN

Perspective on Torture (hint: the real issue is not what Pelosi did or did not know)

2009-05-16T14:44:00.002-06:00

Los Rolling

2009-05-16T13:00:00.004-06:00

(as the Rolling Stones are called in Spain) This photo is apparently what was used for the "Sticky Fingers" album cover in Spain, as the famous "Zipper" cover was considered too racy by Franco's Spain.

More from the great For the Sake of the Song blog -- this time some wonderful Rolling Stones outtakes from Sticky Fingers. In my opinion, better than what did make the cut on that album.

Los Rolling

Maggot Brain

2009-05-16T12:03:00.004-06:00

Thanks to For the Sake of the Song for this (a site well worth following for anyone whose musical tastes are at all similar to my own).

Funkadelic at its best!

Scroll down and click on the links to play (and perhaps record) the song. The alternative mix included is nice too, but I much prefer the original.

Sex, God and Rock n Roll

2009-05-16T08:44:00.002-06:00

I guess I have had my head up my ass, or something, but I had not heard of this show until listening to NPR this morning. Seems to be worth looking into.

Legal Reach-Around from Sex, God, Rock 'n Roll on Vimeo.

Godka from Sex, God, Rock 'n Roll on Vimeo.

Be Here to Love Me

2009-04-26T17:34:00.002-06:00

Some of you who have known me for awhile are aware that I am really fond of the music of Townes Van Zandt. I had been looking for this dvd, and found this link which allows you to watch it for free (you do get to sit through a couple of commercials, however).

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it.

Dylan on Thomas Paine

2009-04-13T16:45:00.001-06:00

So, Where Will We Bloggers Get Our News When the Newspapers Close?

2009-04-02T13:01:00.002-06:00

I suppose we will all just make up shit and quote each other's shit as authority?

I understand that print editions are approaching dinosaur status, and if the major papers want to survive, they need to figure the economic model that works for an on-line only publication.

Meantime, the major papers still hire the bulk of those investigative journalists that are working, and the steady loss of newspapers means that there is progressively less and less real investigative journalism being done.

2009-04-01T07:58:00.001-06:00

Hey Paul Krugman

2009-03-23T14:01:00.001-06:00

Thanks to tartuffe at BOTF for pointing me to this link:

About as Good an Explanation of the Prospects...

2009-03-20T12:59:00.002-06:00

... for our success in Afganistan as I have read anywhere.

Thanks for that, Fritz.

More like Parthia than Carthage
by Fritz Gerlich
03/20/2009, 1:01 PM #

Essentially, the United States is attempting to pacify a vast, traditionally "lawless" (i.e., subject to tribal law), frontier between India and Iran. It is, as usual, attempting to do it without any secure political footing in the host countries. And in the case of inland areas, it suffers from a critical logistical vulnerability.

Not only has such a task never been accomplished by anyone before (though many have tried), but there is no reward for the United States even if it should, by some definition or other, succeed. The only consistent rationale advanced for our presence in Afghanistan is to "prevent international terrorism from taking root" there. That is an inherently unmeasurable benefit even if it should occur, for how do you measure the probability that "international terrorism" (whatever that means) based in that part of the world would either "take root" there, or strike the United States, in the absence of our war effort? And even if the benefit should be in some way provable, what does achieving that objective in Afpakistan do to prevent the same individuals and organizations from simply "taking root" elsewhere, as they have already shown an ability to do?

The sole reason the Obama administration is gearing up an allegedly new plan in Afghanistan is that, eight years after Bush committed us, it is simply too embarrassing for any American administration to admit that this war has accomplished whatever it might have, that it has no future, and to decide to cut our losses by winding it down. Obama as a new and untested president is particularly vulnerable to this "lost face" fear, as was Kennedy in the 1960's. For this reason, we will blunder on, getting deeper and deeper into a political vaccuum and spending vast sums of money to buy nothing more than cover for our politicians to claim, "We didn't fail." In terms of tangible benefits, we get nothing important. The real action is elsewhere, as Russia seeks to reassert itself in Europe and China begins its disengagement from the dollar.

Hard to honestly imagine any way that this can turn out well.

Great Parody by Schmutzie

2009-03-20T07:44:00.002-06:00

I have long admired Carl Sandburg's poetry, even though it is somewhat out of fashion these days, and Chicago is one of the works I like best -- so this one really appeals to me:

"Fray-cago"
by Schmutzie
03/19/2009, 9:20 PM #

Pig Butcher for the World,
Feud Maker, Stacker of Strawmen,
Gazer at navel, and Slate's excess Baggage Handler;
Boring, dreary, bawling,
Fray of the Big Haunches:

They tell me you are evil and I believe them,
for I have seen your trolling feminists,
under the gold stars luring the farm boys.

And they tell me you are banal and I answer:
No, I have seen the banned unbanned, free to troll again.
And they tell me you are snarky and my reply is:
I've forgotten more about knowledge than you'll ever know.

And having answered so I turn
once more to those who sneer at this my Fray,
and I give them back the sneer and say to them:
Come and show me another Fray with baby Himmler singing
So proud to be anonymous and coarse and relevant and ambiguous.

Flinging chimp feces amid the toil of piling snark on snark,
Here is a graying meth-head set vivid against the little soft cities;
Rabid as a bat on the shuttle, with tongue flapping for action,
Slimy as a worm, pitted against the burning sun.

Baldheaded,
Sniveling,
Wrecking,
Scheming.

Building, breaking, rebuilding, always e-mailing.

Under the sockpuppets, dust all over its mouth, laughing with chipped yellow teeth,
Under the terrible burden of truth, crying as a young man laughs,
Laughing, just as an ignorant fighter laughs, who has never won a battle,
Bragging and laughing that inside her keyboard is the pulse,
and under her ribs the heart of the people,

Laughing!

Laughing the boring, dreary, bawling laughter of lost youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Pig Butcher, Fued Maker, Stacker of Strawmen, Gazer at navel, and Excess Baggage Handler for Slate.

(I kinda plagiarized this. It's a loose interpretation of Carl Sandburg's Chicago.)

Excellent work, Schmutzie!

Just for comparison, here is the original LINK:

CHICAGO

HOG Butcher for the World,
Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,
Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler;
Stormy, husky, brawling,
City of the Big Shoulders:

They tell me you are wicked and I believe them, for I
have seen your painted women under the gas lamps
luring the farm boys.
And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: Yes, it
is true I have seen the gunman kill and go free to
kill again.
And they tell me you are brutal and my reply is: On the
faces of women and children I have seen the marks
of wanton hunger.
And having answered so I turn once more to those who
sneer at this my city, and I give them back the sneer
and say to them:
Come and show me another city with lifted head singing
so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.
Flinging magnetic curses amid the toil of piling job on
job, here is a tall bold slugger set vivid against the
little soft cities;

Fierce as a dog with tongue lapping for action, cunning
as a savage pitted against the wilderness,
Bareheaded,
Shoveling,
Wrecking,
Planning,
Building, breaking, rebuilding,
Under the smoke, dust all over his mouth, laughing with
white teeth,
Under the terrible burden of destiny laughing as a young
man laughs,
Laughing even as an ignorant fighter laughs who has
never lost a battle,
Bragging and laughing that under his wrist is the pulse.
and under his ribs the heart of the people,
Laughing!
Laughing the stormy, husky, brawling laughter of
Youth, half-naked, sweating, proud to be Hog
Butcher, Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat, Player with
Railroads and Freight Handler to the Nation.

Train Wreck

2009-03-19T13:40:00.003-06:00

In case there is any doubt why I need to stay away from the Best of the Fray for the moment -- the insanity of this thread (no reflection at all on the top post, mind you).

Contacting the Secret Service

No More Money 'till They Tell Us What the Fuck They are Doin' With It!

2009-03-18T13:15:00.003-06:00

Tell Congress -- no more money for banks until they tell us where it has all gone. We'll be delivering your comments personally to members of Congress this Wednesday, when Barney Frank's Financial Services Committee holds an AIG hearing on Capitol Hill:

Sign the petition at FireDogLake

Angry Bear's Take on AIG

2009-03-18T12:03:00.003-06:00

The AIG Bonuses... A Letter to Our Leaders ~ Angry Bear

Boiled down, that proposal amounts to a flat 200% tax on the income of all AIG executives receiving the bonuses.

And a clear statement that any other financial executives pulling that sort of shit are in for the same.

Blame Dodd?

2009-03-18T11:40:00.001-06:00

This from Salon

Guts of that article:

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.

For Archaeopteryx (and the rest of my scientist friends)

2009-03-17T11:23:00.000-06:00

More on AIG

2009-03-17T10:30:00.001-06:00

Not that it happens all that often, but I have to agree with Jack Dallas here:

Re: Schrodinger..
by JackDallas
03/17/2009, 12:44 PM #

Schrodinger wrote the following post at 03/17/2009 11:25 AM: What about if the bonus payout isn't on the taxpayer's dime? Do executives who didn't earn the bonus still get it?

Well, that of course is up to the company directors. They can give a bonus to whomever they please, for a good reason, or no reason at all. It is my personal opinion that a bonus should be based on performance. If a company is privately owned, it can give away money in any manner it decides to. If it is a corporation, it could catch flak from stockholders for issuing bonuses that are not warranted.

The catch in the AIG story is that it has received billions in taxpayer money as a bail-out. That changes the equation. I would simply tell those who are contractually expecting bonuses, that used to be's don't count anymore. If they leave, they leave. Let them go find another bankrupt company, not getting money from the government, and see how big a bonus they can get for poor performance.

Jack

The Case for AIG Bonuses?

2009-03-17T08:42:00.000-06:00

In an editorial in today's New York Times, Andrew Ross Sorkin makes the case for why we need to allow AIG to pay out the infamous bonuses.

I have so far only skimmed the article, but it seems that his arguement hinges on the assumption that the promised bonuses are matters of contract, and that undermining that would have huge negative implications.

As I posted yesterday, I personally have real doubts whether the bonuses in question are really contractually established......and in any case, I note that the UAW employees at General Motors and Chrysler also had contracts that got torn up as a part of our bail-out of those companies. And, as far as I can tell, those union workers rank fairly far down the list of those most responsible for those companies financial failure.

Sounds to me like another case of a double standard. Big company executives fuck up, they get paid for it, and the workers get buggered without lubricant.

Another One Bites the Dust

2009-03-17T08:25:00.000-06:00

Close on the heels of the announcement of the closing of the Denver Rocky Mountain News, we learned late yesterday that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("the P-I") will cease publication. Each of these papers is (was) from a city in which I was a former resident, and each is a paper with which I have long maintained some emotional ties, so it is with a real sense of loss that I see them close.

No doubt, print newspapers are a declining business. It has been years since I regularly subscribed to one myself. It is much more convenient to be able to read from a number of on-line papers, to be able to link or C&P into blogs and other documents, to be able to search, etc -- and it is all free, with none of the large quantity of old newspapers to recycle.... And, no doubt, the current economic recession has put substantial additional pressure on what was already a stressed business model.

But, I really wonder if the on-line versions of our nation's newspapers are really economically viable on a stand-alone basis. Can they ultimately afford to hire the investigative reporters, the columnists, the political cartoonists that those of us who work in our pajamas rely on for so much of our material?

WTF With Bonuses for AIG Execs?

2009-03-16T16:20:00.001-06:00

First off, I must clarify that I do not really know anything at all about the situation beyond what was reported on the news today. So perhaps they are right that they were contractually obligated to pay out those bonuses.

However, it doesn't smell right to me. I have worked for a number of companies, large and small, that utilized some form of incentive compensation as an important part of their compensation package. And one common denominator is that in every case, there was no contractual obligation to pay out the bonuses. And, I note that in virtually every case, the bonuses were tied to meeting performance goals -- and those goals generally included both individual and corporate goals. So, if the corporation results really sucked, probably there was no payout, regardless of how the individual performed.

Given that AIG managed to get themselves in a position such that the needed a huge bailout to survive, and especially if it is true, as reported, that many of the bonuses are to executives in the divisions most closely involved in the derivative cluster-fuck that lead to that melt-down, it is hard to imagine what superior performance is being rewarded.

I suppose that it is possible that the bonuses are actually related to specific performance goals of a prior period -- and that the actual payouts were approved, to be paid out considerably later -- in which case, the current payouts are legitimately the payment of legal liabilities, but even there, I note that without the Fed bailout, those bonuses would not have been paid.

Fray Business Model

2009-03-16T13:38:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, on Slate's Best of the Fray ("BOTF"), my friend Archaeopteryx made the following comment:

Geoff doesn't want to shut down BOTF.

But everybody else at Slate does want to do so. It's a giant pain in the ass for them, and despite what several folks around here think, it generates exactly zero revenue for them.

I am afraid I have to doubt the accuracy of what Arch says, because I am almost certain that the advertisements that appear on my Fray page (right now, they are for the Ford Fusion Hybrid) are offered free of charge. I do not doubt, however, that the revenue generated does not cover the costs -- although the incremental costs cannot be too high. I mean, it is not like they spend much on moderators for the Fray. Certainly not lately.

A major part of my real-world professional live involves strategic planning, so understanding the business model is something I often find myself attempting. I have no professional experience in the on-line publishing industry, so I am doing a lot of speculating here.

I assume that Slate gets paid by advertisers based on the number of page views -- the number of times each page on which the advertises' adverts appear. It is also possible that the are paid on a "pay-per-click" basis. Either way, the revenue stream depends on the ability to attract readers to the pages in question.

My guess is that even the more active discussion boards draw significantly fewer readers than do the articles for the magazine itself. The most active board is Ballot Box, which lately generates about 1,500 to 1,600 posts per day. The third most active board, the BOTF, lately averages about 400 posts per day. It is hard to guess just how the number of posts correlates to the number of site visits. My gut reaction is that there are not many people reading Ballot Box other than the participants in the discussion. I suspect that BOTF might be a bit better, but in any case, I am skeptical about any of them drawing huge readership.

Slate seems to be trying to steer the boards to discussion of articles in the magazine. This does not seem to be very successful, at least based on the number of posts. With the exception of Today's Papers, and to a much lessor extent, Human Nature and Dear Prudie, none of the discussion boards tied to Slate articles generates significant discussion. Now, it is possible that they might have a higher number of readers per post, as those reading the article might want to see what comments other readers have made to the article, and I can understand that there could be a symbiotic relationship between a discussion forum tied to articles and the numbers of people viewing the articles themselves.

I can easily imagine that advertising revenue from the discussion boards might be relatively insignificant compared to that from the on-line magazine itself. It is not hard to imagine that they would not find much to be gained from operating general discussion forums for people who rarely, if ever, visit the e-zine itself (eg Ballot Box and BOTF).

My own guess? Most, if not all, of the Slate discussion forums are soon to be history. The ones tied to articles might remain, but only to enhance the interest in those articles.

Message of the Day

2009-03-14T09:28:00.001-06:00

Re: Let's clear up some misconceptions.
by Schadenfreude
03/13/2009, 11:25 PM #

Dear Customers:

Fuck you. We're not making enough money off of you.

Please stop complaining about the service we promised, but didn't deliver. If you do that again, we'll burn down the shop. But first we'll bore the shit out of you talking about our non-existent costs for our non-existent services.

I've been asked to tell you to fuck off because the owners are too cheap to hire someone to tell you to fuck off, even though they said they were going to when we all quit three months ago.

Now, since you've figured out that nobody checks the messages in the Complaints box, you've started bothering actual people with your complaints about the lack of service you were promised. These people are supposed to be working for the readers of our magazine, which you clearly are not. If this doesn't stop, we'll burn down the shop.

Sincerely hoping you just fuck off,

Slate Magazine

Time Magazine on CNBC

2009-03-13T14:34:00.000-06:00

Perhaps one of the more perceptive descriptions of CNBC that I have read:

CNBC may pay lip service to the long term, but it has the time horizon of a fruit fly.

Crime and Punishment

2009-03-12T13:30:00.000-06:00

I have recently been thinking more about the concepts of justice and punishment in the context of modern criminal justice systems.

A couple of recent events brought this to the front of my list:

The first of these was yesterday's The Best of the Fray thread about John Demjanjuk, a retired Ohio auto worker accused of being an accomplice to the murder of 29,000 Jews for his role as a prison guard at the Sobibor death camp in Poland in 1943.

The second was watching TV coverage of Bernie Madoff entering court to plead guilty to multiple charges in connection with his $50 Billion ponzi scheme.

My point in this post is not to discuss the specifics of either case, so much as to raise the questions of what it is we expect our justice system to accomplish.

I expect that the roots of our concepts of justice are with our most primitive sense of vengeance -- the idea that if you do something bad to me, I will do the same, or worse, to you. I can easily imagine that in primitive, family-oriented society, such a threat was likely one of the bases for the formation of rules of behavior. One family would attempt to somewhat control the behavior of their family towards members of other families, because of the risk of retaliation by members of the other families.

Early organized societies began to assume the role of the avenger, in place of the victim or the victim's extended family -- likely in large part because of the desire to prevent escalating rounds of violence. The Leviticus laws of the Hebrews would be a good example of this, with specific limits to the amount of vengeance to take for selected crimes -- the eye-for-an-eye idea, as well as reduced penalties when the offense was caused by accident, etc.

For thousands of years, most societies inflicted rather draconian punishments for a number of crimes -- often involving protracted, painful death. However, outside of a few Islamic nations, such punishments have been long abandoned in modern times -- even those few nations retaining the death penalty take great pains to assure that the death is as painless as possible.

I raise the question of whether there is any 21st Century reason why vengeance itself is a valid part of our concept of justice.

I am not specifically addressing the death penalty in this post, so I will assume for purposes of discussion that the penalty in question is imprisonment.

So What is Justice?

One one level, justice could involve some attempt to make the victim whole -- in the case of economic crime, this might involve economic restitution. But in the case of crimes against the victim's person, that is not so simple. Economic restitution may be part of the process -- some financial compensation for the suffering caused, for the economic losses incurred, etc, but it is hard to imagine what financial compensation would adequately compensate for someone being raped, for example, not to mention being permanently disfigured or crippled, and certainly not for being killed.

So beyond economic restitution, there is little that can be done to the perpetrator what will do much to un-do the damage to the victim. Killing or imprisoning the perpetrator will not do anything to unrape the young woman, to bring back someone's murdered son.

What punishment can do is two things:

First, it can be an effective deterrent to others who might be otherwise inclined to commit similar offenses. Certainly, for those of us who are reasonably rational, the fear of the consequences is one of the reasons we might resist the temptation to commit many crimes.

The second is that a convicted criminal who is imprisoned has far fewer opportunities to commit further crimes, at least for the duration of his/her incarceration. Locking up individuals who have proven themselves to be dangers to society can be seen as serving to protect the society. The same can be said of those committed to secure mental facilities. In this respect, it matters little, if at all, whether the perpetrator can be help personally responsible for his/her actions (ie moral culpability), but instead is a matter of whether the individual would constitute a danger to the community if left free.

My opinion is that the concept is justice as vengeance has long been obsolete -- that it should have no place in our justice system in the 21st Century. I see the desire to have revenge as an obsolete artifact of our earliest humanoid ancestors -- one that is at least as dysfunctional as are many of our "fight or flight" responses to the stresses of modern life.

Interesting Post from Today's Faith-Based

2009-02-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

LINK to Thread

Religion and Human Arrogance
by einhverfr
02/27/2009, 11:26 AM #

I was thinking of recent posts by Star Twin and others and asking what makes her views different from the more thoughtful members of this board. Sometimes she can be capable of very interesting and intelligent conversation when she stops trying to prove that her views alone are right (or rather God has her views).

History has seen a large number of attrocities committed by one group who felt that they, and they alone were religiously correct. Whether we are talking about Baruch Goldstein, Mohammed Atta, David Koresh, or any number of other cases, this idea that we KNOW we are right and everyone else is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong is responsible for all sorts of bad things. I have met Kahanists who idolized folks like Mr Goldstein and thought that his massacre of Palestinains was a good thing.

I have come to conclude that the problem is how human nature is co-opted to produce unthinking loyalty. There are a number of basic elements to how this is addressed and some of them are deeply embedded in how we think.

The first element is an agonal view of the world. Everything centers on conflict. As Walter Ong and others have pointed out (Ong interestingly is a Jesuit), an agonal approach to the world is at the core of how primary oral societies approach the world because it helps organize thought in a world without writing. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have deeply ingrained this sort of worldview in our minds, so it is easier to see the world as conflict than it is in other ways.

The second component is that of simple monotheism: the belief in a singular deity with a knowable will. This doesn't have to be omnipotent. However, when you see this in an agonal way, it forces one to see the world as a onflict for or against this deity's will. Obviously such a conflict is logically meaningless if the deity is omnipotent because everything that happens is that deity's will, but this can be easy to gloss over because it is easy for us to organize thought in terms of conflict.

The last one is fear of being wrong. Such groups tend to argue that there are drastic hazards in being wrong either in this life or in the next. One is forced to choose what one is told is the right side and cover up one's insecurities with an image of certainty.

Does this seem to be a fair sketch of this sort of religious approach in any religion?

Crime and Punishment - Juvenile Division

2009-02-26T13:45:00.000-07:00

NOTE: This is a work in process -- don't have time to finish it right now, but will come back to it.
RonB52 recently posted a very interesting top post at Best of the Fray, about a 10-year-old boy who apparently killed his pregnant step mother with his shotgun.

Apparently he is to be tried as an adult, and if convicted, will face a mandatory sentence of either death or life with no possibility for parole.

To me, this is a horrific situation, and an illustration of what is so wrong with our current treatment of juvenile violent offenders.

It seems to me that there are several fundamentally separate reasons for treating juvenile suspects differently from adult suspects:

First, there is the issue of whether a young offender is mentally and emotionally capable of understanding the consequences of his/her actions. Certainly, there is no magic age at which an individual suddenly has such capability -- each person is different, and such capability is something that happens progressively.

A second, somewhat related, issue is that, a juvenile suspect may not be sufficiently mature to represent his/her interests in the criminal process -- may not fully understand his/her rights, or the implications of his decisions (eg regarding pleas, waiving of rights, etc). I note that we do not generally allow individuals under age 18 to enter binding contracts for the same reason.

There generally has also been the assumption that a young offender is more likely to be rehabilitated to become a productive member of society than is an older offender. Accordingly, the juvenile system is, at least in theory, intended to be more corrective than punitive.

And, of course, there is the matter of society not being comfortable with the idea of incarcerating a juvenile in the adult prison system, where it would be virtually impossible to protect the young convict from abuse and exploitation.

Christianity Summarized

2009-02-02T07:48:00.000-07:00

Perhaps as good, and concise, a summary of the history of Christianity as one could imagine, taken from Slate Magazine's Faith-Based discussion forum:

They're all crazy
by Arlington
01/31/2009, 9:33 AM #

A deity with three different personalities created everything in six days, then had to rest because He exceeded His omnipotence. He sent His son, who is actually one of Himselves, to be born of a virgin, wander around for thirty years, make trouble for the Romans, and be executed. This saved the world. Okay, it only saved the world from sin, not from war, famine, floods, volcanoes, etc.

His followers invaded numerous countries in His name, tortured people into believing in Him, executed people for believing in Him the wrong way, stole from the poor, raised huge armies and generally made themselves grievous nuisances for a couple thousand years. Now they're worried because a few of them broke away and formed a splinter group.

This could be a Woody Allen movie. Or maybe a Marx Brothers film.

From Todays Faith Based

2009-01-15T10:40:00.000-07:00

Link

Let's talk.......God
by dumb_blonde
01/15/2009, 12:30 PM #

This was on the sign in front of the church in my neighborhood.

When I saw it, I said: "OK, God, let's talk, I am listening, what do you want to talk about?"

I waited a few minutes & He didn't say anything. So I talked to Him & let know how effed up I though the world is, kids dying, people starving, lack of world peace, morals & humanity. I asked Him what was he going to do about all that. He still didn't say anything. So I said "Fine, next time you want to talk, I'm all ears, but do not expect me to do all the talking"

When I said I needed a sign that He exsists, I didn't mean an actual LCD screen sign.

Maybe we DO Need Another Hero

2009-01-07T08:33:00.000-07:00

One very brave young woman -- guess the spirit of Gandhi and Dr King is still alive:

According to an anonymous comment at Informed Consent (from which I pirated the above video):

Huwaida Arraf (born 1976 in Detroit, Michigan), co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)..... Arraf majored in Arabic and Judaic studies and political science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor....

I'm Back...

2008-12-30T16:57:00.000-07:00

... in somewhat revised form. Took my blog private for awhile for personal and artistic reasons.

In its new form, I intend to concentrate this blog on my original mission -- the defense of reason. Accordingly, I have created a new blog to address more personal, literary, artistic etc interests -- this blog is called "An Unreasonable Man." I have moved many of my posts here to that blog.

I also created another new blog, "Ghost of Sacco and Vanzetti," to address my interest in the anarchist roots of modern radical politics (I had a grandfather and great-grandfather who were active in the IWW in the early years of the 20th Century).

Racism, Sexism Redux

2008-12-30T11:31:00.000-07:00

Just a quick followup to my last post on Racism and Sexism:

I had posted a similar submission at Slate's "Best of the Fray" (BOTF) where it generated a fair amount of discussion (much of which was to take exception to some part of what I had written.

I don't intend to address all of the comments here (or there), but I did want to elaborate on one particular point.

It is my position that what we now call racism or sexism is rooted in the ideology that holds some races to be superior to others or one gender superior to another, even though, in many cases, the actual belief in such superiority is not consciously held by the persons whose beliefs or actions are racist or sexist.

My point is that the underlying assumptions of white superiority and male superiority are so deeply ingrained in our culture that it is not necessary that one consciously hold to such a view in order to absorb the underlying racist and/or sexist attitudes.

-isms, as eg Racism, Sexism

2008-11-13T14:27:00.002-07:00

Terms such as racism and sexism are frequently thrown around with little thought to precise meaning.

According to The American Heritage® Book of English Usage:

The suffix -ism is a noun suffix. That is, when added to words or word roots, -ism forms nouns. It comes from the Greek noun suffix -ismos and means roughly “the act, state, or theory of.” Nouns that end in -ism often have related verbs that end in -ize (criticism/criticize), related agent nouns that end in -ist (optimism/optimist), and related adjectives that end in -istic (optimistic).

Racism

The primary definition of racism is the belief that race accounts for significant differences in human character or ability, and generally, the corollary belief that as a result of such differences, some races are superior to others.

Based on this definition, racism is not necessarily synonymous with racial discrimination or racial hatred, although they are often linked in reality. One can, for example, believe that some races are inferior without supporting discrimination against them and without hating them. And it seems quite possible that one can practice discrimination or feel hatred towards another race without believing that race to be inferior. For example, affirmative action (which is discrimination in favor of a group intended to counter previous discrimination against that group) would not necessarily imply that one race was inferior. Similarly, members of a race which have been victims of oppression by another race might hate that race without believing that race to be inferior.

I should note that not all claimed differences in racial capabilities are considered to be racism, for example, the observation of differences in typical body size, differences in susceptibility to certain diseases, etc.

Note that the definition does not depend on whether the claimed racial differences are true, so those scholars such as Rushton who claim significant racial differences in human intelligence are by definition racists, irregardless of whether their claims might be proved true.

At least based on this definition of racism, the claims made during the past presidential race that Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a racist because of his strongly-worded sermons attacking white oppression would not be supported, as there is no evidence he considered whites to be inferior to blacks.

Many dictionaries also include a second meaning of the term "racism" also can apply to discrimination based on race as well as hostility towards other races. I agree that these do reflect common usage, but I think this is mostly sloppy use of the language, and prefer to use more specific terms to describe what I mean.

Sexism

I believe that the term "sexism" was derived circa 1968 from the term racism. However, it is not a perfect analogue to racism, due to the obvious gender differences, the recognition of which are not considered to be "sexism," In fact, the many of primary dictionary definitions for sexism more closely parallel the secondary definitions of racism -- ie discrimination against or hostility towards women, with the secondary definition of gender stereotyping more closely paralleling the primary definition of racism.

As stated above, I prefer to use definitions more precisely, so tend to not use the term sexism as a synonym for sex discrimination. Accordingly, to me, sexism is better taken to mean gender stereotyping, especially where the conclusion is that one gender is superior to the other.

Because the physical gender differences seem somewhat greater than the physical differences between races, the determination of exactly what gender-specific assumptions should be considered sexist is less clear.

My belief is that in large part, this is situationally determined. By that, I mean that, for example, a time prior to the availability of reliable birth control, and in an economy where many of the occupations require great physical strength, the assumption that females are best suited to bearing and raising children and maintaining the household, while males are more suitable to hard physical labor might not be thought as sexist at all. In a time when childbearing is a choice, and where most employment is more mental than physical, the same assumptions would be considered sexist.

I do not think misogyny or misandry are the same as sexism, although they may be related. I suggest that one may fear or hate the opposite sex for reasons having nothing to do with a belief in gender stereotypes or a belief in gender superiority. I make the distinction that sexism is an intellectual belief, while misogyny of misandry are emotional reactions.

Reversal of Fortune

2008-10-23T14:36:00.000-06:00

A friend sent me this via e-mail -- I don't currently have a link to the sourse:

Describing how ideology, special-interest pressure, populist politics, and sheer incompetence have left the U.S. economy on life support, the author puts forth a clear, commonsense plan to reverse the Bush-era follies and regain America’s economic sanity.by Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, is a professor at Columbia University.

November 2008

When the American economy enters a downturn, you often hear the experts debating whether it is likely to be V-shaped (short and sharp) or U-shaped (longer but milder). Today, the American economy may be entering a downturn that is best described as L-shaped. It is in a very low place indeed, and likely to remain there for some time to come.

Virtually all the indicators look grim. Inflation is running at an annual rate of nearly 6 percent, its highest level in 17 years. Unemployment stands at 6 percent; there has been no net job growth in the private sector for almost a year. Housing prices have fallen faster than at any time in memory—in Florida and California, by 30 percent or more. Banks are reporting record losses, only months after their executives walked off with record bonuses as their reward. President Bush inherited a $128 billion budget surplus from Bill Clinton; this year the federal government announced the second-largest budget deficit ever reported. During the eight years of the Bush administration, the national debt has increased by more than 65 percent, to nearly $10 trillion (to which the debts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should now be added, according to the Congressional Budget Office). Meanwhile, we are saddled with the cost of two wars. The price tag for the one in Iraq alone will, by my estimate, ultimately exceed $3 trillion.

This tangled knot of problems will be difficult to unravel. Standard prescriptions call for raising interest rates when confronted with inflation, just as standard prescriptions call for lowering interest rates when confronted with an economic downturn. How do you do both at the same time? Not in the way that some politicians have proposed. With gasoline prices at all-time highs, John McCain has called for a rollback of gas taxes. But that would lead to more gas consumption, raise the price of gas further, increase our dependence on foreign oil, and expand our already massive trade deficit. The expanding deficit would in turn force the U.S. to continue borrowing gargantuan sums from abroad, making us even more indebted. At the same time, the higher imports of oil and petroleum-based products would lead to a weaker dollar, fueling inflationary pressures.

Millions of Americans are losing their homes. (Already, some 3.6 million have done so since the subprime-mortgage crisis began.) This social catastrophe has severe economic effects. The banks and other financial institutions that own these mortgages face stunning reverses; a few, such as Bear Stearns, have already gone belly-up. To prevent America’s $5.2 trillion home financiers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from following suit, Congress authorized a blank check to cover their losses, but even that generosity failed to do the trick. Now the administration has taken over the two entities completely, a stunning feat for a supposedly market-oriented regime. These bailouts contribute to growing deficits in the short run, and to perverse incentives in the long run. Market economies work only when there is a system of accountability, but C.E.O.’s, investors, and creditors are walking away with billions, while American taxpayers are being asked to pick up the tab. (Freddie Mac’s chairman, Richard Syron, earned $14.5 million in 2007. Fannie Mae’s C.E.O., Daniel Mudd, earned $14.2 million that same year.) We’re looking at a new form of public-private partnership, one in which the public shoulders all the risk, and the private sector gets all the profit. While the Bush administration preaches responsibility, the words are addressed only to the less well-off. The administration talks about the impact of “moral hazard” on the poor “speculator” who borrowed money and bought a house beyond his ability to pay. But moral hazard somehow isn’t an issue when it comes to the high-stakes speculators in corporate boardrooms.

How Did We Get into This Mess?

A unique combination of ideology, special-interest pressure, populist politics, bad economics, and sheer incompetence has brought us to our present condition.
Ideology proclaimed that markets were always good and government always bad. While George W. Bush has done as much as he can to ensure that government lives up to that reputation—it is the one area where he has overperformed—the fact is that key problems facing our society cannot be addressed without an effective government, whether it’s maintaining national security or protecting the environment. Our economy rests on public investments in technology, such as the Internet. While Bush’s ideology led him to underestimate the importance of government, it also led him to underestimate the limitations of markets. We learned from the Depression that markets are not self-adjusting—at least, not in a time frame that matters to living people. Today everyone—even the president—accepts the need for macro-economic policy, for government to try to maintain the economy at near-full employment. But in a sleight of hand, free-market economists promoted the idea that, once the economy was restored to full employment, markets would always allocate resources efficiently. The best regulation, in their view, was no regulation at all, and if that didn’t sell, then “self-regulation” was almost as good.

The underlying idea was, on the face of it, absurd: that market failures come only in macro doses, in the form of the recessions and depressions that have periodically plagued capitalist economies for the past several hundred years. Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that these failures are just the tip of the iceberg? That beneath the surface lie a myriad of smaller but harder-to-assess inefficiencies? Let me venture an analogy from biology: A patient arrives at a hospital in serious condition. Now, it may be that the patient has simply fallen victim to one of those debilitating ailments that go around from time to time and can be cured by a massive dose of antibiotics. In this case we have a macro problem with a macro solution. But it could instead be that the patient is suffering from a decade of serious abuse—smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise, a fondness for crystal meth—and that it has not only taken a catastrophic toll but also left him open to opportunistic infections of every kind. In other words, a buildup of micro problems has led to a macro problem, and no cure is possible without addressing the underlying issues. The American economy today is a patient of the second kind.
We are in the midst of micro-economic failure on a grand scale. Financial markets receive generous compensation—in the form of more than 30 percent of all corporate profits—presumably for performing two critical tasks: allocating savings and managing risk. But the financial markets have failed laughably at both. Hundreds of billions of dollars were allocated to home loans beyond Americans’ ability to pay. And rather than managing risk, the financial markets created more risk. The failure of our financial system to do what it is supposed to do matches in destructive grandeur the macro-economic failures of the Great Depression.

Economic theory—and historical experience—long ago proved the need for regulation of financial markets. But ever since the Reagan presidency, deregulation has been the prevailing religion. Never mind that the few times “free banking” has been tried—most recently in Pinochet’s Chile, under the influence of the doctrinaire free-market theorist Milton Friedman—the experiment has ended in disaster. Chile is still paying back the debts from its misadventure. With massive problems in 1987 (remember Black Friday, when stock markets plunged almost 25 percent), 1989 (the savings-and-loan debacle), 1997 (the East Asia financial crisis), 1998 (the bailout of Long Term Capital Management), and 2001–02 (the collapses of Enron and WorldCom), one might think there would be more skepticism about the wisdom of leaving markets to themselves.

The new populist rhetoric of the right—persuading taxpayers that ordinary people always know how to spend money better than the government does, and promising a new world without budget constraints, where every tax cut generates more revenue—hasn’t helped matters. Special interests took advantage of this seductive mixture of populism and free-market ideology. They also bent the rules to suit themselves. Corporations and the wealthy argued that lowering their tax rates would lead to more savings; they got the tax breaks, but America’s household savings rate not only didn’t rise, it dropped to levels not seen in 75 years. The Bush administration extolled the power of the free market, but it was more than willing to provide generous subsidies to farmers and erect tariffs to protect steelmakers. Lately, as we have seen, it seems willing to write blank checks to bail out its friends on Wall Street. In each of these cases there are clear winners. And in each there are clear losers—including the country as a whole.

What Is to Be Done?

As America attempts to work its way out of the present crisis, the danger is that we will listen to the same people on Wall Street and in the economic establishment who got us into it. For them, our current predicament is another opportunity: if they can shape the government response appropriately, they stand to gain, or at least stand to lose less, and they may be willing to sacrifice the well-being of the economy for their own benefit—just as they did in the past.

There are a number of economic tools at the country’s disposal. As noted, they can yield contradictory results. The sad truth is that we have reached the limits of monetary policy. Lowering interest rates will not stimulate the economy much—banks are not going to be willing to lend to strapped consumers, and consumers are not going to be willing to borrow as they see housing prices continue to fall. And raising interest rates, to combat inflation, won’t have the desired impact either, because the prices that are the main sources of our inflation—for food and energy—are determined in international markets; the chief consequence will be distress for ordinary people. The quandaries that we face mean that careful balancing is required. There is no quick and easy fix. But if we take decisive action today, we can shorten the length of the downturn and reduce its magnitude. If at the same time we think about what would be good for the economy in the long run, we can build a durable foundation for economic health.

To go back to that patient in the emergency room: we need to address the underlying causes. Most of the treatment options entail painful choices, but there are a few easy ones. On energy: conservation and research into new technologies will make us less dependent on foreign oil, reduce our trade imbalance, and help the environment. Expanding drilling into environmentally fragile areas, as some propose, would have a negligible effect on the price we pay for oil. Moreover, a policy of “drain America first” will make us more dependent on foreigners in the future. It is shortsighted in every dimension.

Our ethanol policy is also bad for the taxpayer, bad for the environment, bad for the world and our relations with other countries, and bad in terms of inflation. It is good only for the ethanol producers and American corn farmers. It should be scrapped. We currently subsidize corn-based ethanol by almost $1 a gallon, while imposing a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. It would be hard to invent a worse policy. The ethanol industry tries to sell itself as an infant, needing help to get on its feet, but it has been an infant for more than two decades, refusing to grow up. Our misguided biofuel policy is taking land used for food production and diverting it to energy production for cars; it is the single most important factor contributing to higher grain prices.

Our tax policies need to be changed. There is something deeply peculiar about having rich individuals who make their money speculating on real estate or stocks paying lower taxes than middle-class Americans, whose income is derived from wages and salaries; something peculiar and indeed offensive about having those whose income is derived from inherited stocks paying lower taxes than those who put in a 50-hour workweek. Skewing the tax rates in the other direction would provide better incentives where they count and would more effectively stimulate the economy, with more revenues and lower deficits.

We can have a financial system that is more stable—and even more dynamic—with stronger regulation. Self-regulation is an oxymoron. Financial markets produced loans and other products that were so complex and insidious that even their creators did not fully understand them; these products were so irresponsible that analysts called them “toxic.” Yet financial markets failed to create products that would enable ordinary households to face the risks they confront and stay in their homes. We need a financial-products safety commission and a financial-systems stability commission. And they can’t be run by Wall Street. The Federal Reserve Board shares too much of the mind-set of those it is supposed to regulate. It could and should have known that something was wrong. It had instruments at its disposal to let the air out of the bubble—or at least ensure that the bubble didn’t over-expand. But it chose to do nothing.

Throwing the poor out of their homes because they can’t pay their mortgages is not only tragic—it is pointless. All that happens is that the property deteriorates and the evicted people move somewhere else. The most coldhearted banker ought to understand the basic economics: banks lose money when they foreclose—the vacant homes typically sell for far less than they would if they were lived in and cared for. If banks won’t renegotiate, we should have an expedited special bankruptcy procedure, akin to what we do for corporations in Chapter 11, allowing people to keep their homes and re-structure their finances.

If this sounds too much like coddling the irresponsible, remember that there are two sides to every mortgage—the lender and the borrower. Both enter freely into the deal. One might say that both are, accordingly, equally responsible. But one side—the lender—is supposed to be financially sophisticated. In contrast, the borrowers in the subprime market consist mainly of people who are financially unsophisticated. For many, their home is their only asset, and when they lose it, they lose their life savings. Remember, too, that we already give big homeowner subsidies, through the tax system, to affluent families. With tax deductions, the government is paying in some states almost half of all mortgage interest and real-estate taxes. But many lower-income people, whose deductions are meaningless because their tax bill is too small, get no help. It makes much more sense to convert these tax deductions into cashable tax credits, so that the fraction of housing costs borne by the government for the poor and the rich is the same.

About these matters there should be no debate—but there will be. Already, those on Wall Street are arguing that we have to be careful not to “over-react.” Over-reaction, we are told, might stifle “innovation.” Well, some innovations ought to be stifled. Those toxic mortgages were certainly innovative. Other innovations were simply devices to circumvent regulations—regulations intended to prevent the kinds of problems from which our economy now suffers. Some of the innovations were designed to tart up the bottom line, moving liabilities off the balance sheet—charades designed to blur the information available to investors and regulators. They succeeded: the full extent of the exposure was not clear, and still isn’t. But there is a reason we need reliable accounting. Without good information it is hard to make good economic decisions. In short, some innovations come with very high price tags. Some can actually cause instability.

The free-market fundamentalists—who believe in the miracles of markets—have not been averse to accepting government bailouts. Indeed, they have demanded them, warning that unless they get what they want the whole system may crash. What politician wants to be blamed for the next Great Depression, simply because he stood on principle? I have been critical of weak anti-trust policies that allowed certain institutions to become so dominant that they are “too big to fail.” The harsh reality is that, given how far we’ve come, we will see more bailouts in the days ahead. Now that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in federal receivership, we must insist: not a dime of taxpayer money should be put at risk while shareholders and creditors, who failed to oversee management, are permitted to walk away with anything they please. To do otherwise would invite a recurrence. Moreover, while these institutions may be too big to fail, they’re not too big to be reorganized. And we need to remember why we’re bailing them out: in order to maintain a flow of money into mortgage markets. It’s outrageous that these institutions are responding to their near-monopoly position by raising fees and increasing the costs of mortgages, which will only worsen the housing crisis. They, and the financial markets, have shown little interest in measures that could help millions of existing and potential homeowners out of the bind they’re in.

The hardest puzzles will be in monetary policy (balancing the risks of inflation and the risk of a deeper downturn) and fiscal policy (balancing the risk of a deeper downturn and the risk of an exploding deficit). The standard analysis coming from financial markets these days is that inflation is the greatest threat, and therefore we need to raise interest rates and cut deficits, which will restore confidence and thereby restore the economy. This is the same bad economics that didn’t work in East Asia in 1997 and didn’t work in Russia and Brazil in 1998. Indeed, it is the same recipe prescribed by Herbert Hoover in 1929.

It is a recipe, moreover, that would be particularly hard on working people and the poor. Higher interest rates dampen inflation by cutting back so sharply on aggregate demand that the unemployment rate grows and wages fall. Eventually, prices fall, too. As noted, the cause of our inflation today is largely imported—it comes from global food and energy prices, which are hard to control. To curb inflation therefore means that the price of everything else needs to fall drastically to compensate, which means that unemployment would also have to rise drastically.
In addition, this is not the time to turn to the old-time fiscal religion.

Confidence in the economy won’t be restored as long as growth is low, and growth will be low if investment is anemic, consumption weak, and public spending on the wane. Under these circumstances, to mindlessly cut taxes or reduce government expenditures would be folly.

But there are ways of thoughtfully shaping policy that can walk a fine line and help us get out of our current predicament. Spending money on needed investments—infrastructure, education, technology—will yield double dividends. It will increase incomes today while laying the foundations for future employment and economic growth. Investments in energy efficiency will pay triple dividends—yielding environmental benefits in addition to the short- and long-run economic benefits.
The federal government needs to give a hand to states and localities—their tax revenues are plummeting, and without help they will face costly cutbacks in investment and in basic human services. The poor will suffer today, and growth will suffer tomorrow. The big advantage of a program to make up for the shortfall in the revenues of states and localities is that it would provide money in the amounts needed: if the economy recovers quickly, the shortfall will be small; if the downturn is long, as I fear will be the case, the shortfall will be large.

These measures are the opposite of what the administration—along with the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain—has been urging. It has always believed that tax cuts, especially for the rich, are the solution to the economy’s ills. In fact, the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 set the stage for the current crisis. They did virtually nothing to stimulate the economy, and they left the burden of keeping the economy on life support to monetary policy alone. America’s problem today is not that households consume too little; on the contrary, with a savings rate barely above zero, it is clear we consume too much. But the administration hopes to encourage our spendthrift ways.

What has happened to the American economy was avoidable. It was not just that those who were entrusted to maintain the economy’s safety and soundness failed to do their job. There were also many who benefited handsomely by ensuring that what needed to be done did not get done. Now we face a choice: whether to let our response to the nation’s woes be shaped by those who got us here, or to seize the opportunity for fundamental reforms, striking a new balance between the market and government.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, is a professor at Columbia University.

Failing Upwards

2008-10-05T13:07:00.000-06:00

Apparently that is much easier when one has a powerful father with powerful friends. This from a recent Rolling Stone article:

In its broad strokes, McCain's life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers' powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives' evangelical churches.

In one vital respect, however, the comparison is deeply unfair to the current president: George W. Bush was a much better pilot.

Death of a Star

2008-09-21T20:56:00.000-06:00

Quote for the Day

2008-09-20T12:23:00.000-06:00

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

John McCain.

This is the Person Aspiring to be One Heartbeat from the Presidency

2008-09-05T23:01:00.000-06:00

Is this the kind of judgement we want in a vice president -- especially since the president in question would be 72 years old and has had cancer 4 times......?

Existentialism -- From Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar....

2008-08-16T12:37:00.000-06:00

A woman with cancer sees her oncologist, who says, "Well, I'm afraid we're finally at the end of the line. You only have eight hours to live. Go home and make the best of it."

The woman goes home, gives the news to her husband and says, "Honey, let's just make love to each other all night long."

And the husband says, "You know how sometimes you're in the mood for sex and sometimes you aren't? Well, I'm just not in the mood tonight."

"Please," his wife pleads. "It's my final wish, darling."

"Just don't feel like it," the husband says.

"I beg you, darling!"

"Look," the husband says, "It's easy for you to say. You don't have to get up in the morning."

Economic Theory

2008-08-16T12:28:00.001-06:00

Capitalism -- a system where man exploits his fellow man.

Communism -- a system where the reverse is true.