Special Event! - 2010 State of the Union - Live Chat

Name:
Message:

Location, Location, Location

On August 27, 2010, By Cam

I have heard far more than I want to about Park51, what should be, in my mind, a local zoning issue.  However, one of the most fascinating points in the controversy as been missed by most mainstream media.  Headline after headline blares “Most Americans Oppose “Ground Zero Mosque.”  But with a closer reading of the polls very interesting picture starts to emerge. A recent CNN poll found that 22% of Americans believe that building a Mosque near Ground Zero is appropriate.  Yet, 31% New York City residents support the project.  Moreover, about 46% of Manhattanites support Park51.  The percentage of Manhattanites who support of the project is more than double that of Americans as a whole.  The same people who who have to live with an irreversibly altered skyline (and many of whom live with altered lives) are the mostsupportive of the project.  Those who speak the loudest about the “inappropriatness” of the project are those the furthest removed from Ground Zero.  What could explain this strange division of opinion?  First, Manhattanites and New Yorkers are more likely to understand that in the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, that the building is a community rather than a pure mosque and that the building in question was previously a “Burlington Coat Factory” and is surrounded by fast food restaurants.  Second, but more importantly, New Yorkers are more likely to know a Muslim than an average American.  While no official government tally is made of religion in the census, polls have revealed a high density of Muslims in the New York Metropolitan Area.  Studies have found that New York has the second highest proportion of Muslim citizens behind California.  It seems that New Yorkers, who are are likely to personally know Muslims, view Islam and Park51 in a kinder light than other Americans.  Those whose perceptions of Muslim are drawn from newscast rather than face to face interactions have a far more negative view of Islam and the project.  Such data demonstrates that the national backlash against the Mosque is in large part the result of bigotry and misunderstanding from those that know little about Islam or Manhattan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_ground_zero_mosque_poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014737-503544.html

http://www.islamproject.org/education/United_States.html


Categories: Politics 
Tags: • •  

A conservative rhetoric for marriage equality

On August 11, 2010, By Matthew Shaffer

This is about conservatism and same-sex marriage, two equally interesting subjects. The basic thesis is that conservative ideas and rhetoric provide the soundest basis for the support of same-sex marriage.

Why Same-Sex Marriage is so Interesting

Same-sex marriage is so damn interesting.  It is an apex of our cultural politics; a clash of identities so intense that persuasion fails; a center of linguistic and philosophical confusion that forces us to really think about what exactly we mean by words like ‘rights’ and ‘love’ and ‘bigotry’; and, within a few decades, it will be considered one of the great civil rights triumphs of American history.

Same-sex marriage is now front and center again. And when it goes before the Supreme Court, I predict that Justice Kennedy—a old man on his way out—will  want to be on the winning side of history, to be seen as an essential civil rights hero by future generations. He will cast the deciding to legalize marriage in the U.S.

Before it becomes law, I want to try to sort of the philosophical confusion, unpack the cultural divide, and consider the consequences for the future.

Why should we affirm same-sex marriage?

Read Full Story…


Categories: Politics 
 

Defending the Technocracy: The Economist as Public Intellectual

On August 10, 2010, By Matthew Shaffer

This is a preliminary sketch. Traditionalist conservatives and others tend to be skeptical of all claims to political expertise. I share this sentiment. Going to Harvard Law School or Harvard Medical School may give you superior technique for your profession, but won’t give you special moral insights. The moral judgments of doctors and lawyer will more often reflect class prejudice than superior knowledge. So in general I distrust so-called experts’ role in crafting policy—replacing democracy with technocracy. A distinguished station in life does not confer moral wisdom.

But I do think economists deserve their status as today’s preeminent public intellectuals. Here’s my argument:

“Economics,” the old quip goes, “is what economists do, and economists do economics.”

As amorphous as their profession is, economists receive sharp criticism from everybody else. Journalists blame them for every recession. Politicians blame them for financial crises. Leftists hate its capitalistic conclusions. Traditionalist conservatives dislike its individualistic premises. Philosophes, aesthetes, literrateurs, and all my fellow humanists, think economics is materialistic, shallow, soulless, and—worst of all—bourgeois.

Read Full Story…


Categories: Politics 
 

Bankruptcy and Bullets

On August 9, 2010, By Cam

In your head try to make a list of 10 issues that the federal government needs to addresses.  Now think of a list of 100 hundred problems that need Congress’ consideration.  Was protecting the guns of bankrupt citizens from creditors on your list?  From the national debt to immigration reform,  there are many issues that need to be debated and addressed.  Yet, while Congress seems to avoid many if not all of these politically treacherous issues, it has plenty of time to consider the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010.  (Yes its real…and it passed 307 to 113 in the House)

The bill which is slated to considered by the Senate, “Amends federal bankruptcy law to permit an individual debtor to exempt from the property of the estate in bankruptcy a single rifle, shotgun, or pistol of any value or any combination of rifle, shotgun, or pistol in aggregate value not to exceed $1,500.”  When an individual declares bankruptcy there are certain items which creditors cannot seize.   Some states have their own guidelines, some follow the federal guidelines, and some offer debtors to chose between federal or state guidelines.  Current federal exemptions include life insurance plans, pension plans, a motor vehicle up to $3,225 in value, jewelry up to $1,350 in value, household goods (clothing, appliances, ect) up to $11,525 in value, and tools of trade up to $2,175 in value.  In general, such exceptions are provided so that a debtor can continue to function in society.

Could someone explain to me the impetus behind this bill?  First, the bill would seem to effect less than 1,000 people per year.  (Those effected must own firearms, declare chapter 7 bankruptcy, and  live in a state that follows federal exemption guidelines).  However, far more importantly the bill simply seems illogical.   “According to the National Violent Death Reporting System, financial problems precipitate more than 12 percent of firearm-related murder-suicides and suicides.”  If anything, shouldn’t gun ownership should be discouraged  not encouraged during bankruptcy.   Whatever your view of the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms does not mean the right to bear arms that one cannot afford.

Read More:

Read Full Story…


Categories: Politics 
 

What would the Republicans Do?

On July 22, 2010, By oriens

Things aren’t looking particularly great for the climate bill. Even the watered-down version looks unlikely to be passed, leaving open the question of what to do about climate change. Tom Friedman thinks that the problem could be solved with 7 Republicans, but personally, I’m more interested in the Democrats. Their Republican opponents have been shown to be less than correct on the advisability of offshore drilling, the advisability of invading Middle Eastern countries, the advisability of deregulating the financial sector, etc, etc, but are still about to crush the Democrats in November. You’d think the Democrats would realize they have something to learn.

One of the reasons the Republicans have been so successful, not to discount the economy and other structural factors, is that they recognize the importance of politics in politics. Part of this is that when the Republicans see blood in the water, they go in for the kill. Whenever an interest group that supports the Democrats becomes politically vulnerable, whether it be the trial lawyers,public-sector unions, or ACORN, the Republicans endeavour to break their influence. What does the Democratic party do when a massive Republican supporter, the fossil fuel industry, becomes politically vulnerable? They attempt to mildly aggravate it with some enviromental regulations that leave its political clout undimished.

As they have won many more elections than me, the Democratic leadership should theoretically know far more about politics, but I’m failing to understand their strategy. Are they planning on winning with the votes of people who would have gotten green jobs if Democratic Party had passed a robust cap-and-trade bill? Are they planning to fight the elections with the contributions they would have received from the cleantech sector if it had taken off? Are they hoping that the fossil fuel sector will cease its intense lobbying and support of the Republicans if they can just demonstrate  that intensive lobbying and the Republicans are extremely effective in safeguarding the fossil fuel sector’s interests?

Sarcasm aside, there are a number of political benefits to passing cap-and-trade. First, it would show Republican claims of economic doom if Democratic Party gets the enviromental policies it wants to be false, in much the same way as the passage of the health care reform bill made the death-panel claims disappear. Second, political uncertainity has been holding up investment in the energy sector. That would end, and the burst of investment might ease unemployment somewhat. Finally, more of this investment would be in renewables, causing the pro-Democratic cleantech sector to grow and the pro-Republican fossil fuel sector to shrink.

Read Full Story…


Categories: Politics 
 

Political rhetoric getting nastier?

On July 19, 2010, By Matthew Shaffer

Or is it just me? Granted, we’ve heard the stories about 19th century politics, been warned against idealizing the past, and reminded that none of our politicians have caned or dueled each other lately. But I still can’t shake the feeling that our political discourse is getting nastier and less productive. Perhaps I’ve only just started paying attention or maybe I’m getting more sensitive. Tell me if I’m wrong.

If I’m right, however, here are some ideas for why it’s happening:

  1. Twitter and facebook:  A friend recently quipped: “The first thing I learned about Arizona’s immigration law was that it was fascist and racist.” Mind you, he calls himself strongly pro-immigrant and pro-immigration. But he recognized that before any of us had read the bill–before the facts had been communicated–our circles of twitter and facebook friends had already communicated their attitudes. Tweets and updates do not allow enough space for an actual argument or substantive information. All they can carry is a tone, a judgment, an emotion. As such, they lend themselves much more to cries of “racist” and “communist,” the politics of adolescence and resentment, than to the reasoned, adult politics intended to actually solve problems.
  2. Internet incentives: As publications struggle financially and rely more and more on their online versions, writers have every incentive to make their headlines and topics blood-boiling and attention grabbing. I certainly fall victim to this.  I know that an article about China’s military structure and intelligence operations is far more important than another boilerplate article about “The Intolerance of the New Atheists,” or the “Extremist Signs at Tea Party,” but I’m far more likely to actually click on the link to the other two, because they have attention grabbing, emotionally-laden words, and are more likely to make me angry. Emily Gould wrote for Slate about jezebel.com on this same topic: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2259434. I can’t stop reading jezebel, not because I think I’m getting wisdom from it, or because I sympathize with it.
  3. Postmodernism and political psychology: Our politics today are vaguely Nietzschean.  We less and less believe that people can actually be persuaded by reason, and more and more suspect that all political discourse is the rationalization of  Will, determined by our psychology–which is itself a product of the group we identify with. Hence, if we want our side to win, instead of being charitable to the “other side,” in order to persuade and win converts, we try to elicit disgust for the “other side,” in order to make fence-sitters more inclined to identify with “us.” Forget about reason and reasons. Postmodern politics is all about identity. No wonder each side spends more complaining about the other’s hatred and intolerance, their disgusting psychological makeups,  than providing reasons for their own policies. Birthers, Westboro Baptists, and New Black Panthers get so much media attention, despite their total lack of relevance, seriousness, or overall importance, because each respective media outlet is trying to manufacture disgust with the other side by subtly associating these groups with them.
  4. Self-selection: As we all know, blogs and editorials are mostly read by people who already agree with the writer. We naturally seek out pieces that agree preconceived positions because it’s psychologically comforting to be told all the good reasons for what we already believe. This is probably universal, but it’s easier in the internet and blogging era. But it’s not just online. I suspect America is becoming more culturally stratified in general. As upper-middle class families sequester themselves in cookie-cutter suburbs, and bible belt evangelicals create more Christian universities, we are all better able to go through life without confronting anybody of a different socio-economic class or cultural identity. New York Times writers who report on the political sentiments of evangelicals probably don’t have any evangelical friends or acquaintances, just as Wall Street Journal editorialists might not have any interaction with the blue-collars workers whose “economic populism” they might decry. When you don’t confront someone face to face, it’s easier demonize them or dismiss their sentiments and interests. I’m not innocent here. I doubt we Yalies can be said to be fit for leadership when we generally know such a small section of those we’re supposed to be leading.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I suspect that more of the political conversation of intelligent people is being devoted to the politics of adolescence, the grievance mongering, the manufactured outrage, and the ridicule of the cultural “other,” and less and less to the hard tasks of charitably taking account of all points of view and sentiments, and all available information, to create a consensus that can actually solve our problems. As this new political rhetoric grips our generation, I predict a nation more bitter and less equipped with real intellectuals capable of solving real problems.


Categories: Politics, Society 
 

Exxon Valdez v. Deepwater Horizon

On June 26, 2010, By Cam

As oil continues to contaminate the Gulf of Mexico, pundits on both the left and right have criticized the Obama Administration for not doing enough in response to the spill.  Conservatives in particular have panned Obama’s response so too little too late (example 1, 2).  Some commentators have gone so far as to call it “Obama’s Oil Spill.”  Moreover, public opinion polls have generally shown that over 50% of Americans consider Obama’s response as “poor” or “very poor.”  Yahoo news has argued that “The American public is losing its patience with President Obama over his handling of the Gulf Coast oil spill.”  While this negative reaction toward Obama seems bad for the President and fellow liberals, it also shows that the American public increasingly supports big government.

This assertion may sounds crazy, but let us beyond the rhetoric of the Tea Party movement.  In a 2009 Gallup Poll that said “Some people think that the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.  Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems.  Which comes closer to your view?”  57% said that the government is doing to much.  However, as statisticians, psychologist, and political scientists the accuracy of polls varies depending on upon the presence or lack of biases.  (A good example is that polls about hand-washing habits and videotaped studies have shown huge discrepancies, because of social desirability bias. )

In 1989 during the Exxon Valdez oil spill George HW Bush’s Administration specifically denied any federal responsibility for the cleanup and Bush’s Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner argued that government involvement would be “counterproductive.”  Moreover, Bush never traveled to Alaska to visit the spill.  He never gave a prime time news conference or speech about the spill.  He never met personally with the Exxon CEO during the spill.  The country generally seemed to accept the notion “Exxon’s oil, Exxon’s problem.”

In 2010 during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The Obama Administration has argued that the government has a role to play in the cleanup.  Obama has visited the Gulf Coast multiple times during the spill.  He has had a number of news conferences solely about the spill.  He has met with BP officials to set up a fund to aid Gulf Coast residents.  And yet American’s want the government to do even more.  Whereas moderates and conservatives supported a “small government” response in 1989, they are clamoring for a “big government” response in 2010.  I would argue that the general “too big/too small” polls are simply a result of  ”social desirability bias.”  It sounds bad when one supports “big government”  but when a disaster hits its clear that now in days public would rather have a government powerful enough to act decisively.

Read Full Story…


Categories: Politics 
Tags: • • • •  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Go To Top »

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Feel free to contact us if you are unable to find what you seek.

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

    Archives

    All entries, chronologically...