I am a firm believer in the authority and efficiency of Wikipedia. Certainly, one can find inaccuracies therein, but the majority of articles, especially about current or popular topics are well-researched and, well, let’s not say well-written. Nonetheless, there are so many writers with different viewpoints that the result often conveys a good idea of the consensus on a given topic. There are only sometimes edit wars, and they usually result from differences in deep-seeded ideological beliefs.
Such was only partially the case when I discovered the enormous, mind-boggling war over the use of the Arabic term “Gaza massacre,” attested to in at least 10 Arabic media sources (far more than are usually necessary), to describe the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At a recent check, the phrase was allowed to remain, but fully half the “talk page” (a place for discussion of the progress of the article) was devoted to arguments about the appropriateness of this phrase.
My point is, if the phrase is being used by Arabic sources, then let it be used in reference to these sources in the English Wikipedia. The phrase is undoubtedly expressive of a single point of view, but if Al-Jazeera uses it to describe the entire conflict, it belongs in the article. My real point is, it is exactly this type of debate which is at the heart of the intractable Middle Eastern conflict. When ridiculous matters of semantics are allowed to overrun political or other discussion, the conflict can quickly escalate. The position in the Middle East has become such a mire of bureaucracy, religious tenets held without rationality, and hatred for hatred’s sake that I despair of ever finding a solution. The violent (by Wikipedian standards) controversy over the simple inclusion of one side’s phrase on a neutral website is a good metaphor for this nightmare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Not Good Enough, Obama
If you have been paying attention to Obama Tube, (I’m sorry, television), then the “Most Liberal Senator”-cum-centrist-President-Elect’s choice of conservative demigod Rick Warren to bloviate at the inauguration cannot have escaped notice. This choice, apparently made to show that Obama wishes to reach out to cultural conservatives is troubling in light of the despicable discrimination of Warren’s church against openly gay and lesbian people. In light of all the help Obama lent the fight to shoot down Proposition 8 in California, though, I guess it’s only fair that he include other viewpoints at his inauguration. Oh, except of course the President-Elect made no such effort. I’m beginning to think that I’m living in an alternate universe where gay rights have vanished from the agenda of the Democratic Party. The news yesterday that Obama has decided, ostensibly in acquiescence to the demands of outraged gay groups, to include the openly gay Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson in an “inaugural event” days before the actual article does little to calm me. Exactly how many people will be watching this event around the country? In the interest of conforming to President-Elect Obama’s own principles, principles of tolerance and fairness, Rick Warren should not be allowed as the only religious speaker of his inauguration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13prayer.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13prayer.html?em
Where the Student-Teacher Ratio is 300-1
According to a story in the New York Times, MIT, Harvard, and a number of other prestigious schools in the United States are doing away with the introductory math and science lecture classes in which more than 250 freshmen reside. As a student at Princeton, I must confess how sorry I am that Old Nassau has no such designs on our mega-classes. Some find it refreshing to be part of a class where your name doesn’t matter. Being up in the risers, surrounded by your whole college class, I guess it makes you feel more like you’re at a football game than a lecture. To me, it’s more like a Greek tragedy, only I’m part of some mute chorus the people up on the stage will never listen to. I do have some experience: this semester, I took ECO 100: Introduction to Microeconomics (population: 310). My professor, equipped with an industrial grade laser pointer, certainly seemed to enjoy the spotlight; at least, his profuse garrulousness meant he rarely finished his own lectures. His audience seemed to be getting smaller and smaller as the performance’s “run” came to an end, though. I guess when no one knows who you are they don’t miss you much. This is the real problem with large, lecture-based classes: a small subset of the students, probably people already informed about the subject, follow the professor through all his poorly-proofread slides. The rest of us teach ourselves as best we can come exam-time. Speaking of which, I have to go study…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13physics.html?em
Towards a More Diverse Senate
Yesterday, leaders of the US Senate agreed to seat Roland Burris, the appointee of the beleaguered governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. This is a victory for Americans in all states, despite the inevitable baggage Burris will carry with him into Washington. For one thing, Burris himself is not accused of any wrongdoing, and was not one of the five on the list Gov. Blagojevich believed might be willing to make a pay-for-play deal with him. Although it is perhaps unfortunate that the Eminence Greasy chose anyone at all, Burris is a well-known state politician with a clean (by American standards, at least!) record.
There is another reason why Burris’ appointment should be recognized, instead of making another choice: he will inject a good dose of diversity into the Old Boys Club of the Senate. Indeed, there are no other members of the Senate who are people of color. Burris also has a long history with the civil rights movement. Although Blagojevich may have chosen Burris specifically to prevent the all-white Senate from objecting too strenuously to his choice, it remains a good thing for this country to have as many different cultural backgrounds and viewpoints in our senior legislative body as possible.
See the New York Times story about the Senate’s decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13burris.html?ref=washington
There is another reason why Burris’ appointment should be recognized, instead of making another choice: he will inject a good dose of diversity into the Old Boys Club of the Senate. Indeed, there are no other members of the Senate who are people of color. Burris also has a long history with the civil rights movement. Although Blagojevich may have chosen Burris specifically to prevent the all-white Senate from objecting too strenuously to his choice, it remains a good thing for this country to have as many different cultural backgrounds and viewpoints in our senior legislative body as possible.
See the New York Times story about the Senate’s decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/13burris.html?ref=washington
Monday, January 12, 2009
Is Racism as Extinct As We Think?
I think most of us, if not all, would classify ourselves as not racist. Personally, I know few people who openly hold prejudice against people of other races. This is why I was shocked at reading about a recent study performed on York University students showing that two-thirds of participants displayed “indifference at best” when they witnessed a racist act.
The participants were set up to witness an interaction between two actors, one white and one black, pretending to be more participants. The black person would get up and “accidentally” bump the white person’s leg in doing so. The white actor would then do one of three things: do nothing, say, “I hate when black people do that,” or use the N-word.
The participant was then told to pick which of the two actors he or she would like to be partners with in a study.
120 non-black college students participated in the experiment. Of these, half read about the situation and the other half actually experienced it. Those who read about it were asked to predict their reaction to either offensive comment. They insisted they would be very upset and would choose the black actor as their partner. However, in the actual situation, nearly two-thirds chose the white actor as their partner.
In his review of the experiment, psychologist Eliot R. Smith wrote: "The failure of people to confront or do anything about racist comments is pretty widespread in the real world. People may feel uncomfortable if someone makes a remark like this, but it's rare they will actually confront them."
I would like to think that racism will decrease even more with Obama as our president, but that may not be the case. Some argue that Obama will be a symbol of how America has overcome racism, and that it will help to have the positive image of a black man leading the country. However, it may just take time for people’s mindsets to change. Only when it is natural that racist comments and unequal treatment for people of different races are out of place can racism be truly eradicated. No amount of affirmative action and other legislation can fully accomplish this.
On the season premiere of What Would You Do?, a new show on ABC, they conduct another revealing experiment. Through hidden cameras, we witness several customers come into a store in which the cashier is an actor who is racist and refuses to serve two Mexican migrant workers (also actors). Of the 88 people who came into the store during the experiment’s duration, 49 didn’t get involved in the conflict between the cashier and the migrant workers, even when the cashier made statements like “Go back to your own country,” “If you have to come here, at least learn English first,” and “They are stealing our jobs.” Nine participants even sided with the cashier. And thankfully, the other 30 spoke out in defense of the day laborers.
Again, hopefully the prevalence behavior like this will continue to decrease until racism is extinct. However, just last April a Yahoo poll showed that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.” Now, with Obama soon to be inaugurated, it will be interesting to see if the opinions of that 8 percent can be changed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28563183/
http://abc.go.com/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9761.html
The participants were set up to witness an interaction between two actors, one white and one black, pretending to be more participants. The black person would get up and “accidentally” bump the white person’s leg in doing so. The white actor would then do one of three things: do nothing, say, “I hate when black people do that,” or use the N-word.
The participant was then told to pick which of the two actors he or she would like to be partners with in a study.
120 non-black college students participated in the experiment. Of these, half read about the situation and the other half actually experienced it. Those who read about it were asked to predict their reaction to either offensive comment. They insisted they would be very upset and would choose the black actor as their partner. However, in the actual situation, nearly two-thirds chose the white actor as their partner.
In his review of the experiment, psychologist Eliot R. Smith wrote: "The failure of people to confront or do anything about racist comments is pretty widespread in the real world. People may feel uncomfortable if someone makes a remark like this, but it's rare they will actually confront them."
I would like to think that racism will decrease even more with Obama as our president, but that may not be the case. Some argue that Obama will be a symbol of how America has overcome racism, and that it will help to have the positive image of a black man leading the country. However, it may just take time for people’s mindsets to change. Only when it is natural that racist comments and unequal treatment for people of different races are out of place can racism be truly eradicated. No amount of affirmative action and other legislation can fully accomplish this.
On the season premiere of What Would You Do?, a new show on ABC, they conduct another revealing experiment. Through hidden cameras, we witness several customers come into a store in which the cashier is an actor who is racist and refuses to serve two Mexican migrant workers (also actors). Of the 88 people who came into the store during the experiment’s duration, 49 didn’t get involved in the conflict between the cashier and the migrant workers, even when the cashier made statements like “Go back to your own country,” “If you have to come here, at least learn English first,” and “They are stealing our jobs.” Nine participants even sided with the cashier. And thankfully, the other 30 spoke out in defense of the day laborers.
Again, hopefully the prevalence behavior like this will continue to decrease until racism is extinct. However, just last April a Yahoo poll showed that “about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president.” Now, with Obama soon to be inaugurated, it will be interesting to see if the opinions of that 8 percent can be changed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28563183/
http://abc.go.com/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9761.html
Reach For the Stars—But Not Too High
President-elect Barack Obama plans to significantly cut NASA’s budget to provide more funding for his education plan. His early education plan “will be [partially] paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years.” Obama plans to leave the Constellation program a $500 million/year budget for their “manufacturing and technology base.” Among other consequences, the cuts would delay the introduction of Orion and also delay a space shuttle’s return to Earth.
This is ironic, as Obama insists that one of his main priorities in education reform is to “make math and science education a national priority.” Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz agrees, noting that “Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”
Obama stated that he does have “a strong belief in NASA and the process of space exploration,” yet he expects the Constellation program to run on a mere $500 million/year budget? He further stated, “I do think that our program has been stuck for a while – that the space shuttle mission did not inspire the imagination of the public.”
NASA may appear to have come up with few earth-shattering discoveries recently, but that does not mean it is “stuck.” Discovering new worlds and working to understand our universe is a huge job, impossible to complete. We need to make space exploration a top priority to benefit our planet in the long run. With our planet’s health deteriorating every day, and no cohesive plan to help it, we must look to the universe for solutions. And sorry, Obama, but NASA is not aiming to “inspire the imagination of the public”—the association has been working hard to make discoveries that will advance our civilization and ensure our safety and survival. Investing in education today may benefit our country throughout the next century, but we should constantly be investing in space exploration to benefit the human race for the rest of its life.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/02/obama-talks-sense-about-nasa/
This is ironic, as Obama insists that one of his main priorities in education reform is to “make math and science education a national priority.” Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz agrees, noting that “Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”
Obama stated that he does have “a strong belief in NASA and the process of space exploration,” yet he expects the Constellation program to run on a mere $500 million/year budget? He further stated, “I do think that our program has been stuck for a while – that the space shuttle mission did not inspire the imagination of the public.”
NASA may appear to have come up with few earth-shattering discoveries recently, but that does not mean it is “stuck.” Discovering new worlds and working to understand our universe is a huge job, impossible to complete. We need to make space exploration a top priority to benefit our planet in the long run. With our planet’s health deteriorating every day, and no cohesive plan to help it, we must look to the universe for solutions. And sorry, Obama, but NASA is not aiming to “inspire the imagination of the public”—the association has been working hard to make discoveries that will advance our civilization and ensure our safety and survival. Investing in education today may benefit our country throughout the next century, but we should constantly be investing in space exploration to benefit the human race for the rest of its life.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/03/02/obama-talks-sense-about-nasa/
Political Meritocracy
The American dream is based on merit, the belief that success can come to anyone provided they work hard for it. As some many pundits have exclaimed recently, Obama’s election victory is perhaps the single greatest example of this pursuit. Not only is the president-elect soon to lead the country, he is already the unofficial leader of the American meritocracy. Is this meritocracy’s greatest hour?
Unfortunately, current events since the election have been a rude reminder since the inspiring campaign of ’08. Blagoyevich has been impeached for trying to “sell” Obama’s Senate seat. This is offensive as not only illegal and immoral, but also goes against our meritocratic sensibilities. It is wrong to give political power to the highest bidder, rather than the person most suited for the job. The same scenario is occurring in New York. Caroline Kennedy has emerged from political obscurity as a leading contender for Clinton’s seat. Why is she in the running? The Kennedy name. I don’t wish to bash either Kennedy or Burris; they may be the best man and woman for the job. The dubiousness of the process, however, deserves some scrutinizing.
This has led me to consider the state of American political meritocracy. I’ve only really been able to follow two presidential elections, 2004 and 2008. And I feel most of the candidates have not embodied the American meritocratic ideal. Bush was helped by his name, perhaps even pushed into the presidency, despite not being very competent. Kerry is a billionaire. Hillary became qualified via her husband’s success. McCain’s billionaire wife can’t have hurt his run. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have been able to run without his personal fortune. The exceptions are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. At what level, then, does the meritocracy break down? It seems that many politicians occupy the highest strata at least partially due to unmeritocratic reasons.
The other dimension is the public’s reaction to political meritocracy. I am firmly a belief that politicians should be based on merit. And it’s safe to say that most my fellow countrymen are proud of the American dream, of our meritocratic society. Yet I still see this break down in politics. The most obvious and recent example is Sarah Palin. She was, I admit, phenomenally popular with a certain base. I believe people supported her as a politician, however, for unmeritocratic reasons. She was normal, someone the average American felt comfortable with, not necessarily the most competent leader. Historically, American politicians have always tried to present the image of being common, non-elitist. They of course also argue for your vote based on meritocratic reasons (greater experience, for example), but it’s always been a danger to be “too smart” for the presidency.
My belief that Obama’s victory has brought a resurgence in meritocracy still stands. My hope is that, should Obama’s term(s) prove particularly successful (he certainly has enough challenges to shine in), our country will move even further towards political meritocracy.
Sources:
Nicolas Lehman, “The Smart Club Comes to Town,” New York Times, November 29, 1992: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DB1038F93AA15752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Faltering Meritocracy in America, The Economist, December 29th 2004:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3518560
Unfortunately, current events since the election have been a rude reminder since the inspiring campaign of ’08. Blagoyevich has been impeached for trying to “sell” Obama’s Senate seat. This is offensive as not only illegal and immoral, but also goes against our meritocratic sensibilities. It is wrong to give political power to the highest bidder, rather than the person most suited for the job. The same scenario is occurring in New York. Caroline Kennedy has emerged from political obscurity as a leading contender for Clinton’s seat. Why is she in the running? The Kennedy name. I don’t wish to bash either Kennedy or Burris; they may be the best man and woman for the job. The dubiousness of the process, however, deserves some scrutinizing.
This has led me to consider the state of American political meritocracy. I’ve only really been able to follow two presidential elections, 2004 and 2008. And I feel most of the candidates have not embodied the American meritocratic ideal. Bush was helped by his name, perhaps even pushed into the presidency, despite not being very competent. Kerry is a billionaire. Hillary became qualified via her husband’s success. McCain’s billionaire wife can’t have hurt his run. Mitt Romney wouldn’t have been able to run without his personal fortune. The exceptions are Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. At what level, then, does the meritocracy break down? It seems that many politicians occupy the highest strata at least partially due to unmeritocratic reasons.
The other dimension is the public’s reaction to political meritocracy. I am firmly a belief that politicians should be based on merit. And it’s safe to say that most my fellow countrymen are proud of the American dream, of our meritocratic society. Yet I still see this break down in politics. The most obvious and recent example is Sarah Palin. She was, I admit, phenomenally popular with a certain base. I believe people supported her as a politician, however, for unmeritocratic reasons. She was normal, someone the average American felt comfortable with, not necessarily the most competent leader. Historically, American politicians have always tried to present the image of being common, non-elitist. They of course also argue for your vote based on meritocratic reasons (greater experience, for example), but it’s always been a danger to be “too smart” for the presidency.
My belief that Obama’s victory has brought a resurgence in meritocracy still stands. My hope is that, should Obama’s term(s) prove particularly successful (he certainly has enough challenges to shine in), our country will move even further towards political meritocracy.
Sources:
Nicolas Lehman, “The Smart Club Comes to Town,” New York Times, November 29, 1992: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DB1038F93AA15752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Faltering Meritocracy in America, The Economist, December 29th 2004:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3518560
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Taxation Without Representation!
This is the battle cry of thousands of supporters of the D.C. Voting Rights Act and the motto displayed on the Washington, D.C. license plate. This act is the bipartisan consensus bill sponsored in the House by Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). The bill would grant Washington, D.C. residents one voting member in the House. Currently, D.C. residents do not have official voting representation in the US Congress. They have no representatives in the Senate, but do have a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives. Residents of Washington, D.C. cannot legally have voting representatives in the Congress because the Constitution only grants this to residents of states.
This is clearly a controversial issue. In my opinion, it is unfair that D.C. residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the nation but are denied voting representation in Congress. For over 200 years, 600,000 residents of our country have been deprived of their right to determine how they are governed—all because of a technicality. Until 50 years ago, D.C. residents weren’t even allowed to vote in presidential elections.
Thankfully, there is something being done. If enacted, the D.C. Voting Rights Act would obtain the congressional representation for the residents of Washington, D.C. that they should have had all along. But for the Act to become law, Congress would have to pass the bill and soon-to-be President Obama would have to sign it into law. Fortunately, Obama supports D.C. statehood (making Washington, D.C. officially a state) and congressional representation for D.C.
http://www.dcvote.org/
This is clearly a controversial issue. In my opinion, it is unfair that D.C. residents pay the second highest per capita federal income taxes in the nation but are denied voting representation in Congress. For over 200 years, 600,000 residents of our country have been deprived of their right to determine how they are governed—all because of a technicality. Until 50 years ago, D.C. residents weren’t even allowed to vote in presidential elections.
Thankfully, there is something being done. If enacted, the D.C. Voting Rights Act would obtain the congressional representation for the residents of Washington, D.C. that they should have had all along. But for the Act to become law, Congress would have to pass the bill and soon-to-be President Obama would have to sign it into law. Fortunately, Obama supports D.C. statehood (making Washington, D.C. officially a state) and congressional representation for D.C.
http://www.dcvote.org/
Friday, January 9, 2009
Home Sweet Houston
It was wonderful to be home in the land of warm weather, cowboy boots, and tamales over fall break. However, a giant billboard on the side of the highway gave a more sarcastic dimension to my otherwise Dorothy-esque expression that “there is no place like home.” As I made the drive from the city back to my small suburb, I passed a giant megachurch, looked up and saw “Marking Our City, 150 ft. Cross, Coming Soon” written on a picture of a giant cross and the Houston cityscape. This billboard isn’t new, it has been up for at least a year, but over last 4 months in the Princeton Bubble I had forgotten. So for those of you who don’t have the pleasure of living in the city where bigger is always better, here are the details of the campaign. Grace Church launched a fundraising campaign with the intent of building two 200-feet white crosses at the north and south entrances to the city (the church happens to have a campus on each location). Well the FAA shot down the 200 ft goal because of a nearby airport, so the revised plan describes 150 ft. crosses. Legally, the church owns the land and has every right to build the colossal crosses, but the language of the campaign is upsetting. Pastor Steve Riggle wants to start a movement that would initiate similar campaigns in every major American city to celebrate the Christian heritage of our nation. Perhaps, there is no controversy here as the crosses will be constructed on private land but, I can’t but imagine that a similar campaign to build a 15-story tribute to pagan gods or a Muslim star and crescent or a Star of David would be met with some resistance. Luckily there will probably be a long time to debate the issue, since the recession will definitely slow the collection of the necessary funding. We know everything is bigger in Texas, but should one of the city’s many religions dominate the cityscape?
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20453933/cross_controversy.htm?pageid=23006
2. http://www.grace.tv/ministries/citywide_prayer/
3. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=12784
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/20453933/cross_controversy.htm?pageid=23006
2. http://www.grace.tv/ministries/citywide_prayer/
3. http://thesop.org/index.php?article=12784
Monday, January 5, 2009
Shhh…Don’t tell your patient!
Doctors go to medical school for 7-8 years and then participate in a 3-5 year residency. Why? Well, I thought they were accumulating knowledge that they could share information and skills with their patients in order to meet their patients’ health care needs. Apparently the Bush administration thinks otherwise. On December 19, 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation that protects against the discrimination of health professionals who withhold care from their patients based on moral beliefs. The protection of doctors who refuse to perform procedures based on conscience is already protected by existing law, what is novel (and frightening) about the new is its wide-scope. Although the Department of Health and Human Services claims that the regulation “encourages providers to engage their patients early on in “full, open, and honest conversations” to disclose what services they do and do not provide,” the language of the law protects physicians who don’t discuss with their patients certain options to which they are morally opposed. This means I could walk into a doctors office, ask for my options and here options A, B, and C and never even know that option D, E, and F exist. I agree that doctors shouldn’t have to perform operations if they are morally opposed but should they be allowed to act like certain options don’t exist just because they don’t like them? Maybe If I stop talking about finals, they will just magically go away. Hmm…that would be nice.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Bringing Back Science
The Bush administration is almost over, so the current media buzzword is “legacy.” One of the most unfortunate pieces of that legacy is the war on science waged by President Bush and co. On climate change, stem cell research, green technology, species protection, and reproductive health, they openly ignored scientific research. More shocking were the steps they took to hinder research that might be politically inconvenient. See this article for a longer musing on the subject; it pieces together how Bush officials have interfered with and ignored scientists.
It’s time for that dismissive attitude to change. Based on Obama’s most recent radio broadcast, come January 20th, it looks like American science will be freed from the shackles of our small-minded executive. Obama said eloquently,
The Bush administration has been abysmal for science. Their actions reflect the belief that ideology is more important than facts. As students, I believe we must reject that approach. We must be committed to reasoned inquiry, even if we might not like the answers we find.
America must renew its commitment to science if we wish to remain the leading nation in the Western world.
Food for thought The more I think about it, the Bushian attitude towards science – that it is less important than one’s personal beliefs – is not just an isolated oddity, but a symptom of his whole mental outlook. Bush seems to value his gut more than his brain (Consider the incident where he said he had “looked into [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] heart” and determined that “he’s a good man,” or his comment that “I really don’t feel comfortable in the role of analyzing myself.” You can probably think of other examples). It concerns me how many people seemed to like this down-to-earth intuition, and makes me worry whether we have devalued facts and intellect in our public debate. I once heard someone say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Let’s keep that in mind.
It’s time for that dismissive attitude to change. Based on Obama’s most recent radio broadcast, come January 20th, it looks like American science will be freed from the shackles of our small-minded executive. Obama said eloquently,
“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.”I can see why he got the endorsement of 61 American Nobel laureates in physics, medicine, and chemistry.
The Bush administration has been abysmal for science. Their actions reflect the belief that ideology is more important than facts. As students, I believe we must reject that approach. We must be committed to reasoned inquiry, even if we might not like the answers we find.
America must renew its commitment to science if we wish to remain the leading nation in the Western world.
Food for thought The more I think about it, the Bushian attitude towards science – that it is less important than one’s personal beliefs – is not just an isolated oddity, but a symptom of his whole mental outlook. Bush seems to value his gut more than his brain (Consider the incident where he said he had “looked into [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] heart” and determined that “he’s a good man,” or his comment that “I really don’t feel comfortable in the role of analyzing myself.” You can probably think of other examples). It concerns me how many people seemed to like this down-to-earth intuition, and makes me worry whether we have devalued facts and intellect in our public debate. I once heard someone say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Let’s keep that in mind.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Paper or plastax?
Scene setting: shopping at Kohl’s, the checkout line
The checker reaches for a plastic bag.
ME: Oh, I don’t need any bags. I am just going to carry this stuff out.
The checker starts sticking “Kohl’s” tape all over my purchases.
ME: I don’t need stickers either. I just want to carry my purchases out the door.
CHECKER: (Blank stare)
The other 12 people in line are getting restless.
ONE ANGRY LINE WAITER: Why don’t you just take the bag?
ME: I’m just trying to be green. I don’t need a bag. Can I please just carry this out of the store?
CHECKER: Fine.
The American mindset needs to change. Plastic bags have got to go. Why? They take 1000 years to decompose in landfills. And they are not just environmentally-unfriendly, they also aren’t economical. According to cnnmoney.com, “it costs taxpayers $90 every time a city worker in a cherry-picker goes out to remove plastic bags from a tree [in San Francisco].”
So how should we end the plastic bag addiction? Place a tax on plastic bags to encourage shoppers to bring along reusable canvas bags (or even old plastic ones they have lying around the house). Ireland did it in 2002. In the 5 months after the 15 cent per bag tax passed, 3.5 million euros were raised in the first five months. South Africa, Bangladesh, and San Francisco followed suit. Even China banned free plastic bags.
So let’s go, America. Change the script. Scratch: “paper or plastic?” and institute a plasTax.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2205419.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/14/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_gunther_plastic.fortune/index.htm
http://www.takepart.com/2008/11/07/bloomberg-proposes-tax-on-plastic-bags/
The checker reaches for a plastic bag.
ME: Oh, I don’t need any bags. I am just going to carry this stuff out.
The checker starts sticking “Kohl’s” tape all over my purchases.
ME: I don’t need stickers either. I just want to carry my purchases out the door.
CHECKER: (Blank stare)
The other 12 people in line are getting restless.
ONE ANGRY LINE WAITER: Why don’t you just take the bag?
ME: I’m just trying to be green. I don’t need a bag. Can I please just carry this out of the store?
CHECKER: Fine.
The American mindset needs to change. Plastic bags have got to go. Why? They take 1000 years to decompose in landfills. And they are not just environmentally-unfriendly, they also aren’t economical. According to cnnmoney.com, “it costs taxpayers $90 every time a city worker in a cherry-picker goes out to remove plastic bags from a tree [in San Francisco].”
So how should we end the plastic bag addiction? Place a tax on plastic bags to encourage shoppers to bring along reusable canvas bags (or even old plastic ones they have lying around the house). Ireland did it in 2002. In the 5 months after the 15 cent per bag tax passed, 3.5 million euros were raised in the first five months. South Africa, Bangladesh, and San Francisco followed suit. Even China banned free plastic bags.
So let’s go, America. Change the script. Scratch: “paper or plastic?” and institute a plasTax.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2205419.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/14/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_gunther_plastic.fortune/index.htm
http://www.takepart.com/2008/11/07/bloomberg-proposes-tax-on-plastic-bags/
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
US International Relations and The Law of Peoples
Over the past few years, the US has been focusing much of it’s foreign policy on a few specific areas, the most obvious being Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hard to quantify the amount of effort we put into relations with any individual country, but I think it’s fair to point out those countries that we clearly expend little effort on.
The distribution of foreign policy, and the actions we take, run contrary to the principles proposed in Rawl’s Law of Peoples. Rawls argues that well-ordered nations (and I assume the US as a well-ordered nation for this post) should aim “to bring all societies eventually to honor the Law of Peoples”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 93). This is a Duty to Assist. If I am to postulate that US foreign policy should adhere to Rawl’s liberal doctrines, then I believe we should focus more on certain burdened societies.
While Rawls would have the US take action, or help, the structure of such unordered nations, we can use certain indicators to determine which nations are unordered. The first is part of the structure itself, namely which nations have the worst corruption in their government. Studies by Transparency International found 10 countries to have at least 32% of it’s citizens to have been forced into bribery over the course of a single year. These are Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, and Senegal.
Another indicator could be humans rights records. The Congo, Rwanda, Burundi Algeria, Sierra Leone, Egypt, North Korea, Sudan, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan were found to have the worst records, in decreasing order, by Amnesty International. (The Guardian).
Health is also a good indicator of the level of order in society. Angola, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe are all reported as having an average life span of less than 40 years, as discerned by the World Health Organization’s World Health Report 2002 (Dwyer).
These low standards, Rawls argues, are the fault of the structure, the government and it’s related economic, political, and social institutions. Indeed, in many of these cases, it has been reported that a nations government has actively worked against the good of part of it’s own demographic. The genocide in Darfur is particularly prominent in today’s media.
How is the US doing in addressing these foreign policy concerns, then? I cannot of course provide an exhaustive examination of US-Congo relations, and US-Algeria relations, and US-Kosovo relations, et cetera, but it is obvious that we are not putting as much effort into helping many of the nations listed above, publicly at least, as compared to the many strong ties we have with well-ordered nations or to the concentrated military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First of all, it is worth mentioning that all the effort we have put into the War of Terror is at least partially supported by the Law of Peoples. The confusion comes from 9/11 being a terrorist act. Rawls grants all well-order societies “the right to war in self -defense”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 91), but never to instigate war unprovoked. One could argue that these wars are self-defense, or that we started them. I personally found this distinction interesting, as I was expecting to find no Rawlsian backing whatsoever for our current actions.
To return to my argument, consider Darfur. The situation can be briefly summed up by a Washington Post article. In April 2006, “Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and murder, and he called for international troops on the ground to protect innocent Darfuris…yet a year and a half later, the situation on the ground in Darfur is little changed: More than 2 million displaced Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been unable to return to their homes.”(US Promises on Darfur Don’t Match Actions). As in the Congo, Burma, Indonesia, Albania, Cambodia, to name a few, we should at least be focusing some part of our significant power and influence on positively affecting change.
A side-argument may be proving that we interfere in countries where it also happens to serve our own interests. I don’t want to try and argue that here, but I’m sure someone will post on it. As for Rawls, he asks a level of consideration based on the level of disorder in a particular nation. The Duty of Assistance should not be self-serving. Even if the Ideal Theory Rawls proposes cannot be fully used in real life, it is still a strong political argument for justice that can appeal to our more intuitive moral feelings. It is my hope that the coming administration will focus more on these areas of the world.
Transparency international, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2007
"Amnesty reports worst human rights records", The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. New York: Harvard UP, 2001.
"US Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions", Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801704.html
POLITICS: EVEN DEMOCRACIES NEED 'SUNSHINE' AGAINST CORRUPTION
Emad Mekay. Global Information Network. New York: Apr 30, 2004. pg. 1
(Copyright 2004 by Inter Press Service/Global Information Network)
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=625859931&SrchMode=2&sid=7&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1228886329&clientId=17210
The distribution of foreign policy, and the actions we take, run contrary to the principles proposed in Rawl’s Law of Peoples. Rawls argues that well-ordered nations (and I assume the US as a well-ordered nation for this post) should aim “to bring all societies eventually to honor the Law of Peoples”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 93). This is a Duty to Assist. If I am to postulate that US foreign policy should adhere to Rawl’s liberal doctrines, then I believe we should focus more on certain burdened societies.
While Rawls would have the US take action, or help, the structure of such unordered nations, we can use certain indicators to determine which nations are unordered. The first is part of the structure itself, namely which nations have the worst corruption in their government. Studies by Transparency International found 10 countries to have at least 32% of it’s citizens to have been forced into bribery over the course of a single year. These are Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, and Senegal.
Another indicator could be humans rights records. The Congo, Rwanda, Burundi Algeria, Sierra Leone, Egypt, North Korea, Sudan, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan were found to have the worst records, in decreasing order, by Amnesty International. (The Guardian).
Health is also a good indicator of the level of order in society. Angola, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe are all reported as having an average life span of less than 40 years, as discerned by the World Health Organization’s World Health Report 2002 (Dwyer).
These low standards, Rawls argues, are the fault of the structure, the government and it’s related economic, political, and social institutions. Indeed, in many of these cases, it has been reported that a nations government has actively worked against the good of part of it’s own demographic. The genocide in Darfur is particularly prominent in today’s media.
How is the US doing in addressing these foreign policy concerns, then? I cannot of course provide an exhaustive examination of US-Congo relations, and US-Algeria relations, and US-Kosovo relations, et cetera, but it is obvious that we are not putting as much effort into helping many of the nations listed above, publicly at least, as compared to the many strong ties we have with well-ordered nations or to the concentrated military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First of all, it is worth mentioning that all the effort we have put into the War of Terror is at least partially supported by the Law of Peoples. The confusion comes from 9/11 being a terrorist act. Rawls grants all well-order societies “the right to war in self -defense”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 91), but never to instigate war unprovoked. One could argue that these wars are self-defense, or that we started them. I personally found this distinction interesting, as I was expecting to find no Rawlsian backing whatsoever for our current actions.
To return to my argument, consider Darfur. The situation can be briefly summed up by a Washington Post article. In April 2006, “Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and murder, and he called for international troops on the ground to protect innocent Darfuris…yet a year and a half later, the situation on the ground in Darfur is little changed: More than 2 million displaced Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been unable to return to their homes.”(US Promises on Darfur Don’t Match Actions). As in the Congo, Burma, Indonesia, Albania, Cambodia, to name a few, we should at least be focusing some part of our significant power and influence on positively affecting change.
A side-argument may be proving that we interfere in countries where it also happens to serve our own interests. I don’t want to try and argue that here, but I’m sure someone will post on it. As for Rawls, he asks a level of consideration based on the level of disorder in a particular nation. The Duty of Assistance should not be self-serving. Even if the Ideal Theory Rawls proposes cannot be fully used in real life, it is still a strong political argument for justice that can appeal to our more intuitive moral feelings. It is my hope that the coming administration will focus more on these areas of the world.
Transparency international, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2007
"Amnesty reports worst human rights records", The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex
Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. New York: Harvard UP, 2001.
"US Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions", Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801704.html
Dwyer, James. “Global Health and Justice” Bioethics 19.5/6 (2005): 460-475.
POLITICS: EVEN DEMOCRACIES NEED 'SUNSHINE' AGAINST CORRUPTION
Emad Mekay. Global Information Network. New York: Apr 30, 2004. pg. 1
(Copyright 2004 by Inter Press Service/Global Information Network)
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=625859931&SrchMode=2&sid=7&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1228886329&clientId=17210
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Politics of Prop 8 and Princeton
If you voted in the USG elections yesterday afternoon, you probably noticed three ballot initiatives at the end. You have probably heard about the content of these referenda and the debate surrounding them, so I won’t digress into a summary here. If you need a primer, there are two Daily Prince articles that give a nice summary, linked to here and here.
I didn’t vote in favor of either the amicus brief proposal, or the CIL proposal. The idea that Princeton should file an amicus brief against Prop 8 is extreme. First, there is the obvious issue that this is a controversial political issue that the University has no special expertise in; this is a school, not a partisan think-tank. Second, if administrators take a public position on such a contentious political issue, what sort of message does that send to students who don’t support gay marriage? Are they to abandon their positions? Just accept that the University knows best? I think such a public University position would have a chilling effect on free speech by those that disagree.
Now, from what I’ve just said, it sounds like I might have supported the initiative that would caution the administration against taking public positions on controversial issues. However, the CIL’s resolution is clearly inappropriate because it is so vague. This vagueness makes the resolution, to use a legal term, overbroad. That is, it can be construed to prohibit commentary that the University has every right to make. I really just don’t get how you can strictly define terms like “people of equal good will,” and “reasonable disagreement.” Essentially, the first referendum prevents important expression by students, and the second prevents important expression by the University.
When I first started looking at these, though, I hadn’t thought through all that. My knee-jerk reaction was that we obviously would want to react to Prop 8 in some way. I mean, one of the biggest supporters of the initiative is based on Nassau St. We’re college students; political involvement is supposed to be important. However, my outrage faded when I did a little more digging about what Prop 8 actually was.
Homosexual couples have not lost any practical rights. Hospital visitation rights, income tax consideration, all the tangible benefits of marriage are available under domestic partnership laws. Despite all the animosity over Prop 8, the change is in name only.
Thinking about this brought me to a key question: what business does the government have granting marriage licenses in the first place? If marriage is a religious institution (as it seems many Prop 8 supporters would argue), then it seems government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
The justification for granting marriage licenses in the past was, I suppose, to encourage people to get married and to provide legal recognition of the trust between them. I would argue that these are not religious goals, but civil ones, and they apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The First and Fourteenth Amendments provide strong arguments for the elimination of religious considerations and a focus on equal protection. Therefore, here is my proposal: it is time for legislation that establishes a single national standard for civil unions based not on religion, but on the public good.
I didn’t vote in favor of either the amicus brief proposal, or the CIL proposal. The idea that Princeton should file an amicus brief against Prop 8 is extreme. First, there is the obvious issue that this is a controversial political issue that the University has no special expertise in; this is a school, not a partisan think-tank. Second, if administrators take a public position on such a contentious political issue, what sort of message does that send to students who don’t support gay marriage? Are they to abandon their positions? Just accept that the University knows best? I think such a public University position would have a chilling effect on free speech by those that disagree.
Now, from what I’ve just said, it sounds like I might have supported the initiative that would caution the administration against taking public positions on controversial issues. However, the CIL’s resolution is clearly inappropriate because it is so vague. This vagueness makes the resolution, to use a legal term, overbroad. That is, it can be construed to prohibit commentary that the University has every right to make. I really just don’t get how you can strictly define terms like “people of equal good will,” and “reasonable disagreement.” Essentially, the first referendum prevents important expression by students, and the second prevents important expression by the University.
When I first started looking at these, though, I hadn’t thought through all that. My knee-jerk reaction was that we obviously would want to react to Prop 8 in some way. I mean, one of the biggest supporters of the initiative is based on Nassau St. We’re college students; political involvement is supposed to be important. However, my outrage faded when I did a little more digging about what Prop 8 actually was.
Homosexual couples have not lost any practical rights. Hospital visitation rights, income tax consideration, all the tangible benefits of marriage are available under domestic partnership laws. Despite all the animosity over Prop 8, the change is in name only.
Thinking about this brought me to a key question: what business does the government have granting marriage licenses in the first place? If marriage is a religious institution (as it seems many Prop 8 supporters would argue), then it seems government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
The justification for granting marriage licenses in the past was, I suppose, to encourage people to get married and to provide legal recognition of the trust between them. I would argue that these are not religious goals, but civil ones, and they apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The First and Fourteenth Amendments provide strong arguments for the elimination of religious considerations and a focus on equal protection. Therefore, here is my proposal: it is time for legislation that establishes a single national standard for civil unions based not on religion, but on the public good.
Fellow Republicans: Give Barack a Fair Chance
The election of Barack Obama was certainly a historic outcome of this 2008 political election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, nor did I think he was the best man for the job. You can even refer to previous blog posts in which I criticized many of Obama’s economic policies. Yet, a majority of the American people think Obama was the best choice for president. And because of this, I have decided to give President Obama a fair chance.
Clearly, Obama has the ability to unite people. He was able to draw many lifetime Republicans to cross to the Democratic side of the ticket and punch his name for president. So maybe Barack will do a good job. I certainly hope so, because the country certainly seems to be having trouble. My personal beliefs led me to think that maybe Obama’s plans for America weren’t the best idea, but I simply cannot be sure. I don’t think anyone could say for sure that one party’s method works better or is better for the nation. So I certainly won’t be rooting against Obama when he takes office. And I certainly hope that fellow Republicans aren’t either. It deeply concerns me that many Republicans whom I have spoken to are simply expecting and hoping Obama fails. As corny as it may sound, we must be united as Americans, and support our new president, or at least give him a chance.
I don’t know if Barack Obama will fix our nation’s problems, but I sure hope he can. I could care less which party is in office, as long as the president is the best person for the country. One thing is for certain, however, and I hope many Republicans can agree with me on this. On January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama takes the oath of office for the Presidency of the United States of America, although I may not be able to advocate each policy he tries to enact or each new idea he may have, he will have my support as a person one hundred percent.
Clearly, Obama has the ability to unite people. He was able to draw many lifetime Republicans to cross to the Democratic side of the ticket and punch his name for president. So maybe Barack will do a good job. I certainly hope so, because the country certainly seems to be having trouble. My personal beliefs led me to think that maybe Obama’s plans for America weren’t the best idea, but I simply cannot be sure. I don’t think anyone could say for sure that one party’s method works better or is better for the nation. So I certainly won’t be rooting against Obama when he takes office. And I certainly hope that fellow Republicans aren’t either. It deeply concerns me that many Republicans whom I have spoken to are simply expecting and hoping Obama fails. As corny as it may sound, we must be united as Americans, and support our new president, or at least give him a chance.
I don’t know if Barack Obama will fix our nation’s problems, but I sure hope he can. I could care less which party is in office, as long as the president is the best person for the country. One thing is for certain, however, and I hope many Republicans can agree with me on this. On January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama takes the oath of office for the Presidency of the United States of America, although I may not be able to advocate each policy he tries to enact or each new idea he may have, he will have my support as a person one hundred percent.
Obama's Public Works: Will it Work?
There has been some talk recently about Barack Obama’s decision to spend billions of dollars on public works projects to create new jobs and keep up our infrastructure. He has suggested a massive overhaul of the interstate highway system, focused on bridges, but has also mentioned the ‘greening’ of buildings and making high speed internet available in more places. Obama seems to be taking a page out of the book of FDR and Eisenhower for this idea, but I just have trouble seeing these public works projects being extremely effective in helping the economy. It is true that billions of dollars will be spent in order to create these new jobs and make these changes, but the problem is that the plan risks having little to no effect on the economy, all the while sinking the U.S. into greater and greater debt.
While I do not plan to discuss Obama’s tax plans, I will bring up the point that there are many other projects that are in need of government funding as well. Energy is one that comes to mind immediately, as does education. Hopefully, Obama’s plans to institute these public works projects will not adversely affect other government entities and cause jobs to be lost there. As one of my previous posts mentioned, I am just slightly afraid that Obama’s spending will be digging government into too deep of a hole; even deeper than the hole it is already in thanks to George Bush.
While projects such as these may have worked in the past, I’m just not sure that they will have the same effect as they have previously. Obama has mentioned ideas such as ‘greening’ buildings and making high-speed internet more available, but these simply do not seem like the best choices for spending given the current economic situation. The people will be getting much less benefit out of these projects as when compared to the projects of the 1950s, which resulted in the creation of our massive interstate highway system.
Overall, I just think something may have to give. If Obama throws so much money at these public works projects; there will probably have to be cuts to other government programs that would result in the negation of any jobs created by the works projects. Or if Obama does not make cuts to other areas, I’m simply worried he may be either overtaxing the people, or putting the government way too far into debt in this time of economic crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us
While I do not plan to discuss Obama’s tax plans, I will bring up the point that there are many other projects that are in need of government funding as well. Energy is one that comes to mind immediately, as does education. Hopefully, Obama’s plans to institute these public works projects will not adversely affect other government entities and cause jobs to be lost there. As one of my previous posts mentioned, I am just slightly afraid that Obama’s spending will be digging government into too deep of a hole; even deeper than the hole it is already in thanks to George Bush.
While projects such as these may have worked in the past, I’m just not sure that they will have the same effect as they have previously. Obama has mentioned ideas such as ‘greening’ buildings and making high-speed internet more available, but these simply do not seem like the best choices for spending given the current economic situation. The people will be getting much less benefit out of these projects as when compared to the projects of the 1950s, which resulted in the creation of our massive interstate highway system.
Overall, I just think something may have to give. If Obama throws so much money at these public works projects; there will probably have to be cuts to other government programs that would result in the negation of any jobs created by the works projects. Or if Obama does not make cuts to other areas, I’m simply worried he may be either overtaxing the people, or putting the government way too far into debt in this time of economic crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us
Should Government Mandate Unviersity Endowment Spending?
There is no debating the fact that a college education in the United States today is becoming more and more difficult to afford, both for students and their families. Tuitions have been consistently rising faster than inflation rates, and things have gotten even worse in the face of our economic struggle. But the answer is not government intervention.
Recent government action has tried to move toward forcing university spending of endowment in order to better financial aid, which is simply not the best course of action in order to alleviate the burden on students. Some schools already have impressive financial aid systems in place, so it is unfair to mandate spending of the endowment when the cost of attending some of these universities is actually decreasing on average.
Forcing universities to take action is simply not a good choice. Universities understand the difficulties that paying for college causes, and most of them are tending to do their best to help reduce the burden; spending as much of their endowment as they can afford to help the students. Essentially, universities should have the right to be in control of their own finances; they know what is best for the university, and they are certainly watching out for their students. This kind of mandate for spending of the endowment is extremely risky, and makes universities much more vulnerable in times of market downturn; in which their endowments will struggle. Ultimately, this is not the government’s role. A blanket mandate of endowment spending is simply not responsible, although I would certainly be open to hearing other ideas on how this problem can be alleviated.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/09/09O21/
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=7rfk3s20hf1q824cl33y1cjx03d78syj
Recent government action has tried to move toward forcing university spending of endowment in order to better financial aid, which is simply not the best course of action in order to alleviate the burden on students. Some schools already have impressive financial aid systems in place, so it is unfair to mandate spending of the endowment when the cost of attending some of these universities is actually decreasing on average.
Forcing universities to take action is simply not a good choice. Universities understand the difficulties that paying for college causes, and most of them are tending to do their best to help reduce the burden; spending as much of their endowment as they can afford to help the students. Essentially, universities should have the right to be in control of their own finances; they know what is best for the university, and they are certainly watching out for their students. This kind of mandate for spending of the endowment is extremely risky, and makes universities much more vulnerable in times of market downturn; in which their endowments will struggle. Ultimately, this is not the government’s role. A blanket mandate of endowment spending is simply not responsible, although I would certainly be open to hearing other ideas on how this problem can be alleviated.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/09/09O21/
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=7rfk3s20hf1q824cl33y1cjx03d78syj
Saturday, December 6, 2008
My Afternoon in the Original Position
So, I was just in the original position. And yes, really.
This afternoon, I was involved in a social science experiment at the PLESS laboratory in Green Hall. The aim of the experiment was to determine what a group of five people would do if asked to allocate (our) future resources among individuals in the group.
The experiment took place in this way:
1. We were presented with 4 conceptions of potential redistribution, including justice as fairness, Nozickian no-distribution, a resource floor, and a maximum range (though the options were entitled differently, of course). We took a quiz to make sure we understood each of the theories fully.
2. The five of us sat around a table discussing how we would like the monetary results of a forthcoming test to be divided up among the individuals in the group. We did not know what kind of test we would have to take (ie manual labor or math problems).
3. We took the test (it ended up being a spelling test), and were paid based on the results of our test and the resource distribution we had chosen.
So, here's what happened. We did agree, as Rawls thought we would, unanimously; however, we did not choose justice as fairness! We chose to set an income floor! I, being the liberal I am, almost argued for a range of 0 (meaning we would all receive the same payoffs) and also almost argued for justice as fairness, but decided that an income floor would be fairest. That way, our mini-society would still reward hard work (there would still be incentives to succeed on the test), though the worst-off would still be provided for insofar as they did not walk away with nothing. Fortunately for me, the test did not involve manual labor (though I can probably do more pushups or sit-ups than the average person), and I ended up doing the best on the spelling test, meaning I walked away with $23. I'm rich! However, I learned that, if the group had chosen not to redistribute money at all, I would have made more than $30. To be honest, this made me slightly upset, which is what in fact is upsetting to me right now. Though I could have made $7 more, why do I deserve those $7? I, just as Rawls argues, happen to be a decent speller, at least compared to the others in the group. Why do I deserve anything more than anyone else? I do not.
Still, that we did not choose justice as fairness and chose to institute a monetary floor did not surprise me, as I have learned that similar studies have found that others do the same thing. The argument against justice as fairness based on the experimental evidence is convincing: this is not theory; there was real money involved, yet we still chose to only institute a floor, and not completely redistribute income as justice as fairness would have us do.
There were problems with the study, however. To be honest, I knew that I would probably do better than average on the test, as it likely could not involve manual labor due to legal issues. I also knew that I'm fairly good at trivia games, and mathematically quick (ironically, spelling is likely to be one of my worst abilities). I was tempted, for a second, with the veil of ignorance drawn back, to go for no-redistribution. But, I tried to pretend that I did not have this unfair knowledge--restore the veil--and ended up back with an income floor, which is what the group chose.
After experiencing the original position for myself, I feel that I understand it much better. That those in the group did not choose justice as fairness as our conception of justice is troubling for Rawls' theory, though there were problems with the experiment. After living through having to choose it or not, I still agree with Rawls, though I'm not sure anymore. Either way, I'm $23 better for it.
Sources:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1w55w6419k1pw032/fulltext.pdf
This afternoon, I was involved in a social science experiment at the PLESS laboratory in Green Hall. The aim of the experiment was to determine what a group of five people would do if asked to allocate (our) future resources among individuals in the group.
The experiment took place in this way:
1. We were presented with 4 conceptions of potential redistribution, including justice as fairness, Nozickian no-distribution, a resource floor, and a maximum range (though the options were entitled differently, of course). We took a quiz to make sure we understood each of the theories fully.
2. The five of us sat around a table discussing how we would like the monetary results of a forthcoming test to be divided up among the individuals in the group. We did not know what kind of test we would have to take (ie manual labor or math problems).
3. We took the test (it ended up being a spelling test), and were paid based on the results of our test and the resource distribution we had chosen.
So, here's what happened. We did agree, as Rawls thought we would, unanimously; however, we did not choose justice as fairness! We chose to set an income floor! I, being the liberal I am, almost argued for a range of 0 (meaning we would all receive the same payoffs) and also almost argued for justice as fairness, but decided that an income floor would be fairest. That way, our mini-society would still reward hard work (there would still be incentives to succeed on the test), though the worst-off would still be provided for insofar as they did not walk away with nothing. Fortunately for me, the test did not involve manual labor (though I can probably do more pushups or sit-ups than the average person), and I ended up doing the best on the spelling test, meaning I walked away with $23. I'm rich! However, I learned that, if the group had chosen not to redistribute money at all, I would have made more than $30. To be honest, this made me slightly upset, which is what in fact is upsetting to me right now. Though I could have made $7 more, why do I deserve those $7? I, just as Rawls argues, happen to be a decent speller, at least compared to the others in the group. Why do I deserve anything more than anyone else? I do not.
Still, that we did not choose justice as fairness and chose to institute a monetary floor did not surprise me, as I have learned that similar studies have found that others do the same thing. The argument against justice as fairness based on the experimental evidence is convincing: this is not theory; there was real money involved, yet we still chose to only institute a floor, and not completely redistribute income as justice as fairness would have us do.
There were problems with the study, however. To be honest, I knew that I would probably do better than average on the test, as it likely could not involve manual labor due to legal issues. I also knew that I'm fairly good at trivia games, and mathematically quick (ironically, spelling is likely to be one of my worst abilities). I was tempted, for a second, with the veil of ignorance drawn back, to go for no-redistribution. But, I tried to pretend that I did not have this unfair knowledge--restore the veil--and ended up back with an income floor, which is what the group chose.
After experiencing the original position for myself, I feel that I understand it much better. That those in the group did not choose justice as fairness as our conception of justice is troubling for Rawls' theory, though there were problems with the experiment. After living through having to choose it or not, I still agree with Rawls, though I'm not sure anymore. Either way, I'm $23 better for it.
Sources:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1w55w6419k1pw032/fulltext.pdf
Friday, December 5, 2008
Saving Pirates?
A Danish warship that was searching to destroy pirate ships in the Gulf of Aden recently found seven suspected Somali pirates stuck in the ocean due to a broken motorboat. The warship rescued the seven pirates who were in need of water and food, gave them shelter, and turned them over to Yemen authorities.
It’s ironic that if the pirates were in a better position – having a functioning motorboat and sufficient provisions – they might be dead. If the pirates had fled, the Danish warship would have given chase. In the chance that the pirates used the rocket-propelled grenade launchers on board against a chasing warship, the Danish warship would have opened fire.
The commanders of the warship obviously made the right decision. But the reason for that decision has to be made clear. The commanders spared the suspected pirates not because they were in need of food and water and were in all senses defenseless in the open sea. The pirates’ need for mercy did not – or should not – factor into the commanders’ decision. Rather, the commanders made the decision to take the suspected pirates on board their own warship because they had no evidence that the seven men were pirates.
Besides the grenade launchers and AK-47s – common pirate weapons – stowed on board the motorboat, the seven men were not doing anything wrong. Those men were judged as innocent before proven guilty, and therefore saved and turned over to Yemen authorities, who will hopefully investigate more into the matter and prosecute the men if they do turn out to be pirates. A “victory” in a legitimate court is worth much more than a “victory” of taking life.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/europe/06pirate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/world/africa/19somalia.html?fta=y
It’s ironic that if the pirates were in a better position – having a functioning motorboat and sufficient provisions – they might be dead. If the pirates had fled, the Danish warship would have given chase. In the chance that the pirates used the rocket-propelled grenade launchers on board against a chasing warship, the Danish warship would have opened fire.
The commanders of the warship obviously made the right decision. But the reason for that decision has to be made clear. The commanders spared the suspected pirates not because they were in need of food and water and were in all senses defenseless in the open sea. The pirates’ need for mercy did not – or should not – factor into the commanders’ decision. Rather, the commanders made the decision to take the suspected pirates on board their own warship because they had no evidence that the seven men were pirates.
Besides the grenade launchers and AK-47s – common pirate weapons – stowed on board the motorboat, the seven men were not doing anything wrong. Those men were judged as innocent before proven guilty, and therefore saved and turned over to Yemen authorities, who will hopefully investigate more into the matter and prosecute the men if they do turn out to be pirates. A “victory” in a legitimate court is worth much more than a “victory” of taking life.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/europe/06pirate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/world/africa/19somalia.html?fta=y
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Possible US Positions in Mumbai
Last weeks terrorist attacks on Mumbai caused loss of life, heightened tension in Indian-Pakistani relations, and a potential shift in the war on terror. The relationship between India and Pakistan is complicated; since the Partition of India in 1947, three major wars and multiple skirmishes have been fought between the two countries. Even without this historical background, the dialogue between the two countries following the attacks would undoubtedly be heated. Unfortunately, the terrorists have quickly been identified as Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives, an organization based in Pakistan. It is a very difficult question as to how much the nation of Pakistan should be connected to such a group, but it is undoubtedly in the best interest of both countries to abstain from war, especially since there have only been minor skirmishes since 1999, when both countries acquired nuclear capability.
I am interested, then, to see what role Condoleezza Rice plays, and attempts to play, when she reaches Mumbai on Wednesday. Clearly, she has stated her desire to deal with both Islamabad and Mumbai, and to lessen tension. But, besides sincere humanitarian concern, shifts in Pakistani forces could affect US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Historically, Pakistan and India have held forces along their border, and the Kashimiri Line of Control. This has been a deterrent for either country to invade (both have tried).
Northwest Pakistan, the other side of the country, has become a stronghold, or base, of terrorist activity. This affects in anti-US forces in nearby Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seemingly influencing the Mumbai attacks.
If a renewed spirit of conviction arises from this ordeal, it is in Pakistan and India’s own interest for Pakistan to focus more on this region (and they do currently have operations there).
Particularly because of our own interests, I think Rice will try to help convince Indian leaders of the view that they should renew efforts in counter-terrorism, not just counter-Pakistani-terrorism. There should be major support in India for some sort of retaliatory effort, and it is how this effort is shaped that may greatly affect the region. If Rice could get India to see the interconnectedness of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan to terrorism from Pakistan, we could see a more concerted effort in the region. Perhaps India would be more interested in helping in Iraq and Afghanistan? Such an orientation (if India does not lash out at Paksian) provides no excuse for Pakistan to shirk on fighting insurgents within it’s own borders.
I posit this as an interesting maneuver that might be attempted. Whether it succeeds or fails, we could see one last foreign policy move from the currently lame Bush administration. The options could be a further push for Bush’s War on Terror, and in this case I believe it could be a good push. Or Rice’s tension-dampening presence in Mumbai, which, while necessary, could either be seen as another instance of our current administrations softness of late, or perhaps a shift towards understanding that we should not try to influence too greatly the leaders of foreign nations.
(Note: I'm not taking any stance, outside of the current situation, on whether counter-terrorism in any capacity is good or bad, smart or worthless, necessary or not, etc. The fact is our government considers us in a War on Terror, and after the attacks Mumbai will undoubtedly adjust it's own counter-terrorism policies)
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon1.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/01/5-lessons-from-the-deadly-mumbai-terrorist-attacks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/world/asia/02mumbai.html?pagewanted=2&sq=mumbai&st=cse&scp=2
I am interested, then, to see what role Condoleezza Rice plays, and attempts to play, when she reaches Mumbai on Wednesday. Clearly, she has stated her desire to deal with both Islamabad and Mumbai, and to lessen tension. But, besides sincere humanitarian concern, shifts in Pakistani forces could affect US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Historically, Pakistan and India have held forces along their border, and the Kashimiri Line of Control. This has been a deterrent for either country to invade (both have tried).
Northwest Pakistan, the other side of the country, has become a stronghold, or base, of terrorist activity. This affects in anti-US forces in nearby Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seemingly influencing the Mumbai attacks.
If a renewed spirit of conviction arises from this ordeal, it is in Pakistan and India’s own interest for Pakistan to focus more on this region (and they do currently have operations there).
Particularly because of our own interests, I think Rice will try to help convince Indian leaders of the view that they should renew efforts in counter-terrorism, not just counter-Pakistani-terrorism. There should be major support in India for some sort of retaliatory effort, and it is how this effort is shaped that may greatly affect the region. If Rice could get India to see the interconnectedness of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan to terrorism from Pakistan, we could see a more concerted effort in the region. Perhaps India would be more interested in helping in Iraq and Afghanistan? Such an orientation (if India does not lash out at Paksian) provides no excuse for Pakistan to shirk on fighting insurgents within it’s own borders.
I posit this as an interesting maneuver that might be attempted. Whether it succeeds or fails, we could see one last foreign policy move from the currently lame Bush administration. The options could be a further push for Bush’s War on Terror, and in this case I believe it could be a good push. Or Rice’s tension-dampening presence in Mumbai, which, while necessary, could either be seen as another instance of our current administrations softness of late, or perhaps a shift towards understanding that we should not try to influence too greatly the leaders of foreign nations.
(Note: I'm not taking any stance, outside of the current situation, on whether counter-terrorism in any capacity is good or bad, smart or worthless, necessary or not, etc. The fact is our government considers us in a War on Terror, and after the attacks Mumbai will undoubtedly adjust it's own counter-terrorism policies)
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon1.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/01/5-lessons-from-the-deadly-mumbai-terrorist-attacks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/world/asia/02mumbai.html?pagewanted=2&sq=mumbai&st=cse&scp=2
Monday, December 1, 2008
Too much executive power?
Over the past three weeks, President-elect Barack Obama has compiled a stunning transition team, paving his way for a “smooth transition” into the White House. With prominent figures such as Senator Hilary Clinton in his prospective Cabinet, our nation’s leader seems calm and capable in handling all the problems we’re facing at this turning point in history.
However, while President Obama will certainly take the executive action necessary to ease the American public in this time of crisis, I must wonder whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the shoulders of one man. In the next four years, our president will most likely have the opportunity to guide us through a war, salvage our faltering economy, instate nationwide healthcare and social reforms, and appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, continually extending the power of the president’s administration.
While I am assured our new president is sincere in his promises for change in America and has the best intentions in mind, the American public should remain prudent and skeptical of our ever-expanding executive branch. We have seen the harms an unbridled executive can commit, from a gross enlargement of the military-industrial complex (and its associated executive benefits) to illegal wiretappings on American citizens. Surely, some more extreme actions have been justified in the past, but as our system of checks and balances slowly erodes under the pressures of “crisis mode,” we can only be increasingly wary of the latitude our political leaders take with their powers.
Of course, I would love to put my full trust in the Obama administration and hope that change will naturally be pursued and flourish in the course of his term(s). But as politically-active citizens, it is our right and responsibility to keep our leaders under scrutiny and hold them to their campaign promises. Else, we’ll be watching the balance of our delicate republic slowly decay in the wake of our heedlessness.
However, while President Obama will certainly take the executive action necessary to ease the American public in this time of crisis, I must wonder whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the shoulders of one man. In the next four years, our president will most likely have the opportunity to guide us through a war, salvage our faltering economy, instate nationwide healthcare and social reforms, and appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, continually extending the power of the president’s administration.
While I am assured our new president is sincere in his promises for change in America and has the best intentions in mind, the American public should remain prudent and skeptical of our ever-expanding executive branch. We have seen the harms an unbridled executive can commit, from a gross enlargement of the military-industrial complex (and its associated executive benefits) to illegal wiretappings on American citizens. Surely, some more extreme actions have been justified in the past, but as our system of checks and balances slowly erodes under the pressures of “crisis mode,” we can only be increasingly wary of the latitude our political leaders take with their powers.
Of course, I would love to put my full trust in the Obama administration and hope that change will naturally be pursued and flourish in the course of his term(s). But as politically-active citizens, it is our right and responsibility to keep our leaders under scrutiny and hold them to their campaign promises. Else, we’ll be watching the balance of our delicate republic slowly decay in the wake of our heedlessness.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Changing of the Guard: Three Appointments
Obama’s transition team is working very quickly to prepare for inauguration day. The peaceful transition of leadership is one of democracy's most amazing events, and it is critical that the new administration be ready to step up. Obama and his advisers are doing a lot to prove that they will be “ready on day one,” to use the familiar cliché.
CNN reports that Obama is announcing his picks earlier than traditional for the President-elect. The comments coming from the Obama camp indicate that this is an intentional move to reassure the American people that Obama is in control. Economic appointments have been particularly swift, a wise choice considering that the economic crisis cannot be put on hold until the swearing ceremony.
All these appointments (some official, most leaked) have given the press a bevy of material to talk about. After all, these appointees will be doing much of the day-to-day work of government, and their success or failure (see “Brownie” for details) will have a great impact on the nation. The commentary varies widely; depending on who you listen to, the appointees are too liberal, too conservative, too establishment, or just right. From my limited exploration, the buzz seems generally positive.
Three appointments in particular have been greatly discussed, and I’d like to provide my own take on them. So let’s take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates.
One of Obama’s first appointments was Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Almost immediately Obama’s detractors interpreted this as a sign that his post-partisan rhetoric was a sham. Emmanuel has a reputation for strong-arm legislative tactics, and even gained the nickname Rahm-bo. At first the right-wing criticism seems to make sense here; if you’re trying to usher in an era of bipartisan cooperation, why make your right hand man someone that specializes in ramming legislation down the opposition’s throat? I don’t have a great answer to that question myself, but just because Emmanuel has been rough in the past does not mean that will be the starting point for the Obama administration. Rather, I bet he will be the pit bull that gets unleashed only when necessary. If there’s something that Obama really thinks is important, and cooperation hasn’t worked, then hopefully Emmanuel can provide a solution. While Emmanuel’s post is certainly an important one, there’s no reason to believe his old style politics will define Obama’s approach. In fact, if you’re trying to change the game, you may need someone that is an expert at winning the old version. *Aside (mostly irrelevant, but interesting): for TV fans, there are rumors that Josh Lyman from The West Wing was based on Emmanuel and Ari Gold from Entourage was based on his brother.
Though it has not been publicly announced, reliable sources indicate that Hillary Clinton has accepted an offer to be Secretary of State. Again, there is a reasonable criticism here. After Obama questioned how being First Lady gives you foreign policy experience, and Clinton attacked Obama for his willingness to negotiate with American enemies, they’re going to work together? However, I think the move is again a smart one. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is very smart and very capable. After all the primary nastiness, putting her in such a prominent position sends a clear message to all the Clinton supporters: “we remember you, too.” But that’s mostly pragmatic and political, what about actually doing the job? I’ll admit that there are probably more qualified foreign policy experts, but Clinton has the personality and leadership experience to run a very tight ship over at State. That’s what is most important for the position, along with an ability to understand and advocate for the policy positions the whole foreign policy team comes up with.
Now here’s the really interesting one. Obama ran on a platform of “change,” so why is he keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Gates was appointed in 2006, replacing the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld after the “thumpin” the Republicans received in the midterms. Since then he has run the DoD, obviously including the Iraq War and its part in the War on Terror. Given that Obama is planning to drastically change course on defense policy, his decision to keep Gates has drawn criticism. Like the Hillary appointment, this seems to be a part of his Lincoln-inspired “team of rivals” approach. The idea is to encourage dissent and debate within his circle of advisors, and thus avoid the ideological incest that characterized the Bush administration. I think this is a good plan. After all, one of the key assumptions of democracy is that discussion and debate help lead to the best policy. That’s a good philosophy to have internally as well, as it allows Obama to synthesize different viewpoints and come to a decision. Obviously, without cooperation, such an approach can disintegrate if everyone starts pulling in different directions. If everyone is willing to abide by the President’s final judgment, though, it could turn out great.
So, three interesting appointments – though they don’t seem to make a great deal of sense at first, I’m optimistic that they will be good choices. Feel free to disagree because I certainly don’t know as much as I should about these people. Sorry this turned out so long.
CNN reports that Obama is announcing his picks earlier than traditional for the President-elect. The comments coming from the Obama camp indicate that this is an intentional move to reassure the American people that Obama is in control. Economic appointments have been particularly swift, a wise choice considering that the economic crisis cannot be put on hold until the swearing ceremony.
All these appointments (some official, most leaked) have given the press a bevy of material to talk about. After all, these appointees will be doing much of the day-to-day work of government, and their success or failure (see “Brownie” for details) will have a great impact on the nation. The commentary varies widely; depending on who you listen to, the appointees are too liberal, too conservative, too establishment, or just right. From my limited exploration, the buzz seems generally positive.
Three appointments in particular have been greatly discussed, and I’d like to provide my own take on them. So let’s take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates.
One of Obama’s first appointments was Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Almost immediately Obama’s detractors interpreted this as a sign that his post-partisan rhetoric was a sham. Emmanuel has a reputation for strong-arm legislative tactics, and even gained the nickname Rahm-bo. At first the right-wing criticism seems to make sense here; if you’re trying to usher in an era of bipartisan cooperation, why make your right hand man someone that specializes in ramming legislation down the opposition’s throat? I don’t have a great answer to that question myself, but just because Emmanuel has been rough in the past does not mean that will be the starting point for the Obama administration. Rather, I bet he will be the pit bull that gets unleashed only when necessary. If there’s something that Obama really thinks is important, and cooperation hasn’t worked, then hopefully Emmanuel can provide a solution. While Emmanuel’s post is certainly an important one, there’s no reason to believe his old style politics will define Obama’s approach. In fact, if you’re trying to change the game, you may need someone that is an expert at winning the old version. *Aside (mostly irrelevant, but interesting): for TV fans, there are rumors that Josh Lyman from The West Wing was based on Emmanuel and Ari Gold from Entourage was based on his brother.
Though it has not been publicly announced, reliable sources indicate that Hillary Clinton has accepted an offer to be Secretary of State. Again, there is a reasonable criticism here. After Obama questioned how being First Lady gives you foreign policy experience, and Clinton attacked Obama for his willingness to negotiate with American enemies, they’re going to work together? However, I think the move is again a smart one. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is very smart and very capable. After all the primary nastiness, putting her in such a prominent position sends a clear message to all the Clinton supporters: “we remember you, too.” But that’s mostly pragmatic and political, what about actually doing the job? I’ll admit that there are probably more qualified foreign policy experts, but Clinton has the personality and leadership experience to run a very tight ship over at State. That’s what is most important for the position, along with an ability to understand and advocate for the policy positions the whole foreign policy team comes up with.
Now here’s the really interesting one. Obama ran on a platform of “change,” so why is he keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Gates was appointed in 2006, replacing the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld after the “thumpin” the Republicans received in the midterms. Since then he has run the DoD, obviously including the Iraq War and its part in the War on Terror. Given that Obama is planning to drastically change course on defense policy, his decision to keep Gates has drawn criticism. Like the Hillary appointment, this seems to be a part of his Lincoln-inspired “team of rivals” approach. The idea is to encourage dissent and debate within his circle of advisors, and thus avoid the ideological incest that characterized the Bush administration. I think this is a good plan. After all, one of the key assumptions of democracy is that discussion and debate help lead to the best policy. That’s a good philosophy to have internally as well, as it allows Obama to synthesize different viewpoints and come to a decision. Obviously, without cooperation, such an approach can disintegrate if everyone starts pulling in different directions. If everyone is willing to abide by the President’s final judgment, though, it could turn out great.
So, three interesting appointments – though they don’t seem to make a great deal of sense at first, I’m optimistic that they will be good choices. Feel free to disagree because I certainly don’t know as much as I should about these people. Sorry this turned out so long.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Iran, Game Theory, and You
For months, pundits from the left and from the right have emphasized the dangers of allowing the nation of Iran to advance its nuclear program. If Iran were to attain nuclear weapons, many argue, it could strike neighboring states like Israel or sell them to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which could detonate them on civilian populations. However, I would like to posit that allowing Iran to attain nuclear weapons would not have cataclysmic or even Armageddon-esque consequences—but may in fact be positive for the region.
First, I would like to emphasize that I do not actually believe that Iran becoming a nuclear power—I know I wrote the last sentence—would probably be a positive development. To the contrary, I believe that the opposite is true and, all else being equal, I hope that Iran does not get the bomb. But all else is not equal. From the United States’ perspective, there is, potentially, a tremendous cost in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This cost is potentially threefold: economic, political, and military—though the three are highly related. The economic cost is clear; the United States has—along with its allies—posed sanctions on Iran for more than a year, prohibiting what is sure to be millions of dollars worth of transactions and trade between Iran and other nations like the United States. In addition, the United States stands to lose a sizable amount of political capital with an anti-Iranian policy. This is due to the fact that Iran is becoming increasingly close with international powers apart from the United States, but vital to U.S. interests, including China and Russia. China, the United States’ second largest trading partner, has an incredibly lucrative oil trade with Iran; the two powers recently signed a $70 billion oil deal. Russia, fresh out of the cold war, is unofficially led by a man—Vladimir Putin—who some say wishes to spoil Russo-U.S. relations by leading us back to it. Russia, though, is also growing increasingly close to Iran, with Putin visiting Tehran in 2007. This visit solidified a developing Russian and Iranian relationship, with Russia suspected of providing direct aid to the Iranian nuclear program. By stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions, the United States stands to lose the ability to negotiate with nations like China and Russia—a loss of political capital—on other key issues. Finally, some, including president-elect Obama, have kept the military option in regards to Iran on the table. This military option would likely have to involve full-scale invasion, as many believe—including David Kay, former U.S. inspector in Iraq—that targeted bombings would simply not work against Iran as they did for Israel against Iraq in 1981. Such an invasion would likely cost far more than the estimated $600 billion and the more than 4,000 U.S. lives that the United States has spent so far in Iraq: Iran is three times its size and has a much stronger military. Therefore, preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons by military means—as well as economic or political—is a costly endeavor.
The high cost associated with preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is higher than the cost associated with allowing it to develop these weapons. Basically, if Iran attains nuclear weapons, nuclear foreign policy boils down to a game, and can be explained by game theory; this game is the prisoner’s dilemma.
The prisoner’s dilemma is as such: two suspects who are thought to both have committed the same crime together are placed in different cells and cannot communicate. The police investigators do not have enough evidence to convict the suspects on the higher charges that they deserve to be convicted of, so they must elicit a confession from one or both of the prisoners. If one of the prisoners confesses while the other does not, the first prisoner receives no jail time while the second receives 5 years. If they both confess, they both receive three years. If neither confess, they only receive 1 year. The Nash equilibrium for this game—the equilibrium based on what it is rational for both players to do—is that both prisoners confess. However, the situation changes when, and this becomes more theoretical, the game must be played over and over again. Then, eventually, one player will inevitably decide to try not confessing, hoping the other player will soon, in turn, realize it is the best strategy for both players in the long run—they will collude.
This repeated game is the game played on the world’s stage by nuclear powers. In this world game, countries cannot be eliminated in one fell swoop—there are multiple rounds of the game; nuclear attack by one country almost certainly means nuclear retaliation by that same country or by another, leading to nuclear war. This is mutually assured destruction, irrational for all parties involved. So, to prevent this, both parties collude by not launching pre-emptive—or any—nuclear strikes on the other. In fact, this phenomenon has been observed historically, and even presently. Nuclear weapons were likely the major reason why the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly militarily engage each other—doing so would have meant certain annihilation. Mutually assured destruction is likely the primary reasons why Pakistan and India—two nuclear powers—have not had a major war since the development of both countries’ nuclear programs.
For Iran to attain nuclear weapons would add an element of supreme danger to the region that would likely make full scale war between—Iran and Israel, for example—impossible. Neither side would be willing to risk total annihilation by warring with the other. In addition, there is little danger that Iran would risk providing nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups like Hezbollah. With modern intelligence, such an action would soon be the open secret of the international community, all but guaranteeing retaliation on Iran. Iran, a rational international actor (yes, Ahmadinejad yaks with a fiery rhetoric, but this blather is just that: rhetoric), would not risk such an action.
It may seem a little farfetched to assume that the leaders of states like Iran would always act rationally—in their best interest—by not risking nuclear war with another nation. But I must invoke the anthropic principle: we’re still here, aren’t we? Look, for Iran to attain nuclear weapons should clearly not be a stated policy goal of the United States. However, the costs associated with preventing, as well as potential benefits of, a nuclear Iran, means that it might just be not that bad. Hey, when it comes to nuclear war, I’m an optimist.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.sanctions/index.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/world/10nuke.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/world/main4493241.shtml
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
First, I would like to emphasize that I do not actually believe that Iran becoming a nuclear power—I know I wrote the last sentence—would probably be a positive development. To the contrary, I believe that the opposite is true and, all else being equal, I hope that Iran does not get the bomb. But all else is not equal. From the United States’ perspective, there is, potentially, a tremendous cost in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. This cost is potentially threefold: economic, political, and military—though the three are highly related. The economic cost is clear; the United States has—along with its allies—posed sanctions on Iran for more than a year, prohibiting what is sure to be millions of dollars worth of transactions and trade between Iran and other nations like the United States. In addition, the United States stands to lose a sizable amount of political capital with an anti-Iranian policy. This is due to the fact that Iran is becoming increasingly close with international powers apart from the United States, but vital to U.S. interests, including China and Russia. China, the United States’ second largest trading partner, has an incredibly lucrative oil trade with Iran; the two powers recently signed a $70 billion oil deal. Russia, fresh out of the cold war, is unofficially led by a man—Vladimir Putin—who some say wishes to spoil Russo-U.S. relations by leading us back to it. Russia, though, is also growing increasingly close to Iran, with Putin visiting Tehran in 2007. This visit solidified a developing Russian and Iranian relationship, with Russia suspected of providing direct aid to the Iranian nuclear program. By stifling Iranian nuclear ambitions, the United States stands to lose the ability to negotiate with nations like China and Russia—a loss of political capital—on other key issues. Finally, some, including president-elect Obama, have kept the military option in regards to Iran on the table. This military option would likely have to involve full-scale invasion, as many believe—including David Kay, former U.S. inspector in Iraq—that targeted bombings would simply not work against Iran as they did for Israel against Iraq in 1981. Such an invasion would likely cost far more than the estimated $600 billion and the more than 4,000 U.S. lives that the United States has spent so far in Iraq: Iran is three times its size and has a much stronger military. Therefore, preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons by military means—as well as economic or political—is a costly endeavor.
The high cost associated with preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is higher than the cost associated with allowing it to develop these weapons. Basically, if Iran attains nuclear weapons, nuclear foreign policy boils down to a game, and can be explained by game theory; this game is the prisoner’s dilemma.
The prisoner’s dilemma is as such: two suspects who are thought to both have committed the same crime together are placed in different cells and cannot communicate. The police investigators do not have enough evidence to convict the suspects on the higher charges that they deserve to be convicted of, so they must elicit a confession from one or both of the prisoners. If one of the prisoners confesses while the other does not, the first prisoner receives no jail time while the second receives 5 years. If they both confess, they both receive three years. If neither confess, they only receive 1 year. The Nash equilibrium for this game—the equilibrium based on what it is rational for both players to do—is that both prisoners confess. However, the situation changes when, and this becomes more theoretical, the game must be played over and over again. Then, eventually, one player will inevitably decide to try not confessing, hoping the other player will soon, in turn, realize it is the best strategy for both players in the long run—they will collude.
This repeated game is the game played on the world’s stage by nuclear powers. In this world game, countries cannot be eliminated in one fell swoop—there are multiple rounds of the game; nuclear attack by one country almost certainly means nuclear retaliation by that same country or by another, leading to nuclear war. This is mutually assured destruction, irrational for all parties involved. So, to prevent this, both parties collude by not launching pre-emptive—or any—nuclear strikes on the other. In fact, this phenomenon has been observed historically, and even presently. Nuclear weapons were likely the major reason why the United States and the Soviet Union did not directly militarily engage each other—doing so would have meant certain annihilation. Mutually assured destruction is likely the primary reasons why Pakistan and India—two nuclear powers—have not had a major war since the development of both countries’ nuclear programs.
For Iran to attain nuclear weapons would add an element of supreme danger to the region that would likely make full scale war between—Iran and Israel, for example—impossible. Neither side would be willing to risk total annihilation by warring with the other. In addition, there is little danger that Iran would risk providing nuclear weapons to non-state terrorist groups like Hezbollah. With modern intelligence, such an action would soon be the open secret of the international community, all but guaranteeing retaliation on Iran. Iran, a rational international actor (yes, Ahmadinejad yaks with a fiery rhetoric, but this blather is just that: rhetoric), would not risk such an action.
It may seem a little farfetched to assume that the leaders of states like Iran would always act rationally—in their best interest—by not risking nuclear war with another nation. But I must invoke the anthropic principle: we’re still here, aren’t we? Look, for Iran to attain nuclear weapons should clearly not be a stated policy goal of the United States. However, the costs associated with preventing, as well as potential benefits of, a nuclear Iran, means that it might just be not that bad. Hey, when it comes to nuclear war, I’m an optimist.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.sanctions/index.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/world/10nuke.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/01/world/main4493241.shtml
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Death to the death penalty
Those who support the death penalty often point to its retributive function, its finality and completeness, its strong deterring force. In light of humanity's most severe crimes - brutal counts of rape, homicide, and torture - the death penalty may seem to be the only tool society has to fully compensate for these immense injustices. However, in light of the immorality of the punishment itself, I argue that the practice should be abolished entirely.
It is intuitive to us what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes clear: punishment is "now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice." The entire institution of modern punishment is based off the idea that we are, by punishing, restoring some balance to the social order that is disturbed when a crime is committed. The "compensation" provided by capital punishment, however, does not actually provide the retribution society seeks; by taking a criminal's life, the government is not un-raping or un-killing a victim. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that the death penalty provides permanent separation between the perpetrator and society; others may say it takes away someone's life who doesn't deserve it. The first aim could be accomplished by sentencing someone to a life in prison, and the second aim, by claiming that some don't "deserve" life is to say that some people aren't human. Recall that every person has a core of individual rights, one of which is the right to life that cannot be violated, least of all by the government.
We must also consider the humanity of the process itself. As Linda Greenhouse of the NYT Online writes, 38 of 39 states with the death penalty use the lethal injection (Nebraska still uses the electric chair), which may not be as "safe" a procedure as one would expect. As Greenhouse writes, "Leading medical organizations have told their members not to participate, and lawyers for death-row inmates have produced evidence showing that in the absence of expert medical attention, there is a substantial risk of error in administering the combination of anesthesia and paralyzing drugs necessary to bring about a quick and painless death." Though I believe that taking another's life (even if the operant is the government) is inhumane in the first place, doing it in a matter that is painful (even if briefly) is not just.
It is intuitive to us what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes clear: punishment is "now acknowledged to be an inherently retributive practice." The entire institution of modern punishment is based off the idea that we are, by punishing, restoring some balance to the social order that is disturbed when a crime is committed. The "compensation" provided by capital punishment, however, does not actually provide the retribution society seeks; by taking a criminal's life, the government is not un-raping or un-killing a victim. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that the death penalty provides permanent separation between the perpetrator and society; others may say it takes away someone's life who doesn't deserve it. The first aim could be accomplished by sentencing someone to a life in prison, and the second aim, by claiming that some don't "deserve" life is to say that some people aren't human. Recall that every person has a core of individual rights, one of which is the right to life that cannot be violated, least of all by the government.
We must also consider the humanity of the process itself. As Linda Greenhouse of the NYT Online writes, 38 of 39 states with the death penalty use the lethal injection (Nebraska still uses the electric chair), which may not be as "safe" a procedure as one would expect. As Greenhouse writes, "Leading medical organizations have told their members not to participate, and lawyers for death-row inmates have produced evidence showing that in the absence of expert medical attention, there is a substantial risk of error in administering the combination of anesthesia and paralyzing drugs necessary to bring about a quick and painless death." Though I believe that taking another's life (even if the operant is the government) is inhumane in the first place, doing it in a matter that is painful (even if briefly) is not just.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Social Conservatism, Kekes, and 2008
I’m something of a Real Clear Politics junkie. You’ve probably heard of it. If not, I recommend you check it out (www.realclearpolitics.com). The site tilts conservative, but it brings together some of the most interesting political commentary out there.
Anyway, yesterday I was poking around RCP and found a story that was particularly interesting in light of our Kekes discussion, in which I had commented that social conservatism seemed to conflict with Kekes’s rejection of absolutism. Overall, “The Basic Beliefs” just seemed to suggest a more libertarian philosophy to me. "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" presents an interesting alternative view. I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Hoven says, but I think the argument has some merit.
The link between Kekesian pluralism and social conservatism seems to be federalism. Abortion is the obvious case to consider here. If conservatives attained their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, we would not revert to an absolutist prevention of abortion, but a pluralist system that allowed states to decide. The federalist notion of leaving all but the most fundamental decisions to the states seems perfectly in line with Kekes’s assertion that “There may be some variations in the required conventions of a good society, but the variations cannot be [so great that they violate the minimum conditions of good lives.”
Obviously this is not a defense of far-right positions that would support national bans on gay marriage, abortion, pornography, or any other such perceived evils. Indeed, the absolutism of these provisions, coupled with their extreme interference in the autonomy of the citizenry make them even less conservative than the analogous liberal positions.
Perhaps the stronger argument that social conservatism conforms to Kekesian principles is the traditionalism argument. This quote from the article sums up the sentiment quite nicely:
Anyway, yesterday I was poking around RCP and found a story that was particularly interesting in light of our Kekes discussion, in which I had commented that social conservatism seemed to conflict with Kekes’s rejection of absolutism. Overall, “The Basic Beliefs” just seemed to suggest a more libertarian philosophy to me. "A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism" presents an interesting alternative view. I certainly don’t agree with everything Mr. Hoven says, but I think the argument has some merit.
The link between Kekesian pluralism and social conservatism seems to be federalism. Abortion is the obvious case to consider here. If conservatives attained their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, we would not revert to an absolutist prevention of abortion, but a pluralist system that allowed states to decide. The federalist notion of leaving all but the most fundamental decisions to the states seems perfectly in line with Kekes’s assertion that “There may be some variations in the required conventions of a good society, but the variations cannot be [so great that they violate the minimum conditions of good lives.”
Obviously this is not a defense of far-right positions that would support national bans on gay marriage, abortion, pornography, or any other such perceived evils. Indeed, the absolutism of these provisions, coupled with their extreme interference in the autonomy of the citizenry make them even less conservative than the analogous liberal positions.
Perhaps the stronger argument that social conservatism conforms to Kekesian principles is the traditionalism argument. This quote from the article sums up the sentiment quite nicely:
Shouldn't we have some humility about changing the most fundamental institutions that got us to that point? Things like traditional marriage, the nuclear family, schools, private property, the free market and the Bill of Rights? That is not to say we don't change them at all. But let's be careful, incremental and be prepared to change the change.This sort of argument goes a long way towards explaining why McCain couldn’t compete this year. In an election that was framed in terms of “change,” the conservative temperament was a serious liability. It also helps explain why I define myself as a liberal; I believe that there are problems with the status quo, and we can find solutions through knowledge, reason, and debate. In other words, we should trust ourselves, and need not fear change. I guess that’s the sort of optimism Kekes isn’t comfortable with, but I sort of like it.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Lucky to Become President in This Period of Economic Turmoil
Almost two months remain before President-elect Obama takes office on January 20, and he is already acting fast not only to cement his soon-to-be administration, but also to complete his first task upon inauguration. The US is in a precarious economic situation, to say the least, and the world is looking at Obama to assume a leadership role in stabilizing our financial circumstance. One small mishap – perhaps due to the obstinacy of Congress, or due to a handful of campaign promises that Obama is looking to fulfill – might be enough in our present dire circumstance to dent the enormous amount of confidence and hope that citizens have in him. But Obama should actually feel lucky that he is coming into office during a period of economic disaster because he has to worry less about the means of getting his plan passed and more about the quality of his actual plan.
Congress is very willing to act in a new direction after eight years of Republican ideology. Some Republicans are disillusioned with President Bush’s economic plans – or, as a possible criticism, the lack thereof. These Republicans wince at the trickle-down effect of Bush’s unpopularity and might be more willing to acquiesce to a different approach, if only to feel the relief of having someone else take the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, on the other hand, have been mostly frustrated since the 2006 midterm elections, having swept away the reins of Republican power in what many celebrated as a mandate for change, only to face the biting reality of the president’s veto power. These Democrats are salivating for a “partner in the White House” who will help pass legislation, as Senator Harry Reid expressed (Calmes). Not much hard persuasion, in fact, is needed on Obama’s part to spur Congress to action when the majority of citizens clamor for something to be done to alleviate the current crisis. The responsibility, that is, lies with Obama not to focus on the means of persuading Congress to pass his plan. Rather, Obama merely has to focus on the effectiveness of his plan: less emphasis on political maneuvering, more emphasis on solid ideas.
Some may object that most presidents are successful in their first hundred days of office, a standard that became popular after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immensely active first hundred days, during which Congress passed 15 major bills. Johnson, for example, used his first hundred days to define his presidency as a continuation of Kennedy’s. Reagan convinced the Democratic majority in Congress to support his tax cats during his first hundred days. But those processes were not easy. Johnson was forced to define his presidency as the legacy of Kennedy because of Kennedy’s surge in popularity after his assassination. Knowing that he would not have the clout to pass his bills in Congress without Kennedy’s buttressing legacy, Johnson was forced to retain most of Kennedy’s former cabinet and continuously make speeches praising Kennedy. Likewise, Reagan had to use the power of the bully pulpit to force Senate Democrats into submission regarding taxes. He appealed strongly to ordinary Americans to pressure their congressmen into voting for the tax cuts, and once Democrats saw how fervently many Americans wanted the tax cuts, the Democrats reversed their position and countered with proposed tax cuts of their own. But Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Reagan, he does not need to appeal to citizens in order to fight Congress, because most citizens agree with most Congressmen that something needs to be done during the financial crisis. Nor does Obama need to worry about political decisions to gain clout like Johnson, because the yet unofficial Obama presidency is already a legacy that is made even stronger in light of the current situation. In other words, presidents like Johnson and Reagan had a double burden: they had to somehow persuade Congress to implement the plans of new presidents, and then they had to hope for their plans to work. Obama, on the other hand, only has the single burden of hoping that his plan works because Congress is already mostly persuaded to follow the new leadership. Like Roosevelt, then, Obama’s way forward is actually made easier due to the terrible economy that he inherits.
Another advantage that Obama has is that he can fulfill almost all of his campaign promises by packaging them into one comprehensive stimulus package. This benefit primarily lowers the “transaction cost” of passing bills. Rather than risk Congress’s decreasing enthusiasm for each successive bill to be signed into law, Obama can have multiple successes by passing one bill. For example, Obama can cut taxes for middle- and lower-class workers and improve public infrastructure in one bill: stimulate more demand among consumers by giving them some tax money back, and stimulate artificial demand by hiring workers to rebuild roads that were in need of improvement in the first place. Without the financial crisis to relate these two separate goals, Obama probably would have passed two separate laws. Other campaign promises, likewise, can also be formatted to fit into the stimulus package, for example the creation of green jobs by providing incentives for corporations that abide by green technology. This is not to say that Obama would not have fulfilled all of his campaign promises without the financial crisis, but he certainly has an easier time of achieving much more of them within a much smaller time period, leading to the possibility of higher approval ratings and more praise from American citizens.
It is true that even with a more pliable Congress, Obama might not fulfill all of his campaign promises. This negative scenario, however, leads into Obama’s final advantage. Obama does not need to fulfill all of his campaign promises to receive admiration, because there are certain campaign promises one which he can afford to renege. In fact, it might be better if Obama broke his word on those campaign promises. One possible candidate is Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts before they expire in 2011. Many of those who voted for Obama supported his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but the financial crisis makes it hard for people to ardently favor repealing tax cuts, even for the wealthy. Between getting no money for oneself but seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, and getting money for oneself but not seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, the average citizen would probably choose the latter. Americans are more focused on their own financial circumstances right now. It would actually help Obama if he broke his campaign promise and let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 instead of actively repealing them before 2011. Then Obama would seem more practical for not effectively raising taxes on the wealthy at a time when both the non-wealthy and the wealthy are suffering. Furthermore, Obama could reconcile himself slightly with Republicans who still would not be happy that the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent, but who would be less unhappy than if the Bush tax cuts were actively repealed before 2011. The financial crisis, therefore, presents a way for Obama to cross party lines and gain some support from Republicans even if he cannot fulfill a campaign promise that seems untimely during this turbulent period.
The above arguments should not be construed as to belittle Obama’s ability to be president. Obama already has made great choices thus far, in fact, when selecting new members of his administration. He has reached across the partisan divide by choosing Peter Orszag to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget, someone who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans (Brooks). He has reached across the Democratic divide by hinting that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. Obama has given the impression that he will be a pragmatist, not an ideologue who will pursue his ideals at any cost. These are all accomplishments. But these accomplishments do not change the fact that Obama still enjoys an advantage of coming into office in a time of economic despair. Of course Obama has a hard road ahead of him; no one can deny that. Huge burdens of responsibility rest on Obama to show Americans and citizens of other countries that the plans and proposals he has will work to improve the economy. But Obama can devote all his energy to ensuring that his plans are sound instead of wasting time worrying about whether Congress will listen to a new president. He can piece together the details of his plans without worrying about whether Congress has the stamina to pass all of them one by one. Obama became president because the majority of voters believed that his plans would work. Now the financial crisis has greatly cleared the road of potential political hindrances that could have prevented Obama from implementing his plans. Now is the best opportunity for Obama to vindicate his supporters and prove that his detractors were wrong.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/zelizer.hundred/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.omb/
Congress is very willing to act in a new direction after eight years of Republican ideology. Some Republicans are disillusioned with President Bush’s economic plans – or, as a possible criticism, the lack thereof. These Republicans wince at the trickle-down effect of Bush’s unpopularity and might be more willing to acquiesce to a different approach, if only to feel the relief of having someone else take the brunt of responsibility. Democrats, on the other hand, have been mostly frustrated since the 2006 midterm elections, having swept away the reins of Republican power in what many celebrated as a mandate for change, only to face the biting reality of the president’s veto power. These Democrats are salivating for a “partner in the White House” who will help pass legislation, as Senator Harry Reid expressed (Calmes). Not much hard persuasion, in fact, is needed on Obama’s part to spur Congress to action when the majority of citizens clamor for something to be done to alleviate the current crisis. The responsibility, that is, lies with Obama not to focus on the means of persuading Congress to pass his plan. Rather, Obama merely has to focus on the effectiveness of his plan: less emphasis on political maneuvering, more emphasis on solid ideas.
Some may object that most presidents are successful in their first hundred days of office, a standard that became popular after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s immensely active first hundred days, during which Congress passed 15 major bills. Johnson, for example, used his first hundred days to define his presidency as a continuation of Kennedy’s. Reagan convinced the Democratic majority in Congress to support his tax cats during his first hundred days. But those processes were not easy. Johnson was forced to define his presidency as the legacy of Kennedy because of Kennedy’s surge in popularity after his assassination. Knowing that he would not have the clout to pass his bills in Congress without Kennedy’s buttressing legacy, Johnson was forced to retain most of Kennedy’s former cabinet and continuously make speeches praising Kennedy. Likewise, Reagan had to use the power of the bully pulpit to force Senate Democrats into submission regarding taxes. He appealed strongly to ordinary Americans to pressure their congressmen into voting for the tax cuts, and once Democrats saw how fervently many Americans wanted the tax cuts, the Democrats reversed their position and countered with proposed tax cuts of their own. But Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Reagan, he does not need to appeal to citizens in order to fight Congress, because most citizens agree with most Congressmen that something needs to be done during the financial crisis. Nor does Obama need to worry about political decisions to gain clout like Johnson, because the yet unofficial Obama presidency is already a legacy that is made even stronger in light of the current situation. In other words, presidents like Johnson and Reagan had a double burden: they had to somehow persuade Congress to implement the plans of new presidents, and then they had to hope for their plans to work. Obama, on the other hand, only has the single burden of hoping that his plan works because Congress is already mostly persuaded to follow the new leadership. Like Roosevelt, then, Obama’s way forward is actually made easier due to the terrible economy that he inherits.
Another advantage that Obama has is that he can fulfill almost all of his campaign promises by packaging them into one comprehensive stimulus package. This benefit primarily lowers the “transaction cost” of passing bills. Rather than risk Congress’s decreasing enthusiasm for each successive bill to be signed into law, Obama can have multiple successes by passing one bill. For example, Obama can cut taxes for middle- and lower-class workers and improve public infrastructure in one bill: stimulate more demand among consumers by giving them some tax money back, and stimulate artificial demand by hiring workers to rebuild roads that were in need of improvement in the first place. Without the financial crisis to relate these two separate goals, Obama probably would have passed two separate laws. Other campaign promises, likewise, can also be formatted to fit into the stimulus package, for example the creation of green jobs by providing incentives for corporations that abide by green technology. This is not to say that Obama would not have fulfilled all of his campaign promises without the financial crisis, but he certainly has an easier time of achieving much more of them within a much smaller time period, leading to the possibility of higher approval ratings and more praise from American citizens.
It is true that even with a more pliable Congress, Obama might not fulfill all of his campaign promises. This negative scenario, however, leads into Obama’s final advantage. Obama does not need to fulfill all of his campaign promises to receive admiration, because there are certain campaign promises one which he can afford to renege. In fact, it might be better if Obama broke his word on those campaign promises. One possible candidate is Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts before they expire in 2011. Many of those who voted for Obama supported his position on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but the financial crisis makes it hard for people to ardently favor repealing tax cuts, even for the wealthy. Between getting no money for oneself but seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, and getting money for oneself but not seeing the wealthy pay more taxes, the average citizen would probably choose the latter. Americans are more focused on their own financial circumstances right now. It would actually help Obama if he broke his campaign promise and let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 instead of actively repealing them before 2011. Then Obama would seem more practical for not effectively raising taxes on the wealthy at a time when both the non-wealthy and the wealthy are suffering. Furthermore, Obama could reconcile himself slightly with Republicans who still would not be happy that the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent, but who would be less unhappy than if the Bush tax cuts were actively repealed before 2011. The financial crisis, therefore, presents a way for Obama to cross party lines and gain some support from Republicans even if he cannot fulfill a campaign promise that seems untimely during this turbulent period.
The above arguments should not be construed as to belittle Obama’s ability to be president. Obama already has made great choices thus far, in fact, when selecting new members of his administration. He has reached across the partisan divide by choosing Peter Orszag to be the head of the Office of Management and Budget, someone who is respected by both Democrats and Republicans (Brooks). He has reached across the Democratic divide by hinting that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. Obama has given the impression that he will be a pragmatist, not an ideologue who will pursue his ideals at any cost. These are all accomplishments. But these accomplishments do not change the fact that Obama still enjoys an advantage of coming into office in a time of economic despair. Of course Obama has a hard road ahead of him; no one can deny that. Huge burdens of responsibility rest on Obama to show Americans and citizens of other countries that the plans and proposals he has will work to improve the economy. But Obama can devote all his energy to ensuring that his plans are sound instead of wasting time worrying about whether Congress will listen to a new president. He can piece together the details of his plans without worrying about whether Congress has the stamina to pass all of them one by one. Obama became president because the majority of voters believed that his plans would work. Now the financial crisis has greatly cleared the road of potential political hindrances that could have prevented Obama from implementing his plans. Now is the best opportunity for Obama to vindicate his supporters and prove that his detractors were wrong.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/zelizer.hundred/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?em
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.omb/
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who Owns the Republican Party? Palin?
As Obama looks to organize his administration, the Republicans look for what went wrong. Some commentators say that this was just a bad year for Republicans, with an unpopular incumbent and faltering economy. Others though, suggest that the party needs a change of message, or at least of image.
It is not yet clear what form that message shift might take, but it will not be an easy one. This is, after all, America’s conservative party, which is temperamentally inclined to favor proven ideas and the status quo. However, Obama’s resounding victory has left some wondering whether the Bush/McCain brand of conservatism is in fact a diminishing force.
Already, a number of Republicans are gearing up into the apparent power vacuum. There is currently no clear leader of the Republican Party, but a whole bunch of people are applying for the job.
Lacking the deep political knowledge to actually tell you who some of the unexpected candidates might be, I’m going to discuss the obvious one here – Sarah Palin.
Okay, what makes Palin a possible 2012 candidate? Her VP run has given her national visibility as of yet unmatched by any other possibility. Her personality has gained her a loyal following of “Sarah-ites” who love her because “she’s like me.” As an evangelical, she seems to hold the reins of the most powerful coalition remaining in the Republican Party.
Palin herself clearly is positioning for ascension to the national stage. Recently she conducting a barrage of interviews and hogged center stage at the convention of Republican governors.
But what about the cons? Her VP run has made visible her general incompetence on the issues. Her poor performance has already made many voters disdain her, and these votes lost are probably irredeemable. Other Republicans (particularly from within the McCain campaign) have already set out to sabotage her. Her strong stances send moderates running for the hills.
Ultimately, I think the pro-Palin faction is not a broad societal movement, but a passing fad. Since it is unlikely Miss Wasilla will have the opportunity to appoint herself to the Senate, she will spend the next four years governing the frigid north, generally out of the national spotlight. And when she does step into the spotlight, people from both the right and the left will be ready to point out her inadequacies. Though I expect Palin will remain popular with evangelicals, unless they become the sole dominating force on the right, that will not overcome the number of moderates she alienates.
I don’t think we have to fear a President Palin, but let’s not get complacent.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a8rBJX.lvwms&refer=home
http://www.examiner.com/x-1166-DC-Conservative-Examiner~y2008m11d17-Palins-run-was-the-peak-of-her-career
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/jpinkerton_1113/
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/517155.html
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2008/11/17/opinion/13318238.txt
It is not yet clear what form that message shift might take, but it will not be an easy one. This is, after all, America’s conservative party, which is temperamentally inclined to favor proven ideas and the status quo. However, Obama’s resounding victory has left some wondering whether the Bush/McCain brand of conservatism is in fact a diminishing force.
Already, a number of Republicans are gearing up into the apparent power vacuum. There is currently no clear leader of the Republican Party, but a whole bunch of people are applying for the job.
Lacking the deep political knowledge to actually tell you who some of the unexpected candidates might be, I’m going to discuss the obvious one here – Sarah Palin.
Okay, what makes Palin a possible 2012 candidate? Her VP run has given her national visibility as of yet unmatched by any other possibility. Her personality has gained her a loyal following of “Sarah-ites” who love her because “she’s like me.” As an evangelical, she seems to hold the reins of the most powerful coalition remaining in the Republican Party.
Palin herself clearly is positioning for ascension to the national stage. Recently she conducting a barrage of interviews and hogged center stage at the convention of Republican governors.
But what about the cons? Her VP run has made visible her general incompetence on the issues. Her poor performance has already made many voters disdain her, and these votes lost are probably irredeemable. Other Republicans (particularly from within the McCain campaign) have already set out to sabotage her. Her strong stances send moderates running for the hills.
Ultimately, I think the pro-Palin faction is not a broad societal movement, but a passing fad. Since it is unlikely Miss Wasilla will have the opportunity to appoint herself to the Senate, she will spend the next four years governing the frigid north, generally out of the national spotlight. And when she does step into the spotlight, people from both the right and the left will be ready to point out her inadequacies. Though I expect Palin will remain popular with evangelicals, unless they become the sole dominating force on the right, that will not overcome the number of moderates she alienates.
I don’t think we have to fear a President Palin, but let’s not get complacent.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a8rBJX.lvwms&refer=home
http://www.examiner.com/x-1166-DC-Conservative-Examiner~y2008m11d17-Palins-run-was-the-peak-of-her-career
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/11/13/jpinkerton_1113/
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/517155.html
http://www.timesanddemocrat.com/articles/2008/11/17/opinion/13318238.txt
Monday, November 17, 2008
Civil Rights In The New Millennium
As we are all aware, an amazing thing happened on November 4th. History was undoubtedly made and America’s took a step forward on its path to social progressivism by electing its first minority president. By November 5th, we had taken three steps back.
In perhaps the most heated social debate in the election season, with millions in spending on both sides, bans on marriage of homosexual couples were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. While I feel the passing of these measures were blatant and unjust impositions that effectively disenfranchised a recognized minority from their basic civil liberties, the dynamics of this election cycle have raised some interesting questions that strike the core of our democratic system. Are we essentially a morally conservative or theocratic democracy? Is it just for our legislation to forcibly shape the moral fiber of our society? And how far are individual liberties protected from the tyranny of the majority vote? When should the will of the people be overturned to protect our basic freedoms?
Although undoubtedly clouded by a biased view, I cannot understand the basis for Proposition 8 nor for its overwhelming support. If the controversy were merely an issue of religious conservatism, I would think that with our constitutional rights to freedom of religion would come protection from theocratic imposition. If the issue is centered about the notion of social structuring, as it seems to be, then, I ask, how is homosexuality disrupting the flow of our society? Surely, it’s not a problem of under-population, and the 50% divorce rate has already interrupted our traditional family unit (not to mention that marriage need not be defined by raising offspring). Again, I wonder, what gives? (Pardon the colloquialism.)
However, there is hope as California officials are urging the state Supreme Court to quickly see lawsuits looking to overturn the ban. With a bit of luck and public support, this sanction on civil liberties will be long forgotten.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/gay.marriage.court.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
In perhaps the most heated social debate in the election season, with millions in spending on both sides, bans on marriage of homosexual couples were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. While I feel the passing of these measures were blatant and unjust impositions that effectively disenfranchised a recognized minority from their basic civil liberties, the dynamics of this election cycle have raised some interesting questions that strike the core of our democratic system. Are we essentially a morally conservative or theocratic democracy? Is it just for our legislation to forcibly shape the moral fiber of our society? And how far are individual liberties protected from the tyranny of the majority vote? When should the will of the people be overturned to protect our basic freedoms?
Although undoubtedly clouded by a biased view, I cannot understand the basis for Proposition 8 nor for its overwhelming support. If the controversy were merely an issue of religious conservatism, I would think that with our constitutional rights to freedom of religion would come protection from theocratic imposition. If the issue is centered about the notion of social structuring, as it seems to be, then, I ask, how is homosexuality disrupting the flow of our society? Surely, it’s not a problem of under-population, and the 50% divorce rate has already interrupted our traditional family unit (not to mention that marriage need not be defined by raising offspring). Again, I wonder, what gives? (Pardon the colloquialism.)
However, there is hope as California officials are urging the state Supreme Court to quickly see lawsuits looking to overturn the ban. With a bit of luck and public support, this sanction on civil liberties will be long forgotten.
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/17/gay.marriage.court.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
New President, New Deal
The past few weeks have shown an interesting transition period in American politics. The current economic crisis is obviously first and foremost on our nation’s mind, but I have not found much reporting on our president-elect's potential long-term strategies (besides op-ed pieces). This is interesting, because I see a number of factors coming together that could allow Obama to move towards a sort of “New Deal;” maybe focusing on the economy, or energy initiatives and environment, but hopefully both.
A little history: for the moment I admire our current president for calling together the G20 summit, and especially for including the leaders of developing countries. This summit produced a communiqué telling worldwide “financial regulators to demand that banks create bigger liquidity cushions, assess their risk-management practices and boost capital requirements for certain risky investing practices,”(1) yet major decisions are to be left to “a second summit [in March 2009] just 101 days after Mr. Obama is sworn in.”(1) The President-elect declined to attend the summit; his first economic move since the election has been to ask for a partial bailout of GM.
While I won’t try to debate the potential effectiveness of this economic decision, it is a little disappointing that Obama is first voicing concern over this matter. It's obviously cautious to not want the first aspect of your presidency to be the failing of the Detroit Three. Even if this is a good economic move, I wish he could find something better for us long-term from this crisis. Not only because Obama has been the candidate of change, but because of the current situation. First, the second G20 summit is well-situated for Obama to assume a leading economic role. Bush, already a lame-duck, either did not push for too much in this first session, or knew he would not be able to. On the flip side, though, by all accounts the Bush administration is making an excellent effort to help the Obama team make a smooth transition into the White House. If Obama continues to make Cabinet appointments at record rates, coupled with the Pennsylvania Avenue security clearance already being granted to his aides, his team should already have plans in place by January. And while the knee-jerk, short term boosting of the US economy has already been made in Washington, and legislation is starting to settle down, I think both legislators and the public are looking for structural change to the economy.
Now, Obama has a few bullet points on the situation, for example “Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America” and “Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.”(2) Both good ideas, yet nothing revolutionary. It is my hope that President Obama will instead introduce a great number of programs to restructure the economy. Al Gore has outlined one such persuasive course of action by creating multiple programs oriented towards "reversing climate change and ridding ourselves of foreign energy dependence."(3) Professor Paul Krugman also advocates for a New Deal of sorts, in which bold short-term moves could engineer a full economic recovery, even more so that Roosevelt did. In his words, "Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity."(4)
As I said many more, although less visible, journalists have written op-ed pieces of the same vein. Considering this, and the favorable situation outlined above, I hope the lack of leaked ideas from the Obama camp will turn into a flood of reform once he takes office.
(1) New York Times, “As Leaders Wrestle with Economy, Developing Nations Get Ringside Seats,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/16leaders.html?scp=2&sq=g20&st=cse
(2) change.gov, Energy & Environment, http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/
(3)New York Times, "The Climate for Change," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?pagewanted=2
(4)New York Times, “Franklin Delano Obama?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?scp=2&sq=%22new+deal%22&st=nyt
A little history: for the moment I admire our current president for calling together the G20 summit, and especially for including the leaders of developing countries. This summit produced a communiqué telling worldwide “financial regulators to demand that banks create bigger liquidity cushions, assess their risk-management practices and boost capital requirements for certain risky investing practices,”(1) yet major decisions are to be left to “a second summit [in March 2009] just 101 days after Mr. Obama is sworn in.”(1) The President-elect declined to attend the summit; his first economic move since the election has been to ask for a partial bailout of GM.
While I won’t try to debate the potential effectiveness of this economic decision, it is a little disappointing that Obama is first voicing concern over this matter. It's obviously cautious to not want the first aspect of your presidency to be the failing of the Detroit Three. Even if this is a good economic move, I wish he could find something better for us long-term from this crisis. Not only because Obama has been the candidate of change, but because of the current situation. First, the second G20 summit is well-situated for Obama to assume a leading economic role. Bush, already a lame-duck, either did not push for too much in this first session, or knew he would not be able to. On the flip side, though, by all accounts the Bush administration is making an excellent effort to help the Obama team make a smooth transition into the White House. If Obama continues to make Cabinet appointments at record rates, coupled with the Pennsylvania Avenue security clearance already being granted to his aides, his team should already have plans in place by January. And while the knee-jerk, short term boosting of the US economy has already been made in Washington, and legislation is starting to settle down, I think both legislators and the public are looking for structural change to the economy.
Now, Obama has a few bullet points on the situation, for example “Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America” and “Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.”(2) Both good ideas, yet nothing revolutionary. It is my hope that President Obama will instead introduce a great number of programs to restructure the economy. Al Gore has outlined one such persuasive course of action by creating multiple programs oriented towards "reversing climate change and ridding ourselves of foreign energy dependence."(3) Professor Paul Krugman also advocates for a New Deal of sorts, in which bold short-term moves could engineer a full economic recovery, even more so that Roosevelt did. In his words, "Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity."(4)
As I said many more, although less visible, journalists have written op-ed pieces of the same vein. Considering this, and the favorable situation outlined above, I hope the lack of leaked ideas from the Obama camp will turn into a flood of reform once he takes office.
(1) New York Times, “As Leaders Wrestle with Economy, Developing Nations Get Ringside Seats,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/washington/16leaders.html?scp=2&sq=g20&st=cse
(2) change.gov, Energy & Environment, http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/
(3)New York Times, "The Climate for Change," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09gore.html?pagewanted=2
(4)New York Times, “Franklin Delano Obama?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?scp=2&sq=%22new+deal%22&st=nyt
Monday, November 10, 2008
It’s Time to Take Control of Rent Laws
Especially given today’s turbulent markets and lasting housing crisis, it seems easy, at least on an emotional level, to demand help for those plagued with high costs of living to be given relief. Even with falling home values, a 2007 Census Department study found that “almost 15 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage -- were spending half of their income or more just on their mortgage, property taxes and insurance.” With food costs spiraling higher almost as much as the stock market spirals lower, half of one’s income spent on one expenditure is exorbitant. Still, the idea of controlling rents or mortgages is not the answer, and doing so causes more problems than are otherwise solved.
Rent control is, in the United States, fairly widespread, with many major cities having some form or another of price controls. New York City was the first city to implement rent control; President Roosevelt signed a federal bill into law in 1943. Other cities were soon to follow. Still, some cities, such as Boston, ended rent control by state referendum in 1994, though no major rent control laws have been changed since then.
This is likely due to the theory of why rent controls should be in place. Proponents of rent control argue that artificially lowering prices, though against the free market, reduces rent costs for lower and middle class individuals and families who would otherwise not be able to live in expensive housing. Proponents argue that though landlords may make less money than they otherwise would, rent control protects working families from having to live in cheap, dirty, and dangerous housing.
Unfortunately, rent control, overall, does much more harm to society than good, acting as a conventional price ceiling that, while exhibiting the small benefits of such a ceiling, shares all of the negative characteristics. Assuredly, there are some clear winners and losers when it comes to rent control: those who are renting a rent controlled apartment pay less than they otherwise would while those who rent a controlled room receive less than they otherwise would. However, rent control—and price control—share four further consequences that are not superficially apparent: inefficient allocation of goods to consumers, wasted resources, inefficiently low quality, and illegal activity.
First, when it comes to the allocation of apartments to consumers, rent control causes shortages. This makes it fairly clear why apartments are allocated inefficiently to consumers. As there are shortages—because at the artificially lower price many more people would want to rent an apartment than at the normal equilibrium price—the kind of people who can get apartments often have special connections or some other insider ties. This means that they people who want to rent an apartment the most, those would be willing to pay the most money for one, are often the people who are shirked out of available housing. Rent control also causes consumers to waste resources, namely time, looking for apartments because there is such high demand and resultant shortages. The New York Times reports that some in San Francisco literally must look for months to find available housing. In addition, artificially controlling prices has the effect of making the apartments that are rented of inefficiently low quality. This is due to the fact that because demand is so high, and renters are so fortunate to be able to rent a home for less than it is actually worth, the landlords—partially to make a greater profit and partially to make up for the fact that they are receiving unfairly low levels of rent—will make the quality of the homes overly poor. This translates into, for example, old and unsafe elevators in apartment buildings, or unpainted and dirty hallways. Basically, landlords have no incentive to improve the quality of the housing units, as consumers, due to the high demand, will rent them anyway. Finally, rent control has the unintended consequence of providing tremendous incentives for the creation of black markets, or illegal market transactions. For example, this can happen if, because a consumer truly desires to live in a rent-controlled apartment, and has the means, she will agree, contractually, to pay the rent-controlled price, but then slip the landlord some money on the side. Renters also have an incentive to illegally sublet their apartments for more than the market price. In sum, though rent control may cause those who are lucky enough to find apartments to pay lower prices, this comes at the price of a host of other inefficiencies.
Apart from economic arguments, one must ask whether rent control is even theoretically justified, approached from a rights perspective. Certainly Nozick, but possibly other political philosophers that we have read, have argued for the importance of rights, specifically property rights. For the government (or any other source of power) to artificially cheapen the value of one’s property through rent control is to in effect rob that person of their wealth, a clear violation of rights. If we reflect, is this an acceptable equilibrium?
Finally, due to the myriad problems with rent control, others have proposed solutions that accomplish the same goals—but without the problems. These goals are to find affordable housing for lower and middle class citizens. An effective solution would be housing subsidies, or providing money or a credit to individuals who cannot afford housing themselves. Other, though possibly more indirect solutions relate to the earned income tax credit, another way for the government to provide transfer payments that people can choose to use for housing. Both of these solutions bypass the economic inefficiencies that are associated with rent control.
Paul Krugman, in 2000, wrote an editorial in the New York Times harshly critical of New York’s rent control laws. In it, he alludes to the so-called Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy, namely that which is agreed upon most the most economists will be followed the least. Indeed, Krugman states, 93% of economists agree that rent control reduces both the quality and quantity of housing. Still, I’m optimistic that rent control will soon be a political issue of the past. Until then, it won’t be just Murphy’s Law that causes my toilet to overflow.
Sources:
Krugman, Paul, and Robin Wells. Economics. New York: Worth Publisher, 2006. 87-88.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101000049_pf.html
http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3D61438F936A25755C0A9659C8B63
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Rent control is, in the United States, fairly widespread, with many major cities having some form or another of price controls. New York City was the first city to implement rent control; President Roosevelt signed a federal bill into law in 1943. Other cities were soon to follow. Still, some cities, such as Boston, ended rent control by state referendum in 1994, though no major rent control laws have been changed since then.
This is likely due to the theory of why rent controls should be in place. Proponents of rent control argue that artificially lowering prices, though against the free market, reduces rent costs for lower and middle class individuals and families who would otherwise not be able to live in expensive housing. Proponents argue that though landlords may make less money than they otherwise would, rent control protects working families from having to live in cheap, dirty, and dangerous housing.
Unfortunately, rent control, overall, does much more harm to society than good, acting as a conventional price ceiling that, while exhibiting the small benefits of such a ceiling, shares all of the negative characteristics. Assuredly, there are some clear winners and losers when it comes to rent control: those who are renting a rent controlled apartment pay less than they otherwise would while those who rent a controlled room receive less than they otherwise would. However, rent control—and price control—share four further consequences that are not superficially apparent: inefficient allocation of goods to consumers, wasted resources, inefficiently low quality, and illegal activity.
First, when it comes to the allocation of apartments to consumers, rent control causes shortages. This makes it fairly clear why apartments are allocated inefficiently to consumers. As there are shortages—because at the artificially lower price many more people would want to rent an apartment than at the normal equilibrium price—the kind of people who can get apartments often have special connections or some other insider ties. This means that they people who want to rent an apartment the most, those would be willing to pay the most money for one, are often the people who are shirked out of available housing. Rent control also causes consumers to waste resources, namely time, looking for apartments because there is such high demand and resultant shortages. The New York Times reports that some in San Francisco literally must look for months to find available housing. In addition, artificially controlling prices has the effect of making the apartments that are rented of inefficiently low quality. This is due to the fact that because demand is so high, and renters are so fortunate to be able to rent a home for less than it is actually worth, the landlords—partially to make a greater profit and partially to make up for the fact that they are receiving unfairly low levels of rent—will make the quality of the homes overly poor. This translates into, for example, old and unsafe elevators in apartment buildings, or unpainted and dirty hallways. Basically, landlords have no incentive to improve the quality of the housing units, as consumers, due to the high demand, will rent them anyway. Finally, rent control has the unintended consequence of providing tremendous incentives for the creation of black markets, or illegal market transactions. For example, this can happen if, because a consumer truly desires to live in a rent-controlled apartment, and has the means, she will agree, contractually, to pay the rent-controlled price, but then slip the landlord some money on the side. Renters also have an incentive to illegally sublet their apartments for more than the market price. In sum, though rent control may cause those who are lucky enough to find apartments to pay lower prices, this comes at the price of a host of other inefficiencies.
Apart from economic arguments, one must ask whether rent control is even theoretically justified, approached from a rights perspective. Certainly Nozick, but possibly other political philosophers that we have read, have argued for the importance of rights, specifically property rights. For the government (or any other source of power) to artificially cheapen the value of one’s property through rent control is to in effect rob that person of their wealth, a clear violation of rights. If we reflect, is this an acceptable equilibrium?
Finally, due to the myriad problems with rent control, others have proposed solutions that accomplish the same goals—but without the problems. These goals are to find affordable housing for lower and middle class citizens. An effective solution would be housing subsidies, or providing money or a credit to individuals who cannot afford housing themselves. Other, though possibly more indirect solutions relate to the earned income tax credit, another way for the government to provide transfer payments that people can choose to use for housing. Both of these solutions bypass the economic inefficiencies that are associated with rent control.
Paul Krugman, in 2000, wrote an editorial in the New York Times harshly critical of New York’s rent control laws. In it, he alludes to the so-called Murphy’s Law of Economic Policy, namely that which is agreed upon most the most economists will be followed the least. Indeed, Krugman states, 93% of economists agree that rent control reduces both the quality and quantity of housing. Still, I’m optimistic that rent control will soon be a political issue of the past. Until then, it won’t be just Murphy’s Law that causes my toilet to overflow.
Sources:
Krugman, Paul, and Robin Wells. Economics. New York: Worth Publisher, 2006. 87-88.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101000049_pf.html
http://www.tenant.net/Oversight/50yrRentReg/history.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3D61438F936A25755C0A9659C8B63
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E4DF153FF934A35755C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Inequality of Public Defender Income
Everybody hates lawyers. That was the impression I got as a kid whenever my parents derided them or whenever I heard any lawyer jokes (quite a few). Eventually I came to realize that the biggest reason that lawyers are widely hated is that they make a ton of money. I concluded that to people who are not lawyers – like my parents – the vast sums of money they earn seem undeserved. This perception surely is not true for public defenders.
Public defenders generally get a good rep. People view public defenders like they view district attorneys, as hardworking lawyers working for a good cause. They argue just like the lawyers of top law-firms, but they do not get as much compensation, to say the least. To citizens who do not understand the significance of Gideon v. Wainright, however, public defenders are seen to be on the “wrong” side: the side of the criminals. Unlike district attorneys who are working to clean up the streets and crack down on crime, public defenders are straining to defend, among others, the very people who committed the crimes. So public defenders are the class of lawyers that are treated the worst: they earn neither the income of their private-practice counterparts, nor the moral support of most citizens. Recently, moreover, public defenders have been hurting even more heavily.
With the recent economic downturn, states have intensified their budget cuts. One resulting group of victims is the public defenders. Their workloads have increased drastically while their income has not; Miami-Dade Country lawyers have seen the number of felony cases per year per lawyer increase from 367 to 500 in just the last three years. Defenders are now strained to the point where they have begun to refuse new cases assigned by the state or have sued to refuse them. Some Florida officials have responded that the justice department simply has to bear the pain of a smaller budget just like any other department in the state. In response to this “take one for the team” mentality, once could argue that certain outcomes of inadequate public defender compensation, explored later on, violate the Constitution whereas inadequate budgets for the state agriculture department, for example, would not be as serious. Even if the above point is not true, however, the fact still stands that public defenders are not compensated enough when the economy did flourish. States should drastically increase compensation for its public defenders.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders double-fold, by lowering incomes and increasing caseloads, everyone gets hurt: public defenders, poor defendants, and the state all suffer. Public defenders suffer because they are incentivized to leave their position and find more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Sure, they will earn more money in the private sector, but they must take into account the opportunity cost of finding another job, undergoing the interview process, potentially moving to another city and settling down all over again, producing additional strains on themselves and their families. Public defenders are not compensated for what they deserve. If the nation places such a high importance on the jobs of public defenders that the very nature of their job is referenced in the Sixth Amendment and further reaffirmed in a Supreme Court case, then public defenders deserve to be compensated more. One can argue that the reasons why a public defender suffers are trivial because most of them end up earning more money by switching to private practice, thereby solving their own problems. But let us examine the problems of the defendants, which cannot be solved so easily.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders, the defendants suffer. Public defenders who are under immense stress from having to deal with so many cases simply cannot defend the accused successfully. Many public defenders only have time to review the general details of a defendant’s case. They have to accept and argue based on the police version of events because they do not have the time or funds to do more investigation into the minute details of a particular case. Because many petty crime cases share the same general details, and because public defenders must group cases by general details to be able to attend to all of their required cases, then the defendants are, in a sense, getting a cookiecutter defense; public defenders are unable to tailor each case to the specific circumstances of the crime, which would be more effective in gaining a verdict of innocent. Cookiecutter defenses are not equal to the defenses of richer defendants, so the poorer defendants suffer.
In addition, public defenders who are short on time are much more eager to convince their defendants to accept guilty pleas, thereby pressuring defendants to take a particular course of action that, unpressured, they might not take. A public defendant can easily use his position of authority to make it seem as if a guilty plea is the surest bet for a defendant and the safest path for him to take, when in fact the public defendant might only be saying so to help himself catch up with other cases. These examples are not uncommon and would mean that a public defender is not working purely on behalf of the defendant.
Finally, the state suffers when its public defenders do not receive adequate pay. The high turnover rate of public defenders means that after a certain point, the most experienced public defenders end up switching to private practice or alternative careers because they cannot handle the stress anymore and because they have to care for their families. As a result, the most experienced public defenders are continuously replaced by the inexperienced novices. On the whole, then, states suffer because they cannot do as good a job of defending the indigent accused because their best lawyers are always headed out the door. So although the state has twin paradoxical duties of prosecuting the indigent accused and also defending the indigent accused, the exit rate of the most experienced public defenders means that the state is not fulfilling at least one of those two duties.
A further implication of the high turnover rate is the state’s recurrent loss of money. When the experienced public defenders leave, the state must pay to train their less experienced replacements. Training costs both money and time. The time spent on training is intensified because those who train the novices are not the most experienced public defenders—they have already left! So public defenders with moderate experience do the training, which takes a longer time than if the most experience defenders did the training. But then the added stress on the moderately experience defenders increases: they have to train the novices and also worry about their own cases, thereby furthering the pressure on them to eventually quit the public service. Additionally, the money spent by the state on training would decrease its funds even more, leading to more budget cuts for the justice department in the future, which in turn leads to lower incomes for the defenders, leading to a higher turnover rate and more training for replacements, which causes more money. The state is then caught in a devastating positive feedback loop in which it must pay more and more money. A possible caveat is if the state increases the income of defenders with more experience, so that if a defender with ample experience leaves, the state can used the saved money to hire a cheaper replacement. But the increase in income for more experienced public defenders does not seem significantly high, or else they probably would not complain and quit.
Finally, perhaps the worst drawback for the state of low incomes is the fact that public defenders are persuaded not to do what they love. Public defenders love their jobs, which is why many of them have endured the piling on of cases for many years. But there comes a point where staying with the occupation one loves is not practical anymore—one has to think about the family. Many idealistic people start out as public defenders with a certain dream of doing what is right – providing counsel for the indigent so they are not taken advantaged of in the court system – regardless of pay. But sooner or later this idealism is destroyed, after which point public defenders then switch jobs. The destruction for this idealism is dangerous for any state because people lose their love for doing what is right, leading to less enthusiastic, and therefore less effective, public defenders. If these formerly idealistic, now cynical defenders pass their lessons on to the next generation, this loss of idealism could potentially be severe enough to be recognized, but by that time it will have been too late for the state. Maybe one day there will not even be enough public defenders who are initially idealistic and believe in the moral righteousness of providing counsel for those too poor to otherwise have it.
Everyone loses when states do not compensate public defenders enough. It is not that states should increase their incomes even in desperate times of financial woe; rather, it is that states should definitely increase their incomes in times of prosperity. As Rawls argued, inequalities should only exist when they help the least advantaged. The very essence of public defenders is helping the least advantaged. Their important role deserves to be recognized with higher incomes. If the compensation for public defenders were unequal compared to that of others, then those who originally did not consider this occupation would be drawn in, leading to more effective representation for underprivileged dependents, and those who originally were involved in this occupation would not lose their sense of right and wrong. So states should make the compensation for public defenders unequal—by paying them much more, not by paying them much less.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?pagewanted=2&em
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/
Public defenders generally get a good rep. People view public defenders like they view district attorneys, as hardworking lawyers working for a good cause. They argue just like the lawyers of top law-firms, but they do not get as much compensation, to say the least. To citizens who do not understand the significance of Gideon v. Wainright, however, public defenders are seen to be on the “wrong” side: the side of the criminals. Unlike district attorneys who are working to clean up the streets and crack down on crime, public defenders are straining to defend, among others, the very people who committed the crimes. So public defenders are the class of lawyers that are treated the worst: they earn neither the income of their private-practice counterparts, nor the moral support of most citizens. Recently, moreover, public defenders have been hurting even more heavily.
With the recent economic downturn, states have intensified their budget cuts. One resulting group of victims is the public defenders. Their workloads have increased drastically while their income has not; Miami-Dade Country lawyers have seen the number of felony cases per year per lawyer increase from 367 to 500 in just the last three years. Defenders are now strained to the point where they have begun to refuse new cases assigned by the state or have sued to refuse them. Some Florida officials have responded that the justice department simply has to bear the pain of a smaller budget just like any other department in the state. In response to this “take one for the team” mentality, once could argue that certain outcomes of inadequate public defender compensation, explored later on, violate the Constitution whereas inadequate budgets for the state agriculture department, for example, would not be as serious. Even if the above point is not true, however, the fact still stands that public defenders are not compensated enough when the economy did flourish. States should drastically increase compensation for its public defenders.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders double-fold, by lowering incomes and increasing caseloads, everyone gets hurt: public defenders, poor defendants, and the state all suffer. Public defenders suffer because they are incentivized to leave their position and find more lucrative jobs in the private sector. Sure, they will earn more money in the private sector, but they must take into account the opportunity cost of finding another job, undergoing the interview process, potentially moving to another city and settling down all over again, producing additional strains on themselves and their families. Public defenders are not compensated for what they deserve. If the nation places such a high importance on the jobs of public defenders that the very nature of their job is referenced in the Sixth Amendment and further reaffirmed in a Supreme Court case, then public defenders deserve to be compensated more. One can argue that the reasons why a public defender suffers are trivial because most of them end up earning more money by switching to private practice, thereby solving their own problems. But let us examine the problems of the defendants, which cannot be solved so easily.
When the state increases the burden on public defenders, the defendants suffer. Public defenders who are under immense stress from having to deal with so many cases simply cannot defend the accused successfully. Many public defenders only have time to review the general details of a defendant’s case. They have to accept and argue based on the police version of events because they do not have the time or funds to do more investigation into the minute details of a particular case. Because many petty crime cases share the same general details, and because public defenders must group cases by general details to be able to attend to all of their required cases, then the defendants are, in a sense, getting a cookiecutter defense; public defenders are unable to tailor each case to the specific circumstances of the crime, which would be more effective in gaining a verdict of innocent. Cookiecutter defenses are not equal to the defenses of richer defendants, so the poorer defendants suffer.
In addition, public defenders who are short on time are much more eager to convince their defendants to accept guilty pleas, thereby pressuring defendants to take a particular course of action that, unpressured, they might not take. A public defendant can easily use his position of authority to make it seem as if a guilty plea is the surest bet for a defendant and the safest path for him to take, when in fact the public defendant might only be saying so to help himself catch up with other cases. These examples are not uncommon and would mean that a public defender is not working purely on behalf of the defendant.
Finally, the state suffers when its public defenders do not receive adequate pay. The high turnover rate of public defenders means that after a certain point, the most experienced public defenders end up switching to private practice or alternative careers because they cannot handle the stress anymore and because they have to care for their families. As a result, the most experienced public defenders are continuously replaced by the inexperienced novices. On the whole, then, states suffer because they cannot do as good a job of defending the indigent accused because their best lawyers are always headed out the door. So although the state has twin paradoxical duties of prosecuting the indigent accused and also defending the indigent accused, the exit rate of the most experienced public defenders means that the state is not fulfilling at least one of those two duties.
A further implication of the high turnover rate is the state’s recurrent loss of money. When the experienced public defenders leave, the state must pay to train their less experienced replacements. Training costs both money and time. The time spent on training is intensified because those who train the novices are not the most experienced public defenders—they have already left! So public defenders with moderate experience do the training, which takes a longer time than if the most experience defenders did the training. But then the added stress on the moderately experience defenders increases: they have to train the novices and also worry about their own cases, thereby furthering the pressure on them to eventually quit the public service. Additionally, the money spent by the state on training would decrease its funds even more, leading to more budget cuts for the justice department in the future, which in turn leads to lower incomes for the defenders, leading to a higher turnover rate and more training for replacements, which causes more money. The state is then caught in a devastating positive feedback loop in which it must pay more and more money. A possible caveat is if the state increases the income of defenders with more experience, so that if a defender with ample experience leaves, the state can used the saved money to hire a cheaper replacement. But the increase in income for more experienced public defenders does not seem significantly high, or else they probably would not complain and quit.
Finally, perhaps the worst drawback for the state of low incomes is the fact that public defenders are persuaded not to do what they love. Public defenders love their jobs, which is why many of them have endured the piling on of cases for many years. But there comes a point where staying with the occupation one loves is not practical anymore—one has to think about the family. Many idealistic people start out as public defenders with a certain dream of doing what is right – providing counsel for the indigent so they are not taken advantaged of in the court system – regardless of pay. But sooner or later this idealism is destroyed, after which point public defenders then switch jobs. The destruction for this idealism is dangerous for any state because people lose their love for doing what is right, leading to less enthusiastic, and therefore less effective, public defenders. If these formerly idealistic, now cynical defenders pass their lessons on to the next generation, this loss of idealism could potentially be severe enough to be recognized, but by that time it will have been too late for the state. Maybe one day there will not even be enough public defenders who are initially idealistic and believe in the moral righteousness of providing counsel for those too poor to otherwise have it.
Everyone loses when states do not compensate public defenders enough. It is not that states should increase their incomes even in desperate times of financial woe; rather, it is that states should definitely increase their incomes in times of prosperity. As Rawls argued, inequalities should only exist when they help the least advantaged. The very essence of public defenders is helping the least advantaged. Their important role deserves to be recognized with higher incomes. If the compensation for public defenders were unequal compared to that of others, then those who originally did not consider this occupation would be drawn in, leading to more effective representation for underprivileged dependents, and those who originally were involved in this occupation would not lose their sense of right and wrong. So states should make the compensation for public defenders unequal—by paying them much more, not by paying them much less.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09defender.html?pagewanted=2&em
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
