The Plight of the Baron

I think it's a safe assumption that some of the least interesting writing on the internet can be found in any given website's commentary.  Of course, there are wonderful exceptions to this rule to be found on any number of blogs, especially the smaller ones where actual discussion takes place and is frequently enlightening.  The New York Times commentary, owing to the size of its readership, is too large for dialogue.  But through a recommendation system provides both a somewhat edited digest of responses as well as an (admittedly unscientific) feel for the value readers place on the expression of particular views.

So, where the hell am I going with all this?  OK, so the times did an editorial today championing the Obama administration's commitment to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the requirement for voter registration at state food stamps and welfare offices.  Popularly known as the "Motor Voter" act, it mainly focused on registration at DMVs, and thusly was widely praised.  The welfare part, not so much. 

I remember as a young man in the mid-90's working for a company that delivered meals to people with AIDs, driving around the streets of San Francisco listening to conservative schlock-jock Michael Savage.   A memorable moment came - oh, but weren't there many?!!! - when during an interview with then Republican presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan, the two just couldn't seem to get over the idea that we should actually be trying to get poor people to vote.  I suppose that there is a logic to the fact that poor people tend to vote Democratic, especially in the city, and that you wouldn't want to support your political opponent in any way.  But if your ideology depends at least in part on the disenfranchisement of certain sectors of the public, you may need to rethink your ideology.

Well the fangs came out in the NY Times commentary section today.  The first 20 responses were almost entirely along these lines:

"Maybe everyone should quit trying to find employment and just go down to the blasted welfare office...
The Democrats need to start caring about working Americans...
Every voter needs to remember that our very freedom is at stake...
The Democratic Party - the party of dependency....
I think that spoon feeding registration to citizens who are otherwise unwilling to independently pursue it dilutes an electorate that seems only marginally civic-minded as it is...."

You get the point.  (Remember, part of my writing this blog is the hope that by inflicting my witness to insanity on you, dear readers, knowing that you've now experienced the insanity might give me catharsis.  Is there a word for such a thing?  Schadenfrarsis?)  But I was taken aback by the sort of FOX-frenzyishness that apparently had penetrated my New York Times.  I thought this was my bastion of liberal elitism?  Anyway, it's not usually quite this bad. 

But just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I came across a particularly eloquent comment that seemed to say what the others wanted to, but likely lacked the proper combination of historical ignorance, anti-democratic illiberality, and crude hatred:

I totally agree with all the posters saying that voting should be a conditional right. In fact, I think votes should be earned and apportioned in exactly the following way:                                       1) No job or education -- 1/5 vote.
2) Get an education through college -- 2/5 vote.
3) Have a job but no education -- 2/5 vote.
4) Have education and a job -- 3/5 vote.
5) Have a job and don't own property -- 4/5 vote.
6) Have a job and own property -- 1 vote.
7) In prison, on the street, mentally ill, 0 votes.

Then there are the situations where people contribute more than their fair share, and therefore have more of a stake in ensuring things go correctly. Of course, these people should have more than 1 vote. So I suggest this:

1) One vote per every post-graduate masters degree earned (not including professional degrees).
2) Two votes for every professional degree (MD, JD, MBA, etc). Obviously someone with a professional degree has a higher stake in ensuring the government runs smoothly.
3) One vote per home owned. So if a person owns 2 homes they get 2 votes, 3 homes 3 votes, etc.
4) If a person owns a business where they employ other people, they get 1 vote for each employee. So a person with one hundred employees gets 100 votes, one with a thousand employees gets a thousand, and so on.

Talk about taking it old-school.  This guy is going medieval.  I mean, to his credit, this is an improvement on the Magna Carta.  Hey, Republicans may not be aiming very high, but no one can say they aren't classy.

*** Interesting to note, there is much in this argument that conservatives extend into free speech, specifically with regard to money and politics.  Unfortunately on that issue this logic has been taken seriously, by no less than the supreme court.  Just as corrupting and undemocratic when applied to free speech, this argument has similar consequences: by allowing unlimited money in politics, the outcome is no less than mass-manipulation of the process of democratic enfranchisement. 

Certainly Uncertain

Brad De Long weighs in on the new Republican argument of uncertainty, or the idea that Democratic policy initiatives (repealing tax cuts, heal care, cap & trade, stimulus deficit spending, etc.) are driving uncertainty in the business world, which in turn is keeping businesses from hiring.

In 2001 and 2003 George W. Bush and his Republicans created an enormous amount of uncertainty for American businesses. They deliberately unbalanced the federal budget for the long term, enacting tax cuts and spending increases, leaving businesses uncertain of who or what would be taxed in the future in order to restore eventual budgetary balance--and uncertain of whether the ultimate balancer might be another prolonged outburst of high inflation.

In 1994 the Republican Party, united behind Robert Dole and Newt Gingrich, created an enormous amount of uncertainty for American businesses by blocking the Democratic effort to bring health-insurance costs onto some sustainable trajectory. Ever since then American businesses have faced enormous uncertainty: they have no idea how expensive the health coverage they have traditionally offered will be a decade hence.

Barack Obama, in a year and a half, has taken very large steps to dissipate these sources of uncertainty, to bring the long-term budget back toward balance--so businesses no longer have to worry that they will be victims of some sudden and random confiscatory tax--and to bring health care under control--so businesses no longer have to worry that their profits will be eaten up by the health-insurance administrators.

It is a better and less uncertain long-term environment for American business than any since the 1990s, or perhaps even the 1960s.

I actually really like this new argument. I think conservatives need to just start using it for everything: I don't like gay marriage because I'm uncertain about it. I don't like Obama because I'm uncertain about him. We need to cut taxes because they cause me to feel uncertain. I don't believe in science, or academic experts, or the media. This makes me really uncertain. I don't like it. I'm not certain why, but I just don't.

The Elite Is Us

Kevin Drum finds himself agreeing with Peggy Noonan when she writes:

The country I was born into was a country that had existed steadily, for almost two centuries, as a nation in which everyone thought — wherever they were from, whatever their circumstances — that their children would have better lives than they did....Parents now fear something has stopped....They look around, follow the political stories and debates, and deep down they think their children will live in a more limited country, that jobs won't be made at a great enough pace, that taxes — too many people in the cart, not enough pulling it — will dishearten them, that the effects of 30 years of a low, sad culture will leave the whole country messed up.

Of course, his reasons are different:

It's not high taxes (which are lower than any time in recent history) or social changes (which have been overwhelmingly positive) that bother me, it's the fact that we increasingly seem to be led by a social elite that's simply lost interest in the good of the country. They were wealthy 30 years ago, they've gotten incomparably more wealthy since then, and yet they seem to care about little except amassing ever more wealth and endlessly scheming to reduce their tax burdens further.  Shipping off our kids on a growing succession of costly foreign adventures is OK, but funding healthcare or unemployment benefits or economic stimulus in the midst of a world-historical recession is beyond the pale.

Drum makes a mistake here that is all too common.  While things have gotten much worse and government policies are failing dramatically, the blame for it does not lie with a social elite.  Sure, one exists, but whether or not it has the best interests of the country at heart is irrelevant and probably unknowable.  The blame lies with the vast numbers of Americans who support the policies that have lead us here.  They have elected the state and local leaders who have pushed for war, opposed funding healthcare, unemployment benefits and stimulus.

Now, one could argue that they are all mindless followers of the propaganda that a social elite delivers.  And this is surely true to a degree.  But it's not a very serious argument.  What we are talking about here is a radical conservative movement that has been building for decades.  It takes two to tango and there is something within the conservative philosophy itself that they are responding to.  To simply say that this large number of Americans bears no responsibility for their beliefs is nonsense.  Whatever propaganda they are digesting works because it rings true for them.  It makes connections deep within their religious and social values and norms.  If we are to truly understand this current of conservative anger and social nihilism that is tearing the country apart, we must start by looking not at some conspiratorial elite, but at our friends and neighbors.

We're Paying What for What?!!!!

Well, it's that time of year again.  Republicans are posting their latest and greatest examples of wasteful government spending.  As usual, the list includes colorful projects chosen to appear as silly as possible:

• $1.9 million for international ant research
• $89,298 to replace a new sidewalk that leads to a ditch in Boynton, OK
• $760,000 to Georgia Tech to study improvised music  

So I have a question for these folks.  Should the government ever be involved in scientific research, transportation infrastructure, or national parks?  I assume the answer is yes.  At which point the question becomes how to separate out the useful from the non-useful spending.  Of course, in a recession, there's also the question of whether stimulus works.  Keynesians would likely argue that, in terms of stimulus, how you spend money is less important than how fast you can spend it.  Keynes famously said of stimulus theory:

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

Setting aside for a moment whether any of the published list is useful, the government spends a ton of money in each of those areas.  For every questionable project, there are plenty of very unquestionable ones.  The problem I have with this perennial endeavor is that it often frames the problem as an existential one: "We need government out of our lives!"  Well, no.  We need government to not waste money.  I return to the first question I asked.

Now for the specific projects.  I'm not going to go and check every single one to see whether it makes sense.  I have better things to do.  But I guarantee you that when looked at more seriously, many of these so-called wasteful projects end up making more sense.  Science often works this way.  Just because the research involves ants or rat sperm it doesn't mean it isn't important.  It just makes for a nice Republican punch-line.

In the end, lists like these are dishonest.  They cherry-pick items, finding the most silly sounding even if the actual project might be important.  Then they're used as a way of arguing that because government is sometimes wasteful, it is always bad.  But the totals generally amount to a drop in the bucket of federal spending. 

What's more, there are areas of the government in which spending is rarely questioned.  Because Republicans tend to love anything involving the military, they rarely spend much time picking over that colossal piece of the budget.  But since it is spending they have an affinity for, they simply ignore it.  That's hypocrisy. 

I'll admit there is waste.  But I'd like to see a more honest and objective discussion, rather than the immature petulance.

A Better Dialogue on Race

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter are back with their usual arch commentary on race in a recent Bloggingheads.  Both express great boredom with the endless cycles of this hoary American Dialogue.  I grant that it is perpetually juvenile and superficial.  But when John calls the whole enterprise "unnecessary", I entirely disagree.

I would distinguish between what could be learned and the tendency for little to be learned.  I agree that much of it tends to be theater - but that doesn't mean there isn't anything of substance to be learned, or discussed.  The problem is that so much of our political discourse is simply hackish in general.  Partisanship, talking points and scorekeeping take the day.

So when Glenn and John say there is nothing to be learned (again, I prefer "discussed"), I think that's really not true.  For instance let's take the Rand Paul flap.  The libertarian/tea party willingness to even entertain such foolishness speaks volumes about their priorities, and especially their view of race and class in America. 

This is how I see it being important: Paul's anti-civil rights view diminishes the legacy of racism, resulting current social and human capital in minority communities.  He and Tea Party's homogeneity and claims of "government intrusion" largely framed around minority/welfare issues, specifically in regard to social programs.  Granted these are pieces of a puzzle, but I think you can draw a pretty straight line from his statement to his party platform.  Ditto the Macaca (?) comment.  And generally the large number of racist Tea Party crap ever published.

Glenn points to "structural problems" driving minority poverty.  But how can he divorce this from Republican opposition to government intervention?  He can't seriously by the BS notion that these communities will pull themselves up without targeted government help?  And that's exactly what modern conservatism does not want.  They may pretend that they want smart government - but they never show any platform but cuts.  They basically have zero to offer minority communities.  Their one proposal for ending generational poverty through education - vouchers/charters - is aimed solely at parents motivated to escape the ghetto.  This is not a scaleable solution, it is a band-aid for certain parents who already have enough human/social capital to succeed and are stuck sending their kids to school with other ghetto kids.

The dialogue on race needs to be better.  It is definitely stuck in a sort of racist vs. non-racist framework that is absurdly inadequate to what we're dealing with in the 21st century.  Race is no longer just about racism, but about justice.  Most Americans want to be there, but they have no idea how to get there.  There are still many unconscious assumptions and prejudices that will eventually need to be exorcised.  We need to get back to looking at causality and practical steps we can take to move the country forward.

Cumberland Cavern Claustrophobia

I had a very interesting experience recently.  With my father and brother, I visited the famous Cumberland Caverns in Tennessee - one of the largest in the nation!  Although the Cumberland Mountain State Park is nearby, the caves themselves are privately owned.  That was not my impression on arrival.  The traditional color scheme for state and national parks is yellow lettering on  a brown background.  The entrance sign in the parking lot, painted in like fashion, was misleading to say the least.

The caves themselves were quite beautiful.  Our tour guide, a young man with short curly hair and sensible sandals, was knowledgeable and able to provide a good deal of insight into the cave's geology.  As we climbed deeper, the features became more magnificent, culminating in the "mountain room".  An amazing cascade of flowstone featured prominently, and a small seating area had been built so that our group of twenty might rest and take in the mineral splendor.

The young guide the informed us that he would be turning the lights off and entertaining us with a brief light show.  I don't recall his exact words, but he mentioned something about a "pageantry", and "God's glory".  All went black.  A deep and authoritative voice came out of the blackness.  "In the beginning..."

The light show was nothing more than a few colored lamps placed in a few different sections of the wall feature before us.  First a red glow to the right, then a green glow to the left, then blue and red on the right again.  Objectively, it was kind of pathetic.  By light show standards.

My knowledge of the bible is limited, but I could make out that, if not word for word, the narrative generally followed the Genesis account of Earth's creation.

At this point I was considerably uncomfortable.  I began to fear that I would have to say something.  The impropriety of a state park delivering what amounted to a sermon, the assumption that the audience would have the same world view, the arrogance in assuming that there would not be those who might have wished to experience the profundity of an extraordinary environment in a non-Christian, or even just non-religious manner, the audacity to think it appropriate to attempt any kind of conversion 3/4 of a mile beneath the Earth's surface, in pitch-black darkness.

At some point the rhetoric of the deeply intoned voice began to ask how any one might not see the obvious connection between the cavern's splendor and accept the Christian God.  I could resist not longer.  "Because I'm an Atheist!," I blurted out, obviously loud enough to be heard above the righteous din.  How could one not see this place as a preview of things to come in heaven?  "Because I'm going to Hell!", I loudly protested.

When the lights came back on the guide said a few words - none of which I recall.  My body had been long since flooded with adrenaline and other stress hormones.  My heart was racing.  My limbs were quivering.  Look what I had been reduced to!

At this point it I must pause and admit that my reaction to preceding events was likely inflated by my own sense of moral justice, and ideas of social propriety.  There is nothing about atheism that would necessarily lead one to feel the way I did, or to take the actions I chose to take.  In fact, the tour guide admitted to me later that he had long since stopped forewarning groups of the religious nature of the "light show".  Apparently, when he failed to do so he noticed no protest from the audience.  This was likely due to the cultural homogeneity of the visitors.

But nonetheless, it is certainly not easy to step forward and stand up for what you believe, especially when doing so disrupts any assumed social cohesion.  Your protest simultaneously accuses the offender of moral infraction, and claims for yourself the moral high-ground.  The onus then falls immediately on you to establish the correctness of your convictions.  Failing to do so risks at best embarrassment, at worst, great offense.  Often times the decision of whether or not to speak up must be made within literally seconds' time.

Further complicating things, during events in which the offense was prolonged for a period of time, the decision must be undertaken and then carried out in a brain environment of rapidly deteriorating cognitive function.  As the brain stem recognizes increased stress, mental activity is re-routed from brain structures responsible for higher-order reasoning, and autonomic stress responses come to the fore.  Thus, anger, fear and anxiety get in the way of productive communication.

So I spoke up.  I told the tour guide that, as an atheist, the light show made me uncomfortable.  I thought it was offensive.  And I thought it inappropriate for a state park.  To my embarrassment, at this point he informed me that the cave was actually privately owned.  I pointed out that the design of the entrance sign gave the opposite impression.  And there was nothing either on the website, brochure or around the park that indicated any sort of Christian theme at all.  He said that surprised him.  I asked whether he would have thought it appropriate to feature an ode to the glory of Allah, or maybe a Hindu god, or maybe Zeus.  At this point a fellow member of our group turned to me and said, "OK, thanks.  I think we get your point."

One wonders after such events what the point of it all was.  My speaking up felt cathartic.  Fuck those weasels!  But what did they learn from me?  Was there a net positive gain?  Maybe I came on too strong?  Maybe I made them angry and acrimonious.  Maybe it was OK for them to have there little ceremony.  It was a private park after all.  It was rural Tennessee.  This is a majority Christian country.

But I was uncomfortable.  As would I assume any other atheist, or Jew or Muslim.  The show had an explicitly Christian narrative.  If they wanted to have that kind of show, they should have posted some form of notification.  As it was it felt deceptive and arrogant.  Maybe my protest caused them to rethink their operation.  Maybe other members of the group were empowered in some way by my courage - even if they didn't entirely agree with my position.

In no small way what I did that day was what America represents.  A nation is heterogeneous and must take great care to respect and affirm the right of each citizen's liberty of mind.  Structures which serve to support only one group's way of thinking over another, to bully via their majority or any other inequitable influence, only serve to weaken a nation.  The founders understood this - at least in principle, and we've been struggling ever since to live up to such lofty ambitions.  While it may be unfair, it is the burden of every minority group to assert its civil rights.  It may not always go so smoothly.  It may sometimes be poorly planned or carried out.  But we must never be afraid to stand up for ourselves.  Not only are we better for it, but so too are all our fellow citizens and future generations.

Clinging to Darkness

The thing is not sturdy.

And so it must be clung to.

From where comes rigidity of thought?  In black and white thinking is righteousness an indication of unstable ground?

The ability to incorporate nuance is an indication of ideological coherence. The coherence is a comprehensivity.  The greater the points of logic, of consonance, the greater the ability to incorporate nuance. 

This often appears as simplicity.  And simplicity is often mistaken for coherence.  Its elegance and apparent universality is deceptive.  Truth, in its absolute coherence, often takes a simple form.  Yet when pressed upon, it is infinitely comprehensive.  2 + 2 will always equal 4.  Whether apples or plums.

Although simplicity does not imply falsity, it does not automatically provide for incorporation.  Thus, through elaboration, through incorporation, simplicity becomes complexity.  And in a debate of ideas, simplicity is at a disadvantage to complexity.  It lacks the means with which to meet complexity. Thus when truth, in simple form, encounters nuance, it unfolds.  This unfolding, ordered and without dissonance, is beautiful and elegant.

Falsity masquerades as truth by claiming simplicity and elegance.  Yet, because it is false, it can not be comprehensive, it can not bear nuance.  Unable to extend itself without creating dissonance, falsity must always resort to fascism, bullying, self-interested conquest by force.  Built upon a weak and malformed foundation, it compensates via rigidity and brutality. In contrast to truth's elegant unfolding, falsity unfolds through trickery and legerdemain, relying on devious maneuvers and distractions.

The one thing that falsity can not suffer is magnanimity, recognition of the other.  To do so would allow that critique is possible.  Yet critique - and this is often only understood by the unconscious - is the surest path to dissonance, to ultimate defeat.  Oh, what armies we command within our depths, all knives sharpened for the dissonant hordes.  The more fragile the kingdom, the longer the axe.  Barricade upon barricade must encircle and defend the weakest idea.

The easiest strategy of course is to relocate.  While a good idea may take solace from its eternal truth, able to live comfortably within the brightest fires, a bad idea must remain forever vigilant, comforted only in darkness and isolation.  Within this pit of snakes it slithers, unaware, ultimately, of its own form.

Truth cannot help but build upon itself.  Like a gracious host, or a wise and empathetic teacher, it strengthens all other truths it touches.  Its firmness gives shelter to the radical, bedrock to the speculative.  It lends itself to the erection of beautiful cathedrals of possibility.  In contrast, falsity brings only confusion and hindrance.  It remains atomized and shy, an impediment to expansion.  Like an unstable and reactive chemical, it must be hidden away and protected from interaction. 

In the end, falsity does not really exist.  Under examination it collapses into contradiction.  Its pretense to logic falls away and substance is revealed as vaporous illusion.  For many, this devilish smoke is intoxicating.  But ultimately it nourishes nothing but malcontent and dissatisfaction.  The human mind, having become addicted and accustomed to this state, becomes limp and zombie-like, autonomatonic and reactive, predictable and without self-awareness.  From necessity, cognition has been forced into wrinkled and craggly spires, teetering in its own heated wind and pathotropic catharsis. 

Comfort in this state comes only through tradition and habit.  Yet like a patient suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, the fear and dependency induced by never ending cognitive dissonance creates for itself a life-like alternate universe in which truth is adjusted for and falsity is substituted for through an elaborate series of perceptual detours and cognitive trusses. 

From an evolutionary psychological perspective, or at least one of cultural evolution, this has been a universal human adaptation to cognitive and perceptual limitation.  Even with the sharpest logic cannot cut through a lack of information, or a lack of a theoretical framework for understanding an event's causality.  So it is easy to see why reliance upon magical thinking would have seemed a very logical resolution to the unknown - especially when the unknown presented a very real and dangerous threat.

In today's world, while cognition and perception are orders of magnitude more advanced, a wealth of information is at hand, this adaptation is still with us.  Viewing the same event, the same data, two minds can vary wildly in their interpretation.  The project of synthesis and the discrimination it involves is still no small task.  Thus these old adaptations, these old habits of mind remain strong.  We erect our fragile pinnacles of fallacy, our islands of thought.  Yet as has been the trajectory of history and progress, the tide of human knowledge and interconnection, with its powers of abrasion, cannot but slowly bring enlightenment, if only ever in fits and starts.

We are young.  But we have minds.  And these minds are designed for truth.  If nothing else, that is unlikely to ever change.