The Atlantic's Hanna Rosin examines the connection between the prosperity gospel and the Subprime Mortgage Market. Did you know that inner-city pastors were targeted by subprime lenders as gateways into subprime markets? (That story's on page 2...)
I've never been to catholicanarchy.org before, but they have an interesting take on Thanksgiving. Not sure what I think about it, but it's worth reading if it provokes some thought about Christian citizenship. Of course, I know exactly what I think about a wholesale slaughter of turkeys...mmmmmm....
Time Magazine once more reassures me over my choice of cancelling my subscription this year. "The 00's: Goodbye At Last To The Decade From Hell." I disagreed with the first sentence, violently, and continued to disagree until I stopped reading, two pages later. Some points:
a) we fought two major international wars, and are still fighting them.
b) they inflicted virtually no hardship on anyone in the States except those poor forgotten souls fighting them, those in the Twin Towers when they fell, and those directly related to the above. The rest of us were numb, happy, bickering consumers who replaced our old iPods with newer, shinier, more connected ones.
c) near death economic experience? see above, iPods. We still have 'em, we're still buying them, and now there's a droid. The poor have cable TV and the rich still have last year's luxury items. No one has starved, there have yet to be any mass migrations, and tenant farming only exists among immigrants.
d) Hurricane Katrina was the largest natural disaster in our nations history...claiming only 1500 lives. Meanwhile in Asia, 200,000 die in a tsunami. We have no knowledge of hardship in America. None. We are fat and too dumb to be happy. "Are you better off now than ten years ago?" Absolutely. I'm not dead, I have no major diseases, I secured health insurance and a steady, menial job, and I have an iPod. From the perspectives of both the rest of the world, and the rest of history, I'm still wayyyyy above average. Life is good.
e) additionally, I'm living in a time of unprecedented local growth and productivity. Indie music has made creativity mainstream and accessible, and urban gardens, community groups and co-ops are flourishing. The internet is revolutionizing the way we interact and create. People are turning away from bigger and glitzier and towards better and more interactive. And cheaper.
That's about where I stopped. Maybe I'll finish reading later. Self-pity and whining--the mark of the spoiled. Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
28 November 2009
27 November 2009
Turkey-Leftover Reading:
Interesting approval ratings: Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama. (LA Times). Of course, it's much easier to be popular when all you have to do is talk.
Wild Boar Population Exploding in Germany. I wonder if Boar Bacon is as amazing as it sounds? Organic, free-range meat that raises itself...is there anything better?Boar hunting is a pretty intense experience, I hear. This guy died hunting boar recently. Too bad he didn't have access to modern semiautomatic high capacity hunting rifles, maybe he would have survived...but that's European Gun Control for ya.
Speaking of Pork, Can Islamic Militant Groups Be Compared To The Protestant Reformation?
Also in Pork, Another look at Health Care reform, from an incremental perspective, by a dude with a really sweet name. And, conservatives are crying foul over "hidden" doulbe digit deficit predictions (as a percentage of GDP).
Finally, Today I am thankful for Civil Liberties. "The Russian authorities retaliated with a $17.4m tax case against Hermitage and arrested Mr Magnitsky, who had uncovered evidence of fraud and implicated the policemen who arrested him. In jail he developed a severe medical condition but was left without treatment, a fact that he meticulously documented in his diary. Investigators seem to have denied him help in an effort to extract a confession. On November 16th he died of an abdominal rupture...Mr Magnitsky’s death was shocking, but hardly unusual: many people die in pre-trial detention across Russia, and even more in prison."
Wild Boar Population Exploding in Germany. I wonder if Boar Bacon is as amazing as it sounds? Organic, free-range meat that raises itself...is there anything better?Boar hunting is a pretty intense experience, I hear. This guy died hunting boar recently. Too bad he didn't have access to modern semiautomatic high capacity hunting rifles, maybe he would have survived...but that's European Gun Control for ya.
Speaking of Pork, Can Islamic Militant Groups Be Compared To The Protestant Reformation?
Also in Pork, Another look at Health Care reform, from an incremental perspective, by a dude with a really sweet name. And, conservatives are crying foul over "hidden" doulbe digit deficit predictions (as a percentage of GDP).
Finally, Today I am thankful for Civil Liberties. "The Russian authorities retaliated with a $17.4m tax case against Hermitage and arrested Mr Magnitsky, who had uncovered evidence of fraud and implicated the policemen who arrested him. In jail he developed a severe medical condition but was left without treatment, a fact that he meticulously documented in his diary. Investigators seem to have denied him help in an effort to extract a confession. On November 16th he died of an abdominal rupture...Mr Magnitsky’s death was shocking, but hardly unusual: many people die in pre-trial detention across Russia, and even more in prison."
20 November 2009
Stuff to Read
Maersk Alabama attacked again by pirates. This time, however, they didn't tie up the Navy in an unneccesarily costly and hazardous rescue attempt. Somebody had enough brains to bring real self-defense weaponry to troubled waters.
In other news, the USA PATRIOT act is up for renewal and being debated in the Senate. "In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties. 'The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities,' Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general." Now that's the hope and change we were looking forward to...
Sen. Wyden of Oregon (D) believes the USA PATRIOT renewal is being rushed.
In other news, the USA PATRIOT act is up for renewal and being debated in the Senate. "In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties. 'The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities,' Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general." Now that's the hope and change we were looking forward to...
Sen. Wyden of Oregon (D) believes the USA PATRIOT renewal is being rushed.
12 November 2009
"Bipartisanship"
"Mr. Speaker, this rule is an affront to the democratic process...At 1 a.m. this morning, with absolutely no meaningful opportunity to review the almost 700-page prescription drug legislation, the Committee on Rules met to consider the resolution now before us. By now I should be used to it, but we cannot tolerate these continual attacks on democracy. When you refuse to allow half this House to speak and to give their amendments, you are cutting out half the population of the United States from any participation in the legislation that goes on here. It defies reason and it defies common sense that political expediency and newspaper headlines could force this monumental legislation, probably the most monumental that any of us will do in our tenure in the Congress of the United States, to force it through the Chamber with little more than cursory consideration."
--Louise Slaughter, Democrat Representative from New York, protesting the use of "special rules" for consideration of the Prescription Drug/Medicare Benefits Bill of 2003.
Today, you can hear this exact same quote, almost word-for-word, from House Republicans who have been ignored and marginalized during the debate over Healthcare Reform in the House.
Under Special Rules, the majority party of the House (in 2003, the Republicans) can restrict debate and amending privileges on a bill after is passes committee. In this case, Representatives were given several hours to debate, and no amendments were allowed. The bill was formed in Republican committees and amended post-committee without any Democrats being invited to the table. The bill passed the House 216-215, after the Republican Speaker held the 15-minute voting period open for a full hour in order to give his party whips time to persuade two Representatives to change their votes, in return for promises to amend the legislation later, in conference between the House and Senate.
As long as committee processes and House rules are subject to simple-majority control, there will be no bipartisanship, cooperation, or moderation in policy proceeding from the House. Unless Representatives are institutionally encouraged to think for themselves and their constituents--and a 2/3 majority vote of the entire House is required for amending the House rules--the majority party in the House will simply be able to ignore and walk roughshod over the minority party. In 2003, it was the Republicans steamrolling Medicare reform, and in 2009 it is the Democrats steamrolling healthcare reform in general.
Allowing a majority to trample the rights of a minority is wrong no matter what policy you are pursuing. It's not American, it's does not serve the long-term interest of the republic, it destroys the public trust and deepens the divide between citizens, and it's just plain not right.
--Louise Slaughter, Democrat Representative from New York, protesting the use of "special rules" for consideration of the Prescription Drug/Medicare Benefits Bill of 2003.
Today, you can hear this exact same quote, almost word-for-word, from House Republicans who have been ignored and marginalized during the debate over Healthcare Reform in the House.
Under Special Rules, the majority party of the House (in 2003, the Republicans) can restrict debate and amending privileges on a bill after is passes committee. In this case, Representatives were given several hours to debate, and no amendments were allowed. The bill was formed in Republican committees and amended post-committee without any Democrats being invited to the table. The bill passed the House 216-215, after the Republican Speaker held the 15-minute voting period open for a full hour in order to give his party whips time to persuade two Representatives to change their votes, in return for promises to amend the legislation later, in conference between the House and Senate.
As long as committee processes and House rules are subject to simple-majority control, there will be no bipartisanship, cooperation, or moderation in policy proceeding from the House. Unless Representatives are institutionally encouraged to think for themselves and their constituents--and a 2/3 majority vote of the entire House is required for amending the House rules--the majority party in the House will simply be able to ignore and walk roughshod over the minority party. In 2003, it was the Republicans steamrolling Medicare reform, and in 2009 it is the Democrats steamrolling healthcare reform in general.
Allowing a majority to trample the rights of a minority is wrong no matter what policy you are pursuing. It's not American, it's does not serve the long-term interest of the republic, it destroys the public trust and deepens the divide between citizens, and it's just plain not right.
The Daily Read
Health Care--With a 69% Capital Gains Hike
...And Encouragement for More Medical Lawsuits
Long Island Recreational Fishermen Fight For Local Sovreignty On the Basis of a 331-year-old Colonial Charter.
And finally, Sometimes Being Grumpy Is Good
Oh, and in the vein of "You Can Buy It But You Don't Own It," Microsoft Bans Users Who Have Modified Their XBox360s From Playing Online. Corporate Orwellianism?
Dual Interest: Traditional Islamic Social Charity At Work Is A Good Thing...but 40,000 People A Day Getting Free Food in Karachi? Those Numbers Cannot Be A Good Thing For Political Stability.
Oh, Why Not: Tea Party Protestors Made Look Like Peaceful Hippies Compared To Iranian Street Demonstrators. "They seem to be chanting an old revolutionary poem. It says: 'You killed the youth of my country, God is great, Death to you'." Ahhh, gotta love the Iranians, they know how to phrase a protest.
...And Encouragement for More Medical Lawsuits
Long Island Recreational Fishermen Fight For Local Sovreignty On the Basis of a 331-year-old Colonial Charter.
And finally, Sometimes Being Grumpy Is Good
Oh, and in the vein of "You Can Buy It But You Don't Own It," Microsoft Bans Users Who Have Modified Their XBox360s From Playing Online. Corporate Orwellianism?
Dual Interest: Traditional Islamic Social Charity At Work Is A Good Thing...but 40,000 People A Day Getting Free Food in Karachi? Those Numbers Cannot Be A Good Thing For Political Stability.
Oh, Why Not: Tea Party Protestors Made Look Like Peaceful Hippies Compared To Iranian Street Demonstrators. "They seem to be chanting an old revolutionary poem. It says: 'You killed the youth of my country, God is great, Death to you'." Ahhh, gotta love the Iranians, they know how to phrase a protest.
25 October 2009
This deserves some research
Anybody have insight information into the following quote from Fearless Comrade's post on healthcare reform?
Why can't part-time workers, small business employees, or entrepreneurs get affordable health insurance? Because the government gives tax breaks to big companies for overpriced plans. Because individual states have absurd minimum coverage mandates. Because the federal government allows states to prohibit interstate health insurance sales (every other kind of insurance can be bought across state lines). The only people who have challenged this are Republicans, but raising the evil specter of freedom and interstate competition sends Democrats into howling fits of rage.
The fact that people have insurance plans that pay for the bulk of costs (as opposed to nearly all other forms of insurance, which cover only catastrophes) and don't pay out of pocket is why insurance companies make the payment decisions. If you want to make the payment decisions yourself, pay for it yourself. But of course, decades of liberal government and government meddling have assured that the last person who will pay for your care is you. And who does he think created Medicare?
The answer to him, of course, is more bureaucracy and more government meddling--that, not freedom, will increase supply and decrease costs, just like it never has in any market segment, ever (so we are lapsing back into the health industry not being ruled by economics). The answer is more price-fixing and more mandates. This is what von Mises predicted in Liberalism: Because government interventions harm the market and cause results opposite to what was intended, interventionism gives way to more socialism. Governments fail upward.
16 October 2009
Modern Greek Tragedy
The neat thing about the Wire, according to creator David Simon, is that it's a modern Greek tragedy, where the Olympian gods are replaced by modern institutions and social structures. So the capriciousness and tragedy make sense--they come from the real world circumstances that the characters (who are often based on, or actually played by, real Baltimore politicians, drug kingpins and police officers) are grounded in. So the triumphs and failures feel real, because the last word is not delivered by some triumphing individuals, but rather the systems in which those individuals live, move, and have their being.
Read Simon's interview with Nick Hornby here.
And go watch the Wire for Pete's sake...so I can have someone to talk about it with :)
"Much of our modern theater seems rooted in the Shakespearean discovery of the modern mind. We’re stealing instead from an earlier, less-traveled construct—the Greeks—lifting our thematic stance wholesale from Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides to create doomed and fated protagonists who confront a rigged game and their own mortality. The modern mind—particularly those of us in the West—finds such fatalism ancient and discomfiting, I think. We are a pretty self-actualized, self-worshipping crowd of postmoderns and the idea that for all of our wherewithal and discretionary income and leisure, we’re still fated by indifferent gods, feels to us antiquated and superstitious. We don’t accept our gods on such terms anymore; by and large, with the exception of the fundamentalists among us, we don’t even grant Yahweh himself that kind of unbridled, interventionist authority.
But instead of the old gods, The Wire is a Greek tragedy in which the postmodern institutions are the Olympian forces. It’s the police department, or the drug economy, or the political structures, or the school administration, or the macroeconomic forces that are throwing the lightning bolts and hitting people in the ass for no decent reason. In much of television, and in a good deal of our stage drama, individuals are often portrayed as rising above institutions to achieve catharsis. In this drama, the institutions always prove larger, and those characters with hubris enough to challenge the postmodern construct of American empire are invariably mocked, marginalized, or crushed. Greek tragedy for the new millennium, so to speak. Because so much of television is about providing catharsis and redemption and the triumph of character, a drama in which postmodern institutions trump individuality and morality and justice seems different in some ways, I think."
Read Simon's interview with Nick Hornby here.
And go watch the Wire for Pete's sake...so I can have someone to talk about it with :)
"Much of our modern theater seems rooted in the Shakespearean discovery of the modern mind. We’re stealing instead from an earlier, less-traveled construct—the Greeks—lifting our thematic stance wholesale from Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides to create doomed and fated protagonists who confront a rigged game and their own mortality. The modern mind—particularly those of us in the West—finds such fatalism ancient and discomfiting, I think. We are a pretty self-actualized, self-worshipping crowd of postmoderns and the idea that for all of our wherewithal and discretionary income and leisure, we’re still fated by indifferent gods, feels to us antiquated and superstitious. We don’t accept our gods on such terms anymore; by and large, with the exception of the fundamentalists among us, we don’t even grant Yahweh himself that kind of unbridled, interventionist authority.
But instead of the old gods, The Wire is a Greek tragedy in which the postmodern institutions are the Olympian forces. It’s the police department, or the drug economy, or the political structures, or the school administration, or the macroeconomic forces that are throwing the lightning bolts and hitting people in the ass for no decent reason. In much of television, and in a good deal of our stage drama, individuals are often portrayed as rising above institutions to achieve catharsis. In this drama, the institutions always prove larger, and those characters with hubris enough to challenge the postmodern construct of American empire are invariably mocked, marginalized, or crushed. Greek tragedy for the new millennium, so to speak. Because so much of television is about providing catharsis and redemption and the triumph of character, a drama in which postmodern institutions trump individuality and morality and justice seems different in some ways, I think."
13 October 2009
I Take Back Everything Bad I Said About the Nobel Prize Committee...
The Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to Dr. Elinor Ostrom, the first woman and the first non-economist to receive the prize.
Beyond that, she is the author of an incredible book that changed my life: "Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems."
That book (along with Hernando De Soto's "El Sendero Otro (The Other Path)" formed the cornerstone of one of my favorite classes in college, Dr. Oakerson's "Community Organization and Development," which rocked, end of discussion. And if you don't believe me, ask Kate Shaffner.
Beyond that, she is the author of an incredible book that changed my life: "Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems."
That book (along with Hernando De Soto's "El Sendero Otro (The Other Path)" formed the cornerstone of one of my favorite classes in college, Dr. Oakerson's "Community Organization and Development," which rocked, end of discussion. And if you don't believe me, ask Kate Shaffner.
18 July 2009
Discuss amongst yourselves...
From Inhabitatio Dei, via the Boar's Head Tavern:
"A bit harsh perhaps, but coming from a background of being highly socialized into Christianity, and knowing full well the kind of irrational protectionist mentality that persists in the church about the young people “falling away” if they are allowed to actually experience the world, I think there’s a good point in here somewhere.
"If we think the church can only be sustained through concerted social and psychological manipulation of our children, then the church isn’t worth preserving. After all, if we don’t really believe that the church lives by the power of the gospel to call people out of the world, we’ve lost the gospel altogether.
“[Much of the church] fears that if the young person, especially in adolescence, is permitted to become acquainted with the world and its lures, he is sure to be lost. This prediction is, in all its intended realism, a lack of faith and a surrender to determinism. If the Gospel cannot call people out of the world, it is no Gospel. If what we preach to our young people cannot call them out of the world, then we must ask ourselves if what we are preaching is the Gospel. If placing people in a context of choice where it is possible to choose the wrong is unwise, then God himself made the first mistake when he created Adam and the worst mistake when he let people kill his Son. At the bottom of it all, this pessimism means placing oneself fully on the level of the world. It means agreeing with the world that all human development is determined by physical and psychological necessities; agreeing with the world that Christian faith is a matter of behavior patterns and of truths to be passed on; agreeing with the world that there is no miracle of resurrection, no miracle of faith, no Holy Spirit.”
----John Howard Yoder, “Christian Education: Doctrinal Orientation,” in Concern for Education, Forthcoming from Cascade Books.
"A bit harsh perhaps, but coming from a background of being highly socialized into Christianity, and knowing full well the kind of irrational protectionist mentality that persists in the church about the young people “falling away” if they are allowed to actually experience the world, I think there’s a good point in here somewhere.
"If we think the church can only be sustained through concerted social and psychological manipulation of our children, then the church isn’t worth preserving. After all, if we don’t really believe that the church lives by the power of the gospel to call people out of the world, we’ve lost the gospel altogether.
“[Much of the church] fears that if the young person, especially in adolescence, is permitted to become acquainted with the world and its lures, he is sure to be lost. This prediction is, in all its intended realism, a lack of faith and a surrender to determinism. If the Gospel cannot call people out of the world, it is no Gospel. If what we preach to our young people cannot call them out of the world, then we must ask ourselves if what we are preaching is the Gospel. If placing people in a context of choice where it is possible to choose the wrong is unwise, then God himself made the first mistake when he created Adam and the worst mistake when he let people kill his Son. At the bottom of it all, this pessimism means placing oneself fully on the level of the world. It means agreeing with the world that all human development is determined by physical and psychological necessities; agreeing with the world that Christian faith is a matter of behavior patterns and of truths to be passed on; agreeing with the world that there is no miracle of resurrection, no miracle of faith, no Holy Spirit.”
----John Howard Yoder, “Christian Education: Doctrinal Orientation,” in Concern for Education, Forthcoming from Cascade Books.
16 June 2009
09 June 2009
One More Reason to Love the Swedes
They have a Pirate Party that has a seat in their national legislature.
Also, here are some interesting things to read:
There's an interesting balance with all this webbyness we live in. If my facebook identity is too well known, it's not private enough to express myself freely. If it's not well known enough, I lose out on the benefit of having people to express myself to. If I maintain anonymity at my blog, I can say whatever I want without fear of professional or personal repercussions...but I can't use it to share cool photos and exciting news with my friends.
So self-presentation on the internet can be an either/or thing. Do you want a professional face, or a private one? Do you want lots of readers and good conversation, or do you want a more personal experience? Or do you have the time to manage two different blogs, two different facebook lives, etc, etc...
Anonymitiy in blogging became an issue for this guy when he was "outed" by someone he had criticized in his blog. He lays down the personal and professional reasons he had wanted to remain anonymous.
Blogging as a "way of news" was interestingly portrayed in a good, and underappreciated movie recently released called "State of Play." It's got Russel Crowe and Rachael MacAdams (Oh, and that Affleck dude). Go watch it. It's even got Jason Bateman in it. There are some structural incentives to blogging and the new wave of public discourse that is the Internet...and some dude has an interesting blog post that's worth reading. About the flaws of blogging and reading blog posts. Appreciate both the irony and the good points here, at the Front Porch Republic. He has a word of caution about the ease with which an internet life encourages us to be narcissistic, detached and lazy.
Also, here are some interesting things to read:
There's an interesting balance with all this webbyness we live in. If my facebook identity is too well known, it's not private enough to express myself freely. If it's not well known enough, I lose out on the benefit of having people to express myself to. If I maintain anonymity at my blog, I can say whatever I want without fear of professional or personal repercussions...but I can't use it to share cool photos and exciting news with my friends.
So self-presentation on the internet can be an either/or thing. Do you want a professional face, or a private one? Do you want lots of readers and good conversation, or do you want a more personal experience? Or do you have the time to manage two different blogs, two different facebook lives, etc, etc...
Anonymitiy in blogging became an issue for this guy when he was "outed" by someone he had criticized in his blog. He lays down the personal and professional reasons he had wanted to remain anonymous.
Blogging as a "way of news" was interestingly portrayed in a good, and underappreciated movie recently released called "State of Play." It's got Russel Crowe and Rachael MacAdams (Oh, and that Affleck dude). Go watch it. It's even got Jason Bateman in it. There are some structural incentives to blogging and the new wave of public discourse that is the Internet...and some dude has an interesting blog post that's worth reading. About the flaws of blogging and reading blog posts. Appreciate both the irony and the good points here, at the Front Porch Republic. He has a word of caution about the ease with which an internet life encourages us to be narcissistic, detached and lazy.
18 May 2009
Stanley Fish of the New York Times responds to the Internet Atheists
(who seem as wild-eyed and camelhair-clothed as internet Calvinists)
here. h/t the Boar's Head Tavern.
Quote from such:
"So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance."
here. h/t the Boar's Head Tavern.
Quote from such:
"So to sum up, the epistemological critique of religion — it is an inferior way of knowing — is the flip side of a naïve and untenable positivism. And the critique of religion’s content — it’s cotton-candy fluff — is the product of incredible ignorance."
11 May 2009
Hmmmm....
I saw a comment on a youtube video today, to the effect that what we're viewing in the bailouts is not socialism (government ownership/control of large portions of the economy) but rather capitalism gone horribly wrong: large corporations leveraging their significance to the economy in order to faciliatate "the largest transfer of public funds to private organizations in the history of our fair nation."
It's a different train of thought than the one I usually follow, with government involvement in the private sector leading to corruption, stagnation of creativity, etc. This line of logic begins with greedy capitalists paying attention to the motto of the Clinton years--"It's the economy, stupid." Our elected representatives, since the Reagan yeasr and probably before, are being elected on whether or not they can promise prosperity.
I've seen people engage in sick attention-seeking behaviors where they will use the threat of self-injury, or suicidal statements, or claim to have been assaulted or raped in order to get attention and feel significant. They hold themselves and their health hostage against the good will of their friends/the emergency medical system and demand that people drop everything and take care of them. In essence, the theory is, "If you don't give me what I want, I'll hurt me, and that will make you feel guilty and everyone will feel sad and you don't want that! So give me what I want!"
The capitalist at the top of a sinking corporation, however, is a little more clear minded. "Help me," he says to the elected official, "or I'll sink your economy AND your political career. Help me help you, Bob! Give me nice fat loan that no bank in their right mind would sign on..."
I was reminded today of a simple statement: government = the power to coerce obedience. But economic power is coercive too. An increase in governmental powers is a de facto increase in the governors' coercive influence over citizens. But governments do not posess a monopoly on coercion. Any relative concentration of power is inherently a relative potential for coercion.
I like to use this example: everyone has their price. For some, it's high, for some, it's ridiculously low...but it's probably graphable on a bell curve. It would take a lot for me to prostitute myself (and I'm talking like, hostages' lives on the line) but some will do the job for ten bucks or a quick fix or affirmation and attention. There's a market with an average price for corruption.
So let's say Joe Citizen is a salaryman--it isn't worth the (rough guess of the average) couple of thousand dollars it would take to convince the mayor to pass some legislation favoring him in a land dispute with his neighbor. But let's say the same Joe Citizen is a business owner who stands to gain a few thousand dollars per year in business if he gets preferential treatment from the town legislation or the zoning board. Whatever expenses he incurs in obtaining the coercive services of the state, whether through straight cash, services rendered, quid-quo-pro favors or socialization are simply business investments that--if he refuses--will put him at a competitive disadvantage with those who will. So there's the rub--when an unjust businessmen competes with a just businessman, the just one loses. Hence most of the Old Testament.
So that's why we have this fantastic legal system in our country. If you split power between the exectuve, legislative and judicial, you increase the number of people you have to influence, and hence the cost of obtaining legitimate coercive power. This is clever institutional planning--it is exponentially harder to influence fifteen people than it is to influence one, and the chance of one of those people being incorruptible is way higher than if you have just one king. Concentrated power, says Mr Reagan, is the enemy of liberty.
But we don't just have a separation of powers--the rule of many kings. We have made these kings accountable servants. And not servants of the public, or the majority--but servants of the law. Lex rex, the Latins like to say--"The Law is King." We live under the protection of the rule of law (fast forward to 2:05 for a moving tribute to the rule of law...) What a great system of government, that so effectively empowers the meek and lowly and protects them from the sway of the powerful and rich!
Unfortunately, it's not perfect if you have a situation in which the welfare of the community rests in the hands of a few powerful people. If there's just one or two factories in a town, their owners are pretty important people--they control, partially, the hopes and future of the entire town. Everyone, from grocer to librarian to plumber to homebuilder to IT specialist to gas station attendant, relies on the profits of that factory flowing through the hands of its owners and workers. So they have a lot of influence in town politics.
If you run the metaphor further up the food chain, you end up with Michigan--it's a three factory town. If the three automakers do well, the economy prospers, and the elected officials are safe and the populace is happy. And the factory owners know this--they know that the economic welfare of an entire state rests on their shoulders, and they do multi-billion dollar business with a clear incentive to work closely with state and local governments to ensure that they make lots and lots of money. The business is large enough where the costs of corruption are relatively minor. The only check on their power is public will, the integrity and pride of public servants, and the hope that such servants can see far enough ahead to preserve the interests of future generations, rather than making short-term, politically expedient decisions. Of course, if you pit a just politician against an unjust politician, and the public will is not robust and wise--all of the just politicians will be run out of business.
This is what I hear when I hear the words, "too big to fail:" I hear, "I own you. You are dependent on me, and you have to do what I want. You are going to pay for my problems, because you can't stomach the pain of being free and you won't make a difficult decision and make us all suffer for my problems. So you're going to work for me."
I hear a bigger, sicker, and more twisted version of some messed-up girl with a knife to her wrist for the thirtieth time that year, leveraging the kindness of others because she cannot imagine a world in which she is not the most important thing. Human nature at its finest, unrestrained by the rule of law, prudence, or the public will.
It's a different train of thought than the one I usually follow, with government involvement in the private sector leading to corruption, stagnation of creativity, etc. This line of logic begins with greedy capitalists paying attention to the motto of the Clinton years--"It's the economy, stupid." Our elected representatives, since the Reagan yeasr and probably before, are being elected on whether or not they can promise prosperity.
I've seen people engage in sick attention-seeking behaviors where they will use the threat of self-injury, or suicidal statements, or claim to have been assaulted or raped in order to get attention and feel significant. They hold themselves and their health hostage against the good will of their friends/the emergency medical system and demand that people drop everything and take care of them. In essence, the theory is, "If you don't give me what I want, I'll hurt me, and that will make you feel guilty and everyone will feel sad and you don't want that! So give me what I want!"
The capitalist at the top of a sinking corporation, however, is a little more clear minded. "Help me," he says to the elected official, "or I'll sink your economy AND your political career. Help me help you, Bob! Give me nice fat loan that no bank in their right mind would sign on..."
I was reminded today of a simple statement: government = the power to coerce obedience. But economic power is coercive too. An increase in governmental powers is a de facto increase in the governors' coercive influence over citizens. But governments do not posess a monopoly on coercion. Any relative concentration of power is inherently a relative potential for coercion.
I like to use this example: everyone has their price. For some, it's high, for some, it's ridiculously low...but it's probably graphable on a bell curve. It would take a lot for me to prostitute myself (and I'm talking like, hostages' lives on the line) but some will do the job for ten bucks or a quick fix or affirmation and attention. There's a market with an average price for corruption.
So let's say Joe Citizen is a salaryman--it isn't worth the (rough guess of the average) couple of thousand dollars it would take to convince the mayor to pass some legislation favoring him in a land dispute with his neighbor. But let's say the same Joe Citizen is a business owner who stands to gain a few thousand dollars per year in business if he gets preferential treatment from the town legislation or the zoning board. Whatever expenses he incurs in obtaining the coercive services of the state, whether through straight cash, services rendered, quid-quo-pro favors or socialization are simply business investments that--if he refuses--will put him at a competitive disadvantage with those who will. So there's the rub--when an unjust businessmen competes with a just businessman, the just one loses. Hence most of the Old Testament.
So that's why we have this fantastic legal system in our country. If you split power between the exectuve, legislative and judicial, you increase the number of people you have to influence, and hence the cost of obtaining legitimate coercive power. This is clever institutional planning--it is exponentially harder to influence fifteen people than it is to influence one, and the chance of one of those people being incorruptible is way higher than if you have just one king. Concentrated power, says Mr Reagan, is the enemy of liberty.
But we don't just have a separation of powers--the rule of many kings. We have made these kings accountable servants. And not servants of the public, or the majority--but servants of the law. Lex rex, the Latins like to say--"The Law is King." We live under the protection of the rule of law (fast forward to 2:05 for a moving tribute to the rule of law...) What a great system of government, that so effectively empowers the meek and lowly and protects them from the sway of the powerful and rich!
Unfortunately, it's not perfect if you have a situation in which the welfare of the community rests in the hands of a few powerful people. If there's just one or two factories in a town, their owners are pretty important people--they control, partially, the hopes and future of the entire town. Everyone, from grocer to librarian to plumber to homebuilder to IT specialist to gas station attendant, relies on the profits of that factory flowing through the hands of its owners and workers. So they have a lot of influence in town politics.
If you run the metaphor further up the food chain, you end up with Michigan--it's a three factory town. If the three automakers do well, the economy prospers, and the elected officials are safe and the populace is happy. And the factory owners know this--they know that the economic welfare of an entire state rests on their shoulders, and they do multi-billion dollar business with a clear incentive to work closely with state and local governments to ensure that they make lots and lots of money. The business is large enough where the costs of corruption are relatively minor. The only check on their power is public will, the integrity and pride of public servants, and the hope that such servants can see far enough ahead to preserve the interests of future generations, rather than making short-term, politically expedient decisions. Of course, if you pit a just politician against an unjust politician, and the public will is not robust and wise--all of the just politicians will be run out of business.
This is what I hear when I hear the words, "too big to fail:" I hear, "I own you. You are dependent on me, and you have to do what I want. You are going to pay for my problems, because you can't stomach the pain of being free and you won't make a difficult decision and make us all suffer for my problems. So you're going to work for me."
I hear a bigger, sicker, and more twisted version of some messed-up girl with a knife to her wrist for the thirtieth time that year, leveraging the kindness of others because she cannot imagine a world in which she is not the most important thing. Human nature at its finest, unrestrained by the rule of law, prudence, or the public will.
10 May 2009
24 April 2009
Bela Fleck takes his banjo to West and East Africa
Which is awesome.
In a completely unrelated note, this baby seems to have mastered the art of pentecostal preaching. I mean, this kid's good...he's got the timing down, tonalities, dramatic pause, and an excellent fist shake. Kid's got a future!
In other news, this FBI Supervisory Special Agent talks about the effectiveness of torture in interrogation.
I have recently been informed that in New York, even if you are found not guilty of a traffic violation, you still owe the State of New York an 85$ mandatory fine for the privelege of being tried in their courts. Is this true? I don't know. But if it is (and I will found out later next week in traffic court), I find it insulting, shocking, disturbing, and entirely a perversion of the justice system. And it opens the door wide for corruption and tyrrany.
Speaking of which, after a recent discussion of the selective nature of the ACLU's defense of civil liberty, I have decided to coin a new phrase. Remember the five-point Calvinist? Well, get yourselves ready for the ten-point civil libertarian. I hold firmly to all ten.
Every one of these amendments is carefully crafted to make sure that those who govern cannot exercise arbitrary, coercive, or intimidating power over their citizens. These are not lofty ideals enshrined in law--these are very practical ground rules set up by fellows who clearly have first-hand experience with corrupt and tyrannical rulers. They read like a summary of the Despot's Handbook of Power Consolidation: harassment by arbitrary search and seizure, secret trials in faraway jurisdictions without legal counsel or the ability to compel witnesses, detainment and prosecution without public accountability or a sympathetic home audience, cruel and unusual punishments, punitive bail, a monopoly on weapons and violence, restrictions on the freedom of speech, press, and public assembly...they had experienced all this and they said, no more! Get it right! You shall not treat your citizens as subjects, and you shall not be able to intimidate, bully, or coerce them with your power! You shall be held accountable!
So in the spirit of that, should we allow our government to access our phone records, read our email or tap our phone lines without warrants? Shall we give the government power to institute roadblocks and search our cars without probable cause and a sworn, specific affidavit? Shall we let our government have the power to interfere with our business decisions and contracts? Shall we let them have the power to decide which businesses are funded from the public coffer, and which are left to compete unfairly due to lack of political connections? Shall we let our government hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and subject them to torture? How much do you want your rulers to be able to hold over your head when it comes time to dissent?
Hmm...all this from a post with a banjo and a preaching baby.
In a completely unrelated note, this baby seems to have mastered the art of pentecostal preaching. I mean, this kid's good...he's got the timing down, tonalities, dramatic pause, and an excellent fist shake. Kid's got a future!
In other news, this FBI Supervisory Special Agent talks about the effectiveness of torture in interrogation.
I have recently been informed that in New York, even if you are found not guilty of a traffic violation, you still owe the State of New York an 85$ mandatory fine for the privelege of being tried in their courts. Is this true? I don't know. But if it is (and I will found out later next week in traffic court), I find it insulting, shocking, disturbing, and entirely a perversion of the justice system. And it opens the door wide for corruption and tyrrany.
Speaking of which, after a recent discussion of the selective nature of the ACLU's defense of civil liberty, I have decided to coin a new phrase. Remember the five-point Calvinist? Well, get yourselves ready for the ten-point civil libertarian. I hold firmly to all ten.
Every one of these amendments is carefully crafted to make sure that those who govern cannot exercise arbitrary, coercive, or intimidating power over their citizens. These are not lofty ideals enshrined in law--these are very practical ground rules set up by fellows who clearly have first-hand experience with corrupt and tyrannical rulers. They read like a summary of the Despot's Handbook of Power Consolidation: harassment by arbitrary search and seizure, secret trials in faraway jurisdictions without legal counsel or the ability to compel witnesses, detainment and prosecution without public accountability or a sympathetic home audience, cruel and unusual punishments, punitive bail, a monopoly on weapons and violence, restrictions on the freedom of speech, press, and public assembly...they had experienced all this and they said, no more! Get it right! You shall not treat your citizens as subjects, and you shall not be able to intimidate, bully, or coerce them with your power! You shall be held accountable!
So in the spirit of that, should we allow our government to access our phone records, read our email or tap our phone lines without warrants? Shall we give the government power to institute roadblocks and search our cars without probable cause and a sworn, specific affidavit? Shall we let our government have the power to interfere with our business decisions and contracts? Shall we let them have the power to decide which businesses are funded from the public coffer, and which are left to compete unfairly due to lack of political connections? Shall we let our government hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, and subject them to torture? How much do you want your rulers to be able to hold over your head when it comes time to dissent?
Hmm...all this from a post with a banjo and a preaching baby.
04 April 2009
Ladies and Gentlemen, Our Saviors...
Sales of children's books printed before 1985 banned in the US.
Several months ago, George Will warned us of the danger of ADD legislation--sweeping, emotionally driven reform through nebulous legislation that calls for action without careful thought of structure or consequences. That we leave up to the experts--the bureaucrats. And they apply desktop logic (not business or common sense) to the problem and, voila! China toy scare (which affected how many people?) and we pass legistlation in hysterical fear and...now you are safe from beautiful heirloom collectible golden-age children's books which cause no harm to anyone and it is a tragedy to destroy!
These are the bureaucrats who will save us from media-fed panics. Now, hey presto, let's expand their power to the administration our economy. This, folks, is why ordinary people who work for a living are scared of bureaucrats with controlling governmental interest in the private sector. They tamper with what they do not understand to the ominous chant of THE GREATER GOOD.
(Hat Tip to Fearsome Comrade, Fellow of the Boar's Head Tavern.)
23 March 2009
This Should Be Splashed On The Headlines
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7958039.stm
Tourists in Iraq! Of course, good news about Bush's war doesn't make the headlines.
Tourists in Iraq! Of course, good news about Bush's war doesn't make the headlines.
clever
a humorous and interesting note, by an Orthodox Priest, discussesing the King James Version of the Bible, and some sly translation therein.
[emphasis added]
"First, in order to make the argument for the King James, those who believe in that text make an argument for Holy Tradition. That is, the argument is not simply that the Textus Receptus is a manuscript that survived entire and supposedly unchanged. Read the sites and you will see that the argument goes further and claims that the Holy Spirit preserved this particular version to ensure the purity of God’s word. As you can imagine, I have no problem with arguments from Holy Tradition. I love arguments from Holy Tradition. I agree that the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church the Truth that was passed down from the Apostles. I simply do not agree that the Textus Receptus is part of that Holy Tradition, though the Bible itself is. But, I find it humorous that fundamentalists argue from Holy Tradition about a particular Greek text while denying that God could have preserved anything else by his Holy Spirit. In fact, the King James only people are, in just about every case, radically against any type of tradition, liturgy, church structure, etc. That is, in every case but this one...
Third, the original King James version is quite helpful in making an argument for Holy Tradition because its translation of a certain Greek word is more honest and more consistent than in several modern Protestant English translations. That Greek word is paradosis. If you look it up, it is the word commonly translated “tradition.” Except for one verse, the King James faithfully translates it “tradition.” That one exception is corrected in the New King James version. But, in several modern Protestant versions, there is an unfaithful switcheroo pulled. In them, the word paradosis is translated as “tradition” only when either Our Lord Jesus or one of the apostles is speaking against the practice. If they speak positively of the practice, then paradosis is translated as anything but “tradition.” Let me give you a couple of examples:
King James Version
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
New King James Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
Compare with the New International Version
1 Corinthians 11:2 — I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.
Compare with The Message
2 Thessalonians 2: 15 — Keep a tight grip on what you were taught, whether in personal conversation or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6 — Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you.
You see, one good way to destroy Orthodox and Catholic arguments about Holy Tradition is simply to deliberately mistranslate a word when it is found in a context that could give “aid and comfort” to the people with whom you disagree. Nevertheless, I find it humorous that the Bible most often used by hard-core KJV-only people contains translations that are accurate with respect to Holy Tradition and help us make our case."
[emphasis added]
21 March 2009
The Ruins of Detroit
This house is quite similar to one that Josh Bedford and I did the electrical work on during a pretty sweet renovation project. It started a lifelong desire to own a big old house with a turret and a vaulted ceiling in the third story. And a spiral staircase.
18 March 2009
Progress
This from an old post on "A Cool, Wet Place," illustrating an excellent point--nothing equalizes communities like firearms. They are the ONLY weapon that does not discriminate on the basis of upper body strength, weight, and reach. They are the only option for people too diminutive, undernourished or outnumbered to put up a resistance to injustice. Disarming the helpless is the first step in commanding and controlling them with fear.
[emphasis mine]
"The presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
That's why I'm pissed off at our President's administration for destroying perfectly good brass cartridges at cost to the government instead of letting civilians re-use them for peaceful, legal target shooting. He's making it clear that he doesn't think Americans should be trusted with firearms. Once you disarm a country, those communities of shooters that are necessary for the fostering of knowledge and practice that makes for civilian marksmanship disappear. And they don't come back easily when you need them. You effectively remove a set of survival mechanisms from your society's gene pool. You end up with a society of individuals who are just a little more helpless, just a little more reliant on expensive and unreliable specialists for their own survival. They are just a little more domesticated and a little less free--closer to sheep and farther from mountain goat. That might come back to haunt your children when their America is less prosperous and secure than it is today.
" "[Young, educated Afghan woman] Ms. Ellaha's younger sister, who had been pledged [to marry] another cousin, was facing the same treatment. After a week of being tied up, the two sisters agreed to marry their cousins. "So we went home," Ms. Ellaha added, "and escaped."
"The two sisters moved into a cheap guesthouse as they prepared to flee Afghanistan. But their family learned where they were hiding, and the police came to arrest them."
"The police subjected Ms. Ellaha to a mandatory virginity test. Fortunately, her hymen was intact, or she would have faced a prison sentence."
I didn't provide a link to this because after two weeks of being online, NYT content morphs into pay-per-view. It's from Kristof's 10/6/04 column "Beaten Afghan Brides." You can tell it's good from the dateline "Kabul, Afghanistan" whereas I'm betting if most of the other columnists were honest, they would have datelines like, "Sitting At Home, In My Underwear."
But back to the substance of the article. I have an idea that might provide women in poor, lawless, fundamentalist countries with a measure of security and equality. It would be cheap to implement, have immediate effect, and be applicable in a wide range of cultures:
Give women guns.
I say this as a registered Democrat, an Ivy League graduate, an idolizer of reason and culture, and a vegetarian. Reform of civil society, enforcement of human rights, separation of church from state; these are all great things. But of greater imminence to women in poor countries is the terribly pressing need to NOT BE BEATEN, RAPED OR MURDERED. And since police are usually doormats for whatever stone age tribalism is closest at hand, I say again: Give women guns. They don't have to form an army or even be very good shots. Yet all the same, the presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
[emphasis mine]
"The presence of armaments fundamentally changes the relationship of the rulers to the ruled."
That's why I'm pissed off at our President's administration for destroying perfectly good brass cartridges at cost to the government instead of letting civilians re-use them for peaceful, legal target shooting. He's making it clear that he doesn't think Americans should be trusted with firearms. Once you disarm a country, those communities of shooters that are necessary for the fostering of knowledge and practice that makes for civilian marksmanship disappear. And they don't come back easily when you need them. You effectively remove a set of survival mechanisms from your society's gene pool. You end up with a society of individuals who are just a little more helpless, just a little more reliant on expensive and unreliable specialists for their own survival. They are just a little more domesticated and a little less free--closer to sheep and farther from mountain goat. That might come back to haunt your children when their America is less prosperous and secure than it is today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
