- scientists will soon accept the idea that skills and traits previously thought to be learned behavior in humans are actually genetic traits, hardwired into the nervous system. This will explain in significant measure, for example, why some people find it very easy to learn some skills, as if they were simply re-learning.
There are english words that I can not recall explicitly learning that I somehow 'know' the meaning of. True, in many cases word meaning can be derived from context in experienced users of a language. However, since I was a young boy, I've felt that my ability to pick up usage and meaning of vocabulary was a seamless process. It just kind of seems to 'happen'. I've long suspected that I came pre-wired for reading and writing english, specifically. Very difficult to prove, to be sure, but I am here predicting that soon in fact just such a notion will be advanced by genetic science.
Interestingly, this should also make plausible the currently fringe concept of 'past lives'. In the unfathomably gigantic realm of genetic variation, why shouldn't there prove to be some of us who have the ability to 'read' and/or interpret one's own genetic lineage. To 'remember' context and meaning. This would be altogether different from the idea of stored memories across 'souls'. It would be more like retaining pieces of the hard wired skills of one's ancestors.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
No Public Option
As many progressive/liberals are apoplectically coming to realize, we're not going to get a so-called public option as a part of this year's health care reform. The long and short is there simply does not currently exist the political or public will in America for anything remotely resembling a single-payer health system. Unfortunately, and not coincidentally, for many advocates on either side of the issue the public plan has become synonymic with a single-payer plan. Americans by and large are skeptical of bureaucracy. The taken hold perception that a public plan would directly or indirectly facilitate creation of a new, amorphous, hulking bureaucratic entity whose sole purpose would be to administrate the most intimate and vital aspect of citizen's lives - - their health - - evidently strikes many Americans as far too scary an unknown unknown to wade into. That these fears set aside those other, ingrained hulking bureaucracies Americans have come to take for granted, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the VA, is of apparently little significance to a good percentage of the public. In any case, the vitriolic nature of today's political discourse does not favor the adoption of new large scale social engineering programs. We may wish it were otherwise but wishing won't change current political realities. Consequently, it's but an exercise in wasted words and energy to spend much time casting blame towards the administration and/or congress for failing to convincingly advocate for a public option; single-payer and it's surrogates were a non-starter in this debate from "go" and to think otherwise is to be in denial. Sorry to break it to ya, sad but true.
If we'll recall, this was a key differentiator between Hillary Clinton's approach to health care reform and Barack Obama's: Hillary suggested we ought to move directly towards a single-payer system while Obama suggested that the more incremental goal of increasing overall coverage and initiating insurance reform was the more politically viable approach given contemporaneous ideological schisms. Progressives may argue that Obama has created a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy for his reform plans by not using his bully pulpit to at least attempt to convince Americans of why achieving a single-payer health care system would be a good thing. But this reasoning fails to take into account the fragile governing coalition the Democratic party has forged over the past two election cycles to achieve it's current congressional majority. A coalition where so-called 'blue dog' democrats, having inherited the mantle from the 'Reagan Democrats' of yore, represent largely center-right constituencies who while perhaps arguably more socially liberal than other conservatives nonetheless remain fundamentally small-government conservatives. I sense that the administration has been acutely aware of these limitations from the beginning and more or less has used the public option as a bargaining chip to be taken on or off the table to appease, garner momentary support or relieve pressure from whichever side necessary to methodically jimmy forward the ultimate plan.
In an earlier post I commented that, although he had given little indication of what bottom line reforms must be in the health plan he'd ultimately sign, my gut feeling was that generally speaking Obama hoped to move the US towards a Swedish model of social democracy. However, I've come to realize that my analysis may have been a thousand or so kilometers off base; I agree with Paul Krugman that as concerns health care, the reform we're likely to get in the end will mirror Switzerland's approach to universal coverage. While I also agree with many of the points Timothy Noah makes in Slate about the need for some form of public subsidizing of universal coverage in order to avoid the unsavory scenario of the government compelling already cash-strapped families to purchase healthcare they can hardly afford, I'm confident the compassionate eggheads in the administration figured out a game plan for this long ago. Perhaps there's more to the cooperatives being discussed than meets the naked eye. In any case, if you ask me, the Swiss system sounds pretty darn good and a far better fit for the psyche of this country than either the UK or Canadian models. I think that many liberals/progressives choose not to acknowledge that for many Americans the choice to live as completely unencumbered by government as is socially prudent is what equates with freedom. This group of folks by and large are don't want ANYONE let alone government attempting to modulate their behavior. I may see this as just short of anarchy, but it should be crystal clear by now that a relatively high percentage of Americans genuinely believe a 'don't tread on me' view of personal freedom to be intrinsic of 'the American way." In light of of such polar opposed ideology, Swiss inspired health coverage, with its insistence that all citizens purchase health insurance from private providers (with the costs to the impoverished subsidized by government) seems to me the closest we'll get to universal health coverage anytime soon.
Hence, if all the sausage making and bluster surrounding the congressional debate is but so much kabuki theatre obscuring a mostly pre-envisioned outcome, it's possible this is why Obama appears unable to muster much enthusiasm for going through the motions of attaching himself to the less tractive aspects of the plan. So yes, Jon Stewart, maybe Obama is part jedi; it's possible he's five or six moves ahead of his critics on both sides of the debate. However, and to continue with the Star Wars reference, in my opinion what Obama still must learn in order to matriculate from mere knight to master jedi status is how to more effectively shape and influence public perception. I am concerned he and his key strategists are too smart for their own good by half; more often than is probably prudent given the (limited) intellectual capacity and emotional intelligence of the general public (oh I'm sorry was that elitist? it was? well deal with it p**ks!) , Obama seeks to sway with reason when good old-fashioned sincerely delivered passion is the weapon he ought pull from his quiver. In addition, I have expressed consistent concern that he has vastly overestimated his cache of political capital (ala Bush in his second term) and is as yet unclear about how to wield presidential power to fuel regeneration of such capital.
**************************************
Like apparently many other Obama supporters, I've often found his job performance thus far a bit less than inspiring. I keep expecting him to lay more of his cards on the table and take stands on important policy issues. Wholeheartedly championing principled positions is a big part of what I deem leadership and I've seen little of it thus far from our "Change we can believe in" president. I'm pissed that he's configured an administration where only he himself has enough wattage to sell policy. Although it may seem a counterintuitive argument to put forth, In today's short attention span media environment it's actually difficult to become overexposed; people can (and do) always click the channel and find one where politics isn't even remotely on the menu. Nevertheless this president gets trotted out day after day after day and his cool equanimity is wearing poorly over time, a classic case of a considerable strength doubling as a significant weakness. It's difficult to make news and grab people's attention when most messages are delivered with the same vacuous (sorry O!) semi state of alarm. Bush accomplished the feat of making news on demand by sending out charismatic, shameless minions who would say whatever necessary to underscore a point (think Rice's 'mushroom cloud' references or Cheney's WMD certitudes). The Obama administration too often risks coming off as undisciplined and underprepared because its group of independent minded, earnest seeming (eek!), thought provoking brainiacs are constantly going on Sunday talk shows showing off the wide variety of opinions and approaches to problem solving they presumably share with the president. Again, this is a display of strength as weakness. That Obama seeks and apparently is getting unfiltered and candid input from his staff is admirable; that he does not in the end demand consensus and constancy of message borders on a failure of human resource management.
If we'll recall, this was a key differentiator between Hillary Clinton's approach to health care reform and Barack Obama's: Hillary suggested we ought to move directly towards a single-payer system while Obama suggested that the more incremental goal of increasing overall coverage and initiating insurance reform was the more politically viable approach given contemporaneous ideological schisms. Progressives may argue that Obama has created a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy for his reform plans by not using his bully pulpit to at least attempt to convince Americans of why achieving a single-payer health care system would be a good thing. But this reasoning fails to take into account the fragile governing coalition the Democratic party has forged over the past two election cycles to achieve it's current congressional majority. A coalition where so-called 'blue dog' democrats, having inherited the mantle from the 'Reagan Democrats' of yore, represent largely center-right constituencies who while perhaps arguably more socially liberal than other conservatives nonetheless remain fundamentally small-government conservatives. I sense that the administration has been acutely aware of these limitations from the beginning and more or less has used the public option as a bargaining chip to be taken on or off the table to appease, garner momentary support or relieve pressure from whichever side necessary to methodically jimmy forward the ultimate plan.
In an earlier post I commented that, although he had given little indication of what bottom line reforms must be in the health plan he'd ultimately sign, my gut feeling was that generally speaking Obama hoped to move the US towards a Swedish model of social democracy. However, I've come to realize that my analysis may have been a thousand or so kilometers off base; I agree with Paul Krugman that as concerns health care, the reform we're likely to get in the end will mirror Switzerland's approach to universal coverage. While I also agree with many of the points Timothy Noah makes in Slate about the need for some form of public subsidizing of universal coverage in order to avoid the unsavory scenario of the government compelling already cash-strapped families to purchase healthcare they can hardly afford, I'm confident the compassionate eggheads in the administration figured out a game plan for this long ago. Perhaps there's more to the cooperatives being discussed than meets the naked eye. In any case, if you ask me, the Swiss system sounds pretty darn good and a far better fit for the psyche of this country than either the UK or Canadian models. I think that many liberals/progressives choose not to acknowledge that for many Americans the choice to live as completely unencumbered by government as is socially prudent is what equates with freedom. This group of folks by and large are don't want ANYONE let alone government attempting to modulate their behavior. I may see this as just short of anarchy, but it should be crystal clear by now that a relatively high percentage of Americans genuinely believe a 'don't tread on me' view of personal freedom to be intrinsic of 'the American way." In light of of such polar opposed ideology, Swiss inspired health coverage, with its insistence that all citizens purchase health insurance from private providers (with the costs to the impoverished subsidized by government) seems to me the closest we'll get to universal health coverage anytime soon.
Hence, if all the sausage making and bluster surrounding the congressional debate is but so much kabuki theatre obscuring a mostly pre-envisioned outcome, it's possible this is why Obama appears unable to muster much enthusiasm for going through the motions of attaching himself to the less tractive aspects of the plan. So yes, Jon Stewart, maybe Obama is part jedi; it's possible he's five or six moves ahead of his critics on both sides of the debate. However, and to continue with the Star Wars reference, in my opinion what Obama still must learn in order to matriculate from mere knight to master jedi status is how to more effectively shape and influence public perception. I am concerned he and his key strategists are too smart for their own good by half; more often than is probably prudent given the (limited) intellectual capacity and emotional intelligence of the general public (oh I'm sorry was that elitist? it was? well deal with it p**ks!) , Obama seeks to sway with reason when good old-fashioned sincerely delivered passion is the weapon he ought pull from his quiver. In addition, I have expressed consistent concern that he has vastly overestimated his cache of political capital (ala Bush in his second term) and is as yet unclear about how to wield presidential power to fuel regeneration of such capital.
**************************************
Like apparently many other Obama supporters, I've often found his job performance thus far a bit less than inspiring. I keep expecting him to lay more of his cards on the table and take stands on important policy issues. Wholeheartedly championing principled positions is a big part of what I deem leadership and I've seen little of it thus far from our "Change we can believe in" president. I'm pissed that he's configured an administration where only he himself has enough wattage to sell policy. Although it may seem a counterintuitive argument to put forth, In today's short attention span media environment it's actually difficult to become overexposed; people can (and do) always click the channel and find one where politics isn't even remotely on the menu. Nevertheless this president gets trotted out day after day after day and his cool equanimity is wearing poorly over time, a classic case of a considerable strength doubling as a significant weakness. It's difficult to make news and grab people's attention when most messages are delivered with the same vacuous (sorry O!) semi state of alarm. Bush accomplished the feat of making news on demand by sending out charismatic, shameless minions who would say whatever necessary to underscore a point (think Rice's 'mushroom cloud' references or Cheney's WMD certitudes). The Obama administration too often risks coming off as undisciplined and underprepared because its group of independent minded, earnest seeming (eek!), thought provoking brainiacs are constantly going on Sunday talk shows showing off the wide variety of opinions and approaches to problem solving they presumably share with the president. Again, this is a display of strength as weakness. That Obama seeks and apparently is getting unfiltered and candid input from his staff is admirable; that he does not in the end demand consensus and constancy of message borders on a failure of human resource management.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Free Michael Vick?
Here's the thing: I'm not much of a fan of Michael Vick as a football player. I don't care for his undisciplined approach to quarterbacking. He's clearly a brilliant talent but I cannot understand why in his five years as a pro he could not show greater skill development. Even before Vick's legal troubles arose many football analysts shared the view that his career was at something of a crossroads, wondering whether his overall play would ever live up to his awesome physical gifts. And after two years away from football while serving time in jail for running a dog fighting ring it isn't even clear he can return to the sport as a quarterback, let alone pick up where he left off as a star performer. Even so, I was all set to write an indignant post in support of him and decrying the recent decision by the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, that Vick must wait an indefinite time period before he can return to the playing field. Initially I thought the decision to be grossly discriminatory. After all, Vick served 23 months in jail and is a convicted felon with all the stigmatic accouterments that come from being released into American society as a felon. He's done his time and now wants to return to his chosen craft in order to make a living. He's estimated to have lost upwards of $100 million in salary and endorsement monies due to his conviction and has filed for bankruptcy. How much more punitive, I was ready to argue, should society be for his given crime? I was set to assert that for the NFL, or any other employer for that matter, to evaluate his employability based on his previous conviction was prejudicial and essentially un-american. Undoubtedly my thoughts are also influenced by an instinctive sense of empathy I feel towards Vick and other minority ex-cons. I happen to share an overarching conviction held by many in the African-American community that blacks are disproportionately jailed in America. The consequences on family structures and the larger community compound exponentially as released felons often have great difficulty assimilating back into society, creating a self perpetuating cycle of violence and disfunction.
However, I've come to believe that the commissioner has acted fairly towards Vick, perhaps just barely, but fair nonetheless. In reaching this conclusion I sought to generalize the circumstance and put in place of Vick any citizen, of any race or any profession. And contextualized thus it occurred to me that many, perhaps most, businesses given a similar set of particulars would be wary of allowing a felonious employee to resume a job where the employee is a public face of the brand. To be sure, Vick was at one point a major element in the NFL's branding and imaging as a league full of hip, cutting edge competitors. His transgressions at best re-cast him in the eyes of some of the public as the prototypical celebrity athlete who believes himself above the law and at worst a murderous villain. These perceptions may be slow to reverse if they ever do. Furthermore, and as aforementioned, Vick's legal troubles served to effectively veneer a career that had been at a crossroads in any case; his star may have been in descent. So, quite reasonably, the NFL wants to see how its consumer audience reacts and how Vick reacts to returning to the intense crucible that is professional sports celebrity in America. I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the NFL seeking to protect its brand in this way. Although the NFL is arguably the premier sports league in the US today, there are other professional and semi-professional sports leagues out there where Vick could ply his trade. He just may not make millions in those other leagues. I'm not prepared to support the notion that anyone, let alone someone who so callously and cavalierly threw away so much wealth and opportunity, ought to be guaranteed the right to by paid millions of dollars.
Its quite fascinating how two of the bigger new stories of the current cycle, the Vick ruling and the Gates/Crrowley incident, reflect upon our society's continuing struggles with race and class. And for arguments sake I'll throw the birther movement against Obama into the mix too. Perhaps upon first glance each of these stories seems to hinge mainly on endemic racial themes. However, when we look deeper I'd argue that in all three, respectively, raw capitalism, class values and politics play the predominant role with race but a secondary variable. Would Michael Vick have received further punishment from the NFL if he was not a minority? I hope I've successfully argued above that there's a strong possibility a white player would have received similar judgement by the league's marketing mavens. While race surely remains a factor in how the American public responds to a celebrity, it is no longer THE determining factor; for the most part we've evolved to become equal opportunity capitalists. If it had been a white male scholar who, while in his own home, verbally abused a patrolling officer would the officer have arrested him? I'm dubious but I'd still venture that the larger contributing factor to the arrest, infused by the notion that the officer in question was widely considered an 'expert' at racial profiling, was Gates lack of deference to the badge, which I'd suggest is largely a phenomenon of class. Finally, would fringe right-wingers be harassing a white democratic president about the validity of his birth certificate? Perhaps not but based on the manner in which the GOP went after Bill Clinton (but then again perhaps he was black too??!) throughout his presidency it's clear that certain republicans strongly dislike liberal presidents of all races and will be vociferous in their opposition to their legitimacy.
So I guess the moral/lesson implicit here is that we'd all do well to do a better job at working towards understanding opposing viewpoints. In today's America, complexity is the rule, simplicity the exception; that is, race is but one factor in a long list of rationalizations we'll use to screw each other... :) Sigh...alas, I couldn't keep a straight face long enough to let go without injecting a dose of law of the jungle aphorizing. Oh, and if you're maybe wondering why I chose not to equivocate the Sotomayer hearings alongside those other racially inflected news items, well, her treatment by the GOP was all about race, sorry can't be generous and magnanimous on that one.
However, I've come to believe that the commissioner has acted fairly towards Vick, perhaps just barely, but fair nonetheless. In reaching this conclusion I sought to generalize the circumstance and put in place of Vick any citizen, of any race or any profession. And contextualized thus it occurred to me that many, perhaps most, businesses given a similar set of particulars would be wary of allowing a felonious employee to resume a job where the employee is a public face of the brand. To be sure, Vick was at one point a major element in the NFL's branding and imaging as a league full of hip, cutting edge competitors. His transgressions at best re-cast him in the eyes of some of the public as the prototypical celebrity athlete who believes himself above the law and at worst a murderous villain. These perceptions may be slow to reverse if they ever do. Furthermore, and as aforementioned, Vick's legal troubles served to effectively veneer a career that had been at a crossroads in any case; his star may have been in descent. So, quite reasonably, the NFL wants to see how its consumer audience reacts and how Vick reacts to returning to the intense crucible that is professional sports celebrity in America. I think there's nothing inherently wrong with the NFL seeking to protect its brand in this way. Although the NFL is arguably the premier sports league in the US today, there are other professional and semi-professional sports leagues out there where Vick could ply his trade. He just may not make millions in those other leagues. I'm not prepared to support the notion that anyone, let alone someone who so callously and cavalierly threw away so much wealth and opportunity, ought to be guaranteed the right to by paid millions of dollars.
Its quite fascinating how two of the bigger new stories of the current cycle, the Vick ruling and the Gates/Crrowley incident, reflect upon our society's continuing struggles with race and class. And for arguments sake I'll throw the birther movement against Obama into the mix too. Perhaps upon first glance each of these stories seems to hinge mainly on endemic racial themes. However, when we look deeper I'd argue that in all three, respectively, raw capitalism, class values and politics play the predominant role with race but a secondary variable. Would Michael Vick have received further punishment from the NFL if he was not a minority? I hope I've successfully argued above that there's a strong possibility a white player would have received similar judgement by the league's marketing mavens. While race surely remains a factor in how the American public responds to a celebrity, it is no longer THE determining factor; for the most part we've evolved to become equal opportunity capitalists. If it had been a white male scholar who, while in his own home, verbally abused a patrolling officer would the officer have arrested him? I'm dubious but I'd still venture that the larger contributing factor to the arrest, infused by the notion that the officer in question was widely considered an 'expert' at racial profiling, was Gates lack of deference to the badge, which I'd suggest is largely a phenomenon of class. Finally, would fringe right-wingers be harassing a white democratic president about the validity of his birth certificate? Perhaps not but based on the manner in which the GOP went after Bill Clinton (but then again perhaps he was black too??!) throughout his presidency it's clear that certain republicans strongly dislike liberal presidents of all races and will be vociferous in their opposition to their legitimacy.
So I guess the moral/lesson implicit here is that we'd all do well to do a better job at working towards understanding opposing viewpoints. In today's America, complexity is the rule, simplicity the exception; that is, race is but one factor in a long list of rationalizations we'll use to screw each other... :) Sigh...alas, I couldn't keep a straight face long enough to let go without injecting a dose of law of the jungle aphorizing. Oh, and if you're maybe wondering why I chose not to equivocate the Sotomayer hearings alongside those other racially inflected news items, well, her treatment by the GOP was all about race, sorry can't be generous and magnanimous on that one.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Obama/Gates vs. Popo
I had intended to write about the state of the health care debate and Obama's lack of effectiveness at framing the issues for the citizenry. However this Gates thing has flared up and I think my opinions on Obama's self-injection into the matter encapsulates my broader thinking on his job performance in sum. To put it plainly: he don't know what he doin', man. Dude really doesn't fully understand the job of president yet, IMHO. Which is OK, it's a heck of a difficult job and each new president learns how to do the job as he goes along. I do hate to be continually derisive but I have the impression Obama's feelin' his way in the dark still. He's making a lot of unforced errors. Unforeseeable errors to be sure, and errors are not wholly unexpected, to be kind. I've said it before, in these first six months we are witnessing the downside of Obama's relative inexperience. Having said that, I continue to believe that he is on the road to becoming a great president; he's mostly got great instincts for the job and I have no doubts that his heart is in the right place. I hold him to a higher standard and he comes up short sometimes (OK often), as politicians often do. I'm frustrated that Obama hasn't been able to offer more passion and show more assertive leadership, I find him unnervingly passive. I get concerned that even as my perception is that he has shown himself strong and resolute in a crisis (after all the nation has been mired in an economic crisis his entire presidency), his passive, taciturn, reserved approach to communicating with the American people on nearly all matters will encourage his enemies at home and abroad to test him. It's fine to speak softly but every now and again in the current world we live in it's vital IMO that the American president flex "the big stick". This can be achieved rhetorically and Obama, particularly during the primary battle with Hillary, has proved he can be a master of the idiom. Where's the Obama who spoke with such passion and conviction after Iowa or at the Democratic convention (both in 2004 and 2008!)?? Got to at least flash some of that juice every now and again if only to keep the skills up, right??
The Gates flap is perhaps a perfect microcosm of the President's current shortcomings with regards to tone and effective messengering. It's inexplicable to me why a politician who generally has been so measured about racial matters would dive headlong into such a murky affair. To be crystal clear as to my position, a feeble 58 year old man of any race shouldn't be arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct. However as a purely political matter, at it's essence, the Gates affair is a 'he said/she said' event of individual perception and, indeed, individual bias. And as such there was almost no political upside for the POTUS sufficient to justify wading into it. Outside of being seen as sticking up for a friend, just about anything Obama would have said about the matter was sure to enflame or offend a great many people, with little to gain IMO.
Most American adults, of any race, who've ever had opportunity to watch the police work likely can shape an opinion of how the incident may have escalated out of control. If you're African-American, particularly if you're an African-American male, chances are you've actually experienced a similar situation and/or have someone close to you who has. If you're of another race, there's plenty of TV shows that illustrate policing techniques, from COPs to Americas Videos to fictional dramas. So there's no shortage of mental images we can muster to imagine what happened in the Gates home. But the essential point seems to me that none of us were there, the President wasn't there. Putting aside Obama's personal loyalty to his friend Prof. Gates and perhaps even his own personal bias as an African-American male, it simply wasn't Presidential IMHO to imply in any way that the police acted improperly. Even with - - especially with - - his disclaimers about not knowing all of the facts and his acknowledgement of personal bias, the President of the United States should have known to use more conciliatory language, if only as an act of political expedience. Coming at the end of a press conference ostensibly focused on health care, his self proclaimed top priority issue, this was a particularly egregious error of poor timing and unskilled diplomacy from someone who ought to know better.
If it sounds as though I'm agitated about the matter it's because I am. The bigger picture is that Obama, as 'the first black President', is no different than any other of the Black pioneers in medicine, sports, entertainment, politics. There's simply too much at stake given the fragile nature of race relations in this country for him to get 'caught out there' on such an easy trip wire. Everything any president says reverberates in the canyon of public thought and policy from the moment it leaves his or her lips for the rest of eternity. If Barack Obama and I are having a private conversation as private citizens and discussing the Gates issue and BO says that he thinks the police "acted stupidly" I say, "yeah man damn skippy, that s**ts ridiculous." Truthfully though, in most instances two black males conversing about such a matter would never even have to go so far as to venture an opinion; OF COURSE the police acted stupidly in arresting a 58 yr old man in his own home. Yes its possible that there wasn't a racial element to the incident but, so far as most american black folks are concerned, its far more likely that there was racial bias involved. Starting with the neighbor who called in to police to report, "two blacks breaking into the house." Be that as it may, the POTUS has a responsibility to stand up for both law enforcement and the citizen; he cannot be seen as taking sides. If all the facts of a case are known, that's a substantially different matter altogether; I'd say in that circumstance the POTUS is obliged to weigh in and utilize the bully pulpit to guide the nation in the direction he feels appropriate. I'll also admit that no matter how the President had handled the question he likely would have taken flak from an important element of his voting bloc. But his choice of words inflamed the situation in a way that showed a lack of forethought and self discipline IMO. At the moment I heard his comment I inwardly thought to myself, "I wish he hadn't said that but I'm glad he did." Followed immediately by a wincing, "man, I wish he hadn't said that...what the f**k was he thinking?" Followed by, "why couldn't he demonstrate the same passion for health care or energy policy?? Why doesn't he bash 'just say no' republican talking heads with the same pep and animus??!"
The Gates flap is perhaps a perfect microcosm of the President's current shortcomings with regards to tone and effective messengering. It's inexplicable to me why a politician who generally has been so measured about racial matters would dive headlong into such a murky affair. To be crystal clear as to my position, a feeble 58 year old man of any race shouldn't be arrested in his own home for disorderly conduct. However as a purely political matter, at it's essence, the Gates affair is a 'he said/she said' event of individual perception and, indeed, individual bias. And as such there was almost no political upside for the POTUS sufficient to justify wading into it. Outside of being seen as sticking up for a friend, just about anything Obama would have said about the matter was sure to enflame or offend a great many people, with little to gain IMO.
Most American adults, of any race, who've ever had opportunity to watch the police work likely can shape an opinion of how the incident may have escalated out of control. If you're African-American, particularly if you're an African-American male, chances are you've actually experienced a similar situation and/or have someone close to you who has. If you're of another race, there's plenty of TV shows that illustrate policing techniques, from COPs to Americas Videos to fictional dramas. So there's no shortage of mental images we can muster to imagine what happened in the Gates home. But the essential point seems to me that none of us were there, the President wasn't there. Putting aside Obama's personal loyalty to his friend Prof. Gates and perhaps even his own personal bias as an African-American male, it simply wasn't Presidential IMHO to imply in any way that the police acted improperly. Even with - - especially with - - his disclaimers about not knowing all of the facts and his acknowledgement of personal bias, the President of the United States should have known to use more conciliatory language, if only as an act of political expedience. Coming at the end of a press conference ostensibly focused on health care, his self proclaimed top priority issue, this was a particularly egregious error of poor timing and unskilled diplomacy from someone who ought to know better.
If it sounds as though I'm agitated about the matter it's because I am. The bigger picture is that Obama, as 'the first black President', is no different than any other of the Black pioneers in medicine, sports, entertainment, politics. There's simply too much at stake given the fragile nature of race relations in this country for him to get 'caught out there' on such an easy trip wire. Everything any president says reverberates in the canyon of public thought and policy from the moment it leaves his or her lips for the rest of eternity. If Barack Obama and I are having a private conversation as private citizens and discussing the Gates issue and BO says that he thinks the police "acted stupidly" I say, "yeah man damn skippy, that s**ts ridiculous." Truthfully though, in most instances two black males conversing about such a matter would never even have to go so far as to venture an opinion; OF COURSE the police acted stupidly in arresting a 58 yr old man in his own home. Yes its possible that there wasn't a racial element to the incident but, so far as most american black folks are concerned, its far more likely that there was racial bias involved. Starting with the neighbor who called in to police to report, "two blacks breaking into the house." Be that as it may, the POTUS has a responsibility to stand up for both law enforcement and the citizen; he cannot be seen as taking sides. If all the facts of a case are known, that's a substantially different matter altogether; I'd say in that circumstance the POTUS is obliged to weigh in and utilize the bully pulpit to guide the nation in the direction he feels appropriate. I'll also admit that no matter how the President had handled the question he likely would have taken flak from an important element of his voting bloc. But his choice of words inflamed the situation in a way that showed a lack of forethought and self discipline IMO. At the moment I heard his comment I inwardly thought to myself, "I wish he hadn't said that but I'm glad he did." Followed immediately by a wincing, "man, I wish he hadn't said that...what the f**k was he thinking?" Followed by, "why couldn't he demonstrate the same passion for health care or energy policy?? Why doesn't he bash 'just say no' republican talking heads with the same pep and animus??!"
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Getting to the bottom of things...
So the other day was the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. And I watched and read myriad testimonials, recollections and recountings of that singular event. It all blew my mind, made my imagination run wild. On one show they replayed the six moon EVAs, showing the astronauts galavanting giddily around the surface of the moon, collecting rocks, playing golf, unfurling flags, etc. And it was just insane; men had gone back and forth to the moon 40 yrs ago, landed six times, left flags and rovers and s**t and ain't been back since. Can't go back either, as there's currently no vehicle or support system, no current technology that would allow men to return. Many articles dwelled on this incongruity, mainly within the context of questioning what should be the ongoing mission of the US space program, ie mars vs. moon, manned spaceflight vs. robotic, etc. Few seemed to get into the underlying social ramifications/implications, other than in passing, of a society which spent approx $135 billion (in todays dollars) on sending men on an exploration during an epoch of such social upheaval and rampant poverty. As the song poet Gil Scott-Heron commented at the time, "No hot water, no toilets, no lights yet whitey's on the moon..." Well well...But I'm not going to delve deeper into that thicket here. I will say I'm torn about human space exploration. It does indeed seem difficult to me to justify it when there are so many pressing issues here on earth. That I'm a sci fi nerd to the extreme who can quote star wars chapter and verse does little to assuage my ambivalence. My vacillation, though, is about more than economics; I'm all for human exploration of the cosmos. I just have a hard time getting super excited about sub-interstellar space exploration (however when they get a warp drive going I reserve the right to change my position) when there's so much of our own planet that we've yet to fully survey. Indeed, we barely have the technology to research our earth's least accessible areas, such as the bottom of the ocean. I'm an advocate of exhausting our knowledge of the earth, of our home, before we broaden out to the 'stars'.
So I'm hoping here to draw attention to this interesting quirk of human (american?) thought processes: the notion that going beyond the earth is somehow more exciting, more challenging and more valuable than exploring here on earth. Although I haven't the time nor deep interest to explore it fully, I wonder whether this is in fact a truism for a majority of people on earth regardless of nationality or a uniquely American perception. Or perhaps a product of our modern media culture. I wonder if statistics would even bare out my initial premise? Be that as it may, on the face of things I'd probably posit, as some others have, that what I'll call 'space exceptionalism' is a modern phenomenon intrinsic to Americans. It may be in part a relic of the cold war era, of the post WWII era. I mean, there was a time not long ago when triumphant explorers received ticker tape parades in the US. It wasn't so long ago that the american public knew the names of prominent archeologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc. (and poets, composers, painters and other esoteric fields but thats another kettle o' fish). Gradually and increasingly I'd say we're becoming desensitized by the glut of information available to us and by the wizardry and whip appeal of consumer technology. As more and more men achieve, the once hardly imaginable has become almost mundane. Take for example the scaling of Mt. Everest, a once scarcely fathomable trek with nearly impossible odds against success. It's still considered quite a challenging feat but now folks take cameras - - and even camera crews - - up with them and back home many of us watch less with awe than with detached curiosity. I sense that we've become a culture that's loath to be impressed by anything or anyone. Television commercials tell us we're inadequate all day long, that we constantly are in need of this or that, and I'd say part of the defense mechanism of our collective psyche is to overcompensate and over-inflate our egos. We cannot stand for others to be 'above' us, we need to feel that even our heroes are 'just like us'. We constantly seek opportunity to expose their weaknesses, thereby making them more ordinary. Reminds me a bit of the premise in the movie "The Incredibles" where the antagonist super villain hoped to create a world where, (and I'm paraphrasing)' everybody is super so that no one is super.' I wonder if there's a sociological study out there which gets into the health of the American super ego? Of course we really don't need any study to tell us that whole lotta folks are having a hard time loving themselves these days, which means they likely have a significantly impeded ability to care deeply about the needs of others as well..
But on to the really important stuff, the sci fi: here's a couple links which deal with how much of our planet we've yet to explore:
This first link is a WIRED article discussing the various depths of the ocean and how little we know about depths beyond seven miles down. The main crux of my internal argument against the space program deals with the idea that we cannot readily put a man on the bottom of the ocean or near the center of the earth and yet we're talking about...whitey on the moon/mars. I mean wake me when they get to the earth's crust (or develop the aforementioned warp drive). I'm only awake now because we got a black president but that novelty may soon wear off...
WIRED 12.12.08: "Dive! Dive! Dive!"
This one on the surface sounds on its face like sci fi nuttiness (spoiler: its about living dinosaurs) but who can really say until we actually go into these places/environments, have a good look around and...strip mine the whole g*dd**n place like you KNOW we will! :-/o
True Authority.com: " The Mokele-mbembe"
So my message is explore innerspace, day dream about outerspace...at least until we get a warp drive and a transporter and all that s**t...and we'll need some photon torpedos too, just in case there's some hostile cats or renegade asteroids and stuff out there too...
So I'm hoping here to draw attention to this interesting quirk of human (american?) thought processes: the notion that going beyond the earth is somehow more exciting, more challenging and more valuable than exploring here on earth. Although I haven't the time nor deep interest to explore it fully, I wonder whether this is in fact a truism for a majority of people on earth regardless of nationality or a uniquely American perception. Or perhaps a product of our modern media culture. I wonder if statistics would even bare out my initial premise? Be that as it may, on the face of things I'd probably posit, as some others have, that what I'll call 'space exceptionalism' is a modern phenomenon intrinsic to Americans. It may be in part a relic of the cold war era, of the post WWII era. I mean, there was a time not long ago when triumphant explorers received ticker tape parades in the US. It wasn't so long ago that the american public knew the names of prominent archeologists, paleontologists, astronomers, etc. (and poets, composers, painters and other esoteric fields but thats another kettle o' fish). Gradually and increasingly I'd say we're becoming desensitized by the glut of information available to us and by the wizardry and whip appeal of consumer technology. As more and more men achieve, the once hardly imaginable has become almost mundane. Take for example the scaling of Mt. Everest, a once scarcely fathomable trek with nearly impossible odds against success. It's still considered quite a challenging feat but now folks take cameras - - and even camera crews - - up with them and back home many of us watch less with awe than with detached curiosity. I sense that we've become a culture that's loath to be impressed by anything or anyone. Television commercials tell us we're inadequate all day long, that we constantly are in need of this or that, and I'd say part of the defense mechanism of our collective psyche is to overcompensate and over-inflate our egos. We cannot stand for others to be 'above' us, we need to feel that even our heroes are 'just like us'. We constantly seek opportunity to expose their weaknesses, thereby making them more ordinary. Reminds me a bit of the premise in the movie "The Incredibles" where the antagonist super villain hoped to create a world where, (and I'm paraphrasing)' everybody is super so that no one is super.' I wonder if there's a sociological study out there which gets into the health of the American super ego? Of course we really don't need any study to tell us that whole lotta folks are having a hard time loving themselves these days, which means they likely have a significantly impeded ability to care deeply about the needs of others as well..
But on to the really important stuff, the sci fi: here's a couple links which deal with how much of our planet we've yet to explore:
This first link is a WIRED article discussing the various depths of the ocean and how little we know about depths beyond seven miles down. The main crux of my internal argument against the space program deals with the idea that we cannot readily put a man on the bottom of the ocean or near the center of the earth and yet we're talking about...whitey on the moon/mars. I mean wake me when they get to the earth's crust (or develop the aforementioned warp drive). I'm only awake now because we got a black president but that novelty may soon wear off...
WIRED 12.12.08: "Dive! Dive! Dive!"
This one on the surface sounds on its face like sci fi nuttiness (spoiler: its about living dinosaurs) but who can really say until we actually go into these places/environments, have a good look around and...strip mine the whole g*dd**n place like you KNOW we will! :-/o
True Authority.com: " The Mokele-mbembe"
So my message is explore innerspace, day dream about outerspace...at least until we get a warp drive and a transporter and all that s**t...and we'll need some photon torpedos too, just in case there's some hostile cats or renegade asteroids and stuff out there too...
Monday, March 23, 2009
Geithner Plan
"So the Geithner plan is really two bets in one. The first is that this is not the worst case scenario and does not require the fixes developed for the worst case scenario. The second is that if this turns out to be the worst case scenario, then we still have those fixes available to us, and the need is clarified among the actors -- like Congress and the market -- whose reaction in the absence of consensus could scotch the whole thing" - Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
I'd say this is as succinct an explanation as I've seen yet for the underlying rationale behind the administration's possible thought processes on solving the banking crisis. And for me this 'keeping bullets in the gun" approach does indeed seem a prudent course of action, politically speaking. The predominant counter view comes, not surprisingly, from Paul Krugman who argues, as is his general wont, that Geithner's plan will cause the sky to fall.
I have a love/hate thing going with Krugman and I'm willing to bet I'm not alone. As befits an economic Nobel laureate, he's often spot on in his analysis, especially when forecasting long term economic trends. However, for me he generally skews dangerously close to demagoguery; I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously who so often seems to see issues in absolutes. That is, in my opinion Krugman devalues his contributions to economic science by being so rigidly and unceasingly political. He so routinely chooses to use his column as a forum for promoting the progressive agenda that it has become difficult, if not impossible, to perceive him as an honest broker. Consequently, in moments such as the present crisis, during which his considerable scientific skill might be brought to bear to help solve problems and provide perspective, his credibility becomes as much the issue as his analysis. Accordingly, I read Krugman unfailingly but take everything he has to say with a grain of salt and run it thoroughly through my bullshit-o-meter. In this circumstance I find Klein's thoughts on Geithner's plan to be both more measured and objective than his.
I'd say this is as succinct an explanation as I've seen yet for the underlying rationale behind the administration's possible thought processes on solving the banking crisis. And for me this 'keeping bullets in the gun" approach does indeed seem a prudent course of action, politically speaking. The predominant counter view comes, not surprisingly, from Paul Krugman who argues, as is his general wont, that Geithner's plan will cause the sky to fall.
I have a love/hate thing going with Krugman and I'm willing to bet I'm not alone. As befits an economic Nobel laureate, he's often spot on in his analysis, especially when forecasting long term economic trends. However, for me he generally skews dangerously close to demagoguery; I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously who so often seems to see issues in absolutes. That is, in my opinion Krugman devalues his contributions to economic science by being so rigidly and unceasingly political. He so routinely chooses to use his column as a forum for promoting the progressive agenda that it has become difficult, if not impossible, to perceive him as an honest broker. Consequently, in moments such as the present crisis, during which his considerable scientific skill might be brought to bear to help solve problems and provide perspective, his credibility becomes as much the issue as his analysis. Accordingly, I read Krugman unfailingly but take everything he has to say with a grain of salt and run it thoroughly through my bullshit-o-meter. In this circumstance I find Klein's thoughts on Geithner's plan to be both more measured and objective than his.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Theories 101
My recent problem is that ever since my friend hipped me to the realities of banking I've been skirting the fringes in a manner I'm not accustomed. Case in point: "Zeitgeist" . I'd not even heard of this movie before last week but I watched it yesterday and it gave me a lot of food for thought. If you've not seen it, the general premise is that a select group of bankers rule the world and manipulate events so that they may keep the world in endless debt and thereby beholden to them. More or less, whether via organized conspiracy or no, that sounds about right to me. Perhaps not the manipulating events part but the general idea of ultra-capitalists is not a far fetched notion to me a'tall.
Over time I've come to believe that genetics and environment are the biggest pre-disposers of human behavior, the umbrella above class, ethnicity or race (note the order). A saying which encapsulates my feeling best is: "It takes all kinds to make a world." I think if one submits to a non-religious view of understanding human nature (which does not, I'd like to add, necessarily preclude religious faith), one eventually runs smack into Darwin to explain both the diversity and similarities between peoples. From this worldview, super aggressive, greedy folk -- - such as some bankers or, hey, how bout those financial products unit managers at AIG - - are but a necessary variation on the human theme. For years I've heard Warren Buffet trot out the same genetic/sociological explanation for his successes: "Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner." So why not a class of folk wholly or mostly lacking what we currently consider an appropriate amount of, um, shame or thought for the welfare of others? Could we call these people 'functional sociopaths'? Just marinate on that for a sec: how many people, from all walks of life, might we line up underneath the general heading of 'functional sociopath'? How about the functioning alcoholic who's just a tragic accident away from life imprisonment? Or the wife beater who is but an unfortunate blow away from the death penalty? Congress, as I write, is debating an appropriate manner by which to punish those responsible for bringing down our economy. But weren't these people simply doing what they do, being whom they are within varying degrees of excess? I'm not looking to absolve poor behavior, only to better contextualize it. Interesting to think about, yes?
Over time I've come to believe that genetics and environment are the biggest pre-disposers of human behavior, the umbrella above class, ethnicity or race (note the order). A saying which encapsulates my feeling best is: "It takes all kinds to make a world." I think if one submits to a non-religious view of understanding human nature (which does not, I'd like to add, necessarily preclude religious faith), one eventually runs smack into Darwin to explain both the diversity and similarities between peoples. From this worldview, super aggressive, greedy folk -- - such as some bankers or, hey, how bout those financial products unit managers at AIG - - are but a necessary variation on the human theme. For years I've heard Warren Buffet trot out the same genetic/sociological explanation for his successes: "Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I'd been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can't run very fast. I'm not particularly strong. I'd probably end up as some wild animal's dinner." So why not a class of folk wholly or mostly lacking what we currently consider an appropriate amount of, um, shame or thought for the welfare of others? Could we call these people 'functional sociopaths'? Just marinate on that for a sec: how many people, from all walks of life, might we line up underneath the general heading of 'functional sociopath'? How about the functioning alcoholic who's just a tragic accident away from life imprisonment? Or the wife beater who is but an unfortunate blow away from the death penalty? Congress, as I write, is debating an appropriate manner by which to punish those responsible for bringing down our economy. But weren't these people simply doing what they do, being whom they are within varying degrees of excess? I'm not looking to absolve poor behavior, only to better contextualize it. Interesting to think about, yes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
