Deconstructing Dennis

Last week, my dad forwarded me an email from a right-wing friend of his featuring a link to this video of conservative pundit Dennis Prager speaking at some event at the University of Denver.  He wanted to know my take on what Prager was saying.  So I watched it and replied thusly:

Well, I watched the clip, and I can’t say that I’m surprised.  He offered an articulate, if disturbing, statement of the conservative/authoritarian view of the country and the world.  He explicitly identifies himself as a paleoconservative (and also perhaps a Palin-oconservative), which is not a Republican archaeologist, but someone who believes in the (mythical) purity of pre-modern life, and seeks to reshape society back into that mold (or is it a corset?).  He blames our current problems on “European professors” who came to US universities “a hundred years ago”, and the foreign, dare I say, French, ideas that they brought with them.  Now that I think about it, he’s fighting the royalist/aristocratic  position in the French Revolution: against the separation of church and state, and in favor of the concept of a (divinely mandated) hierarchy of inequality.  He even goes farther back than that: with his statement that governments that enact policies that benefit their citizens and bring them happiness are immoral, he echoes mainstream medieval thought going all the way back to Augustine in late antiquity, that human happiness is impossible and that trying to bring it about in this world is a sinful deviation from the true path.  He believes that early America somehow embodies this medieval ideal, never minding all the European Enlightenment ideas written into the Declaration and Constitution.  On this illusory basis lies his concept of American Exceptionalism: because we, or at least Republicans, are on the true path, all that we, conservatives, do is inherently good.  So thus the Iraq war was not a war of criminal aggression for oil, strategic position, genocide, profit, and the frail ego of a spoiled alcoholic brat trying to be better than his father, it was about “fighting evil”.  It follows then, that if the US is uniquely good, then everyone else is bad.  He predictably beats up on a number of foreign countries, as well as presenting a false duality between the US and the UN.  In a distorted reflection of Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” statement, he implies that the only choices available in the world are the US and UN, when there are quite a variety of political, social, and economic orientations from which to choose.  

All in all, this is pretty typical far-right stuff, some of which can be confronted or rebutted on a factual basis, but the heart of which is metaphysical.  Is a modern society in which laws explicitly written by human beings apply to all human beings equally, preferable to a pre-modern society with a legal hierarchy of privilege in which the law, based on arbitrary and unchangeable religious dogma, written by a few elite human beings for the sake of the few elite human beings, applies unevenly by design?  Progressives, heirs of the Enlightenment, would say yes, modern society for all its flaws is better because we control it, and are masters of our own destiny.  Espousal of this view requires a certain tolerance for imperfection and mistakes, as well as the belief that the venture can be successful in improving the lives of humanity from their present state.  Conservatives obviously disagree.  Such happiness as they allow themselves comes from order: obeying strong authority and dominating those weaker than themselves.  To say that these views are incompatible is to say that one should not mix sodium and water, for the inevitable result is a violent conflagration.  And that is where I think people like Mr. Prager are leading us.

What's Your Favorite Flavor?


Some big food science news this week: Human Derived Gelatin.


You have to wonder what possesses someone to start working on a project like this. Admittedly it's recombinant - from human genes inserted into yeast, rather than made by the, um, more direct approach, but really. Really. Is this what the world needs now? Leaving aside for a moment the wisdom of creating transgenic chimeric organisms, here are a few thoughts on the matter.



1) New flavor - Soylent Green

2) Ewww

3) Would they sell it in a Donner Party-Pack?

4) Hey girls! I've got your human-derived gelatin right here

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead*!



So we can all go home now, right?

No, I didn't think so.


*Trust us. Why would we lie about something like this?

The Temptation To Protect

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about our latest military escapade in Libya. I've struggled with the dilemma between allowing atrocities to occur on one hand, and on the other hand stopping them but setting the stage for worse. Initially, I tentatively supported an intervention. It looked like Qadaffi was going to go in to Benghazi and other rebellious eastern cities and commit horrific atrocities (are there any other kind?) against civilians who dared stand against him. Forgive me; I couldn't help but see ourselves a few years hence in them. And so, even though the motivations of our elite were less than pure (Can you say "oil", or "resource competition with China"?), one outcome of the attack would be to, at least for the moment, spare thousands or even tens of thousands of innocent lives. This line of thinking falls in with the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect: essentially since we have the power to stop an event, we bear some responsibility if we choose not to stop it. Certainly this doctrine has moral force on an individual and intranational level, else why are we outraged when onlookers watch a murder and do nothing, or when a nation leaves those stricken by a natural disaster to starve and die with callous indifference? Yet the doctrine also has limits and boundaries on those same levels: there are some events too large or too dangerous for any ordinary individual to affect directly, and there are interventions worse than the crimes that they seek to stop or prevent. The second point is the most relevant for the discussion of the responsibility to protect on an international scale.

Lord Acton famously said: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This I think is the maxim that must guide our thinking when we are tempted to intervene with force for humanitarian reasons. We feel responsible because we have the military power to stop it; in fact with a military force more powerful in relative terms than any since ancient Rome, we have close to absolute physical power. And it has absolutely corrupted and nearly destroyed us. In this realization though, is the answer to the dilemma: give up the power, remove the ability to intervene, and eliminate the temptation to protect.

Giving up the power to protect on an international scale by demilitarizing our society does not relieve us of the responsibility to protect, it only limits our ability to do so violently. As part of rebuilding our own civil society and shattered moral authority, we must create and support institutions that promote human rights, expose abuses of human rights, and prosecute crimes against humanity wherever they may occur. These actions, implemented with vigor and transparency, will prevent the need for many interventions. Future miscreants may self-limit their crimes when they know they will be pursued to the ends of the Earth in the name of justice. Here is another relevant Acton quote in closing: "Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."

"When donkeys fly", you say. Well yes, for now, until they do.

Might I Interest You In A Tulip, Sir

Last night I was reading through this week's issue (March 5th 2011) of the Economist. In a special section on real estate was an article (Own Goal) discussing the benefits of renting vs. buying. At the end of the article is a little color commentary from hedge-fund manager John Paulson who is exhorting potential buyers to get back into the market. He says,

"If you don't own a home, buy one. If you own one home, buy another one, and if you own two homes, buy a third and lend your relatives the money to buy a home."

I did a double-take. Was this the same John Paulson that (allegedly) conspired with Goldman Sachs to produce a mortgage-backed security that was designed to fail, and then shorted that same security while GS flogged it to unwitting investors? The article does note that he "made billions betting against the housing market". Furthermore, Wikipedia and a brief web search shows only one "John Paulson" managing hedge funds, so I must tentatively conclude that this is in fact the same person.

Now, why would any rational person take advice on the housing market from an amoral grifter who has already (allegedly) perpetrated one multibillion-dollar fraud on that same market, particularly when it seems that he's made another large bet? If, however, you are one of those people, could I interest you in some Enron stock? It's coming back...really!*

Also, tulips.



*snark, really!

Once Again We Speak Truth To Power And Are Ignored (Because Our Name Is Not Julian Assange)

Sorry there's not too much linky goodness in this - it was a letter originally. Definitely head over to Bill Mitchell's place though if you're interested in the economic theory.

Dear Senator Hagan,

I am writing to you in regard to the controversy surrounding the impending end of the Bush tax cuts. As I write this, it appears that President Obama has capitulated to the Republicans in agreeing to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy in exchange for an extension of unemployment benefits. The extension of unemployment benefits is certainly necessary, but it is at best a small bandage that will not be effective at healing the economic equivalent of stage-four cancer that is our unemployment-manufacturing-and-trade crisis. This kind of wound requires major surgery to repair not only the surface damage, but also the damage to internal systems.

The financial fraud that caused the banking collapse and real estate crash of 2008-09 may have precipitated this modern depression, but it did not cause it: the economy had already been hollowed out by the loss of jobs and manufacturing capacity to foreign countries. The slow and systematic destruction of our economy leading up to the collapse did not happen by accident; it was the natural outcome of certain policies that have been put into place over the past several decades. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but the gradual decrease in the top marginal income-tax rate, the sequestration of capital gains from normal income, the lack of even moderate import tariffs, the merging of deposit and investment banking, and the enshrinement of corporate personhood in law all have contributed to the fear and malaise spreading across the America outside the Beltway and outside the boardroom. These changes have enabled the growth of an aristocratic class that has been able to amass enough wealth to parasitize the state and cause it to act to their benefit and not to the benefit of the majority of citizens. Consider: a billionaire is able to structure her estate such that most of his taxes are at the long-term capital gains rate or are deferred, and his payroll tax is either insignificant or nonexistent, while the typical middle- or working-class person pays the regular (higher) income-tax rate as well as payroll tax on her entire paycheck. The billionaire then invests the money he saves, often in corporations, and demands high returns. The corporations take advantage of the low import barriers to move production overseas, save money by treating their foreign workers like serfs, and increase the value of the billionaire's stock. The process then repeats with American jobs and capacity being lost at each step as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

This is why attempting to stimulate the economy with money on the upper end of the spectrum is absolutely certain to fail; money given to the wealthy through tax cuts, or to corporations and banks through quantitative easing and similar programs is invested, not spent locally, and that investment largely goes to expand overseas production. If you really want to help the economy grow in a manner that benefits the ninety-nine-point-something percent of us that are not multimillionaires, then you can start by letting the Bush tax cuts expire (and blame the Republicans for not wanting the wealthy to pay their fair share). Then continue by putting up sensible import duties, and establishing a job guarantee. Certainly there is work to be done: we have crumbling roads and bridges, a decrepit electrical grid, a laughable broadband communications network, and a terrifying dependence on a dangerous and disappearing natural resource - oil. These are long-term projects and a private sector addicted to short-term gains will not take them on until it's far too late, so the government must - otherwise what use are you? Then bring back a strongly progressive income-tax system in which nearly all unearned income is treated the same as earned income (I'd recommend keeping the exemption for the sale of one's primary residence, but that's about it); the top rate should be at least 50%. Also put into place a robust estate tax. The goal of these measures would be to allow a person that does something truly exceptional to become modestly wealthy, but to prevent the establishment of hereditary privilege and to maintain a relatively low level of inequality in society. Break up the megabanks into smaller entities that separate the functions of investment banking from that of deposit-taking and lending: too big to fail is too big to be allowed to exist.

Fixing the economy will cost money, and the deficit scolds will tell you that you can't spend that money without causing inflation or borrowing from China. There's a word to describe that point of view; the same word is also used to describe that which falls from the backside of a male bovine. Inflation happens when too much money (demand) is chasing insufficient supply. Given our present degree of unemployment and underemployment, this economy has a huge capacity to increase supply to keep pace with demand; as such we should not see significant domestic inflation until we are near full employment. As for borrowing from external sources, we don't have to - we're not on the gold standard anymore; we have a fiat currency and we can make as many dollars as we want. This will most likely result in the weakening of the dollar, and imports will become more expensive. In the short term, a weaker dollar will cause some pain, but as it will act as a de facto tariff, it will spur the redevelopment of the domestic economy.

I'm sorry that this became a rather long letter, but as you can see, our current problems have their roots in the deepest structures of our economy. Changing these structures is the only way to improve our situation in the long term. This job will not be easy and it will not be fast, but when people see progress, they will support it.

From Little Acorns Grow Mighty Oaks

A newly released Wikileaks “Collateral Murder” video has made international headlines showing a July 2007 shooting incident outside of Baghdad in which U.S. forces wounded two children and killed over a dozen people, including the father of those children and two Reuters employees. Two soldiers from Bravo Company 2-16, the company depicted in the video, have written an open letter of apology to the Iraqis who were injured or lost loved ones during the attack that, these former soldiers say, is a regular occurrence in this war. You can view the Wikileaks video here: http://wikileaks.org/

Sign your name to their letter here http://www.lettertoiraq.com

It's a powerful and moving letter that could be the seed of a popular movement not only to end the war(s), but to deliver justice to those to whom it has been denied and to those to whom it has been subjugated. I signed it today.