And I got a chill...
So, as you know, I just finished reading the Power of the Vote by Doug Schoen. Doug Schoen, for those of you haven't been following along is the political pollster of Penn, Schoen & Berland, the Democratic political polling and strategy outfit that advised, Koch, Clinton, Corzine and Bloomberg.
He makes a lot of points in the closing chapter about how Democrats should position themselves in the 2008 race. This book was written before the race started, and makes no mention of Obama or HC. One of them that actually makes sense to me is this: Doug is a centrist. And he feels that one reason the Dems lost touch with the electorate is that they failed to appeal to the middle class. The Dems had considered their base the lowerclasses and so their messages had been spun toward them. In fact, he claims that the middle class does not identify with messages of public welfare at all. And why not, under the tax schematic of the last ten years, the middleclass has paid for the brunt of welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid. It doesn't matter that these services are there for them if they fall below the line. But I think that this will matter more now. For ten long years the Middle has strove to hang on, with wages actually slipping below the rate of inflation. And they've done it by living on good credit. With the mortgage meltdown--those turkeys are coming home to roost. Troubled banks are calling in their loans, trying to raise capital for their mistakes, forcing more and more people in the economic median to the edges. Regardless, the middleclass doesn't consider itself the lowerclass. In fact, they pride themselves on where they are. They're educated, extremely hardworking, and feel themselves to be positive roll models for their children. They don't want a handout, but they do want help. They want more of their own income. They want help repaying their loans--they don't like to be in debt and are not necessarily comfortable with it. So when Doug Schoen says the Dems have to position themselves for this, he makes a sound point. The Democrats have to be the party of fiscal responsibility. That means promising a balanced budget, but it doesn't mean wealth redistrubition.
That was my big centrist thought. When I read an article about the convention this morning, and I heard those sorts of ideas being bandied about, it suddenly occurred to me that the man is absolutely right. Look--I hate the fact that certain executives live in an entire different stratosphere from the rest of us. But can I really espouse taking their money away? Well--in some cases I can. The Bush tax cuts NEED to go. And the Clinton tax, needs to be made stronger to help the middle and not shield the uberrich. However, in general, I want to make money too. It's a betting against the house, I know, but in every American there is that seed of hope that one day, they might make it to that top 1%. People revere Warren Beatty, and Mike Bloomberg like they're some sort of god. This is the convoluted logic that the Republicans have relied on for years. You and your spouse can bring in under 50Gs together, but if you work hard, and believe in the American Dream, you too can live like a King. And the unbelievable credit market showed that it could indeed happen to a guy like you. And now its gone.
The populist rhetoric is important to me--but appealing to the middleclass is of the highest importance for this race.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Accounting 101
So this will be the first blog about my new subject of education: Accounting. That's right, the Master's begins.
That's actually misleading, actual graded classes won't start until next week, but I started the precursor class.
Enough intro, to wit, I was inspired/disturbed by something I read in the intro papers. Something our teacher spent some time on as well. I guess I was pretty naive, because I thought that Accounting was something that one did, simply as a matter of course in business. You have a product, you need to sell it, you've sold it, you need to keep track of it. You paid X amount on it to get it off the ground, you want to determine if it was worth it. Weeeelll, that's part of it. But no--the line that struck me was the open admission that the purpose of tax accounting is to exploit the tax system. That simple.
I have to admit, I was a bit horrified. Sure I know the drill, people do all sorts of things, usually harmless to avoid paying taxes. But that tax accounting says it, openly and unapologeticly, struck me as rather frightening. If the accounters aren't making honest accountants, than who is being honest?
Now, the professor made a point on this subject that in my naivety, helped shed a little light on the predicament. Remember, that when Moses came off Mount Sinai, he wasn't carrying a tax code. These things didn't come out of thin air. Nor do they come from basic economic principles. They came from the government and the people. So the rules are already sort of busted. I mean, clearly the government looks out for its own interest, the people theirs, and no one really gives a shit about the big picture. And from this constant warfare of 250 million interests plus however many corporations are out there, a tax code is hacked into shape.
So if you think about it, exploting the code is really the only way to gain fair treatment. I thought about trying to change the wording. If exploiting is in its commonality, a rather gross term, then maybe learning the code would be better. But no. Because it just doesn't make the point. The system is a crazy, controvercial, often conflicting set of rules, that no average person could ever navigate without extensive training. And lets face it--is Joe Average going to do that? Hell no! My office mate goes to H&R block every year. They do her taxes. I use Turbotax. My girlfriend is the only one I know who actually sits through the damn thing and calculates it herself.
So I'm okay with "exploiting the tax code" now. It isn't exploting like how the diamond merchants exploit the Congo, it's maneuvering, completely legally, and completely justly, to maximize your gain. Plain and simple.
That's actually misleading, actual graded classes won't start until next week, but I started the precursor class.
Enough intro, to wit, I was inspired/disturbed by something I read in the intro papers. Something our teacher spent some time on as well. I guess I was pretty naive, because I thought that Accounting was something that one did, simply as a matter of course in business. You have a product, you need to sell it, you've sold it, you need to keep track of it. You paid X amount on it to get it off the ground, you want to determine if it was worth it. Weeeelll, that's part of it. But no--the line that struck me was the open admission that the purpose of tax accounting is to exploit the tax system. That simple.
I have to admit, I was a bit horrified. Sure I know the drill, people do all sorts of things, usually harmless to avoid paying taxes. But that tax accounting says it, openly and unapologeticly, struck me as rather frightening. If the accounters aren't making honest accountants, than who is being honest?
Now, the professor made a point on this subject that in my naivety, helped shed a little light on the predicament. Remember, that when Moses came off Mount Sinai, he wasn't carrying a tax code. These things didn't come out of thin air. Nor do they come from basic economic principles. They came from the government and the people. So the rules are already sort of busted. I mean, clearly the government looks out for its own interest, the people theirs, and no one really gives a shit about the big picture. And from this constant warfare of 250 million interests plus however many corporations are out there, a tax code is hacked into shape.
So if you think about it, exploting the code is really the only way to gain fair treatment. I thought about trying to change the wording. If exploiting is in its commonality, a rather gross term, then maybe learning the code would be better. But no. Because it just doesn't make the point. The system is a crazy, controvercial, often conflicting set of rules, that no average person could ever navigate without extensive training. And lets face it--is Joe Average going to do that? Hell no! My office mate goes to H&R block every year. They do her taxes. I use Turbotax. My girlfriend is the only one I know who actually sits through the damn thing and calculates it herself.
So I'm okay with "exploiting the tax code" now. It isn't exploting like how the diamond merchants exploit the Congo, it's maneuvering, completely legally, and completely justly, to maximize your gain. Plain and simple.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Doug Schoen-Business Consultant
So I was struck in the head today by an idea that is in no way novel--but the implications of which had not really occurred to me.
So get this--Doug Schoen, the Democratic political consultant who helped Clinton get reelected in 1994 had worked with Dick Morris. Everyone knows that. Dick Morris also helped Clinton get elected as governor, and for his first term. Everyone knows that too. What I don't think we all knew was that Dick Morris worked on the 1994 campaign--while at the same time working for some very important Republicans in the Congressional run that same year!
All of which goes to prove what Doug was talking about in the preceding chapter of his book, The Power of the Vote, that advertising campaigns are political campaigns. They're not just similar, sort of passing likenesses. With the one immediate distinction that advertising decisions are rarely made on the fly. But sometimes they are too.
We all know that politics is a business. But are we all really prepared to accept that Democrat and Republican are really just brand names? On the surface, it sounds pretty obvious. To the extent that the consumer, I mean the public, buys into the advertising of a political campaign, then yes, name recognition, slogans, party ideology, and the endgame "the vote," are all facets of the identity of "The Party." But isn't having an ideology more than simply being a consumer? I mean belonging to a party doesn't necessarily mean that you share all the tenets of a certain ideology--but it is inavoidable to commute some of those tenets to a person when they claim membership in one of those parties. So then, "liberty, equality and justice for all," really are quantifiable objects--to be bought, sold, traded, inflated, refined and all the other fantastic things we do with products. Again, a cynic would simply state, "well...duh," and I get that. But that isn't my point. The point is the language of the thing. For an idea to be an idea, it has to share a similarity with another term, and it has to have a distinction, however grey. If ideology, government, and democracy itself are really just facets of capitalism at large, then the parallels must hold true throughout history--not simply just
This topic needs to be refined, but I have to work.
So get this--Doug Schoen, the Democratic political consultant who helped Clinton get reelected in 1994 had worked with Dick Morris. Everyone knows that. Dick Morris also helped Clinton get elected as governor, and for his first term. Everyone knows that too. What I don't think we all knew was that Dick Morris worked on the 1994 campaign--while at the same time working for some very important Republicans in the Congressional run that same year!
All of which goes to prove what Doug was talking about in the preceding chapter of his book, The Power of the Vote, that advertising campaigns are political campaigns. They're not just similar, sort of passing likenesses. With the one immediate distinction that advertising decisions are rarely made on the fly. But sometimes they are too.
We all know that politics is a business. But are we all really prepared to accept that Democrat and Republican are really just brand names? On the surface, it sounds pretty obvious. To the extent that the consumer, I mean the public, buys into the advertising of a political campaign, then yes, name recognition, slogans, party ideology, and the endgame "the vote," are all facets of the identity of "The Party." But isn't having an ideology more than simply being a consumer? I mean belonging to a party doesn't necessarily mean that you share all the tenets of a certain ideology--but it is inavoidable to commute some of those tenets to a person when they claim membership in one of those parties. So then, "liberty, equality and justice for all," really are quantifiable objects--to be bought, sold, traded, inflated, refined and all the other fantastic things we do with products. Again, a cynic would simply state, "well...duh," and I get that. But that isn't my point. The point is the language of the thing. For an idea to be an idea, it has to share a similarity with another term, and it has to have a distinction, however grey. If ideology, government, and democracy itself are really just facets of capitalism at large, then the parallels must hold true throughout history--not simply just
This topic needs to be refined, but I have to work.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Iraqi War Coverage Sucks Purple Toes
I wrote this letter to the Washington Post Ombudsman
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting
By Ernesto LondoñoWashington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A08
Please look into this story. I have several complaints with it. First of all, the story isn't on just this one incidence of violence. About half-way down through the story, it turns about to be a hodgepodge of news of violence over the last few days. While I certainly have no problem with this type of story, (obviously there is enough violence to go around) I tuned into the story because the headline makes it sound like a city council member shot U.S. soldiers. If Christine Quinn went on a killing rampage, it would be a full story, not a news blurb. Obviously, New York and Baghdad are in no way comparable but the story does not purport to answer any of the basic questions. In fact, the story is terribly written. None of the paragraphs follow and it seems, that the author might just be mad if this is his idea of a narrative.
The lead is straight forward enough: "BAGHDAD, June 23 -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed and three were wounded Monday when a council member opened fire on them after a meeting in a small town south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." But the sentence uses the term "council member" to denote...what? A City Council member? Do they even have such things in Baghdad? The story NEVER reports on this, instead going off on a aimless meandering trail of blood and gore throughout the Iraq. I had to go to the CNN report to find out more information, only to find out that their own reporting is actually worse http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.main/index.html. The Post story does say that the council member was local tribal leader, but it says nothing about the distinction between the two. It is entirely likely that local religious, ethnic groups have put people on the city council, but then the story should indicate upfront, that the council is a farce, and that council members are often AK-47 wielding madmen (freedom fighters) out for vengeance. I read the story expecting to hear outrage from Maliki, and the U.S. government. Admittedly, it is silly of me to expect that City Council Members in Baghdad should be held to the same reporting standards as Council Members in Baghdad, but making the difference clear is the job of the reporter and the paper.
Instead the story goes on a three paragraph tear about a Canadian man who has nothing to do with the story at all. The very next sentence, made into a shiny new paragraph indicates that "The FBI sent a team of agents to Baghdad to investigate the shooting. None of the guards has been charged." Aside from the spectacular use of grammar (which I can't prove isn't correct, but seems highly unnecessary regardless) the sentence doesn't tell us which shooting! The shooting in the headline would be nice--but I think he's actually talking about a Blackwater shooting in September.
The last few paragraphs of the story are verbal diarhea of random reports and statements that have NOTHING to do with the headline. Or if they do--it certainly isn't explained. I mean, maybe I've critically misunderstood the issue. Maybe somewhere it's clear that this is not a news story, but that's also not my fault. I am a young man of average intelligence, with the documents to prove it, if I can't read this story, then there's something wrong.
I feel for your reporters there, really I do, but its your name in "Journalism" at issue -- and journalism that ain't. Fortunately for you most people don't read anything about the Iraq war. However, this story was picked up by several bloggers, and passed around. All announcing the same bizarre half-baked headline.
For your information the CNN report is worse, they spend less then fifty words describing the headline
"Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
then launch into a mortar attack that occurred on Sunday. What's worse is that this event killed 10 Awakening Council members. A quick read of their story would indicate that it was one of these Awakening Council members who shot the U.S. soldiers. However, it's an entirely different attack. They might be linked but the reporter certainly doesn't say. The point is--I think that this is not a news story: It's a disbatch. So bill it that way. Eliminate the headline, make it News at the front. Put large bullet points between each one so that the reader can easily ascertain that the items are not connected.
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting
By Ernesto LondoñoWashington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A08
Please look into this story. I have several complaints with it. First of all, the story isn't on just this one incidence of violence. About half-way down through the story, it turns about to be a hodgepodge of news of violence over the last few days. While I certainly have no problem with this type of story, (obviously there is enough violence to go around) I tuned into the story because the headline makes it sound like a city council member shot U.S. soldiers. If Christine Quinn went on a killing rampage, it would be a full story, not a news blurb. Obviously, New York and Baghdad are in no way comparable but the story does not purport to answer any of the basic questions. In fact, the story is terribly written. None of the paragraphs follow and it seems, that the author might just be mad if this is his idea of a narrative.
The lead is straight forward enough: "BAGHDAD, June 23 -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed and three were wounded Monday when a council member opened fire on them after a meeting in a small town south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." But the sentence uses the term "council member" to denote...what? A City Council member? Do they even have such things in Baghdad? The story NEVER reports on this, instead going off on a aimless meandering trail of blood and gore throughout the Iraq. I had to go to the CNN report to find out more information, only to find out that their own reporting is actually worse http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.main/index.html. The Post story does say that the council member was local tribal leader, but it says nothing about the distinction between the two. It is entirely likely that local religious, ethnic groups have put people on the city council, but then the story should indicate upfront, that the council is a farce, and that council members are often AK-47 wielding madmen (freedom fighters) out for vengeance. I read the story expecting to hear outrage from Maliki, and the U.S. government. Admittedly, it is silly of me to expect that City Council Members in Baghdad should be held to the same reporting standards as Council Members in Baghdad, but making the difference clear is the job of the reporter and the paper.
Instead the story goes on a three paragraph tear about a Canadian man who has nothing to do with the story at all. The very next sentence, made into a shiny new paragraph indicates that "The FBI sent a team of agents to Baghdad to investigate the shooting. None of the guards has been charged." Aside from the spectacular use of grammar (which I can't prove isn't correct, but seems highly unnecessary regardless) the sentence doesn't tell us which shooting! The shooting in the headline would be nice--but I think he's actually talking about a Blackwater shooting in September.
The last few paragraphs of the story are verbal diarhea of random reports and statements that have NOTHING to do with the headline. Or if they do--it certainly isn't explained. I mean, maybe I've critically misunderstood the issue. Maybe somewhere it's clear that this is not a news story, but that's also not my fault. I am a young man of average intelligence, with the documents to prove it, if I can't read this story, then there's something wrong.
I feel for your reporters there, really I do, but its your name in "Journalism" at issue -- and journalism that ain't. Fortunately for you most people don't read anything about the Iraq war. However, this story was picked up by several bloggers, and passed around. All announcing the same bizarre half-baked headline.
For your information the CNN report is worse, they spend less then fifty words describing the headline
"Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
then launch into a mortar attack that occurred on Sunday. What's worse is that this event killed 10 Awakening Council members. A quick read of their story would indicate that it was one of these Awakening Council members who shot the U.S. soldiers. However, it's an entirely different attack. They might be linked but the reporter certainly doesn't say. The point is--I think that this is not a news story: It's a disbatch. So bill it that way. Eliminate the headline, make it News at the front. Put large bullet points between each one so that the reader can easily ascertain that the items are not connected.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Happy Nuptials Jenna
I find myself weirdly happy for George Bush today, as the New York Times reports on his daughter's nuptials. I don't like the man, he is dangerously delusional. But I can't help but feel sympathy for the man. He's been a fuck up his entire life, and being a president hasn't changed that. I have no doubt that when his impressive array of handlers leave his side as he exits the office, that he'll find some other impressive way to fuck up. However, he's like Homer Simpson that way, the only good thing he ever really did was bring children into the world. I don't like Jenna, and I know that she and her hubby are going to spawn Bushies that will continue to plague the earth for generations to come, but for now? It's a wedding. Throw your glass back and shout huzzah!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Closing the Book on State of Denial
So I finished Bob Woodward's State of Denial a couple days ago. Time to sum up. The book did change certain views I have on the Iraq War. But more importantly, it affixed blame for the Iraq fiasco on the shoulders of three individuals, Rumsfeld, Feith, and Bush himself. Though there are many people who took a lot of blame for poor decisions, it is clear what Woodward himself thinks. And the title itself applies unquestionably to those three in particular.
So where does that leave Darth Cheney. Well...not explicitly anywhere. Woodward makes a couple of references to him, and his power--but since the Man of Darkness lives behind shut doors, no light is ever cast on him. He does not interview. And when he does, he only interviews on shows that ask him softball questions, or won't or can't hold him down when he squirms. The man is iron hard, and his rhetorical skills, though often blunt, run rings around the idiots that interview him. All of this makes him extremely hard to pin down. It is clear, however, that Rumsfeld and Feith are HIS MEN. Rumsfeld is no subordinate to the Cheneymonster, but he was proposed by him. Feith, certainly a toadie, was under direct control. Wolfowitz...again, here Woodward really leaves a gap. Paul Wolfowitz really ought to have his feet held to the fire. He's a Cheney Man through and through--and you just don't see his handprints where they rightfully ought to be.
Regardless, I was hardcore anti-War before I read the book. I am no longer as certain. The case for going in was, and remains ridiculous. But the case for leaving...is no longer as clean cut. My gf believes in the "you break it you bought it" school. And I might be coming around. The fact is, I think Iraq is bankrupting the U.S.. I think this will be made abundantly clear in the coming recession. When the government reaches into its coffers to bail out the banks, and finds nothing...well then it might be a total collapse. Right now, I'm just waiting to hear for JP Morgan to post losses. Then the Fed will have to fork over 30bn and then things will start falling fast. I'm getting far afield. There are many great reasons to leave--but are they responsible reasons? The potential for wholesale slaughter is potentially very high if the U.S. leaves. Woodward makes that pretty clear. This is even now more true since Moqtada Al-Sadr's militia seems more powerful then the Iraqi government. The second we pull out, the government, already corrupt, will either collapse, or elect the man PM. Depending on how nuts he is, you could see mass religious killings of the entire sect. Worse, it is abundantly clear now that Iran is funding the insurgency in some part. Woodward talks about IED's and how they are becoming increasingly complex. Made with materials that aren't household--and can puncture through the armor of an Abrams tank. The interesting thing is that this actually constitutes an act of war. And there seems to be a lot of evidence for this--not just WMD sort of evidence, but real evidence. Why would the neo-cons not want to go to war with Iraq? They do--but the administration absolutely can't. Which leads me to my next point.
The big surprise for me was that the liberal cry of "occupation" actually was wrong. Rumsfeld himself never wanted to occupy the country! Completely the contrary, if he could have gotten the U.S. out two days later he would have. He's famous for saying, it's "time to take the training wheels off." He said this repeatedly, by which he meant, time for them to pedal on their own. The problem with Rumsfeld isn't that he wanted an occupation, but that he never planned for one. All of his work, and all of his measures were aimed at a speedy exit. Which, of course, was why it failed so dramatically.
The other thing that jumps out at me, and I've commented on this before, is that the management was and remains so staggeringly bad. Every couple of months, an exasperated Rice would send someone over to Iraq, almost always someone new, someone "fresh" to give her an accurate assessment of what was going on. They always came back with the same information. No electricity, no security, no communication between the branches of the military and the civilians who ran the American agency which ran the country. All the time the same information, and they'd hold meetings with everyone. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz. Even Gingrich! And still--nothing ever got done. Nothing ever changed. Still nothing has changed! To me it smacks of the Business school ethic of outside consultants. They charge an arm and a leg, make a lot of grandiose promises, and mostly they annoy and complicate procedures for their trouble.
All in all, I need to read a lot more on the subject. Some questions:
1) What happened after? State of Denial leaves off while Rumsfeld was still in office. What has happened in James Baker's watch?
2) What about the torture? Woodward barely mentions it. Maybe he didn't have a problem with it, I don't know, but it hardly figures at all in the book. Who knew? When? What did they do then? What are they doing now? How many people have been prosecuted? Who hasn't?
3) The military. A lot of this book talks about the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military. I'd like to know what was the overal state of the military before the invasion, including moral, recruitment, and finances, and what is it like now?
4) The pentagon. Woodward talks a lot about Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was reforming it. Well it's pretty clear that he was a shitty manager. What did he do? Can it be undone? Should it be undone? This is the administration of loose ends. Where are they, and who will tie them up?
5) Cheney...at some point, we have to know about the man. History demands it. I'm sure he has deleted his correspondence, but there have to be records out there. Even if it's ten years from now--we need to know. Woodward makes one comment that alludes to him toward the last fifty pages of the book that is particularly illuminating. He asked Rumsfeld what role Cheney had (I'm paraphrasing here) and Rumsfeld replied, "Oh, minimal, its not like he ever tried to upstage the president or back him into a corner." Woodward wonders...what kind of VP could even conceivably back the Chief Executive into a corner? It begs the question--you don't need to rule with an iron fist to not be in control. For that matter, the neocons all say that Cheney backed off in the second term. What does that mean? Is it true?
6) Feith. Someone needs to document the immense failures of the guy that General Franks called a fucking idot. Someone has, rather. I just need to read it.
So where does that leave Darth Cheney. Well...not explicitly anywhere. Woodward makes a couple of references to him, and his power--but since the Man of Darkness lives behind shut doors, no light is ever cast on him. He does not interview. And when he does, he only interviews on shows that ask him softball questions, or won't or can't hold him down when he squirms. The man is iron hard, and his rhetorical skills, though often blunt, run rings around the idiots that interview him. All of this makes him extremely hard to pin down. It is clear, however, that Rumsfeld and Feith are HIS MEN. Rumsfeld is no subordinate to the Cheneymonster, but he was proposed by him. Feith, certainly a toadie, was under direct control. Wolfowitz...again, here Woodward really leaves a gap. Paul Wolfowitz really ought to have his feet held to the fire. He's a Cheney Man through and through--and you just don't see his handprints where they rightfully ought to be.
Regardless, I was hardcore anti-War before I read the book. I am no longer as certain. The case for going in was, and remains ridiculous. But the case for leaving...is no longer as clean cut. My gf believes in the "you break it you bought it" school. And I might be coming around. The fact is, I think Iraq is bankrupting the U.S.. I think this will be made abundantly clear in the coming recession. When the government reaches into its coffers to bail out the banks, and finds nothing...well then it might be a total collapse. Right now, I'm just waiting to hear for JP Morgan to post losses. Then the Fed will have to fork over 30bn and then things will start falling fast. I'm getting far afield. There are many great reasons to leave--but are they responsible reasons? The potential for wholesale slaughter is potentially very high if the U.S. leaves. Woodward makes that pretty clear. This is even now more true since Moqtada Al-Sadr's militia seems more powerful then the Iraqi government. The second we pull out, the government, already corrupt, will either collapse, or elect the man PM. Depending on how nuts he is, you could see mass religious killings of the entire sect. Worse, it is abundantly clear now that Iran is funding the insurgency in some part. Woodward talks about IED's and how they are becoming increasingly complex. Made with materials that aren't household--and can puncture through the armor of an Abrams tank. The interesting thing is that this actually constitutes an act of war. And there seems to be a lot of evidence for this--not just WMD sort of evidence, but real evidence. Why would the neo-cons not want to go to war with Iraq? They do--but the administration absolutely can't. Which leads me to my next point.
The big surprise for me was that the liberal cry of "occupation" actually was wrong. Rumsfeld himself never wanted to occupy the country! Completely the contrary, if he could have gotten the U.S. out two days later he would have. He's famous for saying, it's "time to take the training wheels off." He said this repeatedly, by which he meant, time for them to pedal on their own. The problem with Rumsfeld isn't that he wanted an occupation, but that he never planned for one. All of his work, and all of his measures were aimed at a speedy exit. Which, of course, was why it failed so dramatically.
The other thing that jumps out at me, and I've commented on this before, is that the management was and remains so staggeringly bad. Every couple of months, an exasperated Rice would send someone over to Iraq, almost always someone new, someone "fresh" to give her an accurate assessment of what was going on. They always came back with the same information. No electricity, no security, no communication between the branches of the military and the civilians who ran the American agency which ran the country. All the time the same information, and they'd hold meetings with everyone. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz. Even Gingrich! And still--nothing ever got done. Nothing ever changed. Still nothing has changed! To me it smacks of the Business school ethic of outside consultants. They charge an arm and a leg, make a lot of grandiose promises, and mostly they annoy and complicate procedures for their trouble.
All in all, I need to read a lot more on the subject. Some questions:
1) What happened after? State of Denial leaves off while Rumsfeld was still in office. What has happened in James Baker's watch?
2) What about the torture? Woodward barely mentions it. Maybe he didn't have a problem with it, I don't know, but it hardly figures at all in the book. Who knew? When? What did they do then? What are they doing now? How many people have been prosecuted? Who hasn't?
3) The military. A lot of this book talks about the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military. I'd like to know what was the overal state of the military before the invasion, including moral, recruitment, and finances, and what is it like now?
4) The pentagon. Woodward talks a lot about Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was reforming it. Well it's pretty clear that he was a shitty manager. What did he do? Can it be undone? Should it be undone? This is the administration of loose ends. Where are they, and who will tie them up?
5) Cheney...at some point, we have to know about the man. History demands it. I'm sure he has deleted his correspondence, but there have to be records out there. Even if it's ten years from now--we need to know. Woodward makes one comment that alludes to him toward the last fifty pages of the book that is particularly illuminating. He asked Rumsfeld what role Cheney had (I'm paraphrasing here) and Rumsfeld replied, "Oh, minimal, its not like he ever tried to upstage the president or back him into a corner." Woodward wonders...what kind of VP could even conceivably back the Chief Executive into a corner? It begs the question--you don't need to rule with an iron fist to not be in control. For that matter, the neocons all say that Cheney backed off in the second term. What does that mean? Is it true?
6) Feith. Someone needs to document the immense failures of the guy that General Franks called a fucking idot. Someone has, rather. I just need to read it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The logic of the American Voter
I think people suffer from a basic logical slip when it comes to voting. This slip is based on a poorly made argument resting on faulty assumptions. The underlying assumption to voting for many people is that, voting is only worthwhile if they get the thing for which they vote. This is why so many of the arguments that people use to convince people to vote fall short of convincing. Since people apply this sort of cost benefit analysis to voting, democracy will always lose. "If my candidate isn't elected, going to the polls was a waste of my time." Even though voting in many districts takes as little as ten minutes, the time involved doesn't make a difference--because they feel that they can't win.
Let's look at American Idol. Though I have no statistical evidence to back this up--I think the argument holds true. If people truly believed that their contestant couldn't win I think it likely that wouldn't vote in American Idol either. In fact, I think this happens fairly often. Voter A likes contestant Z. However, Z is roundly known to be a poorly ranked contestant and is likely to be kicked off regardless. Again--not wanting to be a loser, or have sided with a loser, or to not have their "vote" count. They'll pick between contestant X and Y, because one will certainly win, and since the contestants clearly ARE NOT equal, one MUST be better then the other. However, clearly Idol and shows like it, have different formats. Instead of being asked to vote only once, or twice (as in a primary) they are asked to vote again and again, each week. Instead of starting with one or two choices, they are provided with 10 to 20 choices. Evidence, biased or not, is provided each week for the viewer to make his choice. Keep in mind, that not every viewer is voting on every candidate each week. In shows like the recent Bravo "Make Me a Supermodel" the judges pick a number, two to four choices for the public to choose from each week. As a parenthetical, it is important to note the obvious: voting more frequently garners care/loyalty/interest and demand. If American idol style voting had been carried out with the 9 or so presidential candidates each week, I think it fair to say that rather a larger percentage of the populace would be voting more often. After all, regardless of whether or not your candidate wins--the sheer number of votes give you more chances to win. All of this to say, the assumption in American voting is that you play to win, and only to win.
Since American Idol style election voting is not practical, nor even necessarily desirable, all of this is a moot point. The American voter can only win--if he picks the candidate that the evidence shows is likely to win. Unfortunately, winning has nothing to do with policy or belief. Nor do we have any justifiable way to show whether or not the evidence is true, and in fact, have every reason to suspect that it is not. All of this proves one thing: the American voter is in fact a Nihilist.
The popular definition of nihilism is not the philosophical definition. People often commute a belief 'in' nothing, to mean that nihilists hate 'everything.' This is not the case. A belief in nothing is actually nothing, and is logically impossible unless the following conditions are met: If person A believes in two things, X and Y, and X and Y lead person A to conclusions 1 and 2, that person is not a nihilist. But if person A believes in two things, X and Y, and X and Y leads to conclusions 1 and not 1, then person A is confronted with a problem. He has chosen to accept X and Y as true, but finds that they cannot be true together, and since they cancel each other out, A is left believing nothing and is therefore a nihilist.
Our premises
1) the American voter believes there is only one point in voting, namely, winning.
2) In order to properly vote, you must believe your choice is right.
So, now with candidates A and B.
A is the favorite
B is not.
If the voter believes in premises 1 and 2, then he will not vote.
If he believes that A is the favorite and his rational choice is A, then clearly, he need not vote. While voting in this case certainly commutes winning, our voter is clearly sure that A is the favorite. Since voting is only worthwhile if he wins, then in this case, he need not vote at all, for he has already won. The rational voter has reason to believe this to be the case. After all, he has voted infrequently, sometimes rarely, and sees clearly that people are still elected to office by vote. Assumption? Someone out there is voting. The reasons for their votes don't matter, so long as our potential voter believes he is winning.
If he believes that A is the favorite, but that his rational choice is B, then clearly, he need not vote. B is not the favorite, therefore the only way to vote and win is to vote for someone he does not believe in. In a field of three or more, this voter might still vote, after all, he might not like A, but C might not be that bad, and if C is not the favorite, but more popular then B, then there is still some chance that he might win. But based on the evidence in this situation the voter clearly cannot win, and will therefore not vote.
So who votes then?
Clearly the people who do not believe in premise 1. There are all sorts of premises we could insert here. I don't want to waste your time with more logical arguments. Suffice it to explain why I vote: It was explained to me, and proven logically, that the purpose of voting is not winning, but fulfilling an obligation to which we owe the state. The state grants us freedom for one reason, because it requires the participation of its citizens to function.
In the end, all systems rely on trust and fear. If Donald Rumsfeld doesn't trust the Pentagon to make choices, then let him reform it, but if even after his reforms he still cannot trust it, then it means that all decisions must be made by him. Certainly this is too tedious, cannot and will not happen. So you get what we had here. Even the lowest echelons of decision-making, such as how much packing tape to buy would ordinarily be made by a manager who was managed by someone else. If the hierarchy is robbed of authority, then on and on down the line, there is no authority. How can the manager know how much packing tape to buy? What kind? How much budget? Who buys the packing tape? No one, unless there is a direct order because there is no more packing tape to be had. In the case of fear, Saddam's reign was primitive and barbaric, but again, things functioned at some level because not only would Saddam kill you if you didn't do it, he'd shoot your entire family, including your cousins, aunts and uncles. Not the model of efficiency, but it certainly provided a rational motivation to buy the packing tape, even if it was the wrong tape.
That's from the top down. But we live in a democracy, which is supposed to be from the ground up. If we elect our local representatives, and our national representatives, and cease electing them when they cease to represent us, then the government will continue to function in our interests. The moment we stop voting, is the moment when democratic government begins to fall apart. Since there are fewer votes to be cast, then an interested party can essentially buy an election by simply retaining more people to vote for him. This is one of the reasons that the Christian right attained such power in the U.S. A centrally controlled group of people, who do not have much power nationally, will operate as a voting bloc for any party who purports to defend their interests--if no one else votes, you get the picture. Though this may not at first lead to the fall and dispersion of government, eventually, through intentional dismantling or plain neglect, the institutions that engender the government will begin to decay. After all, a government that is not elected by the people at large, has no reason to look after the interests of people that did not elect it.
I think people have lost sight of the fact that voting isn't actually a right, per se. Back when voting was the right of only propertied white men, it was still a right. But with universal suffrage, voting is no longer the same. After all, it is difficult to believe in existential rights, when your brother is every man. Definition requires boundary. When there are no boundaries, then definitions become hazy. Since value is conferred on that which is rare andnot necessarily that which is useful, like gold, then when everyone has rights, the perceived value decreases. Clearly there are better ways of assigning value: oil is only valuable depending on it's use. Since there is never a time where oil will not be useful it will always be valuable. Rights do not compare in the same way, because it is very difficult to ascertain "rights" being used, as such they are hard to value. The right to assembly is a good example. But if that right is guaranteed all, who would treasure it? Start gunning down certain groups of people who are not allowed to assemble, and suddenly value is conferred.
Rights are peculiar that way...certainly no rational human being would disagree with my right to breathe air. Unless, of course, I should one day decide to breathe water instead. Then my right to breathe air, would no longer become just a right, but an expectation, a consideration, or ... an obligation. To whom? Again, to the state. You think your mother raised you, and your father provided for you. Your mother nurtured you, your father protected you. But you're wrong. Your love of family is nice, but misplaced. Your mother gave birth to you, but the state provided for your healthcare and education. It doesn't matter if the hospital was privately owned, because the hospital itself is protected and nurtured by the state. And without the state, that hospital itself would not be there. Look at the state of Iraqi hospitals, the state cannot provide properly for them, and so they are a shambles. Even if you've gone to private school, again, that school was zoned, likely given government permission or subsidies, grants. And even if it wasn't, you drive on a road that the government provided you to get there. And even if they didn't, you'd be driving a car that the government has certified to be safe. Your father provided for your welfare? Maybe, maybe not. Directly, if your father couldn't pay for your subsistence then clearly the government paid for you. If your Daddy's rich, and your Mamma's good lookin' the government still paid for your education. After all, even if the entity that schooled you is not a direct arm of the state, then the state did in some large way pave the way for that institution to exist. The ivy league? Them too. Every institution in the country relies on government grants to pay for research. The long and short of it is that everywhere you look your obligation to the state is manifest. And the only way in which you can truly pay back the state is by serving in combat, serving as a teacher or bureaucrat, or by voting. If none of those three suit you, you damn well better be voting.
Let's look at American Idol. Though I have no statistical evidence to back this up--I think the argument holds true. If people truly believed that their contestant couldn't win I think it likely that wouldn't vote in American Idol either. In fact, I think this happens fairly often. Voter A likes contestant Z. However, Z is roundly known to be a poorly ranked contestant and is likely to be kicked off regardless. Again--not wanting to be a loser, or have sided with a loser, or to not have their "vote" count. They'll pick between contestant X and Y, because one will certainly win, and since the contestants clearly ARE NOT equal, one MUST be better then the other. However, clearly Idol and shows like it, have different formats. Instead of being asked to vote only once, or twice (as in a primary) they are asked to vote again and again, each week. Instead of starting with one or two choices, they are provided with 10 to 20 choices. Evidence, biased or not, is provided each week for the viewer to make his choice. Keep in mind, that not every viewer is voting on every candidate each week. In shows like the recent Bravo "Make Me a Supermodel" the judges pick a number, two to four choices for the public to choose from each week. As a parenthetical, it is important to note the obvious: voting more frequently garners care/loyalty/interest and demand. If American idol style voting had been carried out with the 9 or so presidential candidates each week, I think it fair to say that rather a larger percentage of the populace would be voting more often. After all, regardless of whether or not your candidate wins--the sheer number of votes give you more chances to win. All of this to say, the assumption in American voting is that you play to win, and only to win.
Since American Idol style election voting is not practical, nor even necessarily desirable, all of this is a moot point. The American voter can only win--if he picks the candidate that the evidence shows is likely to win. Unfortunately, winning has nothing to do with policy or belief. Nor do we have any justifiable way to show whether or not the evidence is true, and in fact, have every reason to suspect that it is not. All of this proves one thing: the American voter is in fact a Nihilist.
The popular definition of nihilism is not the philosophical definition. People often commute a belief 'in' nothing, to mean that nihilists hate 'everything.' This is not the case. A belief in nothing is actually nothing, and is logically impossible unless the following conditions are met: If person A believes in two things, X and Y, and X and Y lead person A to conclusions 1 and 2, that person is not a nihilist. But if person A believes in two things, X and Y, and X and Y leads to conclusions 1 and not 1, then person A is confronted with a problem. He has chosen to accept X and Y as true, but finds that they cannot be true together, and since they cancel each other out, A is left believing nothing and is therefore a nihilist.
Our premises
1) the American voter believes there is only one point in voting, namely, winning.
2) In order to properly vote, you must believe your choice is right.
So, now with candidates A and B.
A is the favorite
B is not.
If the voter believes in premises 1 and 2, then he will not vote.
If he believes that A is the favorite and his rational choice is A, then clearly, he need not vote. While voting in this case certainly commutes winning, our voter is clearly sure that A is the favorite. Since voting is only worthwhile if he wins, then in this case, he need not vote at all, for he has already won. The rational voter has reason to believe this to be the case. After all, he has voted infrequently, sometimes rarely, and sees clearly that people are still elected to office by vote. Assumption? Someone out there is voting. The reasons for their votes don't matter, so long as our potential voter believes he is winning.
If he believes that A is the favorite, but that his rational choice is B, then clearly, he need not vote. B is not the favorite, therefore the only way to vote and win is to vote for someone he does not believe in. In a field of three or more, this voter might still vote, after all, he might not like A, but C might not be that bad, and if C is not the favorite, but more popular then B, then there is still some chance that he might win. But based on the evidence in this situation the voter clearly cannot win, and will therefore not vote.
So who votes then?
Clearly the people who do not believe in premise 1. There are all sorts of premises we could insert here. I don't want to waste your time with more logical arguments. Suffice it to explain why I vote: It was explained to me, and proven logically, that the purpose of voting is not winning, but fulfilling an obligation to which we owe the state. The state grants us freedom for one reason, because it requires the participation of its citizens to function.
In the end, all systems rely on trust and fear. If Donald Rumsfeld doesn't trust the Pentagon to make choices, then let him reform it, but if even after his reforms he still cannot trust it, then it means that all decisions must be made by him. Certainly this is too tedious, cannot and will not happen. So you get what we had here. Even the lowest echelons of decision-making, such as how much packing tape to buy would ordinarily be made by a manager who was managed by someone else. If the hierarchy is robbed of authority, then on and on down the line, there is no authority. How can the manager know how much packing tape to buy? What kind? How much budget? Who buys the packing tape? No one, unless there is a direct order because there is no more packing tape to be had. In the case of fear, Saddam's reign was primitive and barbaric, but again, things functioned at some level because not only would Saddam kill you if you didn't do it, he'd shoot your entire family, including your cousins, aunts and uncles. Not the model of efficiency, but it certainly provided a rational motivation to buy the packing tape, even if it was the wrong tape.
That's from the top down. But we live in a democracy, which is supposed to be from the ground up. If we elect our local representatives, and our national representatives, and cease electing them when they cease to represent us, then the government will continue to function in our interests. The moment we stop voting, is the moment when democratic government begins to fall apart. Since there are fewer votes to be cast, then an interested party can essentially buy an election by simply retaining more people to vote for him. This is one of the reasons that the Christian right attained such power in the U.S. A centrally controlled group of people, who do not have much power nationally, will operate as a voting bloc for any party who purports to defend their interests--if no one else votes, you get the picture. Though this may not at first lead to the fall and dispersion of government, eventually, through intentional dismantling or plain neglect, the institutions that engender the government will begin to decay. After all, a government that is not elected by the people at large, has no reason to look after the interests of people that did not elect it.
I think people have lost sight of the fact that voting isn't actually a right, per se. Back when voting was the right of only propertied white men, it was still a right. But with universal suffrage, voting is no longer the same. After all, it is difficult to believe in existential rights, when your brother is every man. Definition requires boundary. When there are no boundaries, then definitions become hazy. Since value is conferred on that which is rare andnot necessarily that which is useful, like gold, then when everyone has rights, the perceived value decreases. Clearly there are better ways of assigning value: oil is only valuable depending on it's use. Since there is never a time where oil will not be useful it will always be valuable. Rights do not compare in the same way, because it is very difficult to ascertain "rights" being used, as such they are hard to value. The right to assembly is a good example. But if that right is guaranteed all, who would treasure it? Start gunning down certain groups of people who are not allowed to assemble, and suddenly value is conferred.
Rights are peculiar that way...certainly no rational human being would disagree with my right to breathe air. Unless, of course, I should one day decide to breathe water instead. Then my right to breathe air, would no longer become just a right, but an expectation, a consideration, or ... an obligation. To whom? Again, to the state. You think your mother raised you, and your father provided for you. Your mother nurtured you, your father protected you. But you're wrong. Your love of family is nice, but misplaced. Your mother gave birth to you, but the state provided for your healthcare and education. It doesn't matter if the hospital was privately owned, because the hospital itself is protected and nurtured by the state. And without the state, that hospital itself would not be there. Look at the state of Iraqi hospitals, the state cannot provide properly for them, and so they are a shambles. Even if you've gone to private school, again, that school was zoned, likely given government permission or subsidies, grants. And even if it wasn't, you drive on a road that the government provided you to get there. And even if they didn't, you'd be driving a car that the government has certified to be safe. Your father provided for your welfare? Maybe, maybe not. Directly, if your father couldn't pay for your subsistence then clearly the government paid for you. If your Daddy's rich, and your Mamma's good lookin' the government still paid for your education. After all, even if the entity that schooled you is not a direct arm of the state, then the state did in some large way pave the way for that institution to exist. The ivy league? Them too. Every institution in the country relies on government grants to pay for research. The long and short of it is that everywhere you look your obligation to the state is manifest. And the only way in which you can truly pay back the state is by serving in combat, serving as a teacher or bureaucrat, or by voting. If none of those three suit you, you damn well better be voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)