Petraeus has been confirmed as the war commander for the mission in Afghanistan. Poor guy.
From the outset we've confused war, occupation, and development. The real question is whether we want to stay there for decades until the country develops to a point of government stability beyond that of, say, Mexico. The war is over. The development has barely begun, and won't be by next August.
Everyone thinks that Obama was mad at McChrystal. If I were Petraeus, I would think that he was mad at me. What an appointment.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
30 June 2010
27 June 2010
Contemplating a New Worldview? Excerpt from Mindwalk
Sadly, the movie Mindwalk, based on Fritjof Capra's writing, is not yet available on DVD. Here are some excerpts that you could watch if you're interested in a world view that might be more effective for our times than the Cartesian model from centuries ago.
How Smart Phones Got So Smart
I think that I'm just going to wait another decade for the Dick Tracy watch.
25 June 2010
Committing to Possibility
“What is possible is not independent of what we believe to be possible. “
- Neil MacCormick
“If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never. And what wine is so sparkling, what so fragrant, what so intoxicating, as possibility!”
-- Soren Kierkegaard
“The nature of a breakthrough is for you to stand on what you’ve gotten, what you’ve loved, what’s been important to you, what’s touched you, what’s inspired you, what’s turned your life on; to stand on that value you’ve already created for yourself and look out at the possibility for being alive that opens up, like a freedom, in front of you.”
- Werner Erhard
"It’s daunting how many possibilities there are in life for everyone of us. But rather than face that I might be a failure or success – I think both of them are terrifying – people find diversions.”
- Tim Allen
23 June 2010
McChrystal leaves White House after meeting
I guess that's news. You know, that McChrystal left the White House after his meeting.
But still, I can't help but think it'd be more newsworthy if it read,
McChrystal moves into White House after meeting
That seems like a story offering more legitimate cause for speculation.
But still, I can't help but think it'd be more newsworthy if it read,
McChrystal moves into White House after meeting
That seems like a story offering more legitimate cause for speculation.
22 June 2010
Investment Strategies of Party Loyalists
Here is a curious little chart I created to compare stock market performance by party between the time that Teddy Roosevelt took office and yesterday's close.
Imagine that you have two rabidly political families whose allegiance to their party is so strong that each time one of their own take the presidency, they put all their money into the market (as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average). And each time a president from the opposing party takes office, they sell their stocks and put their money under a mattress.
The simple question this answers is, Who would fare better? As you can see in the chart below, the Democratic faithful would have done much better in the last 110 years. Much better. While the Republican family would have grown their $100,000 to $509,720, the Democratic family would have grown their $100,000 to $2,796,037, about 5.5X more. (click on the chart below to make it bigger)
Of course you could say that the market does what the market does and the parties - much less the president - have little to do with it. Or you could point out that the best policy would be to invest during administrations of presidents whose last name start with a "C" (Coolidge and Clinton) or "R" (Reagan and Roosevelt), regardless of party.
You decide what to make of it. Today I'll just offer the numbers. Discuss it among yourselves.
Imagine that you have two rabidly political families whose allegiance to their party is so strong that each time one of their own take the presidency, they put all their money into the market (as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average). And each time a president from the opposing party takes office, they sell their stocks and put their money under a mattress.
The simple question this answers is, Who would fare better? As you can see in the chart below, the Democratic faithful would have done much better in the last 110 years. Much better. While the Republican family would have grown their $100,000 to $509,720, the Democratic family would have grown their $100,000 to $2,796,037, about 5.5X more. (click on the chart below to make it bigger)
Of course you could say that the market does what the market does and the parties - much less the president - have little to do with it. Or you could point out that the best policy would be to invest during administrations of presidents whose last name start with a "C" (Coolidge and Clinton) or "R" (Reagan and Roosevelt), regardless of party.
You decide what to make of it. Today I'll just offer the numbers. Discuss it among yourselves.
21 June 2010
Reality is Diverse
to be nobody but yourself -
in a world which is doing its best,
night and day,
to make you everybody else -
means to fight the hardest battle
which any human being can fight .
never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings
It is really just in the last generation that we've become aware of how diverse was the world of Christianity in the 3 to 4 centuries after Christ's death. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library, among other finds, have revealed various gospels and epistles that never made it into what we know as the Bible. Most of these were obviously not written by any of Christ's original disciples or by Paul and for this reason alone were omitted from inclusion in the approved canon. (But it is worth noting that most serious scholars today think that other forgeries did make it in. For instance, 2 Timothy seems to have been written in the second century after Christ and most certainly not by Paul.)
In the fourth century, the canon was defined and various and competing ideas about Christ were consolidated into a (mostly and sort of) uniform view in the form of the Bible. Soon, the church that owned this "true" view even used torture and death to enforce this pure view. Most people look at the Inquisition as evil but I think that the evil originated when the church decided that God could not tolerate diversity of thought and sought to make uniform the theology and teachings that professed to represent his views. Surely God loves uniformity. This might seem reasonable. It does not seem to be backed up by evidence.
This notion that God's will obviously tends towards the uniform does, I think, miss an important suggestion from nature. (I say suggestion because it may or may not be a "lesson.") Nature suggests that the creator loves diversity. There are about 1.75 million species on the planet. Some have bones and some do not. Some breath under water and some drown in water. Some walk around and some are rooted. Some are really cute and some are hideous. Some are peaceful and some are dangerous. Some are huge and some are too small to see. It's not obvious that you can draw many conclusions from nature other than the fact that nature loves diversity. The life form that works depends on so many things that one would be at a loss to predict them all in advance. Diversity, it seems to me, is the lesson of nature.
As communities become more developed and free, a similar thing seems to happen with the human population. That is, diversity seems to spring up. We have goths and hippies, the driven and the laid back, the flirtatious and the prudes, the athletic and the slothful, the intellectuals and the disinterested. The list goes on. It may well be that we have something akin to 1.75 million species of humans.
Ultimately, the Church was forced to use force to try to squelch this great diversity of people. To this day, Protestant churches reject Catholicism but tend to accept the central claim that diversity is wrong (although the diversity of ways that they reject the notion of allowing diversity does, itself, create a fair bit of diversity, from Mormons to Baptists to Presbyterians to Anglicans to Jehovah's Witnesses, to ...). It could be that they are right. It could be. But then how to explain the motives of the creative force behind the massive diversity of nature? And how to explain how attempts to make human life all one way led to one of the Darkest and most violent periods of history when the Church largely ruled the West between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of the modern, secular nation-state?
The more I look across time and communities, the more convinced I am that one of the simplest measures of advancement is how many kinds of people can make their place in the world. It seems to me that diversity is not just a wonderful thing in nature - it works in communities too. And that suggests to me that the Church's attempt to go against this trend meant it was destined to become evil. Next time someone says that they know what is best, ask for who. Some things that make people feel alive really are universal: oxygen, for instance. Other things that make people feel alive really are true for just a minority of folks: live jazz, for instance. Reality is diverse. Any explanation of it ought to accommodate rather than deny this, it seems to me.
in a world which is doing its best,
night and day,
to make you everybody else -
means to fight the hardest battle
which any human being can fight .
never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings
It is really just in the last generation that we've become aware of how diverse was the world of Christianity in the 3 to 4 centuries after Christ's death. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library, among other finds, have revealed various gospels and epistles that never made it into what we know as the Bible. Most of these were obviously not written by any of Christ's original disciples or by Paul and for this reason alone were omitted from inclusion in the approved canon. (But it is worth noting that most serious scholars today think that other forgeries did make it in. For instance, 2 Timothy seems to have been written in the second century after Christ and most certainly not by Paul.)
In the fourth century, the canon was defined and various and competing ideas about Christ were consolidated into a (mostly and sort of) uniform view in the form of the Bible. Soon, the church that owned this "true" view even used torture and death to enforce this pure view. Most people look at the Inquisition as evil but I think that the evil originated when the church decided that God could not tolerate diversity of thought and sought to make uniform the theology and teachings that professed to represent his views. Surely God loves uniformity. This might seem reasonable. It does not seem to be backed up by evidence.
This notion that God's will obviously tends towards the uniform does, I think, miss an important suggestion from nature. (I say suggestion because it may or may not be a "lesson.") Nature suggests that the creator loves diversity. There are about 1.75 million species on the planet. Some have bones and some do not. Some breath under water and some drown in water. Some walk around and some are rooted. Some are really cute and some are hideous. Some are peaceful and some are dangerous. Some are huge and some are too small to see. It's not obvious that you can draw many conclusions from nature other than the fact that nature loves diversity. The life form that works depends on so many things that one would be at a loss to predict them all in advance. Diversity, it seems to me, is the lesson of nature.
As communities become more developed and free, a similar thing seems to happen with the human population. That is, diversity seems to spring up. We have goths and hippies, the driven and the laid back, the flirtatious and the prudes, the athletic and the slothful, the intellectuals and the disinterested. The list goes on. It may well be that we have something akin to 1.75 million species of humans.
Ultimately, the Church was forced to use force to try to squelch this great diversity of people. To this day, Protestant churches reject Catholicism but tend to accept the central claim that diversity is wrong (although the diversity of ways that they reject the notion of allowing diversity does, itself, create a fair bit of diversity, from Mormons to Baptists to Presbyterians to Anglicans to Jehovah's Witnesses, to ...). It could be that they are right. It could be. But then how to explain the motives of the creative force behind the massive diversity of nature? And how to explain how attempts to make human life all one way led to one of the Darkest and most violent periods of history when the Church largely ruled the West between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of the modern, secular nation-state?
The more I look across time and communities, the more convinced I am that one of the simplest measures of advancement is how many kinds of people can make their place in the world. It seems to me that diversity is not just a wonderful thing in nature - it works in communities too. And that suggests to me that the Church's attempt to go against this trend meant it was destined to become evil. Next time someone says that they know what is best, ask for who. Some things that make people feel alive really are universal: oxygen, for instance. Other things that make people feel alive really are true for just a minority of folks: live jazz, for instance. Reality is diverse. Any explanation of it ought to accommodate rather than deny this, it seems to me.
18 June 2010
Caption Contest (Because it's Friday)
Alternative captions:
What Santa's elves do on their summer vacation.
Godzilla was seen making the exact same moves just before he attacked Tokyo.
The buzz in the playroom was that his were the world's most dangerous diapers. The buzz, of course, coming from those whose mouths weren't full of chewy toys.
15 June 2010
Progress
Regular readers know that I'm stupidly optimistic about the future but still have bouts of frustration when it appears that so few voters and policy makers get how much is at stake (for good or bad). I had to smile to see this report about the two Bills (Gates and Clinton) who do seem to realize how much difference a person can make.
This from Gates' post:
To read the whole post ...
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Thinking/article.aspx?ID=121
This from Gates' post:
It’s pretty amazing to realize that 50 years ago, more than 20 million children died before their fifth birthday. Last year, it was fewer than 9 million. I think this is one of the greatest accomplishments of the last hundred years.
But 9 million children dying unnecessarily each year is still 9 million too many. That’s why we need to continue our efforts.
To read the whole post ...
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Thinking/article.aspx?ID=121
11 June 2010
The Unfortunate Eye-Glazing Tendency of Economic Development
Economic development sounds like such a dry and abstract topic. That’s unfortunate. Economic development can mean the difference between a mother crying as her child goes off to college or crying as her child dies in her arms. Poverty brings with it so much grief and prosperity so much possibility. The potential for a human life is vastly different at higher and lower stages of economic development.
As I would define it, no topic has such a pervasive influence on the lives of people. Economic development is not just a matter of getting more goods but of giving people more options. At its most dramatic, economic development gives people the option to eat rather than starve. At its more nuanced, in developed countries, it gives people options about how to define their own lives. In the poorest countries, it can mean life. In the richer countries, it can give meaning to life.
As I would define it, no topic has such a pervasive influence on the lives of people. Economic development is not just a matter of getting more goods but of giving people more options. At its most dramatic, economic development gives people the option to eat rather than starve. At its more nuanced, in developed countries, it gives people options about how to define their own lives. In the poorest countries, it can mean life. In the richer countries, it can give meaning to life.
10 June 2010
Sell Your Gold Now
Gold is a lousy investment. Oh, I know it has gone up lots of late - outperforming real estate and stocks by a wide margin. But it is a lousy investment just in the sense that it does nothing for productivity or the economy. It is the natural resources equivalent of putting your money under your mattress. And my belief is that, in the long-run, for something to be a good investment in terms of returns, it has to be a good investment in terms of generating wealth. Gold at best stores wealth; it doesn't create it.
If you invest in real estate development or stocks, you actually put money into a general fund that can be used to create new jobs, new homes, and new products. By contrast, when you put your money into gold you divert money into a nothing more than speculation. (Unless you're betting on gold fillings make a big comeback.)
My guess? Gold will go the way that real estate did over the last few years: the "sure" investment that proves itself as susceptible to bubbles and busts as any.
Gold prices have recently dropped, but they're still high. I say sell now and put your money into something that actually creates something of value. Long-term, that is the only sensible play. For you or the economy that you ultimately depend on for prosperity.
If you invest in real estate development or stocks, you actually put money into a general fund that can be used to create new jobs, new homes, and new products. By contrast, when you put your money into gold you divert money into a nothing more than speculation. (Unless you're betting on gold fillings make a big comeback.)
My guess? Gold will go the way that real estate did over the last few years: the "sure" investment that proves itself as susceptible to bubbles and busts as any.
Gold prices have recently dropped, but they're still high. I say sell now and put your money into something that actually creates something of value. Long-term, that is the only sensible play. For you or the economy that you ultimately depend on for prosperity.
09 June 2010
The End of Men?
Excerpts from the Atlantic, The End of Men by Hanna Rosin ..
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same.
Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two (janitors and computer engineers) are occupied primarily by women.
Women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast.
Women now earn 60 percent of master’s degrees, about half of all law and medical degrees, and 42 percent of all M.B.A.s. Most important, women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees—the minimum requirement, in most cases, for an affluent life. In a stark reversal since the 1970s, men are now more likely than women to hold only a high-school diploma.
In 1970, women contributed 2 to 6 percent of the family income. Now the typical working wife brings home 42.2 percent, and four in 10 mothers—many of them single mothers—are the primary breadwinners in their families.
In 1970, 84 percent of women ages 30 to 44 were married; now 60 percent are.
A 2008 study attempted to quantify the effect of this more-feminine management style. Researchers at Columbia Business School and the University of Maryland analyzed data on the top 1,500 U.S. companies from 1992 to 2006 to determine the relationship between firm performance and female participation in senior management. Firms that had women in top positions performed better, and this was especially true if the firm pursued what the researchers called an “innovation intensive strategy,” in which, they argued, “creativity and collaboration may be especially important”—an apt description of the future economy.
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same.
Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two (janitors and computer engineers) are occupied primarily by women.
Women now hold 51.4 percent of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1 percent in 1980. They make up 54 percent of all accountants and hold about half of all banking and insurance jobs. About a third of America’s physicians are now women, as are 45 percent of associates in law firms—and both those percentages are rising fast.
Women now earn 60 percent of master’s degrees, about half of all law and medical degrees, and 42 percent of all M.B.A.s. Most important, women earn almost 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees—the minimum requirement, in most cases, for an affluent life. In a stark reversal since the 1970s, men are now more likely than women to hold only a high-school diploma.
In 1970, women contributed 2 to 6 percent of the family income. Now the typical working wife brings home 42.2 percent, and four in 10 mothers—many of them single mothers—are the primary breadwinners in their families.
In 1970, 84 percent of women ages 30 to 44 were married; now 60 percent are.
A 2008 study attempted to quantify the effect of this more-feminine management style. Researchers at Columbia Business School and the University of Maryland analyzed data on the top 1,500 U.S. companies from 1992 to 2006 to determine the relationship between firm performance and female participation in senior management. Firms that had women in top positions performed better, and this was especially true if the firm pursued what the researchers called an “innovation intensive strategy,” in which, they argued, “creativity and collaboration may be especially important”—an apt description of the future economy.
07 June 2010
01 June 2010
Vampire PR
If I ever hire a PR firm, I want to hire whoever has been in charge of improving vampires' public image in recent decades.
17 May 2010
Beyond Freedom and Control: Autonomy Supportive Politics
The child who grows up without the laws, education, or health care is not free: he's been abandoned. There is a difference.
I demonstrated my stupidity again this weekend trying to look smart. (Which might, upon reflection, be the most effective route to looking stupid.) I tried to argue for universal health care with a man who, I’m pretty sure, has been a Republican since he was 12. We agreed that catastrophic health care would be a better option. I think it would be best to simply tell every American that they will not go bankrupt because of bad health and ensure that their personal expenses don’t exceed, say, $5,000. (And yes, this would have to be adjusted for people who are even more poor, but not as much as one might think. But I digress.) We disagreed about whether there ought to be universal health care regardless of the plan.
For me it is simple. If a 19 year old living on his own, working a job without benefits, should get cancer he should not have to die for lack of money. The market is a marvelous mechanism for distributing cars, designer jeans, and glazed donuts. It should have no say in whether someone lives or dies. (And if you agree with this, you do believe in universal health care. You may simply disagree on the extent of it and details.)
And reflecting on this, I realized that one of the most influential books I’ve read turns out to define my politics as well as my ideals for managing, teaching, or parenting.
Edward Deci wrote Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. In it, he offers three models of parenting or managing. The first is controlling, where the locus of control is with the parent or manager and where the child or employee is expected just to follow the lead. This is actually pretty effective at certain stages of development. The other model is abandonment, where the parent or manager essentially doesn’t care, leaving the child or employee to work things through on her own. Some call it freedom. Again, this could be effective at times. But Deci argues that the real purpose of any kind of leadership is to work towards autonomy for the individual. He advocates autonomy-supportive behavior that is intent on creating the ability for self-directed behavior. This is enabling and like the abandonment model shifts the locus of control to the individual and like the controlling model offers help.
For me, this seems like a wonderful model for government. Things like public education, health care, and police protection enable individuals to live their own lives. A good government does not control or abandon its citizens: it enables.
Conceptually this is such a simple thing that I would imagine everyone would agree with it and perhaps all political disagreement traces back to differences in opinion in trade offs. (For instance, conservatives who oppose Obama’s health care hate being told that they have to buy some health insurance plan. They find it controlling. I guess the same could be said of seat belts or motorcycle helmets. For some, the law is controlling because it makes so many people do what they wouldn’t. For others, it is enabling because it leaves so many more brains in skulls, giving individuals the possibility of autonomy.)
But for me, realizing the applicability of Deci's model to politics was an epiphany of sorts (what Hyrum Smith of Franklin-Covey would call a “blinding flash of the obvious”), helping to define so many of the policies that are important to me, from generously funding basic research to education to making it easier for people to start businesses.
13 May 2010
Let's Make the Ten Commandments Law
I think it is time to take the advice of Sarah Palin and so many others and make the 10 commandments the law of our land. For those of you who may not recall just what those commandments are, let’s go through them (The New International Version is, by most accounts, the most accurate translation), using Exodus 20: 3-17.
1. "You shall have no other gods before me.”
Some argue that this is evidence that the Jews were not so much monotheists as a people who believed in many gods (sort of polytheists) but only worshipped one. Such arguments begin to muddle things, it seems to me, and I’ll just go with the more literal interpretation: the first commandment suggests that we must accept the God of Moses. Simply put, we need to become Jewish. This will be a change for the nearly 98% of Americans who are not, but if we’re serious about inviting God’s blessing I don’t think that this is too much to ask.
3. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
This might mean no cussing that involves taking the Lord’s name in vain (which always seemed distasteful to me anyways). It might also mean that one not mis-use the name of God in political matters, using the approval you imagine he has given you to win votes.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
So, simple enough. Sort of. No businesses will be open on a Saturday. I’m not sure how we’ll handle businesses like rest homes, hospitals, and emergency services but I’m sure we can make exceptions. It’ll just be the shopping malls, grocery stores, TV stations, radio stations, Internet sites, gas stations, hotels, and, of course, sports complexes that will close down from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown.
5. "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”
This seems simple enough (although it may be more involved than merely sending a card on Mother’s Day).
6. "You shall not murder.”
Well, this will save on military expenses, end the debate on abortion AND capital punishment, and add to longevity as we all become vegetarians.
7. "You shall not commit adultery.”
Given that half of marriages end in divorce and about half of married people have committed adultery, this one is going to require an adjustment. For starters, we simply outlaw divorce. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to require all divorced or separated people to get back with their first spouse. Or become celibate. Again, I’ll leave the details of this re-partnering program to the politicians.
8. "You shall not steal.”
Presumably this would not apply retroactively. It would be a shame to have to give this beautiful country back to the Indians.
9. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
This has always seemed like a great idea to me. Seriously. But if we’re going to treat it as law of the land rather than a simple injunction for believers, perhaps we should make use of the affordable technology that would allow us to monitor anyone at all times. (This could also come in handy for determining things like adherence to the 5th or 7th commandments.) This way, anyone falsely accused could produce video proof that the neighbor is lying. Trials would involve footage showing what the neighbor did or said. No more, “he said,” “she said.”
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
I’ll leave this to theologians to explain in more detail but I’m pretty sure that among other things, this means no advertising. Properly done, only seduction is more effective for making people covet. I realize that this would hurt a major industry and leave TV, radio, and the Internet without a source of revenue and likely depress GDP as well, but again … this should not be too much to ask of a country sincere about winning God’s approval.
Shalom. And call your mother.
1. "You shall have no other gods before me.”
Some argue that this is evidence that the Jews were not so much monotheists as a people who believed in many gods (sort of polytheists) but only worshipped one. Such arguments begin to muddle things, it seems to me, and I’ll just go with the more literal interpretation: the first commandment suggests that we must accept the God of Moses. Simply put, we need to become Jewish. This will be a change for the nearly 98% of Americans who are not, but if we’re serious about inviting God’s blessing I don’t think that this is too much to ask.
2. “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
So, no images of lions, cougars, and marlins that we might idolize. Hmm. So, no sports team mascots as near as I can tell. To me, this can only mean that we stop idolizing sports teams and their stars, so starting with high school teams we’ll do away with competitive sports. Again, this should not be too much to ask when we think of what is at stake. (And really, I'm open to other suggestions but I will simply say that if we start dismissing commandments starting at the second one, we run the risk of ending up where we are now.)
So, no images of lions, cougars, and marlins that we might idolize. Hmm. So, no sports team mascots as near as I can tell. To me, this can only mean that we stop idolizing sports teams and their stars, so starting with high school teams we’ll do away with competitive sports. Again, this should not be too much to ask when we think of what is at stake. (And really, I'm open to other suggestions but I will simply say that if we start dismissing commandments starting at the second one, we run the risk of ending up where we are now.)
3. "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.”
This might mean no cussing that involves taking the Lord’s name in vain (which always seemed distasteful to me anyways). It might also mean that one not mis-use the name of God in political matters, using the approval you imagine he has given you to win votes.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
So, simple enough. Sort of. No businesses will be open on a Saturday. I’m not sure how we’ll handle businesses like rest homes, hospitals, and emergency services but I’m sure we can make exceptions. It’ll just be the shopping malls, grocery stores, TV stations, radio stations, Internet sites, gas stations, hotels, and, of course, sports complexes that will close down from Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown.
5. "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”
This seems simple enough (although it may be more involved than merely sending a card on Mother’s Day).
6. "You shall not murder.”
Well, this will save on military expenses, end the debate on abortion AND capital punishment, and add to longevity as we all become vegetarians.
7. "You shall not commit adultery.”
Given that half of marriages end in divorce and about half of married people have committed adultery, this one is going to require an adjustment. For starters, we simply outlaw divorce. In fact, I think it would be a good idea to require all divorced or separated people to get back with their first spouse. Or become celibate. Again, I’ll leave the details of this re-partnering program to the politicians.
8. "You shall not steal.”
Presumably this would not apply retroactively. It would be a shame to have to give this beautiful country back to the Indians.
9. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
This has always seemed like a great idea to me. Seriously. But if we’re going to treat it as law of the land rather than a simple injunction for believers, perhaps we should make use of the affordable technology that would allow us to monitor anyone at all times. (This could also come in handy for determining things like adherence to the 5th or 7th commandments.) This way, anyone falsely accused could produce video proof that the neighbor is lying. Trials would involve footage showing what the neighbor did or said. No more, “he said,” “she said.”
10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
I’ll leave this to theologians to explain in more detail but I’m pretty sure that among other things, this means no advertising. Properly done, only seduction is more effective for making people covet. I realize that this would hurt a major industry and leave TV, radio, and the Internet without a source of revenue and likely depress GDP as well, but again … this should not be too much to ask of a country sincere about winning God’s approval.
Shalom. And call your mother.
07 May 2010
Those Crazy Catholics
Am I the only who suspects that the Roman Catholic Church would - in a heart beat - seize control of governments again if they thought they could get away with it?
I heard on BBC radio today that the Philippine government is finally allowing a gay party to run after a court overturned the decision to keep them out because they might offend religious groups. The Catholic Church protests the decision to allow this political option.
Catholics throughout the US are protesting Arizona's new anti-illegal immigrant law that might result in fewer Latinos (and fewer Catholics).
Catholics in the US for years have objected to the legal freedom of choice for pregnant women because this choice contradicts their religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is in trouble for ignoring laws regarding child molesters.
So, the officials of the Catholic Church want to impose their religious beliefs onto others in the form of laws but does not want the laws of the land to apply to them? Weren't they forced to give up this arrangement shortly after the Dark Ages? And could they be more obvious about how eager they are to again have such an arrangement?
But I guess no political leader is going to have the courage to rebuke a group that claims to represent more than a billion people. I liked it better when they were a definite minority in this country and were eager to prove that they had no political ambitions but merely wanted the freedom to worship in peace. And maybe that's the secret to success: lots and lots of denominations so no one denomination feels safe to impose their beliefs on anyone else but enough religious people that everyone is eager to maintain religious freedom.
I heard on BBC radio today that the Philippine government is finally allowing a gay party to run after a court overturned the decision to keep them out because they might offend religious groups. The Catholic Church protests the decision to allow this political option.
Catholics throughout the US are protesting Arizona's new anti-illegal immigrant law that might result in fewer Latinos (and fewer Catholics).
Catholics in the US for years have objected to the legal freedom of choice for pregnant women because this choice contradicts their religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church is in trouble for ignoring laws regarding child molesters.
So, the officials of the Catholic Church want to impose their religious beliefs onto others in the form of laws but does not want the laws of the land to apply to them? Weren't they forced to give up this arrangement shortly after the Dark Ages? And could they be more obvious about how eager they are to again have such an arrangement?
But I guess no political leader is going to have the courage to rebuke a group that claims to represent more than a billion people. I liked it better when they were a definite minority in this country and were eager to prove that they had no political ambitions but merely wanted the freedom to worship in peace. And maybe that's the secret to success: lots and lots of denominations so no one denomination feels safe to impose their beliefs on anyone else but enough religious people that everyone is eager to maintain religious freedom.
It is becoming more and more credible that the current pope last served as head of the office that once ruled over the Inquisition. One can only speculate that he spent too much time in the archives.
Nick Clegg - Britain's New (favored) Beta Male
Intriguingly, some research into primate behavior suggests that the beta male actually does better than the alpha male. Eager to keep his position atop the heap, and needing a key ally to do this, the alpha male is more likely to favor the beta male with choice food and females so as to not lose the beta male to a competing alpha.
In yesterday's election in Britain, the Conservative Party won but did not win enough. That is, in order to rule, the conservatives will have to form a coalition government with another party. The problem with this is that, in this sense, the Labour Party is tied with the Conservative Party. That is, whichever party is able to partner with the third-place Liberal Democrats will rule. And this would appear to make Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg Britain's favored beta male. Without Clegg's cooperation, neither Labour nor Conservative can rule.
This is a fascinating election for so many reasons but one, of course, is that Britain faces very similar issues as the US. The most obvious similarity is the need to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis and Great Recession.
To me, it's unfortunate that the Conservative Party did not win outright. The Brits will run a record deficit (11% of GDP) this year and the definite impression I got was that Cameron (the Conservatives leader) was more interested in reducing spending than slashing taxes, which should make Conservatives far more effective at reducing the deficit. Further, as mentioned in the last post, I got the distinct impression that Cameron has a better plan for implementing real reform in the city (London's Wall Street, or financial community).
But instead, Nick Clegg will likely dictate terms to the next administration. What left me unimpressed with Clegg was his seeming reliance upon general voter discontentment with the two main parties. Imagine a candidate standing up between Bush and Kerry and saying, "C'mon. You're not happy with these two. You know it. Vote for me." Crafting an effective policy requires doing more than expressing disgust with the main parties. I never really heard how Clegg's Liberal Democrats offered a coherent difference from either main party. And yet he will get to be the favored beta male. Watching the coalition government rule may well be as fascinating as watching the election. The jockeying for position is not over yet.
--------- post script
Oh, and by the way, my politics have not changed. I envy the Brits their conservative party. Sometimes a country needs to move in the direction of self reliance and smaller government and sometimes it needs to move in the direction of more regulation and public programs. Neither direction is a foregone conclusion any more than you can say whether you'll more often turn right or left on your drive to the store. But here in the states, our conservative party has been hijacked by people who deny climate change is a risk, deny health care is a right, and whose only economic development trick seems to be cutting taxes. If the Republicans looked more like Britain's Conservative Party, they'd be hard to beat. Instead, they're ruled by obstructionists reactionaries who deify Ronald Reagan but would reject him as a candidate for having actually raised taxes twice. But people do learn.
In yesterday's election in Britain, the Conservative Party won but did not win enough. That is, in order to rule, the conservatives will have to form a coalition government with another party. The problem with this is that, in this sense, the Labour Party is tied with the Conservative Party. That is, whichever party is able to partner with the third-place Liberal Democrats will rule. And this would appear to make Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg Britain's favored beta male. Without Clegg's cooperation, neither Labour nor Conservative can rule.
This is a fascinating election for so many reasons but one, of course, is that Britain faces very similar issues as the US. The most obvious similarity is the need to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis and Great Recession.
To me, it's unfortunate that the Conservative Party did not win outright. The Brits will run a record deficit (11% of GDP) this year and the definite impression I got was that Cameron (the Conservatives leader) was more interested in reducing spending than slashing taxes, which should make Conservatives far more effective at reducing the deficit. Further, as mentioned in the last post, I got the distinct impression that Cameron has a better plan for implementing real reform in the city (London's Wall Street, or financial community).
But instead, Nick Clegg will likely dictate terms to the next administration. What left me unimpressed with Clegg was his seeming reliance upon general voter discontentment with the two main parties. Imagine a candidate standing up between Bush and Kerry and saying, "C'mon. You're not happy with these two. You know it. Vote for me." Crafting an effective policy requires doing more than expressing disgust with the main parties. I never really heard how Clegg's Liberal Democrats offered a coherent difference from either main party. And yet he will get to be the favored beta male. Watching the coalition government rule may well be as fascinating as watching the election. The jockeying for position is not over yet.
--------- post script
Oh, and by the way, my politics have not changed. I envy the Brits their conservative party. Sometimes a country needs to move in the direction of self reliance and smaller government and sometimes it needs to move in the direction of more regulation and public programs. Neither direction is a foregone conclusion any more than you can say whether you'll more often turn right or left on your drive to the store. But here in the states, our conservative party has been hijacked by people who deny climate change is a risk, deny health care is a right, and whose only economic development trick seems to be cutting taxes. If the Republicans looked more like Britain's Conservative Party, they'd be hard to beat. Instead, they're ruled by obstructionists reactionaries who deify Ronald Reagan but would reject him as a candidate for having actually raised taxes twice. But people do learn.
29 April 2010
Could David Cameron Save the American Republican Party?
I watched the final debate between Britain’s current and two contending Prime Ministers this evening. They represented the Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and Labour Party. The contrast between the three was not half as stark as the contrast between British and American conservatives.
Let’s hope that American conservatives are paying attention to David Cameron of Britain’s Conservative Party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by policy makers who have decided that the clearest way to distinguish themselves from reasonable and practical policies is to offer unreasonable and ideological polices. Cameron’s campaign will hopefully remind Republicans that it is possible to distinguish yourself from reasonable policies by offering other reasons rather than just blindly opposing the other side.
For instance, Republicans in this country – the party that supposedly represents conservatives here – are mindlessly opposed to financial reform. Without reform, we will again find ourselves in the position of either bailing out bankers or letting them take down our economy. (And of course, no one wants to admit that even with great reforms we’re likely to find ourselves in this situation, the only difference being the probability and severity of the hostage situation.) Republicans simply don’t want to be seen cooperating with Obama – no matter how obvious or sensible his policies seem to be.
David Cameron, by contrast, rather sensibly wants to change things within London’s banking community in the wake of the Great Recession. He wants more regulation and more consequences for banks that pursue reckless policy. This position has the advantage of making sense whether one’s analysis is sophisticated or simply based in a common sense reaction to the last financial crisis. Cameron even mentioned that his plan for financial reform was very much like Obama’s.
In Britain, policies of liberals and conservatives sometimes align and sometimes clash. There does not appear to be a requirement to oppose everything the opposition party proposes. This used to be true in the US as well. Modern Republicans, as near as I can tell, seem to define themselves less by what they think will work than by opposing what Obama seems to think will work.
The curious thing about this is that Republicans are becoming more insistent on blind ideology in a time when the countries whose economies are performing best defy easy categorization: China is nominally communist but often more aggressively capitalist than the G-7 countries; Peru and Brazil’s economies have performed splendidly with some odd hybrid of socialist and free market policies that generally favor the poor. Anymore, the fastest growing economy is as likely to espouse adherence to free markets as socialism (and all the while adopting pragmatic policies). It seems as though the real solution to economic growth is ideological flexibility, not ideological rigidity. And yet Republicans, bucking the trend of conservatives and socialists alike around the world, are becoming more ideological. But if successful policy is pragmatic rather than ideological, having such an ideologically intent party means that we’re robbed of a practically conservative option in this country. No matter what your ideological orientation, you should find this troubling. We can’t steer right in this country because the party trying to pull the wheel in that direction does not want to pull into the other lane so much as go off-roading through the oleander.
I do believe that the Republican Party will look back at this period as the time of their great hijacking, a time when their only answer to any question was lower taxes and when they let themselves get defined on everything else by their automatic opposition to Democrats. As long as ideologues own the party, the country will either suffer from their rule (as under Bush) or conservatives will suffer from Republicans’ inability to win control in DC (as under McCain). As I said, one can only hope that American conservatives are paying attention to Cameron – and humble enough to learn from Cameron and even – on occasion – agree with Obama.
Let’s hope that American conservatives are paying attention to David Cameron of Britain’s Conservative Party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by policy makers who have decided that the clearest way to distinguish themselves from reasonable and practical policies is to offer unreasonable and ideological polices. Cameron’s campaign will hopefully remind Republicans that it is possible to distinguish yourself from reasonable policies by offering other reasons rather than just blindly opposing the other side.
For instance, Republicans in this country – the party that supposedly represents conservatives here – are mindlessly opposed to financial reform. Without reform, we will again find ourselves in the position of either bailing out bankers or letting them take down our economy. (And of course, no one wants to admit that even with great reforms we’re likely to find ourselves in this situation, the only difference being the probability and severity of the hostage situation.) Republicans simply don’t want to be seen cooperating with Obama – no matter how obvious or sensible his policies seem to be.
David Cameron, by contrast, rather sensibly wants to change things within London’s banking community in the wake of the Great Recession. He wants more regulation and more consequences for banks that pursue reckless policy. This position has the advantage of making sense whether one’s analysis is sophisticated or simply based in a common sense reaction to the last financial crisis. Cameron even mentioned that his plan for financial reform was very much like Obama’s.
In Britain, policies of liberals and conservatives sometimes align and sometimes clash. There does not appear to be a requirement to oppose everything the opposition party proposes. This used to be true in the US as well. Modern Republicans, as near as I can tell, seem to define themselves less by what they think will work than by opposing what Obama seems to think will work.
The curious thing about this is that Republicans are becoming more insistent on blind ideology in a time when the countries whose economies are performing best defy easy categorization: China is nominally communist but often more aggressively capitalist than the G-7 countries; Peru and Brazil’s economies have performed splendidly with some odd hybrid of socialist and free market policies that generally favor the poor. Anymore, the fastest growing economy is as likely to espouse adherence to free markets as socialism (and all the while adopting pragmatic policies). It seems as though the real solution to economic growth is ideological flexibility, not ideological rigidity. And yet Republicans, bucking the trend of conservatives and socialists alike around the world, are becoming more ideological. But if successful policy is pragmatic rather than ideological, having such an ideologically intent party means that we’re robbed of a practically conservative option in this country. No matter what your ideological orientation, you should find this troubling. We can’t steer right in this country because the party trying to pull the wheel in that direction does not want to pull into the other lane so much as go off-roading through the oleander.
I do believe that the Republican Party will look back at this period as the time of their great hijacking, a time when their only answer to any question was lower taxes and when they let themselves get defined on everything else by their automatic opposition to Democrats. As long as ideologues own the party, the country will either suffer from their rule (as under Bush) or conservatives will suffer from Republicans’ inability to win control in DC (as under McCain). As I said, one can only hope that American conservatives are paying attention to Cameron – and humble enough to learn from Cameron and even – on occasion – agree with Obama.
27 April 2010
Fun Facts About John Paul Stevens
For some reason I find this little tidbit fascinating: if Supreme Court John Paul Stevens is replaced by someone who is not a Protestant, for the first time in our history our Supreme Court will be completely made up of non-Protestants.
Currently, we have 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant serving on the Supreme Court.
I also find it interesting that although John Paul Jones was born more than a quarter century AFTER John Paul Stevens, Jones retired from Led Zeppelin in 1980, more than a quarter century BEFORE John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court. I'm sure that this says something profound about the lifestyles of rock stars and Supreme Court justices.
Currently, we have 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant serving on the Supreme Court.
I also find it interesting that although John Paul Jones was born more than a quarter century AFTER John Paul Stevens, Jones retired from Led Zeppelin in 1980, more than a quarter century BEFORE John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court. I'm sure that this says something profound about the lifestyles of rock stars and Supreme Court justices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)