A Kindred Spirit

Remember a few weeks back when I went on my "Conspiracy theories are dangerous" tirade (see "New World (Dis)order" from March 1st)? Well, I read an excellent article today on the Foreign Policy website that I can only assume was inspired by reading my brilliant posting. There are some suprising similarities between our commentary on this topic.

The author echos my point that these ideas are dangerous and that we dismiss them "at our peril." He also seems to support my position that these theories are becoming more popular. He quotes from a book entitled "Voodoo Histories" which says "we in the West are currently going through a period of fashionable conspiracism." This book is now on my To Read list.

The article gives some hope for a rational future though. He notes "the rise of a new culture of fact based skepticism" including "fact checking websites," "high-profile anti-conspiracists," and organizations like the British group "Skeptics in the Pub," which the author describes as "a drink-fueled debating society with a strong anti-conspiracy bent."

You know you're in dire straights when the best hope of honest discourse comes from British pubs!

Anyway, read the posting here if you have a minute.

What IS the financial reform bill?

As you have the left/right debate always, you develop the conditioning to always debate/disagree. So you learn to argue based on the camp you're in.

Recently, the two camps began arguing over the Financial Reform Bill 2009:
http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf
A very time consuming endeavor, but if you want to really make up your own mind on the debate, you gotta read that bad boy.

Don't read into the source, but here is the headline:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/house-financial-regulator_n_389062.html
The Democrats are calling the bill a gift, and the Republicans are the party of No. The Republicans say this bill is the devil, and the Democrats are getting their way, and continue to push the country left. So, according to eachother, the opposition would ruin us if they are had power. Anyway, the economist on the left and the right come up with their own numbers, based on their study subjects and the economic theory he/she uses when studying a bill.

So we either have to learn to see through camp colored glasses, interpret their meanings, and split the difference, or we have to learn the actual discipline to a certain level of proficiency.
I believe the debate more correctly should be "Does central bank style Keynesian economics work for what we want, or would we be better off with a more hands off lasseiz-faire Adams approach?" And which style is the reform bill?

Two anecdotes on race relations in America

A few years ago I lived in Hampton Roads, an area in southern Virginia. While eating at a restaurants I saw a group of 12 to 15 people eating lunch together and having a good time. The members of the group were mostly middle aged and were a mix of black and white people. As far as I could tell, there was nothing at all exceptional about the group; they were probably just employees at a local business having a lunch meeting.


I now live in the Mountain West region of the US. I have a neighbor who is of a racial minority. This neighbor played on the school football team when he was an undergrad and has a very affable personality. Now, still at the same school, he is getting a joint Masters of Public Administration-Juris Doctorate degree. Last semester some people in one of his classes, most of whom were white, were talking about race relations in America. My neighbor told them that they have no idea what it's like to be a minority in the US. Despite all his success, he apparently still feels... Well, I don't know exactly how he feels, but I get the impression that he thinks there is still some room for improvement.

From Ability to Needs

After some study on the subject Socialism, I have come to some conclusions, but maybe even more questions. I begin this line of questioning that I may have a better understanding of it. Let's begin with observations then move on to the questions:

To me, the basis of Socialism seems to be the underlying assumption that man is a social creature that progresses in society better as a whole. That the individuality of the person is discouraged so that he may better utilize his skills to serve the community. The security, health, and care falls on the collective instead of the individual.

To me, placing the community above yourself and your family is not a trait naturally found in man. We all agree that man is fallible and corruptible, you can use religious or historical texts and find the percentage of actually good people to be quite small. Unquestioned and unchallenged authority more often than not leads to some form of dictatorship.

My question is this, can you ever really take the individuality out of a person? Does Socialism and Capitalism really boil down to this one difference? Is it my stuff or our stuff? What of the person who is in charge of handing out the communal stuff? What is in place to guarantee the stuff gets handed out exactly and only according to needs? How do we keep that system from turning into one of favors and priviledges? Why is it that in past socialist experiments, the end result was always one where there was a ruling and favored class at the expense of the community? Who is in charge of a socialist community? Is it the collective and do they vote on everything? Do they always elect a leader and if so, is that contradictory to socialism? Does Socialism believe in the inherent "goodness" in man? The best case I have come across was the Jewish Kibbutz, that did have a communal approach but ended after the government stopped subsidizing the communes. Even at the end, the Kibbutz members had their own clothes, food, and other items.

Is it as black and white as, "Is man an Individualist or a Collectivist?" Are there any in betweens? Because we can all agree that man is a social animal. He would not be able to farm, fish, and build his shelter if he were by himself. So he needs the support of the community. But is that individual drive to better his position for safety, security, and, dare I say, social standing, necessarily a bad thing?

Age and Place on the Political Spectrum

I saw a most interesting posting on one of my favorite blogs (cominganarchy.com) which I would like to share (and which they had copied from somewhere else). It graphically displays political affiliation by age. I don't really have a comment to make. It's just food for thought. The posting even offer some possible explanations for this relationship.


You can read about the (non-scientific) method they used to gather the data set in the original posting here.


Enjoy!

__________________________________________________