17 September 2012
Lots of BAD information
If there is one strain held in common by the variety of "bad things" that seem to have happened to western "civilization" this past decade, it is that decisions were made which led to "suboptimal" outcomes, and those decisions did so because of bad intelligence. At least, that is what those in positions of power responsible for the decision making always seem to point to. Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction™, Osama evaded capture for 10 years, we had no reason to believe the economy was in danger, Greece was a good place to invest...
What new decisions will be poorly made based on "faulty information"? And is that an excuse I can use to avoid paying taxes? Evade personal responsibility for a multitude of sins? Explain to my kids and grandkids why we sold their future in exchange for several all-inclusive vacations, a new car, big screen TV or a hot tub that's never used? And what about the environmental catastrophe we're leaving them? Why not? I mean, the problem with this line of thinking is two-fold: we have no reason to respect, trust or esteem those in power who resolutely refuse to accept their own personal responsibility for the very serious bad judgment they exercise; and by not correctly identifying what and whom is to blame, we leave ourselves in no better position to make decisions in the future. I mean, of course, a cynic would say that that is exactly what is intended--inoculate the worst miscreants by blaming the quality of the data rather than the interpretations, or simply actions, taken by those miscreants.
For want of a nail...
(Held over from November 2011 by accident, design or inertia)
The LA Times published an interesting op-ed this week on the efficacy of targeted killings and war as a means to an end (here it is). The author strongly suggests that they are not. I'm not talking about whether they are morally defensible, or whether they might sometimes "be necessary", or whether they are better or worse as strategic options; no, just that they do not achieve the long-term goal of winning the conflict, and then winning the peace. "I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders," a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, "but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don't want to talk to anyone at all."
Is this a surprise? To many of us, no, uh-uh, not at all. The question is, why is this a surprise to so many of the leaders making these decisions, or the average citizens who support them? Let's go back for a second to that quaint notion of whether it is morally defensible as a strategy. I guess this gets into the very murky area of what constitutes moral action, and furthermore, whether morality has to be consistent. Let me say up front that I recognize most people regard morality as a code of behaviour associated with one or more existential beliefs about who we are. Often they are based on a book of some sort: the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics or The Way To Happiness. (Don't worry--I'm not positing some kind of nominal equality between these works on any level, be it artistic, cultural, quality of writing, "legitimacy", philosophical consistency or what have you.)
Anyway, let me assert something about moral choice: regardless of what moral system one believes in or ascribes to for whatever reason, it is important that all actions be capable of either being justified by the moral code, or categorized as aberrations, evil or "sin". Failure to do so will inevitably cause the entire moral system to lose coherence--or at the very least, influence. So, having asserted all this, I would go so far as to say that targeted killings fail this test for most moral schema, and therefore fail the test for a nation that claims to follow such a schema like the United States (or Canada, or most nations or one sort or another). So I think it's not only a strategic concern, but also a moral problem. The really interesting issue, however, is, regardless of the moral issues, does it achieve the practical goals intended? Again, that quote sums it up (as does a great deal of statistical evidence): no. In fact, it appears as though it has the rather unfortunate unintended consequence of increasing resolve, and generally worsening the conflict. [One important caveat: the studies looked at targeted assassinations carried out on behalf of occupying forces, the forces that had the upper hand. It may very well be quite different when looked at from the point of view of insurgents, or those occupied.] Again, this does not strike me as terribly surprising, any more than the crappy state of the American (and global) economy, education system, culture... You see, there are those who believe that military conflict is an expression of a nation's power. I, and many others, however, regard military conflicts as the ultimate expression of the limits on a nation's power. Everyone knew that the United States had an unmatched, powerful, advanced military. Following Iraq and Afghanistan people now know that the US has a military which, no matter how powerful, cannot subdue a motivated enemy, no matter how poorly equipped. They also know that such a military costs a great deal in blood and treasure to use, and that leaders who don't have the wisdom to avoid conflicts at all costs, or who don't have the wisdom not to launch conflicts, also won't have the wisdom to run their own countries. This is hardly new. Read Josephus, Herodotus and every writer on war since. Everything is bound up--the economy, unemployment, military success, cultural dominance--and one cannot simply enact strategies in one sphere without seeing some kind of reaction in another sphere. Forget 9/11 for a second. Bush II talked openly about ensuring a second term by fighting a successful military action. He may not have planned to go to war, but he certainly planned to take advantage of the opportunity. But to do so meant laying the groundwork: making people scared. 9/11 was the catalyst, but it was the colour coding, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act that helped establish fear in the general populace. And it worked! Sure there was a legitimate desire for revenge (!) and a legitimate need to respond somehow to the outrage of 9/11, but the amount of fear created ensured that there would be little questioning of the policies implemented. Now, the problem with this is that fear is not a great motivator to buy consumer goods. Especially if it's fear of foreclosure. But even if it's fear of a poor cash position. So the economy began to slow down, and risk aversion became the order of the day. This was solved by keeping interest rates abnormally low, which led to all kinds of risky speculating, and perversely, the inability to earn much from traditional investments. So the banks created new mechanisms for "wealth creation"--Asset Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps. Here, at last, were financial vehicles which could generate good returns even in the face of unbelievably low interest. But to realize this, Congress had to eliminate regulations. Which was easy, because what could be more patriotic than the creation of wealth while at war? Now we have fictional financial vehicles, risk aversion leading ironically to unmeasured risk taking, expenditures of huge sums on the ill-thought-out conflicts, fear now of losing jobs and/or houses... a perfect storm of incompetence, immorality and a failure of the imagination. And they are all related. The question is not how do we solve the current fiscal crisis, but how do we solve the current existential crisis, given that we have politicians seemingly committed to a worldview swimming in cognitive dissonance?
The LA Times published an interesting op-ed this week on the efficacy of targeted killings and war as a means to an end (here it is). The author strongly suggests that they are not. I'm not talking about whether they are morally defensible, or whether they might sometimes "be necessary", or whether they are better or worse as strategic options; no, just that they do not achieve the long-term goal of winning the conflict, and then winning the peace. "I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders," a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, "but they are all dead. The ones who replaced them are much more dangerous. They don't want to talk to anyone at all."
Is this a surprise? To many of us, no, uh-uh, not at all. The question is, why is this a surprise to so many of the leaders making these decisions, or the average citizens who support them? Let's go back for a second to that quaint notion of whether it is morally defensible as a strategy. I guess this gets into the very murky area of what constitutes moral action, and furthermore, whether morality has to be consistent. Let me say up front that I recognize most people regard morality as a code of behaviour associated with one or more existential beliefs about who we are. Often they are based on a book of some sort: the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics or The Way To Happiness. (Don't worry--I'm not positing some kind of nominal equality between these works on any level, be it artistic, cultural, quality of writing, "legitimacy", philosophical consistency or what have you.)
Anyway, let me assert something about moral choice: regardless of what moral system one believes in or ascribes to for whatever reason, it is important that all actions be capable of either being justified by the moral code, or categorized as aberrations, evil or "sin". Failure to do so will inevitably cause the entire moral system to lose coherence--or at the very least, influence. So, having asserted all this, I would go so far as to say that targeted killings fail this test for most moral schema, and therefore fail the test for a nation that claims to follow such a schema like the United States (or Canada, or most nations or one sort or another). So I think it's not only a strategic concern, but also a moral problem. The really interesting issue, however, is, regardless of the moral issues, does it achieve the practical goals intended? Again, that quote sums it up (as does a great deal of statistical evidence): no. In fact, it appears as though it has the rather unfortunate unintended consequence of increasing resolve, and generally worsening the conflict. [One important caveat: the studies looked at targeted assassinations carried out on behalf of occupying forces, the forces that had the upper hand. It may very well be quite different when looked at from the point of view of insurgents, or those occupied.] Again, this does not strike me as terribly surprising, any more than the crappy state of the American (and global) economy, education system, culture... You see, there are those who believe that military conflict is an expression of a nation's power. I, and many others, however, regard military conflicts as the ultimate expression of the limits on a nation's power. Everyone knew that the United States had an unmatched, powerful, advanced military. Following Iraq and Afghanistan people now know that the US has a military which, no matter how powerful, cannot subdue a motivated enemy, no matter how poorly equipped. They also know that such a military costs a great deal in blood and treasure to use, and that leaders who don't have the wisdom to avoid conflicts at all costs, or who don't have the wisdom not to launch conflicts, also won't have the wisdom to run their own countries. This is hardly new. Read Josephus, Herodotus and every writer on war since. Everything is bound up--the economy, unemployment, military success, cultural dominance--and one cannot simply enact strategies in one sphere without seeing some kind of reaction in another sphere. Forget 9/11 for a second. Bush II talked openly about ensuring a second term by fighting a successful military action. He may not have planned to go to war, but he certainly planned to take advantage of the opportunity. But to do so meant laying the groundwork: making people scared. 9/11 was the catalyst, but it was the colour coding, the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act that helped establish fear in the general populace. And it worked! Sure there was a legitimate desire for revenge (!) and a legitimate need to respond somehow to the outrage of 9/11, but the amount of fear created ensured that there would be little questioning of the policies implemented. Now, the problem with this is that fear is not a great motivator to buy consumer goods. Especially if it's fear of foreclosure. But even if it's fear of a poor cash position. So the economy began to slow down, and risk aversion became the order of the day. This was solved by keeping interest rates abnormally low, which led to all kinds of risky speculating, and perversely, the inability to earn much from traditional investments. So the banks created new mechanisms for "wealth creation"--Asset Backed Securities and Credit Default Swaps. Here, at last, were financial vehicles which could generate good returns even in the face of unbelievably low interest. But to realize this, Congress had to eliminate regulations. Which was easy, because what could be more patriotic than the creation of wealth while at war? Now we have fictional financial vehicles, risk aversion leading ironically to unmeasured risk taking, expenditures of huge sums on the ill-thought-out conflicts, fear now of losing jobs and/or houses... a perfect storm of incompetence, immorality and a failure of the imagination. And they are all related. The question is not how do we solve the current fiscal crisis, but how do we solve the current existential crisis, given that we have politicians seemingly committed to a worldview swimming in cognitive dissonance?
22 October 2011
PKP and the Chamber of Secrets
This week saw the playing out of a Harper Conservative morality play of sorts, as Pierre-Karl Peladeau visited Parliament to defend Quebecor's 400+ information requests from CBC and urge to the House to: a) MAKE CBCreveal all information requested, even though they are a competitor requesting what amount to trade secrets of sorts, and despite that the CBC already reveals almost everything about it's finances and management in public documents and audits; b) force CBC to spend taxpayer's money purchasing advertising in Quebecor media properties, despite refusing to grant CBC the advertising it wanted, and despite an editorial policy of slandering the CBC every week (see: Toronto Sun, but be warned that you may temporarily lose touch with sanity and reality by reading it); c) reduce or eliminate funding to the CBC entirely, and put it's properties up for sale; d) force the CBC to "cease and desist" publishing evidence which shows that Quebecor is itself the recipient of nearly $500 million in government largesse since 2008, and claiming (accurately) that PKP himself had written to the Prime Minister asking that CBC be forced to buy advertising, be shuttered, etc.. Probably one of the best descriptions of what's going on is in the Globe. And here.
Interestingly, the Harper Government has openly mused that it was planning to cut funding to the CBC, but also that these cuts were in line with cuts demanded of the entire public service. Which is rather strange to say the least, since in return for federal money, CBC actually earns revenues. It is, therefore, quite unlike most recipients of government expenditure. In addition, the Government itself has been utterly unwilling to publish necessary requested documents for half a decade, yet despite CBC having a justified rationale for not publishing everything, they expect it alone of government entities to answer every request no matter how frivolous. Yet still, they do not open their mouths but allow PKP to make all statements on their behalf. Whimsical, false, ideological and cowardly all at once. Can our federal government not make whatever decision they choose with regard to the CBC? Of course they can, but they prefer to lie to the public by allowing an altogether surreal parallel process take place and have PKP take the heat, such as it is.M
While it would be amusingly ironic under different circumstances--particularly PKP's notions, at one and the same time, that CBC MUST, as "state" broadcaster, take out advertising in every Canadian media organization (even if they have no interest in doing so, even if certain media organizations are taking whatever money is paid to the and using it to try and kill the CBC!), but not have the right to request how and where that advertising money is spent. To be honest, I always figured that those that read tabloids were misguided and misinformed, but I never guessed it would come to the state we're in, where certain media organs are using their considerable resources to tell bald-faced lies, and stand by the defence that the lies are merely an "interpretation" of the facts. We are really through the looking glass, in a very desperate way. These people are not only out to destroy the CBC, but almost everything that I grew up regarding as Canada's legacy of good ideas and good behaviour to the world. It makes me both angry and sad.
Interestingly, the Harper Government has openly mused that it was planning to cut funding to the CBC, but also that these cuts were in line with cuts demanded of the entire public service. Which is rather strange to say the least, since in return for federal money, CBC actually earns revenues. It is, therefore, quite unlike most recipients of government expenditure. In addition, the Government itself has been utterly unwilling to publish necessary requested documents for half a decade, yet despite CBC having a justified rationale for not publishing everything, they expect it alone of government entities to answer every request no matter how frivolous. Yet still, they do not open their mouths but allow PKP to make all statements on their behalf. Whimsical, false, ideological and cowardly all at once. Can our federal government not make whatever decision they choose with regard to the CBC? Of course they can, but they prefer to lie to the public by allowing an altogether surreal parallel process take place and have PKP take the heat, such as it is.M
While it would be amusingly ironic under different circumstances--particularly PKP's notions, at one and the same time, that CBC MUST, as "state" broadcaster, take out advertising in every Canadian media organization (even if they have no interest in doing so, even if certain media organizations are taking whatever money is paid to the and using it to try and kill the CBC!), but not have the right to request how and where that advertising money is spent. To be honest, I always figured that those that read tabloids were misguided and misinformed, but I never guessed it would come to the state we're in, where certain media organs are using their considerable resources to tell bald-faced lies, and stand by the defence that the lies are merely an "interpretation" of the facts. We are really through the looking glass, in a very desperate way. These people are not only out to destroy the CBC, but almost everything that I grew up regarding as Canada's legacy of good ideas and good behaviour to the world. It makes me both angry and sad.
15 October 2011
Post-democratic civilization
I can't help myself. Despite knowing that it will lead to grief, I can't help looking below the fold, or below the article, to the comments on media websites. I shouldn't. I shouldn't because the majority of what I read there is enough to make my blood boil in anger, my eyes roll in disbelief, and finally my head explode at the meanness, selfishness, arrogance and hypocrisy. More often than not, I will also see posts that I agree with, even admire, occasionally which will truly enlighten me. But the ratio is not a good one, even on media sites where readers could be expected to share my views. And lately, it's got me wondering what needs to be done to fix the sorry state of our post-democratic nations. (By post-democratic, I mean the state of affairs which has a bare majority or fewer voting, political parties which offer nothing of substance except caricatures of their opponents, media which are now responsible only to the powerful elites and not the citizenry, and all of the concomitant social effects from these and related issues. It's certainly nothing like democracy as practiced up until the middle of the 20th century, even up to the 1970s. The impact of this post-democratic reality is that parties offer little of substance to the voter, the media misinforms and propagandizes, and the whole process is denatured to the point that, as often as not, the actual votes are cast are cast in order to send a message of dissatisfaction, rather than elect a positive candidate.
But back to these egregiously pompous, cruel posts. There seems to be a mixture of mindless triumphalism/tribalism, purposeful manipulation of "facts", demonization of the opponent, and occasional self-serving rationalizations. The old directions of Left and Right have ceased to mean much. Today, "The Right" and their supporters, the media, characterize the Right as being values-oriented, Christian, earnest, hard-working and individualistic. In truth, they covet their entitlements, they are anything but Christian (or moderate), their hypocrisy is boundless and selfish (and ultimately, self-defeating), they lie whenever they feel it necessary, and they are the most Socialist commentators out there, provided it is Socialism for the powerful elite, not the society as a whole. "The Left" constitutes anyone that they disagree with, and are caricatured as lazy, jobless, stupid, weak, indecisive, without values, Godless and pandering (I'm sure I've left out an awful lot). Most of "The Left" today doesn't even closely resemble the left of 1970. So these labels mean very little except as dog-whistles to certain groups. Nothing has brought this out clearer than the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has had most media outlets scrambling to disavow any connection to, or reasonable consideration of, the protests and/or protestors. So if we are to recapture democracy for the 21st century, the first thing I suggest we do is eliminate the adulterated use of these epithets, since they serve no semantic purpose, and their political value redounds to only one side.
Chris Hedges put it rather brilliantly in his "interview" with O'Leary on the CBC (yes, even the CBC is starting to sound like Fox/Sun News, since it erroneously believes that the public likes what they're getting). The protestors, he said, could better be characterized as conservatives, since what they want is the conservation of the rule of law, and what Wall Street wants is an unimpeded free-for-all (-the 1%ers). That was just a moment before he mentioned that he would never appear on CBC again because he was, rightfully, disgusted at O'Leary's character assassination and grandstanding. But what's truly astounding about the upside down world O'Leary and the 1%ers live in (and many who are not in the 1% sympathize with their point-of-view, for reasons mentioned above), is their feeling that, as conditions deteriorate ever more rapidly, we should all be grateful to them "for giving us a job". Without them, there would be no jobs (Kevin O'Leary actually says this--see this for the whole charade on CBC), see?? And I saw more of this on the Globe & Mail's article describing Mark Carney's robust (if shaded) defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement as a desire for needed change. To whit, the old canard was advanced that the widening gap between rich and poor is of no significance, because the poor are still better off.
In fact, the argument they are trying to advance depends on a whole lot of bad logic, faulty parallelism and plain inaccuracy. For one thing, who constitutes "the poor"? How can we tell if they are "better off"? Are you better off if you have a TV (which you are still paying for) but can't eat a solid meal every day? And does it matter that the poor are actually becoming more numerous since the middle class are sliding into that group? These are the people who admonish those complaining about working conditions to "Be glad you don't live in Communist (China/Russia/Cuba...)" In other words, let's not even address the substance of the complaint, let's instead introduce some kind of self-serving relativism which makes it okay. This from the group most likely to object to other kinds of moral relativism. But it's impossible to even know the actual state of things, because even if the poorest of the poor are somewhat better off than they were, the introduction of so many formerly middle class individuals and families to the ranks of the poor surely counters that. Judging simply by the number of people now living on the street, or consuming food bank meals, the poor are certainly worse off in a few categories.
The next problem is that, for their argument to work, there would have to be evidence that the poor have benefited while the inequity has grown, which certainly is not the case. The average working class wage (adjusted for inflation) in 1970 was $31,000. In 2010 it was $28,000, a drop of nearly 10%. Meanwhile, the average salary of owners and CEOs was over $650,000 in 1970 (just over 20 times the workers' wages); in 2010 it was just shy of $6,000,000 (or over 200 times the workers' wages). So the lower and middle class have suffered, at least in terms of real income. And anecdotally this is a no-brainer: how many families have two working parents today compared to 1970? Yet for most the standard of living has either stagnated or declined. And even if measurements of well-being in terms of consumer goods show some improvement, it's come at the cost of active parenting and the loss of time with ones' kids, and all of the social impacts that have resulted. So that argument is simply false.
The last problem is that coincidence (which is a condition not met anyway) is clearly not causation. Even if the poor were better off while the inequity widened, it wouldn't offer proof that it was because of the widening gap that they were better off. Is it really not possible for "The Right" to imagine a world in which the poor were better off, society was better off, the economy was better off, and the gap shrank?? There's only one reason not to countenance such a thing, and that's a vested interest in maintaining the self-serving rationalization that one's outrageous wealth is a good thing. Or at least not a bad thing.
So where does that leave us? Well, it seems to me that we won't get anywhere trying to fight battles against true believers and those so captive of the corporatist paradigm that they can't understand basic logic or facts. When one is part of the problem, one is unable to recognize the problem. My own feeling is that we need to start working immediately to create a new, post-democratic democracy, where the lessons of today are applied to prevent parties and views being corrupted by power. And that means fixing the media above all. And to do that we will need to start reaching citizens in a meaningful way, and enlist them in the effort to fix things. Occupy Wall Street is a great start, and it certainly has created momentum, but we need to build on that momentum with infrastructure and ideas. To borrow an idea from business, we don't need simply a democratic advantage, but a sustainable democratic advantage. Now I have to think about how to go do that. I'd start by disallowing any kind of political spin whatsoever. And make TV news as it was in the 1960s/70s--sober, serious and largely unattractive. It's the news, goddammit, not a variety show! And get rid of 99% of the "pundit class". Both of these things can be made possible with simple regulation, including making 24 hour news illegal. It's not good for individuals, newsmakers or the body politic, as 30 years of chasing OJ should have taught us.
But back to these egregiously pompous, cruel posts. There seems to be a mixture of mindless triumphalism/tribalism, purposeful manipulation of "facts", demonization of the opponent, and occasional self-serving rationalizations. The old directions of Left and Right have ceased to mean much. Today, "The Right" and their supporters, the media, characterize the Right as being values-oriented, Christian, earnest, hard-working and individualistic. In truth, they covet their entitlements, they are anything but Christian (or moderate), their hypocrisy is boundless and selfish (and ultimately, self-defeating), they lie whenever they feel it necessary, and they are the most Socialist commentators out there, provided it is Socialism for the powerful elite, not the society as a whole. "The Left" constitutes anyone that they disagree with, and are caricatured as lazy, jobless, stupid, weak, indecisive, without values, Godless and pandering (I'm sure I've left out an awful lot). Most of "The Left" today doesn't even closely resemble the left of 1970. So these labels mean very little except as dog-whistles to certain groups. Nothing has brought this out clearer than the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has had most media outlets scrambling to disavow any connection to, or reasonable consideration of, the protests and/or protestors. So if we are to recapture democracy for the 21st century, the first thing I suggest we do is eliminate the adulterated use of these epithets, since they serve no semantic purpose, and their political value redounds to only one side.
Chris Hedges put it rather brilliantly in his "interview" with O'Leary on the CBC (yes, even the CBC is starting to sound like Fox/Sun News, since it erroneously believes that the public likes what they're getting). The protestors, he said, could better be characterized as conservatives, since what they want is the conservation of the rule of law, and what Wall Street wants is an unimpeded free-for-all (-the 1%ers). That was just a moment before he mentioned that he would never appear on CBC again because he was, rightfully, disgusted at O'Leary's character assassination and grandstanding. But what's truly astounding about the upside down world O'Leary and the 1%ers live in (and many who are not in the 1% sympathize with their point-of-view, for reasons mentioned above), is their feeling that, as conditions deteriorate ever more rapidly, we should all be grateful to them "for giving us a job". Without them, there would be no jobs (Kevin O'Leary actually says this--see this for the whole charade on CBC), see?? And I saw more of this on the Globe & Mail's article describing Mark Carney's robust (if shaded) defense of the Occupy Wall Street movement as a desire for needed change. To whit, the old canard was advanced that the widening gap between rich and poor is of no significance, because the poor are still better off.
In fact, the argument they are trying to advance depends on a whole lot of bad logic, faulty parallelism and plain inaccuracy. For one thing, who constitutes "the poor"? How can we tell if they are "better off"? Are you better off if you have a TV (which you are still paying for) but can't eat a solid meal every day? And does it matter that the poor are actually becoming more numerous since the middle class are sliding into that group? These are the people who admonish those complaining about working conditions to "Be glad you don't live in Communist (China/Russia/Cuba...)" In other words, let's not even address the substance of the complaint, let's instead introduce some kind of self-serving relativism which makes it okay. This from the group most likely to object to other kinds of moral relativism. But it's impossible to even know the actual state of things, because even if the poorest of the poor are somewhat better off than they were, the introduction of so many formerly middle class individuals and families to the ranks of the poor surely counters that. Judging simply by the number of people now living on the street, or consuming food bank meals, the poor are certainly worse off in a few categories.
The next problem is that, for their argument to work, there would have to be evidence that the poor have benefited while the inequity has grown, which certainly is not the case. The average working class wage (adjusted for inflation) in 1970 was $31,000. In 2010 it was $28,000, a drop of nearly 10%. Meanwhile, the average salary of owners and CEOs was over $650,000 in 1970 (just over 20 times the workers' wages); in 2010 it was just shy of $6,000,000 (or over 200 times the workers' wages). So the lower and middle class have suffered, at least in terms of real income. And anecdotally this is a no-brainer: how many families have two working parents today compared to 1970? Yet for most the standard of living has either stagnated or declined. And even if measurements of well-being in terms of consumer goods show some improvement, it's come at the cost of active parenting and the loss of time with ones' kids, and all of the social impacts that have resulted. So that argument is simply false.
The last problem is that coincidence (which is a condition not met anyway) is clearly not causation. Even if the poor were better off while the inequity widened, it wouldn't offer proof that it was because of the widening gap that they were better off. Is it really not possible for "The Right" to imagine a world in which the poor were better off, society was better off, the economy was better off, and the gap shrank?? There's only one reason not to countenance such a thing, and that's a vested interest in maintaining the self-serving rationalization that one's outrageous wealth is a good thing. Or at least not a bad thing.
So where does that leave us? Well, it seems to me that we won't get anywhere trying to fight battles against true believers and those so captive of the corporatist paradigm that they can't understand basic logic or facts. When one is part of the problem, one is unable to recognize the problem. My own feeling is that we need to start working immediately to create a new, post-democratic democracy, where the lessons of today are applied to prevent parties and views being corrupted by power. And that means fixing the media above all. And to do that we will need to start reaching citizens in a meaningful way, and enlist them in the effort to fix things. Occupy Wall Street is a great start, and it certainly has created momentum, but we need to build on that momentum with infrastructure and ideas. To borrow an idea from business, we don't need simply a democratic advantage, but a sustainable democratic advantage. Now I have to think about how to go do that. I'd start by disallowing any kind of political spin whatsoever. And make TV news as it was in the 1960s/70s--sober, serious and largely unattractive. It's the news, goddammit, not a variety show! And get rid of 99% of the "pundit class". Both of these things can be made possible with simple regulation, including making 24 hour news illegal. It's not good for individuals, newsmakers or the body politic, as 30 years of chasing OJ should have taught us.
26 May 2009
Two Ideas
One: lists. Not a new idea, obviously. Start with lists of great music sorted by traditional and non-traditional means. (Note: lists of recipes sorted by ingredient would be handy, since often I want to know what I can do with 4 pounds of butter, two melons, flax seed and licorice.) Then a list of those lists, i.e. list of the top albums/hits by year, then a list of the top years. Then a list of the top makers of lists, followed by a list of meta-list lists, and then a list of ways that makers of exhaustive lists such as this eventually went mad or were killed by the list-hating citizenry of their small town near Vaduz. (Quick: what country is that in? And is it a real country?) As a follow on, how about a story about guys with OCD-like behvaiour working for some spy organization who stumble across the contents of a list without knowing the subject matter and take it to mean something entirely different. Eventually hordes of innocent people are killed by over-zealous spy masters acting on the assumption that the list is a recipe for terrorist activity, or flax-seed, melon and licorice casserole with lots of butter sauce.
Two: People-powered projects. A website to leverage the grass-roots in support of better, more targeted municipal, regional and national projects. Why wait until some group has developed enough influence to push their own agenda... let's ask what should be on the agenda and help to prioritize it.
Two: People-powered projects. A website to leverage the grass-roots in support of better, more targeted municipal, regional and national projects. Why wait until some group has developed enough influence to push their own agenda... let's ask what should be on the agenda and help to prioritize it.
Abortions
I guess there's a bit of the cynic in me. Coyness, too. I like to think that I am a genuinely optimistic person, with loads of faith in some things: the "laws" of science, that people will do the right thing (provided "the right thing" is perfectly circumscribed, known to them, within their purview, and not in conflict with some other "right thing"), that there is meaning in what seems so meaningless. But as with religious faith, I have no proof or evidence which could ground my faith with solid foundations. I guess that's okay, because that's what faith is after all: willingness to accept/believe things not in evidence.
The cynic in me sees all of the occasions upon which people did not do the right thing; the cases where the laws of science simply didn't govern, or were wrong, or just by application somehow made things worse; and those times when no amount of trying could find meaning hidden in the seemingly random, cold exercise of the forces around us. Furthermore, the cynic in me sees opportunity in these failings. In the first place, an opportunity to make things better just by helping to clarify what we mean by "the right thing" and how to go about doing said thing. In the second place, by looking at what we know and how we know it, and by asking when we revisit our thinking on that. In the third, by taking these things altogether and asking what "meaning" could "mean", if not somehow related to our experience, even if that experience is often qualified as enduring the meaningless machinations of a universe we don't understand, or can't understand.
The end result of our continued struggle to manage these paradoxes is what I mean by the term "abortions"--not the termination of a pregnancy via medical intervention. We have a tendency to see the "either/or", to laud the good and reject the bad, to admire those who succeed and disregard those who fail. Why? Well, obviously success feels a whole lot better for the most part. But we create these narratives that end up marginalizing the actual experiences of almost all of us, much of the time. The experience of not quite getting what we wanted or expected. The choices which turned out to be much worse than anticipated. The roads that led to dead ends. And the sad thing about disregarding these kinds of events is that they are far more determinate of eventual success than our past success. What happens when we didn't get what we wanted? What choices do we make after making bad ones? What does the road out from a dead end look like?
There are days when life seems full of promise, and others when it seems like what's left from an aborted suicide. It hasn't killed me, I haven't killed myself... now what? This may not sound very uplifting, but I don't intend to focus on why I ought to kill myself (or you yourself), but rather on the "now what?" And frankly, I cannot listen to the radio in the car anymore without wondering these kinds of things. The "science" of economics has failed us utterly, by failing first to answer the question about meaning. And today's journalism somehow doesn't ask that question either.
As if hourly reports on the number of new jobless claims, coupled with government pronouncements and stupid political ads could do anything other than make it harder to find the "meaning".
The cynic in me sees all of the occasions upon which people did not do the right thing; the cases where the laws of science simply didn't govern, or were wrong, or just by application somehow made things worse; and those times when no amount of trying could find meaning hidden in the seemingly random, cold exercise of the forces around us. Furthermore, the cynic in me sees opportunity in these failings. In the first place, an opportunity to make things better just by helping to clarify what we mean by "the right thing" and how to go about doing said thing. In the second place, by looking at what we know and how we know it, and by asking when we revisit our thinking on that. In the third, by taking these things altogether and asking what "meaning" could "mean", if not somehow related to our experience, even if that experience is often qualified as enduring the meaningless machinations of a universe we don't understand, or can't understand.
The end result of our continued struggle to manage these paradoxes is what I mean by the term "abortions"--not the termination of a pregnancy via medical intervention. We have a tendency to see the "either/or", to laud the good and reject the bad, to admire those who succeed and disregard those who fail. Why? Well, obviously success feels a whole lot better for the most part. But we create these narratives that end up marginalizing the actual experiences of almost all of us, much of the time. The experience of not quite getting what we wanted or expected. The choices which turned out to be much worse than anticipated. The roads that led to dead ends. And the sad thing about disregarding these kinds of events is that they are far more determinate of eventual success than our past success. What happens when we didn't get what we wanted? What choices do we make after making bad ones? What does the road out from a dead end look like?
There are days when life seems full of promise, and others when it seems like what's left from an aborted suicide. It hasn't killed me, I haven't killed myself... now what? This may not sound very uplifting, but I don't intend to focus on why I ought to kill myself (or you yourself), but rather on the "now what?" And frankly, I cannot listen to the radio in the car anymore without wondering these kinds of things. The "science" of economics has failed us utterly, by failing first to answer the question about meaning. And today's journalism somehow doesn't ask that question either.
As if hourly reports on the number of new jobless claims, coupled with government pronouncements and stupid political ads could do anything other than make it harder to find the "meaning".
20 May 2009
Optimism, Fear and Progress
Further to my last post (loosely referring to philosophy and/or psychology), I hereby add some other fleetingly considered thoughts. In so doing, I plainly am not elucidating anything more regarding the last post, but oh well.
You can see the analytic philosophy student in me by virtue of the tripartite title of this post. That makes it neither good nor bad (I hope).
I was struck, as I am everyday lately, by the sheer volume of negative hyperbole in the media. The stories of abductions, recessionary losses, job losses, corruption, incompetence, apocalypse and yet another videotape of wannabe celebrities engaging in terminally boring sex. And gas is more expensive (again). Look, we are setting ourselves up for a really bad trip man! Where's the enthusiasm, energy and hope for the future? I know, it's over there in a box being squashed by the sensational, stupid and stultifying.
But it's extremely important that we re-discover it, because we cannot begin to repair our, well, civilization without the wholehearted engagement and enthusiasm of each one of us. And, more than that, a world without optimism is a world lacking in respect, etiquette and innovation. A world which, if not in serious decline, will be shortly, because the prevailing attitude tends to be a leading indicator of what comes next.
If hope, trust and progress begin with optimism, there's no doubt that devolution, conflict an distress begin with corruption- and incompetence-fueled cynicism. Don't get me wrong; my issue is with the cynicism, rather than the cynics, most of whom are merely reacting to the prevailing zeitgeist. And while I love Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, they point to what's wrong, while we need something point us to what's right.
More: Need for leading indicators... the housing market is a reflection of a banker's fantasy, not reality. We need fewer (many fewer) economists... most are poor political philosophers in disguise, and very few actually understand much about "the economy". As a society, we need to reinvent ourselves, not just our individual institutions, but who and what we are in toto.
If this seems like a rambling, pointless exercise, give me some time. I hope to turn it into something more meaningful.
You can see the analytic philosophy student in me by virtue of the tripartite title of this post. That makes it neither good nor bad (I hope).
I was struck, as I am everyday lately, by the sheer volume of negative hyperbole in the media. The stories of abductions, recessionary losses, job losses, corruption, incompetence, apocalypse and yet another videotape of wannabe celebrities engaging in terminally boring sex. And gas is more expensive (again). Look, we are setting ourselves up for a really bad trip man! Where's the enthusiasm, energy and hope for the future? I know, it's over there in a box being squashed by the sensational, stupid and stultifying.
But it's extremely important that we re-discover it, because we cannot begin to repair our, well, civilization without the wholehearted engagement and enthusiasm of each one of us. And, more than that, a world without optimism is a world lacking in respect, etiquette and innovation. A world which, if not in serious decline, will be shortly, because the prevailing attitude tends to be a leading indicator of what comes next.
If hope, trust and progress begin with optimism, there's no doubt that devolution, conflict an distress begin with corruption- and incompetence-fueled cynicism. Don't get me wrong; my issue is with the cynicism, rather than the cynics, most of whom are merely reacting to the prevailing zeitgeist. And while I love Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, they point to what's wrong, while we need something point us to what's right.
More: Need for leading indicators... the housing market is a reflection of a banker's fantasy, not reality. We need fewer (many fewer) economists... most are poor political philosophers in disguise, and very few actually understand much about "the economy". As a society, we need to reinvent ourselves, not just our individual institutions, but who and what we are in toto.
If this seems like a rambling, pointless exercise, give me some time. I hope to turn it into something more meaningful.
15 May 2009
The philosophy of psychology, or, er, vice versa
What follows is a list of discussions, or thoughts, or meaningless intellectual exercises with which I have lately been preoccupied, and of which I hope to set down lengthier treatments in the near future. (What an enormous cop-out! OF COURSE I will write more!)
Philosophy vs. psychology
(Some) psychologists like to believe that the psychological/neurological/pharmacological approach to human behaviour is all that there is. [Of course (some) philosophers believe the opposite.] That “philosophy” is merely a reflection of the psychological state of affairs, but that our psychology is such as to create the philosophies we choose to “believe” in. [See Hume on inference]
But if I make choices, even based entirely (or almost entirely) upon my psychology, physiology, experience and situation, I still can reflect on those choices (and do). The purely psychological picture does not allow for reflection, unless it treats reflection as simply another psychological state. But to do so is to put the cart before the horse, because that determination itself (that it’s all psychology) is as open to the same charge as is applied to philosophizing. It’s a choice. And even if it is a choice entirely explained by psychological arguments, it is beyond our knowing, inasmuch as knowing such a thing requires some kind of self-reflection and self-consciousness.
We live in a philosophical world, even if many of the furnishings are supplied by our psychology. This is merely to say that philosophizing is an essential part of our psychology, even if it can’t answer all our questions, or rise above the highly determinate world our psychology makes for us. All that is required is that philosophers acknowledge the role of psychology as on par with metaphysics—and crucially, as a modern lexicon for addressing epistemological and ethical questions.
Fear and choice
The survival instinct is the starting point for all our decision making. Long after we’ve stopped thinking in concrete survival terms, we continue to make decisions influenced by an unconscious drive to “survive” and prosper. As Charles Prather once remarked to me, the brain isn’t “designed” for thinking, but rather for “surviving”, and sometimes that primary function gets in the way of effective thinking. Politics in the broadest sense, meaning national electoral politics, down to municipal, down to institutional and organizational politics, has become (perhaps always was) driven by fear and opportunism. The problem with democracy, in some respects, is that it only appears to be “free”. The goal of many politicians seems to be to constrain that freedom by instilling fear—directly or indirectly, abstract or concrete. When individuals fear, their survival instinct kicks into action in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, resulting in decision options being badly evaluated, prioritized, misunderstood or rejected out of hand. This is a problem, since we are living through the age of fear, and we can’t seem to make good decisions… even when our lives depend upon it.
Not “values voters”; “fear voters”
By extension, one of the ways to combat the “values voter” paradigm is to target this group as “fear voters”, who irrationally vote against their own best interests based on the (misplaced) fear that everything they cherish is threatened. After all, what are the “values” that they want protected? Freedom of choice? Individual liberty? Quality of life? Religious meaning?
Abortion: when is a fetus “alive”, by analogy, when is a robot “sentient”?
The essence of the argument against abortion is that it is murder by another name. This is so because the fetus is considered a living human being from the moment of conception. Or, for many, because it is impossible to know at exactly what moment the fetus is “human”. One way of attacking this problem is to get to the fundamental problem of the sanctity of life—why is (should be?) human life sacred, and why should a fetus be accorded a different level of “sanctity” from, say, innocent non-combatants killed in “just” wars? (The key, after all, appears to be that fetuses are the quintessence of “innocence”. Though it begs the question why some are miscarried.) The problem is that there is no obvious way to come to agreement on this, and most appeals are tied to rigid, unyielding belief in God, or the lack thereof.
Another way of looking at it is to see it (the question of abortion) as a management issue, not an ethical one. Abortions will occur regardless of what the law is. They will be immoral or not regardless of whether they occur. But from a management perspective, understanding when to apply the term “living” is analogous to when a computer or robot can be said to be “intelligent” as it is being constructed. Very much a sophisticated Sorites paradox… when is it merely a collection of inert pieces of metal and chips, and when is it something that can think?
The Underrated: a “hall of fame” of artists, art and music that have been overlooked
I have a very long list, which I have never bothered to set down, of things I have had enormous appreciation for, but which seem to have never been accorded the fame or respect I think they clearly deserve. Now seems like a good time to start.
06 April 2009
The grass is greener bug
"Follow those who seek the truth. Run from those who claim to have found it." attr. Vaclav Havel
I can't define "real". I'm not even sure I know it when I see it. But like most of us, I carry on every day in the expectation that I am experiencing it, and have no qualms about continuing to do so without question.
And yet... this is the fundamental question (well, "a" fundamental question). For good or for ill, we humans have developed some pretty ingrained approaches to what is real, and most depend upon the notion of authority. If the Bible (substitute the Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, Foundation Trilogy, CHUM-FM, guy next door, or anything you like) says so... then it must be so. Mustn't it?
Sometimes I wonder whether our philosophical positions reflect little more than our neurological anatomy, our chemical dependencies, our conditioned reactions, and our need to feel that they reflect none of these. And sometimes I wonder whether there are forces at work which we have not yet begun to comprehend. Do we continue to engage in futile competitive behaviour because it's our nature? Our chemistry? Our upbringing? Or perhaps it's the work of some kind of neuro-parasite which exploits some element of our survival instinct and turns it against ourselves, as we pursue goals without meaning?
In reflecting upon the pathology of schizophrenia, it seems as if the condition is determined to persist at all cost. Better to kill the host than the parasite, the unsuspecting host develops an inability to consider the possibility of infection. Everything else is possible, but not the illness.
Must think on this some more.
I can't define "real". I'm not even sure I know it when I see it. But like most of us, I carry on every day in the expectation that I am experiencing it, and have no qualms about continuing to do so without question.
And yet... this is the fundamental question (well, "a" fundamental question). For good or for ill, we humans have developed some pretty ingrained approaches to what is real, and most depend upon the notion of authority. If the Bible (substitute the Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, Foundation Trilogy, CHUM-FM, guy next door, or anything you like) says so... then it must be so. Mustn't it?
Sometimes I wonder whether our philosophical positions reflect little more than our neurological anatomy, our chemical dependencies, our conditioned reactions, and our need to feel that they reflect none of these. And sometimes I wonder whether there are forces at work which we have not yet begun to comprehend. Do we continue to engage in futile competitive behaviour because it's our nature? Our chemistry? Our upbringing? Or perhaps it's the work of some kind of neuro-parasite which exploits some element of our survival instinct and turns it against ourselves, as we pursue goals without meaning?
In reflecting upon the pathology of schizophrenia, it seems as if the condition is determined to persist at all cost. Better to kill the host than the parasite, the unsuspecting host develops an inability to consider the possibility of infection. Everything else is possible, but not the illness.
Must think on this some more.
How to survive
1. Breathe (repeat as necessary)
2. Try to understand
3. Do not ask questions
4. Approach each day with the expectation it will be better than the last.
5. Make decisions with the wisdom of knowing that it won't be.
6. Make friends.
.
.
.
.
1,547,023. Re-read this list.
2. Try to understand
3. Do not ask questions
4. Approach each day with the expectation it will be better than the last.
5. Make decisions with the wisdom of knowing that it won't be.
6. Make friends.
.
.
.
.
1,547,023. Re-read this list.
06 March 2009
02 July 2007
Room 9, Green Metallic
After that crazy day at work yesterday, my sister and I went for a drive to just take in the sights and relax a little. We left in the morning, but not too early, and by mid-afternoon we had arrived somewhere in Florida. All things considered, this was excellent time, since even the Georgia-Florida border was at least 22 - 24 hours drive away under normal circumstances.
Given that we were now so far from home, and tired after our long yet improbably-much-shorter-than-could-have-been-expected drive, we looked immediately for a hotel. Needless to say, the odds were quite good that we would find a Holiday Inn first, and that is exactly what we did find. We parked vaguely somewhere in the parking lot and entered a lobby that looked familiar--not unlike the lobby of the Kingston Hilton on Knutsford Blvd in New Kingston, Jamaica. The desk clerk gave me a funny look--a forty-something man with a teenage girl (my sister had inexplicably grown about 25 years younger), until we showed ID demonstrating our familial connections. I cannot recall the price of the room, but we were given the key and sent on our way.
And what a long way it was, too! The Holiday Inn in Delray Beach (for that is where we found ourselves) was one of those early 21st century creations: an all-inclusive resort which covered hundreds of acres, spread decadently amongst well-tended grounds, encroaching upon a newly-celebrated 18-hole golf course, covered in large measure by an outrageously large swimming pool. The many paths, turns and buildings made finding our room a challenge, compounded by the lack of adequate direction, and the confusing label, "9 Green Metallic". Soon enough we came to a large, post-modern/neo-classical outrage that was the hotel block in which was located Room 9, Green Metallic.
At first glance the building from the outside appeared to be nearly circular, with unnecessary arches intended to make it look like a cross between the colosseum in Rome and one of those Star Trek backgrounds painted on glass. Inside, however, there was nothing which approximated the circular model in the layout of corridors, many of which proceeded in different directions from the entry point, containing rooms, kiosks, sitting areas, and washrooms. We still did not know at this point what significance "green metallic" had, but we would soon find out. After circling through a wide arc of hallway to the left, we came finally to a hallway which seemed to traverse the centre of this large circular edifice. Outside the door leading to the hallway was a sign pointing to "Room 9" and underneath was written "Green Metallic" in letters which were, of course, green metallic. We entered this somewhat small passageway, and open the first door on the lefthand side. This was a tiny room, barely large enough to contain the one bed. It was also in a state of disorder, with clothes and personal effects strewn everywhere. Upon further inspection, this was not, after all, Room 9.
Returning to the circular corridor and closing the door, we opened the door to a green metallic room immediately outside this passage. Inside we found no sign of squatters, but this was also clearly NOT our room. By this time, we were quite annoyed. Following the signs closely again, we finally realized our mistake and continued for a further 1/2 kilometre around the circle, to find that Room 9 Green Metallic was located at some distance away from all other rooms. We couldn't beging to imagine why. On entering, it was clear that the label "green metallic" extended beyond merely a naming scheme, but to an interior design scheme as well. All fixtures, appliances and artwork were, indeed, green metallic. A cleaning person appeared to have just lately finished a look through the room and we could clearly hear her on her cellphone buying flowers and having them shipped to our home. We dumped our stuff and continued to look around...
Why was my sister 16 and not 40? How did we get to Florida from Canada in 6 hours? Why were we together at all? And what on earth was I doing for a living--the day before had been confusing and bizarre? Other room themes existed, but the only other one I could remember was "Blue Rattan". And since when does Holiday Inn (or anyone) operate a huge All-Inclusive resort in Delray Beach?
Before I could answer any of these questions, I woke up.
Given that we were now so far from home, and tired after our long yet improbably-much-shorter-than-could-have-been-expected drive, we looked immediately for a hotel. Needless to say, the odds were quite good that we would find a Holiday Inn first, and that is exactly what we did find. We parked vaguely somewhere in the parking lot and entered a lobby that looked familiar--not unlike the lobby of the Kingston Hilton on Knutsford Blvd in New Kingston, Jamaica. The desk clerk gave me a funny look--a forty-something man with a teenage girl (my sister had inexplicably grown about 25 years younger), until we showed ID demonstrating our familial connections. I cannot recall the price of the room, but we were given the key and sent on our way.
And what a long way it was, too! The Holiday Inn in Delray Beach (for that is where we found ourselves) was one of those early 21st century creations: an all-inclusive resort which covered hundreds of acres, spread decadently amongst well-tended grounds, encroaching upon a newly-celebrated 18-hole golf course, covered in large measure by an outrageously large swimming pool. The many paths, turns and buildings made finding our room a challenge, compounded by the lack of adequate direction, and the confusing label, "9 Green Metallic". Soon enough we came to a large, post-modern/neo-classical outrage that was the hotel block in which was located Room 9, Green Metallic.
At first glance the building from the outside appeared to be nearly circular, with unnecessary arches intended to make it look like a cross between the colosseum in Rome and one of those Star Trek backgrounds painted on glass. Inside, however, there was nothing which approximated the circular model in the layout of corridors, many of which proceeded in different directions from the entry point, containing rooms, kiosks, sitting areas, and washrooms. We still did not know at this point what significance "green metallic" had, but we would soon find out. After circling through a wide arc of hallway to the left, we came finally to a hallway which seemed to traverse the centre of this large circular edifice. Outside the door leading to the hallway was a sign pointing to "Room 9" and underneath was written "Green Metallic" in letters which were, of course, green metallic. We entered this somewhat small passageway, and open the first door on the lefthand side. This was a tiny room, barely large enough to contain the one bed. It was also in a state of disorder, with clothes and personal effects strewn everywhere. Upon further inspection, this was not, after all, Room 9.
Returning to the circular corridor and closing the door, we opened the door to a green metallic room immediately outside this passage. Inside we found no sign of squatters, but this was also clearly NOT our room. By this time, we were quite annoyed. Following the signs closely again, we finally realized our mistake and continued for a further 1/2 kilometre around the circle, to find that Room 9 Green Metallic was located at some distance away from all other rooms. We couldn't beging to imagine why. On entering, it was clear that the label "green metallic" extended beyond merely a naming scheme, but to an interior design scheme as well. All fixtures, appliances and artwork were, indeed, green metallic. A cleaning person appeared to have just lately finished a look through the room and we could clearly hear her on her cellphone buying flowers and having them shipped to our home. We dumped our stuff and continued to look around...
Why was my sister 16 and not 40? How did we get to Florida from Canada in 6 hours? Why were we together at all? And what on earth was I doing for a living--the day before had been confusing and bizarre? Other room themes existed, but the only other one I could remember was "Blue Rattan". And since when does Holiday Inn (or anyone) operate a huge All-Inclusive resort in Delray Beach?
Before I could answer any of these questions, I woke up.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)