Well another election cycle is over, America has the most leftleaning President since Jimmy Carter in the White House, and the world is at the fever pitch of excitement that a protectionist has been handed the keys to the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.
As usual the media coverage was predictably horrendous and consisted almost entirely of rumination on Obamas skincolor and sporting event style strategic analysis.
In all the analysis I saw, discussion of the quality of Obama and Mccain's respective campaign strategies outweighed discussion of their suitability for office by a factor of at least 20-1.
Why?
It got me thinking... What questions would I ask a presidential (or prime ministerial one for that matter) candidate if I had the chance? I guess the qualities I'd like to see evidence of are an independence of thought, a capacity to think outside the tug of war parameters of established political discourse, and intellectual depth.
Here are my questions...
1) Name one issue on which you disagree with the majority of your fellow Republicans/Democrats.
2) Name one social problem you consider to be overrated in importance by the media.
3) Name one social problem you consider to be insufficiently discussed by the media.
4) Name three issues on which you have changed your mind since you entered politics.
5) Name three problems which you feel lie outside the scope of the office and which you therefore won't be solving during your term.
6) What do you think are the two most effective/positive pieces of policy or legislation brought in during the last fifty years?
7) What do you think have been the two most disastrous pieces of policy or legislation of the last fifty years?
8) Which current foreign leader is closest to yourself in political outlook?
9) What is your least popular opinion?
I would consider an inability to answer such questions in a thoughful and serious manner as evidence of that candidates unsuitability for office.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
November 06, 2008
October 24, 2008
The moral inefficiency of prostitution bans.
This article on the Guardian's 'comment is free' site made interesting reading. The article got me thinking about the constant argument between those who want prostitution banned outright and those who want it regulated. As a libertarian I personally don't have any interest in interfering with what other people choose to do with their bodies or what people choose to pay for, as long as no coercion is involved and no third party is harmed. I do find it amusing how many feminists think that a womans 'right to choose' is founded on self ownership but that principle somehow no longer applies when said ownership is used to offer sex for money rather than to abort foetuses.
I also think that the need for physical intimacy is universal, and found among the disabled as well as the able-bodied, the physically repulsive as well as the beautiful and the socially inept as well as the charming. There are many many people who live lives of intense physical and psychological loneliness and who are for whatever reason unable to form satisfactory relationships. To wish to deny such people whatever brief respite and fleeting comfort that they may find with a sex worker out of some misguided sense of moral righteousness seems pig-headed and obnoxious to me. Furthermore I think legalisation leaves the women in question far less vulnerable to exploitation than they would be otherwise.
Thats MY opinion. I appreciate however, that not everyone agrees. So for the purposes of this argument I am going to look at the other side. 'Lana,' the sex worker in the article is not a drug addicted abused teenager in the grip of a violent pimp. She is a university educated single mother, who has decided that prostitution is a preferable source of income to the available alternatives such as secretarial work, mainly because it provides independence, superior income and more time with her children. Her clients are by her account not abusive but generally polite middle aged businessmen. Nevertheless lets accept for the sake of argument that its EVIL. Quite what form that evil takes, I'm not sure. Perhaps the transaction leaves deep psychological damage in both client and prostitute that will take years to reveal itself. Perhaps she is corrupting the morals of her entire community and leading them onto the path to licentiousness and decadence. Perhaps if enough Lanas ply their sinful trade in central London Yahweh, Allah or Jehovah will come from the sky and do a Sodom and Gomorrah job on the whole city. Whatever. I don't care. We'll just take it as read that its EVIL.
But is it the most EVIL thing imaginable? It stands to reason that if Lanas entirely voluntary and noncoercive transactions with her clients are evil then what happens to women who are brought to this country to be exploited and live in near slave like conditions under brutal pimps is far far more evil.
Anyone who would try to ban prostitution would have to be pretty optimistic about the power of government to do stuff generally. A desire to stamp out the world's oldest profession is nothing if not ambitious!
By banning Lana from plying her sinful trade you either force her underground or make her give up and go back to her lower paying profession. Either way you forfeit tax revenue. Less tax means you can do less stuff. Stuff such as going after and prosecuting the sex traffickers who are commiting far worse acts.
Any way you look at it, from the point of view of reducing the total amount of evil going after Lana is inefficient
APPENDIX
Of course there are many ways you could spend the higher tax take produced by the legality of prostitution to reduce the total amount of EVIL. Alternately you could invest the money in GOOD (cancer research, third world aid, bibles in hotel rooms, organic vegetable subsidies... whatever floats your moral boat) and thus improve the GOOD/EVIL ratio. The point is that by declaring prostitution illegal you are essentially saying that it is SO evil that regardless of how highly it is taxed the GOOD thus generated can never outweigh the EVIL produced.
I also think that the need for physical intimacy is universal, and found among the disabled as well as the able-bodied, the physically repulsive as well as the beautiful and the socially inept as well as the charming. There are many many people who live lives of intense physical and psychological loneliness and who are for whatever reason unable to form satisfactory relationships. To wish to deny such people whatever brief respite and fleeting comfort that they may find with a sex worker out of some misguided sense of moral righteousness seems pig-headed and obnoxious to me. Furthermore I think legalisation leaves the women in question far less vulnerable to exploitation than they would be otherwise.
Thats MY opinion. I appreciate however, that not everyone agrees. So for the purposes of this argument I am going to look at the other side. 'Lana,' the sex worker in the article is not a drug addicted abused teenager in the grip of a violent pimp. She is a university educated single mother, who has decided that prostitution is a preferable source of income to the available alternatives such as secretarial work, mainly because it provides independence, superior income and more time with her children. Her clients are by her account not abusive but generally polite middle aged businessmen. Nevertheless lets accept for the sake of argument that its EVIL. Quite what form that evil takes, I'm not sure. Perhaps the transaction leaves deep psychological damage in both client and prostitute that will take years to reveal itself. Perhaps she is corrupting the morals of her entire community and leading them onto the path to licentiousness and decadence. Perhaps if enough Lanas ply their sinful trade in central London Yahweh, Allah or Jehovah will come from the sky and do a Sodom and Gomorrah job on the whole city. Whatever. I don't care. We'll just take it as read that its EVIL.
But is it the most EVIL thing imaginable? It stands to reason that if Lanas entirely voluntary and noncoercive transactions with her clients are evil then what happens to women who are brought to this country to be exploited and live in near slave like conditions under brutal pimps is far far more evil.
Anyone who would try to ban prostitution would have to be pretty optimistic about the power of government to do stuff generally. A desire to stamp out the world's oldest profession is nothing if not ambitious!
By banning Lana from plying her sinful trade you either force her underground or make her give up and go back to her lower paying profession. Either way you forfeit tax revenue. Less tax means you can do less stuff. Stuff such as going after and prosecuting the sex traffickers who are commiting far worse acts.
Any way you look at it, from the point of view of reducing the total amount of evil going after Lana is inefficient
APPENDIX
Of course there are many ways you could spend the higher tax take produced by the legality of prostitution to reduce the total amount of EVIL. Alternately you could invest the money in GOOD (cancer research, third world aid, bibles in hotel rooms, organic vegetable subsidies... whatever floats your moral boat) and thus improve the GOOD/EVIL ratio. The point is that by declaring prostitution illegal you are essentially saying that it is SO evil that regardless of how highly it is taxed the GOOD thus generated can never outweigh the EVIL produced.
February 23, 2008
Culturally engrained error
The following post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts of Thought" on July 11, 2005 in the wake of the bombings on the London underground.
I havent posted to my blog in a while because I felt I had to articulate a response to what has occurred in LondonI realise I really dont have one.Here is what globalisation does.
1) Relentlessly crush cultural practices and values that are incompatible with the dominant American-led free market system of trade and thought
2) Empower individuals and allowing groups to have a disproportionate impact on the world.
Jihadists are using the very fruits of western civilisation to strike at it. Cell phones and the internet. What the multiculturalists consistently miss is that cultures are not varied and beautiful things to be admired and idealised on the national geographic channel or preserved like beautiful pieces of period architecture. Cultures have a practical use in that they are toolsets for dealing with the world that we live in. The primary value of cultural institutions is not aesthetic but utilitarian. In an increasingly interconnected world the playing conditions are being progressively leveled.
In the game of global competition, the players that employ a suboptimal strategy will continue to lose.I am reminded of the book Moneyball about Billy Beane, General Manager of Major League Baseball's Oakland Athletics. Billy Beane was able to establish a culture of objective analysis within a sport in which most personel moves and ingame startegy were governed by instinct, traditional wisdom and convention.
He relied on the work of amateur baseball researchers such as Bill James to decide which factors were the important ones in determing the usefulness of a baseballplayer toward the end of winning games. The results (On base percentage as a far more important statistic than batting average, the worthlessness of Wins in evaluating pitchers) cut deeply against the grain of traditional baseball culture.
However the As culture was more effective. It more accurately described the (baseball) world as it actually is. The result: Billy Beanes As won more games per dollar of payroll than any other team in baseball. They got more bang for the buck. Slowly and inexorably baseballs hidebound culture has changed to take these discoveries into account but the immense inertia and weight of the received wisdom was almost immensely difficult to overcome. People had a huge emotional investment in incorrect ways of doing things.
If it is immensely difficult for people to accept changes in baseball strategy even in the face of evidence how much more difficult will it be for them to accept changes in social organisation, changes in working life changes in social protections changes in government institutions? Real life outcomes are immensely more important than baseball penant races.
The deeply entrenched african cultural practise of nepotism has led to immense levels of corruption in africa. Despite its debilitating impact on African society the obligation Africans feel to extended family members have proven impossible to shift. African and Middle Eastern culture are both WRONG in key aspects. The outcome is is more losing. In baseball losing is reflected in the standings, in real life, in GDP and per capita income. How does this tie in to the London bombings? Terrorism is a response to losing. Blow up the playing field. Disrupt the game by any means neccessary since you cant win without changing the strategy to which your sense of selfworth is anchored. . Terrorists are pissing into the wind. It is the natural result of creating a mental link between your penis and your adherence to an objectively incorrect course of action.
But in an age of the hyperempowered individual, their capacity to disrupt becomes ever greater. As the losses mount and technology empowers small groups and individuals ever more, the temptation for the losers to be disruptive grows ever greater.
Forming opinions as a non-expert
An issue that has interested me for some time is the following. On many issues, from the economy, to the environment, from foreign policy, to scienctific research there are highly intelligent, highly informed experts who disagree. How do I form opinions on subjects in which there is stark disagreement between experts? Do I read all their books? Where will the time come from? Often the arguments will be of a subtlety and complexity that is impossible for someone without a very thorough understanding of the subject matter to grasp. Equally there will be times when I am intellectually outgunned. The experts whose opinions differ are simplky smarter than I am.
From buying a home to purchasing stock to planning for the future intelligent decision making is impossible without at some point deferring to authority. The difference between an open society and a totalitarian one is that in an open society there are many- a market place- of authorities. The question is how do I from my position of relative ignorance and stupidity decide which authority to defer to? My only choices seem to be an evaluation of the expert and/or the opinion of other experts about the same claim.
Some ideas...
The popularity of the claim. On the whole, ideas which enjoy popular support in their field are probably true more often than those which enjoy less support. But how often is this the case. To what degree should the popularity of a claim bias us toward accepting its truth?
The personal desirability of a claim: Do I or the expert have a personal stake in whether the claim is true or not? If there is a lot of incentive to believe that a claim is true, wishful thinking may bias us in this direction.
The popularity of the expert. How much extra weight should be given to the opinions of an expert who enjoys a high standing and reputation in his field?
The age of the expert. What difference does the age of an individual play in evaluating the probabilistic likelihood that a given claim is correct? I have no idea but it is something I intend to research and think about in the future.
Evidence of flexibility of thought: Has the expert shown an ability to change his mind in the past on other issues.? To me an individual whose track record shows little change in his opinions over a lengthy timeframe must have ALL his claims viewed with an extra dose of caution.
The personal attractiveness of the expert. Given our preference for the beautiful the articulate and the charismatic, it seems to me that many opinions expressed by experts strong in such qualities are probably overpriced in the ideas market. Should we consciously discount the probability that the claims of charismatic experts are true? If so by how much?
All of us already factor a lot of this stuff in when making gut level judgements about whether something is true or not....
But I think it important to think about this stuff explictly rather than implictly. In evaluating experts intuitively our evolutionary biases are likely to impair our judgemnt considerably. We will be overly swayed by the experts personal charisma for example.
From buying a home to purchasing stock to planning for the future intelligent decision making is impossible without at some point deferring to authority. The difference between an open society and a totalitarian one is that in an open society there are many- a market place- of authorities. The question is how do I from my position of relative ignorance and stupidity decide which authority to defer to? My only choices seem to be an evaluation of the expert and/or the opinion of other experts about the same claim.
Some ideas...
The popularity of the claim. On the whole, ideas which enjoy popular support in their field are probably true more often than those which enjoy less support. But how often is this the case. To what degree should the popularity of a claim bias us toward accepting its truth?
The personal desirability of a claim: Do I or the expert have a personal stake in whether the claim is true or not? If there is a lot of incentive to believe that a claim is true, wishful thinking may bias us in this direction.
The popularity of the expert. How much extra weight should be given to the opinions of an expert who enjoys a high standing and reputation in his field?
The age of the expert. What difference does the age of an individual play in evaluating the probabilistic likelihood that a given claim is correct? I have no idea but it is something I intend to research and think about in the future.
Evidence of flexibility of thought: Has the expert shown an ability to change his mind in the past on other issues.? To me an individual whose track record shows little change in his opinions over a lengthy timeframe must have ALL his claims viewed with an extra dose of caution.
The personal attractiveness of the expert. Given our preference for the beautiful the articulate and the charismatic, it seems to me that many opinions expressed by experts strong in such qualities are probably overpriced in the ideas market. Should we consciously discount the probability that the claims of charismatic experts are true? If so by how much?
All of us already factor a lot of this stuff in when making gut level judgements about whether something is true or not....
But I think it important to think about this stuff explictly rather than implictly. In evaluating experts intuitively our evolutionary biases are likely to impair our judgemnt considerably. We will be overly swayed by the experts personal charisma for example.
culturally sensitive police work
first published on November 9, 2005
This sickens me
I wonder WHAT it will take for western civilisation to wake out of its crisis of moral confidence and its appeasement of barbarism and evil.
..............................................
The Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau has published and distributed 50,000 copies of an 82-page handbook for Australian police officers, directing them on how to deal with people from all the unfamiliar cultures that an Australian policeman may encounter. A Sikh, for example, may receive a three-day reprieve from arrest if the arresting officer happens upon him while he is reading his holy scriptures — a practice that takes fifty hours, and must not be interrupted. And Muslim husbands who beat their wives must be treated differently from other domestic violence cases, as a matter of cultural sensitivity: “In incidents such as domestic violence,” says the handbook, “police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.”
..........................................
I prefer the cultural sensitivity expressed by General Napier of British India. He was asked to refrain from interfering in sati, the Hindu practise of ritual widow burning...
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours. "
I wonder WHAT it will take for western civilisation to wake out of its crisis of moral confidence and its appeasement of barbarism and evil.
..............................................
The Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau has published and distributed 50,000 copies of an 82-page handbook for Australian police officers, directing them on how to deal with people from all the unfamiliar cultures that an Australian policeman may encounter. A Sikh, for example, may receive a three-day reprieve from arrest if the arresting officer happens upon him while he is reading his holy scriptures — a practice that takes fifty hours, and must not be interrupted. And Muslim husbands who beat their wives must be treated differently from other domestic violence cases, as a matter of cultural sensitivity: “In incidents such as domestic violence,” says the handbook, “police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life and habits of Muslims.”
..........................................
I prefer the cultural sensitivity expressed by General Napier of British India. He was asked to refrain from interfering in sati, the Hindu practise of ritual widow burning...
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours. "
Identification With Beliefs
We dont change our minds very much....
One of the most damaging things to human discourse is the fossilisation of ideas. Ideas often become so entrenched within individuals or cultures that an open debate of their merits is impossible. At the root of this problem, it seems to me is the fact that ideas and beliefs serve two purposes often fundamantally at odds with each other. The first purpose is that of a model of reality and a guide for actions.
Correct ideas generally produce results superior to incorrect ones.
The individual or group which holds correct views in a given field is far more able to make useful predictions concerning it than one who doesnt. The weather service in London is more effective at making predictions concerning the future weather than an African witch doctor because its ideas concerning this subject are orders of magnitude more true and useful.
Cultures also hold beliefs and ideas. The truth and usefulness of those ideas which are dominant within them are an excellent predictor of cultural success
This fact remains incredibly problematic for multiculturalists who want to reframe the terms of debate in traditionally marxist terms of oppressor/opressed. Multiculturalism is a classically academic idea. In academia beliefs are abstract things with no real consequences. In the outside world they have consequences.
It is the second purpose of ideas which is the most problematic. It results in the otherwise inexplicably long shelflife of ideas which are false useless or harmful to the individual or group concerned. w
Ideas serve to distinguish the individual or group from others and serve as a marker for personal or group identity.
If my selfhood is inextricably bound up with what I believe to be true then a criticism of my beliefs becomes a criticism of me. The only solution is to thro up the trade barriers and limit the exchange of ideas this is exactly wha happens. The consequences of intellectual trade barriers is exactly the same as that of trade barriers in the exchange of goods and services... Stunted growth...
There are areas where the use of ideas for the purpose of identity is generally harmless and even beneficial to human happiness. Fashion, allegiance to sports teams, many traditional cultural festivals and celebrations all give a sense of identity and belonging. It doesnt really matter if a belief in Chicago Cubs baseball, for example is an irrationally entrenched one. Indeed it may even give the believer pleasure. Believing in the Chicago Cubs is utterly different to believing in the Democratic party. A belief in the Chicago Cubs is irreleavnt to being able to form useful ideas about Economics, Law, family life and a whole host of other issues. An entrenched belief in a political party seriously inhibits my ability in this regard.
It is vital that we as a society recognise the difference between the two categories of belief.
While entrenched cultural attitudes such as preference for soccer over baseball or brown bread over white are harmless and enjoyable ways for individuals and groups to distinguish themselves attitudes such as a belief in a rigidly gender stratified society or in socialism are not.
A faith based adherence to ideas with practical consequences is dangerous. The more consequential an idea the more vital is a free flow of ideas in the debate surrounding it. The academic ideas market is not very efficient. The ideas market for correct supply chain management in industry is FAR more efficient becasue the holder of incorrect ideas will be more directly exposed to the consequences of them. Financial markets, the ultimate ideas markets are INCREDIBLY competitive. So are the odds Vegas sets for the outcome of sporting events.
The bible's Leviticus, Platos Republic, Karl Marx's Communist manifesto and the Q'uran ALL advance theories about the optimal organisation of society. The theories advanced in these works are largely incorrect at least in regard to the 21st century. By any measure, societies that follow the blueprints advanced in these works will be less successful than those which are based on free markets...
Freedom and sexual satisfaction
This post was first published on my now defunct blog "Random Acts Of Thought" on April 21 2006
A recent University of Chicago study offers further proof that that more freedom leads to more of everything that is good in life including more orgasms...
Apparently there is a correlation between the degree of gender equality in a society and and the level of sexual satisfaction reported by BOTH parties in those countries.
Unfortunately, petty bedroom tyrants arent in the habit of perusing University of Chicago studies. I have written before about the destructive effect of coercion on friendships, business and relationships... It appears that tyranny is as destructive of sexual enjoyment as it is of economic and intellectual growth. I cant say I am surprised.
Once again western civilisation is at the head of the pack from a utiliarian AND a moral perspective. We produce more software, more literature, more dishwashers, more art, more cars, and more orgasms.
Bullying and coercion produce suffering, inefficieny and poverty whether it occurs in Kabul or Kansas City. Let freedom ring! (or moan in this case)
February 20, 2008
Elections are not the Superbowl
The most frustrating thing about the manner in which the mainstream media cover politics is the misconception about what I as a viewer find useful.
I am not looking for the mainstream media to provide me with an election handicapping service. I will not be gambling on the outcome of the democratic primaries.
90% of political coverage is geared towards helping me pick winners rather than understand issues.
Candidate A makes proposes policy A
Candidate B proposes policy B
What I voter or spectator care about.
What are the merits of the two proposals?
What do experts in the relevant fields think about the effectiveness of the each proposal?
What downsides or unintended consequences can they forsee in each case?
Do proposals A and B involve different sets of tradeoffs?
Which sections of society are likely to pay the highest cost and which sections are likely to reap the greatest benefits from Proposal A as opposed to Proposal B
What are the associated price tags of proposals A and B? Are they the same?
What I as a voter or spectator don't give a damn about
How Candidate A is polling with hispanic women with household incomes
under $40,000
Which candidate has gained 6 points in the latest poll.
Pretty much any strategic considerations affecting the political positioning in the two camps.
Identity politics related voting patterns
Now if I was a campaign manager then I would undoubtedly care deeply about these issues.
If I was running for office and wanted to win I would also have to care about these issues as a matter of pragmatism.
But as a spectator or voter ALL I care about is the reasonableness of the policy proposals and my subjective impression of the candidates making them.
The only questions I want the media to help me answer are;
Given the different sets of policy position espoused by the available candidates, which do I think is most desirable/least harmful for myself, my family and the larger community?
Do these people have track records that suggests they are fairly competent and rational?
What the hell do the poll responses of hispanic single mothers have to do with that?
Nothing!
Politics is covered like sports.
I understand tactical analysis in sports programming.
Beyond who is likely to win their is nothing to discuss. Most of the fun of watching sports is getting to be an armchair quarterback and second guessing players coaches and the front office. I get why people like to second guess say Brian Cashman's free agent signings for the Yankees, or Tom Coughlin's play calling for the Giants. Heck I can even understand why a Wall Street Journal subscriber would enjoy second guessing the CEO of General Motors.
What I can not for the life of me understand is why someone would want to do the same thing with the Democratic primary. Do people actually enjoy identifying with the decisions of campaign managers? Are there people that go. "Damn, we need to get that hispanic single mother demographic locked down in time for the California primary" the way they talk about their favorite basketball team needing to draft a new point guard?
Perhaps there are... But do these armchair party political tacticians constitute the majority of the voting public? You would think so from examining the tone of the media coverage.
So far, I haven't even touched on why this style of coverage is morally problematic. The basic assumption behind all this Xs and Os chalkboard analysis of the political playbook is that winning and election is a valid end in and of itself.
In this cynical view policy formulations are merely a means to an end, just like sports plays. Staking out different positions on, say healthcare or social security is just like deciding between man to man defense or zone coverage.
Needless to say this perspective is morally bankrupt. Political decisions have practical consequences that for good or ill, will effect the lives (and livelihoods) of millions of people.
Now I am convinced that many politicians do indeed think like this. But it is the job of the media to hold them to account, not cheerfully endorse their ethically vacuous Power Uber Alles cynicism as valid game strategy. That they choose the latter course is a total abdication of their responsibility.
Incidentally even if I were so morally indifferent that all I cared about was correctly predicting the outcome of elections rather than informing myself about the issues being debated; watching demographic pie charts, poll results and debate on CNN would be a waste of my time. All the information has already been incorporated into the betting odds posted on gambling sites for anyone who cares to look. The betting market is pretty efficient Using all this data to get a jump on the election outcome is as futile as trying to use an article in last months Forbes to get ahead of the professionals in the the stock market.
I am not looking for the mainstream media to provide me with an election handicapping service. I will not be gambling on the outcome of the democratic primaries.
90% of political coverage is geared towards helping me pick winners rather than understand issues.
Candidate A makes proposes policy A
Candidate B proposes policy B
What I voter or spectator care about.
What are the merits of the two proposals?
What do experts in the relevant fields think about the effectiveness of the each proposal?
What downsides or unintended consequences can they forsee in each case?
Do proposals A and B involve different sets of tradeoffs?
Which sections of society are likely to pay the highest cost and which sections are likely to reap the greatest benefits from Proposal A as opposed to Proposal B
What are the associated price tags of proposals A and B? Are they the same?
What I as a voter or spectator don't give a damn about
How Candidate A is polling with hispanic women with household incomes
under $40,000
Which candidate has gained 6 points in the latest poll.
Pretty much any strategic considerations affecting the political positioning in the two camps.
Identity politics related voting patterns
Now if I was a campaign manager then I would undoubtedly care deeply about these issues.
If I was running for office and wanted to win I would also have to care about these issues as a matter of pragmatism.
But as a spectator or voter ALL I care about is the reasonableness of the policy proposals and my subjective impression of the candidates making them.
The only questions I want the media to help me answer are;
Given the different sets of policy position espoused by the available candidates, which do I think is most desirable/least harmful for myself, my family and the larger community?
Do these people have track records that suggests they are fairly competent and rational?
What the hell do the poll responses of hispanic single mothers have to do with that?
Nothing!
Politics is covered like sports.
I understand tactical analysis in sports programming.
Beyond who is likely to win their is nothing to discuss. Most of the fun of watching sports is getting to be an armchair quarterback and second guessing players coaches and the front office. I get why people like to second guess say Brian Cashman's free agent signings for the Yankees, or Tom Coughlin's play calling for the Giants. Heck I can even understand why a Wall Street Journal subscriber would enjoy second guessing the CEO of General Motors.
What I can not for the life of me understand is why someone would want to do the same thing with the Democratic primary. Do people actually enjoy identifying with the decisions of campaign managers? Are there people that go. "Damn, we need to get that hispanic single mother demographic locked down in time for the California primary" the way they talk about their favorite basketball team needing to draft a new point guard?
Perhaps there are... But do these armchair party political tacticians constitute the majority of the voting public? You would think so from examining the tone of the media coverage.
So far, I haven't even touched on why this style of coverage is morally problematic. The basic assumption behind all this Xs and Os chalkboard analysis of the political playbook is that winning and election is a valid end in and of itself.
In this cynical view policy formulations are merely a means to an end, just like sports plays. Staking out different positions on, say healthcare or social security is just like deciding between man to man defense or zone coverage.
Needless to say this perspective is morally bankrupt. Political decisions have practical consequences that for good or ill, will effect the lives (and livelihoods) of millions of people.
Now I am convinced that many politicians do indeed think like this. But it is the job of the media to hold them to account, not cheerfully endorse their ethically vacuous Power Uber Alles cynicism as valid game strategy. That they choose the latter course is a total abdication of their responsibility.
Incidentally even if I were so morally indifferent that all I cared about was correctly predicting the outcome of elections rather than informing myself about the issues being debated; watching demographic pie charts, poll results and debate on CNN would be a waste of my time. All the information has already been incorporated into the betting odds posted on gambling sites for anyone who cares to look. The betting market is pretty efficient Using all this data to get a jump on the election outcome is as futile as trying to use an article in last months Forbes to get ahead of the professionals in the the stock market.
December 17, 2007
Ritual Sacrifice and socialised healthcare
This is a perfect example of the evils spawned by ideologies that view equality of material outcome not as a means to alleviate suffering but as an end in itself. If I am a patient in Britains Soviet style centralised health machine. I am not allowed to top up the cost of my state subsidised health care with my own money to pay for additional treatments which the bureaucracy has been unable to fund.
The Department of Health said: “Co-payments would risk creating a two-tier health service and be in direct contravention with the principles and values of the NHS.”
In other words the Great Socialist God Egalitarius demands blood sacrifice.
This is worse than the idiotic screwups, bureaucratic incompetence and a lack of imagination that are par for the course with all state run enterprises.
This is suffering by design. The system deliberately pursues a policy that causes more people suffer needless pain and suffering, fully aware of the consequences.
Preventable suffering and death that could be alleviated at no additional cost to the state are deliberately allowed to continue, in order to ensure equality of outcome. I wonder if the patients thus denied treatments are happy that their suffering is serving a higher purpose.
I think the principles and values of the NHS are rotten to the core.
The Department of Health said: “Co-payments would risk creating a two-tier health service and be in direct contravention with the principles and values of the NHS.”
In other words the Great Socialist God Egalitarius demands blood sacrifice.
This is worse than the idiotic screwups, bureaucratic incompetence and a lack of imagination that are par for the course with all state run enterprises.
This is suffering by design. The system deliberately pursues a policy that causes more people suffer needless pain and suffering, fully aware of the consequences.
Preventable suffering and death that could be alleviated at no additional cost to the state are deliberately allowed to continue, in order to ensure equality of outcome. I wonder if the patients thus denied treatments are happy that their suffering is serving a higher purpose.
I think the principles and values of the NHS are rotten to the core.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
