I intended to post something I was writing about an interesting non-fiction book I read recently, but as I had a lot to say about the book, I haven't had time to finish my commentary on it yet. Instead, here are links to some interesting articles on various topics, interspersed with occasional commentary.
Much of the news from Burma/Myanmar recently has been somewhat disturbing, such as this article about the connection between militant Buddhist monks and attacks on Muslims. Along with anti-Tamil and anti-Hindu rhetoric from some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, this is further evidence that Buddhism is not immune to violent religious chauvinism. On the plus side, at least Aung San Suu Kyi did address the issue, though despite what she says about her limited power to fix things, I would like to see her say and do more, including challenging anti-Rohingya prejudice. Elsewhere in the Southeast Asian region, China continues its aggressive imperialism in the South China Sea region, and activists are doing their best to see that big Western companies accept their share of the responsibility for the criminal disaster in Bangladesh (though I would also love to see the local owners and managers go to jail, especially the ones who ordered workers to go to work in an obviously unsafe building or lose a month's pay).
Climate change and the environment are of course issues that won't go away anytime soon (in fact, they'll be a matter for concern as long as human civilization exists). Here's an interesting recent commentary on climate change, specifically rising sea levels and another one on environmental problems faced by China. In addition, here are two articles by George Monbiot from last year about the Rio Earth Summit 2012, one on why we should be talking about sustainability, not "sustained growth", and another basically despairing of further multilateral government efforts to protect the world's environment.
I mentioned briefly in my last post that the new Pope Francis, while saying some good things, looks like he may still be a disappointment on some issues, such as the Vatican's ridiculous effort to make US nuns conform to conservative Catholic positions rather than focusing on social issues, despite some initial hopes otherwise. (For an extreme example of the ridiculous hardline the Catholic church takes on issues such as abortion, one need look no further than the case of the nun Margaret McBride who was excommunicated for involvement in an abortion to save a woman's life. Even given that she was later reinstated, she never should have been excommunicated in the first place, especially when we consider that countless priests who were found to be guilty of sexual abuse of minors were merely transferred, and not excommunicated). Despite this, some still hold out hope that Francis may prove flexible on issues such as priestly celibacy and liberation theology.
Debate continues on NASA's plans to send humans to an asteroid, with some asserting it might be more difficult than going to Mars, and Congress questioning the plan. While Mars would be my first choice, I think the asteroid mission sounds interesting, and if it's true, as NASA chief Charles Bolden implies, that it is cheaper than going back to the Moon or to Mars, than I'd certainly rather see them do that than nothing. Of course I'd even more like to see NASA's budget get tripled so they can do all three things, but that is not likely to happen. However, at a minimum, it should be increased enough to restore the budget for planetary science to the level of previous years.
In other US news, the Republicans have been trying to claim Obama deliberately caused recent flight delays in the US by having the FAA furlough air traffic controllers, when in truth the sequester left the FAA with no choice. But then as a Republican and a Democrat in a panel discussion at Columbia University agreed, US politics is broken. It's worth noting that the Republican (former Congressman Joe Scarborough) criticized his own party's failure to vote for failing to vote for expanded background checks on guns ("Who can be against that?") and said he'd be willing to support a stimulus plan that focused on rebuilding infrastructure and on science (both good ideas), though he claimed Obama's stimulus was ineffective (it wasn't, though it could have been much better).
Finally, a bit of political comedy. This Bloom County comic from the 1980s is a reminder that, unfortunately, the gun issue has been with us for a long time now. And the other day on the Daily Show Jon Stewart did an excellent bit on how right wing commentators on Fox seem to have little regard for the Constitution's Bill of Rights – except for the Second Amendment. Among numerous absurd comments, one that stood out was Ann Coulter's assertion that the Boston bomber's wife should go to jail just for wearing a hijab. Why do Americans give people like that a platform to spout their rhetoric on national TV?
Monday, April 29, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Topical Music: Songs about Current Issues
Since this post touches on both music and current affairs, I'm cross-posting it both here and in my other blog.
While many – perhaps even most – rock and pop songs deal with topics like personal relationships, there are also quite a few that are about issues relating to politics and society. Several recent news topics reminded me of a few of these songs.
The recent death of Margaret Thatcher inevitably made me and many other people think of the Elvis Costello song “Tramp the Dirt Down”. In this song, Costello declared that he looked forward to Thatcher's death so that he could stand on her grave and as the title says, tramp the dirt down. A pretty vicious song, but considering Thatcher’s friendship with the murderous Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet, her opposition to putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid, and many of her policies in Britain, it’s easy to understand Costello’s attitude. I just wonder if he’ll follow through.
A major news topic from the United States is the debate over gun control. While I’ve covered this issue in more detail elsewhere (both seriously and ironically), there are several songs which to a certain degree express some of my own thinking on guns. One is Queen’s “Put Out the Fire”, from their 1981 album Hot Space. One of my favorite parts is the verse where Brian May, the writer of the song, turns an old pro-gun cliché on its head: “You know a gun never killed nobody/You can ask anyone/People get shot by people/People with guns”. Tracy Chapman talks about inner city youth with guns in her excellent song “Bang Bang Bang”. And of course there’s the Lynyrd Skynyrd song “Saturday Night Special”, about the gun of the same name that “Ain't no good for nothin' / But put a man six feet in a hole”. Somewhat more indirectly related to the debate is Sting’s song “I Hung My Head” (also covered by Johnny Cash), about a man who accidentally shoots someone – something that happens with appalling frequency in the US – and is hung for it. Incidentally, it has occurred to me that the main reason George Harrison survived his encounter with a homicidally insane "fan" and John Lennon did not is George lived in the UK, where it isn't nearly as easy to get a gun.
The environment is always an issue, and there are numerous songs about it as well. One that came to mind recently was Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi” (“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”). It seemed particularly applicable to a controversy at a local school in Taiwan, over the opposition of environmental groups and many students and faculty, the administration pushed through a ridiculous plan to cut down a bunch of old-growth trees in order to build a swimming pool and, you guessed it, a parking lot, or rather a parking garage (not to serve the students – this is a junior high school – or even the faculty, but to make money for the school…because, after all, the main purpose of a public school is to bring in money, right?). I also heard an interesting song dealing with climate change called “Disappearing”. It’s by a musician from Vancouver named Simon Collins (who just happens to be the son of a certain famous British drummer and singer).
Then there was the election of a new Pope, one who despite displaying a refreshing approach still looks like he may be disappointing on some issues. If there’s one song I think of when I think of the Catholic Church, it’s “The Vatican Rag” by the inimitable Tom Lehrer. It may be almost 50 years old, but like so many of Lehrer’s songs, it’s timeless. It was even covered by the great Marty Feldman, best known for his role in Young Frankenstein.
While many – perhaps even most – rock and pop songs deal with topics like personal relationships, there are also quite a few that are about issues relating to politics and society. Several recent news topics reminded me of a few of these songs.
The recent death of Margaret Thatcher inevitably made me and many other people think of the Elvis Costello song “Tramp the Dirt Down”. In this song, Costello declared that he looked forward to Thatcher's death so that he could stand on her grave and as the title says, tramp the dirt down. A pretty vicious song, but considering Thatcher’s friendship with the murderous Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet, her opposition to putting pressure on South Africa to end apartheid, and many of her policies in Britain, it’s easy to understand Costello’s attitude. I just wonder if he’ll follow through.
A major news topic from the United States is the debate over gun control. While I’ve covered this issue in more detail elsewhere (both seriously and ironically), there are several songs which to a certain degree express some of my own thinking on guns. One is Queen’s “Put Out the Fire”, from their 1981 album Hot Space. One of my favorite parts is the verse where Brian May, the writer of the song, turns an old pro-gun cliché on its head: “You know a gun never killed nobody/You can ask anyone/People get shot by people/People with guns”. Tracy Chapman talks about inner city youth with guns in her excellent song “Bang Bang Bang”. And of course there’s the Lynyrd Skynyrd song “Saturday Night Special”, about the gun of the same name that “Ain't no good for nothin' / But put a man six feet in a hole”. Somewhat more indirectly related to the debate is Sting’s song “I Hung My Head” (also covered by Johnny Cash), about a man who accidentally shoots someone – something that happens with appalling frequency in the US – and is hung for it. Incidentally, it has occurred to me that the main reason George Harrison survived his encounter with a homicidally insane "fan" and John Lennon did not is George lived in the UK, where it isn't nearly as easy to get a gun.
The environment is always an issue, and there are numerous songs about it as well. One that came to mind recently was Joni Mitchell’s classic “Big Yellow Taxi” (“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”). It seemed particularly applicable to a controversy at a local school in Taiwan, over the opposition of environmental groups and many students and faculty, the administration pushed through a ridiculous plan to cut down a bunch of old-growth trees in order to build a swimming pool and, you guessed it, a parking lot, or rather a parking garage (not to serve the students – this is a junior high school – or even the faculty, but to make money for the school…because, after all, the main purpose of a public school is to bring in money, right?). I also heard an interesting song dealing with climate change called “Disappearing”. It’s by a musician from Vancouver named Simon Collins (who just happens to be the son of a certain famous British drummer and singer).
Then there was the election of a new Pope, one who despite displaying a refreshing approach still looks like he may be disappointing on some issues. If there’s one song I think of when I think of the Catholic Church, it’s “The Vatican Rag” by the inimitable Tom Lehrer. It may be almost 50 years old, but like so many of Lehrer’s songs, it’s timeless. It was even covered by the great Marty Feldman, best known for his role in Young Frankenstein.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
What I've Been Reading: November 2012 to March 2013
Over the past few months I haven't gotten quite as much reading done as I might normally like, in part because I haven't been able to devote all my commuting time to reading like I did in the past. However, I have still managed to read quite a few books in the five months since I last did a post on the subject. Several of these books I thought were excellent and even the ones I had somewhat more mixed opinions about had their share of good points. But though some of these books deserve an in-depth analysis, I have a lot of other things to work on at the moment, so I have limited myself to brief comments on each.
Acacia: The War with the Mein by David Anthony Durham
This was a decent fantasy epic, but not really exceptional. I thought it was much better than the Dark Elf trilogy and it had fairly good characterization (also one of the strong points of Durham’s historical novel on Hannibal of Carthage, which I read a few years ago), but it somehow didn’t feel real much of the time, whereas the best novels, regardless of genre, always do. The story was sufficiently gripping, with at least one surprising plot twist, and I liked how he made use of his knowledge of the conflict between Rome and Carthage to introduce a version of the Roman corvus into the story at one point. But while I enjoyed the book well enough, I probably won’t go out of my way to get the sequel, though I might pick it up if I see it at a bargain price.
Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne
While Jules Verne is often seen as one of the first science fiction authors, and some of his books certainly do belong in the genre, Around the World in Eighty Days is a travel story rather than science fiction. It has the same sort of distinct 19th century feel that a Sherlock Holmes story has, and it moves along at a good pace, keeping the reader’s interest as protagonist Phileas Fogg races around the world on a bet. The descriptions of the various locations Fogg and his servant Passepartout travel through are quite interesting in that some places seem to have changed little since Verne’s day, whereas others are very different (unfortunately, the jungles of India have far less in the way of wildlife than they did even a century ago). As for colonial attitudes, while there are occasional stereotypes, Verne on the whole seems to display a fairly liberal attitude for his time, making a number of critical remarks about the actions of the British in places such as China (of course, criticizing the British may have come somewhat easier for Verne, as he was French himself). Fans of Farrokh Bulsara may note that the Parsis (or Parsees as the name is spelled here) of India are mentioned favorably and one is a major character.
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
This is a classic novel dealing with the difficulties faced by African-Americans in a very racist America in the period following World War II. Ellison’s prose is highly literary without being unreadable. The protagonist, who is never named, is a highly intelligent, well-read young man (unlike the protagonist of his friend Richard Wright's novel Native Son), but despite his great potential, he finds obstacles wherever he turns. It seems that Ellison deliberately put his protagonist into as many different kinds of situations and environments as possible, ranging from the rural South to New York City and from school to factory work to activism, but the only episode that seems slightly incongruous is the electroshock treatment he undergoes in the factory hospital. Overall, the reader comes away with a much greater appreciation of how terrible the problems black Americans had to deal with in those days were.
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
This is an excellent post-apocalyptic novel that is told through the eyes of a character who calls himself Snowman. Parts of it take place in the “present”, that is to say after the disaster – the nature of which is revealed in bits and pieces – and parts of it are Snowman’s reminiscences about the time leading up to the apocalypse, beginning with his childhood, when he was known as Jimmy (it is in these parts that we are introduced to Crake and Oryx). The post-apocalypse parts brought to mind novels like Earth Abides and The Road, while the parts about the pre-disaster society reminded me in some ways of Olivia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. The picture Atwood paints is not very pretty (and it is made even less so when the reader realizes that many of the things she describes actually exist in the real world), but the story is compelling and thought-provoking. Immediately after reading it I bought a used copy of a more recent Atwood novel that apparently shares the same background setting. It will probably be some time before I get around to reading it, but based on this one, I’ll be looking forward to it.
The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells
At first glance this looked it might be a generic fantasy novel, but actually it was very good. Two things in particular set it apart: good characterization and an interesting, very realistic setting (apparently Wells studied anthropology, which may have helped her when it came to world design). The world is not a typical fantasy world; the city is lit by gas lamps and weapons include not only swords but pistols as well. It bears some resemblance to the London of Charles Dickens (though for some reason it also brought to mind Italian cities like Venice), except for the existence of sorcery and fairy beings known as fay (the former plays a very large role in the story, while the latter are mostly background). There are even a pair of characters who bear a little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The plot is complicated but interesting, keeping the reader’s attention through all the twists and turns. While a few elements of the story could be guessed at (for example, it was not hard to predict that Valiarde and Ronsarde would get thrown together in some way), there were also quite a few surprises. The combination of the well-drawn characters and the detailed setting make this one of the most realistic fantasies I’ve read, on par with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Gideon’s Wall, and China Miéville’s novels.
A Case of Conscience by James Blish
An interesting novel about a Jesuit priest who, in his capacity as a biologist, is a member of a team of scientists sent to investigate a world inhabited by intelligent, reptilian aliens. Their society seems perfect, but the protagonist starts to wonder if it’s all a set-up. I had some difficulty with some aspects of the story; for example, two of the other scientists strike me as rather unscientific, not so much in their biases and prejudices, but in their anti-intellectual attitudes. Also, the protagonist seems not to believe in evolution, which seems rather improbable for a biologist (and for all its faults, I don’t think even the Catholic Church denies the reality of evolution). Nevertheless, the philosophical questions the novel poses are interesting, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether the protagonist’s ideas about the aliens are actually correct. As a side note, it was an interesting coincidence that just after I finished this novel, the Catholic Church chose a Jesuit to be Pope, the first ever to hold the position.
Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
In this book, physicist and futurist Michio Kaku makes predictions about developments that will take place in the 21st century in fields such as computers, medicine, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, energy, and space travel, as well as changes that will take place in our concepts of wealth and in our society in general. Not surprisingly, many of the possible future inventions and advances he discusses are amazing, and it will be interesting to find out how many of them we will live to see. My initial impression was that Kaku was perhaps a little too positive, as he seemed to neglect the possible negative consequence of some of the developments he talks about; for instance he doesn’t talk much about the privacy issues that might arise from further advances in computers, and he seems at times to assume that people will make the best possible use of some of the new technologies. However, he does mention a number of negatives, such as why climate change is a serious issue and the major difficulties that we face in the fields of artificial intelligence and space travel, and he does at times point out how negative aspects of human nature may result in misuse of technology (for example in the case of nuclear power). Of course some of his predictions will no doubt turn out to be either too optimistic or too pessimistic. How close to reality his picture of life in 2100 will turn out to be is something that at least some of the children alive today will have a chance to discover.
Acacia: The War with the Mein by David Anthony Durham
This was a decent fantasy epic, but not really exceptional. I thought it was much better than the Dark Elf trilogy and it had fairly good characterization (also one of the strong points of Durham’s historical novel on Hannibal of Carthage, which I read a few years ago), but it somehow didn’t feel real much of the time, whereas the best novels, regardless of genre, always do. The story was sufficiently gripping, with at least one surprising plot twist, and I liked how he made use of his knowledge of the conflict between Rome and Carthage to introduce a version of the Roman corvus into the story at one point. But while I enjoyed the book well enough, I probably won’t go out of my way to get the sequel, though I might pick it up if I see it at a bargain price.
Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne
While Jules Verne is often seen as one of the first science fiction authors, and some of his books certainly do belong in the genre, Around the World in Eighty Days is a travel story rather than science fiction. It has the same sort of distinct 19th century feel that a Sherlock Holmes story has, and it moves along at a good pace, keeping the reader’s interest as protagonist Phileas Fogg races around the world on a bet. The descriptions of the various locations Fogg and his servant Passepartout travel through are quite interesting in that some places seem to have changed little since Verne’s day, whereas others are very different (unfortunately, the jungles of India have far less in the way of wildlife than they did even a century ago). As for colonial attitudes, while there are occasional stereotypes, Verne on the whole seems to display a fairly liberal attitude for his time, making a number of critical remarks about the actions of the British in places such as China (of course, criticizing the British may have come somewhat easier for Verne, as he was French himself). Fans of Farrokh Bulsara may note that the Parsis (or Parsees as the name is spelled here) of India are mentioned favorably and one is a major character.
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
This is a classic novel dealing with the difficulties faced by African-Americans in a very racist America in the period following World War II. Ellison’s prose is highly literary without being unreadable. The protagonist, who is never named, is a highly intelligent, well-read young man (unlike the protagonist of his friend Richard Wright's novel Native Son), but despite his great potential, he finds obstacles wherever he turns. It seems that Ellison deliberately put his protagonist into as many different kinds of situations and environments as possible, ranging from the rural South to New York City and from school to factory work to activism, but the only episode that seems slightly incongruous is the electroshock treatment he undergoes in the factory hospital. Overall, the reader comes away with a much greater appreciation of how terrible the problems black Americans had to deal with in those days were.
Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood
This is an excellent post-apocalyptic novel that is told through the eyes of a character who calls himself Snowman. Parts of it take place in the “present”, that is to say after the disaster – the nature of which is revealed in bits and pieces – and parts of it are Snowman’s reminiscences about the time leading up to the apocalypse, beginning with his childhood, when he was known as Jimmy (it is in these parts that we are introduced to Crake and Oryx). The post-apocalypse parts brought to mind novels like Earth Abides and The Road, while the parts about the pre-disaster society reminded me in some ways of Olivia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. The picture Atwood paints is not very pretty (and it is made even less so when the reader realizes that many of the things she describes actually exist in the real world), but the story is compelling and thought-provoking. Immediately after reading it I bought a used copy of a more recent Atwood novel that apparently shares the same background setting. It will probably be some time before I get around to reading it, but based on this one, I’ll be looking forward to it.
The Death of the Necromancer by Martha Wells
At first glance this looked it might be a generic fantasy novel, but actually it was very good. Two things in particular set it apart: good characterization and an interesting, very realistic setting (apparently Wells studied anthropology, which may have helped her when it came to world design). The world is not a typical fantasy world; the city is lit by gas lamps and weapons include not only swords but pistols as well. It bears some resemblance to the London of Charles Dickens (though for some reason it also brought to mind Italian cities like Venice), except for the existence of sorcery and fairy beings known as fay (the former plays a very large role in the story, while the latter are mostly background). There are even a pair of characters who bear a little resemblance to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. The plot is complicated but interesting, keeping the reader’s attention through all the twists and turns. While a few elements of the story could be guessed at (for example, it was not hard to predict that Valiarde and Ronsarde would get thrown together in some way), there were also quite a few surprises. The combination of the well-drawn characters and the detailed setting make this one of the most realistic fantasies I’ve read, on par with Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Gideon’s Wall, and China Miéville’s novels.
A Case of Conscience by James Blish
An interesting novel about a Jesuit priest who, in his capacity as a biologist, is a member of a team of scientists sent to investigate a world inhabited by intelligent, reptilian aliens. Their society seems perfect, but the protagonist starts to wonder if it’s all a set-up. I had some difficulty with some aspects of the story; for example, two of the other scientists strike me as rather unscientific, not so much in their biases and prejudices, but in their anti-intellectual attitudes. Also, the protagonist seems not to believe in evolution, which seems rather improbable for a biologist (and for all its faults, I don’t think even the Catholic Church denies the reality of evolution). Nevertheless, the philosophical questions the novel poses are interesting, and there is considerable ambiguity about whether the protagonist’s ideas about the aliens are actually correct. As a side note, it was an interesting coincidence that just after I finished this novel, the Catholic Church chose a Jesuit to be Pope, the first ever to hold the position.
Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
In this book, physicist and futurist Michio Kaku makes predictions about developments that will take place in the 21st century in fields such as computers, medicine, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, energy, and space travel, as well as changes that will take place in our concepts of wealth and in our society in general. Not surprisingly, many of the possible future inventions and advances he discusses are amazing, and it will be interesting to find out how many of them we will live to see. My initial impression was that Kaku was perhaps a little too positive, as he seemed to neglect the possible negative consequence of some of the developments he talks about; for instance he doesn’t talk much about the privacy issues that might arise from further advances in computers, and he seems at times to assume that people will make the best possible use of some of the new technologies. However, he does mention a number of negatives, such as why climate change is a serious issue and the major difficulties that we face in the fields of artificial intelligence and space travel, and he does at times point out how negative aspects of human nature may result in misuse of technology (for example in the case of nuclear power). Of course some of his predictions will no doubt turn out to be either too optimistic or too pessimistic. How close to reality his picture of life in 2100 will turn out to be is something that at least some of the children alive today will have a chance to discover.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Hugo Chávez: Champion of the Poor or Megalomaniacal Autocrat?
The death of Hugo Chávez, the long-time president of Venezuela, last week gave rise to many retrospectives on his life and discussions of his legacy. Those two articles from the BBC touch on the widely contrasting views that critics and supporters of Chávez have had over the years. His supporters and followers viewed him as a champion of the poor and downtrodden, as well as one of the few leaders with the backbone to stand up to the mighty United States. His opponents and critics claimed he was a demagogue and a autocrat with tendencies toward megalomania and paranoia, particularly with respect to the US. So which was the truth? While I can't claim to be particularly knowledgeable about Chávez's record, my own impression, based on what I do know, is that both his supporters and critics were right, at least to some degree.
I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.
Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.
The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.
So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.
For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.
I have no doubt that many of Chávez's policies did help the poor of Venezuela, and that they amounted to more than just handing out oil money. Any significant improvement in the situation of the disadvantaged in a country such as Venezuela is worth celebrating, and Chávez's achievements in areas such as health and education should be recognized. My sympathy for many of his Venezuelan critics, a fairly large proportion of whom belong to the entrenched upper classes who have controlled far too much of the country's wealth and power for generations, is limited, as for some of them their hostility toward Chávez seems to be based primarily on narrow self-interest, much like many of the Cuban exiles who hate Castro (while Castro's Cuba is clearly an oppressive dictatorship, it's worth remembering that the Cuba of Batista was as well, and social inequality under Batista was far worse). Even if Chávez was a dictator, if he could be seen as a mostly benevolent one who brought equality and social development and ran roughshod over the rule of law only to the extent necessary to get things done, that would be a clear improvement on the right wing dictatorships that dominated South America in the past.
Unfortunately, while Chávez did make substantial progress on social development, income disparity and social inequality remain high in Venezuela, and it is not clear that all of the still limited improvements in the lot of the poor will prove lasting. Then there is the matter of Chávez's methods. It is human nature for people to want heroes, and so to the extent that Chávez did help the disadvantaged people of his country, it's somewhat understandable that many of them practically worshiped him. In addition, to the extent that Chávez faced opposition from entrenched interests who could manipulate a corrupt system, some bending of the rules to get things accomplished would also be understandable. But Chávez seemed to actively encourage the personality cult around him, which is not the same thing as simply accepting that some people would overdo their adulation of him, and his efforts to muzzle critics seemed to go well beyond steamrolling through intransigent opposition in order to improve the society, though as far as I know direct repression of the sort seen under people like Pinochet, Castro, or the Argentine junta has been relatively uncommon. Likewise, some of his nationalizations seemed motivated as much by opportunism as a genuine desire to ensure that the people of Venezuela got a fair share of the profits from their nation's resources. So while Chávez's record domestically certainly has to be considered better than those of most earlier right-wing South American leaders, it was far from unequivocally positive.
The other aspect of Chávez's record, of course, is his foreign policy, especially his relations with the United States. Probably the most notable feature of Chávez's foreign policy was his outspoken opposition to the United States and its policies, not only in Latin America but all over the world. There is of course nothing wrong with opposing US foreign policy, whether it is excessive reliance on military force, hypocritical and inconsistent rhetoric on human rights, or economic bullying in the service of American multinationals. But like many critics of America, including many of those in the West who defend him, Chávez did not merely oppose American policies because they were clearly unjust, but because they were American; worse yet, he indiscriminately sided with the enemies of the US, no matter who they were. Not only was he friendly with nations such as Iran, Libya, Russia, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and especially Cuba, he also spoke in defense of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for him. Despite his frequent criticism of US imperialism, he was friendly with China, which exercises an even more naked form of imperialism, though for the moment it lacks the ability to project power worldwide. While American policy toward many of these countries may be inconsistent and sometimes hypocritical, it doesn't follow that those countries are not themselves highly flawed; in most cases they are (or, in the case of Libya under Gaddafi, were) brutal dictatorships, so being friendly with them doesn't win Chávez any points in my book. Furthermore, many of Chávez's criticisms of the US were delusional nonsense, like saying the US marines caused the Haitian earthquake. I would love to see a leader who is outspoken in his criticism of the US if that criticism is rational and equally applied to other nations who deserve criticism for their bad behavior. But Chávez seemed less interested in being on the side of justice than being on whatever side the US wasn't.
So I have to say that despite Chávez's real accomplishments, the overall picture is decidedly mixed. Both his defenders and detractors seem at least partially correct in their views of him, though they both conveniently ignore the other side. My own impression of him leans toward the negative due to some of his frankly unhinged statements, though it is tempered by the improvements that he made in the lives of at least some Venezuelans and by limited sympathy for the main targets of his ranting. What his long-term legacy will be remains to be seen.
For another (largely negative) look at Chávez, see this commentary. The writer's comments on the other leftist leaders in Latin America are also interesting, though I take issue with his backhanded complimenting of José Mujica and especially his dismissal of Uruguay's moves toward legalizing marijuana, which are in fact very forward looking and worth imitating by other nations.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Governmental foolishness
I read the other day that the Taiwanese government had recently floated the idea of an energy tax. Of course an energy tax would be an excellent idea, as it would be a tool to reduce energy consumption and restrain pollution caused by the use of energy. If it were in the form of a carbon tax that would be even better, as it would then target the use of fossil fuels, the worst (and yet most common) form of energy. But unfortunately, the business-friendly KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan opposed the idea, and the government is now saying that the “time is not right.” Of course given that next year is an election year for many local governments, the time will probably not be “right” then either. As one expert said in the news report I read, with that kind of attitude the time will never be right.
Taiwanese government officials also made themselves look foolish in the past few days when a team of international experts came to examine Taiwan’s adherence to two UN human rights that it ratified several years ago. They repeatedly referred to protections enshrined in law, rather than talking about the actual situation (even China has provisions in its constitution that protect individual rights; it just doesn’t put them into practice). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they claimed that forced confessions don’t happen in Taiwan now. Apparently the international experts weren’t impressed with a lot of the government’s assertions.
Of course the US has similar foolishness in its government. Even the Obama administration hems and haws far too much about things like real measures to deal with climate change. But the worst idiocy is still in Congress, particularly the House. Aside from the resistance to common-sense gun control and the delays in renewing the Violence Against Women Act, the persistence of the Republicans in insisting on draconian cuts to social programs (but not the bloated defense budget) and no increases in taxes as their “plan” to replace the budget sequester is sheer insanity. Even more incredibly, they are trying to portray the sequester as Obama’s doing, even though it was Congress that passed it, and only as a compromise to prevent the Republicans from causing the US to renege on its debts. Twice in the past few weeks I have received mailings from senior House Republican Pete Sessions in which he referred to “the President’s sequester”, even though Sessions himself is more responsible for the existence of the sequester than Obama is. But considering that one of these mailings featured a constituent survey with questions so laughably loaded that they were like textbook examples of biased survey questions, perhaps his transparent efforts to shift responsibility onto Obama are not too surprising.
Taiwanese government officials also made themselves look foolish in the past few days when a team of international experts came to examine Taiwan’s adherence to two UN human rights that it ratified several years ago. They repeatedly referred to protections enshrined in law, rather than talking about the actual situation (even China has provisions in its constitution that protect individual rights; it just doesn’t put them into practice). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they claimed that forced confessions don’t happen in Taiwan now. Apparently the international experts weren’t impressed with a lot of the government’s assertions.
Of course the US has similar foolishness in its government. Even the Obama administration hems and haws far too much about things like real measures to deal with climate change. But the worst idiocy is still in Congress, particularly the House. Aside from the resistance to common-sense gun control and the delays in renewing the Violence Against Women Act, the persistence of the Republicans in insisting on draconian cuts to social programs (but not the bloated defense budget) and no increases in taxes as their “plan” to replace the budget sequester is sheer insanity. Even more incredibly, they are trying to portray the sequester as Obama’s doing, even though it was Congress that passed it, and only as a compromise to prevent the Republicans from causing the US to renege on its debts. Twice in the past few weeks I have received mailings from senior House Republican Pete Sessions in which he referred to “the President’s sequester”, even though Sessions himself is more responsible for the existence of the sequester than Obama is. But considering that one of these mailings featured a constituent survey with questions so laughably loaded that they were like textbook examples of biased survey questions, perhaps his transparent efforts to shift responsibility onto Obama are not too surprising.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Current Events – February 2013
Perhaps the biggest international news event of the past few days was Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement that he will abdicate the papacy at the end of this month, making him the first pope to resign since the Middle Ages. His reasons for resigning – an inability to cope with the demands of his position due to his advanced age and failing health – are reasonable enough, and apparently his predecessor John Paul II also considered resigning for similar reasons. Whether the Pope’s abdication is a good thing or a bad thing depends to a large degree on who is elected as his successor. While as far as I know Joseph Ratzinger (as he was once known) may be a nice person personally, his positions on issues like contraception and homosexuality are centuries out of date, to the great detriment of Catholic societies around the world. Of course such outmoded thinking is not at all rare among the Catholic Church leadership, so it is not unlikely that his successor will be similarly stuck in a time warp. Even a more progressive Pope may find it difficult to make real changes. Another interesting though ridiculously petty conflict that may arise in the election of a new Pope is the possibility that the Italians may try to retake the Papacy. Due to the long papacy of the Polish-born John Paul II, it is now often forgotten that he and the German-born Benedict XVI were the first non-Italian popes since the Middle Ages, and it seems that some Italians in the leadership would like to see this reversed. On the other hand, there are other church leaders who advocate the selection of the first ever non-European pope. Though I personally don’t really much care who is Pope, I am still curious, and the world in general would certainly be better off with a Pope who can move the Catholic Church away from the outdated stances it holds on many issues.
Another international news item from the past few weeks is the French intervention in Mali. While Western military intervention in developing countries is problematic for a number of reasons, I can’t say I’m sorry to see the radical groups chased out of Mali’s major cities, and it seems most of those cities’ residents think likewise. Aside from their implementation of a violent form of “justice” that occasional caused the populace to riot against them, their destruction of historical sites in places like Timbuktu was a crime against all humanity like similar acts by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. However, once they are driven out, Western powers really need to rethink their approach in places like Africa by helping to improve governance rather than selling weapons and providing military training to corrupt regimes (even those with a democratic veneer), as pointed out in this opinion piece. This brings to mind something that US congressman Alan Grayson wrote about foreign policy following one of the presidential debates last fall. While I have mixed feelings about Grayson – I agree with him on most issues, he's intelligent and entertaining to read, and he loves rock music, but he also strikes me as somewhat egotistical and often goes overboard in his rhetoric – he makes some excellent points about the mentality governing foreign policy discussions in the US. If the US and the rest of the developed world really want to see substantial change in places like Mali, Libya, and Afghanistan, they really need to rethink their approach and start doing more to address the problems that lie at the root of the conflicts in the world.
One topic that has never come up in my blog is sports. This is because, though I was a sports fan as a kid, I long ago lost interest in sports. There is so much else that is more meaningful or more entertaining or both. However, I can’t resist commenting on the IOC’s idiotic decision to drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Now I might be slightly biased because I was on the wrestling team in high school, but I can’t comprehend how you can have the Olympics without wrestling. Not only has it always been part of the modern games, but it was one of the main sports in the ancient Greek Olympics. Getting rid of wrestling is like getting rid of sprinting. Worse yet, this was done to make room for golf. Golf?!? You must be kidding me. Even aside from my dislike of the harm golf does to the environment, the idea that it is a better Olympic sport than wrestling is absurd. But as the article in the link above indicates, the real reason behind this decision is probably money and outright corruption in the IOC. I suppose for Taiwan the change might be a good thing, as the country has at least one very talented golfer who might win a medal. But that would be a bad reason to applaud a stupid decision. I haven’t really watched the Olympics in years, but things like this make me even more convinced that I’m not missing much.
Another international news item from the past few weeks is the French intervention in Mali. While Western military intervention in developing countries is problematic for a number of reasons, I can’t say I’m sorry to see the radical groups chased out of Mali’s major cities, and it seems most of those cities’ residents think likewise. Aside from their implementation of a violent form of “justice” that occasional caused the populace to riot against them, their destruction of historical sites in places like Timbuktu was a crime against all humanity like similar acts by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. However, once they are driven out, Western powers really need to rethink their approach in places like Africa by helping to improve governance rather than selling weapons and providing military training to corrupt regimes (even those with a democratic veneer), as pointed out in this opinion piece. This brings to mind something that US congressman Alan Grayson wrote about foreign policy following one of the presidential debates last fall. While I have mixed feelings about Grayson – I agree with him on most issues, he's intelligent and entertaining to read, and he loves rock music, but he also strikes me as somewhat egotistical and often goes overboard in his rhetoric – he makes some excellent points about the mentality governing foreign policy discussions in the US. If the US and the rest of the developed world really want to see substantial change in places like Mali, Libya, and Afghanistan, they really need to rethink their approach and start doing more to address the problems that lie at the root of the conflicts in the world.
One topic that has never come up in my blog is sports. This is because, though I was a sports fan as a kid, I long ago lost interest in sports. There is so much else that is more meaningful or more entertaining or both. However, I can’t resist commenting on the IOC’s idiotic decision to drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Now I might be slightly biased because I was on the wrestling team in high school, but I can’t comprehend how you can have the Olympics without wrestling. Not only has it always been part of the modern games, but it was one of the main sports in the ancient Greek Olympics. Getting rid of wrestling is like getting rid of sprinting. Worse yet, this was done to make room for golf. Golf?!? You must be kidding me. Even aside from my dislike of the harm golf does to the environment, the idea that it is a better Olympic sport than wrestling is absurd. But as the article in the link above indicates, the real reason behind this decision is probably money and outright corruption in the IOC. I suppose for Taiwan the change might be a good thing, as the country has at least one very talented golfer who might win a medal. But that would be a bad reason to applaud a stupid decision. I haven’t really watched the Olympics in years, but things like this make me even more convinced that I’m not missing much.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Dragon Babies, Astrology and Other Nonsense
The upcoming Chinese New Year will mark the end of the year of the dragon on the Chinese lunar calendar. As most people who have had much contact with Chinese culture – or who eat frequently at Chinese restaurants in the West – know, twelve years constitutes a cycle in the Chinese calendar, with an animal representing each of the twelve years (the animals are also associated with different months, days and even hours, but these complexities don’t concern me here). Because of the coincidence in number, this cycle and the animals that make it up are often called the “Chinese zodiac”, even though they have nothing to do with constellations or the apparent path of the Sun through the sky. People born in the year of a particular animal are believed to share certain characteristics, a belief that leads to all sorts of absurdities, particularly in a year like the one that is now ending.
Of the twelve animals in this so-called “Chinese zodiac”, the dragon is the only mythical one. More to the point, the dragon is associated with great power and fortune, and was historically the symbol of the Chinese emperors. Because of these positive associations, children born in the year of the dragon have been held by the superstitious to be lucky and destined for greatness. As a result, birth rates skyrocket in years of the dragon. The local media is complicit in perpetuating the idea that children born in these years are special, as in their celebrity gossip news they will report that such and such a celebrity is “pregnant with a dragon fetus”, whereas in other years news of celebrity pregnancies rarely if ever refer to the animal in whose year the baby will be born. This phenomenon seemingly repeated itself in the past year. While I haven’t seen any definitive statistics, I recall reports from during the year that mentioned a dramatic rise in births, and many anecdotal reports (plus the evidence of my own eyes) that there were a lot more pregnancies than usual.
Of course many women who gave birth in the past year got pregnant for reasons unrelated to it being the year of the dragon. At least two women I know who also happened to give birth in the last year themselves told me that they would rather not have given birth in the year of the dragon because of all the other people who were doing so. But one can safely assume that the majority or at least a large number of the “additional” pregnancies, that is the ones over and above the usual average, were due to a desire to have a “dragon baby”. Of course the real result is that children born in this year will face more crowded classrooms and greater competition than children born in other years. And the idea that all “dragon babies” could be destined for great things is laughable, considering that they make up a twelfth (or more) of all people. It’s like the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the Three Wise Men have gone to the wrong stable and mistaken the baby Brian for the baby Jesus:
Mandy (Brian’s mother): So, you're astrologers, eh? Well, what is he?
Wise Man 2: Hmm?
Mandy: What star sign is he?
Wise Man 2: Capricorn.
Mandy: Capricorn, eh? What are they like?
Wise Man 2: He is the son of God, our Messiah.
Wise Man 1: King of the Jews.
Mandy: And that's Capricorn, is it?
Wise Man 2: No, no, that's just him.
Mandy: Oh, I was going to say, otherwise there'd be a lot of them.
This brings up the Western version of superstitions about times of birth and their supposed relationship to personalities, which takes the form of astrology. There are numerous reasons that show astrology has as little to do with reality as the Chinese birth animals (that is to say none at all). Most of them are very well summed up by Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog. In addition to the points he makes in that article, in another entry, he mentions the fact that due to precession of the Earth’s axis, the astrological dates do not match the times the Sun is actually in the constellations of the zodiac, so that most of those who according to the standard astrological dates are Virgos were actually born when the Sun was in Libra.
I would also add that of course the “constellations” are merely the groupings which the Greeks imagined the stars to be in. Different cultures saw entirely different groupings. What’s more, the groupings themselves are just accidents of perspective. The stars in any given constellation are for the most part not at all close to each other; they only appear that way because from our perspective they lie along the same line of sight. For instance, Castor and Pollex, the two chief stars of Gemini (“the Twins”) are not particularly close to each other, as Castor lies 17 light years further away from us than Pollex. The three stars in the belt of Orion are even further apart, with the farthest about 600 light years further from us than the closest. If we travelled to other star systems few or none of Earth’s constellations would be visible. Finally, though to an ordinary observer the constellations don’t change even over many human lifetimes, the stars are all moving and in tens of thousands of years the constellations will all have changed. So claiming that these accidental, non-permanent groupings of stars as imagined by one culture in human history have some sort of influence over the lives of any of us is as silly as saying the same about ephemeral shapes formed by clouds as seen by a random observer.
Unfortunately Chinese birth animals and astrology are not the only ridiculous ideas given wide credence. Another example is the bizarre belief centered in Japan but also seen elsewhere in East Asia that a person’s blood type has something to do with their personality. This idea was ultimately derived from fallacious, racist pseudoscience adopted by the Nazis and then the militarist-era Japanese (who used it to “explain” the difference between the rebellious Taiwanese aborigines and the “submissive” Ainu people) and then revived in the 1970s by a Japanese writer with no scientific background. Despite the lack of any scientific basis, the belief that blood type influences personality is still widespread in Japan.
Several points made by Plait in his essay are relevant to all these irrational ideas about predicting a person’s fate or personality and worth reiterating here. One is that there is absolutely no evidence that any of these claims has any scientific validity. Any perception that there is a correspondence between predictions based on these ideas about people’s personalities or what happens to them and reality is purely a matter of selective perception (people notice the seemingly correct predictions – interpreting events in a manner that fits them – and ignore the incorrect ones). Also, the assertion that these concepts are merely harmless fun is also wrong. People waste large amounts of money and time on such nonsense, and such waste is not harmless. The other day I was eating at a restaurant and a woman at the next table was listening to a long spiel from a fortune teller, from the look of things hanging on his every word. It’s not harmless if people decide whom they should date or hang out with – or even when to give birth to a child – based on completely erroneous ideas. The sooner these inaccurate and outdated notions are abandoned the better off those who still hold to them, and the people around them, will be.
Of the twelve animals in this so-called “Chinese zodiac”, the dragon is the only mythical one. More to the point, the dragon is associated with great power and fortune, and was historically the symbol of the Chinese emperors. Because of these positive associations, children born in the year of the dragon have been held by the superstitious to be lucky and destined for greatness. As a result, birth rates skyrocket in years of the dragon. The local media is complicit in perpetuating the idea that children born in these years are special, as in their celebrity gossip news they will report that such and such a celebrity is “pregnant with a dragon fetus”, whereas in other years news of celebrity pregnancies rarely if ever refer to the animal in whose year the baby will be born. This phenomenon seemingly repeated itself in the past year. While I haven’t seen any definitive statistics, I recall reports from during the year that mentioned a dramatic rise in births, and many anecdotal reports (plus the evidence of my own eyes) that there were a lot more pregnancies than usual.
Of course many women who gave birth in the past year got pregnant for reasons unrelated to it being the year of the dragon. At least two women I know who also happened to give birth in the last year themselves told me that they would rather not have given birth in the year of the dragon because of all the other people who were doing so. But one can safely assume that the majority or at least a large number of the “additional” pregnancies, that is the ones over and above the usual average, were due to a desire to have a “dragon baby”. Of course the real result is that children born in this year will face more crowded classrooms and greater competition than children born in other years. And the idea that all “dragon babies” could be destined for great things is laughable, considering that they make up a twelfth (or more) of all people. It’s like the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian where the Three Wise Men have gone to the wrong stable and mistaken the baby Brian for the baby Jesus:
Mandy (Brian’s mother): So, you're astrologers, eh? Well, what is he?
Wise Man 2: Hmm?
Mandy: What star sign is he?
Wise Man 2: Capricorn.
Mandy: Capricorn, eh? What are they like?
Wise Man 2: He is the son of God, our Messiah.
Wise Man 1: King of the Jews.
Mandy: And that's Capricorn, is it?
Wise Man 2: No, no, that's just him.
Mandy: Oh, I was going to say, otherwise there'd be a lot of them.
This brings up the Western version of superstitions about times of birth and their supposed relationship to personalities, which takes the form of astrology. There are numerous reasons that show astrology has as little to do with reality as the Chinese birth animals (that is to say none at all). Most of them are very well summed up by Phil Plait on his Bad Astronomy blog. In addition to the points he makes in that article, in another entry, he mentions the fact that due to precession of the Earth’s axis, the astrological dates do not match the times the Sun is actually in the constellations of the zodiac, so that most of those who according to the standard astrological dates are Virgos were actually born when the Sun was in Libra.
I would also add that of course the “constellations” are merely the groupings which the Greeks imagined the stars to be in. Different cultures saw entirely different groupings. What’s more, the groupings themselves are just accidents of perspective. The stars in any given constellation are for the most part not at all close to each other; they only appear that way because from our perspective they lie along the same line of sight. For instance, Castor and Pollex, the two chief stars of Gemini (“the Twins”) are not particularly close to each other, as Castor lies 17 light years further away from us than Pollex. The three stars in the belt of Orion are even further apart, with the farthest about 600 light years further from us than the closest. If we travelled to other star systems few or none of Earth’s constellations would be visible. Finally, though to an ordinary observer the constellations don’t change even over many human lifetimes, the stars are all moving and in tens of thousands of years the constellations will all have changed. So claiming that these accidental, non-permanent groupings of stars as imagined by one culture in human history have some sort of influence over the lives of any of us is as silly as saying the same about ephemeral shapes formed by clouds as seen by a random observer.
Unfortunately Chinese birth animals and astrology are not the only ridiculous ideas given wide credence. Another example is the bizarre belief centered in Japan but also seen elsewhere in East Asia that a person’s blood type has something to do with their personality. This idea was ultimately derived from fallacious, racist pseudoscience adopted by the Nazis and then the militarist-era Japanese (who used it to “explain” the difference between the rebellious Taiwanese aborigines and the “submissive” Ainu people) and then revived in the 1970s by a Japanese writer with no scientific background. Despite the lack of any scientific basis, the belief that blood type influences personality is still widespread in Japan.
Several points made by Plait in his essay are relevant to all these irrational ideas about predicting a person’s fate or personality and worth reiterating here. One is that there is absolutely no evidence that any of these claims has any scientific validity. Any perception that there is a correspondence between predictions based on these ideas about people’s personalities or what happens to them and reality is purely a matter of selective perception (people notice the seemingly correct predictions – interpreting events in a manner that fits them – and ignore the incorrect ones). Also, the assertion that these concepts are merely harmless fun is also wrong. People waste large amounts of money and time on such nonsense, and such waste is not harmless. The other day I was eating at a restaurant and a woman at the next table was listening to a long spiel from a fortune teller, from the look of things hanging on his every word. It’s not harmless if people decide whom they should date or hang out with – or even when to give birth to a child – based on completely erroneous ideas. The sooner these inaccurate and outdated notions are abandoned the better off those who still hold to them, and the people around them, will be.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Is the "Fiscal Cliff" Deal a Good One?
In the past few days the US Congress passed legislation to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”. This came after weeks of tense negotiations between President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats on the one hand and the Republican congressional leadership on the other. The final bill passed by a comfortable margin, with most of the opposition coming from Republicans in the House, almost two-thirds of whom voted against it, including some in leadership positions. On the surface, the deal looks like a victory for bipartisanship (despite Speaker Boehner's petulance toward Majority Leader Reid), but particularly for Obama and the Democrats. After all, taxes were raised on the wealthiest Americans (or more correctly speaking, they went back to the level they were at before they were cut under Bush the Younger), and Social Security and Medicare remained untouched. But a closer look makes me wonder if this deal wasn’t worse than none at all.
First of all, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Of course throughout this process, the Democrats characterized the Republicans as holding the middle class hostage in order to preserve low taxes for the wealthy. This was accurate, but the problem with the Democratic position was the idea that while the rich should pay more, the middle class shouldn’t have to. To be perfectly clear, I should emphasize that I do think the wealthy should have to pay a proportionately higher tax burden than they do now. Not only should the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire, but loopholes should have been closed, dividends taxed as income and the capital gains tax raised substantially (then there’s the estate tax, but I’ll get back to that). However, the Bush tax cuts should also have been allowed to expire for everyone else, if not now then at some point not too far in the future. Despite what right-wingers often claim, Americans in general do not pay all that much in taxes, and all but the relatively poor (who unfortunately constitute a larger and larger proportion of the population) can afford to pay a little more. As an aside, let’s keep in mind that while the poorest Americans don’t pay income tax, they do pay all sorts of other taxes, including in most places state sales taxes and of course Social Security payroll taxes (in fact they pay a larger share of their income in payroll taxes than those with high salaries, another point we’ll come back to). But instead of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year (Obama’s original minimum threshold), the cuts have been made permanent for everyone making under $400,000. Admittedly, the Democrats had always advocated making the tax cuts permanent for those earning less than $250,000, but that was a mistake, even if it was politically expedient. What’s more, not only has the capital gains tax rate been set at a too low level of 20%, but dividends are now taxed as capital gains, rather than income as in the 1990s, meaning the wealthiest Americans (who earn most of their money from investments) will still be paying proportionately less in taxes than many of the moderately wealthy.
In addition, while the estate tax was raised slightly, it is still only 40%, with a $5 million exemption, and that indexed to inflation. This one is particularly absurd. Many on the right claim to oppose higher taxes on the principle that people should be able to keep their “hard-earned” money. But while it is possible to argue that a billionaire industrialist or a multimillionaire small businessperson “earned” their money (with plenty of help from their employees and the public infrastructure), their children certainly didn’t earn it. None of these Ayn Rand-type justifications about the superiority of “prime movers” and how they should be allowed to keep the money they make apply in the case of inherited wealth. For that matter, several of the "Founding Fathers" that many on the right claim to be the heirs of (not to mention Adam Smith, the father of capitalism) were critical of the idea of inheriting wealth. While I don’t object to allowing people to leave some of their assets to their children, the heirs can certainly afford to pay considerably more in taxes (50% at the least, with an exemption of no more than $2 million, or better yet several different rates depending on the size of the estate).
What’s more, the sequester that would cut drastically cut spending was merely put off for two months. Of course there is some spending that definitely could and should be cut, particularly defense spending. But despite all the rhetoric about the US government’s unmanageable debt, the problem is not nearly as serious as it’s made out to be. The more immediate issue is transforming America’s economy for the future by promoting new industries such as alternative energy. In any case, there is no justification for drastic cuts to solvent programs like Social Security. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The best step that can be taken to improve the financing of Social Security for the long-term is eliminating the payroll tax cap, which ensures that people who earn salaries above the current cap of around $110,000 actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll tax than minimum-wage workers do. Granted, getting rid of the cap will not eliminate all of the future shortfall, but it will eliminate most of it (if it had been done several years ago, it could have eliminated it entirely), and combined with a slight increase in the rate, it would solve the problem. But of course Republicans are not interested in any solution that makes the rich pay more (what many of them really want is to destroy Social Security entirely), and even many of the Democrats seem far more willing to cut benefits than adjust payroll taxes.
Finally, this deal didn’t even raise the debt ceiling. This wouldn’t have been an issue in the past, as previous Congresses didn’t consider it necessary to debate whether the US government would commit to fulfilling its obligations. But the current crop of Republicans have already shown their willingness to use the debt ceiling as a club to get what they want (the gutting of social programs, continued tax breaks for harmful industries like oil and coal, lower taxes for the rich), and with the Bush tax cuts permanently extended, the Democrats will have less bargaining power next time around. No wonder a fair number of the slightly less short-sighted Republicans were pleased with the deal. With the debt ceiling and the sequester, the can has just been kicked down the road, and it's not clear that the Democrats will be in a stronger position when the next deadline looms.
There are many other provisions in the deal, some absurd (a $9 billion tax break that benefits big banks and multinationals, tax breaks for NASCAR race tracks) and some good (subsidies for taking public transit). Even if I had the time and inclination, it would take hours of study and analysis to find all the pluses and minuses. It's clear that the deal could have been worse. Social Security and Medicare were left alone (but wait till the sequester and debt ceiling rear their ugly heads again). The Republicans’ absolute intransigence on raising taxes for the wealthy finally gave way (though not among all of them – and it was so stupid to begin with that it is hard to celebrate some Republicans finally showing a bare minimum of sense, if only grudgingly). But I am not convinced that this deal is any better than no deal at all would have been.
First of all, the Bush tax cuts were made permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Of course throughout this process, the Democrats characterized the Republicans as holding the middle class hostage in order to preserve low taxes for the wealthy. This was accurate, but the problem with the Democratic position was the idea that while the rich should pay more, the middle class shouldn’t have to. To be perfectly clear, I should emphasize that I do think the wealthy should have to pay a proportionately higher tax burden than they do now. Not only should the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire, but loopholes should have been closed, dividends taxed as income and the capital gains tax raised substantially (then there’s the estate tax, but I’ll get back to that). However, the Bush tax cuts should also have been allowed to expire for everyone else, if not now then at some point not too far in the future. Despite what right-wingers often claim, Americans in general do not pay all that much in taxes, and all but the relatively poor (who unfortunately constitute a larger and larger proportion of the population) can afford to pay a little more. As an aside, let’s keep in mind that while the poorest Americans don’t pay income tax, they do pay all sorts of other taxes, including in most places state sales taxes and of course Social Security payroll taxes (in fact they pay a larger share of their income in payroll taxes than those with high salaries, another point we’ll come back to). But instead of a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250,000 a year (Obama’s original minimum threshold), the cuts have been made permanent for everyone making under $400,000. Admittedly, the Democrats had always advocated making the tax cuts permanent for those earning less than $250,000, but that was a mistake, even if it was politically expedient. What’s more, not only has the capital gains tax rate been set at a too low level of 20%, but dividends are now taxed as capital gains, rather than income as in the 1990s, meaning the wealthiest Americans (who earn most of their money from investments) will still be paying proportionately less in taxes than many of the moderately wealthy.
In addition, while the estate tax was raised slightly, it is still only 40%, with a $5 million exemption, and that indexed to inflation. This one is particularly absurd. Many on the right claim to oppose higher taxes on the principle that people should be able to keep their “hard-earned” money. But while it is possible to argue that a billionaire industrialist or a multimillionaire small businessperson “earned” their money (with plenty of help from their employees and the public infrastructure), their children certainly didn’t earn it. None of these Ayn Rand-type justifications about the superiority of “prime movers” and how they should be allowed to keep the money they make apply in the case of inherited wealth. For that matter, several of the "Founding Fathers" that many on the right claim to be the heirs of (not to mention Adam Smith, the father of capitalism) were critical of the idea of inheriting wealth. While I don’t object to allowing people to leave some of their assets to their children, the heirs can certainly afford to pay considerably more in taxes (50% at the least, with an exemption of no more than $2 million, or better yet several different rates depending on the size of the estate).
What’s more, the sequester that would cut drastically cut spending was merely put off for two months. Of course there is some spending that definitely could and should be cut, particularly defense spending. But despite all the rhetoric about the US government’s unmanageable debt, the problem is not nearly as serious as it’s made out to be. The more immediate issue is transforming America’s economy for the future by promoting new industries such as alternative energy. In any case, there is no justification for drastic cuts to solvent programs like Social Security. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The best step that can be taken to improve the financing of Social Security for the long-term is eliminating the payroll tax cap, which ensures that people who earn salaries above the current cap of around $110,000 actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll tax than minimum-wage workers do. Granted, getting rid of the cap will not eliminate all of the future shortfall, but it will eliminate most of it (if it had been done several years ago, it could have eliminated it entirely), and combined with a slight increase in the rate, it would solve the problem. But of course Republicans are not interested in any solution that makes the rich pay more (what many of them really want is to destroy Social Security entirely), and even many of the Democrats seem far more willing to cut benefits than adjust payroll taxes.
Finally, this deal didn’t even raise the debt ceiling. This wouldn’t have been an issue in the past, as previous Congresses didn’t consider it necessary to debate whether the US government would commit to fulfilling its obligations. But the current crop of Republicans have already shown their willingness to use the debt ceiling as a club to get what they want (the gutting of social programs, continued tax breaks for harmful industries like oil and coal, lower taxes for the rich), and with the Bush tax cuts permanently extended, the Democrats will have less bargaining power next time around. No wonder a fair number of the slightly less short-sighted Republicans were pleased with the deal. With the debt ceiling and the sequester, the can has just been kicked down the road, and it's not clear that the Democrats will be in a stronger position when the next deadline looms.
There are many other provisions in the deal, some absurd (a $9 billion tax break that benefits big banks and multinationals, tax breaks for NASCAR race tracks) and some good (subsidies for taking public transit). Even if I had the time and inclination, it would take hours of study and analysis to find all the pluses and minuses. It's clear that the deal could have been worse. Social Security and Medicare were left alone (but wait till the sequester and debt ceiling rear their ugly heads again). The Republicans’ absolute intransigence on raising taxes for the wealthy finally gave way (though not among all of them – and it was so stupid to begin with that it is hard to celebrate some Republicans finally showing a bare minimum of sense, if only grudgingly). But I am not convinced that this deal is any better than no deal at all would have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
