Archive for February, 2007

I remember about two months ago I was sitting with Tom in his office and we were talking about how the stock market was overvalued for no apparent reason and that we expected a pretty serious “downward adjustment” ok hell, fall of stock prices. I’ve been hermetically sealed in my apartment for the last couple of days, so I didn’t see the news immediately, but when I saw this I thought “oh, there it is.”I don’t know that this fall will continue, it may very well rebound, but a quick shock like that is just a reminder of how speculative and precarious the world economy is.

In light of what I’ve been saying for the last few months, this wonderful post quoted by Buck at America vs the World, and the reports that five commanders of the US Military are planning to resign rather than participate in an attack on Iran, it becomes more and more clear that the insanity in the Middle East is not only going to continue, it’s going to accelerate.

Historically, it has been impossible to win against, or even significantly impact an enemy with air power alone–the Germans during WW2 increased their production during the Allies’ bombing campaigns in 43-45. The Pentagon has already shown that we cannot win a ground war in Iran in their wargames.

So, enough of this theoretical crap, boys and girls, this impacts YOU. What should we do if the present administration is crazy enough to attack Iran? The time to discuss this is here.

Tom

In light of what I’ve been saying for the last few months, this wonderful post quoted by Buck at America vs the World, and the reports that five commanders of the US Military are planning to resign rather than participate in an attack on Iran, it becomes more and more clear that the insanity in the Middle East is not only going to continue, it’s going to accelerate.

Historically, it has been impossible to win against, or even significantly impact an enemy with air power alone–the Germans during WW2 increased their production during the Allies’ bombing campaigns in 43-45. The Pentagon has already shown that we cannot win a ground war in Iran in their wargames.

So, enough of this theoretical crap, boys and girls, this impacts YOU. What should we do if the present administration is crazy enough to attack Iran? The time to discuss this is here.

Tom

Like everything in my mind, individualism is a spectrum with extremes on either end and I’m pretty specifically speaking to an almost distinctively American hyper individualism where each individual makes all their own choices and can do anything should they so choose. The individual as this free-floating island unto himself is rather silly. Granted, we all have different life experiences: born to unique households, have singular experiences, and have our own collection of positions and opinions. In a sense, yes we are “individuals,” but in a sense we aren’t. We’re part of the mass, the superego, the collective, the community.

What makes each of us “individuals” is the very fact that we are embedded within certain communities and have experiences as a result of our membership in said communities. The opportunities we have in life are dependent to a certain extent upon the communities we belong to (I say communities because we belong to many – family, neighborhood, country, social group, school, etc). Everything we are, all of our quirks, kinks, and opinions are shaped by all of these things we have no control over. We can’t control who our parents are, whether we are rich or poor, whether we live in the ghetto or the ‘burbs. These things all shape our attitudes, opinions, and worldviews and we have absolutely no control over them. We have control over how we react to situations, but even our responses are conditioned to a certain extent by our upbringing and context. Not only is the way we react shaped by these things, but the things we can possibly react to are largely determined by them too (ie I can’t be awkward at a country club if no one I know has ever even been in one).

Having so little control over so many of the factors that influence if not determine who we are, it strikes me as rather odd that we trumpet the horn of individual autonomy, particularly as separation from the state. All of the above-mentioned factors that shape us are to a greater or lesser extent influenced by the state whether it be past or present. Where we live for instance (and the character of that area) is socio-economic, but also has a good deal to do with how the government reacted toward the generation of your ancestors who immigrated here (whether they had an easy path to citizenship, or whether they got it at all for instance). It’s also shaped by things as simple as zoning laws, and where and how the federal/state/local government decides to spend its money. Whether it be, for instance, on roads, or rail, on large lots, or small, etc.

The state has for centuries favored certain groups be it by race, gender, class, ethnicity, language, religion, or just plain politics. We live in a society of concentrated wealth which tends to correlate rather strongly with which intersections of these groups we find ourselves and while the state is not the only factor affecting them, it is certainly a significant one. Many of us take our positions for granted and note how we (or our ancestors) took advantage of the opportunities presented to them. For the most part we’re lucky. If we think of opportunities for social and economic mobility like we think about economics there’s the obvious basic problem of scarcity – there is never enough of X (opportunity) for everyone and there is strong competition for what exists. Viewing opportunity in this light, I am often troubled to hear others blaming poverty on . . . well the poor.

In a world of finite opportunities and economic stratification, poverty seems inevitable. It strikes me as rather odd that we should demand that those who have not been so fortunate as ourselves pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and take care of themselves when the majority of us who are in a (better) position to do so had a good deal of help along the way. Our help came from the Montgomery G.I. Bill, Federal grant money, cheap public universities, huge postwar economic booms, a rapidly expanding housing market, and on and on. All of it buttressed by government spending.

When I hear others speak disparagingly about the less fortunate – lazy, stupid, undeserving – I always find myself thinking “but where would you be without the help and privileges you’ve had?” I tend to see this as a problem obviously. Some would argue that we should eliminate all state assistance to everyone. I’d say that’s patently unfair because we’ve already acted to grant access to opportunities and built wealth for so many that pulling all assistance would leave those who have not been so fortunate without even the limited opportunities those better off had. It would further stratify our society economically and economic stratification tends to lead to riots, revolts, and revolutions. Actually I advocate for more robust programs such as job training for low income people, increased grant money for universities, increased spending on K-12 education, more robust and continuing teacher training, and increased parental involvement in education. This would open up more opportunities for everyone because greater opportunity means a better educated, more competitive workforce and a more peaceful (read nonviolent) and ultimately more satisfied populace. The ultimate goal being that more of us are able to earn a decent, living wage and be less prone to economic shocks and the deprivation and insecurity that comes with poverty.

As similar as we are we struggle desperately to find minute differences upon which we can “other” people, but in the end we’re in this together. Project humanity will succeed or fail based on our decisions. I’d rather see success personally and success in my mind requires a de-emphasized individualism that recognizes that each of us doing what is best only for us without taking into account how that will affect everyone else will ultimately lead to failure.

DI columnist Dan Mollison and I have this Point/Counterpoint out today on the subject of whether it would be a good idea to create a general education requirement at the university for community service.

I took the position in the DI that I support the idea, though I’d like to note that my support is hesitant. And I’d emphasize that I absolutely do not support John McCain’s proposal for the federal government drafting all young Americans into 2 years of community service. I simply think there is just as much educational value in community service as there is in the class I took for my Quantitative 1 requirement, probably moreso, so why not?