what’s mine is mine; what’s yours is mine

I have very little to add to Will Wilkinson’s excellent post from Tuesday on how Barack Obama might fix Social Security:

Anyway, I have a dream that President Barack Obama will decide to privatize Social Security, because it’s the sensible and moral thing to do. Democrats will be extremely confused for a couple months, but then will decide that this is in fact the greatest idea ever. Roles will reverse and Republicans will enlist the AARP and Jonathan Chait to kill it in a repeat of 2005, but their hearts aren’t in it, and they lose. Obama’s successful Jason Furman-lead transformation of the Social Security system is incredibly popular with the younger voters who put him into office and and sets him in such a strong centrist position that he completely crushes Romney in 2012. Are you listening Barack?

Before I leap in and comment, a couple caveats:

(1) Though I trust Will to be well-informed on any subject he writes about, I have my doubts that Bush’s early attempts to privatize Social Security would have been the pure market hand-off of which libertarians dream. Privatizing the power grid in California didn’t end that way^*. Privatizing the nation’s military efforts in Iraq did not lead to efficiency and accountability. I have little reason to think that Social Security general practices would have been reduced to one sentence - “let the market handle it” - and left untouched forever.

(2) I think Will’s having a little fun at all the progressives who have tripped over themselves to rationalize Obama’s backing of the new FISA / telco immunity bill. And I can’t argue with that at all. The Opposition Party stands against the expansion of domestic surveillance until such time as they stand for it, just like the Ruling Party opposed unilateral interventions in Islamic countries until the time came to support them. Similarly, if Obama came out in favor of privatizing Social Security, you might see a few months of confused mumbling, followed by begrudging acquiescence, and capped off with the usual stirring defense. La partie continu.

That being said, whenever the topic of privatizing Social Security comes up, someone mentions the current poor state of the stock market (funny how the market’s always doing poorly enough to comment on, no matter when you’re speaking, but that’s for another day). “If Bush’s plan had passed,” this person says, “think of how poorly everyone’s ‘individual retirement accounts’ would be! Thank God our Social Security pension isn’t invested privately!”

And I wonder at this, because:

(1) As far back as we have data, the stock market usually outperforms every other mode of investment - Treasury bonds, commodities, real estate - over any given 10-year span. And it absolutely outperforms every other mode of investment over any given 40-year span. Consider that most of us “invest” in Social Security for at least 40 years (start working at 23, retire at 63) and you’ll see my point. Today’s poor performance does not suggest that the market fails as a retirement fund.

(2) But let’s say the unthinkable happens, as it inevitably must, and the stock market becomes a losing investment. Let’s suppose that the $1,000,000,000,000 write-off spells the beginning of the end for American investments. Will the Social Security Trust Fund really be a safer place to keep your money? Social Security’s ability to write checks hinges on young people contributing - meaning, it hinges on the current strength of the economy. A world where the stock market is no longer a safe investment over a 40-year time frame is a world where Social Security is already doomed.

How is the national pension going to be a better investment than the nation it pensions off?

________________________
^* The doctrinal libertarian response whenever someone points out how badly California’s deregulated power grid fared: “well, it wasn’t a true privatization.” That is exactly my point. What incentive does a government agency have to let a bureaucracy that employs thousands, earns millions of votes and billions in campaign donations, fall entirely out of their control? Why would anyone willingly and fairly sell off their favorite horse?

this land is your land; this land is my land

Happy 4th of July, everyone.

Remember that this country was founded on a tradition of fucking with the police. Sure, the early American colonies defeated the largest extant empire at the time with the aid of another huge empire, but nobody knew for sure that that help would come. The signers of the Declaration of Independence took the chance that they might all hang for what they did.

Real change doesn’t come from the voting booth, the ballot box, the referendum or the petition. It comes from taking a full-pressure fire hose to the chest. It starts with sniping at the King’s soldiers as they march toward your house. It ends with either your death, your exile or your gradual disillusionment as you watch your comrades repeat the same mistakes that inspired your revolt in the first place.

Today is the one time all year when I will talk about America without ending on a skeptical note. As I’ve mentioned before, the word “America” means more than one thing. America means more than just a particular territory or a particular government. It also means a shared set of historical and cultural ideals. It means that fictional, idealized wonderland of liberty and justice, that “eternal thought in the mind of God.”

It’s to that ideal that I raise a glass today. I won’t drink to any man to ever hold the title of Commander-in-Chief, or to any country that America invaded without cause. But I will drink to the dream.

warrants in every city except houston

Sorry I’m late.

Disseminating this video counts as my one good deed this week: Regent University law professor James Duane explains why you should never, ever talk to the police. Even if you’re not guilty of the crime in question. Even if you’re not guilty of anything. Even if you’re smarter than them. And then a retired Virginia police officer gets up immediately afterward and says that yes, talking to the police can only increase your chances of going to jail.

Brad Reed documents the ten most awesomely bad moments of the Bush Administration over on Alternet. I quibble with some of the entries - Bush’s negative campaign in the 2004 election makes the cut; the Military Commissions Act does not? - but overall I recommend the list highly. Link heavy and light on the sarcasm.

In February 2003, Powell gave a presentation before the U.N. Security Council that was instrumental in convincing both the American public and large swaths of the international community that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to global security. During his speech, Powell told scary tales of mobile biological weapons labs, chemical weapons stockpiles and aluminum tubes that could be used in a nuclear weapons program. All of these claims turned out not only to be wrong, but based on sourcing that even Powell acknowledged was “deliberately misleading” in some cases.

In the interest of equal time, I also link to Julian Sanchez’s masterful takedown of the Opposition Party’s capitulation [sic] on FISA. Incisive and witty:

The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill “does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans.” She is wrong. It does.

The broader spying powers given to the executive branch by the compromise bill require intelligence agencies to “target” foreigners. But if those foreign “targets” happen to call or e-mail Americans, those communications are fair game. And since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is only permitted to review the broad targeting procedures government eavesdroppers use to determine that a target is abroad, and not the substantive basis for authorizing surveillance of any target, anyone is a potential target.

The bill, in other words, allows the government to conduct “vacuum cleaner” surveillance — sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly — then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, “warrantless surveillance of Americans” could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal “targets” of eavesdropping.

To end on a sunnier note, you should check out Overthinking It this week for some new gems in the making. You can read my man Pete Fenzel’s analysis of what happens to Robert Mugabe now that Queen Elizabeth has stripped him of knighthood (loses Charisma bonus to saving throws, ability to lay on hands, divine mount). Or, you can catch the trailer for this summer’s hot new abortion drama / superhero thriller, The Spider House Rules:

like joseph stalin and gandhi

Quick survey: what is the worst thing that someone would have to do or say before you stopped respecting him or her?

If you agreed with a political figure in every way but one, what would that one have to be for them to lose your vote? Abortion? Same-sex marriage? Evolution?

If you idolized a rock star or professional athlete, what’s the one stupid thing they could shout during a performance that would make you throw out their albums? “Keep Britain White“? “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas?” “You can’t say there were dinosaurs when you never saw them?”

If you had a close friend whom you trusted with your secrets, how abhorrent would their views have to be for you to stop trusting them? Could you disregard a little casual bigotry or social naivete? If they had a BUSH/CHENEY 04 sticker on their bike? Or if they had a NADER sticker?

I’m genuinely curious about people’s limits; I’m not trying to make a point of any sort.

Of those three above, I can only answer the last question. Politics entertain me too much for any one representative to disappoint me. And since I have accused pederasts pedophiles on my iPod and convicted rapists on my DVD shelf I apparently have zero standards there. But I would have a hard time being friends with a proselytizer. Not just someone who believes, and not just someone whose beliefs inform their life choices, but a person who feels obligated to Bear Witness and to Convert. Someone who slipped tracts into my messenger bag, or campaigned to get evolution out of the curriculum. Someone who stood on a street corner and waved signs at drivers. Someone who knew - just deep down in their hearts knew - that I could one day believe.

But enough about me. What gets your goat?

teach your children well

I don’t know that I’m a very good libertarian.

Sure, I talk a good game about free market economics fixing everything, order arising from chaos, and middle class uprising. I read the best libertarian weblogs - Unqualified Offerings, Julian Sanchez, Will Wilkinson, Reason’s Hit and Run, Radley Balko, and I’m sure there are others. I make sneering references to what, in my eyes, are gross and obvious similarities between the two major American political parties. If anyone can lay a claim to being libertarian, I can.

But I have this tiny problem: I cannot stand weird people.

Liberty, in any meaningful sense, requires a healthy tolerance for different people so long as they’re not hurting or threatening you. If I advocate freedom of speech “except for, y’know, racists and fundamentalists and obvious wackos,” I’m not really advocating freedom of speech. I’m advocating for protecting the speaking rights of People I Like. Defending freedom of speech means defending the right for people to blare the most illiterate hate. Even if you disagree with it. Hell, especially if you disagree with it.

Now expand the principle outward from just speech into all aspects of life. Freedom means gambling. Freedom means drug use. Freedom means buggery. Freedom means fundamentalists homeschooling their children about how God created the universe in six days. Freedom means filthy, offensive, hateful music. Freedom means fat SUVs with window-shaking stereos. Freedom means trans fats.

Pick something you absolutely hate, so long as it doesn’t entail a gun pointed at your face. Concentrate on it for a minute; hold it in your mind until you start to feel repelled by your own brain. In a free society, someone, somewhere, is doing that hateful thing and getting off on it.

I went off on this rant because of a line I read in an Eliezer Yudkowsky post the other day (it’s an excellent post in its own right; go read it):

And there are islands of genuine tolerance in the world, such as science fiction conventions.

This stopped me dead in my tracks, because a sci-fi convention remains my personal vision of Hell. Fat bearded men in stormtrooper costumes. Pasty girls with too much eye makeup speaking in Olde Englishe. Yaoi. Yiffies. Monty Python quotes. Vampire LARPs. Body odor.

I’m supposed to be cool with that. And I am, I think. So long as it happens in the cloisters of a Holiday Inn convention room far, far away from me. I don’t believe that, given the power, I would use some form of physical or social coercion to lock those type of people in a cage. At least I hope I wouldn’t. Let’s all pray I’m never put in that position.

Then again, I don’t think I’m alone. The human species isn’t programmed for universal tolerance. It’s programmed for an us-vs-them mentality. Identify and bond with the hundred or so members of your Monkeysphere; don’t trust anyone else. Tolerating harmless differences may make for a better society, but it doesn’t come naturally. Nobody loves everybody.

I hesitated to call myself “libertarian” for years because of that term’s conflation with the Libertarian Party. I don’t think libertarians have any future as a Party. I realized this paradox about five or six years ago: if the American people naturally prefer freedom, then why have they been voting the opposite way for two and a quarter centuries? and if the American people do not naturally prefer freedom, what the hell chance does the LP have?

The answer, pretty clearly, is that no American - or really, no human being - wants freedom in the absolute sense. Sure, we talk about it in glowing terms, but nobody really wants to see Klansmen, Flat Earthers and fecal fetishists on the street while walking to the store. What we want is a certain package of rights and privileges for ourselves, our friends and family, and the social class with which we identify. The rich want lower capital gains taxes; the middle class want to deduct mortgage interest; the poor want income tax credit.

That’s why I don’t vote Libertarian - and of course, absenting them, why I don’t vote at all. If we define economics as the science of allocating scarce resources to unlimited wants, we might define politics as the science of allocating the tools for power to the unlimited desire for power. If you approach this game as a libertarian - someone who does not believe that human society should be shaped by a minority with power - then who do you side with? The folks who want to take away your freedom (to get breast implants, smoke cigarettes and eat greasy food), or the folks who want to take away your freedom (to have pre-marital sex, smoke marijuana and harvest stem cells)?

Nobody will ever campaign on the platform of Having Less Power. Theoretically, we can figure this one out from our armchairs: if someone genuinely didn’t want power, they wouldn’t be running for office. Empirically, we only need to take a look at all of recorded human history, from Enkidu vs Gilgamesh to the 2006 Congressional elections. The Opposition Party might want power for ends that you consider benevolent; these are the Good Guys. The Ruling Party might use its power for ends that you consider malevolent; that makes them the Bad Guys. But nobody ever conquered a tribe, started a coup or ran for office because they didn’t want power at all.

That includes John McCain. That includes Barack Obama. That includes included Ron Paul.

So maybe I’m not a very good libertarian. Maybe I still daydream about what I’d do if I became Dictator Of The World. Maybe I want my enemies punished and my friends rewarded with the force of law. Maybe I want power. But I can’t fault myself for being a bad libertarian if the fault comes from just being human. As Schopenhauer (supposedly) put it: a man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.

I haven’t figured out what to do yet. But at least I know what not to do, and voting’s still on that list.

P.S. You see that? You see how I started out with “here’s what’s wrong with me” and slowly morphed it into a “here’s what’s wrong with all of you people” by the end? that’s some 70th-level blogging right there.

P.P.S. I did warn you.

insane in the membrane; insane in the brain

“Hey Professor,” you asked, “what are the four craziest things John McCain has said in the last month? Not just goofy or indicative of a radical political bent, but out and out deranged?”

And here I am to tell you:

#4: “Al-Qaeda Would Be Taking A Country.” Responding to a statement by Obama on February 27th, McCain said:

“And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn’t be establishing a base. [...] They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida.”

Right. The predominantly Shi’ite Iraq is going to be conquered by fringe Sunni guerillas. I mean sure, it’s happened before, but they had the U.S.’s help that time.

Joe Klein from Time calls McCain out on his error in the link above, but makes the mistake of saying “McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region.” Joey, presuming that McCain knows the day of the week is wishful thinking.

#3: “There’s Strong Evidence Linking Thimerosal to Autism.” At a town hall meeting in Texas on February 29th, John McCain told a crowd of supposedly literate adults that “there’s strong evidence” that thimerosal (which used to be a common ingredient in childhood vaccines) is responsible for the rise in autism.

This is not true. There is no evidence to support such a conjecture. Anyone who says this or thinks this disagrees with the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the FDA, the Institute of Medicine and pretty much every doctor with a credible license.

#2: “You’ve Stumped Me.” I’m cheating a little, because this is a quote from an interview with McCain in 2007. But it came up in a 2008 op-ed, so I’m shoehorning it in. And if you’d like to argue that McCain has grown less senile and not more in twelve months’ time, I’ll entertain the argument.

Now, if McCain’s position were that abstinence education was the most effective way to reduce teen pregnancy and teen STDs, that’d be one thing. I happen to think that position is silly, puritanical and unsupported by anything empirical, but at least it’s a recognizable Republican talking point. At least McCain would be a voice of the establishment at that point, instead of a decrepit lunatic who shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

But! When asked what exactly he thought about sex education, on the spur of the moment, he had the following to say:

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Not a “No, they make people more promiscuous.” Not a “Yes, but they encourage loose morals.” He just simply doesn’t get the connection. Do prophylactics reduce the spread of STDs? Hmm, that’s a puzzler! You might as well ask McCain what’s the difference between rhubarb and a pigeon in the attic? You’re just talking gibberish!

#1: “Al-Qaeda is Going Into Iran and Receiving Training …” For this one, I’m just going to quote the Times entirely:

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.

“I’m sorry,” Mr. McCain said, “the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda.”

Even if you believe that the war in Iraq is still worth conducting - and as insane as I find that, I know some people believe it, so I’ll take it for argument - how can you support a man so blithely ignorant of the basic facts of the matter? So willing to let fantasy and delusion rule his words? What would it take to prove to you that John McCain is delusional?

don’t worry, be happy was the number one jam

Sorry to disagree with you, everyone on the Internet, but I wasn’t impressed with Barack Obama’s big speech on Tuesday.

Obama took the pulpit today to denounce some speeches made by his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, over the last six years. Apparently, Rev. Wright suggested that “the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself and say blacks continue to be mistreated by whites.”

Here we have a problem with proper nouns. The “United States” can refer to a number of different things. It can refer to:

1. a particular region of land defined on a map;
   
2. the people living within its borders - you, me, that guy sitting next to you, the people on the street, etc;
   
3. a set of shared historical and cultural ideals - truth, justice, the American way, democracy, etc;
   
4. the policy of the governing body that claims a monopoly of force over the aforementioned region - the laws passed by Congress, the actions ordered by the President and the movement of armed forces carrying the U.S. flag.

Osama bin Laden had a particular grievance with the United States (4), in the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Because of his radical religious beliefs, he also has issues with the United States (3). So he recruited a number of sleeper agents to infiltrate the United States (1) and carry out attacks on the United States (2).

The outrage comes because citizens of the United States (2) tend to connect, implicitly or openly, the ideals of the United States (3) with its actions abroad (4). They also identify strongly with those actions in their own selves (2), seeing them as a reflection of their democratic voice. However, #1, 2, 3 and 4 are entirely different entities which can - and usually do - contradict. Witness Bush declaring, “We do not torture.” Witness leftists declaring, “Bush is not our President.” To believe either of those statements, you have to ignore - or even worse, embrace - the contradictions between the U.S.’s citizens, culture and elected officials.

So it is with the Rev. Wright’s statement. To believe that the U.S. brought the attacks of September 11th “on itself,” you have to believe that #2, #3 and #4 are one and the same - that every action the U.S. takes abroad, from funding anti-Sandinista rebels in Nicaragua to bombing Cambodia to sending CIA agents to Cuba to firebombing Dresden to occupying the Philippines - reflects the will and culture of the people living in Delacroix, Denver and Des Moines. You call yourself a U.S. citizen so, apparently, every dead Iraqi baby is all your fault. Oops.

To reject the Reverend’s notion, you have to reject the idea that democracy does what it says on the tin - that it creates a government responsive to the explicit desires of the civilians it governs. Sometimes people who ran in open elections start secret wars. Sometimes the U.S. lends its name to torturers and thugs. But if you accept that you are ruled by forces out of your control, it’s not an issue.

One or the other. Take your pick.

Obama, of course, doesn’t take his pick. He doesn’t cling to the balm of the democratic process and say that yes, you voted for Nixon and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush again, and therefore those dead Vietnamese and Cambodians and Laotians and Grenadians and Iraqis are on your head. And of course he doesn’t say, “Sure, vote for whoever makes you feel good, but the U.S. will continue to conduct extraordinary renditions and cover operations and bombing campaigns all over the world.”

Rather, he embraces the contradiction. He says that the Reverend Wright’s comments are “not only wrong but divisive.” Really? Not only wrong but divisive? Being wrong isn’t sufficient? If the Reverend’s comments were right but divisive, would you object? If they were wrong but unifying, would you stay silent? Is divisiveness not an inherently wrong thing, such that you have to call it out?

You can accuse me of nitpicking over word choice, but if I have to accept this man on the quality of his rhetoric - as so many other people are - then I’m going to take my time double-checking it. Barack Obama said that the Reverend Wright’s statements about America are wrong. He doesn’t say in what way. Barack Obama said that the Reverend Wright’s statements about race were divisive. He doesn’t say what would unify. Barack Obama takes the controversial maverick stance of saying, “I disagree with this person you don’t like,” puts a little more wear on some platitudes about investing in schools and rebuilding the economy, and people get giddy!

Update: Yes, I read the part about “binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans.” And about “providing this generation with ladders of opportunity.” What do those words mean?

Reverend Wright may be wrong. That doesn’t make Barack Obama right.