Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sanders is from Minnesota, Clinton is from New York
A while back I had a teacher who described two different versions of socialism: Minnesota and New York socialism. He gave them the different names because of the two states he had gone to school in (Columbia and the University of Minnesota). Despite the name socialism, the theory is just how different groups see social redistribution and social insurance programs. It has nothing to do with real socialism or the seizure of the means of production. I find this system works fairly well to describe the Democratic Party's division between Clinton and Sanders and how the 2016 Democratic campaign is working itself out.
Minnesota socialism comes from a place where people look like each other, have similar names, come from the same parts of Europe, and in the words of Garrison Keillor "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." In Minnesota you'll find little diversity outside of the Twin Cities. People are white, talk in Midwestern accents, and cheer for the Vikings. Because of these similarities, it is easy to see yourself in other people. Someone's tragic accident could be your tragic accident. You realize that social insurance programs are important because they help protect people like you.
Sanders is a Minnesota socialist. He comes from Vermont where, let's be honest, there's not much diversity. His programs are not targeted, but general. It is a social ideology built out of seeing people who look like you suffer from illness, a lack of education, bad banking policy terrible wars abroad, etc. The problems that Sanders sees affect all people, and these are the issues that he is the most passionate about. I personally come from Minnesota, so this way of looking at the world has been fairly easy for me to understand and support.
Meanwhile there is another brand of socialism my teacher called New York socialism which is best shown through a piece in the Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates. In it, he argues not for general programs or a general redistribution, but rather a targeted set of programs aimed at a specific group. In this case, the call is for 34 billion dollars worth of programs targeting the black community. In his recent words about Sanders:
"There is no need to be theoretical about this. Across Europe, the kind of robust welfare state Sanders supports—higher minimum wage, single-payer health-care, low-cost higher education—has been embraced. Have these policies vanquished racism? Or has race become another rubric for asserting who should benefit from the state’s largesse and who should not? And if class-based policy alone is insufficient to banish racism in Europe, why would it prove to be sufficient in a country founded on white supremacy? And if it is not sufficient, what does it mean that even on the left wing of the Democratic party, the consideration of radical, directly anti-racist solutions has disappeared?"
The idea is that general programs cannot work for specific problems. It's the argument against the phrase "All Lives Matter." If someone's house is on fire, one does not dump water on every house. No, you dump water on the house that is burning to the ground.
New York socialism does not come from a world where every looks the same, acts the same, and has last names like Ericson, Olson, Peterson, and Danielson. New York is a tapestry of cultures, people, and experiences. If Minnesota is static, New York is vibrant and changing. Different groups have different interests, and often it becomes a fight between one group and another. Ironically enough, this is also how Republicans see social welfare - as a fight between different groups trying to take money from one another.
Clinton, in this race, is the New York socialist. Now, this may be a stretch, but at this point I am trying to understand what goes in in the minds of black voters instead of telling them they are wrong. The best article on this subject was a recent article in the New York times called "Stop Bernie-Splaining to Black Voters" by Charles Blow. The love of Clinton comes not from a complete acceptance of the New York socialist mentality expressed by Coates, but rather a calculated view of who can get them more. They look at Clinton and Sanders and see Clinton as more electable and more shrewd in getting what she wants. Blow writes: "For many there isn’t much passion for either candidate. Instead, black folks are trying to keep their feet planted in reality and choose from among politicians who have historically promised much and delivered little." I have seen the Facebook posts by Sanders fans saying that he is more electable, but I too am not swayed. I watch Sanders, and in my gut too I can feel that saying the word socialist is just a bad thing to do on the campaign trail.
This election will be a battle between Minnesota and New York socialist views on the world. Right now, it looks like Clinton will win because she appeals not to the imagination, but the realities of voters that could see Trump put up his name on the White House.
Clinton recently won the South Carolina primary by a landslide by dominating the African American vote. I'm sure there's a large number of reasons why this happened, but most are connected to the difference between Minnesota and New York socialists and how they view the world.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Helping Men Understand Feminism
So I recently read a very interesting article about the Kesha rape/contract dispute that is currently making its way around through the press. To be honest, I don't know all of the details, and I doubt anyone in the media really does know all of the details except for those involved. Maybe it will go to court sometime soon? It took a while before Cosby went to court. And after it starts it could take a very long time until we get a verdict. I don't want to make any sort of moral judgments until a court decides.
Now, as a guy these sorts of stories terrify the crap out of me. To be completely frank with you now, I'm a virgin. It's a religious thing, and I don't believe I should have sex until I find someone who I consider a true life partner. But the idea of getting accused of being a rapist is still terrifying. A rapist is the lowest of the low, scum worse than dirt, and a stain upon mankind. To know that someone has the power to take me and turn me into that with just an accusation, true or false, feels me with a sense of dread when I think about it.
Now, I want to make very clear, I don't think this means that feminism isn't a thing, or that men are the real victims. Most rapes don't get reported, and this power only tilts the power relationship an inch. Still, that inch is terrifying for those who are used to living on the top.
But it can speak in some way to a common understanding that can be built. This is an example of something that women say men cannot understand. Well, we can understand it, and a lot of us freak out about it. When you talk about microaggressions, ask men if they have ever been walking alone at night when a woman crossed their path. Did the woman try to create distance between herself and you? Did she have a look of fear in her eyes? How did this, as a guy, make you feel? Even white men get microaggressions, and that can be a place to start a dialogue.
I checked out the rest of the site that had the Kesha article, and it made me happy I had my adblocker on to prevent them from getting any revenue from my views. Articles should not have whore or bitch in the title. That is NOT a way to start a dialogue. Blagh.
Now, as a guy these sorts of stories terrify the crap out of me. To be completely frank with you now, I'm a virgin. It's a religious thing, and I don't believe I should have sex until I find someone who I consider a true life partner. But the idea of getting accused of being a rapist is still terrifying. A rapist is the lowest of the low, scum worse than dirt, and a stain upon mankind. To know that someone has the power to take me and turn me into that with just an accusation, true or false, feels me with a sense of dread when I think about it.
Now, I want to make very clear, I don't think this means that feminism isn't a thing, or that men are the real victims. Most rapes don't get reported, and this power only tilts the power relationship an inch. Still, that inch is terrifying for those who are used to living on the top.
But it can speak in some way to a common understanding that can be built. This is an example of something that women say men cannot understand. Well, we can understand it, and a lot of us freak out about it. When you talk about microaggressions, ask men if they have ever been walking alone at night when a woman crossed their path. Did the woman try to create distance between herself and you? Did she have a look of fear in her eyes? How did this, as a guy, make you feel? Even white men get microaggressions, and that can be a place to start a dialogue.
I checked out the rest of the site that had the Kesha article, and it made me happy I had my adblocker on to prevent them from getting any revenue from my views. Articles should not have whore or bitch in the title. That is NOT a way to start a dialogue. Blagh.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Apple. Tech. Security.
As far as I can tell from everything I've read on the Iphone story there is one simple solution. If Apple can currently help the government crack the Iphone, they should. If they can't because they have created a product that can't be hacked, there's not much to talk about. Security should start getting ready for a world where some things can't be cracked, because pretty soon that'll be the case if laws aren't passed.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Even Good Change Sucks
"Saudi Arabia
70% of population under 30.
70% of labor force employed by the govt.
90% of govt revenue from oil.
yikes" ~Ian Bremmer
This FB post by Eurasia CEO Ian Bremmer made me think of a question my libertarian uncle asked me: "who exactly is hurt by falling oil prices in the USA?" I think I told him that there were some gas and oil companies that would be hurt, and certain regions like North Dakota might feel some sting, but I didn't really feel satisfied with the answer.
I think you see where I am going with this, but let me give you some background on why my uncle asked me this. I had previously said that there are several rules in economics that you should try to follow, and the first is that any quick change has the potential to be quite bad, as markets and other important institutions generally only prepare for gradual changes. The housing bubble wasn't a slowdown, but a crash in prices. Stocks in 2000 took a nosedive, not a slow ride, and it's fair to say that any crisis anywhere is manufactured from a sudden and sharp change.
So oil. That changed quite suddenly. And who will it hurt? At first not US consumers, but pretty soon it may. The oil crash has sparked economic chaos in oil producing countries. Some that were on the edge like Venezuela have already fallen, while Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others are poised on the edge. What will a Russia look like on the edge? How will Putin try to distract from economic catastrophe back home? What would happen if Russia or Saudi Arabia fell into civil war? Unfortunately, I've been in Europe this year without a car, so I've been unable to take advantage of low gas prices, but by the time I get back will I have to start some of the costs of lower gas prices?
Apart from all of the foreign policy SNAFUs that could hit us from low gas prices, there are trade problems. Unfortunately for us, when the rest of the world sneezes, the US economy can catch a cold. China's poor performance and the general weakness of third world markets might spread to Europe which is in poor condition. If the rest of the world goes bad the USA will too because we export stuff and rely on foreign markets.
One way to look at when a recession might come is from US bonds. If people flood into what is generally considered a very safe asset, it means that markets are scary, and investors need some stability. If bonds don't get much attention then we know the economy is flying high and we might want to look for bubbles.
Things aren't that bad right now, even though the bond market says otherwise. However, things might just get really bad quite soon, which is likely what the bond market is trying to say.
70% of population under 30.
70% of labor force employed by the govt.
90% of govt revenue from oil.
yikes" ~Ian Bremmer
This FB post by Eurasia CEO Ian Bremmer made me think of a question my libertarian uncle asked me: "who exactly is hurt by falling oil prices in the USA?" I think I told him that there were some gas and oil companies that would be hurt, and certain regions like North Dakota might feel some sting, but I didn't really feel satisfied with the answer.
I think you see where I am going with this, but let me give you some background on why my uncle asked me this. I had previously said that there are several rules in economics that you should try to follow, and the first is that any quick change has the potential to be quite bad, as markets and other important institutions generally only prepare for gradual changes. The housing bubble wasn't a slowdown, but a crash in prices. Stocks in 2000 took a nosedive, not a slow ride, and it's fair to say that any crisis anywhere is manufactured from a sudden and sharp change.
So oil. That changed quite suddenly. And who will it hurt? At first not US consumers, but pretty soon it may. The oil crash has sparked economic chaos in oil producing countries. Some that were on the edge like Venezuela have already fallen, while Russia, Saudi Arabia, and others are poised on the edge. What will a Russia look like on the edge? How will Putin try to distract from economic catastrophe back home? What would happen if Russia or Saudi Arabia fell into civil war? Unfortunately, I've been in Europe this year without a car, so I've been unable to take advantage of low gas prices, but by the time I get back will I have to start some of the costs of lower gas prices?
Apart from all of the foreign policy SNAFUs that could hit us from low gas prices, there are trade problems. Unfortunately for us, when the rest of the world sneezes, the US economy can catch a cold. China's poor performance and the general weakness of third world markets might spread to Europe which is in poor condition. If the rest of the world goes bad the USA will too because we export stuff and rely on foreign markets.
One way to look at when a recession might come is from US bonds. If people flood into what is generally considered a very safe asset, it means that markets are scary, and investors need some stability. If bonds don't get much attention then we know the economy is flying high and we might want to look for bubbles.
Things aren't that bad right now, even though the bond market says otherwise. However, things might just get really bad quite soon, which is likely what the bond market is trying to say.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Slate Strikes Again!
Slate strikes again with a gender politic article by Christina Cauterucci that makes me feel a little funky.The article is about two famous celebrity stars flirting with the reporter with the twist that they are female.
Cauterucci states that, "Johnson and Mann’s shameless flirting is degrading, and definitely creepy." This is in response to the male bloggers who point out this "gender inequality." She rationalizes it by saying that this bad action is ok because it is uncommon. Men are usually the ones doing what Johnson and Mann perpetrated on this poor defenseless reporter. Women need to make men into victims every once and a while to upend the patriarchy.
I want to say that both Cauterucci and the male youtubers screaming of gender inequality are wrong because of context. Looking at the context of the encounter is incredibly important. Does the "victim" want the attention? Does the "victim" seem to like the flirting? Is the flirting happening in an appropriate place (say a party, a date, etc.). It is wrong to flirt hard like that in a workplace. It is wrong to not stop when you get negative signals. Respect the other person's signals. Don't flaunt your position of power.
Here's one piece of information that I would need before I make a ruling. Did they talk before the camera started rolling? It seems to me that he is in on the flirting from stage 1, and probably had the camera turned on early to capture some of it. There's nothing wrong with flirting, and certainly nothing wrong with flirting on camera. Flirting can be interesting television is all of the success of America's Romance movie industry is to be believed.
His reaction probably redoubled their efforts, as he was clearly loving it. There was never a single sign I saw for them to stop. Quite importantly, he flirts back. He lets loose a terrible pick up line, and they call it terrible but ask for another. They actually find the second one funny, and the routine goes back and forth. Quite importantly, he flirts back.
I honestly think there's nothing wrong with the male gaze as long as it's met by the female gaze or vice versa.
Cauterucci states that, "Johnson and Mann’s shameless flirting is degrading, and definitely creepy." This is in response to the male bloggers who point out this "gender inequality." She rationalizes it by saying that this bad action is ok because it is uncommon. Men are usually the ones doing what Johnson and Mann perpetrated on this poor defenseless reporter. Women need to make men into victims every once and a while to upend the patriarchy.
I want to say that both Cauterucci and the male youtubers screaming of gender inequality are wrong because of context. Looking at the context of the encounter is incredibly important. Does the "victim" want the attention? Does the "victim" seem to like the flirting? Is the flirting happening in an appropriate place (say a party, a date, etc.). It is wrong to flirt hard like that in a workplace. It is wrong to not stop when you get negative signals. Respect the other person's signals. Don't flaunt your position of power.
Here's one piece of information that I would need before I make a ruling. Did they talk before the camera started rolling? It seems to me that he is in on the flirting from stage 1, and probably had the camera turned on early to capture some of it. There's nothing wrong with flirting, and certainly nothing wrong with flirting on camera. Flirting can be interesting television is all of the success of America's Romance movie industry is to be believed.
His reaction probably redoubled their efforts, as he was clearly loving it. There was never a single sign I saw for them to stop. Quite importantly, he flirts back. He lets loose a terrible pick up line, and they call it terrible but ask for another. They actually find the second one funny, and the routine goes back and forth. Quite importantly, he flirts back.
I honestly think there's nothing wrong with the male gaze as long as it's met by the female gaze or vice versa.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Cruz and Ethanol
I'm continuing to think about the party system in the USA and this article in particular. It came up in my mind again as I was thinking about Ted Cruz and the Iowa Caucuses, and his failure in part due to an inability to be pro-ethanol. I honestly admire the position, but it is insane to run for President in the USA while being anti-ethanol. You shoot yourself in the foot when you do that, which can really hurt your momentum. Both parties, to a certain extent are quite regional. Lindsey Graham fought for the Export Import Bank not for ideology, but rather because Boeing had factories in his state. Are Republicans really just ideological and not interested in interest group politics? We'll see in Iowa today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)