So, the candidates of partisanship and division, Hillary and disgusting Romney, won Nevada. Not good. But then again, what the hell is this change that everyone keeps talking about? A change in partisan warfare? Not likely, though the situation will improve without Bush. There are just too many disagreements in American society today. If only Biden won.
---
I can't believe that Romney had the insanity to say that change in Washington was needed. I mean, come on! He has never criticized President Bush for anything, and yet Bush is the Washington politician most responsible for our current political messes.
From his website
"The change message, with the governor's ability to get things done, is obviously our strongest message right now..."
Washington Post 01.16.2008
All the more evidence that this campaign of change is a bunch of bs. Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate of "change" and yet, he is still one of the most popular presidents of recent history. What he did was govern from the center and avoid divisive politics.
We need someone with the pragmatism needed to govern a crazy world and divided country. Not more idealists who think that we can turn the America or the world into a utopia.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Human Nature Trumps Culture (shocker!)
The claim?
In the words of Half sigma
"Humans are biologically programmed to be status whores."
Proof?
1) Stanford, California A study shows that people like wine that is perceived as more expensive despite a lower quality.
2) Bangkok, Thailand. Stickman blogs about the Thai obsession with status, often noting that people will take a trip to an expensive beach AND NOT EVEN ENJOY IT just so that they can take pictures and say they were there. Anyone remember the Japanese tourists that pile up in the buses, take pictures of famous monuments, and leave quickly? Solely for the purpose of telling others they were there.
3) Kabul, Afghanistan. A recent nytimes article details the absurd amount of money people are willing to pay for a wedding just to gain face and prestige.
Hamid, a midlevel bureaucrat in the Afghan government who supports his six-member family on a salary of $7,200 per year, said his bill was going to top $12,000. And by Afghan standards, that would be considered normal, or even a bargain....
Even the poor do not scrimp. A laborer, for instance, making about the average per capita income of $350 per year, may well spend more than $2,000 for his wedding, Afghans say.
or
Dinner included sumptuous amounts of beef, rice, vegetables and bread — much more than even the enormous crowd could possibly eat — served on big platters atop the hall’s banquet tables.
Disturbing? Or evidence that maybe there were some things that were good about Afghanistan under the Taliban (shudder).
4) Status signal in America is highly tied to the audience one is trying to impress, detailed in this new article on Slate. Good to know the Saletan brouhaha didn't totally turn them off to sensitive questions.
This makes sense. A black person in the ghetto isn't trying to get in the pants of a middle class white girl, so they don't signal to them. They instead are trying to holler at the sista down the block.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
"the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods."
Seems totally stupid, no? But guess what. It all has it's roots in evolutionary psychology. In fact, Dawkins recently changed his mind about it, as he details in this essay
Zahavi's evolutionary theory of prestige was anticipated in the human sphere by the economist Thorstein Veblen. Anthropologists had drawn attention to 'Potlatch' ceremonies, whereby rival chieftains compete by means of conspicuous displays of ruinous generosity. You demonstrate your wealth and power by ostentatious donation or waste, culminating, in extreme cases, by setting fire to everything you possess. Veblen developed the idea in his concept of Conspicuous Consumption. Individuals consume goods not because they want them but in order to demonstrate status. Zahavi's version is evolutionary, and therefore assumed to be not consciously thought-out by its animal practitioners. But it comes to the same thing.
Zahavi originally proposed his Handicap Principle in the context of sexual advertisement by male animals to females. The long tail of a cock pheasant is a handicap. It endangers the male's own survival. Other theories of sexual selection reasoned - plausibly enough - that the long tail is favoured in spite of its being a handicap. Zahavi's maddeningly contrary suggestion was that females prefer long tailed males, not in spite of the handicap but precisely because of it. To use Zahavi's own preferred style of anthropomorphic whimsy, the male pheasant is saying to the female, "Look what a fine pheasant I must be, for I have survived in spite of lugging this incapacitating burden around behind me." For Zahavi, the handicap has to be a genuine one, authentically costly. A fake burden - the equivalent of the padded shoulder as counterfeit of physical strength - would be rumbled by the females. In Darwinian terms, natural selection would favor females who scorn padded males and choose instead males who demonstrate genuine physical strength in a costly, and therefore, unfakeable way. For Zahavi, cost is paramount. The male has to pay a genuine cost, or females would be selected to favor a rival male who does so.
Depressing? I think so. All the more evidence that our lives are ultimately an attempt to posture for social status in order to gain reproductive fitness. Will posthumanism save us from this stupid endeavor? I hope so. If Buddha wants to know the roots of human suffering, just point to the status chasing and ego glorifying pursuits that take up a majority of our time.
The next time you buy or ask for a diamond, ask yourself whether the diamond is actually worth something, or maybe the money spend on a blood diamond is better spend investing in a microfinance fund than stupid crap to show your friends.
In the words of Half sigma
"Humans are biologically programmed to be status whores."
Proof?
1) Stanford, California A study shows that people like wine that is perceived as more expensive despite a lower quality.
2) Bangkok, Thailand. Stickman blogs about the Thai obsession with status, often noting that people will take a trip to an expensive beach AND NOT EVEN ENJOY IT just so that they can take pictures and say they were there. Anyone remember the Japanese tourists that pile up in the buses, take pictures of famous monuments, and leave quickly? Solely for the purpose of telling others they were there.
3) Kabul, Afghanistan. A recent nytimes article details the absurd amount of money people are willing to pay for a wedding just to gain face and prestige.
Hamid, a midlevel bureaucrat in the Afghan government who supports his six-member family on a salary of $7,200 per year, said his bill was going to top $12,000. And by Afghan standards, that would be considered normal, or even a bargain....
Even the poor do not scrimp. A laborer, for instance, making about the average per capita income of $350 per year, may well spend more than $2,000 for his wedding, Afghans say.
or
Dinner included sumptuous amounts of beef, rice, vegetables and bread — much more than even the enormous crowd could possibly eat — served on big platters atop the hall’s banquet tables.
Disturbing? Or evidence that maybe there were some things that were good about Afghanistan under the Taliban (shudder).
4) Status signal in America is highly tied to the audience one is trying to impress, detailed in this new article on Slate. Good to know the Saletan brouhaha didn't totally turn them off to sensitive questions.
This makes sense. A black person in the ghetto isn't trying to get in the pants of a middle class white girl, so they don't signal to them. They instead are trying to holler at the sista down the block.
I think this pretty much sums it up:
"the term conspicuous consumption is now broadly applied to individuals and households with expendable incomes whose consumption patterns are prompted by the utility of goods to show their status rather than any intrinsic utility of such goods."
Seems totally stupid, no? But guess what. It all has it's roots in evolutionary psychology. In fact, Dawkins recently changed his mind about it, as he details in this essay
Zahavi's evolutionary theory of prestige was anticipated in the human sphere by the economist Thorstein Veblen. Anthropologists had drawn attention to 'Potlatch' ceremonies, whereby rival chieftains compete by means of conspicuous displays of ruinous generosity. You demonstrate your wealth and power by ostentatious donation or waste, culminating, in extreme cases, by setting fire to everything you possess. Veblen developed the idea in his concept of Conspicuous Consumption. Individuals consume goods not because they want them but in order to demonstrate status. Zahavi's version is evolutionary, and therefore assumed to be not consciously thought-out by its animal practitioners. But it comes to the same thing.
Zahavi originally proposed his Handicap Principle in the context of sexual advertisement by male animals to females. The long tail of a cock pheasant is a handicap. It endangers the male's own survival. Other theories of sexual selection reasoned - plausibly enough - that the long tail is favoured in spite of its being a handicap. Zahavi's maddeningly contrary suggestion was that females prefer long tailed males, not in spite of the handicap but precisely because of it. To use Zahavi's own preferred style of anthropomorphic whimsy, the male pheasant is saying to the female, "Look what a fine pheasant I must be, for I have survived in spite of lugging this incapacitating burden around behind me." For Zahavi, the handicap has to be a genuine one, authentically costly. A fake burden - the equivalent of the padded shoulder as counterfeit of physical strength - would be rumbled by the females. In Darwinian terms, natural selection would favor females who scorn padded males and choose instead males who demonstrate genuine physical strength in a costly, and therefore, unfakeable way. For Zahavi, cost is paramount. The male has to pay a genuine cost, or females would be selected to favor a rival male who does so.
Depressing? I think so. All the more evidence that our lives are ultimately an attempt to posture for social status in order to gain reproductive fitness. Will posthumanism save us from this stupid endeavor? I hope so. If Buddha wants to know the roots of human suffering, just point to the status chasing and ego glorifying pursuits that take up a majority of our time.
The next time you buy or ask for a diamond, ask yourself whether the diamond is actually worth something, or maybe the money spend on a blood diamond is better spend investing in a microfinance fund than stupid crap to show your friends.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
What are we doing?
The consequences when we shove our young men into the middle of a civil war between barbarian Muslims.
I <3 John McCain on many issues, but his unwavering justification of the Iraq war really riles me when I see stories like this.
Decent young American men, lives ruined, because we think we can give democracy to people who think that beheading children is a way to conduct inter tribal warfare.
I <3 John McCain on many issues, but his unwavering justification of the Iraq war really riles me when I see stories like this.
Decent young American men, lives ruined, because we think we can give democracy to people who think that beheading children is a way to conduct inter tribal warfare.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Decent People
I'm not sure what to think after the exit of Biden. We need someone to united the country. Hillary Clinton, Huckabee, Edwards, Romney, Paul, and Guiliani are incapable. We have hope in McCain and Obama
I wholeheartedly disagree with John McCain on immigration. But, I will sheepishly admit, that a year and a half ago, before I ever googled "IQ and the wealth of nations," and while I was steeped in economic theory, I wholeheartedly supported amnesty for immigrants and hated with a vengeance those who opposed it as racist and anti-American. Strange, no?
I disagree with McCain on Iraq. HOWEVER, he was one of the few who was willing to confront the reality that we needed more troops to bring stability to Iraq.
"Mark my words, we will NOT have a strong central democratic government in Iraq," the words of Joe Biden, in direct response to a support the troops speech by McCain. I disagree with McCain. However, given that when we leave Iraq, we will have genocide, I am somewhat sympathetic to his view that we should give "victory" a chance.
The debates don't often give goosebumps. However, this exchange between Romney and McCain on the issue of torture crystallizes what it means to be a decent human being.
If it's McCain vs. Obama, I think the country wins either way. If Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee wins either nomination, I think Bloomberg will start to look very attractive.
I wholeheartedly disagree with John McCain on immigration. But, I will sheepishly admit, that a year and a half ago, before I ever googled "IQ and the wealth of nations," and while I was steeped in economic theory, I wholeheartedly supported amnesty for immigrants and hated with a vengeance those who opposed it as racist and anti-American. Strange, no?
I disagree with McCain on Iraq. HOWEVER, he was one of the few who was willing to confront the reality that we needed more troops to bring stability to Iraq.
"Mark my words, we will NOT have a strong central democratic government in Iraq," the words of Joe Biden, in direct response to a support the troops speech by McCain. I disagree with McCain. However, given that when we leave Iraq, we will have genocide, I am somewhat sympathetic to his view that we should give "victory" a chance.
The debates don't often give goosebumps. However, this exchange between Romney and McCain on the issue of torture crystallizes what it means to be a decent human being.
If it's McCain vs. Obama, I think the country wins either way. If Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee wins either nomination, I think Bloomberg will start to look very attractive.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Disheartened by Human Nature
After watching the movie provoked , a mediocre film but still troubling.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. But, I think that while feminists and society as a whole legitimately criticize men who beat their wives, there are some disturbing questions on the side.
Domestic violence is a complex issue. But, I think that while feminists and society as a whole legitimately criticize men who beat their wives, there are some disturbing questions on the side.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Ouch
Having come down from the high of Barack Obama's speech and allowing reality to kick in, the loss of Joe Biden is beginning to feel painful.
If a Democrat gets elected hopefully Biden will be more influential and will be able to guide the next president on foreign policy issues.
If a Democrat gets elected hopefully Biden will be more influential and will be able to guide the next president on foreign policy issues.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Caucus for Joe Biden
Tomorrow is the big day in Iowa. Though it won't determine who will be president, it has the potential to knock out some solid second tier candidates. One of them is Joe Biden.
I believe Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate to be President. I will tell you why.
In a President, there are several qualities that are going to be vitally important:
1) Restoring America's place in the world.
-No one has more foreign policy experience than Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pakistan's President called Biden after declaring a State of Emergency. Biden spoke to Bhutto a few days before her assassination.
-Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate with a plan to remove our troops from Iraq AND prevent genocide and chaos. Even though he voted for the war, before the Invasion he attempted to add a clause that insisted on exhausting all diplomatic efforts before committing troops.
-Joe Biden has voted against War with Iran
-Joe Biden has opposed torture and will commit to the restoration of American moral leadership.
-Joe Biden is the only candidate willing to put a halt to genocide in Darfur.
2) Beating the Republicans
-The current crop of Republican candidates is shameful. Beyond his speech on faith, Mitt Romney has shown absolutely no moral leadership, from desiring to double Guantanamo, to changing his positions to fit the current political winds. John McCain, though a fundamentally decent human being, is approaching senility and his desire to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and indefinitely continue the war in Iraq makes him a problematic candidate.
Mike Huckabee is an absolute buffoon who has no idea about what is going on in the world. Ron Paul is an ideologue who thinks that shrinking the size of the government is the only way to solve our problems (and he also opposed the American Civil War). And finally, Guiliani has tremendous ethical conflicts of interests, as well as dictatorial tendencies that have been exacerbated by his shameful exploitation of 9/11 for political gain.
I would be very distressed to have any of these candidates as my president.
-But the Democrats are also weak. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all have large groups of people who hate them. Considering that John Kerry was brought down by bogus swift boat advertisements, does anyone think that the Republican attack machine will have problems with taking down a woman, or a black man with middle name "Hussein," or a trial lawyer trying to start class warfare? Though none of these candidates being elected will make me question my loyalty to the US, they will not be successful in either getting elected, or uniting the country to deal with our pressing concerns.
3) Uniting the country
Therefore, because each of the Republican and Democratic candidates will inspire hatred in many others, we need a candidate who speaks to reason and can unite the country. If Joe Biden ran against Republicans, IT WOULD BE NO CONTEST.
Joe Biden has gained bipartisan support for a wide variety of initiatives, unlike any of the other senators who have done nothing in office.
4) Bring sensibility to issues
-He has respected a woman's right to choose by supporting Roe v. Wade, but has also voted for laws preventing partial birth abortions. He supports stem cell research and did not vote for a bill banning cloning.
-On crime, Biden authored the Violence against women act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
-Biden opposed drilling in the Artic that would destroy wildlife. He supports renewable energies and investment in technology. He supports increasing fuel economy requirements.
-He supports building a wall around the border and immigration reform.
-While he did vote for the Patriot Act, he voted against wiretapping and for preserving habeus corpus for foreign suspects.
-He supports lowering health care costs to make American businesses more competitive.
-He does not support funding for abstinence-only education programs abroad for HIV prevention.
I really think it is as simple as Biden. Sure, I don't agree with him on everything. But the thing is, he is reasonable. He is not a leader that makes decisions from the gut. While he may not inspire us like Obama, make us scared/protected like Guiliani, have the heroics of McCain, the perfectly crafted image of Hillary or Romney, the faith of Huckabee, or the personability and looks of Edwards, or the fierce freedom philosophy of Paul, he is the logical and solid choice for president.
It really is simple. Don't jut vote for someone because they are popular and can win. Vote for who you trust to be President.
Look here , here or here for examples of what it would be like to actually be proud of the person who leads your country.
What happened when we shunned the reasonable candidate (Gore) for the feel good president? We ended with Iraq, Katrina, economic slowdown, eroding competitiveness, hatred of America, ballooning health care costs.
Vote for a President who will bring reason to the most serious job in the world.
If you go with Hillary because she's electable, and the Republican machine takes her down, and then a terrible Republican gets elected, we will ask ourselves:
Why didn't we just go with Biden?
I believe Joe Biden is the most qualified candidate to be President. I will tell you why.
In a President, there are several qualities that are going to be vitally important:
1) Restoring America's place in the world.
-No one has more foreign policy experience than Joe Biden, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Pakistan's President called Biden after declaring a State of Emergency. Biden spoke to Bhutto a few days before her assassination.
-Joe Biden is the ONLY candidate with a plan to remove our troops from Iraq AND prevent genocide and chaos. Even though he voted for the war, before the Invasion he attempted to add a clause that insisted on exhausting all diplomatic efforts before committing troops.
-Joe Biden has voted against War with Iran
-Joe Biden has opposed torture and will commit to the restoration of American moral leadership.
-Joe Biden is the only candidate willing to put a halt to genocide in Darfur.
2) Beating the Republicans
-The current crop of Republican candidates is shameful. Beyond his speech on faith, Mitt Romney has shown absolutely no moral leadership, from desiring to double Guantanamo, to changing his positions to fit the current political winds. John McCain, though a fundamentally decent human being, is approaching senility and his desire to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and indefinitely continue the war in Iraq makes him a problematic candidate.
Mike Huckabee is an absolute buffoon who has no idea about what is going on in the world. Ron Paul is an ideologue who thinks that shrinking the size of the government is the only way to solve our problems (and he also opposed the American Civil War). And finally, Guiliani has tremendous ethical conflicts of interests, as well as dictatorial tendencies that have been exacerbated by his shameful exploitation of 9/11 for political gain.
I would be very distressed to have any of these candidates as my president.
-But the Democrats are also weak. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all have large groups of people who hate them. Considering that John Kerry was brought down by bogus swift boat advertisements, does anyone think that the Republican attack machine will have problems with taking down a woman, or a black man with middle name "Hussein," or a trial lawyer trying to start class warfare? Though none of these candidates being elected will make me question my loyalty to the US, they will not be successful in either getting elected, or uniting the country to deal with our pressing concerns.
3) Uniting the country
Therefore, because each of the Republican and Democratic candidates will inspire hatred in many others, we need a candidate who speaks to reason and can unite the country. If Joe Biden ran against Republicans, IT WOULD BE NO CONTEST.
Joe Biden has gained bipartisan support for a wide variety of initiatives, unlike any of the other senators who have done nothing in office.
4) Bring sensibility to issues
-He has respected a woman's right to choose by supporting Roe v. Wade, but has also voted for laws preventing partial birth abortions. He supports stem cell research and did not vote for a bill banning cloning.
-On crime, Biden authored the Violence against women act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
-Biden opposed drilling in the Artic that would destroy wildlife. He supports renewable energies and investment in technology. He supports increasing fuel economy requirements.
-He supports building a wall around the border and immigration reform.
-While he did vote for the Patriot Act, he voted against wiretapping and for preserving habeus corpus for foreign suspects.
-He supports lowering health care costs to make American businesses more competitive.
-He does not support funding for abstinence-only education programs abroad for HIV prevention.
I really think it is as simple as Biden. Sure, I don't agree with him on everything. But the thing is, he is reasonable. He is not a leader that makes decisions from the gut. While he may not inspire us like Obama, make us scared/protected like Guiliani, have the heroics of McCain, the perfectly crafted image of Hillary or Romney, the faith of Huckabee, or the personability and looks of Edwards, or the fierce freedom philosophy of Paul, he is the logical and solid choice for president.
It really is simple. Don't jut vote for someone because they are popular and can win. Vote for who you trust to be President.
Look here , here or here for examples of what it would be like to actually be proud of the person who leads your country.
What happened when we shunned the reasonable candidate (Gore) for the feel good president? We ended with Iraq, Katrina, economic slowdown, eroding competitiveness, hatred of America, ballooning health care costs.
Vote for a President who will bring reason to the most serious job in the world.
If you go with Hillary because she's electable, and the Republican machine takes her down, and then a terrible Republican gets elected, we will ask ourselves:
Why didn't we just go with Biden?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)