4.27.2007
The Police State Flexes...
If you have ever given a damn about free speech rights, artistic license, and rational decision-making by school administrators and the police, read this story.
So apparently this student in the suburbs wrote a "disturbing" essay that involved a school shooting, a subject which coincidentally has been in the news lately. This student did not specify any intent to commit a crime such as a assaulting or killing anyone, and intended the essay to be a joke, based on the "free writing" assignment he had been given by his teacher. A joke in bad taste? Maybe. But that should not lead to an arrest!
We have to expend police resources on investigating this? The cops say that "we need to be very vigilant today when we’re dealing with school settings." Or... we could use common sense and realize that someone writing a free writing essay who doesn't have a history of impulsive, criminal, or otherwise psychiatric problems is probably not prefacing a shooting incident. The hyperreactive police can perhaps be excused for acting on their political instincts and fearing retribution from the reactionary suburban public if they did not arrest this individual. Still, what a sad day for education, free speech, and our deteriorating standards of policing.
In any event, the police state would now have us watch what we write, because if we write a story that contains violence or a messed-up protagonist, apparently we become a threat to society.
So apparently this student in the suburbs wrote a "disturbing" essay that involved a school shooting, a subject which coincidentally has been in the news lately. This student did not specify any intent to commit a crime such as a assaulting or killing anyone, and intended the essay to be a joke, based on the "free writing" assignment he had been given by his teacher. A joke in bad taste? Maybe. But that should not lead to an arrest!
We have to expend police resources on investigating this? The cops say that "we need to be very vigilant today when we’re dealing with school settings." Or... we could use common sense and realize that someone writing a free writing essay who doesn't have a history of impulsive, criminal, or otherwise psychiatric problems is probably not prefacing a shooting incident. The hyperreactive police can perhaps be excused for acting on their political instincts and fearing retribution from the reactionary suburban public if they did not arrest this individual. Still, what a sad day for education, free speech, and our deteriorating standards of policing.
In any event, the police state would now have us watch what we write, because if we write a story that contains violence or a messed-up protagonist, apparently we become a threat to society.
4.07.2007
German Soccer
I was sipping my gin and tonic tonight (heavy on the Bombay Sapphire, mind you) and thinking about how much I respect German soccer. See, culturally, there is some perverse tendency among English announcers (both American and British) to take sides against the Germans, whether it be in the World Cup or just Champion's League matches between German and Italian/Spanish/English squads.
What particularly irks me is that you can be sitting there, watching a match between Bayern Munchen and AC Milan this week -- a big match, mind you, between two powerhouse teams -- and the announcers are just so obviously in favor of the Italian team, Milan. I mean, the game is tight at 2-1 (Milan winning) towards the very end and the announcer is already declaring Nesta, a Milan player, the player of the match. Then BAM! Bayern scores with seconds left in stoppage time, and it is 2-2, a huge upset for Milan. Too bad the announcer barely registers the significance of this. In any event, I was pissed. This seems to always happen when you catch games with German teams playing non-German teams. What I would not give for a German announcer!
And at the World Cup this past summer, none of the big commentators expected the Germans to do very well, even though it was in Germany! Unfortunately for the lowered expectations crowd, Germany went on to finish Third, trouncing -- nay, destroying -- Portugal, the team of the ever-popular Christiano Ronaldo (who is highly overrated). That's right, Germany did better than Brazil.
I just think that German players are some of the least self-satisfied, harder working players in the world, unlike the overrated Brazilians, the diving Spaniards, or the dirty-playing Italians. I've no beef with the English, other than that their national squad cannot play for the life of them right now. If I had a good picture of me in my official German team jersey, I think I would post it. For now, you will have to settle for this...
What particularly irks me is that you can be sitting there, watching a match between Bayern Munchen and AC Milan this week -- a big match, mind you, between two powerhouse teams -- and the announcers are just so obviously in favor of the Italian team, Milan. I mean, the game is tight at 2-1 (Milan winning) towards the very end and the announcer is already declaring Nesta, a Milan player, the player of the match. Then BAM! Bayern scores with seconds left in stoppage time, and it is 2-2, a huge upset for Milan. Too bad the announcer barely registers the significance of this. In any event, I was pissed. This seems to always happen when you catch games with German teams playing non-German teams. What I would not give for a German announcer!
And at the World Cup this past summer, none of the big commentators expected the Germans to do very well, even though it was in Germany! Unfortunately for the lowered expectations crowd, Germany went on to finish Third, trouncing -- nay, destroying -- Portugal, the team of the ever-popular Christiano Ronaldo (who is highly overrated). That's right, Germany did better than Brazil.
I just think that German players are some of the least self-satisfied, harder working players in the world, unlike the overrated Brazilians, the diving Spaniards, or the dirty-playing Italians. I've no beef with the English, other than that their national squad cannot play for the life of them right now. If I had a good picture of me in my official German team jersey, I think I would post it. For now, you will have to settle for this...
Labels: soccer
4.02.2007
Who cares about economic inequality?
(rambling)
I used to get very exercised by the thought of th widening gap between the richest 1% of this country and the poorest 30% (or any variation on those arbitrary percentages). To some degree, I still do: after all, in certain microeconomic situations, wealth is a zero sum game (though not in the aggregate economy, to be certain), and one robber baron's takings is a direct loss to workers' wages and benefits.
But it occurs to me, among many others, that economic inequality itself is nothing to worry about in the abstract. In particular societies, it can be an ill, of course. But the main thing I worry about is how the poor and the working class are doing. If the poor and working class in a country are able to reliably afford adequate shelter, food, clean water, educations for their children, health care, and find jobs if they want them, then that country is doing well, no matter what the inequality gap is. At least that is my judgment. Inequality can be rampant and amazing, but if the basic needs (of health and vocation) are met for pretty much everyone, who cares?
If, on the other hand, the worst-off and the second worst-off (the working class) cannot reliably obtain these things, then it makes a big difference that there are CEOs raking in $100 million or more in a single year for doing the same job that never used to pay that much, with no evidence of a productivity expansion in executive performance to show for it. That is to say, massive executive pay is wildly out of touch with what rational markets should be producing when it has no bearing to actual performance and only exists as a weird insider deal between Boards of Directors and "superstar" CEOs that has developed relatively recently. It has no bearing on actual performance because firms were doing just fine 20 years ago without paying their CEOs ridiculous sums of money relative to what they are now. So far, what it accomplishes is a wealth transfer from productive enterprise (the firm's capital, workers' benefits/pay, shareholder wealth) to CEOs who, while not needing the carrot, will be happy to buy another super-yacht with the money.
The upshot of this rambling is this: In the modern United States, I don't worry so much about executive pay and the widening gap between rich and poor as much as I worry about the health care crisis, horrible inner city and rural poverty, and the viability of having a high mobility middle class. I think the last part is the saddest of all because it is the promise of America: get an education and a job and work 80 hours a week and invest your money and you too could buy a house and go on European vacations. To the extent that high marginal taxes (ironically called "progressive" despite their dampening effects) have created work disincentives and made it difficult to break into this vision of the upper-middle class, our income tax system is a failure. But that is a topic for another day.
As long as there are ways to capture some of these mega-earnings and use it to fund direct transfer tax credits and grants along Milton Friedman lines (the "negative" income tax, et al.) then there is no reason society should not be attempting such transfers. Maybe the best way to do this is with a consumption tax, because I'm skeptical of progressive income taxes and believe them to be both destructive of income mobility and unfair in principle.
. . .
random biblical quotation to end on: "Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. " - Psalms 27:12
I used to get very exercised by the thought of th widening gap between the richest 1% of this country and the poorest 30% (or any variation on those arbitrary percentages). To some degree, I still do: after all, in certain microeconomic situations, wealth is a zero sum game (though not in the aggregate economy, to be certain), and one robber baron's takings is a direct loss to workers' wages and benefits.
But it occurs to me, among many others, that economic inequality itself is nothing to worry about in the abstract. In particular societies, it can be an ill, of course. But the main thing I worry about is how the poor and the working class are doing. If the poor and working class in a country are able to reliably afford adequate shelter, food, clean water, educations for their children, health care, and find jobs if they want them, then that country is doing well, no matter what the inequality gap is. At least that is my judgment. Inequality can be rampant and amazing, but if the basic needs (of health and vocation) are met for pretty much everyone, who cares?
If, on the other hand, the worst-off and the second worst-off (the working class) cannot reliably obtain these things, then it makes a big difference that there are CEOs raking in $100 million or more in a single year for doing the same job that never used to pay that much, with no evidence of a productivity expansion in executive performance to show for it. That is to say, massive executive pay is wildly out of touch with what rational markets should be producing when it has no bearing to actual performance and only exists as a weird insider deal between Boards of Directors and "superstar" CEOs that has developed relatively recently. It has no bearing on actual performance because firms were doing just fine 20 years ago without paying their CEOs ridiculous sums of money relative to what they are now. So far, what it accomplishes is a wealth transfer from productive enterprise (the firm's capital, workers' benefits/pay, shareholder wealth) to CEOs who, while not needing the carrot, will be happy to buy another super-yacht with the money.
The upshot of this rambling is this: In the modern United States, I don't worry so much about executive pay and the widening gap between rich and poor as much as I worry about the health care crisis, horrible inner city and rural poverty, and the viability of having a high mobility middle class. I think the last part is the saddest of all because it is the promise of America: get an education and a job and work 80 hours a week and invest your money and you too could buy a house and go on European vacations. To the extent that high marginal taxes (ironically called "progressive" despite their dampening effects) have created work disincentives and made it difficult to break into this vision of the upper-middle class, our income tax system is a failure. But that is a topic for another day.
As long as there are ways to capture some of these mega-earnings and use it to fund direct transfer tax credits and grants along Milton Friedman lines (the "negative" income tax, et al.) then there is no reason society should not be attempting such transfers. Maybe the best way to do this is with a consumption tax, because I'm skeptical of progressive income taxes and believe them to be both destructive of income mobility and unfair in principle.
. . .
random biblical quotation to end on: "Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. " - Psalms 27:12
Labels: economics rant
4.01.2007
The Book of Job shows the Hebrew God to be Wicked and Petty
Due to a convoluted train of thought, I got to reading the First Chapter of Job today. In my opinion, it makes me completely unimpressed with the Hebrew God (Yahweh), and I cannot understand why I would not prefer to worship a much better God like Odin after reading this. Read Job 1:1-22 here.
Job is a ridiculous story, and makes an even more ridiculous point. God is talking to Satan, and Satan challenges God with regard to his servant Job, saying that if God took from Job all that he possessed, then Job would curse God to his face. God disagrees, obviously, thinking Job to be a faithful servant. So what does God do in response to Satan's tacit wager? The God of the Hebrew Bible allows Satan to destroy the home above Job's children with wind, killing them all. God lets Satan send other tribes to come and take all of Job's animals and slay almost all of Job's servants. Job did nothing to deserve this, and there is no indication that this was bound to happen were it not for God's direct intervention in allowing Satan the power to ruin Job's life. The book does not say a single thing Job had done wrong. In fact, God supposedly allows this to come about as a result of a kind of bet with Satan. And God "wins" the bet, as Job does not curse God but instead prostrates himself before the Lord, praying to him -- this, after God was a party to the slaying of his children without reason and caused his servants and animals to be slain or stolen. How petty is the Hebrew God in this? He allows his faithful servant's entire life to be destroyed to prove a point about how faithful his servant is. This story displays three things to me: Job is a coward for not cursing God for malicious behavior that violates God's own Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill [even to win a bet with Satan]"); the Hebrew God is evil, for he has been a party to murder and theft to prove a point to Satan; and Satan ultimately triumphs here, as Satan basically tricks God into allowing him to commit a bunch of homicides and wreak havok on the life of one of God's most faithful servants. And if you don't believe God is guilty of murder, consider that he was aiding and abetting, by allowing Satan to slay Job's children and servants. I'd prosecute the Hebrew God under any modern penal code in a heartbeat, especially given his obvious power to prevent Satan's murders.
Go ahead, read Job 1:1 yourself and tell me that Odin ever did anything as deliberately evil as what God does to Job.
. . .
On a somewhat redeeming note, Job 21:20 does contain this awesome passage: "His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty."
Job is a ridiculous story, and makes an even more ridiculous point. God is talking to Satan, and Satan challenges God with regard to his servant Job, saying that if God took from Job all that he possessed, then Job would curse God to his face. God disagrees, obviously, thinking Job to be a faithful servant. So what does God do in response to Satan's tacit wager? The God of the Hebrew Bible allows Satan to destroy the home above Job's children with wind, killing them all. God lets Satan send other tribes to come and take all of Job's animals and slay almost all of Job's servants. Job did nothing to deserve this, and there is no indication that this was bound to happen were it not for God's direct intervention in allowing Satan the power to ruin Job's life. The book does not say a single thing Job had done wrong. In fact, God supposedly allows this to come about as a result of a kind of bet with Satan. And God "wins" the bet, as Job does not curse God but instead prostrates himself before the Lord, praying to him -- this, after God was a party to the slaying of his children without reason and caused his servants and animals to be slain or stolen. How petty is the Hebrew God in this? He allows his faithful servant's entire life to be destroyed to prove a point about how faithful his servant is. This story displays three things to me: Job is a coward for not cursing God for malicious behavior that violates God's own Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill [even to win a bet with Satan]"); the Hebrew God is evil, for he has been a party to murder and theft to prove a point to Satan; and Satan ultimately triumphs here, as Satan basically tricks God into allowing him to commit a bunch of homicides and wreak havok on the life of one of God's most faithful servants. And if you don't believe God is guilty of murder, consider that he was aiding and abetting, by allowing Satan to slay Job's children and servants. I'd prosecute the Hebrew God under any modern penal code in a heartbeat, especially given his obvious power to prevent Satan's murders.
Go ahead, read Job 1:1 yourself and tell me that Odin ever did anything as deliberately evil as what God does to Job.
. . .
On a somewhat redeeming note, Job 21:20 does contain this awesome passage: "His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty."
