Political Madness

The crazy right is out in force in the US. The "tea party" protests are ugly and getting uglier. Here is a bit from a report in the Huffington Post:

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

If you look at the pictures accompanying the article you can see how insane the right has become. It makes the right wing nuts of the 1950s and early 1960s look down right genteel and sane.

Nicholas Wade's "The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved & Why It Endures"

This is a good read. It takes a serious look at an scientific explanation of the religious phenomenon as well as a review of the historical development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It treads an interesting line between those who would repudiate religion and those who are in thrall to a specific religious viewpoint. It tries very hard to be accurate and fair. And of course this book will be attacked on all sides. It is a tough subject and the partisans on every side are fierce and nobody wants to compromise. Consequently, I enjoyed it.

I felt the book did a modest but not compelling look at evolutionary psychology and the genetic basis of religion. But I'm willing to admit there hasn't been a lot of solid research, so it is understandable that the author reports less than what I would like to hear.

I was pleasantly surprised in the section where he looked at the historical development of the religions. He was stronger in pointing out the myth-making behind all three religions than you normally encounter. I was especially interested in his discussion of Islam because he presented a viewpoint that was new to me: that Mohammed was not a historical person but a concoction after the fact based on a misreading of slogans used by the Jewish/Christian sects that gave rise to Islam. His discussions of the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock and the claim that Abd al-Malik and a radical interpretation of the ruler Abd al-Malik:

In defining a unitary creed for Arab Christianity, 'Abd al-Malik seems to have reached back to this early Syriac tradition of Jesus as a plain human prophet and used it to oppose the Trinitarian approach of Hellenistic Christianity. In the "Praise Jesus" motto he put on his coins and in his great building, the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, he referred to Jesus, the revisionists say, as the "messenger of God."

Thus in Arabic, 'Abd al-Malik's unifying motto about Jesus was rendered as muhammadun rasul allah -- 'The messenger of God is to be praised." Muhammadun is a gerundive, meaning "one who should be praised." rasul is "messenger" and allah is "God."

To anyone with a passing knowledge of Islam, this is a central phrase of the faith and has an entirely different meaning -- "Muhammad is the messenger of God."

What proof is there that 'Abd al-Malik meant rasul allah to refer to Jesus? The proof, say the revisionists, is unambiguous and is provided by the inscriptions that 'Abd al-Malik had written inside the Dome of the Rock, "Allahum salli ala rasulika wa 'abdika isa ibn maryam -- God bless your messenger and servant, Jesus son of Mary" states the text on the inner northwest-north face of the octogaonal arcade. The inner, east-southeast face includes the words, "Inma I-masih isa ibn maryam rasulu llah -- For the Messaiah Jesus, son of Mary, is the messenger of God."

This was all new to me. Wade admits this is a radical and very much a minority viewpoint, but it is extremely interesting. My guess is that since studies in this area have been repressed this interpretation will gain strength as more scholars investigate it.

The book is thought-provoking and well worth reading. For me, the following snippet wraps up the position Wade takes:

A central problem facing the three monotheisms has arisen from their claims to historicity. These helped recruit believers when the religions were starting to grow. But the price began to be paid when the textual analysis of the nineteenth century uncovered the composite nature of the sacred texts and when Darwin's theory undermined most of what religion had to say about the nature of life. Scholars like Wellhausen showed that the Old and New Testaments were the works of many human hands, and so seemed less likely to have been divinely inspired. Modern archaeology has provided substantial evidence that there was no exodus from Egypt and no conquest of the promised land: the Israelites had always lived in Canaan. The great patriarchs of Israel belonged to legend, not to history. Jesus was a historical figure, but an orthodox Jew who probably sought to reformulate Judaism, not found a new religion; Christianity was developed by his followers from an artful blend of Judaism and the mystery cults that had penetrated the Roman world. As for Muhammad, there is a strange paucity of independent historical evidence about his life; some scholars doubt whether he lived in the Hijaz, where Islamic texts locate him, and a few wonder if he lived at all.

Does it matter that each of the three monotheisms asserts a historical basis not wholly in accordance with the textual and archaeological facts? In many ways it does not matter. Religion is about symbolic communication. The sacred texts of the three monotheisms include themes that symbolize the values and traditions of each religion. Their longevity is a testament to their emotional truth and their enduring value for the civilization constructed around them.

The book is well worth your time. Give it a read!

Here is a NY Times Book Review by Judith Shulevitz.

Here is an very thorough review by Razib Khan on ScienceBlogs.

Funny Business

Here's a bit from an article in the Guardian newspaper reporting on some Canadian psychological research:

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.

The pair found that those in their study who bought green products appeared less willing to share with others a set amount of money than those who bought conventional products. When the green consumers were given the chance to boost their money by cheating on a computer game and then given the opportunity to lie about it – in other words, steal – they did, while the conventional consumers did not. Later, in an honour system in which participants were asked to take money from an envelope to pay themselves their spoils, the greens were six times more likely to steal than the conventionals.

I've always found it odd that people with a "holier than thou" attitude can be quite mean. I was not aware of "compensatory ethics".

Here is the original study.

If you are curious about "applied ethics" and contemporary issues in "compensatory ethics". Here is a dissertation on the topic by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon:

CBSSports.com contacted me last week. I assume they thought of me because I'm so sporty. They have a web service that lets you watch live college basketball games, on demand, during March Madness. The web page wisely includes a Boss Button that allows viewers to switch to a business-looking screen when footsteps approach. They asked if I would be willing to design a page that cleverly looks like legitimate work from a medium distance, and yet is clearly a joke up close.

My first reaction was one of righteous indignation. How could they expect me to be a party to wholesale theft of employee productivity? In an era when bankers and CEOs are looting the country, it was time for an honest man to come forward and say, "Enough!"

At some point, a dollar amount was mentioned, and I realized that the person who manufactures a hammer isn't at fault if someone uses it to slay a suburban family who, for all you know, had it coming. All I would be doing is designing a simple web page; I wouldn't be forcing anyone to watch incredibly exciting basketball games during work while getting paid at the same time. I call that free will, which I have been told is a good thing.

I agreed to the deal, but a tiny voice in the back of my mind kept pointing out that a hammer has many legitimate uses, whereas a Boss Button can only be used for evil. I knew that this tiny voice was either coming from my conscience, or from my dog who had suddenly learned to speak. I checked my e-mail to remind myself how much I was getting paid, yelled at the dog to stop talking, and got to work.

If you're curious about the outcome, check it out at mmod.ncaa.com. And don't blame me if the stock market crashes in March. If I hadn't designed that Boss Button page, someone else would have. And it might have been Ziggy.

As you can tell, Dilbert... I mean Scott... is a victim of "compensatory ethics".

Good Advice

Here's some simple, but good and useful advice from Tal Ben-Shahar:

Political Theory

If you like to get your political theory from cartoonists, here's the latest speculation by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon:

I have a hypothesis that people instinctively want to be led by whoever has the most energy. Sometimes that energy manifests itself in fiery speeches, Hitler being a good example. Winston Churchill was famous for only needing 5-6 hours of sleep per day, and working his staff late into the night. You often hear about how much energy American presidents have for jogging, chopping wood, or campaigning. In Russia, Putin likes to be photographed with his shirt off, wrestling with bears and whatnot. French Presidents have enough energy to run the country and satisfy mistresses without missing a beat. I'll bet you could take any two candidates for president, ask registered voters which one seems to have the most energy, and the survey would predict the winner.

You might say that energy is only one of several necessary traits that a leader needs. Perhaps Churchill's lack of sleep had more to do with his workload than his energy level. Maybe the candidate who has the most energy can shake hands and kiss babies for more hours each day, and it's the campaigning that makes the difference. But I give you Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and any other bat shit crazy leader with an IQ of 90, scary hair, and nothing much else going for him but lots of insane energy. Energy attracts followers, even when it isn't backed up by anything else.

The same theory of energy is probably true for the popularity of celebrities. The other day I found myself in a discussion with friends about what makes Paris Hilton so popular with some people, and so reviled by others. I think the difference has to do with your perception of how much energy she puts into her work. If you think she's just a lucky rich girl, coasting through life with the help of handlers, you probably have a low opinion of her. If you think that being Paris Hilton is probably a huge amount of work, and she's running her own show, and calling all the shots, you might have a high opinion of her. In other words, if you think she's a person with lots of energy, you like her more than if your impression is that she has low energy.

You've seen what happens when an energetic person enters a room. It raises everyone's energy level, and a boost of energy always feels good. Humans are imitators. When someone yawns, we yawn. When someone laughs, it puts us in a good mood. When someone is a downer, we feel down. A leader probably does little more than convey a sense that he has a lot of energy himself, which boosts the energy levels of everyone who gets that message. We like the feeling of energy, so we keep the leader in power so we'll see more of him. We're all energy junkies, and our leaders are pushers.

His argument has superficial plausibility. But like most things in life, reality is very complex and there are a lot of factors that go missing when you cherry-pick your examples or dress them up to sell your viewpoint. The different between armchair speculation and real science is that infamous 90% perspiration so talked about. You know. What makes a genius? The answer is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. The part missing in Adam's research is the 90% perspiration.

That said, it is fun to speculate. The trick is to remember that it is only speculation. The real scientists in the crowd will take this, work it up into a theory, then do the hard work of crafting experiments to test aspects of the theory.

US Financial Regulation Bill

Here is a bit from the FireDogLake blog site on Senator Dodd's new financial regulation bill:

Copies of the “American Financial Stability Act of 2010″ summary and legislation are out, as well as a transcript of Chairman Dodd’s prepared statement. And he seems to have picked up some important support: Elizabeth Warren, the brainchild behind the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and a key progressive on financial regulation.

Go to that posting to get links to the underlying documents.

It is very important that Elizabeth Warren is expressing guarded support for this bill. She is someone I trust.

Dean Baker is 'On The Job'

I love Dean Baker. He keeps an eagle eye on the media and points out the inanities that pass for "news". He points out the ignorance that gets past the editor and published. He points out the ideology that prances around as "news".

Here is his latest:

Pension Fund Cashes in Treasury Bonds: AP Screams "Crisis"

Okay, it's not exactly a pension fund, it's the Social Security trust fund that is cashing in some of the government bonds that it holds to pay benefits. This is the way the trust fund was designed to work, but AP somehow cannot find a reporter (or editor) who understands even the most basic facts about Social Security or for that matter Treasury bonds, which get called "IOUs" in the headline and four times in the article. (When GE has its next bond issue, will AP report on the auction of "GE IOUs?")

The whole purpose of building up the trust fund was to help defray the cost of the retirement of the baby boom cohort. This meant that at some point it would be necessary to sell some of the bonds to pay benefits. This has happened somewhat sooner than had previously been predicted due to the economic crisis created by inept policy and Wall Street corruption. It is not clear why anyone should see this as a crisis for Social Security.

The article also includes this non-sequitur:

"Now the government will have to borrow even more money, much of it abroad, to start paying back the IOUs, and the timing couldn't be worse. The government is projected to post a record $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year, followed by trillion dollar deficits for years to come."

Actually, the timing couldn't possibly be better. The government is running a large budget deficit because the economy is in a steep downturn. It is very good that Social Security is continuing to pay benefits without any tax increase. This boosts demand and stimulates the economy. AP reporters should know this.

The article also includes the bizarre assertion that:

"Social Security's financial problems have been looming for years as the nation's 78 million baby boomers approached retirement age. The oldest are already there. As that huge group of people starts collecting benefits — and stops paying payroll taxes — Social Security's trust funds will shrink, running out of money by 2037, according to the latest projection from the trustees who oversee the program."

The fact that the program could face a shortfall in 27 years hardly fits most people's definition of crisis. Social Security also faced a shortfall in 1982. By the AP definition of crisis, it was in crisis at least from 1955. (Actually, it faced shortfalls in earlier years also, so by the AP definition, Social Security has always been in crisis -- giving the term a whole new meaning.)

What a careful reader can glean from this story is that AP doesn't like Social Security. The reality is that Social Security will likely face a modest shortfall in future decades, primarily due to the fact our children are projected to live longer lives than we do. This has been happening throughout the program's existence. There is no reason to believe that AP's Social Security "crisis" will be any more difficult to deal with than shortfalls that arose in prior decades.

If you don't already, you really should read his Beat the Press blog at The American Prospect website.

And a few days earlier, Dean Baker published this on his blog:

The New York Times Doesn't Like Social Security

That is what readers could infer from Jackie Calmes' blognote in which she listed Social Security alongside Medicare and Medicaid as "fast-growing entitlement benefit program." Social Security is projected to grow at a 5.3 percent annual rate over the next decade, only slightly faster than the 4.4 percent projected growth rate of nominal GDP over this period. By comparison, Medicare is projected to grow at a 7.0 percent annual rate.

It is also worth noting that Social Security is funded by a designated tax that is projected to keep the program fully funded until 2044. It appears that the NYT is unaware of the funding mechanism for Social Security. Given this designated tax it would make as much sense to cut Social Security as it would to cut interest payment on government bonds (i.e. default on the government debt), especially since interest is in fact a much more rapidly growing category of entitlement spending.

The reference to Social Security appears in a statement telling readers that: "many economists" are advocating cuts in these programs "to avert a fiscal calamity in the coming decade." It is also worth noting that many economists, citing extensive evidence, ridicule the "many economists" who make assertions about "fiscal calamity" without any evidence to support their position.

I wonder when the American public is going to wake up to the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' story of the right wing ideologues in the US who hate social programs constantly trying to create hysteria in the hopes of destroying these programs.

Here's Naomi Klein on the Right's love of "shock therapy" as their way to shake things up and restructure things to their ideological preferences:



Read her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism