Great Video

It's All Relative

What do people want? It’s a broad question that could spur a discussion well beyond the confines of a single blog post. There is one succinct answer to this question which highlights a disturbing aspect of the political noise coming from conservative America. Before getting to that, let’s set a scene we all know well . . .

Waiting in line. We’ve all done it. So, it’s not difficult to imagine yourself waiting in line. For purposes of illustration lets imagine you’re in line for movie tickets. Your happiness in the moment will likely depend on the speed of the line. Even if you are very patient when it come to lines, spending 5 minutes in line is better than 30 minutes. So let’s say you spend 15 minutes in line. Now your happiness has been adjusted down by a set amount equivalent to spending 15 minutes in a line. That’s probably not really an adjustment at all. You, like most people, will be about as happy as you were when you started waiting in line.

So now let’s add to the scenario. Instead of one line for movie tickets, there are four. Four separate lines, and you pick one at random. Now imagine standing in line while three other lines move toward the same goal: precious movie tickets. This time, your line whizzes by, while the other three lines stand relatively still. That feels pretty good. So if your speedy line still takes 15 minutes, you’re probably a bit happier at the end than you were in the single line scenario.

But what if, and you know where I’m going by now, your line moves like molasses. It seems that every person ahead of you line contemplate for ages on which movie to see, and then decides to pay in pennies dug from the bottoms of their pockets. You’re line still takes 15 minutes. 15 agonizingly long minutes while the other three lines move forward with a steady efficiency. We’ve all been there. It’s frustrating.

So in all three scenarios you wait in line for 15 minutes. It’s the same result. And yet the emotional reaction to each scenario will be dramatically different.
So what do people want? One of many answer is that people want to be better off than other people. It’s hard wired into our very being. We’d like to think that we want that line to move quickly. But, when it comes down to it, we’re pleased if our line moves faster than everyone else’s line.

It’s a disturbing reality that poisons a lot of political discourse on government benefits, wealth and employee benefits.

The Republican Party is largely the party of privilege. White Christian men trying to hold onto the privilege afforded to them by the nature of their position. Privilege is really just a stand in for doing better than others. Even a poor man is master of his wife. Even an uneducated white person can look down upon the immigrant.

So much of the Republican Party rhetoric seems to be about slowing down other people’s lines. About taking away food stamps, or benefits, or retirement. This message taps into something deep and dark within people.

Unfortunately it isn’t an easy message to counter. It takes clarity of purpose and reason that isn’t always easy to communicate.

The difference is the difference between hearing that a retired California government worker is living on a six figure retirement income and thinking “why does he get all that” versus thinking “why don’t more workers get that”

Interesting Things

Sometimes when I am crawling through the tubes of the interwebs I encounter an article that I think would be great for this blog. One course of action would be to post that article onto the blog. An entirely different, and perfectly valid, course of action is to leave that particular tab open until there is time to post the article later. This way I will have time to think of insightful and interesting commentary to go along with the post.

On what might be a slightly related note, the top of my current browser window is a jammed full of tiny unreadable tabs. So now I'm going to dump on give you these wonderful and interesting links. Here we go:

Sometimes People Hate Science:

Here is a long, insane video on why the earth is not rotating on its axis. Fortunately the video is accompanied by a short summary of the highlights. The summary of the summary is that a guy made a 30 minute video to explain how the earth is not actually rotating on its axis. This video was made in order to prove that the bible is accurate when it states "the earth is absolutely not moving." (citation needed . . .)

This video is a particularly extreme example of someone trying to defend religion from the evil of science. There's a sad irony in these attempts, as they are founded in a depressing lack of faith and divinity. A very smart and scientifically savvy Christian I know summarized the way anti-science Christians undermine their own faith with these arguments with a simple quote:

God is not afraid of science

Separate from the religious motivation for the video, the video itself raises a cool science question: how do we know the earth is rotating on its axis? I mean, we can kind of see it from outer space, or we can see that other planets are rotating and assume that earth is rotating as well. But, in space, all motion is relative. Is it possible that the earth is perfectly still in space and everything else in the universe is spinning around use in a zany way, making it appear that the earth is rotating? While the relative nature of motion is a fun though experiment, the answer is still no. We can actually measure the earth's rotation very simply using something called Foucault Pendulum. Click the link, it's cool stuff.

It Really is about Keeping Women in the Kitchen

This is a great short article arguing that birth control is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. The basic notion is that without reliable birth control women were always second class citizens, and men could claim that it was a requirement of biology. In fact, men still claim this, even with reliable birth control. The article argues that the hard line against birth control is a recognition that it allows women to break the shackles of a sexist society. Now, we're seeing a backlash against contraception itself by organization steeped in traditional male authority, like the Catholic Church.

The point that birth control may be the most important invention of the 20th century, and yet it's something that the reader (and myself) has never seen on a list of great invention of the 20th century is fascinating. Birth control has fundamentally changed a social dynamic that has existed as long as humans. What we're seeing now in politics (and yes, I include the debate over choice and abortion) is the fight over the dramatic social shift that comes from gender equality.

Humor Break

Politics is depressing. Watch these amazing cat gifs for a break.

Romney As Sociopath?

Cruelty to animals is something that connects on an emotional level in a way that cruelty to humans often does not. It's why the story about Romney's family dog, Seamus, is the kind of story that sticks. It is likely to stick to Romney as an indication of his uncaring nature, even more than his quote about not caring about the very poor (because they already have a safety net).

The summary is that when his family moved, he put the dog in a carrier and strapped it to the roof of the car. At some point during the drive the dog shat itself. Romney hosed it off at a rest stop and kept going. Ever practical. It demonstrates a certain heartlessness that fits with the image of Romney as a rich calculating machine. There are indications that this story will continue to linger:

Here is a humorous web video which pokes at the issue.

Gingrich even used the issue in one of his ads.

Oh, Santorum . . .

You didn't think you were going to get out of this link dump post without a healthy dose of Santorum did you? It feels like he spews crazy faster than even the internet can keep up. Here's the small sampling that ended up on my tab bar:

Rick Santorum needs to be President to counter the influence of Satan. Even more than the Satan stuff though, this article points out a Santorum quote that could cause more damage to his campaign than any of the crazy that he's spewed out:

of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

When your run for President relies entirely on turnout among protestant evangelicals, in might not be a good idea to say that they aren't Christians .. .

Santorum may want to remove the plank from his own eye before worrying about the splinters in the eyes of American Protestants, seeing as review of tax returns has revealed that he gives a minuscule fraction of his significant income to charity. Many people would say that a foundation of Christian belief is charitable donation, especially when churches count as charities for such giving (Which I believe represents a huge part of Romney's significant giving).

Of course we know that being the "Christian" candidate in today's politics isn't about being kind to others, forgiveness, or giving. It's about trying to turn the clock back to a time before the United States provided any services or legal protections to anyone. So Santorum is putting forward his conservative chops by attacking that scourge upon humanity: public education. If you don't have the stomach for the whole article, here's the money quote:

"Yes, the government can help, but the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic."

(Aside from schools for the children of military personnel, the federal government does not actually operate schools. Most U.S. schools are supported primarily by state or local funding, or a combination of the two.)

Santorum said the public education system was an artifact of the Industrial Revolution, "when people came off the farms where they did home school or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools."

Not as Conservative as It Seems

Conservatives make a lot of noise in our society. The noise itself can be fairly frightening, but it's important to remember that polls continually demonstrate that the populace is not nearly as stupid or conservative as the echo chamber makes it seem. Unfortunately, the importance of voting turn out, and the primary system, tend to make politicians more extreme than the generally populace. A recent poll in Virginia indicates once again, that where the state government is doing crazy things, the people who live there are far more moderate in their positions on these issues.

This is the worst thing

There is an amazing bevy of conservative commentators in the United States who say really messed up stuff. So it's really something when I come across something that is so horrible, so shockingly callous, as to leave me truly stunned.

Liz Trotta, from Fox News (where else), has really set a new standard. The executive summary of her comments is that women in the United States military should expect to get raped by their fellow soldiers, and spending money on trying to prevent these rapes is the epitome of government waste. If that upsets you as much as it should, be warned, video and quotes to follow:

TROTTA: ...just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And the sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it's strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.

And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. Let me just read something to you from McClatchy Newspapers about how much this position on extreme feminism is costing us. "The budget for the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 2010. Total Defense Department spending on sexual assault prevention and related efforts now exceeds $113 million annually." That's from McClatchy Newspapers.

So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.

SHAWN: Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary --

TROTTA: That's funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.

It's hard to muster any kind of response to this. After calming down slightly, and trying to imagine a place where this kind of 'commentary' needs any response at all, I would think that if one was upset about needing to spend millions to prevent sexual assault within our military that person would be upset that people are getting raped and harassed in the first place.

Also, Fox News is a joke. The next time anyone tries to suggest that it's anything anyone should ever watch I'm going to send them this clip.

Real Republican Candidates Preparing for Future

The 2012 Republican Primary has been a parade of political punchlines in the form of "candidates." Liberals would like to believe that it is the state of the Republican Party which as forced them into this terrible condition. That is likely at least partially true. However, the reality is that the real dangerous candidates in the party have decided to sit 2012 out. I think it's pretty clear they don't want to run against Obama in a year where it looks like the economy will continue to improve up to election day. So they can afford to wait until 2016.

One of these candidates appears to have an awareness of how quickly the gay rights debate is moving, and what that political landscape will like in four years. Governor Christie has appointed a gay man to the state supreme court.

It's a move that doesn't force him to come out of the closest to his party as not a bigot. But, in four years, when he's running for President, it will give him cover on this issue. He will be able to claim during the general election, that he always believed in whatever level of rights he is proposing as part of his platform (something calculatingly moderate, like believing gay marriage and adoption is a question of states' rights, and that the federal government shouldn't be involved at all).

I think this news story demonstrates that smart politicians know full well where the gay rights debate is headed, and how fast it's getting there. Now that Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed, and absolutely none of the world ending scenarios predicted by the conservatives have come to pass, the credibility of the anti-rights individuals is evaporating quickly.

When we're told that gay marriages, or gay parents, will result in a world where cats chase dogs and babies steal our candy, it will be even less believable than it already was.

Smart politicians like Christie know this, and they know they need to plan for the future.

Swingrich

I knew Dan Savage would summarize the Gingrich "open marriage" story perfectly:

Technically you're not asking your wife for an open marriage if you've already been fucking another woman for six years. You're presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn't make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.

CPOS means Cheating Piece of Shit for any non Savage literate readers.

Definition of Swingrich:

"Swingrich" is a CPOS masquerading as a swinger/polyamorous person. "I thought he was ethically nonmonogamous but he was just a swingrich."

Return America's Prosperity Act

Why isn't a Democrat proposing a bill which would return us to 1995-96 tax levels?

Would it pass? Of course not. But it would be a way to constantly remind people that the last time we had economic prosperity in this country was after a Democratic President broke the back of an intransigent hyper conservative Republican Congress.

It's the sort of thing I expected from Al Franken when he was elected.

Politics as a Game

The fact that the new Majority Leader is being asked political horse-race questions, and not about policy, got me thinking about the political 'game'.

When I was in Middle School some friends of mine tried to invent a strategy role-playing game. Part of the premise is that the players would act like ancient demi-gods, building worlds in competition with other demi-god characters, like mythological ancient Greece. The game was pretty fun for a group of creative 12 year olds, but there turned out to be a structural flaw in the game: it was much easier to destroy than it was to create.

This was a product of us trying to be realistic. The reality is that in the world it is easier to destroy than it is to create. As a result we have to create artificial costs for destroying things. It's pretty easy to burn a house down, but then we send you to jail. It's not something we usually think about, but if burning a house down somehow cost more than building a house (and filling it with stuff), then arson wouldn't be a problem.

But, the game my friends created was about demi-gods, there were basically no repercussions, there were no higher ups to enforce a set of rules. This was because whoever was 'winning' was the de facto higher up.

The problem in the game wasn't discovered for awhile. Several of us played the game in good for quite some time. Focusing on building cities, continents and worlds. That was, after all, the 'purpose' of the game. But, eventually we added new players, and a couple of these new players identified the 'flaw.' They didn't try to create anything at all, they only focussed on destruction, and it was impossible to compete. The end result was they 'won', but I'm not really sure what they won, because we all just stopped playing the game.

It seems to me that we face this in today's politics. Like the rest of the world, it is easier to destroy political ideas than it is to create them. It's no mystery why the Republicans refused to propose a health care law of their own during the Obamacare debate. Some of use seemed to hope that there would be repercussions for these tactics. That a refusal by the right wing noise machine to create anything would eventually cost them something. This is because we are used to our world operating this way, like the arson example. However, the political scenario is more akin to my childhood game. Because the winners get the set the rules.

If destroying things gets you tv ratings and political seats, then who will administer the repercussions? Not the media, because it's best strategy is also to destroy. Not the politicians, they also should be destroying.

I could run a rant about how people should do this, or need to do that, but I'm trying not to end political thoughts with a generic desire that the world needs to be different. Instead, we should consider what structural changes might solve these problems. What policy do we implement in order to encourage policy creation?

One idea is to require more from the minority in the form of bill proposals. I'm not sure why both parties in Congress shouldn't be required to propose a budget.

A second idea I have been pondering is the possibility of bracket style policy decision making. What if some policy decisions were made as a decision between A and B, instead of between A and nothing. One possible way this could work is through a series of brackets. Congress decides on a particular issue like Healthcare. Political bodies propose eight main healthcare bills, after consideration. Then these bills are voted on as competing alternatives, in a series of votes, that works like a tournament.

Clearly, this couldn't be used in every case, but I think serious political gridlock requires a re-thinking of some aspects of the system. It's pretty clear that a group of people have figured out the flaws in 'politics'. One of those flaws is that you can sit back and attack without any genuine repercussion.

Negotiating with Republicans