New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Today, two very interesting revelations have been made about two very different presidential candidates. One was a strange family connection, the other was an announcement that the person would join the race.

Recent genealogical research done by Lynne Cheney for a new book has revealed that the Vice President is indeed related to Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. According to her the two men are 8th cousins and trace their common roots back to an early Maryland settler. A lot has been said about the Bush and Clinton dynasties, but if Barack is on the ticket in ‘08 won’t it be the third straight presidential election with a Cheney on the ticket, too?

The latter news is that Stephen Colbert has stated that he will run for president. He announced this on his show where he enumerated that he would run in both parties primaries, but that he would only be running in his native state of South Carolina. It may be interesting to see how he fares. If you consider that about half of eligible voters do not vote, and that a significant portion of those voters are what we would call cynical, and that moreover Colbert has a very loyal fan base–the type that is known to do anything for their fearless leader–I could imagine a respectable turnout for Colbert. (Think less than Biden but more than Gravel). Then again, I surmise that South Carolina’s isn’t the type of electorate that takes a liking to New York-liberal satire.

Popularity: 38% [?]

On the anniversary of 9/11, young muslim apostates are launching a campaign to make it easier for Muslims to leave Islam–which is considered an offense punishable by death according to Islamic literature. From The Times:

 The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.

Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack…

“Sharia schools say that they will kill the ones who leave Islam. In the West people get threatened, thrown out of their family, beaten up,” Mr Jami said. “In Islam you are born Muslim. You do not even choose to be Muslim. We want that to change, so that people are free to choose who they want to be and what they want to believe in.”

The article’s afternote sites the Koran:

Sura 4: 88-89 reads: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.”

The scary thing is that Europe faces intimidation from Islam even if they do not have the same Islamist governments as in the Middle East. We saw this from the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh, from the massive riots and deaths from the Danish Cartoon controversy, from the (Muslim) youth riots in France, to many other instances. It demonstrates both the growing force of Islam across the world as well as Europe’s tolerance for it.

I do not really see how this amnesty movement for apostates however could work in the Muslim world. Where Sharia’a is present the teachings of the Koran are beyond question. I do however think that Mr. Jami’s campaign is valuable because it points out the danger of Islamic mysticism on a continent where criticizing the religion is politically incorrect (a crime punishable by social ostracizing). There is always a place for people to call out religion when it is used as a political tool; if nobody does so there is no stop to the havoc it can wreak.

Popularity: 65% [?]

From the LA Times, here’s something you don’t see every day:

Nelson is a former corporate executive who can afford to dine at four-star restaurants. But she prefers turning garbage into gourmet meals without spending a cent.

…

Nelson, 51, once earned a six-figure income as director of communications at Barnes and Noble. Tired of representing a multimillion dollar company, she quit in 2005 and became a “freegan” — the word combining “vegan” and “free” — a growing subculture of people who have reduced their spending habits and live off consumer waste. Though many of its pioneers are vegans, people who neither eat nor use any animal-based products, the concept has caught on with Nelson and other meat-eaters who do not want to depend on businesses that they believe waste resources, harm the environment or allow unfair labor practices.

…

Freeganism was born out of environmental justice and anti-globalization movements dating to the 1980s. The concept was inspired in part by groups like “Food Not Bombs,” an international organization that feeds the homeless with surplus food that’s often donated by businesses.

…

Adam Weissman, whose New York group Freegan.info has been around for about four years, lives with his father, a pediatrician, and mother, a teacher. The 29-year-old is unemployed by choice, taking care of his elderly grandparents daily and working odd jobs when he needs to. The rest of his time is spent furthering the freegan cause, he said, which is “about opting out of capitalism in any way that we can.”

Of course their utter disregard for morality and open opposition to the productive process is lamentable, to say the least, but I also must question the label of “wasteful” that they attach to consumerism and capitalist activity.

Economic agents measure their resourcefulness in dollars and cents. Whether they are making more money than they spend represents whether they are producing more than they spend. It’s naive to say it constitutes waste when food is thrown out or plastics aren’t recycled, etc., because that statement lacks economic perspective. Within the full context the food and the other materials that are disposed of are mostly thrown away because that is the most efficient way of dealing with them.

Doubtlessly, it would be far more costly to force people to consume everything they buy or to recycle what they do not consume. Why? Because, in addition to the fact that on an aggregate level the process of recycling is far more costly than garbage disposal, conserving and recycling imposes an added burden on the people whose time and labor it requires.

If the “Freegans” got their way and no one threw out anything there would be far more waste–waste of time and labor–which is far more consequential then the cold cuts that have reached their expiration date.

Hence, we know that the Freegan solution to “waste” would be far more wasteful because of its ridiculous opportunity cost and because it reflects negatively on people’s bottom line. I can be confident that at present people are generally resourceful when allocating all of their because the incentives are there for them to be. If they waste too much of their material wealth than they will live less comfortably, if they waste too much of their time they will make less money, if they waste too much money they will have less to buy. There is general accountability, meaning that people incur the costs and benefits of their habits so they will be less likely to be unproductive and wasteful.

I cannot say the same of freegan socialism.

ADDENDUM: Here is a link I was fed to another environmentalism movement who, although somewhat different, share the same distaste for earthly and material pleasure. They call themselves “vegansexuals”:

These people are now commonly known as vegansexuals. Alongside not eating meat, they are also choosing not to be sexually intimate with non-vegan partners whose bodies, they say, are made up of dead animals.

Its an amusing story. All I can say is that I could think of few romantic habits that could inflict greater misery. (HT: Simmons)

Popularity: 52% [?]

From the AP:

Addressing a town-hall meeting in Iowa, the former New York mayor was asked whether he considered himself a “traditional, practicing Roman Catholic.” An audience member also called on Giuliani to discuss the role his faith played in making decisions on issues such as abortion.

“My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests,” Giuliani said. “That would be a much better way to discuss it. That’s a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am.”

In a political realm where religion is becoming increasingly important to voters, the fact that a major candidate is declining to inject his religious leanings into the debate is encouraging. The rise of religion in politics has greatly affected government, and its influence has become so immense that even the Democrats find themselves pandering to religious voters. Additionally, the rise of evangelical conservatism has corresponded with the rise of big government conservatism which has been a large contributor to the increase in the size of government since the ’80s (and especially under President Bush). It was exactly the religion factor that led Senator Barry Goldwater, Mr. Conservative himself, to become so disenchanted with the Republican Party in his later years.

The problems with religion in politics are manifold and those problems will persist whether or not we go to the particular extreme of establishing a state religion. However the root of those problems can be summed up in the fact that reason is always a better tool for solving such existential problems like issues of government policy that affect hundreds of millions–if not, billions–of people.

Quite frankly, I cannot understand anyone’s rationale for worrying about a candidate’s religious affiliation. Do voters such as the one in Iowa really think that God will favor America more if we elect a President of a certain denomination? The bottom line is that faith and politics make for a dangerous combo while secular politics have proven to result in far greater freedom over the course of history. It is a pleasure to see that at least one candidate for leader of the free world is not trying to prove that he (or she) is the “Jesus candidate”.   

Popularity: 34% [?]

I think that it strange, cruel, and somewhat amusing that Michael Vick was running such a large dog fighting underground. The media has been running wild with the story and it certainly only reiterates Vick’s irresponsiblity and disarray (not unlike his younger brother Marcus’ [and here]). 

A particularly grotesque aspect of the operation–which those who engage in the practice of dog fighting justify by ”natural selection”–is how the dogs which underperformed in fights were punished by torture and execution. This detail leads me to wonder whether Mr. Vick believes that $100 million quarterbacks who underperform in the NFL should be punished, too?

Popularity: 28% [?]

In the HBO series, Big Love (on which I posted the first portion of my thoughts yesterday), the omnipresent problem facing the Hendricksons is hiding their illegal lifestyle (polygamy) from the government, just as it would be if they were a real life family living outside of Salt Lake City today. Which raises another important question, (on a moral and political level) why should their lifestyle be considered illegal–why should polygamists be forcefully discouraged from practicing their sexual, domestic and other such preferences as they see fit?

Here is the historical background: In 1862, the Protestant dominated Republican Party–which had declared polygamy a “relic of barbarism” in their 1854 platform–passed through Congress a law signed by Lincoln making polygamy illegal across the country. Many Mormons fought against this federal policy for years, declaring it a violation of their religious rights, however they gave up this fight by 1890 in order to achieve Utah’s statehood. And while a sect of the religion still chose to practice polygamy against the law, the Mormon Church, on behalf of the vast majority of Mormons who now staunchly oppose plural marriage, wrote “The Great Accommodation” which castigated the practice. Today, the Mormon Church as well as many other Christian denominations form an inpenetrable political lobby which would block any effort to legalize the practice. 

Much of the political opposition is not surprisingly religious, and given the religious impetus of the practice as well as the opposition, one would think that polygamy should be protected by the freedom of exorcise clause of the first amendment.

Additionally, I am led to question why, if gays are legally allowed to practice homosexuality at their own will, should polygamists not be able to practice plural marriage.

Given, just as gays cannot get “married” in the same way that a single man and woman can, it would not be expected that a man could get a marriage license with all X amount of his wives. But it should be expected is that polygamists be able to relate themselves with other people and practice whatever lifestyle they desire so long as they do it on their own volition. Essentially, polygamists should not require special privileges from the government just as gays should not, but they should be able to do whatever the hell they want just as gays are able to do whatever the hell they want with out the government stopping them.

All religious, legal, and cultural mumbo-jumbo aside, the question comes down to this: should the government be able to stop people from living their lives as they wish and interacting with other people as they wish, so long as those people are not coercing others?

The way I see it, that’s what most policy issues come down to at their core; and the answer should always be NO.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am not a Mormon, and I do not plan on practicing polygamy. Call me simple but I’ll be perfectly content with marrying just one woman.

Popularity: 22% [?]

Watching HBO’s Big Love, a fictional series on a polygamist family in Utah, has raised a couple issues in my mind on the social implications of polygamy especially as they relate to America today. The show, now in its second season, portrays a suburban family in Utah that practices plural marriage. In it the male figurehead, Bill Hendrickson (Bill Paxton), a successful owner of a local home improvement retailer called Home-Plus, rediscovers the fundamentalist teachings of Mormonism after practicing monogamy for 12 years and takes on an additional two wives with the approval of his first/legal wife, Barbra.

While the family’s life is hectic and full of commitment, they are genuinely happy and well provided for. And you have to figure that the ability to provide a comfortable standard of life was an attractive quality to Niki and Margene (Bill’s second and third wives) when they chose to marry Bill–especially Margene who had no Mormon, not to mention Polygamist, connections before she met Bill.

The fact of the matter is that when people marry their decision to do so is incentive based, and one of those incentives is wealth. Moreover, so long as marriage is incentive based (be those incentives looks, kindness, humor, values etc.) there will be both a demand and supply aspect of relationships. At face value that may seam a little strange, but then again we live in a society where there is essentially an equal amount of men and women and where most people’s values lead them towards just one person. But in places like the Northern Mariana Islands (which is a US Commonwealth) where the population is only 80,000 and the ratio of males to females is only 77 to every 100 there could be benefits from allowing polygamy. In war ravaged areas like Chechnya (which obviously does not apply to the US) where large numbers of men were killed in war, polygamy could also make sense.

Look at it this way, if demand exceeds supply for men in a given place, it means that the “price” of men also goes up. A higher “price” would mean that the average woman would need to give the average man more incentive to marry him than the other way around. It many also mean that a woman, in order to get a certain man, would be more likely to have to marry a man with a more crowded marital status. Disallowing polygamy in areas such as the Mariana Isles and Chechnya–as any fiscal price ceiling would cause–results in a glut of unmarried women which may only lead to greater unhappiness and more poverty among women. I am not suggesting that polygamy be promoted or forced upon certain domains. Simply, the point is that polygamy would provide certain people with more mobility and choice in marriage.

Now turn the issue on its head and consider a small country like Qatar where much of the population consists of male expatriates, many of them permanent residents. Their male/female ratio, at 182 per every 100, is the definition of “sausage-fest”. There, there is a ridiculous glut of men and the price for women is obviously very high. Now considering the strong Islamic background of the culture, it is very unlikely that any two men would chose to marry the same woman but if you replace the Islamic zeitgeist with something akin to Amsterdam or San Francisco, it would be no surprise to find an emerging impetus for matriarchal polygamy. But still the reality remains that in Qatar, as well as small Arab nations like the UAE and Kuwait, the demand for women far exceeds men and that has economic implications such that women can be far more demanding in their incentive based choices for husbands, or that a man may have to pay a woman’s family to take her hand in marriage (not the traditional dowry which is the other way around).

Going back to incentives, let’s look at the potential for polygamy in another way. Consider individuals who are exceptionally good looking or wealthy or charismatic or the like, surely there are many people who would be willing to share some of the exceptional person rather than have 100% of the best they can get. Take a Tom Cruise for instance (because we all know that he practices strange things like polygamy…or whatever). Mr. Cruise is wealthy, famous, and handsome (according to many women, of course I am not speaking for myself) and there are probably scores of women who would settle for being one of his wives in exchange for whatever unusual pleasure surrounds being Cruise’s wife. Or imagine simply a very wealthy person, there are certainly many people who would rather have a quarter of a billionaire than a whole of a person with a modest income.

The goal of looking at polygamy from this point of view is to recognize that by giving people choice and allowing the “love market” to find its equilibrium, the likelihood of people finding happiness is optimized. Obviously, the vast majority of people would never choose polygamy in accordance to their personal values, but for those who polygamy may be a good choice for it is practical to give them the option to explore that avenue. 

Popularity: 16% [?]

In the past, the Live ___ concerts have been hugely successful. Both, Live Aid and Live 8, have had a clear purpose in mind: raise money to either pay off debt or help to feed starving children. Al Gore, however, utilized his well-publicized Live Earth to “kick start a global movement” to react to global warming. Not everyone agrees with global warming, and there are certainly ways to persuade individuals to look at scientific backup in its favor.

Is a concert, however, the best way? After briefly attending the Washington, DC gathering at the National Museum of the American Indian and watching bits and pieces of the concert on TV, I can conclusively say that it’s most definitely not. Although it was the most watched webcast ever, it was not very well attended at the various locations throughout the world. Furthermore, would an anti-global warming activist attend or watch the concert? Short snippets between musical acts were dedicated to global warming lessons, most of which were ridiculously stupid.

The LA Times and several other sites point out some interesting facts about the concert, showcasing the hypocrisy of many of its participants. LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg sums up the concert perfectly:

considering the energy required to put on the show, the nine Live Earth concerts doubtlessly raised more CO2 than awareness. NBC’s three-hour televised version got trounced by “Cops” and “America’s Funniest Home Videos.” Moreover, surely most of the people who attended or tuned in already knew about global warming before they saw the video tutorial about Ed Begley Jr.’s eco-friendly home and sanctimony-powered go-cart.

While I appreciate Gore’s efforts in attempting to help to solve the global warming problem, it’s difficult not to view much of this global warming “awareness” as hypocrisy as well.  I’m not a staunch global-warming observer, but I don’t refuse to acknowledge that it exists either.  Gore’s excellent film “An Inconvenient Truth” provides some excellent facts and justification for his claims.  Regardless of global warming’s existence, Gore should have realized the impropriety his concert practiced.  Why hold a concert railing against a problem you’re claiming to solve?

Popularity: 61% [?]

“Allahu Akhbar” comes the cry almost simultaneously from dozens of buildings across the Gaza Strip. This isn’t, however, just any other call to prayer in the Palestinian territories. Instead, militants from Hamas are celebrating the “liberation” of Palestine. Hamas declared an almost immediate victory as their forces steamrolled over the Fatah, their more moderate political opponents. Claims Hamas, today is the”second liberation of the Gaza Strip, this time from the herds of collaborators.” Hamas, somewhat deluded, believes they vanquished Israeli forces in 2005 and will proceed to crush their Fatah opponents in 2007.

For Hamas, 2007 is the year of government. In early 2006, Hamas won a majority in some of the West Bank and Gaza’s first democratic elections (although the results and methods of polling were contested). The government was controlled partially by Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, and the leader of Fatah. In recent years, Abbas’ voice has spoken for moderate Palestians, those who seek to live with peace and tranquility instead of war and destruction. It seems as if, at last, the voice of moderation has been drowned out. This week’s onslaught against Fatah makes the organization seem almost saintly, at least in comparison to Hamas.

Hamas has finally removed the last bastion against an Islamic government, leading the way to a country based strictly on Sharia law. International news coverage, however, barely begins to scratch the surface. Hamas’ attacks aren’t just an attack on Fatah. Instead, they’re the final strokes in an operation that began years ago. With this victory, Hamas has the opportunity to turn the Palestinian territories into a state run with an iron fist, quieting dissent and punishing protesters.What the majority of individuals fail to notice is that Palestine has been this way for years. The territory, once a well-governed section of the prosperous nation of Israel, has seen significant deterioration in recent years. The region has erupted into civil unrest dozens of times since the Israeli withdrawal. The government, despite appearences, held no real power in the territory anyway. The government’s most important ability, that to negotiate with other countries, seems to have been squandered as key fights between Hamas and Fatah (politically, this time, not violently) bogged down the Palestinian legislative authority.

While the government was busy attempting to compromise, the violent thugs of Hamas and Islamist organizations scattered across the West Bank and Gaza gave the regions a constant feeling of chaos. Since Israel pulled out, Palestinian citizens have lived in constant fear, not quite sure who to support in the neverendnig war for power. Support Fatah when they’re popular, and you may fnid yourself executed as soon as Hamas rises to power. What’s more, the situation in the Palestinian territories truly shows how incapable the region is of properly governing itself. Since Israel’s withdrawal, the areas have been provided with constant Israeli and US aid in an effort to push the Palestians to greater world understanding and tolerance. When it was clear that these efforts were in vain, the US and Israel continued their policy, paying more attention to the people than their beliefs and politics.

Palestine has been given endless opportunities for growth. The country’s not an independent nation, but that may very well work to its benefit. As a part of Israel, citizens receive the opportunity to commute to major Israeli cities to work at jobs not available in Palestinian territories. Were the country independent, regional change, not just civil war, would result. Neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan would feel reprocussions as well. In this instance, however, Israel may end up being Palestine’s saving grace. Israel has an obligation to promote peace and equality in all territories, even if the territories they strive to protect often attack them (see the intifada, etc.).

Israel, argues Liz, should not piece together an international force to bring peace to the Palestinian territories. As Ryan so eloquently noted, Israel is not in the wrong here. Over the past fifty year, they have time and time again demonstrated their ability to effectively run a government. Currently, Israel stands as a world pioneer in numerous markets and boasts one of the most developed markets in the Middle East. Liz claims the intrusions of Israel into Palestine, an area of their own country, is preventing progress in the region. The fault, however, is not Israel’s. Palestine has been given dozens of opportunities to reform and exist peacefully with the rest of the world. Instead, they have chosen violence and destruction.

At this stage, it’s too early to tell if Hamas’ victory will be permanent. The violence in the Palestinian territories has brought a new meaning to political dissent. Palestinians loyal to Fatah are being executed in droves, and Hamas has begun targeting key Fatah leaders to dismantle the opposition from the top. Palestine clearly does not understand the concept of democracy. Hamas purports that they, finally, have given a voice to the Palestinian majority, but instead of ruling a government, they are smothering any chance for an equitable and fair governmental arrangement in Palestine.

Interesting Link: A Palestinian-written editorial in YNetNews provides an interesting perspective on Israeli-Palestinian relations in light of the current conflict

Popularity: 49% [?]

As a first generation immigrant, I see America as a land of double standards. Here are a few of the more prominent problems that I see in today’s society.

Females are allowed to discriminate against males and even advocate their total destruction as a gender, but males aren’t allowed to, vice versa.

We provide free tuition to illiterate, illegal immigrants, while in the meantime middle-class educate legal immigrants from Europe, Asia, and Africa are having enormous amounts of trouble trying to fill out all the paperwork, plus they have to pay large fees that may be for naught.

Calling someone a racist is now as offensive as some racist words.

We keep mentioning about a jury of our peers, yet doctors keep getting screwed over by malpractice suits because their “peers” are actually those of their victim.

We keep trying to ban guns because people use them to commit crimes. I bet that if everybody in a store/plane/school had a gun, there would be a lot less killing sprees.

We keep crying out about seperating church and state, and yet we forbid stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution.

We advocate how the family should be the most important unit in a society, and yet we keep regulating not only how the family can be created, but we do a parent’s job for them.

We try to help people in other nations with financial aid, while we also have the world’s largest national debt and an incredibly poor healthcare insurance system, as well as Social Security.

We pride ourselves on being a democracy, and yet we give a lot of power to appointed officials that did not win a single vote, but pulled the right strings.

We prosecute foreign scientists regularly, even if they’re not guilty, and yet we let all sorts of drug dealers slip under our noses.

Finally, here’s a personal anecdote, about how minorities are elevating themselves above the majority, whether they know it or not.

I was talking with one of my cousins, who was a vice president in a biotech firm. He mentioned how the company was forced to hire janitors from different underrepresented minorities. So they hired one, and this janitor, being illiterate, managed to walk through THREE LINES OF DECONTAMINATION with alarms going off and all sorts of warning signs, and failed to pay attention. He then proceeded to enter the lab, and contaminated and destroyed $50,000 worth of property. The kicker? The company wasn’t allowed to fire him because he was a minority.

This is just one of the reasons why serious change needs to be implemented in our country.

Popularity: 34% [?]