Making Political Philosophy a Science

Ok, so I have an idea, which, though technically possible, is not feasible or plausible. But what the hell, why don't I just throw it out there?
People disagree widely on political philosophies. And I'm talking about the broad picture here, not just republicans and democrats. We've got communists, socialists, fascists, capitalists, anarchists, and many subsets of each of these. Now, despite what you may self-righteously believe, I think there are essentially high quality intelligent arguments for each of these philosophies. I believe, though I'm not certain, that these philosophies ultimately rest on different views of human nature. To take one striking example, capitalists believe humans achieve the most in a competitive society, whereas communists believe humans achieve most when contributing to the greater good. Now that is just one example, of many fundamentally different worldviews. And to my mind, there doesn't seem to be any way to test 'human nature'. But I do have this idea to solve, or at least provide a great amount of evidence for certain political philosophies.
So here is the plan:
We get a bunch of philanthropists and angel investors to give us a TON of money. Billions and billions of dollars. Plus a TON of land. I suppose we could buy northern Canada, where very few people live. Then we get about 100,000 volunteers. Now in my mind, this part would be easy (I'll explain why in a moment). So we divide up the volunteers by their political philosophies, and create like 30 sovereign 'countries' up there in northern Canada. They all start out with the same amount of money; everything else is left up to them. Then we stand back and watch. Give them 50-75 years, and see which societies end up prosperous and which ones fail. Barring any huge oil or other resource find in one of the societies, it seems like a fair deal. Now the volunteer thing would be easy. For the communist country we'd find communists, for the libertarian country we'd throw all the Ron Paul supporters in there, etc.
Again, not feasible. But what better way can you think of to put some science behind our political views? Put real people in a real culture with those policies, and see what happens. Makes enough sense to me.

What Separates Us from Terrorists

When Mukasey was being 'interrogated' before he was sworn in as Attorney General, the big debate, as we can remember, was why he wouldn't admit waterboarding is torture. Republicans (rightly, in my mind) flat out said "Listen, democrats. If you hate waterboarding so much, let's just pass a bill that outlaws it." Now, Mukasey should have said it was torture. He probably shouldn't have been confirmed for not being willing to do so. If anyone can find any example of someone who HAS been waterboarded who claims it isn't torture, I might begin considering changing my mind. But that fact is, out of several folks, Republicans and Democrats, hawks and doves, everyone who has been waterboarded has said it IS torture. End of story, right?

So now the Democrats actually grew a backbone for once and decided to pass the bill. It passes in the House. Ok, no problem. But now Republican Senators are trying to delay and shoot down the bill!? What the hell is going on!?

Let me just explain something to anyone pro-waterboarding, or against this bill. We are not terrorists. We are fighting terrorists. Why? Because they have no sense of human rights, or freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or habeas corpus.
Don't you understand that when we violate human rights (by waterboarding), freedom of religion (ethnic profiling), freedom of speech (by putting outspoken critics of the government on 'watch lists'), or habeas corpus (Gitmo)---WE ARE NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS! It becomes a cut throat war--no rules, no Good--only two evil sides fighting against one another.

Some Republicans have shown that winning is more important than the things we are fighting for. Its disgusting. Its UnAmerican. We have shown we could give a shit about democracy--nothing is happening to Musharraf despite the fact that he suspended the Constitution in Pakistan because of politics. We have shown we could give a shit about habeas corpus--"let's double the size of Guantanamo Bay" (Romney). Secret CIA prisons!? Listen--finding loopholes to be able to do what you want with terrorism suspects (Suspects! Not Convicts!) is not American. Or at least its not an American I learned about in school or have read in the constitution.
We are now showing we could give a shit about human rights. Waterboarding! Its clearly torture. And we are doing this to suspects. Do you realize you could be a suspect? I could be a suspect? Anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time could be a suspect. Its ridiculous. Hell, I've read a bin Laden speech in an Alt-newspaper--I'm probably on the 'watch list'.
"But Preston, don't you know waterboarding saves lives?"
At what cost? People in a fascist country are safe too, but they have no rights. No privacy. No freedom. Does waterboarding save lives? I'm not sure. I mean, if I was being waterboarded I'm sure I would say whatever I could to end it. That doesn't mean its the truth. And sure, sometimes it probably is. But let me reiterate two things: 1. I would rather have my human rights. Thats what makes us better than the terrorists. 2. We are torturing suspected terrorists. Not convicted terrorists. Thats ridiculous. Its horrendous.
Even if torturing and invading our privacy keeps us safe, it keeps us safe by costing us the very things that make us a country worth living in. Saving lives by giving up what makes life worth living is not worth it.

An Entry Tom will Like.

I just read the news that the U.S. and Iraq are negotiating the long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, I just read this, and as such, I haven't heard the liberal democrats' reaction. But as a liberal democrat, I just want to give my reaction.
One would seemingly think I would be outraged at the thought of long-term troop presence in Iraq. Why let our kids (like I'm old enough to say 'our kids') continue to die?
Well, I am not. I am/was for withdrawing from Iraq because Iraq citizens overwhelmingly want[ed] us out. They see us as contributing to the violence. Now don't get me wrong, I think the invasion was a bad and unprincipled move to begin with--but the point is, we are there, pulling out won't reverse that mistake. But what I am saying is that now that we are there, and we have a moral interest in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty of Iraq, we ought to do what they want (within limits, of course). Now it seemed to me, at least until now, that they wanted us to leave. And they may still want that, I'm not really sure. But if Iraq is taking steps toward democracy (which is debatable), we should help the process along by respecting their sovereignty. And that is why I have/had always said 'let's get the hell out of there', because the citizens of Iraq want[ed] us out. With this new story of Iraq wanting us to stay and provide security, I am not so sure. The real question at this point is whether the Iraqi government is representing their citizens' desires and interests. And I don't know that answer to that question. But if they are, and I were to be convinced that they were, I would reverse my position on the occupation and advocate us staying there, as long as we were welcome.
Now to respond to my fellow liberal democrats objection: "What about the families of the troops that are dying? Isn't this reason enough to be against the occupation?"
I respond: No. Its not. As controversial as this may be, American lives are not more valuable than Iraqi lives. If staying in Iraq provided decent security to millions of Iraqis, it would be worth it, even if a few thousand more American soldiers died. They wouldn't be dying in vain. They would be dying 'for freedom'. Just because its freedom in a different country doesn't make it any less valuable. That would be ethnocentric to assert otherwise.
I assume Republicans would disagree with my claim about Iraqi lives being equally as valuable as American lives, but it doesn't matter. The point is that we would conceivably hold the same position on the war, but for different reasons.

So there you have it. And I'll be watching my boy John Edwards on this one--his reaction could make or break my support for him.

Ideolocide

If Stephen Colbert can have 'truthiness', then I can have 'ideolocide'.
I invent the word 'ideolocide' at the risk of looking like a fool, because it seems to me there probably already is a word for what I am thinking of, but I just don't know what that word is.
'Ideolocide' shall be defined as the attempted destruction of an ideology--this is not to be confused with 'genocide', which could be broadly construed as the attempted destruction of a political group (though I think most of us traditionally think of it as a race or culture being destroyed).
So ideolocide is the attempted elimination of an idea, or group of ideas.
Ideolocide is seemingly what the 'war on terror' is attempting to do: Destroy the idea of religious fanatacism. I want to talk about this from two directions: 1. Is ideolocide possible? 2. Is ideolocide ethical?

1. Is ideolocide possible?
I'm not really sure if the possibility of ideolocide is a necessary precursor to an attempted ideolocide; after all, the Bush administration has suggested that the war on terror is unending. This is sort of strange--the idea of a war being, in principle, 'unwinnable'. (The logical positivists certainly would have argued it to be meaningless.) Nevertheless, it being strange certainly doesn't disqualify it.
So what would have to happen for an ideolocide to be a success? Well, for starters, we would have to eliminate the idea/ideology in its believer's heads. This could seemingly be done by killing and/or brainwashing all believers.
This isn't all, of course. To complete an ideolocide, we would also need to brainwash (or, rationally convince) anyone who would 'contemplate' believing the idea/ideology in the future. This would probably involve some sort of education program, which would have to be reinstated worldwide. Even if we were only attempting a national ideolocide, our education program would need to be worldwide--ideas can cross borders, regardless of how isolationist a nation may be.
This education program might not be quite as tough as it seems. All we would need to do is create a culture which would render the idea/ideology unthinkable. Certainly there have been cultures historically who have rendered certain ideologies unthinkable: In the middle ages, for example, atheism was considered so unthinkable that people actually considered atheism an impossible belief--they thought God's existence was so self-evident that anyone who denied it was delusional.
So, something like this is what we would need to put into place to make an ideolocide successful.
Also, let's not forget: we would need to eliminate any literature which spoke of the idea/ideology. We couldn't just eliminate literature which promoted or condoned the idea/ideology, but anything which could spark the idea in a critical reader's mind. Now I'm not sure this would be possible, at least for any ideas we find threatening. To eliminate religious fanatacism, we would have to eliminate all religious books! This seems impossible. We could burn millions of books, but chances are quite high that copies would remain, in hiding. Soviet Russia tried to do this, with minimal success--and that was just nationwide. A worldwide attempt at this would probably be impossible.
So it seems rather clear that what would have to be done for a successful ideolocide is impossible. For it is not just a matter of killing or brainwashing a group of people, but of killing or brainwashing anyone who would even critically examine an idea/ideology without rejecting it out of hand.

Nevertheless, it still may be argued that an attempted or partial ideolocide would be helpful, even if it could never be completed. So let us address our second question:
2. Is ideolocide ethical?
Ok, so I think it would be trivial to say ideolocide is unethical with respect to certain ideas/ideologies. That it not the question I have in mind. What I want to ask is, is ideolocide ever ethical? or, Is ideolocide unethical in principle?
I think the best way to ask this question is to look at a morally reprehensible idea, such as "The Aryan Race is the master race", and ask whether an attempted ideolocide of that is ethical.
I think it is clear to a Kantian that ideolocide is unethical, as it involves categorically unethical acts: Killing, Brainwashing (Taking away the free will of another rational being), destruction of knowledge (Because, after all, even if the idea/ideology itself was false, some of the things which don't promote the idea/ideology itself but still mention it would certainly contain valuable information.)
But hey, who is a Kantian anymore anyway?
What about to a utilitarian? Well, this seems like the best route to take for an ideolocide advocate. It basically reduces the question to this: Are there any circumstances in which the attempted destruction of an idea/ideology would create more pleasure/less pain than failing to destroy an idea/ideology would?
And it seems, at least to me, that there could be certain extreme situations in which the answer to this question would be 'Yes', and thus, ideolocide would not be wrong in principle.
But don't worry, hippies, this doesn't open up the floodgates. Because think about what would have to be taken into account when we do our utilitarian calculation:
1. Severely reduced freedom, worldwide, of education, religion, speech, press.
2. Imprisonment and 'reeducation' program to anyone who attempted to exercise freedoms. If this failed (or if there was risk their idea/ideology could be spread to others) it seems like death would be the only other solution.
3. Not only would you have to punish anyone who exercised freedoms of speech, but you would have to somehow destroy the idea from their heads. This couldn't even be a matter of convincing them not to hold the ideology--it would be a matter of eliminating the ideology completely and all traces of it.
4. A limitation of freedom would be a) fascism, and b) The suppression involved in the attempted ideolocide would drive people to develop negative ideologies toward the state, risking rebellion.
5. The risk of a slippery slope; resulting in the attempted ideolocide of any ideas/ideologies that disagreed with official state policy.

As we can see, this world resembles something close to Orwell's 1984. It is hard to imagine a situation which would necessitate ideolocide, short of threat of the genocide of the entire human race.
And, in terrorism, I fail to see this. Terrorists do want to kill people, but not everyone. And the amount of people we would have to kill to commit ideolocide of Islamic fascism would probably be around the same amount of people they would have to kill of ours to succeed. Not to mention, the fascism we would have to attempt would probably be just as bad as Islamic fascism, short of it being based in religion. So it doesn't seem like ideolocide in this situation fits the bill of 'ethical', even to a utilitarian. Stooping to the level of an enemy, or even to a level above that of an enemy that is still morally reprehensible, is not worth fighting an indestructible ideology. It seems the best thing to do is to attempt to protect ourselves, and attempt to show that our ideology is better than the Islamic fundamentalists'. Patience and self-protection. And yeah, we can protect those that are with us on this fight as well. But protection at the cost of giving up our ethics would be wrong, as is, in my opinion, the attempted ideolocide of religious fundamentalism.
Conservatives think that the free market should guide us as far as products, supply and demand, and economics goes. So why do they want the government to limit the marketplace of ideas? Certainly the threatening and unethical ones will be weeded out, right?

Health Care vs. Homeland Security

Alright--first, a note for those of you who don't want to read another political entry. I am thinking about learning Esperanto. I have decided to learn it on the condition that at least five other people will learn it with me, so it will actually have a tiny bit of practical worth. Let me know if you are interested.
on to the post!

Alright, if you will permit me to be a cold and calculated utilitarian for a minute, I would like to illustrate why, even if you give them all the benefit of the doubt, given $x amount of money, it would be smarter to put it towards Universal health care than homeland security. But, in keeping with my promise of giving them the benefit of the doubt, let's call it "Socialized Medicine", so they can have the rhetorical advantage as well.

Ok. So. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 Americans died from lack of health insurance in 2002. Now, I take the IOM as being a credible institute (it is non-partisan, and all of their studies are subject to blind peer-review by scientists).
But a conservative may be able to find some reason why this study was biased. So let's lower that number to 12,000. Cutting it by a third seems very generous to me.
Now, selecting the number of estimated Americans who actually died from not having health insurance is giving another benefit of the doubt to conservatives. Because the figures of who doesn't have insurance and why is controversial--illegal immigrants are sometimes included in the count, as well as people eligible for government programs who just don't sign up. But we will ignore the fact that besides flat out death, not having health insurance decreases quality of life as well.
(An interesting analysis of this can be found here.)
Ok, so let's take our next step of helping our conservative friends out. The conservatives may say, "Well, yes. We certainly can agree that there are a lot of uninsured people out there, and the solution is to be found in the private sector." Of course, I am not sure what this would mean. Giuliani is the GOP frontrunner, and he wants to do something with tax credits for the poor. That is not a private solution. In fact, that is is similar to democratic proposals, and as such, we are going to have to call it weak "socialized medicine". Though, his proposal is absolutely unclear, since 'Health Care' is not listed on his website anywhere.
But let's not let it end there. Conservatives don't like Giuliani; moderates do. So let's take a look at Mitt 'double Guantanamo' Romney. Romney's site has Health Care as an issue list, but fails to mention anything besides that health coverage should be provided through market-reform rather than government reform.
Its hard to see exactly what this would be, since he says nothing at all about it. However, I could hardly see it being something other than tax credits.
The problem is, even with tax credits younger adults can choose not to have health insurance, and then just claim bankruptcy if something goes wrong.
Ok though, let's not stop this benefit of the doubt stuff. Let's say these conservative reforms cause half of those deaths to go away.
We are down to 6,000 deaths in an average year caused by lack of insurance. And remember, this is assuming all possible ways the number could be lowered from its original number, 18,000.
Remember that number: 6,000 per year.

Terrorism is a worldwide problem. But in the United States, how many people die from terrorism in a given year? In 2001, 3,000 people died. Since then...none...in the United States at least. But maybe my memory is mistaken. Let's say 50 more die every year. And let's count citizens of the U.S. in foreign countries. About 1,000 contractors have died in Iraq since the war started. Let's just pretend they were all American. And let's say another 50 citizens die from random terrorist attacks across the globe each year. You know, those minor attacks...at hotels and what-not. I admit, I really have no idea about that number, but it seems about right. Hell, call me out on it if I'm wrong.
And, though its quite debatable, and I don't think this is a fair move because these deaths could have seemingly been prevented (not to mention, terrorism is a little rough here because 7 in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on soldiers), let's include American soldiers in Iraq. As of my last count, about 3838 American soldiers have been killed in the War in Iraq. Let's round that up to 3900. Another 450 in Afghanistan makes 4350.
Ok, I think I've been generous enough. Let's add it all up.
4350 American soldiers
600 random traveling citizens
3000 Sept. 11.
1000 contractors in Iraq
equals
8950
divide that by 6 (years this total makes up)
1491 and 2/3. (average number of American deaths, per year, from terrorism, including American soldiers and contractors in Iraq.)

So, let's look at our raw data:
Being completely generous to our conservative friends:
6000 Americans die per year from lack of health insurance.
1491 and 2/3 die per year from terrorism.

Now am I saying defund homeland security? Of course not. Terrorism is a big deal. What I am saying is this: All Republican candidates (except Ron Paul, who has his own issues) are using fear to try and turn people's attention away from real issues. Terrorism is very frightening. Republicans want people to be so afraid of terrorism that they will vote for whoever will keep them safe from it. But if we look at the raw facts here, rationally, we should care more about a quality health care plan than doubling the size of the military. And on health care, I think it is pretty clear the Democrats win. (After all, if they didn't have the better positions, why would the Republicans downplay the issue so much?)

Leaders of Countries who Deny Genocides...

President Ahmadinejad of Iran takes a lot of shit for denying the Jewish genocide of WWII, and rightly so. Truly, how can he not know? The evidence is sitting right there in front of everyone. It happened. It was fucked up. I wish everyone could acknowledge that. I mean, Ahmadinejad wouldn't even have to take any of the blame for the genocide! It wasn't him, it wasn't his country. It was Hitler and Germany. And Germany acknowledges it, they feel bad about it. And that is good. We all ought to remember genocides.
I won't even mention the genocide happening in Darfur that no one seems to care to do anything about. Except to respond to: "Yeah, but Preston, you are a pacifist liberal--you think intervening in Iraq and Iran to stop human rights abuses was wrong, so how is Darfur any different?" Well, I'll tell you. I am not talking about killing people. I am talking about a peace force. Its completely different. Its like when you are at a bar and a fight breaks out--someone ought to step in and hold the two guys back. That isn't war; that isn't regime change; its using force for peace.

Anyway--back to the topic here. Why does Ahmadinejad deny the WWII genocide? I'm not sure. Maybe he feels like if he did he would have to acknowledge Israel as a state. But his motives aren't too crucial to me--the point is denying genocide is stupid and arrogant. Especially when the evidence is right in your face. And I think everyone would agree with that.

except...

Wait a minute. Has anyone been watching the news this week? Congress finally is trying to pass a bill acknowledging the other genocide...you know, the Armenian one? The obvious response...I would have thought, from almost everyone, would be "Wow! That is great! I mean, its unfortunate the government is using our tax dollars to vote on so many non-binding resolutions, but, cool. I guess its time we finally acknowledge that happened--after all, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died (link is graphic; be advised).

But wait a minute...

President Bush and his cabinet are urging congresspeople to take the bill off the table, or barring that, vote against it? What!? Why?

Well, the Ottoman Empire (which doesn't exist anymore) was based in Turkey. Apparently we have more genocide deniers than just Ahmadinejad on our hands. Turkey has threatened to take away our strategic military base if we..uh..I don't know how to say this and have it sound unbiased...if we..acknowledge a genocide of which there is overwhelming evidence happened.
I am not sure why Turkey is repressing what happened in their country a hundred years ago. No one that committed the genocide is still alive. No one would have to be held accountable. So it can't be that. I am very confused on why Turkey is so pissed off.

But this presents a problem for us. Do we take down the bill, thus tacitly denying a genocide which involved hundreds of thousands of people's deaths?
President Bush says yes. I am not really sure how this wouldn't make him a genocide denier. He is saying passing this bill will be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror. So, don't pass the bill.
But doesn't that imply the following:
Acknowledging a horrible event of which hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of their race would be harmful to our alliance with Turkey and our war on terror? What if Turkey came out and denied the Holocaust happened? Would that change anything? And if so, why? Because Hitler was more successful at his genocide? Because we will allow you to deny one genocide, but two is just too much?
What
the
hell!

I mean, I think even folks against the bill would agree, that Turkey is just being completely unreasonable. We aren't holding them accountable--we aren't asking for reparations. We are acknowledging something happened on the same land that they live on. I guess the Ottoman Empire was also Muslim, but, we aren't making any overarching claims about all Muslims. I think Muslims would agree genocide is wrong. So yeah, Turkey is being completely unreasonable.

Now if their threats are going to prevent us from passing a non-binding resolution about a genocide which anyone with the evidence in front of them would acknowledge happened, then how much power do they really have against us?
What other unreasonable demands could they make that Bush would nod and smile to?

I say, pass the resolution. Everyone knows its the moral and principled thing to do. The only argument against it is the pragmatics. And it seems like one thing everyone would have agreed upon, Republicans and Democrats, before this week, is that we are not going to pander to any genocide deniers. So why is it different because its Turkey? If their leadership (not necessarily their people, I don't know what they think) want to be completely unreasonable, and deny genocide, then fine. They shouldn't be our allies. Period.
And if someone thinks our policy should change on that, and that we should allow leadership of countries to hold bizarre opinions, then fine. Let's open up talks with Iran then.

Its your choice. All I ask from you is consistency.

(It seems to me like the Republican thing to do would be to tell Turkey to fuck off if they are going to be ridiculous, and the Democrat thing to do would be to open up talks with Iran and keep Turkey as an ally. I am sympathetic to both, but more so to the latter. Either way, passing the bill seems the obvious thing to do, since we are supposed to be a country with a moral compass, not North Korea or Myanmar.)

Iraq Oil Law

Two quick things. First of all, there has been a lot of talk in the media lately about the "Iraq Oil Law". It is one of the political benchmarks the U.S. set against the al-Maliki government.
Now, being the inquisitive mind that I am...I wanted to know...what is this Oil Law? Is it to share all profits among the country, ensuring that it isn't just the Kurds whom receive the profit? Is it to ensure that hardworking and cooperative Iraqis will be able to reap the spoils of their hard work?
NO.
The Iraqi Oil Law is a bill that guarantees at least 12.5% of oil profits to foreign companies. It gives the Iraqi government ownership of 17 of Iraq's 80 oil fields, with the rest of the developed fields going to foreign companies. All undeveloped and undiscovered fields (which, this is Iraq, there are plenty), are open to private investors.
Why is no one paying attention?

On a more sympathetic note, in a new book out today, President Bush admits that he cries. A lot.
Am I laughing? No. It gives me a warm sentiment inside...you know...a Humean moral sentiment...to know that our President, wrong as he may be, is trying to do his best. Barring that, he feels guilty.
He isn't a heartless evil demon like some liberals want to stamp him. He is just a guy, with differing beliefs. I think he really does believe invading Iraq was right. And he really does believe privatization will benefit all.
So let's take a breath, and realize that there are very few people out there who are flat out evil all the time. Most just disagree about fundamental beliefs.

Anyone but Clinton Club

I thought it was popular right now to hate Hilary Clinton, but apparently that must be among Republicans only, because she is starting to dominate the Democratic presidential race. Shucks. Just when I'm starting to come around to Obama.
Why do I hate Hilary Clinton? Because she is a woman? No. At least not consciously. Maybe this could become a series of posts I could write about why I cannot stand her. But for today, I'd like to give three reasons why I think it is frightening that she is ahead of anyone in the 'horse race', and why it is clear it can only be because people either a) want to be part of the history of making a woman president, or b) Are not paying attention.
I can't blame people for b). After all, it is early. But when a poller calls you and asks if you are voting in the primary, and you should either say 'no', or say you are rooting for anyone other than Hilary Clinton (and, let's go ahead and say Joe Biden too, because he is in many ways just like Clinton, but as he is lower than Kucinich in the polls, isn't much of a threat).
So why do I dislike her so much? If I don't cite enough examples of the three things I cannot stand about her below, just watch the debates, and you'll see it.

1."Anyone but Bush" --The Democratic party rode off of this in 2004, and yet Hilary Clinton is still applauded over and over again for answering any tough question by saying something about how much the 'current administration' sucks. Yeah, Hil, we know that. Along with this reason goes her basic argument for why people should choose her over the other candidates. Let's see this argument and analyze it:
a. We (the Democratic candidates) are all the same.
b. I'm winning.
c. I am experienced.
Therefore,
d. 'I'm your gal'.
Premise a., plainly false. All Democrats vaguely agree, the war is bad, but each one has their own proposal as to what to do about it. All Democrats vaguely agree on health care, but each one has their own proposal about what to do about it. Everything else, Democrats disagree on, to varying degrees. And this is true among the three front runners as well, so its even false if the premise is weakened to 'The leading Democratic candidates are all the same.'
b. So what? Should I vote for whoever is winning, regardless of whether I agree with them or not? Well damn, then my whole concept of voting is fucked up. I'd better remember this come voting time, if a Republican candidate is winning, I have to vote for them.
c. True; however, you are not the most experienced. That would go to Richardson, Biden, and Dodd.
B and C aren't that mistaken, however, it is A as a premise that pisses me off so much.
2. The lobbyist thing.
Everyone should really watch this video if they plan on voting in the primaries. Edwards challenges Clinton to stop taking money from lobbyists, and she just flat out says 'no, lobbyists represent real people.' (Hilary Clinton was the pharmeceutical company lobby's biggest recipient in 2006).
Although, to be fair, Edwards' hedge fund campaign doesn't seem much better. But at least he promotes public finance of campaigns.
3. 'I stay away from hypotheticals.'
This is what Hilary Clinton says whenever she is asked a hard question, along with, 'well, at least I won't suck as much as the Bush Administration.' What does this even mean, "I stay away from hypotheticals" ? Does it really make people think she is mature or a better candidate because she refuses 'what if' questions?
It is just a way to avoid making any campaign commitments!
Besides, how can you really even run for president, or debate for president, if you really are oppose to answering hypotheticals?! Isn't pretty much every debate question framed in the hypothetical 'If you were elected President..."?
It is such a sleazy question dodge. I know that all candidates dodge questions, but this is somehow worse, because it makes her look 'mature' or 'experienced'.

Most people hate Hilary Clinton because she has changed her views on basically everything except health care. I agree. But I thought I would touch on some of the other things. Please vote for anyone but Hilary.

One final note: There is a new 527 I'd like to publicly support, called "Rock the Debates" (www.rockthedebates.org) and they are basically trying to get all Democratic and Republican candidates to commit to having a debate with ALL candidates with a mathematical chance to win the election.
I think its a pretty good cause for democracy, letting third parties call out the major parties in a debate. It won't happen, but why not try?

A Paradox of Democracy

So I only have one political philosophy class under my belt, so maybe this is already a dilemma in the field. But I realized a bit of a problem with democracy and the 'rational voter' about a week ago. Hopefully I will explain this problem well enough that someone will have a satisfactory conclusion. Because if not, I will probably just ignore this problem when it comes time to actually make political statements and vote.
Ok--so, for simplicity, let's say that voters are generally rational, but not omniscient. They have two options: a) Vote for what they feel is best for the country (or possibly the world), or b) Vote for what they feel is best for them personally.
Now it seems that most people I've asked think that a) is the best option. I agree. However, we are not omniscient, and in fact, the vast majority of us lack a large chunk of relevant information. We really only go off of our own experiences and what little research we do read in newspapers, magazines, or television.
Let's take, for example, the economy. I know nothing about the economy. Is it true that the tax cuts for the rich stimulate the overall economy enough that it creates jobs? I'm not sure. Maybe. When it is an area of debate to even highly educated economists, how am I to decide what is best? I have to take a leap of faith based on anecdotal evidence, at best. Virtually all issues are this way. Health Care, Education, the war, global warming, etc.
Now if all voters (whom we have agreed are rational and not omniscient) decide to choose option a), it seems like we put our trust too much in what magazines, books, TV, newspapers we read and the selected information they give to us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying conspiracy here, I am just saying that we only have so much time to do research, and regardless of which sources we choose for information, it is a limited amount of sources, which taints everything from the start.
So a), although well meaning, would cause the majority to vote for whatever is the most rational choice given whatever information is most widely publicized or read. And this doesn't seem right, unless we assume all relevant facts are widely publicized.

b) is ideal, in theory. If all voters are rational, they vote for what is best for them, and whatever is best for the majority goes. But isn't there something counterintuitive about such blatant selfish voting? For example, I don't know anyone who has died in the war in Iraq. So as a rational and selfish voter, I just shouldn't give a damn about that issue at all? And the Iraqi civilians, hell, I have no chance of knowing any of them, so I shouldn't take that into account when going to the booth?
Should I vote against gay marriage? After all, I'm not gay, and it would mean more of my tax money spent on federal benefits that I am already eligible for.
Should I vote for ethanol? It is great for the economies of the midwest, so shouldn't a rational midwesterner vote for it, regardless of the fact it uses more energy in fossil fuels than it produces?
Should I vote against national healthcare? After all, I have insurance, so I have no worries.
Maybe I have too strong of a conscience, but this just doesn't feel right.

So how do we solve it? I have no idea.

Oh...and they don't have bagged cereal here. Actually, we can't find any generic cereal, aside from ALDI. What is that? Thank God for Aldi.

Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work

In high school and early college, I was a libertarian. You know, the government needs to stay out of our business and let the market work, etc. I think this is a common thing for rebellious political men...like I am sure Aaron Walker is a libertarian if you really pressed him.
Anyway, after a while I began to lose faith in human beings, at least politically, and now I am some kind of Green/Democrat/Independent. And I finally realized why. Because generally I do have faith in human kind, so it seemed inconsistent to have faith in them most of the time, except when it came to boycotting evil companies and what-not.
So here is my theory on why libertarianism can't work: In democracy, candidates are basically competing over who can solve the most problems. So in order to beat one another, candidates begin, over time, to step outside of the traditional government role, and start offering to step into areas like education (Department of Education), food safety (USDA), natural disasters (FEMA), workers rights, and health care (which we are seeing now). Basically, if there is any tragedy going on, governmental or not, candidates in the fierceness of competition decide to propose the government step in. So over time, the government becomes larger.
Once politicians began solving these problems, people became dependent. For example, instead of boycotting Wal-Mart, people just demanded that the government raise minimum wage. In the Earthquake in San Francisco in the early 1900s, the relief effort was completely led by private organizations. Yet in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the government was expected to help everyone out. And its not because people didn't want to help--it is just implied to people that nowadays the government is in charge of making sure people aren't starving, etc. Which is caused by the competition of democracy.
The only way to create a libertarian society would be to start over again with the premise that everyone thought about what they were supporting with there actions. This would be tough, and I am not sure if it would even be desired. What a hassle it would be to research everything you bought.
So, in sum, democracy naturally leads to more and more government control, or socialism. Wow...I am a Marxist.

(This doesn't mean that civil liberties have to go away though. That is separate from free-market business liberalism)

Flags at Half-Mast

If there is something I generally believe, it is that doing something over and over again makes it become meaningless. When everything is 'amazing', hearing you say it doesn't mean anything. It goes the same for when everything 'sucks'.

And I'm not just talking about phrases. I swear that 90% of the time the Old Capitol building is flying at half mast. Listen: People die. And it is a sad event. But save flying the flag at half-mast for a world leader's asasination or something! Not when some guy who's wife used to work at the Java House in the IMU dies.
When I see the flag flying at half-mast, I think it should be the death of someone whom at least 40% of the community has heard of. That is my new rule. Go--petition the Board of Regents.

Primaries, Third Parties, my Support goes to....

Well, we are through two Democratic debates and anyone who gives a shit probably knows at least a bit about the major candidates. But before I give my list from my favorites to least favorites, let me explain why I have decided this is important. Let's face it, after 8 years of Bush, and a war with very low approval ratings, it is very likely a Democrat will become President next. Of course, this might just be because I live in Iowa City, because in 2004 I thought there was not much of a way Bush could win again. Nevertheless, national polls are against Republicans right now, and most experts think the Democrats will continue to sweep elections until this unpopular war ends.
And that is why the Democratic primaries are so important to me, and why I feel endorsing a Candidate is important early this time around.

Secondly, before I get to the ratings, I want to reiterate my sentiment from last year that in local races everyone should support third parties on principle. Green, libertarian, whatever--a duopoly is not a good system. It isn't democracy. I read a good article about that here.
(If that link is weird, just go to desmoinesregister.com and search 'green party'.

Anyway, I have done a little research on the third party candidates, and I'm not too impressed with any of them. So here is my ranking of the current democratic candidates, from best to last. (By the way, of the Republicans, I like Guiliani, but in all truth, the republicans look pathetic. They continue to rely on fear mongering.)

1. John Edwards - I love this man. Charismatic, universal mandatory health-care (with an actual plan to back it up). What makes him stand out? I have never seen such a serious candidate come out and tell the truth: Taxes need to be raised. WOW. Balls.
2. Denis Kucinich - I love Denis. He was my guy at first. Nothing like a hippie politician. He really believes what he says, but he is too much of a peacenik even for me. I love peace; but a Department of Peace? C'mon dude.
3. Joe Biden - "We need to rid of regime change as a foreign policy." Thank you Joe. Secondly, on Darfur "We can sit here all day and talk. That is all anyone ever does about Darfur. We need to send in peace keeping U.S. troops now. While we are sitting here talking, 50,000 more people are dying." (These are both paraphrases.)
4. Bill Richardson - Honestly, I can't really stand the guy. But he has a ton of experience and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times...very pragmatic, but a question dodger.
5. Mike Gravel - Ok, he is a loose canon. I don't want him to be President. But I want him to continue to be at the debates to call people out on their shit. He called out the senators, along with Kucinich, on not ending the war (yes it is in their power, comment on this if you want to dispute it). And he called Hilary out on her 'balanced budget'--it was balanced because of money taken from social security.
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Barack Obama - You know, I like how Obama speaks. But he is a Democrat who wants to add to the Pentagon budget. What is that?
8. Hilary Clinton - I don't like her, I think she is a politician's politician. In the last debate all she did was point out how alike the democrats were in an effort to make her views ok. And also shifted all blame to Bush. She is running on the 'anything but another Bush' ticket. (See John Kerry).

So, not surprisingly, the popular (and more moderate) candidates are at the bottom. But surprisingly, for me at least, my favorite presidential candidate actually does have a chance of winning for once. I don't think anyone I've ever voted for on the national level has ever won. I didn't even vote for Loebsack! So, maybe, if Edwards can push forward, I can actually back a winner. He is in third in the polls now, but a lot of people think he won the debate on Sunday. Thats a good sign.

I think I am becoming...a pundit....

Not like a opinion leader or anything of that sort, because...well I haven't known many people who take my advice or hold my viewpoints. But I am just politics obsessed lately. Its pretty disgusting.

Anyway, stumbled across this great site yesterday--- WorldPublicOpinion.org
They gather surveys worldwide about stuff and bring it all together. Want to know how Muslims feel about Americans? ...we all know the world doesn't feel too greatly about America, but how does the world feel about the EU?
Polls are interesting because they are another outlet for democracy. And it is amazing how much polls can vary from the politicians that poll-takers voted in.
A couple of interesting things I've stumbled across so far:
Most Americans support the UN, and want it helped along to become a relevant international player. This is interesting, possibly only to me, because conservatives tend to be against the UN on the grounds that they don't get anything accomplished. But to me, this isn't a reason to abolish the UN, or quit funding it, but to improve it. Some people seem convinced that you can't fix what is broken, but it seems ridiculous to disband an international community of rational people because they haven't gotten a lot done lately.

How about this...Muslims overwhelmingly think the US is trying to divide and weaken Islam!

Ok...I can't even begin to respond to that. Obviously some policies need to be changed somewhere, if we are alienating not just a few radicals but the entire international Muslim community. Has Bush seen this poll?

And then, of course my favorite...the one which I argued with my own mother about.
Iraqis want Americans out.
Now we aren't in Iraq for WMDs. We are arguably not in Iraq for Al-Qaeda...I say arguably because even though no links between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda have been proven, it could still be said that Sadaam let them hang out in the country...they are both Sunni. But that is a questionable link. So the official government argument is that we are in Iraq to promote democracy in the Middle East.
But let's stop right there.
Is U.S.A. really always pro-democracy, or are they pro-democracy when democracy happens to be a good thing for the U.S.? Case in point: The 2006 Palestinian election. Hamas comes in and wins a democratic election, as far as everyone knows fairly, and aid is withdrawn left and right. I understand Hamas doesn't recognize Israel. I understand they are seen as a terrorist organization. But ok, I guess we don't support democracy in all circumstances. Am I speaking too radically if I say you have to accept politicians you vehemently disagree with to win elections?
Now, back from that tangent, let's look at this poll, example number 2 of why the U.S. isn't really pro-democracy all the time. Iraqis want Americans out. 80%. So there you go. There is democracy. read the article, I won't waste my time repeating it.
My point is, and this is coming off of the top of my head, if you are going to support democracy, support it all the time, even when you disagree with how it turns out. Not doing so is just as bad as those liberals (Yeah, thats right, I'm attacking my own crowd) that are pro free speech until something sexist comes out of someone's mouth.

And finally, I Like Al-Jazeera. I think what they do is wonderful. But more on that next time....

Barack Obama - An Unimportant Issue

Ok, I don't know much about Barack Obama. To be honest, I think it is too early to do research for an election more than a year away. But a fellow liberal creampuff that I work with, Jim, pointed something out to me a few days ago. Everyone, on all sides, is calling him an African American. That is, a Black African American, since white people can come from Africa (see Dave Matthews). Now, for me, this is really a non-issue. Why should race come into play? But that is beside the point.
Race is a big issue to a lot of people, and sometimes maybe for good reason. I don't really know why, but I am sure there are good reasons, right? I don't know.
Anyway, that isn't the point. The point I want to make is that Barack Obama is only half black. His mother is white, and he grew up with her. Why is this important? Well, its not really--but isn't it strange about how much his race has been played up? It seems to me like if we follow through on our reasoning here the whole notion of races falls apart, which it probably should. Obama is 50% black, whatever 'black' means; but he is in the history books as being the 5th black senator in the United States. Now we don't want to call him white, even though he is 50% white, but we also don't want to just call him nothing, do we? Sure, we, as human beings don't want to. He is black to us, and that is that.
But isn't that a fucked up way of classifying everything too simply into categories? At risk of being offensive and making a crude analogy (God, I am sorry, I don't have this sensitivity thing down yet), isn't this somewhat like calling a bisexual person homosexual? They are just completely different. And as I have noted in my earlier post "Two Definitions of Racism", which no one was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole, I am not sure anyone even has a clear conception of what is means to be black. Is there a certain percentage of 'black' genes you have to have? And what the hell are 'black' genes? Maybe this is where the shift to "African American" comes from. But as I stated earlier, this conception is just as vague. Tons of 'white' people live in South Africa, and what would we call them if they moved to the United States and gained citizenship?
Or are we going for ancestral routes? In that case everyone is African-American. SO unless we are going to make "African American" mean something like "10 generations ago your family was living in Africa", African American collapses into 'black', and 'black' collapses into nothing.

Ok, wait, I got off track there for a second. So here is my point--unless someone can show me how these thoughts are way off, and make me look racist (its not easy for a white male to talk about race, believe me, its uncomfortable)--what I would like to see is the destruction of race talk. We are all human beings.


Side note: Is it stupid of me to talk about things like this on a blog? I mean, I guess they say future employers will Google me and maybe posts like this could get me in trouble? I'm not sure. So I guess at a later date I will delete this...no one quote me...anywhere...ever...about anything.