Scott Rader's Blog

Islam: Radicalism as the Mainstream

This column was published in The Daily Beacon on November 11, 2004.

On September 10, 2001, I stood at the base of the World Trade Center in New York City. I stared up, like tourists I had so often ridiculed, and thought to myself that it would be a while until I would next see the towers. Little did I know that I would never see them again. After having lived and worked in New York City for five years, I packed up all my belongings and struck out for the South, back to my home state of Tennessee. I was about an hour away from Manhattan when terrorists flew planes into those towers on the morning of September 11, 2001.

In the surreal days that followed, I put all my belongings in storage and embarked on a road trip across the United States. During my six week, 26 state, 11,000 mile journey, I felt like a foreign reporter, a modern day Alexis de Tocqueville, absorbing a rarely seen cross-section of America. The road seemed eerily vacant – certainly devoid of vacationers. I would sit in cheap motel rooms, eating fast food and watching the anthrax scare unfold on television. Sometimes I would camp in national parks, listening to the hysteria on shortwave radio. My email correspondence with friends was peppered with frantic discussion about 9/11. Sometimes I engaged, more often I “listened”. But one exchange in particular kept me signing on every day. A Muslim friend and I were contemplating the future: the road ahead for both the United States and Islam.

Those conversations were rekindled last Thursday night when I sat in the University Center Auditorium listening to Irshad Manji, self-proclaimed Muslim “refusenik” and author of The Trouble with Islam. While Manji called for reform in Islam, I thought back to my Muslim friend saying that what she believed in would have never justified the events on 9/11. I was not seeking an apology for what the terrorists had done, but it did feel reassuring that she overtly condemned the atrocities. Unfortunately, to many Americans, folks like Irshad Manji and my Muslim friend seem to be all too rare.

Americans generally tolerate religious diversity. I am not naïve enough to claim that no discrimination exists, but by and large Americans respect the rights of others to practice the faith of their choice. Our country was founded on similar aspirations. So in the days following 9/11, I think Americans showed great restraint, despite instances of harassment and the one tragic death of a turban-wearing Sikh gentleman in Arizona. Imagine if something like 9/11 had happened in India – or France.

However, most Americans know little about Islam. I fear that Americans are gradually developing the perception that Muslims generally condone, if not tolerate, Islamic extremism. I trust that most Muslims do not. But even in foreign countries, I have sensed a feeling of “Muslims = Trouble”. During recent visits to East Asia, for example, people were happy to assure me that their society was “basically Muslim-free”. I found myself explaining my pluralistic beliefs and defending Muslims, quick to point out that a very small number of extremists practiced terrorism. But then it dawned on me: Why did this perception about Muslims exist in the first place and, moreover, why weren’t Muslims waging their own public relations war?

Most Americans would defend Muslims just as I did, but oddly some Americans also seem to defend terrorists in the process. My undergraduate alma mater, State University of New York at Purchase, hosted several Taliban officials in 2000. At that time, few people knew about the fundamentalist Islamic militia. The “progressive” group that had invited the Taliban was comprised of feminists and student activists who seemingly sympathized with the Taliban “struggle”. Things turned really ugly when the Taliban representatives made no secret of their beliefs, which flew right in the face of humanitarian causes that the progressive groups supported, and eventually the entire event was broken up by campus security.

To be sure, all religions have their extreme elements. Christianity has the KKK. Buddhism has Om Shin Ri Kyo (responsible for Tokyo subway gassings). But these fringe groups are just that – on the margins. They are ostracized, criticized and condemned by mainstream believers. As Manji pointed out during Q&A, think of the many books that castigate Christianity – and imagine if similar books were written about Islam. Islam advocates peace, but it does not appear to promote dissent. I fear that radicalism is becoming mainstream. Or at least that is a growing perception around the world. And as any good public relations student will tell you, fair or not, perception is reality.

The Bureaucratic Tidal Wave

This column was published in The Daily Beacon on September 30, 2004

Does product placement in movies and television adversely affect the artistic value of program content? Should advertising be limited? Such questions have generated much interest during the last few years. A popular book entitled No Logo by Canadian journalist Naomi Klein confronts these issues and is described by The Economist as “eloquently setting out the suspicion and resentment that many young folk feel for large companies”. The Monthly Review received considerable attention last year from an article called “The Commercial Tidal Wave” that addressed similar concerns.

Klein, the authors of The Monthly Review article, and most people I discuss this issue with all have plenty of criticisms, but are typically reluctant or unable to provide solutions to the alleged problem of increased product placement. The consensus seems to be an ambiguous call for "struggle against advertising". I’m not sure what that means, but I’m always left asking, "So what is the solution?"

At risk of oversimplifying things, I will at least proffer two ways to handle capitalism-cum-advertising that some people, especially “young folk”, seem to be concerned with. A society could either: a) restrict freedom of businesses to advertise, and concomitantly consumers to choose, or b) rely on the age-old, yet perennially reliable barometer that drives all commercialism and trade: consumer taste.

Thinking of the last five movies I’ve watched, I do not recall any overt advertising. Is this due to the producers’ desire for artistic integrity and their ability to resist the “commercial tidal wave”? Or is it because I am not attracted to the type of entertainment that can “get away with” product placement?

The last movie I watched was Run Lola Run. There was a prominent sign for a Bolle shopping center. That might be an actual brand in Germany. I wouldn't know. Before that I watched Hero starring Jet Li. This was a “period piece”, so nothing modern was in the film, aside from the special effects. Last month I watched Saving Private Ryan again. I guess that could be seen as "product placement" for the Army. Spirited Away was a Japanese animation that might have had something in it, but nothing obvious that I remember. Baran was an independent Iranian film so no ads there.

I’m not saying that product placement doesn’t exist. It is certainly increasing in popularity. But my point is, I have great faith in people, who are ultimately all consumers (and hopefully producers), to separate the wheat from the chaff and make decisions that, in a free market anyway, will drive businesses to latch on to popular responses and divest of bad ideas. If media outlets become saturated with things people don't want and disgusted consumers begin to take flight and seek other outlets, competition will take its natural course and provide different, more desirable outlets.

Markets are extremely diverse because they are made up of people. Not everyone likes the same things. I read magazines with no ads at all that most people consider boring. Sometimes I look at magazines just for the ads. Electronic Musician or GQ comes to mind. In some situations product placement may provide entertainment value. I expect to see James Bond driving a BMW or an Austin-Healey. What other kind of car would he be driving? An “Acme” roadster?

At least two possibilities seem to flow from what Klein and other advertising critics are presenting. On one hand you could say that people are stupid and naïve to fall for advertising and must “struggle” against it. Or you might conclude that people are freely making choices according to their individual tastes. If the critics are alluding to the former, then how can Klein or The Monthly Review have any faith in the choices of their own readership? Most social critics and intellectuals do not have enough trust in people to accept the latter.

Perhaps Klein and other critics intend to send a warning signal to indolent consumers who might otherwise be “suckered”. Something like: “Hey, watch out! There are ads out there and they can affect the human experience.” Maybe that's what they mean by struggling against advertising. But in the end, none of the critics I’ve talked to or studied really propose a solution. The authors of The Monthly Review article actually come close. They state:

“Advertising is part of the bone marrow of corporate capitalism. Yet it does not happen on its own. It requires advertising-friendly policies and regulations to allow it to flourish.”

They never explain what they mean by “advertising-friendly policies and regulations”. But preventing advertising from flourishing (read: censorship) would ironically require policies and regulations. Addressing the perceived “tidal wave” of commercialism still leads to one of two things: Either freedom of choice (for both producers and consumers) or restriction and regulations along with the inevitable bureaucracy that follows.

We All Outsource Every Day

This article was published in The Daily Beacon on October 28, 2004

Outsourcing is a popular topic of discussion these days, and one that is often mischaracterized. Outsourcing is a buzzword for something that has been happening since humans started working: Shifting work to more efficient workers. We all outsource every day. We outsource laundry to the dry cleaners. We outsource cooking to restaurants. We outsource proctology exams to physicians. In most cases we could perform the work ourselves. So why do we still outsource? To free up our time so we can do things we consider more valuable.

This “every day” example can be expanded to the larger world of business. Let's say you have a passion for helping the poor and you own a factory that makes affordable winter coats. You can produce an insulated, quality coat that retails for $20. A factory in China can produce the same quality coat and sell it for $15. Facing this competition, you could: 1) Try to convince poor people to “buy American” and give you the extra $5; 2) Innovate and produce a $15 coat; or 3) Lobby politicians for protections, tariffs and restrictions on outsourcing so you can maintain your $20 price despite the $15 competition.

Who benefits from protection against outsourcing? In the short-term, employees and businesses who continue to profit without needing to innovate, along with politicians who rely on voters' lack of understanding economics. Who is hurt by protection against outsourcing? Poor Americans who must pay $20 for a coat (or seek a lower quality one) and lose $5 they could have spent on something else to improve their lives, poor Chinese who are more cost efficient at making the coats but lose the potential wage to protectionism, and in the long run, (relatively wealthy) American workers who only know how to make $20 coats.

No nation has ever created long-term wealth by forcing its citizens to buy goods and services made at home that could have been obtained more cheaply somewhere else. A cursory study of economic history quickly reveals that nations get rich by increasing productivity, which means focusing on what they do best while other nations do the same (and hence, outsourcing accordingly). We do this even within the United States . Imagine that as a Tennessean, you were forbidden to trade with people in other states. You could not get your carpet from Georgia . You were not allowed to buy your furniture from North Carolina . You could not import Pabst Blue Ribbon from Milwaukee . Life would be pretty miserable. The notion sounds absurd, but the underlying logic and benefits from “inter-state” trade apply just as much or more to “inter-national” trade. Folks in New York City are better at the finance trade than folks in Knoxville , who are better at the football trade. Factory workers in Malaysia are more efficient at making electronic devices than programmers in San Francisco , who are more efficient at innovating new software.

What do other nations who outsource to the United States think when we start pushing protectionism? What about Japan , who has outsourced car manufacturing to numerous locations in the U.S. , including Tennessee , creating thousands of jobs and driving down the price of high quality Toyotas and Nissans in the process? What about all of the nations in the world that outsource their computing needs to U.S. information technology firms, like Microsoft, for instance? Despite the name, outsourcing is a two-way street.

It's easy to succumb to popular rhetoric and say outsourcing is bad. But that requires ignoring the lower costs for goods at home that come from outsourcing. It ignores the billions we get when other countries “insource” their work to the U.S. It ignores the gains made by poor workers in developing countries who have the opportunity to access our markets. It ignores the long-term costs of not innovating.

It is misleading for George Bush to say he has “created” jobs under his watch just as much as it is for John Kerry to claim that Bush has “lost” jobs. Politicians and governments do not create jobs – or efficient ones anyway. Doubters please visit your local Department of Motor Vehicles. Rather, businesses, entrepreneurs and investors create jobs. The solution to the “jobs problem” is innovation and productivity improvements. A government can help promote an environment friendly to innovation and conducive to training. Congress is currently focusing on re-tooling community colleges to pick up the slack of inefficient public high schools. Partnering local businesses with educational institutions can foster better “skills matching” and technology transfer. The ultimate solution to the “jobs problem” starts with the individual, however. Take a walk through Hodges Library (excluding Starbucks) in the evenings or on a weekend. The people I see studying hardest are East Asians and Indians.

When Did You Choose to Become Heterosexual?

April 22, 2003

I overheard a conversation at a cafe here in tiny Bristol, Tennessee the other day. It went something like this:

"Yeah, them damn queers are cranking up their recruitin'. I saw the other day how they got busted havin' queer sex and now they're tryin' to fight the law."

What this person was inevitably referring to is the recent case of two men who were "busted" having consensual sex in Texas. The neighbors had called the police falsely reporting some other crime in the residence and the police broke down the doors only to find the two gentlemen together. They arrested the men and have charged them on antiquated "sodomy laws" still on the books in Texas.

The invasion of privacy here goes without saying. But what's more discouraging (I personally believe they will win the case) is the attitude that still haunts homosexuals and their supposedly illicit behavior. The idea that homosexuals are "recruiting" people into a homosexual lifestyle is absurd. How does the invitation go?

"Hey, want to live a miserable life of ridicule, discrimination and privacy invasion in exchange for being a tiny minority of the population at large risk of contracting a life-threatening disease?"

Sounds great! Sign me up!

Seriously, it's nothing to joke about. If it has not been made evident enough already that biological phenomena during embryonic stages of development in the womb cause homosexuality, then logic and reason alone would lead one to understand that nobody chooses sexual orientation. When do "straight" people choose to be straight? Is there a day of reckoning where one decides to either "go straight" or "go gay"? When do straight people decide to take interest in the opposite sex? It just doesn't make sense that someone would choose a lifestyle that leads to misery and rejection. The "recruiting" that so many homophobes fear is the congregation and attempts to live a decent life that unfold as gay people, who have been around forever, finally start coming together and sharing their experiences with one another.

Sure, there are people who "experiment" because it is a "hip" or "cool" thing to seem "bi" or "queer". And maybe those folks enjoy the lifestyle and the sex. But even gay people who attempt to live a straight lifestyle (the ones who live in misery) are no more capable of choosing to suddenly become straight than they were to choose their homosexuality to begin with.

Beastie Boys Fight for Saddam's Right to Party

March 13, 2003

The Beastie Boys, a popular rock/rap group, have recently issued a downloadable song via their website.

Now, I love the Beastie Boys. I always have. But when they enter the realm of politics with such an overt message during these tumultuous times, they're opening themselves up for some sure-fire criticism, and not about the quality of their music.

The song is damn catchy, I have to say. But here's my take on it:

Rockin' Good Song
It's Too Bad They're Wrong

Let's look at some of the lyrics and see why they are wrong. I've copied all of their lyrics for reference, but to take the first verse alone:

"Mirrors, smokescreens and lies
It’s not the politicians but their actions I despise
You and Saddam should kick it like back in the day
With the cocaine and Courvoisier
But you build more bombs as you get more bold
As your mid-life crisis war unfolds
All you want to do is take control
Now put that axis of evil bullshit on hold
Citizen rule number 2080
Politicians are shady
So people watch your back 'cause I think they smoke crack
I don’t doubt it look at how they act"

Now, I'm all about questioning authority and the gub-ment, and generally consider most politicians "suspect" out of hand, but overall here the Beasties seem to be equating Saddam with Bush. Relegating all "politicians" into the same category on this particular issue causes a "smokescreen" covering the real issues. Positing George Bush and Saddam Hussein as moral equivalents is not only wrong, it borders on silly, not to mention naive. Makes for provocative agit-prop, but hardly realistic and, since most of the kids these days don't bore themselves with understanding the real complexity of issues and instead rely on popular music and entertainers as their main source of knowledge, it makes the (now in their 40s) Beastie Boys a bit trite and immature. Maybe that's what they mean by: "In a world gone mad it’s hard to think right". It's not "hard to think right". It's often hard to make tough decisions, but I guess the reality of hard choices doesn't make for hip or cool lyrical content. Of course, they are just pop music stars and of course they have every right (and fortunately the freedom) to exercise their opinion -- and to party.

I could go on with analysis of the rest of the song. It borders on "hysterica", with the standard specious arguments about why we are insisting that Hussein disarms -- speaking of "smoke and mirrors", some more lyrics: "Now how many people must get killed? For oil families pockets to get filled?" Considering our primary source for oil is Canada, Venezuela and Texas, I'm not sure how this is relevant. "We need health care more than going to war You think it’s democracy they’re fighting for?" Another tenuous relationship here. Domestic health care issues notwithstanding, I'd be willing to bet people in Iraq will be dancing in the streets when the murderer that is their current leader is out. Call it the prospect of democracy.

What's wrong with their position is what's wrong with a lot of the "anti-war" messages I hear these days, although I must admit they are quite confusing and usually dosed heavily with anti-Americanism (relating George Bush to Hitler, etc.).

Of course, nobody wants war. Not even the soldiers who are fighting in it -- perhaps them most of all. But it's funny that the same anti-war protesters didn't rise up during the war in Kosovo, UN blessed and resulting in substantial deaths of non-combatants. Nobody was protesting Saddam's not-so-clandestine decimation of his own people. Nobody rose up to question the rights of the Iraqi people. Nobody, that is, until the "bullies" United States and United Kingdom come along to kick the bastard out.

Maybe the Beastie Boys should do a song about this:

Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator and murderer and represents a significant and growing threat to his own countrymen and the entire Middle East region. He has lied consistently, will continue to do so as long as he thinks it will keep him in power, and in short has no credibility at all, as proven by UN findings during the 7+ years of erstwhile "inspections" following the Gulf War. He has attacked two different countries in the span of a decade. The atrocities in his name rank among the worst in recent history, right up there with Milosevic, as documented not only by the U.S. State Department but also nearly every human rights organization in the world. He has had ample opportunity to disarm or leave, and due to his thirst for power and continued exploitation of his own people, he continues to deceive and maneuver out of harm's way, using divisiveness among nations to perpetuate his dictatorship. It is naive to think continued inspections or resolutions will contain him. I think other countries in the region (not to mention a lion's share of his own population) tacitly would love to see him gone, but taking that position means seemingly siding with the U.S. and since that's certainly not "right" these days, they won't do it. Russia, France and Germany definitely aren't going to disarm the guy, don't really have as much of a dog in the fight (no pun intended), and would rather maintain the popular perception of the "peacemakers" standing up to the "bully U.S." by equivocating through "diplomacy" that has proven to be consistently ineffective. It is ultimately up to the United States, once again, to fight the "good fight".

But, still, a catchy song.

The Rudiments

February 12, 2003

My friend Richard Still has inspired me to start my Web Log. The ultimate in vanity press, a place where I rant, rave, amuse and abuse. I guess I've had a "web log" (often shortened to "blog") for quite a while. At least an "internet log". I'm an email pack-rat and most of my missives are directed at either small distribution lists or individuals who are kind enough to tolerate me. So I guess this blog, although officially starting today on the Web, has been going on for years, much to the chagrin of some.

This is a diary, of sorts, but not the kind of diary where I outline a daily narrative of my activities. More like a journal of essays for me. I've always told myself I should start "keeping track". Then I remember reading where Thomas Jefferson never kept a diary, on purpose, for what seemed to be privacy reasons, and I really respected that. But I also have a big mouth (via the written word, especially). So here's my say.

Why I Am Not a Socialist

This column was published in The Daily Beacon on September 2, 2004

I spent this summer living and working in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. During one of many conversations about American culture, a friend asked why Che Guevera was so popular among young Americans. He thought it was weird that rich American kids living under the auspices of capitalism and going to the best schools in the world would idolize a communist like Che (who the Vietnamese learn about from a young age). It was a great question. So upon my return, I stopped one of many people I have seen sporting the famous beret-wearing silhouette of Che on their t-shirt and asked what that person knew about the Argentinean-born Cuban guerilla. “Not much really,” he replied, and mumbled something about the now defunct band Rage Against the Machine. Another guy I talked to actually saw Che as more than a pop icon commodity. “He was a socialist revolutionary.”

Let me talk a little bit about apparently hip “revolutionary socialism” and explain why I am not, and will never be, a "socialist revolutionary".

It's not for lack of congregating with socialist revolutionaries. Some of my best, brightest, most compassionate friends claim to be socialist revolutionaries. They are smart, loving, caring – and misguided – people.

It's not for lack of being exposed to modern manifestations of revolutionary socialism. I have spent considerable time in Vietnam as well as socialist Cuba. I have seen both the American version of "democratic socialism" (usually accompanied by a healthy dose of anti-Americanism) along with failed attempts at socialism abroad, burnt bread in the cook shops of Marx's future.

It's definitely not for lack of studying socialism. If you want a basic understanding of socialism, don't rely on The Communist Manifesto, a pamphlet that simply serves as a call to action for socialists. Study Marx's life instead.

But to generalize and certainly over-simplify:

Much has been written about it, but the most basic tenet of socialism is actually quite easy to grasp. “I have two pieces of bread. You have none. I give you one.” That's one important fundamental aspect of socialism. But the kicker is in the last sentence: "I give you". That statement presumes voluntary action. In reality, socialism inevitably translates to "[The government makes sure] I give you".

So why doesn't socialism work, at least by way of "top down" enforcement? Because morality presupposes choice. For an act to be moral, it must be freely chosen. If I am forced to give you bread, then it's not true charity. There is something amiss with the moral legitimacy of taking what belongs to one person and giving it to someone else, especially when this act is performed by a governing body which happens to own all the guns. Sure, the short-term result may be that we all have something or, as socialism attempts, we all have basically the same thing (historically that has been poverty), but I do not think such involuntary and coercive means justify the “artificially equalized” ends. In fact, such “equalization” festers resentment among the “giving”.

Ever read the book or see the movie A Clockwork Orange? The thesis of this tale by the late Anthony Burgess makes the same point about morality and choice. Recall that the priest defends the artificially "reformed" hoodlum who, thanks to chemical and subliminal conditioning, is racked with physical pain when he thinks bad or criminal thoughts. He is not good, declares the priest, because he has been forced to be good. He did not choose to be good.

Does this mean socialism is worthless and should be abandoned? No. It's simply mis-directed. Socialists envision an all-powerful external (government) entity that will come in and “solve” inequality. This attempt at centralization and bureaucratization of control over moral choice has created the miserable failures of socialist governments like the Soviet Union, former Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, Cuba and Vietnam. Despite the fact that millions have died from poverty as a result of it, some wealthy Americans still harbor romantic notions about revolutionary socialism.

What socialism and socialists admirably call for is being fair. Treating your fellow man as you would be treated. Helping the less fortunate rise above their circumstances. Loving thy neighbor. If this sounds very Christian in its ethical tone, that's because it is. As ironic as it sounds, I would argue that Marxism has more in common with religion than it does politics or economics. We should certainly share our two loaves of bread with the fella that has none … if we choose to do so . The basic moral precepts of Marxism are to be commended and moreover practiced at all levels -- by freely acting individuals . These actions should spur from individual choice, not governmental interference and coercion. To be effective, the revolution of socialism must happen in the hearts of all people.

Flying Purple People Eaters

February 18, 2003

One elusive concept in economics is the idea of a thing's value. Most modern economists recognize something called "subjective value" as being the most realistic way to ascertain value. Subjective value presupposes a dynamic and fluctuating value of a commodity or service, depending on its application and the unique perception by any given individual in a given circumstance. Think of the old saying "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder". Subjective value is like saying "Value is in the eye of the beholder".

The opposite of subjective value is objective value. Objective value assumes an inherent or intrinsic value exists in something, regardless of its state, the circumstance, or the point in time in which it is evaluated. Let's use a computer as an example to illustrate the differences between the idea of subjective and objective value. A computer, with all of its components, can be said to have an objective value equal to the money value of the components that make up the computer (hard drive, motherboard, memory, peripherals) along with the labor cost to build it. Let's say all told that's $2,000, for sake of example. That is considered to be the computer's objective value. Regardless of what happens to the computer, it will at least have the labor value "built in" to it, even if the thing is destroyed. Subjective value, on the other hand, places a circumstantial value on the computer. In other words, it may be worth $2,000, parts and labor, at one point in time, but it has zero value for someone who is in the middle of the desert dying of thirst. Or, it has less value than a fly swatter to someone who is in a tent somewhere in the tropics being eaten alive by insects. If it is destroyed, it has no value at all. All inputs are gone, not to be recovered, including labor.

Another way to look at these two conflicting concepts of value is as follows:

Let's say I come up with this amazing invention called a Purple People Eater. It is an electro-mechanical device that munches on humans, acting something like a back-scratcher. It weighs 300 pounds, has one mechanical "eye" in the center which serves a decorative purpose only, and also has a "horn" in the front which acts as the on-off switch. It also uses high-powered fans to lift off of the ground slightly as it munches away at humans, reaching that elusive itch even through thick sweaters. By the way, it also has a chip built in that plays music via MP3. It contains only one song: "The One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater" which plays repetitively while doing its job. All told, I have $3,500 in parts and 100 hours of labor to build this great thing. So it's objective value is $3,500 plus 100 hours of labor, right? If I place my hourly wage at $15 per hour, that's $5,000 total. Now what about the Purple People Eater's subjective value? Sure, I thought it was a great idea and I poured my heart and soul and creativity, not to mention sweat, into the thing. But should I be offended if society doesn't see the same value in it that I do, or at least recognize my labor value? I'd be hard-pressed to sell many, I think.

Some people may buy my Purple People Eater (perhaps out of sympathy), but most would find more valuable resources (investments) for their hard earned money (capital) elsewhere. What prevents me, or anyone, from constantly using resources to create their own "Purple People Eaters", even if I see a great value in it that others don't. Is the rest of the world uncouth and blind to my creative genius? Even if they are, I doubt I would keep making Purple People Eaters, at least as long as "the market" (read: individuals) critiques my art with its pocket books.

The Libertarian Dilemma

December 17, 2002

Man is the only animal in the animal kingdom that seeks to preserve his weakest element. If you leave out all emotion and compassion, for just a minute, and look at things completely objectively, would you say that he is better, or worse off, as a species for it? If you say "better off", you get a big fat F in biology. Now, let's bring compassion and emotion -- indeed morals -- back into it. Why then does man seek to preserve his weakest element, if it effectively equates to biological absurdity? Because it's the right thing to do. It's socially responsible and, quite frankly, it's that conscience that is one of the main things that separates us from other animals in the kingdom. So how do we do perform this preservation, this core element of our humanity ... in the *right* way?

I have no complete answer. But I do have a condition that predicates any answer. Let me give it to you in the form of an analogy.

Let's say three strangers are walking down the road. I'm walking east on the boulevard and Mr. Pink is walking west. Mr. Yellow is nearby just hanging out, observing, having a smoke. Mr. Pink listlessly passes me by, walks into the street, and suddenly BLAMMO!!! He gets nailed by a bus. For whatever reason, he just up and gets creamed by a big ass bus. Bus keeps going. Teeth hair and eyeballs. A mess. Now, I'm going rush to Mr. Pink's side. I'm going to do everything I possibly can -- everything in my power -- to save him. CPR, mouth-to-mouth, tear off my shirt and stop the bleeding, whatever it takes. Now let's say a doctor happens by. He looks at Mr. Pink and says "I can save that man for $100". Perhaps he's just a particularly mercenary doctor, or, more likely, he needs some equipment or special item to help save Mr. Pink. What now? Well, I'm going to reach into my pocket and I'm going to give the doctor $100 to save Mr. Pink. You'd do the same, no doubt. Most anybody would, if they could. What I *will not* do, however, is pull out a gun, hold it to Mr. Yellow's head, and say "YOU pay the doctor."

The "John Lennon Approach" to Addressing Race

January 17, 2003

Imagine there's no race. It's easy if you try, and even if you don't. With the world growing ever smaller through advances in technology, communications and cheap travel, it's quickly approaching us. Whites will be a minority in the United States within 100 years by nearly all estimates. From the Boston Globe, September 17, 1997:

"At least one-quarter of the population today is non-white. By 2050, according to Census Bureau projections, America will be 53 percent white, 25 percent Latino, 13.6 percent black, and 8 percent Asian. Rapidly increasing rates of intermarriage will further change the picture, blurring racial and ethnic lines and creating a growing population of multiracial people who do not fit neatly into the old categories."

Some anecdotal examples: Does my daughter qualify for quotas, grants, or as a potential victim of "hate crimes" under current legislation? My daughter Sophie (also pictured above) is certainly a minority. Half-Asian, half-Caucasian puts her in probably the slightest minority "category". What about Tiger Woods? The kids of British-Indian immigrants who marry Puerto Ricans? Dominicans of French-African descent who moved here 5 years ago? I'm not against talking about racial characteristics, stereotypes though they often are, if people think that such discussion will help them overcome any prejudices they have, but I don't believe in government-endorsed racist policies like affirmative action that result in resentment, humiliation, and further division. I also think media-sponsored political correctness is ineffective and counterproductive, boiling down to servile pandering that somehow tries to make issue of racial characteristics, which again are so often stereotypes.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the flip side of the great freedom we have in the United States means that you do have the right to be a racist asshole if you want. I think it is to your own detriment, and a sickness that is self-correcting over time, but it absolutely should not involve the government to intervene on behalf of what you THINK. Now when you ACT, that's a different story.

Murder is bad, no matter what the murderer happened to be thinking at the time of the act. And particularly atrocious killings are even worse. If the penalty for killing someone by dragging them behind a truck is not covered sufficiently under our current laws, then those laws need to be addressed and adjusted. Killing anyone of any particular ethnic origin by cruel or excessive means is horrendous and should be prosecuted accordingly, be it a Vietnamese gang member who killed a rival Laotian gang member by burning him, a half-Italian, half-Irish drunken swashbuckler who swords a Syrian-Jewish businesswoman, or a black lady who runs over a homeless white man and leaves him to die in her garage.

Once you figure out that race is a petty figment of our myopic human imagination, it's much easier. Of course, you are right to say that I am a dreamer. But I'm not the only one .... ;-)

Americans Have a Lot to Learn About Discrimination

September 21, 2002

Think employers are prejudiced in the United States?

I just spent about 10 minutes cruising around for possible jobs in Japan. I picked a few random sites with listings in English. Some examples are below, copied verbatim.

Job Category: IT/Computer
Job Details: SAP PS ( Project Systems) along with Japanese
language skills for our Japan office. Either the person could be Indian or 
Japanese / Chinese. [Emphasis added]

So, if I understand this correctly, they're not simply looking for the person who "qualifies for the job". They're looking for the person who "qualifies for the job" and also happens to be Indian and/or Japanese/Chinese (does that mean mixed Japanese and Chinese?) What about 1/4 Japanese and 3/4 Indian? 1/2 Indian and 1/4 Chinese and 1/4 Canadian? Someone from Pakistan who looks like they are from India? Hrm.

Maybe I'm not getting something. Hopefully there's an anomaly in the translation.

Let's not give up and instead look at another listing. I just picked these randomly from the listings on Escapeartist.com by the way. I didn't even try to find strange job requirements.

Project Manager --- Java 
Project Manager --- Native of Japan. With more than 6 years of
excperience [sic] in the IT. Skills : Java(mandatory)

Native of Japan? So even if I'm completely fluent in Japanese, if I'm not a native, I'm basically out of luck (?) Could you imagine a U.S. company posting a job like that? "Information Technology Professional Needed. U.S. Native Only. Indians Only." Why is this listing in English, anyway?

I gave up on IT, and started looking through the jobs for teaching English -- the ol' gaijin standby. Found one in Sanda, Hyogo prefecture:

Kindergarten English Teacher Needed 
Part time and full time positions available for female teachers 
from Australia, Canada, England and the USA [Emphasis added]. 
Must be an experienced preschool/kindergarten teacher and/or have 
degree in early childhood education. 2,500 yen/hour + transp. (part..

Well, fortunately I'm from the USA and not from some place like New Zealand. Whoops! Female only. So even if I had a degree in early childhood education, had 20 years of experience teaching kindergarten and I'm willing to accept a paltry 2,500 yen per hour, I still couldn't get the job?

Hrm. I really don't see how employers in Japan, in the situation that they are in, can afford to be this discriminatory. I really hope there is wide room for negotiation of these gender and nationality requirements. Maybe I'm too American, too accustomed to our ethnic diversity.

Affirmative Action Hurts Minorities More Than It Helps

October 25, 2003

What do politicians mean when they claim to support the "principle" of affirmative action? Few bother to explain it, and instead use a slippery play on words to avoid taking a hard stance on a very controversial issue. Politicians rely on this kind of "fuzzy logic" to waffle and therefore garner votes (or, more likely, avoid losing them). When you are pressed to confront sticky subjects, it's often easier to hide behind a veneer of Orwellian buzz-words and vague labels.

So, what do people really mean when they say they support the "principle" of affirmative action? Perhaps we can find out by simply asking:

"Of two candidates, should a business/school hire/accept a lesser or even equally qualified candidate based on race?"

If you answer yes, then logically you support race-based discrimination.

Incidentally, don't presuppose a particular ethnicity in the above question. Instead, follow me through two possible scenarios where giving preference based on race plays out to the detriment of all parties.

Say that Boss Hogg Auto Parts in Yazoo City , Mississippi decides it needs a new accountant. After placing the job ad, Mr. Hogg hears from only two candidates. Based on resumes alone, one person is definitely more qualified than the other, but after finding out that the more qualified individual is black, Hogg hires the dimmer bulb -- a "good ol' white boy". As a result, the more qualified (black) candidate is without a job, the newly hired (white) employee gets a false sense of competence, and overall Hogg's business (and as an extension, society) suffers.

On the flip side, let's say University of Anystate USA is reviewing candidates for admission. They are deciding between two candidates, a white applicant with higher GPA and test scores than a minority applicant. To promote diversity, the university accepts the minority applicant. Because the minority applicant was given a "break", he/she might have some difficulty keeping pace with peers who had higher scores and GPAs. Or, he/she might assume that they will continue to receive breaks in the future and perform accordingly, which is to say they will under-perform. The more qualified applicant is rejected in spite of the merit of their higher scores and, if he/she knows the reason for rejection, probably walks away with a disdain (and misunderstanding) of "diversity". A debilitating situation from any angle.

Affirmative action held an important role as a "shock treatment" attempt to counter-balance pervasive and often socially acceptable racism that plagued our country especially leading up to and immediately following the Civil Rights Movement. Affirmative action has now become an unfortunate hindrance to race relations in 21st century America .

Here are three reasons why affirmative action has actually become counter-productive:

1. Affirmative action effectively "hides" candidates who could have made it through admissions and/or hiring selection without special consideration. Peers or work mates begin to assume all minorities need special help and may never know that a person would have "made the cut" without affirmative action. The achievement and subsequent self-esteem and dignity of such "hidden" individuals is eclipsed when they are lumped together into ambiguous and artificial collectives. There is also potential for bad blood in terms of perceptions of "fairness" among members of minority groups themselves.
2. Affirmative action causes peers to have animosity toward minorities. Whether a minority would have qualified without affirmative action or in fact benefited from it, fellow workers and students who otherwise would not exhibit racist tendencies might begin to harbor ill feelings if they think that someone "got a leg up" by being held to a different (lower) standard. This often unspoken resentment leads to escalating and uncomfortable pressure on everyone, especially those minorities mentioned in point 1 who are qualified without quotas or special considerations.
3. Affirmative action can be dangerous. Who do you want piloting a plane or performing life-saving surgery? Someone who was selected based on qualifications or in the spirit of promoting diversity?

Racial discrimination against minorities certainly still exists. It is a sickness that prevails in all societies, and is actually far more egregious in other countries and cultures. But sometimes efforts that start out as good intentions can eventually reverse course and do more damage than good. Re-examining policies in light of their overall impact is important, especially as society progresses. A program that was initially intended to integrate is actually causing further division by fostering animosity where none existed before. There are examples of good outcomes from affirmative action, but taken on balance , I think the costs mentioned above now far outweigh the benefits.

I Hate Your Ugly Green House

November 2002

In Manhattan, there are tiny little multi-floor apartments squished between massive skyscrapers. How does this happen? When I see them, I like to think Wow. Some old person refused to sell. And that's usually what has happened. The offer price keeps going up and up, as the nearby skyscrapers' owners show their desire to own the space. By not selling, even for millions of dollars on property that initially probably cost a fraction, the little old person that owns the apartment shows their hard and fast opinion of the value of the place -- which obviously has nothing to do with the money -- much to the chagrin of their wealthy, towering neighbors. It's amazing.

When conflicts of opinion arise over what to do with a given resource, they can be solved in one of two ways. Assuming individual property rights exist, they can be resolved voluntarily, through cooperation. If property rights don't exist (or they can be "overruled"), conflicts can be solved by force, through coercion. Voluntary cooperation or forceful coercion. What's all that mean in the real world?

Let's say I decide to paint my house baby poop green. Looking at the costs involved, let's put $400 into the paint and 30 hours into the labor. All told, we'll subjectively value (that's the only way to set value to anything) the paint job, labor included, at $1,000 plus 75 chits of Personal Satisfaction. Although I get no monetary return on the money investment, money is not the only thing that comprises wealth or value (as we saw in the apartment example above) and so in the long run I get more than $1000 of Personal Satisfaction in seeing my house every day in its putrid green state. Only I can assess the total value, Personal Satisfaction included. Now my neighbors, perhaps a bit more conservative than I am, do not like to drive by every day and see my ugly green house. It's ugly -- to them -- and causes great distress or, at minimum, a slight annoyance. Regardless, they are definitely bearing a cost (a cost that again does not equal money, harboring more on the Personal Satisfaction scale) they did not ask for. Their cost is a bad consequence of me painting my house green. That consequence that they suffer is known as a "negative externality" in economics.

How do my neighbors address this (subjective) cost that they are bearing each day, looking at my nasty green house? They effectively have three options: 1) Ignore it, a la "Live and Let Live", 2) cooperate voluntarily with me on a solution or 3) use coercion to force a change. Let's assume property rights exist and I can do with my house as I please. The neighbors could just deal with it (it's a free country!) or make me an offer to paint my house back to the original color. It depends on how much they value the house in the original state. Ergo, their offer would have to be something (money, drugs, kittens, pleading, a friendly request) that I perceive as greater than the total value (the money plus the "75 chits of Personal Satisfaction") that I get from seeing my green house. It also has to be something that they are willing to forego -- surely I would change it if they offered me millions of dollars. In other words, assuming property rights, the whole process can be done through voluntary cooperation and exchange. Again, the other alternative for them if they really want it changed, would be to simply overpower me and re-paint it themselves, wherein I would have no choice in the matter -- otherwise known as coercion. Either way the goal is accomplished. Same thing with the Manhattan apartment example. If no property rights existed, the two towering neighbors could just force out the apartment owner -- a "hostile" takeover. In lieu of that, they have to negotiate a peaceful conclusion, agreeable to all parties. Economists concern themselves with exactly how these kinds of transactions go down and I'll give you one guess which solution most of 'em favor.

Update! November 14, 2003

Here's a real-life situation like the one I wrote about above. Except the house is purple. And it looks like the market isn't going to decide -- the state will.

In Response to Castro's Response

June 2, 2002

I read this speech word for word and, upon completion, I must say that Castro is indeed an eloquent, if not garrulous, speech-maker with a bent towards the myopic.

Thinking of those gathered there in Holguin to hear him speak brings back nostalgic memories of my bitter-sweet experience in Cuba. I still think often and fondly of those who I met and the things I was fortunate enough to take part in -- barreling through the streets in an old Russian sedan or standing in the salty air at the Plaza de Revolucion. My overriding residual sentiment from that trip is one of camaraderie, sympathy, and hope for my Cuban friends there.

The pure-play politics of George W. Bush's castigating reprisal of the "condemnation of Cuba" and reinforcement of the mutually detrimental and ineffectual economic embargo is disappointing. His hypocrisy in support of free trade and liberalism shines right through when surreptitiously stumping for support of his brother's re-election among supporters in the "exiled" Cuban community in Florida.

Definitions of democracy may differ, but I must agree with Bush and Carter when they urge Castro to support free elections, free press and freedom of association, as defined by the greater (e.g. non-U.S.) community and even the U.N. Castro's appeal in the aforementioned speech is ostensibly more of an emotional, versus intellectual, diatribe. His facts and figures fall short of explaining the greater global, and gloomy, economic reality of his country's woes. In the following statement, knowingly or otherwise, he supports the basic precepts of Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and nearly quotes verbatim Adam Smith's observation of the advantages of economic specialization:

"Out of a historical necessity [?] to leave behind a legacy of underdevelopment, Cuba shares with foreign companies those productions that it would not have access to with its own technologies and funds, but no international financial institution or foreign private capital can determine over our destiny."

Spoken like a true "neo-liberalismo".

I think Castro is starting to feel some pangs of regret at the country's obvious lack of progress since the revolution and the concomitant desperation of the Cuba people over the past four decades. There have undoubtedly been advances in education and health care, but at what cost? During my stay in Cuba I met, outside of the sphere of academia, enough people who supported alternative (ergo, "counter-revolutionary") views -- such as the growing petition of the Proyecto Varela -- of how Cuba might proceed, and succeed, in the future. Castro never seems to address these issues explicitly in his speeches. It could be said that he is just as set in his ways as President Bush, or Jesse Helms for that matter. The difference is our country's 'mainstream' media (CNN) publishing as a headline Castro's condemnation of "Mr. W", supporting the strength and confidence of free press and countering the fact that "Bush's remarks have never been published nor broadcast in Cuba, though there have been references to them in the state-run media." Shall we believe CNN? Not always, of course, but I'm willing to bet a box of Cohibas that it's true -- if I were back in Havana today I am sure I would be hard pressed to find transcripts of Bush's remarks (this speech or otherwise) -- or any counterpoint arguments of prevailing "neo-liberal" intellectuals -- Cuban born or Yanqui.

The following comment also took me quite by surprise, especially in lieu of the reference to "lies" in the title of Castro's speech:

"Nor does a single penny end up in Castro’s pockets or those of his followers. No senior Cuban revolutionary leader has a dollar in a bank, or a personal bank account in hard currency in Cuba or anywhere else. "

This is absolutely untrue and this is where Castro disappoints me time and again. Fidel Castro's personal net worth (including hard cash, private assets and offshore investments) has been independently documented countless times, by many countries and financial institutions that are part of the "neo-liberal" alliance or otherwise, to stand at around US$55 million.

I personally think and feel, from evidence and instinct, that Fidel Castro is not an evil man, as many U.S. politicians and Cuban ex-pats, determined to hold the party line, would have the American public believe. However, it is my firm belief that Cuba will continue in its stagnancy, buried in a colossal (and steadily growing) balance of payments debt with nearly every trading partner, until it embraces rule of law and free market reforms. It will be on par only with North Korea in its continued impoverishment and lack of opportunity as "socialist" comrades such as China, Vietnam, and even Cambodia begin to pull out of blindly conservative, debilitative policies held by the Party and start to see an influx of commerce, prosperity and better lives for their deserving people.

I only hope Cuba, along with cooperation from the United States, will embark on the same successful route.

Why Don't Rich People Clean Their Own Damned Toilets?

This column was published in The Daily Beacon on September 16, 2004

Must some people suffer in order for others to live in luxury? Do the “rich” exploit the “poor”? A friend was recently criticizing “rich” people, saying that it was wrong for them to go shopping at the malls while a poor person cleaned their dirty toilets. Let's think a little further about that accusation.

Let's assume that no matter how rich or poor you are, you're going to have dirty toilets. There's just no way around it. Given this assumption, and the fact that most people value hygiene, the toilets must somehow get clean. Let's say everyone decides to clean their own toilets instead of hiring someone else to do it, which seems to be the only underlying solution to this whole dilemma. But why doesn't this happen? In two words: opportunity cost. Please follow a little more as I explain.

Do “rich” people avoid cleaning their toilets because they don't want to get dirty? Quite possibly. Or is it because they are doing other things with their time? Much more likely. Let's say one of those “rich” people is a doctor who saves lives and is certainly no stranger to getting dirty. Is it in her best interest, or the interests of others for that matter, to spend several hours each week cleaning her bathrooms?

With this first point in mind, what if the doctor foregoes surgery sometimes and actually does clean her own toilets. Now the person who had previously been cleaning is no longer employed by her. Sure, there's possibly something else out there for that “un-hired” person to do, but no matter. The fact is, the wage that had previously been available is now gone. Also, and perhaps more significantly, the wage that the doctor would have earned (not to mention the lives she might have saved) if she had been doctoring people instead of cleaning toilets is now forfeited.

Given these two points, is there a chance that someone out there might willingly take the job -- a dirty one though it is -- wherein the doctor has a wage she is willing to give and the job-seeker is willing to accept? This would allow the job-seeker to then spend that wage on what they want or need, while allowing the doctor to fulfill her tasks and receive commensurate (higher) wages … which might also keep the cycle going. In other words, can the market make a match between two parties through voluntary cooperation?

This whole explanation is based on the concept that economists call “opportunity cost”, and it affects each of us every day as we make decisions. A lawyer may be able to type 180 words per minute. So why does he hire a secretary who only types 90 wpm?

Where does all of this leave the “exploited” toilet scrubbers? If they feel they are being exploited, they should walk away. Employment in this country is “at will” since slave labor was abolished ages ago. And even outside the U.S. , in other countries where some allege that a form of slave labor is happening (e.g. “sweatshops”), the people there are actually begging “exploitative” businesses to come in. Developing countries are lined up to be “exploited” by multinational businesses. Why? Because people in developing countries have low opportunity costs. The alternative to working in a factory for a multinational corporation might be foraging through hazardous trash heaps for recyclable scraps. One should question which option is more “exploitative”. Because these countries are at early stages of economic development, it's difficult for them to acquire and maintain their own capital. They also have different standards for acceptable working conditions and safety – just as the U.S. did 100 or even 50 years ago. Foreign investment and employment often becomes their best way to escape poverty and begin wealth creation.

Visit developing countries and you will find that even the “man on the street”, unversed in the academic complexities of finance and economics, fully understands the concept of opportunity cost. Actually talking to employees of so-called “hegemonic multinational corporations” reveals why folks in third world countries are willing to do it – and why they consider it strange that some wealthy Americans seem to know what is best for developing countries while (ironically) protesting against free trade. Discuss the issue with immigrants instead of American academics and “social justice” groups who already live in a wealthy society that has passed its developmental stages. Talk to immigrants from developing countries who are willing to risk life and limb to abandon their own land and culture and travel to America to get “exploited” by the lowest paying jobs here. Don't talk about politics, America or even democracy with them. Talk about markets. Talk about opportunity. It's not a uniquely American concept, but it's here that it flourishes most.

An Oracle of Wisdom Circa 1787

May 29, 2000

From The Federalist Papers, written by "Publius" (later determined to be Alexander Hamilton), the following passage represents a very cogent stance against both unrestrained libertarianism as well as collectivism:

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men won't conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. [Emphasis added. This supports the assertion of Friedrich von Hayek, Austrian economist and philosopher, that even good men will do bad things ... don't expect men to be better than they are.]

(paragraph continues) "Do groups of men act with more virtue or greater disinterest than individuals? Observers of human behavior infer the opposite; and this inference is founded on obvious reasons. An individual worries more about his reputation than that of his group, because blame for the detestable action of the group is divided among a number of people. [Emphasis added] A spirit of faction often poisons the deliberations of bodies of men, pushing the group into improper and excessive behavior that would embarrass the individuals." [This addresses the problems with 'mass hysteria' and the concomitant plausible deniability/lack of accountability in the collectivist regime.]

We Are All Infidels

October 21, 2002

The following is taken from an excellent essay entitled "They Want To Kill Us All", written by an Australian journalist who explains the unfolding "divide and conquer" mentality of terrorists in the wake of the Bali bombing.

Original essay here
They Want to Kill Us All

Quick excerpt, worth reading I think, is here:

"The French were supportive for about ten minutes after 11 September, but for most of the last year have been famously and publicly non-supportive: throughout the spring, their foreign minister, M. Védrine, was deploring American ‘simplisme’ on a daily basis. The French veto is still Saddam’s best shot at torpedoing any meaningful UN action on Iraq. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, the French would be it.

But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, ‘We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels.’

No problem. They are all infidels.

Unlike Mr Fisk [apologist for Islamic terrorism], I don’t have decades of expertise in the finer points of Islamic culture, so when people make certain statements and their acts conform to those statements I tend to take them at their word. As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, ‘We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.’ The first choice of Islamists is to kill Americans and Jews, or best of all an American Jew — like Daniel Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter. Failing that, they’re happy to kill Australians, Britons, Canadians, Swedes, Germans, as they did in Bali. We are all infidels. "

Let's look at that quote again, from the former leader of Hezbollah: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Hrm. This tends to neatly echo statements made by Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and, ha! Would you believe it? Saddam Hussein. Here is a list of quotes from Saddam based on some homework that I've done. Most of these are in direct reference to 9/11:

• "[September 11 was] God's punishment."
  Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
  
  
• "The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
  Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
  
  
• "If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
  Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)
  
  
• "[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
  Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)
  
  
• "The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
  Babil, October 8, 2001
  

Nah, this guy is no threat. He's just peacefully whiling away his time waiting for his retirement and pension and will probably just listlessly hang out with all of his underage concubines in a lifestyle that Westerners "just don't understand". But surely he'll behave, especially when he knows the U.S. will whip up on him if he gets out of line. So we should just leave him alone for now as he poses no immediate risk. War drums are a beatin' and everyone just needs to chill out.

Saddam Hussein hates the U.S. and the "Western world", would love to see us destroyed (per his own words) and, most of all, he is in the position to do something about it. Since it is self evident that he cannot beat us conventionally, he is trying and will continue to try, at no great personal cost to himself, every measure possible to beat us by the only means that seems effective these days: terrorism. And claiming that Saddam is a "secular leader" (which seems to contradict the first quote above) and has no connections, support for or ties to Islamic terrorists is a joke. Saddam is basically saying, "your enemy is my enemy". He may not give a flip about their particular strain of religion, but he's certainly going to support the opposing team just because he hates the favored team. How could Hitler, with his ideas of the master Aryan race and world conquest, embrace and ally with the Japanese? Rest assured that Saddam's support for the "underdog" team is more than placing his own private bets or sponsoring some jerseys. Given the opportunity, he's fronting the balls (no pun intended), bats, gloves, helmets, cleats and hell, he'll even take everyone out to Pizza Hut after the game if they win.

Folks, there is absolutely no apology to be found for the terrorism that we are facing. Not U.S. "support" for Israel, not poverty or economic drivers, not American "militarism and capitalism", not a lack of "enlightenment" when ancient Islam butts against modern civilization. There is no *rational* root cause for this psychotic behavior, as so many have been trying to find -- including myself. And the more you try to rationalize it, as Mr. Steyn points out in his essay, the more you risk sounding just as nutty as the terrorists.

The root cause for indiscriminately slaughtering unsuspecting men, women and children is as old as time immemorial: It is called PURE FUCKING EVIL. We need to get with the program and see it for what it is or we are all going to apologize ourselves to the grave.

Why I Do Not Consider All Capitalists To Be Greedy Bastards (Or, Why I Love My Computer, Cell Phone, DVD Player and Antibiotic Drugs)

November 6, 2002

Cruising down Fulton Street in Lower Manhattan ...

Robert Fulton is known by school kids everywhere as the inventor of the steam engine. An "American hero" by many counts. An enigmatic engineer. A greedy bastard. A capitalist! Smart, yes. Insightful, yes. Artistic, indeed. Homosexual, yes. (Ooops! They didn't teach that one in history class!) But Robert was one greedy bastard. Why? Fulton was messing around with his steam engine prototypes, which stood to solve huge dilemmas with getting much-needed supplies *up* the Mississippi, and rivers everywhere around the world. The (evil/necessary?) government caught wind of his research and commissioned him further, goading him on in an effort to get the crucial technology developed quicker. Again, Robert Fulton did have the idea and the know-how, greedy though he was. So what does greedy Robert Fulton do? He halts his research and informs the government that he will only proceed with development if he is guaranteed a monopoly on his efforts. (Economists everywhere shriek! Monopolies: bad, bad.)

Robert Fulton was granted the monopoly. That greedy bastard made boo-koo money. He was the Donald Trump of his day. Yes, what a dandy. He partied throughout Europe, abandoning his family and kids for bisexual menage-a-trois excursions in Paris. He had phat money. Major bucks blown in the ultimate bourgeois fashion. Robert Fulton died a poor man at age 50. He forgave most of his debts. His monopoly had been revoked. His heirs were destitute -- he left little to none of his millions for his estranged wife and family.

Think of Robert Fulton's short life span in the context of the continuum of time. Think of the overwhelming contribution of the steam engine to modern life.

For a few seconds of greed in the context of a millenia, what is left us?

Some economists scratch their heads at this. Others nod knowingly. It's almost like some sort of mocking joke. The lure of petty, temporary material pleasures in exchange for one man's life passion and intellectual exhaustion -- benefiting thousands, nay, millions in the long term? Could it also be said for Henry Ford? Bill Gates? They ultimately turn to dust, their money worthless and their names long forgotten by their beneficiaries yet their creations serving fellow man forever. Who would arrange for such a prank? Is there some sort of "Invisible Hand"? ;-)

Screening Suitcases Will Not Stop Terrorism

August 23, 2002

All the improved airport screening in the world will not stop terrorists.

The halcyon days of pre-9/11 freedom are gone my friends. These fruitloops that strap bombs to their bellies (or commandeer planes for the same purpose) with the hopes of killing me, you and anything "American" are not content until they destroy "the Great Satan" and have everyone on their knees praying to Allah several times a day. This is not an exaggeration. They make it no secret. To them, anyone in our society who sympathizes with their "cause" is seen as a funny anomaly and still just as much of an "unbeliever" and potential target as the loudest, reddest-faced, epithet-spewing, anti-Arab Republican in our midst.

The fire is only stoked by our asinine propensity for political correctness. I fear that it will be our end. We have to 'nip it in the bud' as Barney would say and it starts with being an asshole, as Nic would say. Look at Israel. When is the last time Israeli Airlines was hijacked? It is certainly the most desirable target for Islamic extremists -- far more so than the U.S. The reason we were picked instead of Israel is because of our slack-ass policies and the glaring hole that is called "P.C." The terrorists exploited this on 9/11 and will continue to do so, laughing all the way to the mosque.

The terrorists avoid hijacking in Israel because of the incredibly effective security policies that Israel has in place. So how do they manage airport security? I'll tell you how -- in fact, they told us how via the Israeli Defense Secretary's memo to the United States last fall. I'll paraphrase what he said:

"You are wasting your time looking through all the luggage."

That's right, they spend their resources not on useless equipment or a 28,000-person federally-managed bureaucracy to wand babies and harass papaw, but on training their screeners to spot suspicious parties that fit the profile of a potential terrorist. If somebody wants to overthrow a plane they will -- box-cutters or none -- and all the fancy equipment in the world won't stop them. Israeli screeners research manifests, passports, names, faces and mannerisms (if necessary) before anyone boards the plane. Hrm. Look at all the terrorists that overthrew the planes on 9/11. Then have a look at all the terrorists involved in acts of terrorism against the U.S. in the past years. Frisking then seizing fingernail clippers from grandmothers (this actually happened to Chie's 88 year-old kimono-clad grandmother on her flight from Detroit to Knoxville) is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. And you know, the Israeli screeners probably call 'em wrong once in a while and accidentally piss some people off. Sorry, but look at their record of hijackings. Even at the height of intifada, not a single hijacking in over 30 years.

Summation: Criminal profiling works and until we get our act together, we're going to continue to be exposed and innocent people will die again. We did not want to do this ... our model was one of tolerance and "Come one come all: Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, atheist, homo or Hare Krishna" and now we are faced with having to revert to admittedly intolerant policies -- toward a very small fraction of the population -- to save the rest of us who don't give a flying prayer-mat about somebody's stupid religious war. And it's ridiculous, not to mention impossible, to apply these policies "democratically". Anyone who is inconvenienced from the profiling will need to thank the huge numbers of Islamic extremists all over the world, who not surprisingly fit a consistent profile, and who continue to make no bones about their desire to destroy us. All of us.

On your next flight, if you happen to be sitting next to the guy who stands up, sweating, punches your lights out and then deftly takes over the plane, one of two things will happen. You can either think lovingly of all the people you'll never see again as you zoom into a national landmark at 600+ mph or you can wave goodbye out the window as you watch four high-speed heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles jettison from a USAF F-16A fighter jet and blow you into hyper-dust. In either case, be sure to thank our politically correct policy-makers on the way down.

Not In Our Name (?)

January 28, 2003

In the Monday, January 27th issue of the New York Times, on page A16 and A17, an organization called "Not In Our Name" took out a huge ad. The information in the ad can also be seen here: http://www.nion.us/NION.HTM

There are a lot of big-time celebrity names that "signed" this statement, although I'm not sure if that adds any credence to the legitimacy of anyone's political claims. I'm also not sure what the organization defines as "repression", and even in their statement it is never made clear. But from "war" I can only assume they are referring to the current situation with Iraq.

My first inclination when confronting anti-war advocates is that, first of all, I totally agree that war is a bad thing and anyone who condones it for the sake of war is pretty sick. However, I am not naive enough to ignore the fact that convenience and necessity are very often two different things. In other words, what is the alternate proposal for foreign policy, with regard to rogue nations like North Korea, Iraq, those harboring Islamic terrorists? I read through the "statement of conscience" and, although there are certainly a great many words of general dissent and disagreement with U.S. intervention in Iraq (?), I can see no specifics regarding an alternative to the current situation.

The devil is in the details.

Let's just take the third paragraph, which is the closest thing to an actual statement of principles within the whole text:

"We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers."

Can't agree more. This describes the very core of freedom and democracy as practiced in the United States. Unfortunately for places like Afghanistan and Iraq, this is about as far from reality as it gets.

"We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process."

Agreed. The terrorist detainees in Cuba raise hackles on this issue and, although they aren't technically in the United States, their detention is under the murky classification of "unlawful combatants". They are basically prisoners of war. Personally, I am confident that their treatment is within the bounds of the Geneva Convention and this has been repeatedly confirmed by the International Red Cross and other agencies. Of course, unfortunately no one is extended the same rights in Iraq, North Korea, et al.

"We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected."

Agreed. Guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for."

True. "Contestation" often boils down to interpretation of the Constitution to a large extent. But as far as our freedoms being fought for, they are dead on. No pun intended.

So at a fundamental, perhaps even visceral level, I agree with the basic tenets here. The problem comes into play with the naivete of organizations like NION and the cadre of celebrities and academics that sign on with them. Certainly nobody would say: "Yes, I think we should go bomb the hell out of innocent people", unless of course you are an Islamic extremist. But I think it's pretty unsophisticated to think that simply saying "Yo, no war man" solves the problem. I think our country was certainly "giving peace a chance" in the halcyon days prior to 9/11. We weren't at war with anyone, or planning to go to war with anyone or encouraging anybody else to go to war with anyone. It certainly changes things, though, when somebody kills your neighbor in your own back yard. I think you have to look at intent and motivation here. Sure, the U.S. is a powerful military force. But is our intent the same as someone like, say, Saddam Hussein? Kim Jong Il? Osama Bin Laden?

Yes, We Have No Agenda

September 7, 2001

While walking across campuses in the United States, one cannot help but notice signs inviting students to attend various protests against trade. The eye-catching flyers are very stylistic, brandishing buzzwords such as "Sweatshops!", "Living Wages!" and "Environment!" that invite concerned youth to “make a difference”.

The momentum gained from anti-globalization and anti-capitalism demonstrations in Seattle, Washington, D.C., Cancun, and other trade talks is alive and well in the United States . A very fashionable, but irrational, movement is afoot, channeling the vitality, vigor, and naïveté of American students against what is perceived as corporate hegemony and unfair practice in developing countries. Many people, especially students, have joined the ranks.

Indeed, the protesters at these trade talks have accomplished a considerable amount. They have managed to get the world's attention. But once in the spotlight, their performance has failed miserably. I have yet to see a cohesive set of demands (much less recommendations) from the protesters. I saw a lot of smoke, flying objects and dancing about in colorful costumes, but no spokesperson(s) to come forward and represent, despite the continued invitations by trade organizations like the WTO. One might conclude that the protests were all in the name of fun and fashion amidst confusion and boredom. Unfortunately, this rather ostentatious lack of organization often obscures legitimate concerns.

It is admirable that protesters continue to practice their freedom to demonstrate. However, to have real impact, arguments must be digestible by the public and policy-makers. Americans watching the evening news might raise an eyebrow of suspicion or at least side with the protesters in the spirit of a good ol' raucous display of youthful enthusiasm. But sympathies are dwindling, especially when each protest is riddled with vandalism and antics that do not seem to serve a progressive purpose. Workers in foreign developing economies see the shenanigans of young, well-dressed and well-fed Westerners as pure protectionism (i.e. “We've got our piece of the pie, but we don't want you to have any.”)

One of the most memorable images for me from the Seattle protests was a picture of a man kicking in the window of a McDonald's restaurant. It was a business probably owned by a local proprietor, who certainly didn't have anyone holding a gun to his head forcing him to open a McDonald's. In an effort to display his disgust at capitalism and globalization (or perhaps the fact that many people like greasy burgers), the young man managed to damage the property of a Seattle resident. The protester-turned-vandal had a camera to capture his efforts (made in Japan ), tennis shoes (manufactured in Southeast Asia ), a backpack (sewn together by a Canadian) and a mobile phone (designed in Finland and built in South Korea ). It struck me as ironic. If he really wanted to protest globalization, he could have registered his distaste by purchasing items made only in his hometown. It's safe to say that he would have gone without the camera and mobile phone. He might have been able to find some shoes and something to serve as a pack, but at a much higher price than the international (read: "globalized") goods. Realistically speaking, it was cost consciousness that guided his purchases, especially of luxury goods.

Not everyone in the world is fortunate enough to live in a country of such plentiful production, abounding opportunity and liberal freedoms. It might serve as a worthwhile exercise for concerned protesters to use the money that they would normally spend on the next rally and instead go to a developing country to witness firsthand the alternatives to so-called "corporate hegemony" – things like toiling in the hot sun or prostitution. They should study the motives of the supposed "enemy" and understand that the World Trade Organization does not exist to enforce trade. It attempts to reduce barriers to trade, hence making it easier for developing countries to access markets of developed countries. The International Monetary Fund is not out to bury poor countries in debt. It operates as a pool of funds, voluntarily contributed to by nearly all countries, to be used for exchange stability and temporary financial assistance. And the World Bank continually assists poor nations by extending small loans and professional assistance for poverty-reducing public infrastructure and development projects – projects I have seen firsthand. The benefit of their work is lauded by locals and evident in thousands of successful implementations all over the world. These organizations make their intentions, progress, and even criticisms readily available on their respective web sites. I issue a challenge to my generation: To really make a difference, channel your energy into understanding the nature of economics, the value of comparative advantage and the real struggle of developing countries. Then make a clear argument according to your analysis.

Socialism Versus Capitalism - A Moral Choice

January 2000

A greater philosophical and moral issue lies at the heart of the debate between socialism and capitalism. Human nature ostensibly results in mankind's waxing and waning episodes of greed, as well as generosity, love, and indeed spite. To attempt to influence behavior toward the good, the just, is indeed an honorable effort. This impetus for influence comes from many areas, religion being perhaps the greatest. To attempt to regulate moral behavior, however, is futile. That, to me, is the basic juxtaposition between socialism and capitalism, subordination and freewill.

Marxism requires revolution. Revolution requires impetus and agitation. Without paramount injustice accepted wholly or by a majority of a populace, in its place lies want of reform and revision.

Everyone has potential. Fostering an environment to unlock that potential is a role of government and society. The opportunity to manifest talent, experience and love should not be impeded. The concept of distribution of wealth is implemented practically by focusing on the distribution of the opportunity for wealth. Workers should not by law own the means of production, but the opportunity to own the means of production. Unlocking individual potential will only happen in an environment that promotes intellectual freedom, personal liberty and the right of the individual to determine his or her own fate.

Some Things I Think

Think about others, but say what you think. Listen well. Talk straight.

Camaraderie is good. Interchange and cooperation are necessary. Avoid pack mentality, where the fervor of the group supercedes rational individual thinking.

Technology is a neutral application. It harbors no sentiment of its own, but can bear the inclinations of its creators or users. Technology extends the faculties of man, and therefore can extend his scruples, good or bad.

Leadership. You face two possibilities: Lead yourself or you will be led.

Why I Am Not a Republican

Book Review: Nickel & Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich

December 17, 2002

First, the good things. Ms. Ehrenreich is definitely a professional writer. She tells a great story and I was absorbed by the narrative. A real page-turner. She is also a good journalist. The applause she gives herself at the beginning of the "Evaluation" chapter is certainly well-deserved. For a gal in her 50s, she definitely did "hold her own" in some tough jobs amongst the "youngsters". I think she conveyed the stories of a lot of lower income people in an authentic way. She cracked me up on more than a few occasions ... laughing out loud at her apt description of the 10-person table of "Visible Christians" that left her $1 tip on $92 which was oh-so-reminiscent of my many years at Piccadilly (a "Luby's-style" cafeteria). I think she tells an important story to the "New York Times Bestseller" audience about what it's like to "rough it" on dirt wages ... not coming from wealth and having to really bust your ass and sometimes be flat busted.

But she falls short of being compelling.

Before I get into the mechanics of her research, I have to describe what I found, surprisingly, to be the most overarching element of the book. It had nothing to do with the thesis or narrative structure. It started out slowly, but then really hung there, like a persistent background hum throughout the entire text. The most dominant issue for Ms. Ehrenreich might purport to be the plight of lower income workers in America, but perhaps subconsciously she seems to be most consumed with race. I have to honestly say I cannot recall reading a book, about racial issues or otherwise, that made so much reference to race. I really tried to brush this off, but it wouldn't go away. In fact, I started playing a game about half-way through the book: I would wager that the next character she introduced, whether it had any relevance toward the situation she was describing or not, would be described by race, usually preceding other descriptors. I even got a kick out of it at first but later was annoyed and then downright saddened. Do this experiment. Pick any four pages from the book and read until you find reference to a human being. I guarantee it will be prefaced with some direct reference or at least allusion to race. I just did it. Totally random. I opened the book, started skimming page 94 then moved to page 95. Last paragraph -- talking about Holly being white (pale) ... "we're not just talking Caucasian here". Now I see her use of metaphor and it is innocent enough here. But when you take this and compile it with all the other references ... well, let's just say it gets a little weird.

Imagine for a minute that you are a very successful woman who happens to be of some African descent. You overcame untold challenges while growing up, through high school, got a scholarship, graduated from college without the help of quotas and affirmative action (although no one would ever really know it), you have started your own business and outreach center in the community, you have a family and you are working hard to save for their needs. I actually have an image in my mind of a close friend of mine that I drew this description from -- a relationship I had where race was never a big focus. Now read the following passage from page 100, where she's talking about getting stares in the grocery store for having a maid's outfit on:

"Then there's the supermarket. I used to stop on my way home from work, but I couldn't take the stares, which are easily translatable into: What are you doing here? And, No wonder she's poor, she's got a beer in her shopping cart! True I don't look so good by the end of the day and probably smell like eau de toilet and sweat, but it's the [green] uniform that gives me away, like prison clothes on a fugitive. Maybe it occurs to me, I'm getting a tiny glimpse of what it would be like to be black."

What the hell?!? Now I know Ms. Ehrenreich is from the old school, and like all of her generation, I give her some leeway to be sure. But she really has some hang-ups. I don't think she is a bigot. I do, however, think she is a "racist". I guess you could say I'm one of those (neo-conservative?) dreamers who thinks that the only way to really end the "race issue" is to stop making it an issue, jail people who break laws, and learn to look at each other as humans, not as representatives of race. I personally think that "racial condescension", and she practices plenty of it in this book, is just as bad, if not worse, than racism.

On the issue of condescension ... I appreciate her thorough disclaimers about the fact that she is not really saying she is a low-wage earner. She makes it clear that she is a "middle class" person who is "very different from the people who normally fill America's least attractive jobs". She really does a good job of pointing out the "Heidegger's Principle" dilemma of doing a book like this. But after that, she truly cuts a bourgeois shine. I actually dropped my jaw on a few occasions. It started with her introduction, on page 8, where in the first paragraph she states "I have been asked by acquaintances whether the people I worked with couldn't, uh, tell -- the supposition being that an educated person is ineradicably different, and in a superior direction, from your workaday drones." ???? Or perhaps they just didn't care? Yeah, they are different because they are more or less educated in certain areas. But "workaday drones"? She uses this kind of belittling prattle constantly -- as if the jobs these people have somehow define who they are. Maybe I'm being a bit sensitive or over-reactive here, but examples are replete throughout the book. I thought it was poetic justice when, upon revealing that she was their working-class hero in disguise -- a writer doing a story about the plight of these poor "less superior" and multi-ethntic people, the response, as she describes it, was anticlimactic.

To sum up the previous criticisms, which really don't address the thesis but certainly speak to the author and her 'voice' in the story, I personally think Ms. Ehrenreich suffers from a (uniquely American?) touch of self-loathing ... "guilty of being middle class", angry at a (capitalist, Christian, free-market) system that helped propel her to her current high level of living. Perhaps she is affected by the fact that she continues to enjoy her wine, high-tech gym, salmon and field greens and shopping trips to Lord & Taylor's that come from her success, no doubt a result of her hard work and the "Booker T. Washingtonian" principles instilled by her father and family.

Okay, enough of Dr. Rader's precarious psychological evaluation. I don't like to delve too much into the individual and hold them hostage to the books they write, but she definitely volunteers enough information about herself and her personal life to make it an issue.

In terms of the book's thesis. First, let me state this: Having more money is definitely better than having less money. Being "poor" (a subjective term that is hard to define) to the degree of the people she describes is definitely no fun. I have to say that my definition of poverty draws from a more holistic (e.g. worldly) and historical viewpoint than Ms. Ehrenreich's seems to. There is absolute poverty and there is relative poverty. Poverty in the United States, for example, is relatively FAR, FAR less worse than poverty in other parts of the world. I'm "relatively" impoverished if, let's say, everyone in my neighborhood has air conditioning and screens in their windows but I do not. Conversely, I would be relatively wealthy, in that exact same situation, compared to some friends I have in Vietnam who do not have windows at all. Put differently, absolute poverty to me is where I do not have adequate shelter to protect me from the elements, food to prevent me from starving or being in incapacitating health, and clothing to shield me from the seasons.

From there, Ms. Ehrenreich needs to stay away from her wayward ventures into classical economic theory (in the same way that I need to avoid psychology and physics ) and start with some better Home Ec 101. For instance:

1. Get rid of the car. For some reason she relegates it to the continuity of story. She needs to dump it. Assume she had it as a previous asset and use the proceeds for better (more efficient economical) uses. She admits after the fact this might have caused her "mathematics experiment" to work.
   
2. Stop buying alcohol. Carts full of white wine and beer don't make you look "poor" or "black". They make you look financially incompetent. Everyone has to have fun, yeah -- but she is supposedly emulating people who are trying to make ends meet and that's not, or shouldn't be, in their budget. Buy a paperback.
   
3. Stop doing drugs. I nearly fell out of my chair when I found out she had a) smoked pot and b) found herself paying $30 for a "detox" kit. I like to have fun just like the next one -- WHEN THE BILLS ARE PAID. There's a lesson in there somewhere from Marx I do believe. Take care of the functional utilities first, then visit Bacchus.
   
4. Do shares. Her astonishment at how all her co-workers "did it" is answered by her own inquiry time and time again. They have roommates with whom to share expenses. They often (gasp!) have husbands. That's how you do it on shit wages. That's how I did it. That's how everybody does it.
   

In fairness to her, she did just plop herself down in these situations, which would almost necessitate a vehicle of some sort and would certainly hinder picking up reliable roommates in such a short time. But that's part of the problem with her experiment. It's just not reality -- even the "poor" who have to move rarely do it on a whim -- they ensure support networks are available before striking out. That, along with all the gripes that I just issued, is known as smart economizing. It's something, consciously or otherwise, that everyone does regardless of income, "class" or RACE. Some people are certainly smarter about it than others. Admittedly, the more wealth you have accumulated, the more frivolous you can be with your economizing (to a point). And I think that's where Ms. Ehrenreich makes a less than optimal candidate for this research. She makes a mistake of not showing her receipts (which would have made this much more "scientific"). Not literally the proofs of sale, but a spreadsheet or *something* that would allow us, the reading audience, to determine if she could've made income match expenses. When I find out she is wearing a sleeping mask to bed and worrying with makeup, I just can't consider her efforts a legitimate experiment. Find someone who can "keep it real" to do a book like this. There are plenty of people who economize smartly on low, low wages. That kind of book would actully be beneficial to the folks she tries to highlight in her book.

First-handers vs. Second-handers

"Next Express To White Plains Station on Track 19 at 5:27."

I stood at the info booth in the center of Grand Central Terminal on a weekday afternoon waiting for my wife and overheard the receptionist at the booth, who was within earshot. I was fascinated as I stood there. Droves of people lined up, invariably asking one after another when the next train will leave to a given location. I was amazed at the efficiency and speed with which the talented info booth worker dispensed the information. Without missing a beat, and in seemingly mechanistic fashion, she had the answer just as fast as it could leave the inquirer's lips. The marble floor of the terminal was awash with busy feet, going to and fro in a frenzy to reach destinations. I thought to myself, "what if every person in this terminal, easily several hundred, each stopped to ask this woman for directions?" What caused some people to know where to go and when, and others to ask? A habitual daily schedule kept most of them going in clockwork fashion, no doubt. But even the newcomer to the terminal might find his or her way to the proper train at the correct time without aid from this already overwhelmed info booth worker.

Just as I heard her repeat her answer to the repeated question "When's the next train to White Plains?" and turned to have a look at the person asking, it dawned on me that within full view behind us all was a huge sign, denoting trains, tracks and times as well as destinations. One could see this itinerary brandished on the wall from any part of the terminal. In fact, I counted five monitors that included the same information in that very room. Perhaps this "ask/don't ask" phenomenon at Grand Central is a manifestation of the behavior differences between first- and second-handers. There are those who seek to know the answer(s), and operate independently, and those who would much rather call on another person for assistance, even in the face of relative simplicity. Thinking, and acting on one's own thoughts, is more difficult than relying on someone else's direction (and, thusly, absolving responsibility in the event of a mistake). I think the lack of thinking (or rationalizing, as Aristotle might put it) is often labeled as "laziness". Mental laziness, as I see it, prevents that info booth worker at Grand Central Terminal from dispensing real information to logical inquiries and instead relegates her to acting as a human signboard.

Ideas regarding Fear

July 2000

We must strive to defy fear. As I see it (and have seen it, a lot), the primary inhibitor in the world is fear. Fear of the unknown, of failing, of not pleasing others or of being overpowered by others. I can attribute most of my good fortune to my admonishment of fear. I cannot concur more with FDR's quote: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Since I first heard it, it resounds in my head with the exact inflection and conviction precisely in place. Yes, fear is the mind killer.

Whether I'm confronting a dirt poor indigenous Mayan in Mexico or a multi-millionaire CEO at a meeting, I approach them the same. I know what they were both like when they were born and I know how they'll be when they are dying.

We come out afraid ... babies are screaming because they're leaving the most comfortable place in the world. But we have to go forth and thumb our noses at fear. Pretension is a form of fear (trying to second guess and not sure what others will think of the "real" you), unabashed materialism is a fear (have to get more stuff than the next guy to keep up), authoritarian control (and corresponding subservience) is fear. We would have never made it to the moon and we'd still be writing on papyrus leaves if fear would have won. As I see it, it's this fear/struggle-against-fear contention that bears down on us throughout our lives. We gotta come out the winner.

Shed, and hurtle forward head-first into whatever awaits -- at every moment in this existence as we transition to the next. This will culminate in the death experience, which as a test of courage will be (has been?) the most frightening and beautiful event.

Thrasymachus (from Plato's Republic) asserts that fear is the only motivator to ethical behavior. As a cynical egoist, driven by impulsive urges to satisfy bodily desires, even regardless of the potential destructive nature of such actions, fear would be an impetus for gaining power. Fear that someone else may 'do you in' would exacerbate aggression to insure the cynical egoist's status. Thrasymachus might also assume that fear of getting caught (and punished) prevents most humans from reaching the "full potential" of cynical egoism. He would argue that we would all act "justly" in catering to our instinctive desires and wants, even at the downfall and extirpation of others, if we can get away with it. But, he might say, people don't practice justice for itself, but only for fear of what would befall them if they don't practice it. The tale of the Ring of Gyges is appropriate here, implying that if a person knew he would not be caught, his practice of 'injustice' through cynical egoism would abound. Thrasymachus' essential assertion is that "just" and "unjust" are irrelevant, with "just" actions only so because the opposite will lead to prosecution of the actor.