tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30632091247748649452024-03-13T14:27:05.684-05:00Ben's BlogfoaminjectedaxlroseBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-79189251506404893962010-09-24T10:19:00.000-05:002010-09-24T10:19:10.954-05:00You don't need a weatherman to know when the wind doesn't blow<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Paul Krugman </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&hp"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">thinks that the latest House Republican "Pledge to America" is nonsense</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, and I'm sure he's right. Nobel in hand, maybe not necessary in this case, he tells us that the GOP can't cut taxes, end budget deficits, and preserve Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending without otherwise abolishing the federal government.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This is low-hanging fruit, even if it might plant its seed and sprout in a few months. But what do Democrats have to offer in return, beyond the criticism?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Throughout my life, one nice thing about the GOP has always been its straightforward approach. Republicans want to cut taxes, cut most government programs, promote big business, and increase defense spending. I'm not sure where all the deficit reduction talk comes from. It might be some way to express their dislike for the federal government while also seeming responsible. Safe to say, actual deficit reduction has not been part of the program.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Try to come up with a similar list for Democrats. During the New Deal and the Great Society, Democrats deployed sweeping, aggressive federal action to confront major economic and social crises. I think those Democrats would have embraced the notion that during major crises government is the solution. Ever since Bill Clinton declared an end to the era of big government, I don't know that many Democrats would make that same case.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Once that argument is foreclosed to Democrats, they deprive themselves of the ability to offer a real alternative to the GOP. Obama tells us to band together. He acknowledges that times are tough. He reminds us that Bush got us into the mess and that we don't want to go back to the bad old days. And we get the notion of passing more stimulus, as if the only solution we could conceive of to our problems is for the government to put more cash out there.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But we don't get a program. We don't get a compelling name for what we're doing (slogans count, Obama seemed well aware of that on the campaign trail). We don't get a comprehensive series of laws, targeting all of the causes of this mess. And nothing we do is built around a theme, a powerful, unifying idea that explains what the government is going to do in the face of this crisis. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I'm sure people can give plenty of reasons why this hasn't happened. The political climate in Washington has changed. The country has shifted to the right. And on and on.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I know that's dismissive. I'm just not interested in talking about losing necessary battles we don't even have the courage to join.</span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-22692845910050246802010-09-03T13:59:00.000-05:002010-09-03T13:59:11.623-05:00Why I sometimes hate the Internet<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Oh, we few, we happy few, who find ourselves occasionally reading or writing at Ben's Blog. I try, I really do, but the Internet is tough. I mean, I want to spend some time with it, but, like a crazy friend, you get that call and hit ignore, whatever you've been telling yourself.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So, yesterday, my lovely wife made me aware of </span><a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/09/01/fat-and-health/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">this post</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> at Feministe by Monica Potts about body mass index (BMI). Many people have criticized BMI as a bad indicator of health, arguing that people can be healthy at any size. Those people, some of whom dub themselves part of the fat acceptance movement, rage against an establishment media that throws around "Obesity Epidemic" pretty freely, and uses BMI to define who is obese and therefore unhealthy.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The post is pretty banal. Being a part of various Internet sub-cultures gives people a weird sort of tunnel-vision. Who else but someone steeped in the feminist blogosphere would wake up and think, "Gee, I think the idea I really need to go out and defend today is 'fat is bad.'" But that is more or less what this post does, arguing that BMI is relevant, that we should pay attention to it. On the way, she makes some silly fat jokes and says nothing new or interesting. If she has an angle, I don't know what it is.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This would be annoying enough, but then comes the deluge. If you do go over and look at the post, be sure to read some of the comments. Here are some highlights:</span></div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But right now I am literally shaking from anger.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now I will go sit quietly somewhere else on the Internet until I stop feeling ill.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I hate this post. I hate you for writing it. I pretty strongly hate feministe for posting it.</span></div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 22px;"></span></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111;"></span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111;"></span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111;"><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">what the fuck is this post. what the fuck are your responses to people’s legitimate anger about the legitimately douchey and wrong things you said in this post. what is going onnnn</span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Fuck you, Monica. Fuck your arrogant tone and FUCK your dismissive attitude.</span></div></blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">There are some more nice moments, but I think you get the picture. And I have to wonder: do people really get this upset when someone writes something trifling on the Internet?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Two other themes run through the comments: threatening to never go to the blog again and anger over comments not making it through moderation. The first I just think is funny, and it's another thing you see all the time. The second I think is sad. I mean, whatever people think about what's going on, if you read the comments, it's pretty clear that all kinds of stuff was getting through, including stuff that sounded pretty nasty and personal (see above). It all reeks of a combination conspiracy theory and sense of entitlement, as if people have some right (another thing you see all the time) to comment.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So, I have some sympathy for the author. But I can't let her off that easy. Take a look at this response she has for her detractors:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><blockquote><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So mostly I stay out of comments and let people say what they want: we’re all adults and we can disagree. But I’m going to say this. I greatly resent the idea that I’m not a feminist because I don’t tow the line on the fat acceptance movement. There are women in the world suffering because rape is a tool of war, there are women in the world still dying preventable deaths because of childbirth, there are women in the world watching their children die from hunger, and there are women in the world who are paid nothing or pennies for the work they do. The idea that worrying about women’s health in a way that acknowledges that obesity correlates with diseases that kill women and that fat acceptance may actually harm them — because despite the fact that posters are operating under the belief I’m unaware of the movement I’m actually very much aware, and disagree vehemently with it — is anti-feminist, is really offensive to me. Poor women die of heart disease, cancer and stroke, whether you want to believe it or not. They die because they don’t have medical care at all. The BMI is a useful indicator of the prevalence of illness in society, and that’s really important.</span></div></blockquote></span><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #111111;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I'm not going to dissect this. But it is one of my favorite responses, and I suggest you all use it as often as possible: whenever people accuse you of not showing enough compassion, just tell them that you care about some group of people who are really screwed, make up something horrible if you have to, and then give them a smug, self-satisfied look.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Works for me all the time. </span></span></div>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-84173396661401343872010-08-20T15:37:00.000-05:002010-08-20T15:37:14.624-05:00If you're tired of the big so so<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I've been turning </span><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/09/100809fa_fact_packer"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">this George Packer piece</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> about the US Senate over in my head for awhile now. It's a good article, although I'm not sure it tells us much we didn't already know: the Senate is pretty worthless. They never get anything done, the minority can use a bunch of arcane procedural maneuvers to stop almost anything from happening.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And I keep coming back to the same question: why do we put up with this? At one point in the article, Packer talks about some new members of the Senate wanting to reform some of its rules, making it a bit less Sisyphean to try to get something done. But, of course, that ain't gonna happen:</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Newcomers like Udall seem to think that the Senate has grown so absurd and extreme that some kind of reform is inevitable. Perhaps they need more time to plumb the depths of the institution’s intransigence. According to Sarah Binder, a change in rules is extremely unlikely; Republicans would be implacably opposed to, say, weakening the filibuster, and so would some Democrats, especially long-serving ones. “I would oppose that,” Chris Dodd said, adding of the freshmen, “These are people who have never been in the minority.”</span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This is the problem with Senators and other privileged people. They think they have succeeded based on their merit, rather than by a combination of good fortune and dumb luck. They think they deserve a say. They think there is some intrinsic value to preserving mechanisms that ensure everybody has their day.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But there isn't. There's no reason any one person, elected by the good people of Montana or even California, should ever be able to stop anything. And that's exactly what the filibuster, and all these holds and unanimous consent rules allow people to do.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I don't care how Chris Dodd feels about his years in the minority. Senators need to get over themselves. </span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-61398337431721564512010-08-20T00:09:00.000-05:002010-08-20T00:09:19.723-05:00The real cost of the high cost of a legal education<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Since I just got canned, I have had plenty of time to worry about all the money I owe to the people who funded my legal education.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I owe various robber barons, Northwestern University, and Uncle Samantha about a quarter of a million dollars. I often tell people that I have a mortgage but no house. When I say this, I am not joking. Well I am, but it's one of those sad ironic jokes, not an absurd one.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The most unpleasant chunk of this debt is on a ten-year clock, and can't be put on any other track. Some of the other loans, like the ones now held by the feds, offer more attractive options. Still, all of this boils down to me having to pay out about 2300 dollars a month.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Here, I should note that Northwestern gives me 13,000 dollars a year to help me pay off my debt. A bit of basic math will tell you that this only helps me meet about half of my debt burden, but it helps. In fact, I'm sure it made all this luxury I see around me possible.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">My primary reason for writing this is that I want your sympathy, love, and spare cash. But, failing that, I want people to understand why this is something bothersome.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">When I went to law school, we were always having events sponsored by major corporate law firms. Those law firms all recruited on campus, in our classrooms, at the behest of our administration, the same administration that encourages people to pursue careers in corporate law, that shakes its alumni down for donations all the time, that cares a great deal about a US News ranking that incorporates employment levels and starting salaries into its evaluation. These are the same people who set law school tuition.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now, I tend to wretch at the "best and the brightest" rhetoric pumped by "elite" law schools at their charges. But the people who go to these schools, by and large, are pretty sharp. And a decent chunk of them don't want to chase paper. But they will, if they can't see another path. Our law schools owe us better, they owe the people better, they owe the profession better.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Because, as much as I sometimes make fun of it, and although I'm not sure I'll continue in it, law is a noble profession. When they kick out your front door, a lawyer is often the only one who stands in the breach between you and incarceration, or eviction, or not getting the few bucks in SSI you need to keep eating. I understand not everyone wants to do that work, but more people would if it wouldn't put them one pink slip away from poverty.</span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-59271306680590029672010-08-11T14:39:00.000-05:002010-08-11T14:39:20.311-05:00We will get fooled again<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Matthew Yglesias offers </span><a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/the-incentive-compatibility-of-dictatorship/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">a reasonable prediction</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> of China's economic and political future:</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Historically, few authoritarian regimes have seen that their own self-interest is best maximized via enlightened policies. But at least one interpretation of what’s happening in China is that the most important authoritarians around have figured this out (Abu Dhabi also seems to have) and this is driving major improvements in human well-being.</span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">He raises this point during a broader discussion of democracies, authoritarian states, and the relative economic prosperity of each. His central point, via </span><a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik46/English"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Dani Rodrick</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, is that democracies fare better than authoritarian regimes, for a variety of reasons. He goes on to talk about Singapore, and to make his observation about China.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But he doesn't confront the dark side of his prediction. If China continues to grow, loosens its grip a bit, and delivers sufficient "major improvements in human well-being," its government might become unassailable. At that point, it will have succeeded in filling the void left by the Soviet Union and providing a new alternative to liberal democracy: authoritarian capitalism.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">He also concludes with this:</span><br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I’m not sure whether China’s leaders can keep delivering growth, but if they can’t it’ll be hard for them to stay in charge.</span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This goes down a little harder. Nothing lasts forever, and when China as we know it follows every other nation into the dustbin of history, I have no idea how it will happen. But I do have trouble imagining, given advances in military technology, how an economically-driven revolution would happen there. And other countries have plenty of incentives to keep China stable.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">In the end, this is a huge obstacle to people in China becoming freer. If the Chinese government can sustain enough growth to keep elites happy, can use authoritarian methods to keep people in line, and can continue to make itself indispensable to the world economy, things aren't going to get any better. Rather than embracing freedom, it will keep it's hand on the dial, doling out just enough succor to keep people from rocking the boat. At that point, the "enlightened policies" that offer some "improvements in well-being" will serve as little more than a palliative, a new opium for the masses.</span>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-82429034574104951092010-08-11T00:56:00.000-05:002010-08-11T00:56:35.229-05:00So, who was it again who took the bomp from the bompalompalomp?<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I just saw </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11primaries.html?hp"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">this article</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> from the bastion of the establishment media. It's about the Colorado Senate primary. Read it if you'd like, noting perhaps the cute picture of one white guy or another with his daughter popping out the back of his head, a young Athena to his Zeus.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Or don't read it. I don't know why you would. At this point, I feel like I've read a million articles about politics just like this one. It tells me who ran, who won, who's up, who's down, what it all might mean for this player or that one. But it doesn't tell me anything about what this all means, what might be at stake for me, or my neighbor, or my sister-in-law in California, or anyone but the candidates named in the article.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">We put up with article after article like this, each one only interesting to people who follow politics the way others follow sports. I can see why this article would appear in some political trade, but why does it appear anywhere else?</span></div>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-20806632613701991242010-08-10T13:13:00.001-05:002010-08-10T20:06:24.124-05:00Our Misspent Youth<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">There will be feasting and dancing </span></i><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">in Jerusalem next year</span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I am going to make it through this year </span></i><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">if it kills me</span></i><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">--The Mountain Goats, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This Year</span></i><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">At </span><a href="http://www.gencon.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">GenCon</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, I played an amazing new role-playing game, </span><a href="http://misspentyouthgame.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Misspent Youth</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, by Robert Bohl. For a host of reasons, I can't imagine something more appropriate to talk about in the first real post on my resurrected blog.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I should warn you ahead of time though, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">caveat emptor</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">, that this post isn't about Misspent Youth. It's about my favorite topic, and the only one on a day like this I seem to know much about: me.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Misspent Youth allows people to come together and tell stories about oppression and how young people carve out their own identities in the face of that oppression. Before doing anything else, the players create a world together. They start by discussing bullies, and the things bullies do that they all hate. With that foundation, the group creates an oppressive authority and adolescent characters who will, in whatever limited way they can, resist that authority.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I could say a number of things about creating a game like this, how I think it has an interesting hook, how I think it's nice to focus on the kinds of people (adolescents) and the kinds of issues (freedom and oppression) that don't get enough play in the gaming world. And I do think all those things, although I don't know how interesting those observations are, and there are surely people </span><a href="http://jankcast.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> more qualified than me to comment on how Misspent Youth compares with other games out there.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But, I've already told you I'm going to talk about me instead. For me, this game was not just an interesting, thought-provoking way to role play while exploring these issues. For the past year and three months, I have worked with oppressed young people. The young men who I serve are all poor, they all have special education needs, have all had friends die in acts of violence (about half of them have seen a friend murdered). They also are all involved in the juvenile justice system.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">These are the forgotten members of our society, people who have been dealt the shortest end of the shortest stick since conception, since Jim Crow, since the Middle Passage, since one man (I hate to use sexist language, but it almost certainly was a man in this case) decided to put his boot to another's throat and keep pushing and pushing until he got what he wanted.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">That's what Misspent Youth forces us to confront, how much of our history and our present are wrapped up in oppression, in maintaining privilege, in making sure people know their place. And, because the game takes place in the future, we also have to confront whether we'll keep living this way, keep taking everything we can from anyone who can't defend herself.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But it also reminds us of something else, something so simple and beautiful it takes your breath away: when one person, especially someone young, throws her own little monkey wrench into the machinery of repression. Because, I can tell you from my experience in my job that our society had basically one message for our misspent youth: comply. Don't think too much, don't step out of line, listen to your case workers and your teachers and your parents and the cops and do whatever they tell you to. And, whatever you do, never question the authority. If, while reading the last sentence, you have decided that this seems like a recipe for creating broken people who will see nothing for themselves but a life of crime, congratulations on a) not being an idiot and b) not bearing any responsibility for what we euphemistically call the "juvenile justice system."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I guess after all this ranting, I might tell you a little bit about the game's mechanics. We chose to fight an authority that was using state-sponsored religion to destroy history, although we could have fought a corporation destroying freedom or some similar option. Then we came up with a variety of character concepts and each chose two. Mine were "needs to be in charge" and "tagalong."</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">After you choose your concepts, you choose a means, motive, opportunity, and MO for your character. These were all fairly easy. But then I froze. Because the final thing I was supposed to choose when I created my character was her dysfunction, her deepest secret, the thing that lets her fight the authority but will ultimately destroy her, a quick synopsis of her innocence in all its wonderful, tragic glory.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But the only dysfunction I could come up with was my own. I had been thinking about it all week, because I was almost certain that I was about to lose my job (I did, this morning). I started to tear up. I had talked about the job a bit earlier with my new friends and fellow games, against my better judgment. I guess I was feeling vulnerable.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">So I wrote it down: she thinks she can change the world. Because, you see, one of the things you can do is sell out your personal traits if you need to do something desperate to defeat the authority. In essence, if your own skills and convictions betray you, you can start to behave like your oppressor, giving up a bit of yourself you can never get back for short-term success, even if, in the end, the authority is still winning by co-opting your soul. And your dysfunction is always the last thing you sell out, after the authority has consumed every last bit of your own identity.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I think I still have mine, wilted little thing though it is, although who knows for how long. I have clung to it over the past year, even as it has dragged me across our ransacked urban frontier, littered with broken lives and the bodies of children.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Maybe someone will give me the chance to sell it out. Maybe I'll take it. I've seen too many good people do too many horrible things to think that I'm above much of anything at this point.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But maybe I'll hang on, just a bit more, fight one more fight before I slide into all the creature comforts you can enjoy once you've given everything else away to the authority.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I don't know. But I do know that I want to thank Rob Bohl for helping me think these thoughts, and my fellow gamers for taking this journey with me.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And I want to thank the guys I've worked for over the past few years, for putting up with me, for opening up my eyes, for listening to me and letting me in, even though they had no reason to trust a young white guy with no idea how to help anybody.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">If I have any shred of my dysfunction left, hopefully I will honor that trust by taking my finger and sticking it in the authority's eye every time I get the chance. If enough people embrace that message, maybe we won't have to worry so much about our own misspent youth.</span></div>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-66709233168298962432010-08-10T00:33:00.000-05:002010-08-10T00:33:04.948-05:00I'm backTo share my wisdom with the masses.<br />
<br />
Or at least the half dozen people who showed some interest in my brain droppings last time around.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-7715515495094357142009-03-07T16:11:00.005-06:002009-03-07T17:16:49.004-06:00On two Johns, Galt and Thain<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/going_galt_americas_wealth_pro.html">Michelle Malkin is mad</a>. She's tired of the "redistributionist thieves" taking her money. She's ready to go on strike, to withdraw her wealth-creating power from the rest of us, the collectivist masses.<br /><br />She's ready to Go Galt.<br /><br />Apparently this Going Galt notion is gaining some currency in right-wing circles. Witness Rick Santelli's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA">famous rant</a>, made even more famous by Jon Stewart's subsequent <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice">smackdown</a> of CNBC.<br /><br />For conservatives, the appeal of the John Galt myth is obvious. According to Rand, our collective success depends on the efforts of a few elites, motivated by rational self-interest. And if we don't let them reap the full benefits of that success (read: lower their taxes), then they might just retire from society, and leave us to our poverty and collective worthlessness.<br /><br />I've always thought Galt's approach was a bit idiosyncratic. Rich people seem to keep on wanting to make money, even in places where the taxman check-jacks them for more than he does here. London has become the financial capital of the world, and the UK's higher tax rates and national health care hasn't caused anyone to Go Galt there.<br /><br />I could go on with other pat criticisms of Rand's view; in the end, it's been well-discredited as simplistic. But it does hold some important insights, albeit not the ones Malkin sees.<br /><br />John Galt created wealth for himself and others. He invented things. The people who feel under attack right now, the ones who've withdrawn, the John Thains of the world, may of may have not created much actual wealth. They may have done little more than build a now-collapsing house of cards. And I'm not sure we need them.<br /><br />But we need more John Galts. And this is where Rand and her acolytes fall short: they fail to realize the conditions necessary for such people to emerge, to realize their potential.<br /><br />For all we know, the next great American inventor is being born right now on the South Side of Chicago. She's her mother's seventh child. She does not have access to adequate health care. Her schools are in shambles. She's not thinking about curing cancer. She doesn't even see going to college as a realistic goal.<br /><br />Poverty squanders talent. Racism squanders talent. Sexism squanders talent. And you have to think, over the past years, that we've squandered a hell of a lot of it.<br /><br />Rand fans don't want to fight actual liberals. American liberals don't embrace the kind of Marxist dogma ("from each according to his ability" etc.) Rand attacks. Nothing happening today suggests that we're heading for some collectivist dystopia.<br /><br />But there are plenty of things happening today to suggest that more of tomorrow's John Galts are going to come from outside the US. And, with our economy sinking, we can no longer afford to eat our young.<br /><br />Our rational self-interest depends on it.<br /><br />(Hat-tip to JPT for putting me in mind of these issues)Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-61593512231937294882009-02-08T13:36:00.003-06:002009-02-08T13:49:57.767-06:00They still don't get itOn <a href="http://www.tavissmileyradio.com/">Tavis Smiley's radio show</a>, conservative pundit Deroy Murdock just said that Michale Steele and the GOP must "exorcise" the legacy of George W. Bush. I perked up. I had no idea who Murdock was, and I thought he might be close to saying something interesting. And he did say something interesting, although not in the way I had hoped.<br /><br />Murdock laid out the parts of the Bush 43 legacy the GOP should embrace, and the parts it should reject. In summary:<br /><br />Good: wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tax cuts.<br /><br />Bad: spending 2008 bringing "socialism" to the US.<br /><br />This is the same sort of nonsense Rush has been peddling lately. These people seem to think that the GOP needs to get more conservative, get back to its roots. And I hope they do just that. I hope they circle the wagons and start shooting inward, and their obstructionism on the stimulus makes me think they might.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-81077576564577638312009-01-23T14:39:00.005-06:002009-01-23T16:18:37.116-06:00Whoa there, tigerHere's <a href="http://drudgereport.com/">Drudge's</a> headline for the past day or so:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7565524@N03/3220300513/" title="Picture 1 by obsequious1, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3220300513_83fddd554f.jpg" alt="Picture 1" height="261" width="500" /></a><br />And <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17831.html">here's</a> the article at Politico the headline links to. An excerpt:<br /><blockquote>President Barack Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.<br /><br />Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a deputy defense secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.<br /><br />"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."</blockquote><br />I knew that conservatives, closet and otherwise, would try to burnish the cred early by taking shots at Obama. But these people need to learn how to keep their powder dry.<br /><br />Obama is a pretty disciplined guy. And he has to be doubly careful: as much as he represents a repudiation of the Bush years, Obama still lives in their shadow, with all the cynicism they bred. But, in spite of that discipline and caution, he'll still screw up eventually. Or, events will conspire to make him look bad, even if there's nothing he could have done.<br /><br />His opponents should wait for those opportunities. Because right now, with articles criticizing Obama for doing a meet and greet with reporters where he didn't want to answer big questions, well, this just looks a bit silly. It looks like a desperate play by people who are afraid that if they don't do something to knock him off this pedestal, Obama's popularity will never wane.<br /><br />Of course, people like me are afraid that Obama won't find a way to turn this impossible economic situation around, and that he will eventually be pilloried, regardless of what he does.<br /><br />Edited to add: The portion of the picture you can't see above, at the end of the first line of the headline, says "The Time." I can't find a way to get it all in there, but if you click on the picture, you can see the whole thing. I apologize for my technological incompetence.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-67159407523241332242009-01-22T15:30:00.002-06:002009-01-22T16:03:27.933-06:00Transparency vs. accessBack in April 2007, Michael Wolff wrote <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/wolff200704">an excellent piece</a> about Scooter Libby's fall. Here's part of Wolff's account of why Scooter got into trouble:<br /><blockquote>The one constant I’ve observed, in 27 years as an on-again, off-again political reporter, is that Republicans return reporters’ calls and Democrats don’t. To a great extent, this is what got Scooter Libby into trouble, calling back The New York Times’s Judy Miller and Time’s Matt Cooper. Libby is a superb example of the much-vaunted Republican Party message discipline—he’s got tenacious follow-through. He’s one of the people who helped give the Bush administration its reputation—intact as recently as 24 months ago—as the most masterful iteration of Republican media management, a leviathan of political marketing.</blockquote><br />Republican shills never had any trouble giving people access. The right reporters got the access they needed to print their stories, their big scoops, replete with quotations from unnamed administration sources.<br /><br />No, the problem wasn't a lack of access. It was a lack of transparency. Sure, Judy Miller got fed all kinds of juicy tidbits about our upcoming invasion of Iraq. Then, in exchange for that access, she printed those lies as facts and helped the administration sell the war. And nobody ever knew exactly where the information was coming from or how they might verify it.<br /><br />This was a pretty standard MO for the Bush people. Print our nonsense (but not our names), and we'll give you the access.<br /><br />In any case, in the early days of the Obama Administration, <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_media_honeymoon_over_on.html">some people</a> have gotten these two concepts confused:<br /><blockquote>"The young Obama administration has talked often about transparency, but that, as the Constitution makes clear, means more than the government creating Web sites to send messages to supporters," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington.<br /><br />"It means allowing the press, an independent institution, to see what's going on," Rosenstiel said. "It remains to be seen exactly what the Obama team means, with its love of control, when it talks about an open government."</blockquote><br />So, what exactly is Mr. Rosenstiel talking about? Some key new policy that the press is not being told about? Perhaps a closed door meeting with energy executives where they tell Vice President Biden what our energy policy should be?<br /><br />No, Roesenstiel is actually talking about this silly second swearing-in Obama did because <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901210002">some whackjobs on Fox News</a> started to crow about whether the first, botched oath actually meant that Obama was not our president.<br /><br />Now, maybe Obama should have let more press in for this thing. I don't see how it would've hurt. But not letting more press in doesn't say anything about whether the Obama Administration will be transparent or whether we'll have "an open government" for the next four years.<br /><br />I'm all for transparency, and I'd love to see a robust Fourth Estate in the next four years and beyond. But let's not confuse transparency and openness with some reporters' insatiable hunger for access.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-16302651111421893412009-01-21T16:18:00.004-06:002009-01-21T16:58:27.959-06:00The weight and the gapPresident Bush took flak for much of what he said in the final days of his presidency as he went on his Legacy Rehabilitation Tour. Most of it was deserved. But one of the things he said was entirely reasonable:<br /><blockquote>Even in the darkest moments of Iraq, you know, there was -- and every day when I was reading the reports about soldiers losing their lives, no question there was a lot of emotion, but also there was times where we could be light-hearted and support each other.</blockquote><br />I have no love for this man. But we should all hope that Bush could find ways to stay "light-hearted."<br /><br />Last night, a friend told me that he thought all the parties surrounding the inauguration were too much. In times like these, what is President Obama doing dancing at ten parties, basking in the glow of so much adulation?<br /><br />I think this is an apt time to reflect on the weight we place on our presidents. Many criticized Bush for not attending military funerals and not seeming to mourn military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. And perhaps, as a leader, he ought to have made more public displays of sorrow. But this belies a different question: how bad should he have actually felt?<br /><br />I don't know why anybody wants to be president. I don't know why anybody wants to carry that weight. Because yes, you have to seem as if you care a great deal, when you make decisions and people die.<br /><br />But presidents need the fortitude to make those decisions, decisions that spell death on a horrific scale. And after they make those decisions, they need the fortitude to make them again and again, without stumbling, without stopping to take a breath, without blinking.<br /><br />So, let's be clear about what we ask of these people. We ask them to stand on the right side of the narrow gap between heroes and monsters. So, we shouldn't be surprised if they find ways to stay "light-hearted" or throw themselves a few big parties in difficult times. Better a party than a pogrom.<br /><br />Better a light heart than one made of stone.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-12185207149410935242009-01-20T19:21:00.003-06:002009-01-20T19:28:21.197-06:00Something old, something newOn Hardball's inauguration coverage, Pat Buchanan called himself a "traditional conservative." That's how he prefaced a comment where he complemented President Obama's inaugural address.<br /><br />I would have liked his comment more if he would have prefaced it by calling himself a "real whackjob." That's the kind of self-knowledge that would have won a bit of my love.<br /><br />But, in other news, how nice are those two words that appear above: "President Obama." Still sinking in, still awesome, still the first step in a journey that hopefully will end with us moving in the right direction.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-50477580812743106892009-01-18T23:44:00.004-06:002009-01-19T00:34:22.990-06:00Economists take noteThose of you followed and figured out what was going on behind <a href="http://benthelen.blogspot.com/2009/01/way-i-do-thing-i-shouldnt.html">this post</a> will doubtless want to read on. The analysis that follows is my response to people who believe that piracy is good or neutral for comics sales. This analysis will deal entirely with demand, because, quite frankly, I don't really understand how the free supply of comics on the Internet affects their supply curve.<br /><br />Relative to its demand and price (P), there are a few relevant groups for each comic:<br />A1) People who demand a comic at or above P and pay for it.<br />A2) People who demand a comic at or above P but download it for free anyways.<br />A3) People who demand a comic, but at below P, so they download it for free.<br />There's also another very important group of people for this analysis: people who don't demand a comic, but might if they were exposed to it thanks to piracy. And once those people download that comic and start demanding it, they will fall into one of the three above categories (B1, B2, B3).<br /><br />In the debate about whether piracy is good for a comic's sales, the key question is this: which is larger, A2 or B1? A3, B2 and B3 people won't pay for the comic anyways, and A1 people already do. But A2 people are the people who would pay for the comic, but don't because piracy allows them not to. And B1 people are the people who aren't paying for a comic but will once they've read pirated copies of it.<br /><br />Most of the arguments for piracy track these categories. They contend that there aren't many A2s at all, our that they themselves have often been B1s. Well, obviously, there's no way to know how many A2s there are. Simple human psychology suggests that a decent number of people will respond to incentives by taking things for free they would otherwise have to pay for.<br /><br />But the existence of many B1s is what I'm most skeptical of. Because, what do we already know about them? We know that they're willing to download comics for free. Which gives us some reason to believe that they will continue to do so.<br /><br />To put this is simpler terms and drop the labels: to believe that piracy is good for a comic's sales, you'd have to believe that the number of people who will pay for that comic after downloading a pirated copy is greater than the number of people who download pirated copies even though they would pay for the comic if they had to. For the reasons I outline here, I think that this is an implausible thing to believe.<br /><br />Of course, these are empirical questions that only data can conclusively resolve. But in the absence of that data, we should still do the best speculating we can. These are my best speculations. And, even if you disagree, I hope you find the framework useful.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-6137330209478550182009-01-17T01:01:00.004-06:002009-01-17T01:44:26.175-06:00As a single tear trickles down Osama bin Laden's cheekAfter trying a few things, the Bush people have found their swan song: Bush succeeded because we have not suffered another terrorist attack in the United States. And the Bush people are using it in response to any criticism. On Hardball last night, one Bush supporter argued that, by preventing any further terrorist attacks after 9/11, Bush had unified the country. (This was in response Matthews's question of the night about the Bush administration, which was something akin to "Has Bush proved to be a uniter, not a divider?")<br /><br />This is a standard argument tactic: when all else fails, fall back on what nobody can deny. And nobody can deny that we haven't suffered another terrorist attack in this country. But that hasn't helped some of our fellow citizens. In fact, some of them have endured countless terrorist attacks.<br /><br />Terrorists have attacked members of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've attacked them again and again. Terrorists have killed many Americans and wounded many more. And why? Because President Bush sent them into a lion's den of his own making.<br /><br />In waging these two wars, President Bush ensured that terrorists would succeed in killing and wounding Americans. His incompetence further ensured that those deaths and injuries would far exceed any justifiable number of casualties.<br /><br />Perhaps noting this bolsters another one of the Bush administration's old saws: if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here. And, to some small degree, that may be true. There may be some terrorists who stayed in Iraq of Afghanistan instead of trying to hatch a plot over here.<br /><br />But if they stayed, they stayed because President Bush put our soldiers in the middle of a turkey shoot. And whether that kept terrorists in the region or not, nothing can justify it. People who join the military do something that most of us, myself included, will not do: they volunteer to risk their lives for our safety. People who show that courage will sometimes die for it. We can't avoid that. But we should never spend their lives so cheaply.<br /><br />So, as he leaves, we should all remember how good a friend President Bush has been to terrorists. He has strengthened their hand as he has weakened ours. He has led us into two quagmires, and given terrorists the opportunity to kill our troops and bleed our resources.<br /><br />And he has destroyed any chance we had in the wake of 9/11 to unite the world in a struggle against terrorism. Such a struggle might have succeeded. It might have won over the world, including most of the Middle East. But we'll never know. <br /><br />My Dad is fond of saying that political leaders who start wars should be the first ones to fight in them. Belatedly, but in that spirit, perhaps President Bush should head for Afghanistan on January 21. He can climb into the mountains, and, if he's lucky, find Osama bin Laden.<br /><br />Then, the two of them can sit down for a talk. They can remember the good times, when each made the perfect bogeyman for the other. And they can thank each other for the help in carrying out their crazy ideological agendas, both of which never had anything to do with helping their people in the first place.<br /><br />So, here's to you, President Bush. The lessons you've taught us have come at far too high a price, but let's hope we finally manage to learn them.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-874373797467627572009-01-15T23:49:00.002-06:002009-01-15T23:52:45.413-06:00I drink up all the Hennessy you got on your shelfI'm no expert on marketing. I'm no great cultural analyst. I am not free of racism. I have many shortcomings. So I may not be the best person to comment on this.<br /><br />But I don't know that I would have chosen a <a href="http://www.binnys.com/spirits/Hennessy_Inaugural_102300.html">commemorative bottle of Hennessy</a> as a way to commemorate the inauguration of our first black president.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-43933216294558470652009-01-15T00:36:00.003-06:002009-01-15T00:42:04.342-06:00The way I do the thing I shouldn'tGo <a href="http://freakangels.com/whitechapel/comments.php?DiscussionID=4705&page=1">here</a> if you want to see me do something I shouldn't.<br /><br />Sometimes people say things on the Internet I don't agree with. Sometimes I decide to say something. And I always live to regret it. Understand me, I'm not here to excoriate my interlocutor; it would be pretty petty of me to come back here and beat her/him in a place where s/he is unlikely to read or respond. You can read the arguments if you like and decide for yourself.<br /><br />It's just that I always get frustrated in these conversations. There's always more heat than light. There's never any progress. And I think about these squabbles more than I should.<br /><br />And I'm sure I'll do it again.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-1244315840866610402009-01-13T00:04:00.004-06:002009-01-13T00:35:07.215-06:00Here comes the new boss, somewhat-similar-but-not-exactly-the-same as the old bossBill Kristol is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12kristol.html?_r=1">needling liberals again</a>, attempting to convince us that Obama doesn't represent any substantial change from the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy. After a characteristically anemic opening about the next White House dog, Kristol goes on to argue that, in many ways, the Obama administration's policies will not represent a major departure from the Bush administration's. Kristol actually has a point, although he doesn't seem to have any idea what that point is and what it means.<br /><br />The most clear counterpoint to neoconservative foreign policy has always been realism, not liberalism. Neoconservatives differ most starkly from realists, in that realists believe the only justification for acting in the wider world is to promote our national interests. Human rights don't matter. Democracy doesn't matter. On the other hand, neoconservatives believe that American power can be used to makeover the world entirely: after we crushed Saddam Hussein, all the other dictators in the world would quake in fear, and a Pax Americana would reign.<br /><br />Liberals have always had more in common with neoconservatives than realists. We believe that democracy and freedom matter. We believe in humanitarian intervention. And we agree with neoconservatives that people everywhere, including the people in Iraq, should be free, and that we should take steps to promote their freedom. But we have very different notions about how to achieve those goals.<br /><br />Consider this passage from Kristol's piece:<br /><blockquote>On Iran, Obama did say he’d be taking “a new approach,” that “engagement is the place to start” with “a new emphasis on being willing to talk.” But he also reminded Stephanopoulos that the Iranian regime is exporting terrorism through Hamas and Hezbollah and is “pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” He said his willingness to talk would be combined with “clarity about what our bottom lines are” — one of them presumably being, as he’s said before, no Iranian nuclear weapons. And he demonstrated a sense of urgency — “we anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.”<br /><br />So: After talks with Iran (if they happen) fail to curb Iran’s nuclear program, but (perhaps) impress other nations with our good faith, we’ll presumably get greater international support for sanctions. That will also (unfortunately) fail to deter Iran. “Engagement is the place to start,” Obama said, but it’s not likely to be the place Obama ends. He’ll end up where Bush is — with the choice of using force or acquiescing to the idea of a nuclear Iran. </blockquote><br />When you set aside his assumptions about what the future holds, you see that Kristol actually is detailing the difference between the approach Obama will take with Iran and what Bush would prefer. Liberals and neoconservatives both don't want to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapon. But we have different notions about how we might achieve that goal. Kristol attempts to minimize those differences by assuming, without argument, that Obama's approach will leave him in no better position than Bush.<br /><br />And maybe it won't. Maybe we, with the help of the rest of the world, have nothing to offer Iran, and nobody can stop them from getting nukes. Or maybe not. But what distinguishes us from Kristol and Bush is our willingness to use diplomacy, to engage the rest of the world and to appreciate our own limitations. Believing in the United States's strength is not the same as thinking that our military might is the best way to solve this problem.<br /><br />As liberals, we should embrace our concern for the rest of the world. We don't need to disengage. We need to engage more, and we need to engage more effectively. That might not give us a Pax Americana. But it will sow the seeds of a more just <span style="font-style:italic;">and</span> more stable world in this new global age.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-41761550045944710822009-01-11T23:56:00.005-06:002009-01-12T00:41:56.409-06:00Information market failureIn Mexico, I was talking to a journalist friend about the recent decline of newspapers and other news outlets. During that conversation, I said something which I think must be true, although I don't know how I would prove it: with the Internet, demand for content is higher than ever. But nobody can find a way to make enough money to provide that content. So, while people today hunger more and more for quality reporting in the still-dawning Information Age, we have less and less of it. I mean, I'm sure there are more people like me every day, people willing to shoot their mouths off in the hope someone will care. But let's not kid ourselves. Whatever I'm doing here is no substitute for actual reportage.<br /><br />Some time ago, I saw someone make an interesting point about illegal music downloading. People would call what they downloaded with file sharing software "free music." But after paying for a decent computer, a broadband Internet connection and an mp3 player, "free music" starts to look expensive.<br /><br />Now, I'll grant you, the argument's not perfect. Even though I pay for my music, I still want those things. But it's a fair point. It forces us to consider the gap between what we want and who ends up profiting from those desires. We all want interesting, timely information at our fingertips. But none of the money I've paid to get that information has gone to the people who actually write stories about it. Apple has gotten some. So has Comcast. The New York Times hasn't seen a dime.<br /><br />I have no solution to offer. I don't even know where to begin. But, as I sit here in Chicago with our local newspapers reduced to a shadow of their former selves, I wish that some of the money I have given to corporations that put cables in the ground could have kept John Conroy writing stories like <a href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/policetorture/">these</a>.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-69328193929507564502009-01-11T16:19:00.000-06:002009-01-11T16:29:56.364-06:00A man with a planIn his recent and most-awesome-yet <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zC7y6lVlSg">presser</a>, Rod looks disturbingly like the cat who swallowed the canary. Now, I'll grant you, he might be nuts. He has been displaying a psychotic disregard in the face of his inevitable downfall.<br /><br />But Rod might have a card he hasn't played yet. He certainly looks to me like someone who still has something in his back pocket. At first, I thought he would hold on to the Senate appointment and use that as bargaining chip. But with that gone, I wonder if he might be ready to take some people down with him. At this point, he must know where more than a few of the bodies are buried and what might happen were they unearthed. And given that he's showed no signs of taking the contrition route, Rod might be ready to dig a few of those bodies up.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-74661167838367197752009-01-07T16:13:00.000-06:002009-01-07T16:17:31.430-06:00And then they came for the opportunistic politicians, and you said nothingOn Hardball, Bobby Rush just told Chris Matthews that seeing Roland Burris turned away from the Senate reminded him of seeing dogs attack children in Birmingham.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-34630199005376974372009-01-07T15:25:00.000-06:002009-01-07T15:40:06.598-06:00When a thing speaks for itselfRoland Burris has a problem. And that problem is Roland Burris. Sure, he has another problem called Rod. But that problem pales in comparison. Because, apparently Roland Burris is one of a few people who would actually accept Rod's nomination, and the sort of blind ambition that reveals makes him an undesirable candidate for much more than dog catcher.<br /><br />The Reader has documented Roland Burris's <a href="http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/2008/12/30/can-he-manage-lose-one-too/">recent failures</a> as a candidate for statewide office. That might explain his inexplicable eagerness here. But, from the man who built <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/southbound_07/2750018934/sizes/o/">this</a>, I guess nothing should come as a surprise.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-73264891269170109942008-12-29T20:32:00.000-06:002008-12-29T20:50:25.925-06:00But wait, a flash of brilliance appearsI know that everybody probably has something to say about what's happening in Gaza today, and I doubt I have much to add. Bush and Obama are echoing each other, Israel has the right to defend itself, it should try to limit civilian casualties, etc. Although I did see Israel's ambassador to the US on CNN's Situation Room today talking about how fear of Hamas rockets is causing Israeli children to wet their beds. I think he said it several times. And while nobody hates bed-wetting more than Americans, I thought this was an odd note to strike.<br /><br />What this offensive makes me wonder about, though, is where this is all going. I mean, it's well and good to talk about Israel's rights, but enforcing those rights doesn't make much sense if doing so won't help advance the peace process. And I've never understood how this posture towards Hamas, first shunning them and now attacking them, is supposed to help resolve anything. Because even if Israel does manage to destroy Hamas, what Hamas represents will remain alive and well. In fact, all of this likely strengthens the hand of the extremists and calcifies Palestinian anger at Israel.<br /><br />I have no love for Hamas. But they did win an election that everybody agrees was free and fair. And until somebody deals with the underlying conditions that brought them to power, this situation will not improve.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3063209124774864945.post-721363503865571352008-12-29T19:50:00.000-06:002008-12-29T19:54:15.109-06:00Blog born deadI know, I know, all six of you, you're disappointed, distraught, you expected so much more from me. Well, the holidays are upon us, just came back from family time, leaving for Mexico tomorrow, and cannot be expected to have any interesting thoughts (although I might post one other thing of substance today, so keep your eyes peeled). But until I return, here's an awesome video of TV on the Radio doing Young Liars. Enjoy, and all my best.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYjIS4K2l9w&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYjIS4K2l9w&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15150615359161371556noreply@blogger.com0