4 Articles.

In case you’re bored, here’s three four articles that I really liked…

To Tweet or Not to Tweet

Maureen Dowd, New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=1

 

A Threat In Title IX
Christina Hoff Sommers
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/13/AR2009041302119.html

What I Learned in My 16 Years on the Tax Beat
TOM HERMAN
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123976053040419549.html

When Helping Hurts
Mauro De Lorenzo
Frank
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29718/pub_detail.asp

Bernanke, Krugman, and Geithner, oh my!

I wish I were half as brilliant as these people. Thanks to Adam Hawf for pointing this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u2qRXb4xCU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heBxMzSAuKY&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weKN9-9TQcU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOYAuk809fY

Amusing…

The Whistles Go Wooo Wooo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgRoM4kf8gI&feature=related

The Leprechaun of Alabama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

Do No Harm

Stephen Richer

“Do No Harm”

3/19/2009

 

To say that Mexico is in a civil war with the drug cartels would be an overstatement that shows little respect for the magnitude of country’s past internal conflicts. But the assessment is not as far from the mark as we might hope. Since the New Year, more than 1,000 have died in Northern Mexico alone, and Mexico City is now the world’s leader in kidnappings.

 

Fearing that such chaos could spill over the border, commentators from United States have offered a number of prescriptions. Within the halls of U.S. government, the favored remedy is to bolster, monetarily, the Mexican anti-narcotic forces and to stop drugs at the U.S.-Mexican border. Others, such as David Frum, promote demand-side mechanisms that would cut the drug revenue that fuels the insurrection. Finally, conferences at the Cato Institute have offered half-step and full-step solutions for decriminalizing the drug trade, thereby removing the need for the armed suppression of illegal transactions.  

 

Each of these prescriptions has merits, but before the United States rushes to mend the patient, it should remember the clause in the Hippocratic Oath that the doctor must “abstain from doing harm.”

 

Unfortunately, the current administration is doing exactly this—harming the patient. The NAFTA-skeptic Democrats recently imposed a ban on Mexican trucks that promises to slow trade between the two countries. To make matters worse, Mexico retaliated with an import tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods. Former director of the International Monetary Fund’s Western Hemisphere Department, Claudio Loser, reported to Bloomberg that “If the tariff sticks, it has serious costs. It creates distortions and reduces the welfare of the consumers in Mexico.”

 

A blow to Mexico’s already flagging economy will only further destabilize the country. The Mexican government will have fewer resources to use against the drug cartels as they are pressed to deal with the economy, and desperate Mexicans may be driven to form alliances with the comparatively wealthy drug outfits. As shown by the history of the Gaza strip, indigence fosters chaos.

 

Republicans should pounce on the harm caused by the administration and reaffirm itself as the Party of free trade. Free trade is an important first step in stabilizing our ally and third largest trading partner, but there also political gains to be had. Throughout the 2008 election season, Republicans were portrayed as the party in conflict with the rest of the world. Now, it is the Democrats who are igniting high-stakes games of tit-for-tat with our neighbors. Free trade is also an issue that resounds with young voters and the educational elites—two groups the Republican Party failed to capture in November. Finally, a Republican Party that is friendly to the Mexican government could make political gains among the Latinos in the United States, a majority of whom come from Mexico.

 

The Republican Party should reiterate the case for free and increasing trade with Mexico. By doing so, the Party will help stabilize a friendly neighbor, and it will score political points at home. 

 

Don’t dodge the recession with grad school…

I know I was tempted.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/02/03/dont-try-to-dodge-the-recession-with-grad-school/#more-2071

Thanks to Adam Hawf for pointing this out.

College Republicanism

I. Executive Summary

In the 2008 Presidential Election the Republican Party suffered losses in a number of demographic groups. The previously contested youth vote favored the Democratic Party by an overwhelming margin of two to one. Similarly, the Republican Party gave up ground among the college educated. In 2004, more college graduates voted for President Bush than John Kerry. But in 2008, 53 percent of graduates and 58 percent of those with postgraduate degrees voted Democrat. This study examines the intersection of these two populations—18 to 29 year olds in college or with a degree—and their relationship with the Republican Party. I term this demographic “college students.”

As noted by Karl Rove in a recent Newsweek article, the Republican Party “must regain ground among critical voting groups.” College students represent one of these critical groups. Although they make up only approximately 12 percent of the voting population, college students are the future leaders and political thinkers; they are active and vociferous campaigners, and voting behavior studies show that the college years are pivotal in determining future party affiliation. Finally, the college student demographic is increasingly important simply because more and more Americans are going to college. In 1985, 27.8 percent of Americans went to college. In 2005, only 20 years later, nearly 39 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds had either completed college or were enrolled in a degree granting institution. If the Republican Party is losing college voters, it will only lose more in the years to come.

This study will try to determine how the Republican Party can improve its standing with college students. By making detailed inquiries into the political opinions of a large number of students, the study will learn exactly what is liked and disliked about the Party. From this survey, changes can be made to Republican platforms and rhetoric to make the Party more appealing to college students and thereby secure the Party’s future.

The BBC’s Top 100 Book List

Thanks to Shayna for pointing this out to me. Supposedly the BBC suspects that the average viewer has read 6 of the 100.

1 Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings – JRR Tolkien
3 Jane Eyre – Charlotte Bronte
4 Harry Potter series – JK Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird – Harper Lee
6 The Bible
7 Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four – George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials – Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations – Charles Dickens
11 Little Women – Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles – Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 – Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare
15 Rebecca – Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit – JRR Tolkien
17 Birdsong – Sebastian Faulk
18 Catcher in the Rye – JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveller’s Wife – Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch – George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind – Margaret Mitchel
22 The Great Gatsby – F Scott Fitzgerald
23 Bleak House – Charles Dickens
24 War and Peace – Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams
26 Brideshead Revisited – Evelyn Waugh
27 Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck
29 Alice in Wonderland – Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows – Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield – Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia – CS Lewis
34 Emma – Jane Austen
35 Persuasion – Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe – CS Lewis
37 The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin – Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha – Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh – AA Milne
41 Animal Farm – George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code – Dan Brown
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude – Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meany – John Irving
45 The Woman in White – Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables – LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd – Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies – William Golding
50 Atonement – Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi – Yann Martel
52 Dune – Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm – Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility – Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy – Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind – Carlos Ruiz Zifon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World – Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time – Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera – Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck
62 Lolita – Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History – Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones – Alice Sebold
65 Count of Monte Cristo – Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road – Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure – Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary – Helen Fielding
69 Midnight’s Children – Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick – Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens
72 Dracula – Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden – Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island – Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses – James Joyce
76 The Inferno – Dante
77 Swallows and Amazons – Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal – Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair – William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession – AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol – Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas – David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple – Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day – Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary – Gustave Flaubert
86 A Fine Balance – Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web – EB White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven – Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection – Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness – Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince – Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory – Iain Banks
94 Watership Down – Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces – John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice – Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers – Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet – William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factoy – Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables – Victor Hugo

John Locke, F.A. Hayek, Harry Potter? (PART II)

Stephen Richer

“John Locke, F.A. Hayek, Harry Potter? (PART II)”

2/24/09

 

The Dumbledore/Grindelwald philosophy is perhaps the most visible sign of the series’ fear and distaste of invasive centralized power, but it is by no means the only one. Throughout the fifth book the Ministry of Magic is just as pernicious as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. In the name of the well-being of the wizarding world, Dolores Umbridge uses governmental power to interfere at Hogwarts, denying students their basic liberties and even going so far as to threaten the torture of Harry and other members of Dumbledore’s Army. Umbridge’s power abuse at Hogwarts is mirrored at the Ministry of Magic where (Prime Minister) Cornelius Fudge assumes authority to suspend habeas corpus and control the media. (If you’re trying to draw modern-parallels, that is your business. You’ll probably be able to make a case on torture and legal proceedings, but not on media).

 

Obviously governmental abuse is even worse after He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named overtakes the ministry in Deathly Hallows. Here the read learns another pitfall of big government philosophy: power given to moral and competent leaders does not die with the loved leader. The powers assumed by Rufus Scrimgeour to fight He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named are readily adapted by the Dark Lord under the guise of puppet Prime Minister Pius Thicknesse. By giving government added power to do good, society runs the risk that it is giving government to do evil in the future.

 

Even when government is not evil or actively violating individual rights, it is incompetent. The reader is meant to laugh at the bumbling nature of the Minister of Magic and scoff at the fact that Vernon Dursley (one of the most inane characters) places his faith in the hands of government.

 

So who do wizards turn to instead? Just as the classic liberal would suggest, competency in Harry Potter is found in private individual and private organizations. It is not the government who fends off the Dark Lord, it is the Order of the Phoenix (although even Libertarians think police and defense are the purview of the government). It is not the government that plumbs the depths of wizarding knowledge; individual geniuses such as Dumbledore, Bathilda Bagshot, and Nicolas Flamel do that. Hagrid reminds us that it is the privately-managed institutions Gringotts and Hogwarts, not the government, that are safest and capable. When the government does manage something, it ends in riots (see Quidditch World Cup; Bulgaria vs. Ireland).

 

This essay only scratches the surface of the classic liberalism found in Harry Potter; hopefully I will add to it later. Given Rowling’s professed political beliefs, it is possible that she did not intend to convey this political message, but it is only natural. Rowling, like anyone who has reaped the benefits of Western Civilization, is the product of a society that subconsciously appreciates the importance of limiting government power and prefers private genius to public incompetence.

John Locke, F.A. Hayek, Harry Potter?

Stephen Richer

“John Locke, F.A. Hayek, Harry Potter?”

2/23/09

PART 1

 

At times of transition or minor upset, I find solace in rereading Harry Potter. In high school I would start with the first book and read up to the latest book. But now, under the pretense that my life is busier, I only reread the most recent book (now the 7^th and final book, Deathly Hallows).   

 

Seeing as how I still found new excitements/concepts/detail in the first four books after reading them X times each (where X > 4), it comes as no surprise to me that I’ve found a new train of interest in my third reading of Deathly Hallows. But the nature of it disappoints me—I had promised myself not to sully Harry Potter with politics.

 

I set this rule three years ago—the time when my own political beliefs were crystallizing and the politics of JK Rowling became public knowledge. I am an ardent classic liberal/European Liberal/Libertarian/Republican of the 1964 Goldwater variety; I am firm believer in the autonomy of the individual, the free market, and a limited-as-possible government. J.K. Rowling is not. She supports the Labor Party, the more interventionist of the two leading British Parties (although the Labor Party has become distinctly more classically liberal since the “New Labor” movement of Tony Blair), and she has championed greater government involvement in many areas such as welfare and public health. (Rowling has also been very active in private charity and has given tremendous support to single mother support and multiple sclerosis victims).

 

Yet while Rowling calls for greater government involvement in modern-day, “muggle” Britain, the Harry Potter series reads as a distinctly Liberal tract—it  firmly rejects the notion that government or an otherwise superior force should be given the power to interfere with the autonomy of the individual, even if its intentions are good.

 

Consider the letter written by the young Dumbledore to Gindelwald in Deathly Hallows:

 

“Your point about wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLE’S OWN GOOD – this, I think, is the crucial point. Yes, we have been given power and, yes, that power gives us the right to rule, but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled. We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build. Where we are opposed, as we surely will be, this must be basis for our counter-arguments. We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD. And from this it follows that where we meet resistance, we must only use the force that is necessary and no more.”

 

This is the basic big-government mantra—government should use its power to do good for the people. The government, in all of its wisdom, knows what is best for society and should have the power to move forward, even if it means stomping on a few individual liberties, even if it means encountering some resistance from the people themselves. The young Dumbledore’s vision is quite similar to Plato’s philosopher kings in The Republic and it is also eerily similar to the “choice architects” in Nudge by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler (Sunstein is now a member of the Obama administration).

 

The book makes it painfully clear how we are supposed to feel about this type of thinking. Harry—who represents basically every adjective that is admirable—rejects the letter vehemently; it causes him to question his faith in Dumbledore. The older Dumbledore—the wisest character in the book—is ashamed of his youthful correspondence, being both naïve and dangerous. But more damning than either of these two points is the fact that Grindelwald enacts the “Greater Good” theory only to be branded as the second most evil man behind He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Grindelwald’s prison camp is adorned with a sign reading “For the Greater Good,” a reminder of Hitler’s “Work Will Set You Free” sign over the Auschwitz death camp.

 

While this perhaps the most visible of the book’s fear of invasive centralized power, it is by no means the only one…

 

To be continued… (It’s getting late, and I want to read a few more pages before going to sleep).

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli?

As noted previously, I try to keep up with the writings of my friends and do my small part to promote their brilliance.

Shayna is one of those rare birds that studies the Israeli-Palestinian situation with equanimity. In this article she illustrates the importance of language in matters of politics. The terms “pro-Palestinian” and “pro-Israeli” encourage a partisan approach–isn’t it possible to support and criticize both groups?

I’d like to think so–this isn’the Super Bowl or World Series after all; we don’t have to choose a team.  But though theoretically possible, it is certainly not possible for me in this case. The sins of the Israeli armed forces do not even begin to match the evils of Hamas and other terrorist groups that have arisen in the fertile ground that the hate-filled Palestinian people provide. 

The spotlight is not mine, so I won’t elaborate, but if you require further explanation, let me know.

With that, I leave in the very capable hands of one of my best friends from the University of Chicago:  

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli?
by Shayna Zamkanei
10 February 2009

Chicago, Illinois – For those of us alarmed by the recent civilian death toll in Gaza, our obligation as concerned global citizens has been to promote the end of the war, provide humanitarian aid and press Israel and Hamas to reach a sustainable ceasefire agreement. With these weighty issues surrounding us, it might seem frivolous to harp on the nitty-gritty issue of language as part of this work, but language has the power to exacerbate – or heal – violent conflicts.

This war in particular revealed the power of language. In discussions and protests around the world, it was impossible for concerned citizens to express their dissatisfaction without being labelled “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israeli” – two homogenising, seemingly mutually exclusive terms.

“Pro-Palestinian” and “pro-Israeli” protests held on the streets of several countries left no room for those who were decisively against Hamas rocket attacks and those who were vociferously opposed to the IDF military campaign. No public space remained for the discerning. Demonstrations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands did not focus on the achievable and the pragmatic – a negotiated ceasefire – but on the blood and ideological allegiances.

At the demonstration in Trafalgar Square in London, for example, protests against the Israeli government for the mounting Palestinian civilian deaths were not accompanied by calls for peace between Israel and Hamas; and yet, protestors were blaming the latter for the war.

In Paris and Amsterdam, chants condemning one group or the other not only squandered the public potential to influence policy makers, but also fuelled fears of possible domestic terrorism and violence in European communities already grappling with questions of integration.

Demonstrators that focus on the problems and not the solutions only polarise the conflict further and isolate issue-oriented protesters who are committed to peace.

The language issue also filters down to one-on-one conversations. Being raised in a family that straddles religious divides, I am fed up with hearing the question, “So, are you pro-Israeli? Or pro-Palestinian?” and of the scrutiny that follows in the hope of pegging me as one or the other.

Neither term adequately describes or reflects my own positions, nor those of many others who rely more heavily on cross-cultural concepts of justice and humanity like those articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war, however, these concepts entail exhausting non-violent efforts of mediation, avoiding civilian casualties and indiscriminate killing, distributing humanitarian aid regardless of political circumstances and resisting the call for collective punishment.

My criticism of the policies of Israel in each of these areas does not absolve those of Hamas and vice versa. Making it clear that neither criticism nor victimhood is the exclusive domain of one side proves challenging, though.

A new language of public outcry is desperately needed, especially in Europe and North America, where “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” groups frequently clash with each other on the streets.

I call for an outcry that advocates the use of clear and constructive terminology to express achievable goals. Slogans such as “Death to [insert nation/country/people]” are a far cry from being realistic – or productive. Only a pragmatic kind of public language in public discourse will unite peacemakers in both “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” camps that share a common vision for peace.

Thus, a more constructive language that bridges both camps might have entailed widespread calls for a ceasefire, a truce, a window to deliver humanitarian aid, an end to the Gaza bombings, an end to Qassam rockets, Israel-Hamas talks, Fatah-Hamas talks, etc. Using simple slogans with simple demands such as “Close tunnels, open borders”, “No drones, build homes”, and “Justice without borders” can achieve more peaceful results.

Adopting this kind of specific, more inclusive, constructive language is the responsibility of all peacemakers to disseminate prior to protests, through print and electronic circulation. It is also the responsibility of educators to teach it to children. And it is the responsibility of all concerned citizens to practice ways of voicing dissent without resorting to a rhetoric that kills.

###

* Shayna Zamkanei is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Chicago and has worked for think tanks in North America and the Middle East. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.