One of poetry's several merits is its ability to crystallize a truth in a single group of words. In response to a horrifying tragedy, Haley Patail wrote about a murderer, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail," encapsulating an insight into the criminal mind.
Writing about the deceased victim and a funeral, she wrote, "I would go and give words to the dust-heavy air if it would change something, I would pretend that I know how to kneel in pews if it would make me feel right about this." The poet has recognized two spiritual truths here: that our songs and prayers do not change the fact that our loved ones have gone into the next life, that we bitterly grieve because we miss them; funerals are for the living, not for the dead - to remind the living about God and the afterlife - a reminder which will neither bring the deceased back into this life, nor ease our mourning, but a reminder which centers and stabilizes us by placing the events into a global, objective, and neutral frame of reference. By stating that our spiritual meditations neither "change something" nor make us "feel right about this," the poet has communicated these two truths in an efficient economy of words.
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once made a comment to the effect that, if one wants to investigate eternal truths, poetry can often do a better job than philosophy.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Sometimes, Bigger is Better
Robert Kennedy was a major figure in the politics of the 1960's. His speeches and actions, as Attorney General of the United States, and later as a candidate in the primary elections, have been much studied and discussed.
One of nine children, Robert Kennedy was the father of eleven. He was tremendously popular in the press, in part because of this family image. Many of his eight brothers and sisters have earned their own fame in American politics, as have his children, and his numerous nieces and nephews.
The popularity of the Kennedy family stands as a paradox, given the hatred directed toward large families by much of the current media culture. Forty years after the emergence of the Kennedy political profile, the family remains influential in partisan government, but American culture has abandoned its respect for having children.
Statisticians, however, are not surprised by the success of the Kennedy clan. It has been shown that there is a strong correlation between large families and various indicators of success: the more children born to a married couple, the more likely those children are to earn good grades in school, do well on standardized tests, and to not commit crimes; further, those children will do better at the university, and are more likely to rise to positions of leadership in their communities and careers.
These are averages, of course. Exceptions do exist. But the general trend is undeniable, and not too surprising: to manage a large family, parents will need to be intelligent and organized, and the children will likely have these traits also.
Contrary to stereotypes in the electronic media, higher education levels among the parents also lead to larger families: married couples with college educations will likely have more children than those with less education.
Ever since Thomas Malthus wrote about population, it has been clear that sustainable, renewable, and environmentally responsible resources on planet earth can support world populations many times larger than the current six or seven billion. Overpopulation, which was considered a threat in the 1960's and 1970's, is not a danger.
Which leads us to a mystery: why, then, is there such antipathy toward families who have more than two or three children? This is a field for research. Although sociologists have advanced a number of theories, there is no clear cause for this irrational hatred - or, perhaps there is a clear cause, but nobody has yet discovered it.
One of nine children, Robert Kennedy was the father of eleven. He was tremendously popular in the press, in part because of this family image. Many of his eight brothers and sisters have earned their own fame in American politics, as have his children, and his numerous nieces and nephews.
The popularity of the Kennedy family stands as a paradox, given the hatred directed toward large families by much of the current media culture. Forty years after the emergence of the Kennedy political profile, the family remains influential in partisan government, but American culture has abandoned its respect for having children.
Statisticians, however, are not surprised by the success of the Kennedy clan. It has been shown that there is a strong correlation between large families and various indicators of success: the more children born to a married couple, the more likely those children are to earn good grades in school, do well on standardized tests, and to not commit crimes; further, those children will do better at the university, and are more likely to rise to positions of leadership in their communities and careers.
These are averages, of course. Exceptions do exist. But the general trend is undeniable, and not too surprising: to manage a large family, parents will need to be intelligent and organized, and the children will likely have these traits also.
Contrary to stereotypes in the electronic media, higher education levels among the parents also lead to larger families: married couples with college educations will likely have more children than those with less education.
Ever since Thomas Malthus wrote about population, it has been clear that sustainable, renewable, and environmentally responsible resources on planet earth can support world populations many times larger than the current six or seven billion. Overpopulation, which was considered a threat in the 1960's and 1970's, is not a danger.
Which leads us to a mystery: why, then, is there such antipathy toward families who have more than two or three children? This is a field for research. Although sociologists have advanced a number of theories, there is no clear cause for this irrational hatred - or, perhaps there is a clear cause, but nobody has yet discovered it.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Is Obama Black, or Simply African-American?
America's obsession with racial politics is fanned daily by the press. An unending stream of articles continues to examine Obama's status from the perspective of his skin color.
A recent variation on this theme is to examine the quality of Obama's "blackness": in Detroit, a survey received responses like: "He is not black enough" or "That is what you get, when you have a mixed child raised by a white mother."
These responses point to a painful and divisive topic within American society: at the intersection of race and culture, the situation of mixed-race children is highlighted to an uncomfortable degree.
Obama, like Alicia Keyes and Halle Berry, is the result of a brief marriage between a Black man and white mother; after the marriage disolved, he was raised by his mother. Young Barack did not grow up in the "hood" of Harlem, Watts, or Detroit. He grew up in a middle-class, college-educated, white extended family. He may be African-American, but Detroiters are wondering if he's Black.
And not only Detroiters. Black Entertainment Television's Jeff Johnson notes that there's a difference between "Obama the president" and "Obama the personality," saying, "he's my president, and not my homie."
Obama's life has hardly been that of a "homie": a private prep school in Hawaii from fifth grade until his senior year in high school; before that, a paradoxical mix of private Roman-Catholic elementary schools and a Madrasah in Indonesia. His life experience places him far outside the mainstream of African-Americans. He spent no significant amount of time in the continental United States until after graduating from high school; after that, he was at Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
Obama's mother is from Kansas, and studied Anthropology and Russian at the University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Obama's father was separated from his mother long before the couple's actual divorce, and so young Barack had no formative influence from his African father as a child.
Americans continue to try to understand their new president: is he Black? is he African-American? is he Hawaiian-Kenyan-Indonesian?
How does he view the African-American culture, if he grew up in an white extended family, away from the major Black urban centers? How does he understand American society, if he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia?
A recent variation on this theme is to examine the quality of Obama's "blackness": in Detroit, a survey received responses like: "He is not black enough" or "That is what you get, when you have a mixed child raised by a white mother."
These responses point to a painful and divisive topic within American society: at the intersection of race and culture, the situation of mixed-race children is highlighted to an uncomfortable degree.
Obama, like Alicia Keyes and Halle Berry, is the result of a brief marriage between a Black man and white mother; after the marriage disolved, he was raised by his mother. Young Barack did not grow up in the "hood" of Harlem, Watts, or Detroit. He grew up in a middle-class, college-educated, white extended family. He may be African-American, but Detroiters are wondering if he's Black.
And not only Detroiters. Black Entertainment Television's Jeff Johnson notes that there's a difference between "Obama the president" and "Obama the personality," saying, "he's my president, and not my homie."
Obama's life has hardly been that of a "homie": a private prep school in Hawaii from fifth grade until his senior year in high school; before that, a paradoxical mix of private Roman-Catholic elementary schools and a Madrasah in Indonesia. His life experience places him far outside the mainstream of African-Americans. He spent no significant amount of time in the continental United States until after graduating from high school; after that, he was at Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
Obama's mother is from Kansas, and studied Anthropology and Russian at the University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Obama's father was separated from his mother long before the couple's actual divorce, and so young Barack had no formative influence from his African father as a child.
Americans continue to try to understand their new president: is he Black? is he African-American? is he Hawaiian-Kenyan-Indonesian?
How does he view the African-American culture, if he grew up in an white extended family, away from the major Black urban centers? How does he understand American society, if he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia?
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Race Numbers
No, this isn't about NASCAR. The numbers mentioned are statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, reflecting the population of the Ann Arbor area:
74.68% White
8.83% Black or African American
0.29% Native American
11.9% Asian
0.04% Pacific Islander
1.21% from other races
3.05% from two or more races
These numbers are based on the census from the year 2000, revised according to subsequent surveys and calculations.
74.68% White
8.83% Black or African American
0.29% Native American
11.9% Asian
0.04% Pacific Islander
1.21% from other races
3.05% from two or more races
These numbers are based on the census from the year 2000, revised according to subsequent surveys and calculations.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Various Forms of Slavery
As Americans, we read the word "slavery" through the lens of our own experience - and very harsh experience it is. Slavery as practiced in Western hemisphere until 1863 was one of the most brutal forms of this social institution.
When we read ancient texts, it is important to remember that translators are often perplexed when deciding to render a given vocabulary word into English as "slave" or "servant" - the difference to our eyes being great, but in earlier eras of history, a much more subtle distinction.
In some ancient cultures (notably Rome), these people were given authority within households and businesses; they were educated, wrote books, and made important decisions.
In certain phases of Egyptian and Babylonian history, slavery was more cruel, and slaves were treated like working animals. Moses took a great step forward when he limited slavery to seven years. Prior to that, slavery was lifelong, and, in a majority of cases, it would continue to be lifelong in all societies except the Hebrews.
So read carefully when you see words like "slave" or "servant" and realize that a variety of circumstances can hide behind these terms.
When we read ancient texts, it is important to remember that translators are often perplexed when deciding to render a given vocabulary word into English as "slave" or "servant" - the difference to our eyes being great, but in earlier eras of history, a much more subtle distinction.
In some ancient cultures (notably Rome), these people were given authority within households and businesses; they were educated, wrote books, and made important decisions.
In certain phases of Egyptian and Babylonian history, slavery was more cruel, and slaves were treated like working animals. Moses took a great step forward when he limited slavery to seven years. Prior to that, slavery was lifelong, and, in a majority of cases, it would continue to be lifelong in all societies except the Hebrews.
So read carefully when you see words like "slave" or "servant" and realize that a variety of circumstances can hide behind these terms.
Alphabetizing!
When small children learn their ABC's, they don't realize that they are paying homage to a major turning-point in the history of civilization.
The alphabet represents progress, because earlier writing forms (hieroglyphs, cuneiform) took longer to learn, longer to write, and longer to read. Before the alphabet, very few people could read or write, because it took so long to learn how to read and write; and very little reading and writing was done, because it took so long. After the invention of the alphabet, more people could read and write, and more information was recorded in writing. The alphabet is a Semitic invention.
The term "Semitic", we remember, includes a range of groups including Arabs, Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, Syrians, and Ethiopians, to name a few.
Not Semitic are Persians, Hindus, Hittites, and the European language families.
So the rise of the alphabet highlights the importance of Semitic cultures in the ancient world.
The alphabet represents progress, because earlier writing forms (hieroglyphs, cuneiform) took longer to learn, longer to write, and longer to read. Before the alphabet, very few people could read or write, because it took so long to learn how to read and write; and very little reading and writing was done, because it took so long. After the invention of the alphabet, more people could read and write, and more information was recorded in writing. The alphabet is a Semitic invention.
The term "Semitic", we remember, includes a range of groups including Arabs, Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, Syrians, and Ethiopians, to name a few.
Not Semitic are Persians, Hindus, Hittites, and the European language families.
So the rise of the alphabet highlights the importance of Semitic cultures in the ancient world.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Denying the Holocaust
Some facts about the history of the twentieth century are clear to everybody: one of these is that millions of innocent men, women, and children died in the event which we usually call "the Holocaust" or Shoah. Yet, despite the manifest documentation about the Holocaust, there are Holocaust deniers, or those who insist that it never happened.
Recently, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, took strong measures against an employee of his church who made remarks which seemed to deny the existence of the Holocaust. Ratzinger, also known as Benedict XVI, would not allow any statements which compromise the historically documented facts. The employee disciplined by Ratzinger, Richard Williamson, is facing stronger measures from different national governments in Europe, who classify Holocaust denial as fraud punishable by law.
This is in contrast to the government of Iran, which promotes Holocaust denial. The current president of Iran, members of its government, and professors appointed to its universities persistently spread the notion that there simply was no Holocaust - that it never happened. Such a view can be accepted only by those who have left all rational thought behind. Yet it remains the officially stated position of the Iranian government.
Recently, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, took strong measures against an employee of his church who made remarks which seemed to deny the existence of the Holocaust. Ratzinger, also known as Benedict XVI, would not allow any statements which compromise the historically documented facts. The employee disciplined by Ratzinger, Richard Williamson, is facing stronger measures from different national governments in Europe, who classify Holocaust denial as fraud punishable by law.
This is in contrast to the government of Iran, which promotes Holocaust denial. The current president of Iran, members of its government, and professors appointed to its universities persistently spread the notion that there simply was no Holocaust - that it never happened. Such a view can be accepted only by those who have left all rational thought behind. Yet it remains the officially stated position of the Iranian government.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sex, Anyone?
Human sexuality is always fascinating, yet often we rely on vague impressions rather than scientific observation and systematic data. When we look at the facts, we find that some of our perceptions are rather inaccurate.
In the first comprehensive global study of sexual behavior, British researchers found that people aren’t losing their virginity at ever younger ages, and that married people have the most sex.
Professor Wellings of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines and her colleagues analyzed data from 59 countries. Wellings said she was surprised by some of the survey’s results: "We did have some of our preconceptions dashed." Experts say the study will be useful in dispelling popular myths about sexual behavior.
The study also found that contrary to popular belief, sexual activity is not starting earlier. Nearly everywhere, men and women have their first sexual experiences in their late teens — from 15 to 19 years old — with generally younger ages for women than for men, especially in developing countries. That is no younger than 10 years ago. In every country, teens are choosing keep their virginity longer. This surprised researchers, because the common media image presented to the public is that of young people failing to keep their virginity. "There's a big disconnect here," commented one scientist, "between real life on the one hand, and the world of TV and movies on the other hand."
Researchers also found that married people have the most sex, reporting engaging in sexual activity in the previous four weeks more frequently than single people. There has also been a gradual shift to delay marriage, even in developing countries. Married people also report greater satisfaction in their sexual activity, both physical and emotional.
A follow-up study, conducted by sociology professor Armour at Ohio State University, explains why some of these surprising trends are taking place: Teens who lose their virginity earlier than their peers are more likely to steal, destroy property, shoplift or sell drugs than their virgin counterparts. The study, reported in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, found that those who had sex early were 26 percent more likely to be in trouble than those who waited, even years after their sexual debut and well into early adulthood. Those who had sex later had delinquency scores 20 percent lower than their peers. Waiting had a protective effect.
"Students in high school and college are watching their peers and learning," said a researcher. "They see what happens to others choose to keep their virginity a while longer, because they don't want to endure those same negative consequences."
In the first comprehensive global study of sexual behavior, British researchers found that people aren’t losing their virginity at ever younger ages, and that married people have the most sex.
Professor Wellings of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines and her colleagues analyzed data from 59 countries. Wellings said she was surprised by some of the survey’s results: "We did have some of our preconceptions dashed." Experts say the study will be useful in dispelling popular myths about sexual behavior.
The study also found that contrary to popular belief, sexual activity is not starting earlier. Nearly everywhere, men and women have their first sexual experiences in their late teens — from 15 to 19 years old — with generally younger ages for women than for men, especially in developing countries. That is no younger than 10 years ago. In every country, teens are choosing keep their virginity longer. This surprised researchers, because the common media image presented to the public is that of young people failing to keep their virginity. "There's a big disconnect here," commented one scientist, "between real life on the one hand, and the world of TV and movies on the other hand."
Researchers also found that married people have the most sex, reporting engaging in sexual activity in the previous four weeks more frequently than single people. There has also been a gradual shift to delay marriage, even in developing countries. Married people also report greater satisfaction in their sexual activity, both physical and emotional.
A follow-up study, conducted by sociology professor Armour at Ohio State University, explains why some of these surprising trends are taking place: Teens who lose their virginity earlier than their peers are more likely to steal, destroy property, shoplift or sell drugs than their virgin counterparts. The study, reported in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, found that those who had sex early were 26 percent more likely to be in trouble than those who waited, even years after their sexual debut and well into early adulthood. Those who had sex later had delinquency scores 20 percent lower than their peers. Waiting had a protective effect.
"Students in high school and college are watching their peers and learning," said a researcher. "They see what happens to others choose to keep their virginity a while longer, because they don't want to endure those same negative consequences."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Allowed to Live?
In November 2008, voters in Michigan pondered a vote about stem-cell research. Now, there are almost no moral or ethical objections to research which attempts to derive medical benefits from those stem-cells which are harvested from a patient's blood, skin, or bone marrow; and there is little argument against stem-cells derived from umbilical cords.
Very controversial, however, are those stem-cells obtained by killing a fetus (an unborn child). This was at the core of the Michigan vote.
In press coverage leading up to the election, a local newspaper quoted the supervisor of a research lab who commented that "these are embryos that would have within them genes for specific diseases so it would be unethical to donate them to use reproductively." In brief, she was saying that it would be unethical to allow these children to live.
The example was given of Alzheimer's, and genes which may either predispose individuals toward it, or cause it. The implication is this: if we know that a child has a tendency to develop Alzheimer's Disease, it is our moral duty to prevent such a child from being born.
Consider, then, some of the people who have led productive lives until they developed the disease (the average age of onset is approximately 65 years): Rita Hayworth (actress), Harold Wilson (Prime Minister of Britain), Iris Murdoch (novelist), Ferenc Puskas (soccer star), and Terry Pratchett (novelist), to name only a few.
We are being told, then, that society should have prevented the above-named individuals from being born; and that society failed, that society committed an unethical act, in allowing them to be born. This is the inescapable logical conclusion of the quote, given in the media, by a researcher.
As if to somehow soften this moral harshness, the newspaper article gratuitously added that one of the researchers in this lab attend a Roman Catholic high school, as if that fact were in any way relevant to matter at hand.
Very controversial, however, are those stem-cells obtained by killing a fetus (an unborn child). This was at the core of the Michigan vote.
In press coverage leading up to the election, a local newspaper quoted the supervisor of a research lab who commented that "these are embryos that would have within them genes for specific diseases so it would be unethical to donate them to use reproductively." In brief, she was saying that it would be unethical to allow these children to live.
The example was given of Alzheimer's, and genes which may either predispose individuals toward it, or cause it. The implication is this: if we know that a child has a tendency to develop Alzheimer's Disease, it is our moral duty to prevent such a child from being born.
Consider, then, some of the people who have led productive lives until they developed the disease (the average age of onset is approximately 65 years): Rita Hayworth (actress), Harold Wilson (Prime Minister of Britain), Iris Murdoch (novelist), Ferenc Puskas (soccer star), and Terry Pratchett (novelist), to name only a few.
We are being told, then, that society should have prevented the above-named individuals from being born; and that society failed, that society committed an unethical act, in allowing them to be born. This is the inescapable logical conclusion of the quote, given in the media, by a researcher.
As if to somehow soften this moral harshness, the newspaper article gratuitously added that one of the researchers in this lab attend a Roman Catholic high school, as if that fact were in any way relevant to matter at hand.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
How Did We Get to This Point?
In the 1980's America enjoyed its best-ever economic cycles; by 2008, we are facing substantial economic difficulties. How did this happen? Two factors seemed to have injured our economy: government regulation of free markets, and government spending. [Note: this post was greatly influenced Lara Khadr, who wrote and posted a text making some of the same or similar points. I have shamelessly stolen both ideas and actual paragraphs of text from her posting. Lara did, at some points, take a very different view of things, so no assumptions about her convictions should be taken from this post. Whatever is worthy about this post is probably her thinking, whatever is deficient about it is probably mine.]
Ronald Reagan is simultaneously considered one of the greatest and most controversial presidents in United States history. His presidency was marked by many political transformations, especially in the realm of economics. The economic doctrine Reagan adopted during his presidency, commonly referred to as “Reaganomics,” contributed to an era of Great Expansion in the mid-1980s. However, some argue that the effects of economic expansion, and the long-term growth that Reagan had envisioned, were undermined by later fiscal and monetary policy decisions made after Reagan left office.
Ronald Reagan’s economic program consisted of four major pillars: reduce the rate of growth of federal spending, carry on with deregulation, attain a low stable growth of money supply, and reduce tax rates. The goal of Reaganomics was to reduce government interference with the economy and develop an entrepreneurial-based self-sufficient market. His goals and the pillars that outlined his program embraced the principles of supply-side economics that gained popularity during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Supply-side economics focused more on creating supplies versus worrying about demand. Reductions in taxes did this, as more businesses could afford to open and they would increase productivity. An increase in productivity brought more jobs and reduced unemployment that had reached a record high at the time Reagan initially took office.
Reagan used deregulation to ease inflation, which was also very high at the time, by lowering the cost to start a business. Prices were reduced and as a result, competition increased, in the trucking, airline, railroad, and telecommunications industries. Growth in prosperity in these industries spread to other industries, as transportation and telecommunications are central to society.
By deregulating the communications industry, there was a burst in technological innovation, which helped the United States become competitive on an international level in that arena. This correlated perfectly with the technological revolution of the 1980’s, as personal computers and video games burst in popularity. A further conversation on deregulation and its possible effects is beyond the scope of this paper, and the aspects of it that pertain directly to supply-side economics have been discussed.
As a result of the implementation of Reaganomics, the 1980’s saw a tremendous growth in jobs and businesses, and a reduction in inflation in a short period of time. Tax cuts helped bring 19.3 million jobs during the decade, with the majority of them being highly paid. The unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent in 1981 to 5.3 percent in 1989. When Reagan first entered office in 1981, the United States was in the worst recession the country had seen since the Great Depression. By 1982, the recession was alleviated, and the country entered a period of sustained economic growth.
In early 1983, economists saw the first signs that the economy was recovering. It would soon take-off with dramatic force. Lasting 93 consecutive months, it was the biggest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.
The background of Reaganomics can be traced back to post-war economies, a vague term that roughly describes the economies of the 1950’s and 1960’s, which leaned towards the Keynesian theory. This “demand-side” theory, presented by British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, focuses on short-term economic fluctuations due to the belief that unemployment results from insufficient demand for goods and services. Keynes ultimately believed that government action could directly influence demand for goods and services by altering tax policies and expenditures.
The 1970’s brought an increase in the popularity of supply-side economics, which greatly challenged Keynesian theory and was a term that Reaganomics would make a household name. Jack Kemp, a New York representative and an intern in California for then-governor Ronald Reagan’s staff, was an adamant proponent of supply-side economics. He believed that growth allowed social problems “to take care of themselves.” In his opinion, tax reduction was a key to economic growth and could be done by affecting supply-side incentives. In 1977, Kemp and Delaware senator William Roth introduced the Kemp-Roth Tax Reduction Bill, calling for a 30% reduction in personal income rates over a three-year phase. Due to large inflation accompanied by stagflation at the time, there was large public support for the bill. Although the tax cut did not pass, it was influential due to new intellectual ideas appearing at the time.
University of Southern California professor Arthur Laffer, along with Columbia University’s Robert Mundell popularized their idea of ongoing and informal supply-side economics with politicians and journalists. Laffer is probably famous for introducing the Laffer curve, which emphasized tax reduction as a solution to economic issues. The curve starts at zero tax, but then shows an upside-parabolic curve to demonstrate that up until a certain point (the absolute maximum on the curve) an increase in tax rates will result in an increase in revenue. After this point, an increase in tax will hurt revenue. Despite sharp criticism from Keynesian economists, supply-side was given serious thought in various places. Joint Election Committee (JEC) chairman Lloyd Bensen liked supply-side economics, saying that it was “the start of a new era of economic thinking.” It provided policy makers with a novel way to envision the country’s economic problems versus the conventional way of aggregating demand in post-war America.
The nation first saw an outline of Reaganomics in August of 1979, when Martin Anderson, Reagan’s chief domestic policy advisor, drafted the Reagan for President Campaign’s “Policy Memorandum No. 1.” The plan included suggestions for the economy such as across-the-board tax cuts of at least three years duration accompanied by an indexation of federal income tax brackets. There would also be a reduction in rate of increase in federal spending, vigorous deregulation, and a strict monetary policy to deal with inflation. Reagan would attempt to implement these principles throughout his presidency, and would introduce acts, bills, reforms that would have long-term effects, reducing debt and deficit numbers even after he left the presidency.
In 1981, Reagan made two influential policy decisions that would increase investment by Americans over a long period of time. A general reduction in tax rates, one of the major pillars of Reaganomics, yields great feedback in terms of faster economic growth, a larger tax base, and larger tax revenues.
Reagan introduced a tax-cut bill in 1981 that established tax deductions for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) that resulted in 12 million taxpayers contributing $28.3 billion towards their retirement. In addition, his administration established a principle that employees could have a tax-free income if matched by employers and channeled into their retirement accounts. As a result, the number of Americans with 401k plans increased. By implementing such policies, a massive class of small investors were created that were previously non-existent.
Not only did this new wave of investors create jobs by fueling business growth, but they also pro-actively addressed concerns about the ability of major employers to fund the retirement of the “baby-boomer” generation.
The economic growth, initiated by Reagan, was threatened, however by Congressional actions. Congress did not prepare itself properly for the outcomes of Reagan’s economic doctrines, as government spending increased. For example, Congress resisted cuts in domestic spending, and did not reform basic entitlement plans, which provide unearned payments to individuals. Increased spending in these programs, which include Medicare and Social Security, caused problems for Congress controlling the exact size of budget deficit and surplus. According to the White House’s website, the federal gross debt as a percentage of GDP rose when Congress acted by increasing spending (and therefore increasing both the deficit and the debt). With more businesses opening during Reagan’s presidency and a growing, aging population that relies on the benefits of Social Security and Medicare, federal spending has only increased at a pace far faster than domestic output has increased. Given the spending plans put forth in the mid-1990’s, the government can barely afford to sustain many of its programs. Because the experience of the 1980’s shows that higher taxes will hurt any potential economic growth, Congress must enact disciplined spending cuts.
To maintain sustainable economic growth, not only must Congress consistently reduce federal spending, but there must also be a supply of quality opportunities for new capital investment. During the 1990’s, the Clinton administration introduced policies centered on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac; these policies diluted the quality of investment opportunities, and eventually culminated in the 2007/2008 “housing bubble.” Reagan’s deregulated mortgage market had allowed lending institutions to loan money to customers who were most likely to repay. Clinton’s policies forced the lenders to loan money to those identified as unlikely to repay. Clinton’s regulation of the market in the 1990’s created massive defaults in 2007 and 2008.
In conclusion, former President Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates by introducing bills in the early 1980’s that increased American investment and productivity. However, Congress did not make the necessary adjustments needed: spending cuts, and sustained deregulation of the mortgage market.
The lesson: free markets aren't free if the government is regulating them, and if the government is spending lots of money, it either creates debt which slows the economy, or it raises tax rates which slow the economy.
Ronald Reagan is simultaneously considered one of the greatest and most controversial presidents in United States history. His presidency was marked by many political transformations, especially in the realm of economics. The economic doctrine Reagan adopted during his presidency, commonly referred to as “Reaganomics,” contributed to an era of Great Expansion in the mid-1980s. However, some argue that the effects of economic expansion, and the long-term growth that Reagan had envisioned, were undermined by later fiscal and monetary policy decisions made after Reagan left office.
Ronald Reagan’s economic program consisted of four major pillars: reduce the rate of growth of federal spending, carry on with deregulation, attain a low stable growth of money supply, and reduce tax rates. The goal of Reaganomics was to reduce government interference with the economy and develop an entrepreneurial-based self-sufficient market. His goals and the pillars that outlined his program embraced the principles of supply-side economics that gained popularity during the 1970’s and 1980’s. Supply-side economics focused more on creating supplies versus worrying about demand. Reductions in taxes did this, as more businesses could afford to open and they would increase productivity. An increase in productivity brought more jobs and reduced unemployment that had reached a record high at the time Reagan initially took office.
Reagan used deregulation to ease inflation, which was also very high at the time, by lowering the cost to start a business. Prices were reduced and as a result, competition increased, in the trucking, airline, railroad, and telecommunications industries. Growth in prosperity in these industries spread to other industries, as transportation and telecommunications are central to society.
By deregulating the communications industry, there was a burst in technological innovation, which helped the United States become competitive on an international level in that arena. This correlated perfectly with the technological revolution of the 1980’s, as personal computers and video games burst in popularity. A further conversation on deregulation and its possible effects is beyond the scope of this paper, and the aspects of it that pertain directly to supply-side economics have been discussed.
As a result of the implementation of Reaganomics, the 1980’s saw a tremendous growth in jobs and businesses, and a reduction in inflation in a short period of time. Tax cuts helped bring 19.3 million jobs during the decade, with the majority of them being highly paid. The unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent in 1981 to 5.3 percent in 1989. When Reagan first entered office in 1981, the United States was in the worst recession the country had seen since the Great Depression. By 1982, the recession was alleviated, and the country entered a period of sustained economic growth.
In early 1983, economists saw the first signs that the economy was recovering. It would soon take-off with dramatic force. Lasting 93 consecutive months, it was the biggest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.
The background of Reaganomics can be traced back to post-war economies, a vague term that roughly describes the economies of the 1950’s and 1960’s, which leaned towards the Keynesian theory. This “demand-side” theory, presented by British economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1936 book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, focuses on short-term economic fluctuations due to the belief that unemployment results from insufficient demand for goods and services. Keynes ultimately believed that government action could directly influence demand for goods and services by altering tax policies and expenditures.
The 1970’s brought an increase in the popularity of supply-side economics, which greatly challenged Keynesian theory and was a term that Reaganomics would make a household name. Jack Kemp, a New York representative and an intern in California for then-governor Ronald Reagan’s staff, was an adamant proponent of supply-side economics. He believed that growth allowed social problems “to take care of themselves.” In his opinion, tax reduction was a key to economic growth and could be done by affecting supply-side incentives. In 1977, Kemp and Delaware senator William Roth introduced the Kemp-Roth Tax Reduction Bill, calling for a 30% reduction in personal income rates over a three-year phase. Due to large inflation accompanied by stagflation at the time, there was large public support for the bill. Although the tax cut did not pass, it was influential due to new intellectual ideas appearing at the time.
University of Southern California professor Arthur Laffer, along with Columbia University’s Robert Mundell popularized their idea of ongoing and informal supply-side economics with politicians and journalists. Laffer is probably famous for introducing the Laffer curve, which emphasized tax reduction as a solution to economic issues. The curve starts at zero tax, but then shows an upside-parabolic curve to demonstrate that up until a certain point (the absolute maximum on the curve) an increase in tax rates will result in an increase in revenue. After this point, an increase in tax will hurt revenue. Despite sharp criticism from Keynesian economists, supply-side was given serious thought in various places. Joint Election Committee (JEC) chairman Lloyd Bensen liked supply-side economics, saying that it was “the start of a new era of economic thinking.” It provided policy makers with a novel way to envision the country’s economic problems versus the conventional way of aggregating demand in post-war America.
The nation first saw an outline of Reaganomics in August of 1979, when Martin Anderson, Reagan’s chief domestic policy advisor, drafted the Reagan for President Campaign’s “Policy Memorandum No. 1.” The plan included suggestions for the economy such as across-the-board tax cuts of at least three years duration accompanied by an indexation of federal income tax brackets. There would also be a reduction in rate of increase in federal spending, vigorous deregulation, and a strict monetary policy to deal with inflation. Reagan would attempt to implement these principles throughout his presidency, and would introduce acts, bills, reforms that would have long-term effects, reducing debt and deficit numbers even after he left the presidency.
In 1981, Reagan made two influential policy decisions that would increase investment by Americans over a long period of time. A general reduction in tax rates, one of the major pillars of Reaganomics, yields great feedback in terms of faster economic growth, a larger tax base, and larger tax revenues.
Reagan introduced a tax-cut bill in 1981 that established tax deductions for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) that resulted in 12 million taxpayers contributing $28.3 billion towards their retirement. In addition, his administration established a principle that employees could have a tax-free income if matched by employers and channeled into their retirement accounts. As a result, the number of Americans with 401k plans increased. By implementing such policies, a massive class of small investors were created that were previously non-existent.
Not only did this new wave of investors create jobs by fueling business growth, but they also pro-actively addressed concerns about the ability of major employers to fund the retirement of the “baby-boomer” generation.
The economic growth, initiated by Reagan, was threatened, however by Congressional actions. Congress did not prepare itself properly for the outcomes of Reagan’s economic doctrines, as government spending increased. For example, Congress resisted cuts in domestic spending, and did not reform basic entitlement plans, which provide unearned payments to individuals. Increased spending in these programs, which include Medicare and Social Security, caused problems for Congress controlling the exact size of budget deficit and surplus. According to the White House’s website, the federal gross debt as a percentage of GDP rose when Congress acted by increasing spending (and therefore increasing both the deficit and the debt). With more businesses opening during Reagan’s presidency and a growing, aging population that relies on the benefits of Social Security and Medicare, federal spending has only increased at a pace far faster than domestic output has increased. Given the spending plans put forth in the mid-1990’s, the government can barely afford to sustain many of its programs. Because the experience of the 1980’s shows that higher taxes will hurt any potential economic growth, Congress must enact disciplined spending cuts.
To maintain sustainable economic growth, not only must Congress consistently reduce federal spending, but there must also be a supply of quality opportunities for new capital investment. During the 1990’s, the Clinton administration introduced policies centered on Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac; these policies diluted the quality of investment opportunities, and eventually culminated in the 2007/2008 “housing bubble.” Reagan’s deregulated mortgage market had allowed lending institutions to loan money to customers who were most likely to repay. Clinton’s policies forced the lenders to loan money to those identified as unlikely to repay. Clinton’s regulation of the market in the 1990’s created massive defaults in 2007 and 2008.
In conclusion, former President Ronald Reagan slashed tax rates by introducing bills in the early 1980’s that increased American investment and productivity. However, Congress did not make the necessary adjustments needed: spending cuts, and sustained deregulation of the mortgage market.
The lesson: free markets aren't free if the government is regulating them, and if the government is spending lots of money, it either creates debt which slows the economy, or it raises tax rates which slow the economy.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
When the News is Too Complicated for the News Media
The economy is big news right now. We’re all absorbing as much of it as we can, but is it helping ... or hurting?
According to Poynter Institute Media Business Analyst Rick Edmonds, most newsrooms are doing their best to cover the ever-changing economic story, but it's so complex, it's almost a losing battle.
"Local reporters and certainly national reporters can definitely handle the 'how it's impacting individuals' angle," he says. "But let’s face it, trying to explain complicated financial economic terms is a losing game."
Realize that, if you have experience in the business world, or have a master's degree, you may well be able to understand the situation better than the reporter on your TV screen. Grab a book on economics or investing from your local library, and soon you'll be pointing out the flaws in the TV news.
Add on the fact that news is ratings-driven, and colorful words and dramatic headlines are the norm.
"It's a practice that has crept into coverage over the last decade," says Edmonds. "When there is a big story, ratings go up. You can’t just say, 'we're reporting on the war in Iraq,' you have to have a title for your coverage."
So what should consumers do to keep up-to-date on financial news?
"Having access to professionals in the financial industry is your best bet," says Edmonds.
Remember, the people on TV weren't hired for their understanding of complex economics. They were hired because they look good, and can use their voices in impressive ways. Get yourself an ECON 101 textbook, or a FINANCE 101 textbook, and ten minutes of reading will tell you more than a week's worth of the evening news on TV.
According to Poynter Institute Media Business Analyst Rick Edmonds, most newsrooms are doing their best to cover the ever-changing economic story, but it's so complex, it's almost a losing battle.
"Local reporters and certainly national reporters can definitely handle the 'how it's impacting individuals' angle," he says. "But let’s face it, trying to explain complicated financial economic terms is a losing game."
Realize that, if you have experience in the business world, or have a master's degree, you may well be able to understand the situation better than the reporter on your TV screen. Grab a book on economics or investing from your local library, and soon you'll be pointing out the flaws in the TV news.
Add on the fact that news is ratings-driven, and colorful words and dramatic headlines are the norm.
"It's a practice that has crept into coverage over the last decade," says Edmonds. "When there is a big story, ratings go up. You can’t just say, 'we're reporting on the war in Iraq,' you have to have a title for your coverage."
So what should consumers do to keep up-to-date on financial news?
"Having access to professionals in the financial industry is your best bet," says Edmonds.
Remember, the people on TV weren't hired for their understanding of complex economics. They were hired because they look good, and can use their voices in impressive ways. Get yourself an ECON 101 textbook, or a FINANCE 101 textbook, and ten minutes of reading will tell you more than a week's worth of the evening news on TV.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Helping
On December 26, 2004, a tsunami struck several different countries in and around the Indian Ocean. Many different governments sent help; the U.S. government sent more aid than any other government.
President Bush sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. The largest ships in the fleet, aircraft carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. The U.S. military saved thousands of lives in the days following the tsunami.
But, although the U.S. government sent more aid than any other government, there was another source of help which was much larger still. The charities in America sent billions of dollars in food, medicine, and supplies. In addition, the charities funded teams of nurses and doctors to set up hospitals, and teams of builders to remove rubble and start rebuilding.
The private charitable organizations in America not only sent more aid than the U.S. government, they sent more aid than all the governments of the world combined!
Which shows that, in offering significant help and making progress, private sector charity trumps government programs.
President Bush sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. The largest ships in the fleet, aircraft carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. The U.S. military saved thousands of lives in the days following the tsunami.
But, although the U.S. government sent more aid than any other government, there was another source of help which was much larger still. The charities in America sent billions of dollars in food, medicine, and supplies. In addition, the charities funded teams of nurses and doctors to set up hospitals, and teams of builders to remove rubble and start rebuilding.
The private charitable organizations in America not only sent more aid than the U.S. government, they sent more aid than all the governments of the world combined!
Which shows that, in offering significant help and making progress, private sector charity trumps government programs.
Not Building an Empire
One constant feature of human nature is the desire to take over and rule large amounts of territory. Whether in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cyrus of Persia, etc.), or in modern history (Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon), people want to build empires.
By contrast, there are those armies who defeat their enemies, and yet allow those enemies to keep their land afterward: nations which do aim to absorb their enemies, but rather to turn their enemies into friends. In the modern world, there is one such nation: the United States.
After two world wars, we returned all conquered lands to their own nations. After Operation Desert Storm, we returned all territory. We are preparing now to return Iraq to the Iraqis.
Colin Powell, former secretary of state, said, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
By contrast, there are those armies who defeat their enemies, and yet allow those enemies to keep their land afterward: nations which do aim to absorb their enemies, but rather to turn their enemies into friends. In the modern world, there is one such nation: the United States.
After two world wars, we returned all conquered lands to their own nations. After Operation Desert Storm, we returned all territory. We are preparing now to return Iraq to the Iraqis.
Colin Powell, former secretary of state, said, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Keeping the Peace
In late 1814 and early 1815, Napoleon's career was coming to an end, and Europe had suffered twenty-five years of nearly continuous chaos and bloodshed: first, the ten years of the French Revolution (1789 - 1799), and then Napoleon's dictatorship. France had conducted wars against, or involving, nearly all of Europe. The misery was wide-spread.
The leaders of European nations gathered at the Congress of Vienna to answer the question, how can we keep Europe safe and peaceful? The conference was organized and led by Metternich. The starting point for discussion was the Treaty of Paris, first signed in 1814; during the conference, Napoleon attempted his comeback, and when that failed, a second Treaty of Paris was issued in 1815. The Bourbon absolutist monarchy was reinstated, and France lost the territory which had stolen from other nations after 1789.
It was clear that Europe would assume a new shape on the map, and a new political tone, especially because Napoleon had also officially ended the Holy Roman Empire. The Congress of Vienna wanted to ensure that Europe's new layout would lead to peace and stability.
The official dates of the conference were from November 1, 1814 until June 8, 1815.
England was represented by Castlereagh and Wellington; Napoleon gave England two of its greatest heros, Wellington and Nelson, and Wellington also was immortalized in the famous beef recipe. Wellington's real name was Arthur Wellesley, but he was called Wellington because he was the Duke of Wellington.
Metternich represented Austria, and Prussia was represented by Hardenberg and Humboldt. Alexander I represented Russia. Talleyrand represented France, and almost single-handedly saved his country, because the other nations wanted to punish it for the twenty-five years of butchery it caused. Talleyrand persuaded the other leaders that they would have nothing to gain by devastating France, but that if they left the country intact, it would benefit all of Europe.
The leaders of European nations gathered at the Congress of Vienna to answer the question, how can we keep Europe safe and peaceful? The conference was organized and led by Metternich. The starting point for discussion was the Treaty of Paris, first signed in 1814; during the conference, Napoleon attempted his comeback, and when that failed, a second Treaty of Paris was issued in 1815. The Bourbon absolutist monarchy was reinstated, and France lost the territory which had stolen from other nations after 1789.
It was clear that Europe would assume a new shape on the map, and a new political tone, especially because Napoleon had also officially ended the Holy Roman Empire. The Congress of Vienna wanted to ensure that Europe's new layout would lead to peace and stability.
The official dates of the conference were from November 1, 1814 until June 8, 1815.
England was represented by Castlereagh and Wellington; Napoleon gave England two of its greatest heros, Wellington and Nelson, and Wellington also was immortalized in the famous beef recipe. Wellington's real name was Arthur Wellesley, but he was called Wellington because he was the Duke of Wellington.
Metternich represented Austria, and Prussia was represented by Hardenberg and Humboldt. Alexander I represented Russia. Talleyrand represented France, and almost single-handedly saved his country, because the other nations wanted to punish it for the twenty-five years of butchery it caused. Talleyrand persuaded the other leaders that they would have nothing to gain by devastating France, but that if they left the country intact, it would benefit all of Europe.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Do You Exist? Do I?
Only a philosopher would spend time trying to answer the question, “do I exist?”
It's not that philosophers are worried about the answer. They know that they exist. But given that the answer is automatically “yes”, how do we prove that answer? It's not enough to answer a question - you must offer evidence to support that answer. What evidence can you offer in order to convince me that you exist?
Descartes and Augustine share not only the argument Cogito ergo sum - in Augustine Si fallor, sum - but also the corollary argument claiming to prove that the mind (Augustine) or, as Descartes puts it, this I, is not any kind of body. “I could suppose I had no body,” wrote Descartes, “but not that I was not,” and inferred that “this I” is not a body. Augustine says “the mind knows itself to think,” and “it knows its own substance”: hence “it is certain of being that alone, which alone it is certain of being.” Augustine is not here explicitly offering an argument in the first person, as Descartes is. The first-person character of Descartes's argument means that each person must administer it to himself in the first person; and the assent to Augustine's various propositions will equally be made, if at all, by appropriating them in the first person. In these writers there is the assumption that when one says “I” or “the mind,” one is naming something such that the knowledge of its existence, which is a knowledge of itself as thinking in all the various modes, determines what it is that is known to exist.
But Descartes recognized that his use of this form of argument is quite different from Augustine's: “I do indeed find that Augustine does use it to prove the certainty of our existence. He goes on to show that there is a certain likeness of the Trinity in us, in that we exist, we know that we exist, and we love the existence and the knowledge we have. I, on the other hand, use the argument to show that this I that is thinking is an immaterial substance with no bodily element. These are two very different things.”
Augustine's purpose in the larger context is to establish the continuing goodness of the world following the fall. To this end, Augustine argues, as Jean-Luc Marion summarizes, that “we recognize in ourselves ... an image of God, that is of the Supreme trinity. It is not an adequate image, but a very distant parallel.” And this premise leads to the conclusion that ”we are human beings, created in our Creator's image.” Thus, for Augustine, “Self-certainty thus leads self-consciousness back to the inner consciousness of God, which is found to be more essential to consciousness than itself. For the si fallor, sum does not aim at the ego, nor does it come to a half in the res cogitans, seeing as the interior intimo meo transports it, as a derived image, toward the original exemplar. The si fallor, sum remains the simply, though first, moment of a path that, in two other more rich moments (knowing one's Being and loving it), disappropriates the mind from itself by the movement of reappropriating it to its original, God. The si fallor, sum does not assure the mind of having its principle in itself, since it does not grant it Being in itself nor saying itself by itself (like substance). On the contrary, si fallor sum forbids the mind to remain in itself, exiled from its truth, in order to send it back to the infinite original. The mind is retrieved only insofar as it is exceeded.”
Descartes wants to show that “by means of the certainty of Being that thought secures for what from now on becomes an ego” that the I is an immaterial substance: “What is at stake, then, is not found simply in the connection of thought and existence, however certain this connection might be. That the mind thinks, therefore that it is insofar as it thinks – this belongs to an inference that is if not banal ... at least quite commonplace. What is peculiar to Descartes consists, as he so lucidly indicates, in interpreting the certain and necessary connection of the cogitatio and existence as establishing a substance, and moreover a substance that plays the role of first principle.”
With reference to Jean-Luc Marion, we may conclude that, despite the rather different goals of their writings, Augustine anticipated Descartes by over a thousand years, and even anticipated Anselm by five hundred years, in composing what amounts to an a priori argument directed against radical skepticism. For, although Augustine's argument makes reference to sensation, the structure of his argument is essentially a priori.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Mind or The Brain?
Modem philosophy of science has been devoted largely to the formal and systematic description of the successful practices of working scientists. The philosopher does not try to dictate how scientific inquiry and argument ought to be conducted. Instead he tries to enumerate the principles and practices that have contributed to good science. The philosopher has devoted the most attention to analyzing the methodological peculiarities of the physical sciences. The analysis has helped to clarify the nature of confirmation, the logical structure of scientific theories, the formal properties of statements that express laws and the question of whether theoretical entities actually exist.
It is only rather recently that philosophers have become seriously interested in the methodological tenets of psychology. Psychological explanations of behavior refer liberally to the mind and to states, operations and processes of the mind. The philosophical difficulty comes in stating in unambiguous language what such references imply.
Traditional philosophies of mind can be divided into two broad categories: dualist theories and materialist theories. In the dualist approach the mind is a nonphysical substance. In materialist theories the mental is not distinct from the physical; indeed, all mental states, properties, processes and operations are in principle identical with physical states, properties, processes and operations. Some materialists, known as behaviorists, maintain that all talk of mental causes can be eliminated from the language of psychology in favor of talk of environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Other materialists, the identity theorists, contend that there are mental causes and that they are identical with neurophysiological events in the brain.
In the past fifteen years a philosophy of mind called functionalism that is neither dualist nor materialist has emerged from philosophical reflection on developments in artificial intelligence, computational theory, linguistics, cybernetics and psychology. All these fields, which are collectively known as the cognitive sciences, have in common a certain level of abstraction and a concern with systems that process information. Functionalism, which seeks to provide a philosophical account of this level of abstraction, recognizes the possibility that systems as diverse as human beings, calculating machines and disembodied spirits could all have mental states. In the functionalist view the psychology of a system depends not on the stuff it is made of (living cells, metal or spiritual energy) but on how the stuff is put together. Functionalism is a difficult concept, and one way of coming to grips with it is to review the deficiencies of the dualist and materialist philosophies of mind it aims to displace.
It is only rather recently that philosophers have become seriously interested in the methodological tenets of psychology. Psychological explanations of behavior refer liberally to the mind and to states, operations and processes of the mind. The philosophical difficulty comes in stating in unambiguous language what such references imply.
Traditional philosophies of mind can be divided into two broad categories: dualist theories and materialist theories. In the dualist approach the mind is a nonphysical substance. In materialist theories the mental is not distinct from the physical; indeed, all mental states, properties, processes and operations are in principle identical with physical states, properties, processes and operations. Some materialists, known as behaviorists, maintain that all talk of mental causes can be eliminated from the language of psychology in favor of talk of environmental stimuli and behavioral responses. Other materialists, the identity theorists, contend that there are mental causes and that they are identical with neurophysiological events in the brain.
In the past fifteen years a philosophy of mind called functionalism that is neither dualist nor materialist has emerged from philosophical reflection on developments in artificial intelligence, computational theory, linguistics, cybernetics and psychology. All these fields, which are collectively known as the cognitive sciences, have in common a certain level of abstraction and a concern with systems that process information. Functionalism, which seeks to provide a philosophical account of this level of abstraction, recognizes the possibility that systems as diverse as human beings, calculating machines and disembodied spirits could all have mental states. In the functionalist view the psychology of a system depends not on the stuff it is made of (living cells, metal or spiritual energy) but on how the stuff is put together. Functionalism is a difficult concept, and one way of coming to grips with it is to review the deficiencies of the dualist and materialist philosophies of mind it aims to displace.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Gettin' Sneaky
Samuel Adams was a man of courage and integrity. As one of our founding fathers, not only does our nation owe its existence to him and his colleagues, but the world owes its concepts of modern freedom and democracy to this same group.
His contribution was to organize in Massachusetts the local committees of correspondence. After he had formed the first one in Boston during 1772, some eighty towns in the colony speedily set up similar organizations. Their chief function was to spread the spirit of resistance by exchanging letters and thus keep alive opposition to British policy. One critic referred to the committees as "the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of sedition."
Inter-colonial committees of correspondence were the next logical step. Virginia led the way in 1773 by creating such a body as a standing committee of the House of Burgesses. Within a short time, every colony had established a central committee through which it could exchange ideas and information with other colonies. These inter-colonial groups were supremely significant in stimulating and disseminating sentiment in favor of united action. They evolved directly into the first American congresses.
So, if you have liberty, if you enjoy both civil rights and human rights, if you are to express opinions and beliefs freely, if you able to make some decisions about your own life ... thank this group of sneaky note-writers!
His contribution was to organize in Massachusetts the local committees of correspondence. After he had formed the first one in Boston during 1772, some eighty towns in the colony speedily set up similar organizations. Their chief function was to spread the spirit of resistance by exchanging letters and thus keep alive opposition to British policy. One critic referred to the committees as "the foulest, subtlest, and most venomous serpent ever issued from the egg of sedition."
Inter-colonial committees of correspondence were the next logical step. Virginia led the way in 1773 by creating such a body as a standing committee of the House of Burgesses. Within a short time, every colony had established a central committee through which it could exchange ideas and information with other colonies. These inter-colonial groups were supremely significant in stimulating and disseminating sentiment in favor of united action. They evolved directly into the first American congresses.
So, if you have liberty, if you enjoy both civil rights and human rights, if you are to express opinions and beliefs freely, if you able to make some decisions about your own life ... thank this group of sneaky note-writers!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Movie Director, the Football Coach, and the Boy Scouts
A controversial motion picture producer, Michael Moore, is loved by some, hated by others, and probably misunderstood by many. A lifetime member of the NRA, an Eagle Scout, and an active supporter of the Scouting Movement, he refuses to be painted into narrow category of “left-wing” or “right-wing”.
A University of Michigan football coach has a demanding job, especially if he wants to claim a national title. He has very little free time, and has to make his choices carefully, because the actions of the head coach will reflect on the U of M. Yet Fielding Yost spent a great deal of time and effort promoting the Boy Scouts, with the approval of U of M’s president.
Two very different high-profile people, but one common goal: to ensure that young people in America have the opportunity to be involved in the Scouting Movement.
Bill Clinton - liberal, conservative, or other?
The Clinton presidency is generally seen as "liberal" - being sandwiched between the two Bush presidencies - but, as we have learned, those words "liberal" and "conservative" can be misleading.
During his first term in office - long before the Lewinsky scandal which made him famous - Bill Clinton signed into law the bill known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is the strongest statement to date against homosexual marriage, and which prevents any attempt at diverting federal benefits away from traditional marriages and toward same-sex legal unions.
Now, this may surprise those who see Clinton as a liberal. But Clinton's chief of staff and other close advisers directed him to do this in the same way that they directed him to his other political actions: they kept a close eye on the majority opinion among the electorate. With over 80% of the voters opposed to federal benefits being used to create this novel legal category, Clinton knew that his political future would depend on his following their lead.
Is Clinton a liberal? Perhaps. But perhaps he was simply following the direction set by the democratic process. Which raises a second question: should a president in a democratic society be a "leader" or a "follower"? Although we call him a "leader," we paradoxically expect him to "follow" the majority of the voters.
In either case, Clinton's 1996 support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands as one of the strongest political moves to date against the "gay marriage" movement.
During his first term in office - long before the Lewinsky scandal which made him famous - Bill Clinton signed into law the bill known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which is the strongest statement to date against homosexual marriage, and which prevents any attempt at diverting federal benefits away from traditional marriages and toward same-sex legal unions.
Now, this may surprise those who see Clinton as a liberal. But Clinton's chief of staff and other close advisers directed him to do this in the same way that they directed him to his other political actions: they kept a close eye on the majority opinion among the electorate. With over 80% of the voters opposed to federal benefits being used to create this novel legal category, Clinton knew that his political future would depend on his following their lead.
Is Clinton a liberal? Perhaps. But perhaps he was simply following the direction set by the democratic process. Which raises a second question: should a president in a democratic society be a "leader" or a "follower"? Although we call him a "leader," we paradoxically expect him to "follow" the majority of the voters.
In either case, Clinton's 1996 support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands as one of the strongest political moves to date against the "gay marriage" movement.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Greeks Unite in the Struggle Against the Persians
Most of the Greek city-states developed similarly to Athens. Around the year 500 BC, all of Greece felt itself threatened by something external, by a powerful enemy in the east: Persia. The Persians were an equestrian nation, which came out of the rough highlands of the area we today call Iran. They ruled an empire which stretched from India to the Mediterranean coast, and which encompassed the ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt. One can truly speak of a world empire in this case.
The Persian emperor (or "king of kings") allowed the subjugated nations to have their religions and customs, but they had to pay tribute (money) regularly, and supply soldiers when the Persian king demanded this of them. In the assembled army, the empire because visible in its expanse, and in successful campaigns, the invincibility of the king showed itself. Because of the great distances and the limited opportunities for direct control, the emperor placed his representatives to rule the individual regions; they were called "satraps" or "tyrants" or governors.
Naturally, the Persian king could not tolerate it, if parts of his kingdom would attempt to gain their independence. But exactly this is what the Greek cities in Asia Minor did, in his opinion, when they undertook a rebellion in 500 BC under the leadership of Miletus. In 494 BC, Miletus was destroyed on his orders.
The Athenians had supported the rebellion. The Persian king Darius sent therefore, in 490 BC, a rather small army across the sea in the direction of Greece. The Athenians didn't want to subjugate themselves, and decided to fight.
In the battle of Marathon, an Athenian army defeated the Persians. A military tactic, not practiced by the Persians, played a decisive role: the Athenians fought as heavily-armed foot soldiers, as "hoplites", and appeared thereby in closed ranks, as a "phalanx". The hoplites, formed in several rows, one after another, were "fired up" by means of music, and followed orders as a unit. If the man in front fell, the one behind him had to step forth immediately. Each one had to rely on the other.
The Persian were not content to be defeated at Marathon. Xerxes, the son of Darius, in 480 BC, undertook for this reason better-prepared attack on all of Greece, with perhaps 100,000 soldiers and approximately 1000 ships.
Many states in northern and middle Greece subjugated themselves, either under threat of force, or voluntarily, but not a confederation led by Sparta and including Athens with its fleet of 200 new battle ships. Sparta was, at that time, the most powerful city-state in Greece, and determined to resist unconditionally.
The first attempt to stop the Persian, at Thermopyle, a narrow pass between the mountains and the sea, gained for 300 Spartans a heroic death, but didn't succeed. The path toward Athens was now open to the Persians. There, the inhabitants left the city, and they hoped for a victory by the fleet. The Persians entered Athens, plundered it, and destroyed the more important temples. They considered this to be revenge for a similar deed by the rebellious Greeks in Asia Minor.
But the war was decided in two large battles. First, the Greeks defeated, with luck and skill, the numerically superior Persian fleet in the straights near the island of Salamis. And in 479 BC, the Persian army was devastatingly defeated by the Spartans and some allies at Plataea. A confederation of Greek city-states had thereby defended its own independence against an empire which appeared incredibly powerful.
In Greece, the opinion now spread about the Persians, that they were not only different than the Greeks, but rather by nature inferior humans. These "Barbarians" were seen as enemies, whom one simultaneously despised and feared. The Greek word "barbar" had, until then, designated someone who did not speak Greek and was thereby unintelligible. After the Greeks used this word on the Persians, it took on the negative connotation which it still has today.
The Persian emperor (or "king of kings") allowed the subjugated nations to have their religions and customs, but they had to pay tribute (money) regularly, and supply soldiers when the Persian king demanded this of them. In the assembled army, the empire because visible in its expanse, and in successful campaigns, the invincibility of the king showed itself. Because of the great distances and the limited opportunities for direct control, the emperor placed his representatives to rule the individual regions; they were called "satraps" or "tyrants" or governors.
Naturally, the Persian king could not tolerate it, if parts of his kingdom would attempt to gain their independence. But exactly this is what the Greek cities in Asia Minor did, in his opinion, when they undertook a rebellion in 500 BC under the leadership of Miletus. In 494 BC, Miletus was destroyed on his orders.
The Athenians had supported the rebellion. The Persian king Darius sent therefore, in 490 BC, a rather small army across the sea in the direction of Greece. The Athenians didn't want to subjugate themselves, and decided to fight.
In the battle of Marathon, an Athenian army defeated the Persians. A military tactic, not practiced by the Persians, played a decisive role: the Athenians fought as heavily-armed foot soldiers, as "hoplites", and appeared thereby in closed ranks, as a "phalanx". The hoplites, formed in several rows, one after another, were "fired up" by means of music, and followed orders as a unit. If the man in front fell, the one behind him had to step forth immediately. Each one had to rely on the other.
The Persian were not content to be defeated at Marathon. Xerxes, the son of Darius, in 480 BC, undertook for this reason better-prepared attack on all of Greece, with perhaps 100,000 soldiers and approximately 1000 ships.
Many states in northern and middle Greece subjugated themselves, either under threat of force, or voluntarily, but not a confederation led by Sparta and including Athens with its fleet of 200 new battle ships. Sparta was, at that time, the most powerful city-state in Greece, and determined to resist unconditionally.
The first attempt to stop the Persian, at Thermopyle, a narrow pass between the mountains and the sea, gained for 300 Spartans a heroic death, but didn't succeed. The path toward Athens was now open to the Persians. There, the inhabitants left the city, and they hoped for a victory by the fleet. The Persians entered Athens, plundered it, and destroyed the more important temples. They considered this to be revenge for a similar deed by the rebellious Greeks in Asia Minor.
But the war was decided in two large battles. First, the Greeks defeated, with luck and skill, the numerically superior Persian fleet in the straights near the island of Salamis. And in 479 BC, the Persian army was devastatingly defeated by the Spartans and some allies at Plataea. A confederation of Greek city-states had thereby defended its own independence against an empire which appeared incredibly powerful.
In Greece, the opinion now spread about the Persians, that they were not only different than the Greeks, but rather by nature inferior humans. These "Barbarians" were seen as enemies, whom one simultaneously despised and feared. The Greek word "barbar" had, until then, designated someone who did not speak Greek and was thereby unintelligible. After the Greeks used this word on the Persians, it took on the negative connotation which it still has today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)