Sunday, November 28, 2004
Money won the elections (quelle surprise)
This shouldn't surprise anyone, but check out opensecrets.org's rundown of money spent compared with results in national races this year. In the great majority of cases, the person who spent the most won.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Holiday Book List
With the approaching holiday season and its associated opportunities to purchase gifts for loved ones, I thought it might be nice to post my "citizenship list" of books that I think every American should read. Perhaps at some point in the future, I can post reviews or summaries of some of these books, as well as new ones I come across. What distinguishes these books from many other good ones out there is that each of them is based on solid research that illuminates some particular issue of public importance. In other words, they are books that educate citizens.
Happy Thanksgiving!
* * *
My “Citizenship List”:
Anderson, Elijah. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: Norton, 1999.
Barlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele. America: Who Really Pays the Taxes? New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Bollier, David. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Caufield, Catherine. Masters of Illusion: The World Bank and the Poverty of Nations. New York: Holt, 1996.
Cohen, David. Chasing the Red, White, and Blue: A Journey in Tocqueville's Footsteps through Contemporary America. New York: Picador, 2001.
Donahue, Brian. Reclaiming the Commons: Community Farms and Forests in a New England Town. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Dyer, Joel. Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City Is Only the Beginning. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998.
Dyer, Joel. The Perpetual Prisoner Machine: How America Profits from Crime. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.
Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Metropolitan, 2001.
Estes, Ralph. Tyranny of the Bottom Line: Why Corporations Make Good People Do Bad Things. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1996.
Frank, Thomas. One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Frank, Thomas. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan, 2004.
Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Greider, William. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Himmelstein, David, Steffie Woolhandler, and Ida Hellander. Bleeding the Patient: The Consequences of Corporate Health Care. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 2001.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public School Choice. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action. New York: Basic Books, 1996.
Kuttner, Robert. Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets. New York: Knopf, 1997.
Loeb, Paul Rogat. Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1999.
Manning, Robert D. Credit Card Nation: The Consequences of America's Addiction to Credit. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Nader, Ralph, and Wesley J. Smith. No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America. New York: Random House, 1996.
Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Teixeira, Ruy, and Joel Rogers. America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Happy Thanksgiving!
* * *
My “Citizenship List”:
Anderson, Elijah. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: Norton, 1999.
Barlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele. America: Who Really Pays the Taxes? New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
Bollier, David. Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Caufield, Catherine. Masters of Illusion: The World Bank and the Poverty of Nations. New York: Holt, 1996.
Cohen, David. Chasing the Red, White, and Blue: A Journey in Tocqueville's Footsteps through Contemporary America. New York: Picador, 2001.
Donahue, Brian. Reclaiming the Commons: Community Farms and Forests in a New England Town. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Dyer, Joel. Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City Is Only the Beginning. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998.
Dyer, Joel. The Perpetual Prisoner Machine: How America Profits from Crime. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.
Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Metropolitan, 2001.
Estes, Ralph. Tyranny of the Bottom Line: Why Corporations Make Good People Do Bad Things. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1996.
Frank, Thomas. One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Frank, Thomas. What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Metropolitan, 2004.
Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Greider, William. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Himmelstein, David, Steffie Woolhandler, and Ida Hellander. Bleeding the Patient: The Consequences of Corporate Health Care. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 2001.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. All Together Now: Creating Middle-Class Schools through Public School Choice. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Remedy: Class, Race, and Affirmative Action. New York: Basic Books, 1996.
Kuttner, Robert. Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets. New York: Knopf, 1997.
Loeb, Paul Rogat. Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1999.
Manning, Robert D. Credit Card Nation: The Consequences of America's Addiction to Credit. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
Nader, Ralph, and Wesley J. Smith. No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America. New York: Random House, 1996.
Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Teixeira, Ruy, and Joel Rogers. America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters. New York: Basic Books, 2000.
'Dead check'
A piece in the Village Voice from Evan Wright, the author of the best book I've read about the combat experiences of US troops in Iraq.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Book review: Singer, The President of Good and Evil (2004)
In his book The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush , Peter Singer systematically analyzes President Bush's moral system, assuming from the outset that the president adheres to a coherent moral system, and questioning (a) the strength of the system, and (b) the extent to which he succeeds in adhering to it. His sources are Bush's own words, both in public speeches and as reported in, for example, Bob Woodward's book about the lead-up to the Iraq war. He also looks at the Bush administration's policies and analyzes how consistent or inconsistent they are with his rhetoric.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, Singer concludes in the end that Bush is a "conspicuous failure" because his ethic is "intuitive" rather than systematic, led by his gut rather than by coherent principles. Measured in the context of utilitarian, Christian, and individual rights frameworks, his actions and statements have been wildly inconsistent. In the final chapter, Singer suggests that in terms of moral development, Bush may have reached the level of advanced conventional morality-- the level that psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg says boys generaly reach at the age of thirteen-- without continuing to the level of post-conventional morality. The post-conventional level is the level at which we understand the *reasons* behind the rules, and how to prioritize when rules are in conflict, guided by more complex principles such as the Golden Rule rather than simpler ones like the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not).
Thus, Bush and his cabinet adhere almost fanatically to superficial rules of morality without any concern for more complex judgments, which results in grave moral failures. They insist, for example, that it was "technically accurate" for Bush to say in his State of the Union address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," because the British had, in fact, reported that-- despite the fact that the CIA had already told the British and the White House that the claim was probably not true [214-5]. So their grasp on the moral high ground rests on the "technical" truth of the statement, regardless of the fact that saying such a thing in a major national address leads the country to believe something that is false, with fatal consequences.
As for the paradox that everyone who meets Bush seems to think he's a fundamentally decent person, while his administration has been one of the most draconian and mendacious in American history, Singer offers this hypothesis/conspiracy theory. Bush is the "gentleman" pawn of his "philosopher" entourage, influential members of which were trained by Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. He notes that William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and other important advisers are Straussians, though I'm not sure what that means. Wolfowitz, I know, was actually trained by Strauss as a Ph.D. student at Chicago, but I'm not sure about the others.
Strauss's theory, according to Singer, is that two versions of the truth exist: one for the masses unable to grasp higher knowledge, and one for the philosophers who have the capacity to soar to "the peaks of human excellence" [221]. An example of the former kind of truth: that God will punish evil and reward good. An example of the latter kind of truth: that no God exists, but inculcating belief in God helps maintain social order. The philosopher's role as a leader is to keep the masses in line by using the former kinds of truths, and to keep them from interfering with other philosophers' ascent to said peaks of excellence. He does this by enlisting "gentlemen," who in the words of classicist Miles Burnyeat, "come, preferably, from patrician urban backgrounds and have money without having to work too hard for it...Such 'gentlemen' are idealistic, devoted to virtuous ends, and sympathetic to philosophy." [221-2] Recognize anyone? So Bush, in this reading, is the pawn who professes and promotes a virtue that his puppeteers actually think is meaningless. Anyhow, the Straussians in the administration were instrumental in masterminding the Iraq war, and in fact they were the main players in the Project for a New American Century.
This book will not convince many people who are not already inclined to think badly of Bush. Personally, I admire Peter Singer and I think he is terrific at taking you through moral decision-making in an analytical but accessible way. And I think he's dead on in identifying the logical inconsistencies and weak foundation of Bush's moral reasoning. But I believe that MOST people (including me) don't work from a coherent philosophical framework when they make decisions, and I think that MOST people won't, therefore, be surprised or alarmed that the president doesn't either. So ultimately I think this book, clear and engaging as it is, is hopelessly confined to a small audience of ethics wonks (if there is such a thing) and people addicted to Bush-bashing.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, Singer concludes in the end that Bush is a "conspicuous failure" because his ethic is "intuitive" rather than systematic, led by his gut rather than by coherent principles. Measured in the context of utilitarian, Christian, and individual rights frameworks, his actions and statements have been wildly inconsistent. In the final chapter, Singer suggests that in terms of moral development, Bush may have reached the level of advanced conventional morality-- the level that psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg says boys generaly reach at the age of thirteen-- without continuing to the level of post-conventional morality. The post-conventional level is the level at which we understand the *reasons* behind the rules, and how to prioritize when rules are in conflict, guided by more complex principles such as the Golden Rule rather than simpler ones like the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not).
Thus, Bush and his cabinet adhere almost fanatically to superficial rules of morality without any concern for more complex judgments, which results in grave moral failures. They insist, for example, that it was "technically accurate" for Bush to say in his State of the Union address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," because the British had, in fact, reported that-- despite the fact that the CIA had already told the British and the White House that the claim was probably not true [214-5]. So their grasp on the moral high ground rests on the "technical" truth of the statement, regardless of the fact that saying such a thing in a major national address leads the country to believe something that is false, with fatal consequences.
As for the paradox that everyone who meets Bush seems to think he's a fundamentally decent person, while his administration has been one of the most draconian and mendacious in American history, Singer offers this hypothesis/conspiracy theory. Bush is the "gentleman" pawn of his "philosopher" entourage, influential members of which were trained by Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. He notes that William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and other important advisers are Straussians, though I'm not sure what that means. Wolfowitz, I know, was actually trained by Strauss as a Ph.D. student at Chicago, but I'm not sure about the others.
Strauss's theory, according to Singer, is that two versions of the truth exist: one for the masses unable to grasp higher knowledge, and one for the philosophers who have the capacity to soar to "the peaks of human excellence" [221]. An example of the former kind of truth: that God will punish evil and reward good. An example of the latter kind of truth: that no God exists, but inculcating belief in God helps maintain social order. The philosopher's role as a leader is to keep the masses in line by using the former kinds of truths, and to keep them from interfering with other philosophers' ascent to said peaks of excellence. He does this by enlisting "gentlemen," who in the words of classicist Miles Burnyeat, "come, preferably, from patrician urban backgrounds and have money without having to work too hard for it...Such 'gentlemen' are idealistic, devoted to virtuous ends, and sympathetic to philosophy." [221-2] Recognize anyone? So Bush, in this reading, is the pawn who professes and promotes a virtue that his puppeteers actually think is meaningless. Anyhow, the Straussians in the administration were instrumental in masterminding the Iraq war, and in fact they were the main players in the Project for a New American Century.
This book will not convince many people who are not already inclined to think badly of Bush. Personally, I admire Peter Singer and I think he is terrific at taking you through moral decision-making in an analytical but accessible way. And I think he's dead on in identifying the logical inconsistencies and weak foundation of Bush's moral reasoning. But I believe that MOST people (including me) don't work from a coherent philosophical framework when they make decisions, and I think that MOST people won't, therefore, be surprised or alarmed that the president doesn't either. So ultimately I think this book, clear and engaging as it is, is hopelessly confined to a small audience of ethics wonks (if there is such a thing) and people addicted to Bush-bashing.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Stages of Grief
Denial: What about all those provisional ballots? Surely, something must have gone wrong in Broward County! I can see the headlines now: “Election Fraud Annuls Results: International monitors investigating.”
Anger: All right, America, you got what you deserve! Obviously you do not pay attention to what is really going on in this country – probably get all your information from talk radio and Fox news! I’m outta here…
Depression: We worked so hard – and what good did it do? It makes no sense to try and bring about positive change – with so many who just don’t care! It’s so depressing – with attacks on both Fallujah and Social Security announced just 2 days after the election.
Acceptance: OK. We know that Kerry was not going to be our Saviour. ( But he was SO “Not Bush”!) So nothing’s changed. There remains a lot of work to do. We have to keep informed, network, unite when necessary to take a stand, and keep working on our own areas, in our own ways to make this American democracy – as Bruce Springsteen put it: the country we carry in our hearts – a reality.
We have to look beyond the daily patter of the mainstream media – all about the red states and the blue states and that the election was decided on moral issues. Hogwash! What is moral about people working hard and being too poor to pay for shelter, food and health care? What is moral about 1448 (so far today) American soldiers dying in Iraq to make the country safe for economic exploitation?
Nor was the election a referendum on gay marriage – as analysis of the results indicates. Bush gained no more points in states with a referendum on gay marriage than he did in other states. Also, as regards to a “mandate” to move toward theocracy, Bush gained more among less religious voters than he did among those who identified themselves as most religious.
The reality is that the election was darned close. And more people passionately cared about the outcome than any time in recent history. And they aren’t all red and blue states, either – they’re purple, (unless you live in Idaho, Utah or Wyoming.) Progressive causes gained ground as a result of the election process and the dialogue about real issues like the widening gap between rich and the poor; lack of health care; and the moves to limit civil rights, damage the environment and basically become an immoral, imperialist power.
This is no time to give up – or even to rest – just time to keep on keeping on.
Anger: All right, America, you got what you deserve! Obviously you do not pay attention to what is really going on in this country – probably get all your information from talk radio and Fox news! I’m outta here…
Depression: We worked so hard – and what good did it do? It makes no sense to try and bring about positive change – with so many who just don’t care! It’s so depressing – with attacks on both Fallujah and Social Security announced just 2 days after the election.
Acceptance: OK. We know that Kerry was not going to be our Saviour. ( But he was SO “Not Bush”!) So nothing’s changed. There remains a lot of work to do. We have to keep informed, network, unite when necessary to take a stand, and keep working on our own areas, in our own ways to make this American democracy – as Bruce Springsteen put it: the country we carry in our hearts – a reality.
We have to look beyond the daily patter of the mainstream media – all about the red states and the blue states and that the election was decided on moral issues. Hogwash! What is moral about people working hard and being too poor to pay for shelter, food and health care? What is moral about 1448 (so far today) American soldiers dying in Iraq to make the country safe for economic exploitation?
Nor was the election a referendum on gay marriage – as analysis of the results indicates. Bush gained no more points in states with a referendum on gay marriage than he did in other states. Also, as regards to a “mandate” to move toward theocracy, Bush gained more among less religious voters than he did among those who identified themselves as most religious.
The reality is that the election was darned close. And more people passionately cared about the outcome than any time in recent history. And they aren’t all red and blue states, either – they’re purple, (unless you live in Idaho, Utah or Wyoming.) Progressive causes gained ground as a result of the election process and the dialogue about real issues like the widening gap between rich and the poor; lack of health care; and the moves to limit civil rights, damage the environment and basically become an immoral, imperialist power.
This is no time to give up – or even to rest – just time to keep on keeping on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)