Civil War

Civility was stillborn at the dawn of politics. So the frothing ad hominem nature of the recent debate on health care and the economy is not surprising. Nor is this country's trenchant racism coupling with rabid anti-communism anything new. The KKK has always hated niggers and communists equally. The spectrum has only shifted slightly in that black is the new red. It was naive to think that racism would dissolve in the glow of Obama's election.

Politicians have been calling each other liars since the birth of the Republic, but never has a Southern, confederate sympathizing representative called a black President a liar on the floor of the House. And precisely the fact that we've never had a black President until now amplifies Joe (not his real name) Wilson's tantrum. What's the answer to the question as to why we haven't had a black President until now? Racism, duh. Ignoring the historical context of a white southerner denouncing a black President in a House divided is not rational given the overwhelming history of slavery and apartheid in this country. Well over half a million Americans died in the civil war, to say nothing of the horrors of the Atlantic passage and the "peculiar institution." This is just not the same thing as booing a white President.

On the Use and Abuse of the Constitution for Life

Annoying but popular Wall Street Journal op-ed piece on how our next census will be unconstitutional because it's going to count illegal aliens. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970204908604574332950796281832.html

My letter to the Wall Street Journal that's never going to be printed regarding an obvious problem with the viewpoint:

Mr. Baker's and Mr. Stonecipher's conclusory statement that Congressional representation based on a census of non-citizens is unconstitutional runs afoul the of the Constitution as originally written. The original Constitution explicitly provided for proportional congressional representation based, in part, on a census of non-citizens. That is precisely what the infamous "three fifths clause" provided for by allowing the southern slave states to count three fifths of their slave populations towards their representation in the House of Representatives. And as Chief Justice Roger Taney made clear in his decision in Dred Scott, slaves were not entitled to the rights of citizenship and were considered mere chattel. While I agree in principle that only citizens should be counted when it comes to congressional representation, it is far from clear to me that counting non-citizens towards representation is unconstitutional when the original constitution allowed for representation based on a tally of what was then considered property.

Religion is the Ultimate Materialism

When was the last time you saw a priest going hungry? Or lacking a roof over his/not her head? Just what exactly is the net worth of the Catholic Church? Or the net income produced by the Haj and the revenue stream generated by the merchants of Mecca since before Islam even existed (back when Mecca was a pagan pilgrimage site)? When was the last time you saw a destitute religious leader?

Yet a major critique by theists of atheism is that it leads to materialism. Ignoring for a moment that this doesn't logically follow because I can easily think of a couple of non-materialist philosophies that are consistent with atheism such as solipsism or Cartesian dualism, my response is essentially that the pot is calling the kettle black here. Religion is the ultimate form of materialism. That's why its so obsessed with controlling matters on earth. Why, if we are alive but a fleeting moment in relation to the eternity of heavenly reward promised true believers, are so many true believers fanatical about controlling those who do not share their beliefs? After all, according to the dominate religion in my part of the world, I'm going to burn in agony forever once I die because I'm an unbeliever.

I think the answer is a simple one: what the true believer is really trying to advance is their own material interest under the guise of some ethereal moral order that conveniently meets their earthly interests. This is why religion is also a form of hypocrisy. It cloaks its real concerns under an unverifiable, unquestionable, amorphous absolute that advances its material goals. It says it hates materialism when really that's the name of its game.

Finally, just what exactly is wrong with materialism? It feeds my family and adds value to my community as I pay my taxes, contribute to charity, improve my property and the like. Spiritualism feeds no one and is open to attack as a form of self indulgent hedonistic solipsism. And don't even get me started on the intellectual vacuity of the view that without God there is no morality, spirituality or "meaning." But that's another discussion.

Tortured Logic

What exactly could the Torture Memo authors be criminally charged with?  The New York Times makes it seems like criminally charging them is an option, but nowhere mentions a possible basis for a criminal indictment.  Criminal charges based on speech are extremely circumscribed in our society, as well they should be given our emphasis on freedom of expression.  Outside certain speech acts such as conspiracy, or fraud laws (which usually require more than just speech by requiring reliance by a listener on the fraudulent speech) there really isn't much of a hook to prosecute anyone for expressing their opinions.  I thought the Torture Memos were legal phlogiston when I first read them, but are they criminal?  No, just reprehensible and poorly reasoned and researched.  Failing to cite cases where the action you are analyzing was prosecuted by our government is sloppy and would get me fired in my job.  But let's take a deep breath before we criminally condemn people for expressing their opinion lest we start sliding down the slippery slope.

Toast

The reason Obama is smacking the auto industry (bye bye Wagoner) and not the financial industry is plain.  Dismantling the bomb derivatives created is not easy and re-engineering the auto industry is by comparison.  So off with their heads in Detroit, because at least we  understand cars. 

But They Said it Couldn't Be Done!

"So, before going any further let me emphasize that no serious danger of a derivatives-induced

financial collapse really exists."  Economics Nobel Laureate Merton H. Miller (University of Chicago) October 17, 1994.  

Good Toxic Assets Primer

Good collection of stories and graphics on Bloomberg giving background on the current financial mess.