I know what you're thinking: Bush studied physics? Probably not. As in other areas, the president's gut feelings seem to have left him with an education that is about 400 years out of date.
In Newtonian mechanics, objects obey ‘laws’ – mathematical scriptures – that ‘govern’ their behavior. The only type of causality in the Newtonian framework is mechanical. Like billiard balls, nothing in the universe moves unless it is struck by a moving thing. In this 17th century framework, hunting causes is easy: Find the thing that struck the object of interest. Your bullet wound was caused by the explosive force of the powder in the gun. Universal attraction, or gravity, is caused by tiny invisible particles that move things toward each other – because what else could cause something to move?
When events are simply determined by the mechanical causes that produce them, then it is relatively easy to make predictions about events. When an event is wrongly believed to have simple mechanical causes, then it is quite easy to make wrong predictions.
George Bush is using Newtonian mechanics to solve problems in quantum field theory.
Ahmed Rashid is just another journalist to point out recently the major error in the Bush Administration’s Iraq problem solving. They have consistently failed to apply field theory; in other words they treat US-Iraq relations as an isolated system. Kill Saddam causes Democracy causes Good. Maybe in a vacuum; most likely not in the field between Iran and Israel. Again, the context of the field must be considered when we are solving the exit strategy equations. Fortunately, I think Obama and his team have got a more up-to-date physics.
-- Jacob Levine
This year, in addition to the obvious sense of gratitude that comes with being part of the first ever white majority to put a black guy in charge, I am thankful for public transportation.
Having been in London for two months now, the integration of my daily life with the transport system is thorough. The tube is not simply a track where an occasional train shows up to give you a ride (cf. San Francisco Muni); it is an ever-flowing current that within seconds or minutes of your arrival sweeps you up and thrusts you toward your destination. Besides being remarkably efficient, the tube does something bigger. It's an integral experience of the daily lives of most Londoners and in that way unifies the consciousness of the city. It's a shared space where people, rather than seal themselves off in capsules at the end of the day, are in constant contact, for better or worse.
Also, while the unforeseen state of global economics may have thrown a wrench in this plan, there is word that Ryan Air will be offering transatlantic flights for £6 by 2009. That would be amazing.
-- Jacob Levine
Auto industry CEOs have been rightly ridiculed by Congress, the Daily Show, and everyone in between for their absurd detachment from reality.
A GM spokesman said the company is ‘very sensitive’ to ‘the symbolic issue of people showing up in Washington in corporate jets’. In fact, it is so sensitive to the irony of these failing businessmen wasting money and fuel on excessive luxury in order to beg for taxpayer money to save the ships they helped to sink, that they went ahead and sent them to Washington in corporate jets. After everyone complained that this ‘symbol’ is just too horrible to bear, GM graciously celebrated that they have cut 2 of their 5 jets.
I hope the government doesn’t bail out the auto industry – or if it does, only under the conditions that it completely transform its objectives. I would only support the idea of a green nationalized auto industry. The American auto industry has completely failed to adapt to a changing market and they don’t deserve to be in charge of how their loans are spent.
But what really pisses me off is this spokesman’s use of the word ‘symbolic’. Taking the jets to ask for a bailout is not a symbol of hypocrisy; it is ACTUAL HYPOCRISY. The jets are not a symbol of the absurd values of the upper echelon of corporate America; they are a manifestation of it. The symbolism here is the vow to cut 2 of the 5 jets – a disingenuous token of apology. 'Please take this action as a symbol of our remorse.'
By referring to the jets as a symbol, they reveal how disconnected from reality they truly are. As if their actions aren't corrupt, just perceived as corrupt. The idea that the bottom line of the company can only be calculated after all the corporate extravagances are taken care of is bad business to say the least. To take care of these ‘needs’ at the expense of worker salaries, and then beg for money for the sake of the entire economy is narcissistic to the point of psycopathy.
-- Jacob Levine
-asdfAny self-identified progressive must have had mixed feelings about the ballot returns on November 4. While the new left-of-center governing majority achieved an unprecedented landmark in racial equity, another majority rejected progressives’ attempts to achieve marriage equality for homosexual couples. It is thought that this other majority was decisively composed of religious Obama supporters. This very fact exposes an interesting tension in the new "Obama coalition."
A lot of people find this disconcerting but I don’t see it that way. I think this is a chance to redefine the progressive outlook on the issue of civil marriage and gay rights. I’ll state my position quite clearly: I don’t think civil marriage ought to be extended to homosexual couples; rather, it should be dissolved completely.
I am not nor do I pretend to be an expert on California Family Code or other relevant statutes, so this is an argument based on principle. As I understand it, California domestic partnerships allow all the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual civil marriage and are treated as equivalent to same-sex civil unions by Vermont, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, to name a few. Domestic partners in California are able to take one another's last name, file a joint tax form, and adopt a baby. As far as I can tell, the controversy over gay marriage (in California) is less about "gay" and more about "marriage." Opponents of gay marriage find it outrageous that the government would tyrannically redefine "marriage," a word whose definition their religions invented, of whose use they want to be sole guardians.
I don't see why anyone objects to religion retaining the unique right to define marriage. Regardless of whether it should be, this is a religious concept before it is a civic one. If churches wish to allow same-sex marriages, good for them. If you are a religious gay couple and wish to be married by a church that refuses, that is between you and your superstitions. The point is this: Marriage as a religious pact in contradistinction to partnership as a legal structure ought to be kept as separate as possible. Regardless of the issue of same-sex marriage, there is something uncomfortably close about the relationship between civil and legal code in the domain of marriage. That the marriage certificate is a legal document made valid by the signature of a priest is, to me, inconsistent with the principles that guide so many other aspects of our government.
The argument about the separation of church and state cuts both ways: If government can’t tell religion what marriage is (as the argument for Prop 8 goes), then religion can’t be the basis for a legal definition of marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who grant the latter often cite research on societal benefits of the nuclear family to support their definition of marriage. However, this research falls quite short of the burden of proof if one weighs the claims of its proponents against the questionable effects and problematic validity that those studies show. Furthermore, government cannot use empirical research, valid or not, without applying it consistently. For example, no one has sought to prohibit alcoholics from getting married and having children, despite research that might suggest it would be better for society if they didn’t.
The last right not afforded by California domestic partnership is the right to have the same legal appellation as civil marriage. Symbolic as it is, I think this lack is a far cry from the rights lacked by racial minorities before and since the Civil Rights Act. Nevertheless, I do believe this problem should be solved.
There are two solutions: Expand the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples; or expand the definition of domestic partnership to include all heterosexual couples and do away with civil marriage. Each option requires a compromise. Either opponents of gay marriage give up their definition of marriage, or gays give up their aspirations to have their unions called marriage. With the latter option, the sacrifice is shared -- everyone gives up the notion of civil marriage -- but the right of religious sovereignty over the definition of marriage is not infringed and the legal rights of homosexual couples are indistinguishable from those of heterosexuals.
-- Jacob Levine
Untying the string that holds together the concepts in the word progressive, as it has been variously used, I find that these are what spill out: Increased government efficiency and benevolence through techno-scientific enlightenment; increased direct influence of citizens on government; increased leftward direction of policy towards socialism; change we can believe in. The string holding them together is apparently the notion of increase toward some final hopeful asymptote.
Historically, the word is definitely more than a synonym for leftism, given its bipartisan introduction to American politics led by Theodore Roosevelt. Reforms associated with early progressivism range from the left (women’s suffrage) to the right (prohibition). Perhaps the seventeenth amendment is most characteristic of this movement: by taking the power to elect Senators from the House and giving it to voters, progressives expressed their faith in the ability of the expanding middle class to use knowledge to govern itself rationally. There was supposed to be something good about this.
In the early twentieth century, progressivism was often a synonym for applied positivism—the notion that scientific knowledge is absolute, infallible, and ought to be used by government to perfect social order. The concept of social perfectibility via scientific rationality would eventually lend itself to eugenics movements in Europe and the United States, ironically culminating in unspeakable human rights violations and that death of positivism which we call post-modernism.
Since the end of the Second World War, progressive has been used more vaguely. As in its previous incarnations, it is closely tied to the notion of changing the status quo, though now we judge the way to change more reluctantly. Only when conservatives have control over the status quo do we think of progressivism as anti-conservative.
After twenty-eight years of manifest conservative desire for government failure, progressives can change government simply by making it work -- not necessarily by moving it left. Maybe the model for late progressivism is another policy we inherited from Theodore Roosevelt -- progressive taxation (which was also endorsed by famed communist Adam Smith). As Roosevelt said, progressive taxation implies "not the slightest sympathy" for socialism, but seeks simply to restructure and level the playing field of our capitalist economy.
I think progressive taxation shows that the critical concept for progressivism is that government should be reflexive, responding to evidence of its own effectiveness or lack thereof. To summarize verbosely, late progressivism entails the reflexive use of empirical principles to build effective government support structures that promote capitalist competition and provide basic services for an individualistic society.
-- Jacob Levine
I'm a Whyrooter because I think it is an innovative concept and a useful elaboration of the weblog model. As it stands, the blogosphere is plagued by solipsism: I write my thoughts, you write yours, the occasional stranger comments, little dialogue ensues.
This microcommunity approach to exploring ideas will no doubt be synergistic. In addition to the humanistic and productive virtues of community, there is an epistemological advantage as well. If the nature of truth is irreducibly plural, then our only access to it is through multiple perspectives. Perhaps from our various angles, through our various voices and viewpoints, we will assemble some kind of multidimensional composite of reality, thereby getting a clearer picture of how it looks.
Utopian, unlikely, and worth a shot.
RSS Feed