There's nothing inherently fascist about this; what's more fascist is being willing to tolerate it and any other repugnant means of securing power. Which is where Fred Koch, the father of the Koch brothers, enters the picture. His business was built upon the funding of the most notorious totalitarians of the 20th century. As reported by the Guardian:
Sunday, January 17, 2016
The Koch brothers' fascist (I'm serious!) roots, the nature of fascism, professional values . . . and Citizens United
"Socialist" has become a term of abuse, a burden that any Democratic Presidential aspirant must shed. "Fascist" would seem to be the inverse of socialist. However, many would reject the application of "Fascist" to someone on the right as shrill or at least figurative. After all, the Nazis are our picture of evil, its platonic form in modern minds. But closer inspection yields that fascism does not have at its roots exterminating entire ethnicities. That was just a means to the end of consolidating power: as Goering put it at Nuremberg, "All you have to do is tell the people they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." If a group of people is troubling you as a leader, claim that they're attacking or against the country, a fifth column waiting to emerge as soon as the conditions are right.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
John Lennon's Working Class Hero and my previous post
When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear
It's only gotten worse since Lennon wrote that. There are fewer ways to make a decent living in this country. The jobs that remain wherein a decent living can be made are fiercely competitive to win. The fear rarely ends with the job; when qualified people who desperately want your job abound, you'd better not do anything to lose it. Like publicly stand up for things that might piss off your boss. Like being your own man.
As soon as you're born they make you feel small,
By giving you no time instead of it all.
By giving you no time instead of it all.
I was in law. One thing that made me change career paths was realizing that many highly desired jobs in that field have blurred the line between being at work and being off. Young associates are given a firm-specific Blackberry when they come aboard. If that thing starts flashing at 12:30 am, it's time to return to work, even if they don't have to get out of bed to do so. Somewhere, in the back of the young associate's head, they are always at work.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Top Federal Income Tax Brackets over Time
In this post I'm focusing on brackets, not rates. Averaging 20 different top brackets over a century (all inflation adjusted to 2013) yields an average top bracket threshold of $12.4 million. Our current top bracket of $406,000 is 3.3% of this figure.
Brackets: Averaging the number of brackets for the same years, yields an average number of 17.8. Our current number of brackets is 7.
My opinion: there are many reasons to consider expanding the number of brackets and doing so above the current top bracket. Tax revenues could remain the same while per-capita disposable income could increase. I think that such an increase would lead to a more stable society and a healthier economy, with more money being made by Americans being spent on goods and services.
This is without even treating the demise of the "Middle Class" as a self-evident harm as is common in today's political discourse. Adjusting brackets and rates seems like the simplest way to keep the middle class afloat.
Of course, the individuals interested in a person making $400 million paying the same amount in taxes as a person making $400,000 are those who make more than $400,000. Our current political system allows individuals to wield influence in proportion to cash on hand. This probably needs to be changed before politicians begin to discuss obvious solutions to problems that, to many in this country, are obvious.
Chart below the jump:
Chart below the jump:
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Parallel Realignments
Interesting thoughts from a friend:
I think we are seeing two simultaneous realignments around class and inequality. One is the have-somes and the have-a-littles against the have-a-lots; the other is the have-less-than-they’d-expecteds against the have-nots. The former is fueling the rise of economic populism on the left; the latter involves people trying to hold on to the government benefits they “earned” against people making “unearned” claims on government. [ . . . ]
One of these two realignments is reshaping presidential politics. The other is reshaping congressional and state-level politics. This disjuncture is partly a question of institutions—gerrymandering and the like. But it’s also a question of political engagement. Fifty-eight percent of eligible voters voted in the 2012 presidential election; 36% voted in the 2014 congressional elections, leading to an overrepresentation of conservative-leaning constituencies.
So I think that, while the public as a whole might be moving to the left, American politics is moving in two directions simultaneously. The system as a whole will move left only if a lot more people—millennials, new Americans—get involved in non-presidential politics and build new institutions capable of sustaining more robust political engagement.
I think we are seeing two simultaneous realignments around class and inequality. One is the have-somes and the have-a-littles against the have-a-lots; the other is the have-less-than-they’d-expecteds against the have-nots. The former is fueling the rise of economic populism on the left; the latter involves people trying to hold on to the government benefits they “earned” against people making “unearned” claims on government. [ . . . ]
One of these two realignments is reshaping presidential politics. The other is reshaping congressional and state-level politics. This disjuncture is partly a question of institutions—gerrymandering and the like. But it’s also a question of political engagement. Fifty-eight percent of eligible voters voted in the 2012 presidential election; 36% voted in the 2014 congressional elections, leading to an overrepresentation of conservative-leaning constituencies.
So I think that, while the public as a whole might be moving to the left, American politics is moving in two directions simultaneously. The system as a whole will move left only if a lot more people—millennials, new Americans—get involved in non-presidential politics and build new institutions capable of sustaining more robust political engagement.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Some thoughts about reasoning, induction and the limits of facts
When people think of reasoning they often think of deductive reasoning: the old example is "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therfore Socrates is mortal." Assuming the premises are true, deductive reasoning gives us a truth.
Inductive reasoning is reasoning from what happened in the past to predict the future. Whenever the X we've seen Y. All men before Socrates eventually died, so he probably will too.
Deduction yields a purer type of knowledge than induction. Deduction from true premises yields truths. Induction can only yield probabilities: likelihoods or odds.
The problem with deduction and it's privileged position in teaching reasoning is that true, readily agreed upon premises are rare. I think that we should think more about induction.
Thinking about induction in law and science
Inductive reasoning is reasoning from what happened in the past to predict the future. Whenever the X we've seen Y. All men before Socrates eventually died, so he probably will too.
Deduction yields a purer type of knowledge than induction. Deduction from true premises yields truths. Induction can only yield probabilities: likelihoods or odds.
The problem with deduction and it's privileged position in teaching reasoning is that true, readily agreed upon premises are rare. I think that we should think more about induction.
Thinking about induction in law and science
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
What has happened to facts?
Last night there was a Republican debate. Few would dispute that the audience appeals were strictly visceral. Candidates did not bother trying to say things that made sense, let alone that were true. Ted Cruz, for instance, spoke of precision carpet bombing, which is an oxymoron. The current leader in the Republican field, Donald Trump, habitually makes false claims.
How did facts - or lies - lose their power?
One possibility - not that there's likely one answer - is that everyone has a source for whatever they believe now. Anyone can find an authority who reinforces their beliefs and disparages people/authorities/ideas/media that challenge them. Perhaps the presence of creed-specific echo chambers has led to epistemic closure within them
But the idea of an echo chamber seems to suppose semantic beliefs, ones that can be verbalized and that maybe in some way are mutually consistent. And maybe that's a problem with the idea. Statements have become markers for being in a group rather than building blocks for ideas that can be advocated or defended. A crowd cheering the notion of precision carpet bombing may just be full of people too stupid to notice a contradiction, but it's more likely to be full of people cheering the rejection of articulable belief beyond articulation of support/loyalty for a party or candidate. "We have our facts, you have your facts," they might say to the outgroup, "so who needs facts at all?"
How did facts - or lies - lose their power?
One possibility - not that there's likely one answer - is that everyone has a source for whatever they believe now. Anyone can find an authority who reinforces their beliefs and disparages people/authorities/ideas/media that challenge them. Perhaps the presence of creed-specific echo chambers has led to epistemic closure within them
But the idea of an echo chamber seems to suppose semantic beliefs, ones that can be verbalized and that maybe in some way are mutually consistent. And maybe that's a problem with the idea. Statements have become markers for being in a group rather than building blocks for ideas that can be advocated or defended. A crowd cheering the notion of precision carpet bombing may just be full of people too stupid to notice a contradiction, but it's more likely to be full of people cheering the rejection of articulable belief beyond articulation of support/loyalty for a party or candidate. "We have our facts, you have your facts," they might say to the outgroup, "so who needs facts at all?"
Sunday, December 6, 2015
An explanation of my apparent fixation on the U.S. Constitution
Some people apparently read this blog. They may have noticed that the Constitution comes up a lot when I start ejecting opinions. I can understand why some might be put off by this. For one, Constitutional fetishization / founder worship is one symptom of today's problematic right-wing politics, which apparently seeks ownership of American symbols like the flag, Constitution and "our troops." But, more generally, it can be annoying to see someone invoking the same thing over and over (monomania?)
So let me be clear about my attitudes towards the Founders and the Constitution.
The Founders were men just like any other men, imperfect and a product of their times. But their times, if a member of their high social stratum, were intellectually fertile and ambitious. Among other things, the behavior and work of the Founders reflected the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment:
So let me be clear about my attitudes towards the Founders and the Constitution.
The Founders were men just like any other men, imperfect and a product of their times. But their times, if a member of their high social stratum, were intellectually fertile and ambitious. Among other things, the behavior and work of the Founders reflected the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)