A Somewhat More Nuanced Discussion of my Position on Wikileaks

To begin with, it's difficult to overstate the impact that Wikileaks has had on the way that the internet affects the world on the largest scale. For the first time in human history we are able to transmit information across the globe at the speed of light, and for the first time in human history there is a space where, one information enters, it can never be erased or suppressed. Even if Wikileaks is effectively dissolved, the capacity won't go away, and the organization has had entirely too much publicity to expect no one to rise up and fill the gap. We better get used to it, but it still raises a great deal of interesting question, philosophically, morally, and politically.

I am generally supportive of the work that Wikileaks has done, but at the same time I'm not terribly supportive of Wikileaks. I will try to explain.

First and foremost, I am supportive of a transparent government. More than that in fact, I think that transparency is the bedrock of democracy. I'm a big fan of democracy, and I like to see it work well, because despite the fact that the cold war is over, the threat of totalitarianism still looms, and it always will. Democracy is not and never will be inevitable nor guaranteed.

I would like to see a government which is transparent enough that organizations like Wikileaks aren't popular, where people can rest assured that they know enough about what their elected officials are doing that they don't feel that they need someone like Julian Assange creeping in the shadows. But, that's no guarantee. In fact there's almost no incentive for the government to do that on its own. Thats why we have journalism.

Today journalism is a sideshow, reality tv at best. It's not critical of the government, it's critical of the opposing party and even then it's criticism is superficial. And in the absence of any real watchdog role played by the press, orgs like Wikileaks spring up. They dump massive amounts of information without regard for the content or the newsworthyness of that information, and they generally cause a massive shit storm.

This is the real reason that I support the work that Wikileaks has done. I hope it wakes up the Fourth Estate and makes it realize that if someone is leaking classified information that endangers national security, it's because they haven't done their job in responsibly weeding out the real story and making everything else unnecessary.

I don't think it's the job of military personnel to leak classified documents. I don't think it's the job of Julian Assange to let the world know what it's government is doing. But if you don't like it, blame journalism.
  

My Old Kentucky Home...(home of nonsense that is)

Gov Beshear has announced that he will attempt to offer tax incentives for the creation of the "Arc Encounter" attraction which will open on the Ky side of Cinci:

"The attraction is envisioned as a full-scale wooden ark that would include associated museums, theaters, amenities, event venues and outdoor parking."

The planned attraction is funded in part by Answers in Genesis, a non-profit group dedicated to the notion that God invented the universe 1000 or so years after man invented beer.

Far be it from me to suggest that the government should intervene in any way to silence this nonsense, in the same vein that I hope the government would never intervene in my saying that it is nonsense. But, to offer tax
incentives for it is another thing altogether.

Look at it this way, if New Age crazies wanted to open a museum dedicated to the power of quarts crystals, how they can heal all illnesses, how they can realign your energy and center your life force and such... if there were enough New Age crazies with enough money to finance such a museum, then more power to them. However, if our state government wants to commit our tax dollars (because tax breaks essentially means the same thing as an expenditure) to teaching the public about the power of quarts crystals... which is not only not supported by scientific evidence, but is roundly destroyed by it... I think that ought to be a problem.

The fact of the matter is that the power of quartz crystals to heal cancer is every bit as supported by evidence  as the idea that God invented the universe 1000 years after man invented beer. Perhaps three or four hundred years ago these were questions which were open for debate, but that is no longer the case. They are quite simply delusions which are perpetuated by religious or pseudo-religious cults. The government has no place in silencing these voices, but it also has no place in supporting them.

Promoting Critical Thinking Among Louisiana Legislators

Just a quick thought...I know this is old news, but I just noticed it. Here is an excerpt from the Louisiana Science Education Act:

...create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

Now, I'm no evil genius, but since when is human cloning a "scientific theory". I understand that there are real ethical and moral issues to be considered, but is there really a debate as to whether it's possible to clone a human?

It's sad that many people, and many voters, don't understand what a theory is. It's sad that, as bad as our education system is, it is being watered down even further. But, what's really sad is that LA lawmakers themselves don't understand what the hell they're talking about, and didn't even bother to look it up before putting their misunderstandings so blatantly into law.

For the record, human cloning is not a theory; it's a controversial scientific possibility that has been banned throughout the world. A theory on the other hand is a set of well supported hypotheses which attempts to
explain the mechanisms behind some observed phenomenon.

So then, maybe it's still yet too early for a Louisiana Science Education Act. Instead it would seem that what the state really needs is a Louisiana Lawmaker Education Act, because the only thing worse than a public that doesn't understand science, is a public that doesn't understand science whose education is being dictated by people who are as illiterate in the subject as they are. 

repost from /r/politics

In case you haven't heard, this guy over at MSNBC has been suspended for an undefined period of time for breaking the company's rules and contributing to a political campaign. Here is Maddow's take on the issue:




You can't beat Fox at their own game. They have defined the rules too well. You must take away from them the privilege of framing the debate. So long as MSNBC tries to be "the liberal Fox" they will only serve to reinforce the narrative of narrative replacing reporting. Everything does not have two sides. Facts do not have two sides.

For the press to serve it's watchdog roll, there must be a separation between the press and the government. Rules like this serve to enforce that separation. Far from being the champions of any particular viewpoint, the press is supposed to be, far and away, the loudest and most critical voice of the government.

Without this democracy doesn't work. That's why it's in the constitution. That's why it was written about by the political philosophers who inspired the constitution.

Unfortunately for us, the only people who can serve as a watchdog for the press, is the press.

Explaining the bailouts

For your viewing pleasure, this is from a comment responding to the claim that the bank bailouts were for people who just couldn't handle their checkbook, and that the economy would have done just fine without the bailouts. 

As a conservative estimate, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac together were leveraged at a rate of about 1 to 50 (actually about 1 to 30 and 1 to 75 for the two). That means that when you look at their cash reserves they have a dollar put back for every fifty dollars they have loaned out. Banks are required by law to have these reserves in case something bad happens and they have to pay back their loans (money the bank has borrowed) and their depositors (individuals with money in the bank). 

Now a ratio of 1 to 3 or even 1 to 5 is really good. At 1 to 5, that means that up to 20% (or one fifth) of the banks investments can go bad and the bank can still support itself. At 1 to 50 however, only 2% of the bank's assets can go bad without the whole bank going belly up. Banks were able to leverage to this crazy point because of the 2006 SEC rules change. 

During the housing crisis, less than 5% of the homes owned by FM&FM were in danger of foreclosure, but because they were so heavily leveraged it would have been enough to take them under. 

The issue wasn't whether people who didn't pay their bills should lose their homes. It was whether most of the US financial sector would have been destroyed in the process, and what would happen to the other 95% of people who paid their bills, but had loans at banks that went under. 

We bailed out the banks. We didn't bail out the people (that's my biggest problem with the bailout). Those people still lost their homes and are still loosing them at an unprecedented rate, so much so that there is a three or four month backlog of foreclosures. But, we didn't do the bailout for the banks, we did if for people like you, who have their savings and their 401k's in a bank that would no longer exist. 

It's important to remember the difference between corporate welfare and social welfare, even when it's convenient to blame the poor for the sins of the rich.

The Real Joke Behind the Success of The Daily Show

If you've ever brought up the Daily Show in political conversation you've probably heard it: "That's not a news show, it's a comedy show." If you haven't you've probably at least heard the tragic state that our youth today are in, with so many getting all their news from the likes of Stewart and Colbert. Well...they're right.

The Show and the Report are in fact comedy shows and at the same time they are a news source for many. In a way, that's the punchline. Reporting in this nation has come to be of such a low quality, that people are turning to comedy shows instead. It has come to the point where you actually may be better informed by watching a comedian, rather than someone who has a degree in journalism. At least with the comedian you get facts and jokes, instead of opinion and opinion masquerading as facts. Of course, Stewart also benefits from having a "media" which is so easy to make fun of. But to make matters worse, they're so low on information content that you may actually learn more by watching someone make fun of them.

I'd like to think that it didn't always used to be this way, that there was a time when journalist adhered to a set of professional ethics, and took seriously their responsibility to inform the public without interjecting their own biases. At the same time I've heard tell that Mark Twain said something to the effect that the only truth printed in newspapers is in the ads ...so maybe not.  But, I do know one thing used to be the case. I know that there was a time when the people speaking to crowds on the national mall were political thinkers, philosophers, reverends, and real grass roots activists. Today we turn to comedians and radio talk show hosts. I think there is something wrong with that.

Maybe it's always been that way too, but I'd like to think that we can demand better. If we demand that our journalists be journalists, perhaps the comedians can go back to telling jokes. If we demand real political thinkers and activists, perhaps the talk show hosts can to back to their booths. If we can bring ourselves to gather for the thrill of the inauguration but stay involved for the dirty confusing politics, perhaps we can actually gather for a reason and not simply to show how disillusioned we are with the way things are going. If we can demand of ourselves that we develop an understanding of the issues which matches our passion for our opinions, maybe we can move forward and stop coasting on the accomplishments of previous generations.

...maybe.