A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for September 2008

Bailout Blues

by 2 Comments

In a somewhat surprising move, the House voted against the bailout bill. This has had severe consequences. First, it caused an additional fall on the stock market. Second, it harmed John McCain’s campaign. McCain had tried to use the economic situation as a boost, but this attempt backfired on him when his fellow Republicans lead the way to defeat the bill.

Now that the bill has stalled, the politicians and pundits are working to place the blame. Naturally, the Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of playing politics and chastising each other for not being truly bipartisan. Of course, for one party to accuse the other of playing politics is like the pitcher accusing the batter of playing baseball. The accusation is true, but hardly an effective criticism.

Both parties are right to chastise each other for playing politics and not working together to solve the problem. Of course, that is the nature of politics. In fact, the righteous criticisms about the failure to be bipartisan are themselves calculated political moves designed to score political points. After all, they are delivered to the press and played to the public. That is simply politics as usual.

I suspect the bailout will eventually come through, but both parties are not done trying to milk it for political advantages.

Is that New Palin Glow Fading?

by Leave a Comment

Governor Palin fired up the crowds at the RNC and stirred up the base of the Republican party. While the left launched attacks against her (gingerly in some cases; as a woman she enjoys a certain protected status in the eyes of some), the right seemed thrilled.

But, that New Palin Glow seems to be fading. Recently Kathleen Parker wrote an essay contending that Palin is out of her league and asserting that she should step aside for the good of the party.

Parker’s positive assessment of Palin seems accurate. Palin does seem earnest and committed to her values. Unfortunately for Palin, Parker seems to be equally accurate in regards to her negative assessment. Palin is not handling interviews very well and there is further evidence that she is not up to the task of being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

That said, there is the question of whether how she handles interviews indicates her competence (or lack thereof) in executive matters. Based on years of experience involving teaching and debate, I know that some competent people do not fare well when handling questioning on the fly. Perhaps Palin is this way-she has the executive skills, but lacks the media skills needed to present that polished image. Then again, perhaps her alleged failings in the media settings reveals a deeper lack of what it takes. My experience has also taught me that people who lack  the relevant knowledge and skills also handle such questioning poorly.

Normally, I would turn to her record to sort things out and determine whether she is a competent executive with weak media skills or just out of her league in general. However, there is not much of a record to examine. As such, I share Parker’s concern that Palin is not up for the job.

That said, Palin would hardly be the worst Vice President America has ever had. That is, of course, not much praise.

As far as whether she should step aside or not, I think that would be rather bad for the the Republicans. It would call into serious question the judgment of McCain and the Republican leadership. After all, they picked her and expressed faith in her. If she bows out now, citing “personal reasons”, the real reason would now be quite evident. Of course, as the Palin Glow fades, she might do more damage by remaining. Then again, she might come through in the debates.

My thought is that people should wait to see her in action at the debate. If she tanks that badly, then it would help prove Parker right. If she does a competent job, it would show that Parker is mistaken.

Dark Putty

by 1 Comment

I was watching a History Channel program on Dark Matter and Dark energy today while doing some home repairs. This got me thinking.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are postulated to patch up problems in theories about the universe (crudely put, they take care of problems with attraction and repulsion). Wanting to get in on the game, I’ve decided to postulate the existence of Dark Putty. It is like the wood putty used for repairs, but works on a cosmic scale. Whenever there is a gap or hole in a theory, just slap in some Dark Putty to set things right.

Who to Vote For

by Leave a Comment

With the election coming up soon, Americans are trying to decide which Presidential ticket to vote for. While many people vote based on how they feel about the candidates, a few people do at least attempt to provide a rational assessment before they cast their ballot. This leads to the question of who to vote for.

One way to answer that question is to take the approach espoused by a conservative friend of mine. When asked about voting, he typically says something like “why should I vote for someone who isn’t going to do what is in my best interest?” While we disagree on many things, we do agree on this point. It would, from a rational standpoint, seem to make little sense to vote against your own self interest. No one, as Socrates argued, wants to be harmed and voting this way could lead to harm. So, the rational thing to do would seem to vote for the candidate you believe will act in accord with your self-interest.

While this seems simple enough, there is the obvious problem of determining what is, in fact, in your self-interest.

The most obvious answer is that it is what you think you want and need. Of course, what a person wants and thinks he needs could actually be contrary to his self-interest.  After all, self-interest is intuitive supposed to be what is good for the person. For example, many people though they wanted George Bush to be President. Over the last eight years, he has shown most of them that this was probably not in their self-interest.

Another obvious answer is that what is in your self-interest is what benefits you. That seems reasonable enough but does have some problems.

One problem is that people can mistaken about what is beneficial to them. For example, a feminist might vote for Palin because she thinks that would be good for women. However, if Palin managed to get her conservative views made into law, then the feminist might learn that she was quite mistaken. To avoid this, a person needs to be careful in determining what would really be beneficial and which candidate is most likely to bring about such benefits.

On a more philosophical level, a person could be fundamentally mistaken about what is truly beneficial. Socrates discusses the matter at great length and it is a central focus of Plato’s ethical theory. People often regard their selfish wants as being what is truly beneficial and good for them. Hence, this would seem to indicate that people should vote in a selfish manner. For example, since the very rich would be financial better off under McCain, they should vote for him. However, acting in a selfish manner can be an error.

First, there is the moral worry that the selfish voting might lead to a morally wrong situation. For example, voting for a candidate who promises tax breaks for the rich would give the rich reason to vote for him. However, if this would do serious harm to everyone else, then it might be the wrong thing to do. If Socrates is right, acting in this selfish manner would not be in the person’s true self interest. That would be to do what is right.

Second, there is the practical worry that the selfish voting might turn out to be harmful to the person who thought she was voting in her own best interest. For example, many of the people who voted for Bush because they believed he would take a “hands off” approach to the American economy have probably come to realize that they have contributed to the dire financial disaster that plagues the United States and the world. As another example, someone might vote for Obama because of his promises about health care and the belief that they would be better off if he were elected. However, his plan might turn out to be a disaster that makes matters worse.

So, when voting it is wise to consider what is really in your best interest.

Being Single

by 3 Comments

I’ve noticed that a surprising number of people now decide to remain single. Not just unmarried, but not even in a relationship or dating. I started thinking about this when some of my female friends told me that they simply do not date. Naturally, I did consider that they were cleverly preventing any attempts I might make to ask them out (I actually had no intention of doing so). However, time has made it clear that it was a life choice and not a ploy. Unless, of course, it is an amazingly long term ploy.

This got me thinking about why people make such a choice. After all, social tradition and expectations push people towards relationships. Further, people go on about how great it is to be in love. And, of course, there is that matter of sex.

One obvious reason some people stay single is that they cannot find another person. This might be because (sadly) no one wants them. Or it might be because (sadly) they have set their requirements so high that no mere mortal can meet them. Or perhaps they just happen to be someplace that is awful in terms of dating opportunities.

Another reason, and one that my friends have given, is that some people are too busy pursuing other goals such as career and education. Relationships take time and some people do not have the time for them. Interestingly, while women often give this as a reason, none of my male friends have ever said that they don’t date women because it would take too much time. It might be because women put in more effort than men and hence time is of more concern to them. Or maybe my sample is biased. Naturally, some people probably use this as an excuse to cover up their real reasons.

A third reason I have heard is that some people simply find life satisfying without a relationship and find little or nothing appealing in being in one. In some cases, people actually see relationships as detrimental and prefer to give up the positive aspects of a relationship to avoid the negative.  This view is often based on past experiences. A bad divorce or breakup can cause a person to think : “hey, being single isn’t so bad…at least I won’t lose half my stuff and no one is causing me emotional damage on a daily basis…other than those weasels at the office…” That can make a great deal of sense to a person who has been through the wringer.

Robbing the People and Giving to the Rich

by Leave a Comment

In general, the main function of rulers and leaders has been to siphon of the work and wealth of the many to themselves and their associates. This applies to both business and politics.

The latest bailout plan is more of the same. The top financial people want to escape the burning wrecks of their once great companies on their golden parachutes (or row boats, to continue the ship metaphor). Naturally, they want to hit the ground with millions of untouched assets.

While the executives drift away, the taxpayers are supposed to bear the burden of repairing the wrecks and getting the economic fleet back afloat. To the Bush administration, this seems to be the right thing to do. Naturally, the top executives think this is just great-they stay rich and everyone else gets to clean up the wreckage they left behind in their climb towards all that wealth.

While supporting such parasites is business as usual, there is always the risk that the parasites will take too much and do too much damage. This can cause the host body to weaken badly or even die. While this has not been the sole factor in the fall of nations and empires, this sort of behavior has been a major contributing factor. It is tolerated and even encouraged because the top parasites are either in charge or are in cahoots with those who are supposed to be keeping an eye on them. While this happens in all administrations, the Bush administration has been breaking new ground (or perhaps just returning to old grounds).

Ideally, the people behind the damage would pay for what they have done. After all, they have done massive damage to the economy and hence to millions of people. The Presidential candidates are talking about this, but I suspect that little will change-politics is, after all, about siphoning off wealth and power from the many to the few. The names and faces change, but the game remains the same.

%d bloggers like this: