a few interesting reads

Man, it's been so long since I wrote anything on here that the last article I put up is entitled "Why American Conservatives Need Herman Cain." Kinda stuck my foot in my mouth on that one...

On almost a daily basis I get a grip of interesting reads from friends of mine scattered around the world. I don't know if I'll make this a habit, but here are a few recent ones that have been sent my way. From:

-Brian Krohn: on social/cultural evolution and the internet

-Abdulrahman El-Sayed: on money and college sports

-Luke Fenwick: best long essays of 2011 (Stoner Arms Dealers is a phenomenal read)

-Peter Fenwick: does the God of the Bible exist debate, Lennox v Singer

Laying low in New Zealand and possibly Australia until Feb 21. Looking forward to an uncluttered season of reflection, training, and travel.

beat cal

why american conservatives need herman cain

The Republicans Party needs to nominate Herman Cain for President.

As Wesley Snipes says in Passenger 57, when in a tight spot "always bet on black." Until the past few weeks, Cain's polling average has been somewhere between Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. Given Cain's recently surging poll numbers, however, it seems Republicans desperate for a contender who isn't Mitt Romney have decided to heed Snipes' advice.

From the standpoint of pure electoral math, Cain has a much better chance of attracting minority votes, particularly among African Americans, that would almost certainly be inaccessible to Perry or Romney. This could prove decisive in close states. As important as this could be in November 2012, though, Cain's race really matters because it positions him to challenge deeply-held dogmas of the American right and the left. This, in turn, points the way toward a new kind of conservativism, decoupled from much of the baggage of conventional Republicanism.

Responding to Harry Belafonte's quip that he is a "bad apple," Cain asked "Okay, what's a good apple? A good apple is a Democrat, a liberal, who shuts up and does what he or she is told and doesn't make waves. That must be a good apple." Implicit in Belafonte's remark is the assumption that good, sensible black people are democrats, while the occasional befuddled/opportunistic black person goes Republican. Democrats support social welfare, empathize with the plight of the working poor, and are the historical defenders of the civil rights movement. As a black American, why would you ever fall out of line? There are good reasons that so many black Americans have internalized this logic: it's an unfortunate paradigm that the right and the left have co-created for decades now. Herman Cain challenges this orthodoxy, shaking up the way Americans think about racial identity and politics. Black Americans and poor Americans can be political conservatives just as much as rich, white Americans. To be conservative doesn't imply that one ignores very real problems of economic disenfranchisement or racial injustice. Rather, to be conservative implies a view of the role of government in meeting our political and economic challenges. Historically, far too many white, Republican leaders have not seemed to care about these challenges or to exhibit the slightest hint of solidarity with millions of Americans who do not share their experience of privilege. As the demographics of this country change, so must the ability of political conservatives to relate authentically and compassionately to non-white Americans. Cain helps get them there.

Perhaps because of his different cultural experiences, Cain falls decidedly outside of what many, particularly in my generation, perceive to be the Republican party's dominate culture of white bread, prickly evangelicalism. Cain's approach to his faith is refreshing: he's been a staunch Christian since he was 10 years old, he says, I just don't wear it "on my forehead." Subtext: I know who I am, and am not going to thump on my bible to convince you all about my Christian bona fides. I grew up listening to Rush the radio and receiving regular Focus on the Family bulletins. Believe me: conservative Christian voters need to be confronted with a candidate who isn't half as tightly-wound as them. Cain's nuanced--some would say muddled--views on abortion, gay rights, and gun control stand to challenge many Republicans with the idea that values voting does not equal political conservatism. In fact, in many instances it is squarely at odds with it.

Of course Cain's value as a presidential candidate far-surpasses his skin color. His record as CEO of Godfather's pizza suggests that, in spite of being a relatively novice politician, he is an effective leader and administrator. And anyone with questions about his conservative credentials or formidable intelligence should watch his exchange with President Clinton in a 1994 Town Hall meeting. Blending his characteristic, plain-spoken style with a meticulous arithmetical precision, Cain effectively highlights how the President's presentation of his universal health care

plan grossly understates its true costs.

Every candidate has his downsides. Conservative primary voters are going to expect a much clearer position from Cain about where he stands on social issues like abortion. In the general election he would have to answer for past statements such as his view that communities have the right to ban mosques (remarks for which he soon after apologized). From an outside observer's perspective, many of Cain's missteps are more characteristic of a political novice from a conservative upbringing who is used to talking off-the-cuff, than they are of a bigot or "flip-flopper." With a bit more polish, as well as a couple convincing explanations, this authenticity could be yet another valuable asset to Cain's candidacy.

Cain is no one's savior. The challenges that America must rise to in the coming years far outstrip the change-making potential of a single presidential administration. He is, however, an authentic, capable leader who challenges our notions of politics as usual. The political right in this country is approaching a split path. One route leads toward a more radicalized, nasty Republican party rooted in a vision of America that is arguably anything but conservative. The other route leads toward a vision of conservative pragmatism, enabling social and economic change through the applied energies of markets and individuals. This kind of conservatism understands that markets aren't infallible and that government is still needed to meet our collective challenges.

I believe that Herman Cain, by virtue of his background and experience as a business leader, is this kind of conservative. Whether leaders like him can gain a leadership foothold in the Republican party may say a lot about the political future of this country.

letter to the President via LinkedIn

Looks like LinkedIn will be hosting a town hall meeting where users are invited to ask President Obama about his job creation program. It's a long shot, but here's mine. I'd be glad to hear any comments you have about this proposal. I think I read something like this in a NYT Op-Ed recently, though I can't remember who to attribute it to:

--

Mr President

Rahm Emmanuel is famous for saying "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Yet in this dire economic climate, where America's need for bold and innovative policy leadership is as acute as it's ever been, we seem to be doing exactly that.

Please evaluate the following proposal for overhauling America's income tax code: (1) eliminate all corporate taxes, (2) eliminate the investment income exemption, and (3) increase the marginal tax rate for millionaires and up with a simplified, effective rate.

Corporations do one of three things with their profits: (i) pay their board, (ii) pay dividends to their investors, or (iii) reinvest in the company through acquiring labor and capital. The above proposal shifts incentives in favor of option (iii), which leads to greater demand for workers, goods, and services. It also reduces the incentive for companies to seek friendlier business climates abroad, while preserving the individual financial motive necessary for a dynamic business environment.

Very respectfully,

Aaron Polhamus

no words are good enough

Many great men and women have done their best to render suitable tribute to those who suffered and died in the tragedies that unfolded today, 10 years ago. It seems that the most fitting remembrances have been the spoken names of the dead and the tears of grief from those who loved them. Remember the thousands that came after, too: Muslim and Christian, American, Iraqi, and Afghani, young and old, men and women, white, black, and every color in between--so many have paid the ultimate price for the events of that day.

Lacking anything else to say, I offer two pictures for your reflection:

9/11/2001

9/11/2011

a facebook conversation about capitalism

***this post is pursuant to one i hope to write soon concerning something in the way of a reflection on our changing world, and the implications of these perceived changes for my generation. in the meantime, here's what i hope is a somewhat intelligible defense of markets***

---

these are some heart-felt, well-spoken reflections, all, thanks for sharing. i've been putting off writing something of my own in the way of a reflection on our times, but for now i'll settle for a comment or two:

at the risk of sounding like an economist, i tend to think that markets are generally good things: millions of people deciding individually what they need/want and what they would like to pay creates a huge market from producers of goods and services looking to make money by providing for those needs. organizations that are particularly effective at doing this (e.g. WalMart) do become enormously rich and powerful, though, and i think it's reasonable to worry about the corrupting influences that power and profit motive may have on the decisions of these firms. Furthermore, markets don't provide for everything, like schools, public infrastructure, and firemen. So the people need a strong advocate to (a) make sure that the markets function impartially with respect to all participants, including the biggest players (that's what the FTC exists for: shttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/ftc-launching-antitrust-probe-over-google-search-ad-businesses.ars) and (b) that our common interests not provided for by the market will be looked after. 'Capitalism' refers to a system of economic management whereby those who control/acquire productive assets (machinery, money, an innovative idea) put them to use in ways that meet a demand of the market, often making the managers extremely wealthy. As an example, take Facebook and any of the several companies who make the computers we're using to have this exchange: Mark Zucherberg and the folks at Lenovo won from pushing these products in a MUCH bigger way than any of us did. But that's because they gave each of us something that we value a lot: access to information and computing power. Within the right parameters, I think it's a good deal.

So what are we concerned about? In theory this whole thing sounds great, but we know from looking around us that the wealthy do often run roughshod over the poor, that corporate power is not always restrained, and that the growing wealth gap in our nation seems at odds with the notion of america as a place where, whatever 'fifth' you’re in, initiative and perseverance can be your ticket to a better life. I'm worried, too, but I'm less confident that the solution is a wholesale rejection of capitalism or a corporate boycott of WalMart. To chase that particular example, consider why so many people shop at WalMat: because it's cheap. And why does that matter? Because a lot of folks are tight on cash. So if enough of us boycott WalMart and bring it down, what happens to the people who rely on it for clothes and day to day staples? Their cost of living goes up, and our anti-corporate hubris is vindicated at the expense of those less fortunate than ourselves. There's also decent evidence that WalMart leverages its enormous influence in the market for good ends. See: http://business-ethics.com/2010/05/15/1411-assessing-walmarts-environmental-impact/. for controversial but well-argued piece by paul krugman regarding labor conditions in the third world see: http://www.slate.com/id/1918/. in spite of its failings, i think that a market is a better system than the alternatives human societies have tried so far.

time to wrap this up. as Thabisile, quoting Ghandi, said: 'be the change you wish to see.' What kind of change do i wish to see? i wish that business leaders were innovative and ambitious, but more compassionate and less driven by greed. i wish our politicians were more courageous, willing to lay their offices on the line for the sake of promoting policies they actually believe in. i wish more parents hung in there with respect to their marriages and children. so what kind of man am i going to be, and what will be my contribution? what about you? the economy we live in is changing along with our times, and one of these days i hope to sit down and think it all through for a while. One thing is certain, though: women and men of strong character, determined to act with mercy, courage, and integrity, are need now as much as, if not more, than ever before.

Warren Buffett on Reaganonomics

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp