I rarely have patience to read through a very long Times article, but I actually did read these two long and fascinating NYT Magazine articles in the last couple of weeks. I highly recommend them to anyone interested in sociology, politcs, psychology, or any mix of the three.

Is Obama the End of Black Politics? is about how the concept of “Black Politics” - that is, the relevance and meaning of blacks in politics - may change forever if Obama gets elected. Fascinating points of view in this article.

The Trolls Among Us is an anthropological study of Internet subculture and its evils. What is the effect of anonymity on morality? Very fascinating.

One of my professors had a funny comment regarding antitrust and politics:

“The Democrats think that every move a big corporation makes is anticompetitive, and the Republicans think that if a big corporation does it, it must be good for America! Neither view is correct.”

I was just listening to a Stanford linguistics lecture on iTunes U. The lecturer described the cable news political debates as a “Crips versus Bloods” style of discussion. In other words, each side is entirely focused on standing up for their gang and winning the war. I don’t usually watch those shows but when I do, I am shocked at how one-sided each person is. Nobody ever admits weakness, admits that they might be wrong, or agrees with anything the other side says. They are so focused on “winning” that all they do is try to differentiate themselves from their opponent, make themselves look good, and make their opponent look bad.

If there is anything I’ve learned from all these business books I’m reading, it’s that seeking agreement is a great goal to have with you at all times. Our political landscape is extremely polarized and I believe that it is a result of the gang-like debates we see all around us: in the media, or at the lunch table. People want to “win” rather than agree. Winning is always nice, but it’s not as great a victory as agreement. When you agree, there is no loser and everyone wins.

Here are two great interviews with Ron Paul on CNN from May 20th and May 27th. He states his views about US foreign policy and the Iraq war. The guy is so well-spoken and sensible, I hope he gets more attention.

This is downright fascinating: If our society was made up of people who could live forever, how would they vote? What would their views be on politics? Tyler Cowen discusses.

I have only recently begun to appreciate the scarcity of time, as crazy as that sounds. Preparation, commitment, etc… it doesn’t matter when time is not important.

I had never heard of Ron Paul before today, but I am starting to like him. He is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket, and he is a stark contrast from most Republicans. This blog post is not really about Ron Paul, but about how he is being treated by the media. He recently made news by “assigning” a reading list for Rudy Giuliani with the hope that after he educates himself he will understand that US meddling was responsible for the World Trade Center attack. I’m not sure what exactly Rudy thinks caused the attacks, but he does not appear to believe that our involvement in Middle-East affairs had much to do with it. Check out these snide heavily-spun comments from Rudy and his spokesperson:

“I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th,” Giuliani said to wild applause.

“It is extraordinary and reckless to claim that the United States invited the attacks on September 11th,” Maria Comella said in an e-mail. “And to further declare Rudy Giuliani needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand is just as absurd.”

Neither of these quotes directly addresses Paul’s accusation. They cleverly sidestep the issue using some expert spin techniques. Rudy’s comment is a combination of the “appeal to ridicule” fallacy and an implied “appeal to authority” fallacy. The spokesperson’s initial comment is pure slander, and she then follows it up with a “appeal to authority” and “appeal to common belief” fallacy. She implies that Rudy is an expert on the cause of the attacks because he dealt with the aftermath of the attacks… plus millions of people saw it. Furthermore, Paul never said the US invited the attacks… a question was posed to him using those words and he replied without saying “no”.

Sadly, Libertarians don’t seem to stand much of a chance when it comes to politics because, unlike the American public and the media, they are too concerned about being objective and honest. I hope Ron Paul can get more publicity that puts him in a good light! This Reuters article was clearly written by someone who does not want to see him win. The article begins by calling him “Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul” and an entire paragraph is devoted to this superfluous sentence: “Paul barely registers in opinion polls of Republicans hoping to win their party’s nomination to contest the November 2008 presidential election.”

If you want to read a Libertarian article about Paul and Giuliani’s debate, I highly recommend it so you can get both perspectives. I’ll end with a Ron Paul quote from that article:

“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”

[update: here is a YouTube clip of e-mails to CNN from people who agree with me. Very validating ]

I came across a really interesting news item today. An Obama supporter, Anthony, made a Barack Obama MySpace page and collected thousands of friends over two years. Recently, the Obama campaign contacted Anthony in an attempt to get him to hand over control of the site. Anthony asked for $50,000 to make up for the time he spent on the site. The campaign decided that was too much and went over his head. They asked MySpace to hand over control of the page, citing the fact that Anthony was representing himself as Barack Obama. MySpace complied and Anthony is no longer voting for Obama. Here is another piece about the incident.

I find this interesting because it seems like both parties forgot the goal: to get Obama elected! What on Earth inspired Anthony to ask for such a large amount of money? Wasn’t he working on the site on behalf of Obama for free? Also, I am surprised that the Obama team didn’t try to bargain him down and pay him a nice amount of money that would have kept him happy. They also could have hired him full-time as a campaign member. They screwed up because they backstabbed one of their largest supporters. Both parties were working towards the same goal and they both took a minor loss when they couldn’t agree on a simple matter of control.

It seems like a lot of “Barack’s” MySpace friends decided not to vote for him after this incident. How petty can you get? Despite the MySpace lingo, Barack Obama is not really your friend. He is running for president and he is not going to hang out with you at the mall and talk about Fallout Boy. Even though I think the campaign people handled it poorly, Barack is still Barack and he probably had very little to do with this negotiation. If you wanted to vote for him before, you should still vote for him.

Recently I’ve been thinking about gun control laws. A passage from “Thinking Strategically” made me think of gun control as a good thing because a total lack of guns among the law-abiding would mean that burglars would be less likely to have them too. However, A post from another blog I read, Tempus Fugit, reminded me that the right to bear arms is what will allegedly keep America free from the threat of tyranny.

I just stumbled upon an old news item which pushed me more in favor of gun control. In May of last year, a small militia group in Iraq killed a tennis team because they continued to wear shorts after having been warned not to. It’s really stunning to read this true story. A group of people with guns decide that they don’t want anyone to wear shorts, and they decide to enforce their beliefs with violence. I think the threat of this kind of random militia violence is greater than that of a military dictatorship, but I really don’t know for sure. I think we’re stable enough that the army could never be convinced to play a part in a military coup… but things may change in the future. Also, if lunatics want to kill, they will find a way; with or without guns. On the other hand, once guns are banned it would be unlikely that those in power would ever give the right to bear arms back to the people. Especially if power-hungry party-loyalists hold high legislative authority (not naming names). Any thoughts?

I was very glad to read this op-ed piece which is titled “Getting Paid For Getting It Wrong: Bad Brokers Get Fired, Bad Pundits Get Hired”. I think in general, most people are in some way or another in denial of reality (I am probably one of those people, so somebody please help me and tell me what I’m doing wrong!)… so when some guy on TV chimes in with his opinion which has been carefully calculated and weighed against important and trustworthy evidence… and it supports some aspect of reality which you just can’t bear to acknowledge, you will change the channel (”I hate this guy”) and instead you will watch the guy who gives his cleverly worded opinion which agrees with your own view of the world (”That’s more like it!”).

Pundits are always bending the truth regardless of which side they are on. By taking a side at all, they are simplifying a complex issue into one dimension. John Stewart’s must-watch appearance on Crossfire (which prompted the show’s cancellation) was a great and rare illustration of when moderation has actually beaten out extremism in the media. As he says, debate makes for wonderful theater, but by allowing ourselves to be swayed by one side of the theater is to forget how important it is to have good government. It is quite obvious that the Bush administration has a wonderful PR team: they spin everything the way their voters want to hear it. The truth is not something which they feel the public needs to know. The democrats are in a tight spot because their voter base tends to be obsessed with the truth. How do you satisfy the democratic voters who want the truth and still win over Joe “Swing State” Voter who is somewhat susceptible to spin tactics?

I think it’s fair to say that reality has a far lower value than fantasy… in the entertainment industry. When it comes to managing money, programming computers, mixing chemicals, building a bridge, etc… we value the reality more than the fantasy. Obviously, when we want to be entertained, we want something incredible, not something mundane. It’s a rare person that is actually entertained by reality. However, I think it’s a wonderful sign that a book about statistics and economics (Freakonomics) is a smashing success. There is also the sudden popularity of Malcolm Gladwell (author of Blink and The Tipping Point). Maybe to get people interested in reality, it takes an amazing person like Gladwell to make the fascinating complexities accessible to a general audience.

I attended a “discussion” last week between Vaclav Havel and Bill Clinton. In it, the most interesting point, I felt, was made by Bill Clinton, who pointed out the difference between a Majoritarian government and a Democracy. A majoritarian government is one in which the views of the minority are ignored, and the views of the majority are favored. By contrast, a democracy is one in which the views of the minority are protected. Let’s not forget that this is what makes democracy so important! Before the democrats took the congress, it looked like we were slipping into a majoritarian government. When the “minority” is only slightly less than half of the population, it is extremely important that their views are taken into account! It is interesting, however, that our voting system is majoritarian. Once again… the problem of voting systems pops up!

Paul Graham, author of Hackers and Painters, just published on his web site one of the most influential essays I have ever read. The essay is called Mind the Gap and was a chapter from Hackers and Painters, but for whatever reason Paul put it on his web site for free. The topic is why the rich/poor income gap is not as unfair as people think. This essay singlehandedly moved me from a democrat to a political moderate when I read it a year and a half ago! It’s a long one, so print it out and give it a read. Here it is.

Woo hoo!

… and if we’re lucky, the senate! Thank you all for voting! Even if democrats don’t take the senate, I think we can all look forward to a more responsible government. Also, congratulations to Nancy Pelosi who is the first female House speaker. She has promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption and I certainly hope that she does.

I think most voters are either so disgusted or so ignorant that they are more likely to vote for “the other person” than for their favorite person… because it’s hard to have a favorite when you don’t like any of the options. So for voters who are thinking of the race in a negative way (i.e. I’m going to pick the lesser of two evils), mudslinging campaigns should be more effective than self-promotional campaigns.

Another thought: we all think it is generally good to preach values, but let’s not forget that values are not always practical in every situation. Look for a candidate with good judgement, not someone who says what you want to hear.

As we draw closer to the midterm election, it appears that more and more e-voting problems are coming to light. Even the optical scan e-voting systems are not safe. People have found ways to cast multiple votes with a single ballot without needing to do any hacking. Simple things like using post-it notes and filling in more circles than you were supposed to… that’s all it takes. Here is a summary of all the stuff that has already gone wrong. It’s so sad.

Also, I just heard about Clint Curtis, a computer programmer, who testified in 2004 that he was asked to write election-stealing software by congressman Tom Feeney in 2000. This is pretty amazing.