Race: is a little racial jabbing healthy ?

When the movie “White Men Can’t Jump” came out in the early 90’s, I thought to myself, “Damn, they got me.” And when a black person teases about rhythm difficulties for white people I have the same thought.

To a sensitive white person either of these comments could be considered racist, but they are not; they are stereotypical, but kind of accurate, and painfully funny.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

So why is it a problem if I say ‘black people eat fried chicken’ or ‘Mexicans eat tacos’?

True, these are racial stereotypes, but are they injurious enough to be considered racist? Isn’t the problem with racism the injury that it causes? If a racially-based comment is NOT injurious, is it racist?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Remember back to the days of Fred Sanford and George Jefferson and how much grief they gave us honkies. It was not injurious, but instead healing … and maybe even culturally valuable.

It seems to me that as a country we might be ready to graduate from the era of hyper-sensitivity. It seems that although there are still a lot of black people living within a struggle that is certainly the result of the racial oppression of yesterday, the tide of racial fairness is clearly moving in the right direction, and that to continue to be hyper-sensitive is counter-productive at this time in our history.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Searching for a political home

A long time ago on this blog we discussed the sociology of belief surrounding politics and religion, or more concretely, why it is that so many religious and political beliefs seem to come as a “package deal” (when a person believes x they also tend to believe y, even when there is no necessary logical connection between to the two).

This is something I’ve had to revisit in different ways over the past few years, and I’ve decided that I think the motivation behind the “package deal” mentality is ultimately rational, and probably based on the social nature of human beings: we have to trust people to function, and that includes trusting others in belief formation. At the same time, beliefs formed in this way ought to be held as corrigible if they are only held for that reason: if an individual in such a group comes up against a good argument against the social consensus of that group, then that individual is obligated to look into the issue more directly.

And this brings me closer to my point: I’m not sure where I fit on the contemporary political spectrum. I have a few political issues I’ve made my own through studying them fairly thoroughly (just war theory, abortion, gay marriage), and my opinions would tend to lead me, socially speaking, to support the Conservatives (or, if I were American, the Republicans). But, at the same time, I have seen enough intelligent criticism of the right wing on matters of geopolitics and economics that I find it fairly difficult, cognitively speaking, to just trust the right wing because I agree with them on other matters.

What do I do?

Stossel on Journalistic Bias

John Stossel documents his transition from a typical left-wing government-knows-best journalist hack to a thoughtful free-market libertarian — and the price he paid to make that journey. The experience has given him a unique perspective on the issue of bias in journalism.

Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view. So why am I the one called biased?

"Cash For Clunkers" Revisited: Was It Worth It?

Automobile news site Edmunds.com released their analysis of the “Cash For Clunkers” program that ran during the summer. “Cash For Clunkers” was intended to offer consumers an incentive to trade in their older, less fuel efficient car for a newer vehicle with better fuel mileage. Given the state of the economy, that focus was lost and the program’s image became more about spurring new car sales to give the economy a boost. Back in August, I wrote about possible unintended consequences “Cash For Clunkers”. Edmunds.com ran the numbers from the summer and determined that “Cash For Clunkers” wasn’t as effective as was touted.

The most important numbers in Edmunds’ findings is 125,000, the marginal sales spurred on by “Cash For Clunkers”, and $24,000, which is how much each marginal car cost in federal funds from the $3 billion allocated to the program. Edmunds measured what the seasonally adjusted sales rate should have been using historical data and this year’s sales data to arrive at the marginal sales rate. Perhaps more importantly, using the same seasonal adjusted sales projections, Edmunds has been able to make predictions for the sales for the remainder of the year, and its not nearly as sparkling. Edmunds predicts that car sales will decrease on a seasonally adjusted basis for the last quarter of the year.

Predictably, the White House has issued a rebuttal to Edmunds’ findings. One of the major points the White House refutes is how “Cash For Clunkers” will benefit the US GDP in the second half of the year. When viewed on the macroeconomic level, I can believe this argument. The amount of labor and money that goes into delivering a car to a consumer is great. There are the part manufacturers making spark plugs and ignition switches, the freight companies that deliver components to the assembly lines in Detroit and elsewhere, where the components are assembled into a car. Then you have more freight delivering the cars to dealers, and the dealers themselves who employ salespeople, mechanics and an administrative staff. That’s a lot of hands that go into building a car. For now, the major manufacturers have to build more cars than usual due to the fact that cars traded in as “clunkers” have to be dismantled. But what happens when auto sales level off, production drops and layoffs occur? How far into the future will that occur? It could happen in a few years as part of a normal cycle, or it could occur in a few months if potential consumers still have difficulty obtaining a car loan.

As an aside, one would expect an official White House communication channel to sound more professional. Read the title of the post to see what I mean.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Edmunds’ research is the cost per marginal car. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the average selling price for cars stands at $28,400. Subtract the $4,500 maximum rebate available under the program, and you get $23,900. That means the government spent $100 more per marginal car than the average price. From an economic standpoint, selling for a loss is a dangerous prospect. I’ll be keen to see sales numbers for the last quarter of the year to see if those numbers hold up under the weight of the “Cash For Clunkers” program. If more than 125,000 sales are lost, then the program will have created negative net sales. If that happens, it will be hard to call the program a success.

Searching for a Calling

Over the past few weeks, probably due to a lack of enough to do at work, I’ve become obsessed with finding my calling/purpose/passion. The reason for starting this blog was in part so that I can start voicing ideas in my quest for enlightenment (harhar). There are many ways in which I can explain what it is that I think I’m interested in. All of these conceptions are fundamentally connected – over the weekend, I came up with the following way of structuring it (I’ve actually essentially  already thought about it in this way, but I’ve never really articulated it anywhere outside my brain). Basically, I’m interested in the most quantitative and qualitative extremes:

1) logic, order, science, numbers, statistical significance, proof

2) that which can’t be generalized or quantified,  what is hard to explain and articulate (at least for me, since I’m not a writer) but what we intrinsically understand and sense, what lies within the boundaries of every person, what divides us and what connects us, the smallest differences between individuals, perception as a tinted window in front of everything as we know it

these poles of my brain are what motivate me in seemingly opposite directions -

…the former attracts me to economics, numbers, logic, strategy consulting;

…the latter to art, books, film, fascination with others and the smallest details of their lives and stories, voyeurism.

You could say that the former represents my assets and the latter my interests. I suppose for this reason, I’ve pursued the former professionally, but I think the opportunity, and thus, my “calling” lies in bridging the gap between these two domains.

I’ve thought about this extensively (probably too extensively).

For example, I can’t become a writer, and probably not even a filmmaker – I don’t have the rhetorical or creative talent or ability that drives creation from its conception. My ability rests in the logic that (usually, not always) must lie in the foundation of a successful novel or film. This is why I have been drawn to producing, but as I’ve  realized over and over – I have no exposure to this field and I have no way to really know if this is something I’d be good at or interested in. And then there is of course the tiny issue of breaking into an incredibly exclusive and hard to penetrate field.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been considering other potential paths I can follow, paths that combine the aspects of these 2 poles. There is entrepreneurism in a creative field  (i.e.: fashion, art) – this path requires other qualities and assets that I don’t possess – risk taking and connections, to name two. There is also the fact that while I think I would like running a handbag line, this path would neglect the humanistic questions that constantly drive me. I’m not sure if this is a deal breaker for me, but especially with a field like fashion (and even more so if it’s high-end fashion) I might feel divorced from meaning.

Then there is academia… recently I have been thinking about economics, behavioral economics to be specific. I realized the other day though, that I’m really not interested in economics…what appeals to me is economic thinking, economic process (econometrics). I think I’d be interested in applying this kind of process and thinking to the ideas and subjects that I’m interested in – I don’t know where they would really fall, some intersection between psychology, sociology, anthropology, maybe even literature. I don’t know if this is being done or if there is a place for this kind of work. I also don’t know if I’m committed to going through the ordeal that is graduate school, academic placement, tenure, etc.

For these reasons, I can’t seem to commit to any of these paths. All I know is that I somehow need to bring these poles together. With the latter pole, the obvious way to pursue my interest in human behavior and art is writing or filmmaking; but as I’ve explained, I don’t have the pure talent to pursue these paths. The former pole, dominated by logic, method, and science, is essentially the path that I’ve laid for myself thus far, it’s what I’m doing already, yet it’s become clear that this isn’t enough for me – I’m not fulfilled. Somewhere there has to be a bridge, I just need to find it… or build it.

Income and Tax Redistribution

This is a good article discussing tax redistribution and income inequality from 2000 to 2007. Notice that the top fifth of income earners received about $18,713 in tax breaks, while the bottom fifth only got $706. Well, of course, the high income families woudl be expected to get a larger break because they have more money in the first place; so, notice as well that on a percentage basis, the top quintile received a break of 12.82% versus 6.97%. This is known as a regressive tax policy. The top tier started from a higher base, so mathematically this is not entirely shocking. However, it does depict a trend diminishing the benefits of a progressive taxation system. There are some interesting responses after the main post, too.

Fed Audit Reaches Majority

WorldNetDaily
Less than 24 hours after WND reported a proposal from U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to audit the Federal Reserve was approaching majority support in the U.S. House, he is confirming the plan has reached that “crucial benchmark.”

“The tremendous grass-roots and bipartisan support in Congress for H.R. 1207 is an indicator of how mainstream America is fed up with Fed secrecy,” Paul said shortly after U.S. Rep Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, became the 218th cosponsor, giving the plan, technically, majority support in the 435-member House.

“I look forward to this issue receiving greater public exposure,” Paul said.

This is not enough…END THE FED!