Counter-insurgency (COIN)

General Petraeus is nothing short of a genius. I won't bother recounting all his achievements and virtues here; rather I will cut right to the chase.

The new US counter-insurgency strategy (COIN), which Petraeus was instrumental in developing over the last several years, identifies a counter-intuitive, but critically important, strategic issue.

The main idea is that increased short-term risk for American soldiers, tactically, reduces longer-term, strategic risk.

In a traditional, symmetric war, civilian deaths and collateral damage in the short run can shorten the overall war. This is essentially the paradigm of shock & awe pioneered by other brilliant men, such as Colin Powell. The ultimate in shock & awe, and the inspiration for the strategy in many ways, was the atomic bombing of Japan. It killed civilians, but it probably saved lives by shortening the war.

In asymmetric, insurgency/counter-insurgency war, under-reacting and overprotecting civilians, while remaining out and about, allows intelligence gathering and turns civilians against insurgents.

Imagine the alternative. You're out there, trying to pacify terrorists in Iraq. You could easily think, "I'd better keep US troops from dying and find the insurgents." "If I don't keep US troops from dying, public opinion will turn against the war, even if I'm winning." "If I don't find insurgent bombers, I will not be accomplishing my mission or protecting the new nation of Iraq."

But Petraeus argues for exactly the opposite. He argues for a war focused on defense. He argues that such operations to catch terrorists alienate the population. The collateral damage creates more terrorists. This is NOT obvious. It seems obvious, but only if you have never understood the shock&awe strategy in the first place. Traditional thinking is that it's better to over-react and and kill too many civilians at first, because it will decimate the enemy and shorten the war.

Lest you think you understand what I'm saying, think about this... "Did Rumsfeld send too few troops to Iraq?" If you think so, then you think we should have engaged in MORE activities early on. But, that would have made MORE people affected by US troops and probably resulted in MORE collateral damage. Even if you don't realize it, people like Gen. Shinseki and Colin Powell, who have criticized the war, were arguing for THAT. They were saying we should have sent more troops in and been a blunter instrument. We could have stopped the looters and crushed the insurgency early on and we'd be in a better position now. It's the opposite of the strategy Petraeus is advocating. He's advocating that we send more troops NOW, but that we had the right number at the beginning. He's arguing that what we need to do now is go out and put US soldiers in harm's way. We need to tell them to make protecting civilians their priority, even if it results in more US casualties in the short run.

The reason we need to do this is because it will reduce the quantity of terrorists created and turn more of the populace against the terrorists. This will ultimately do more to shorten the war than will hunting down the terrorists.

Don't confuse this argument with the idea that we should simply not be there at all, because then we couldn't alienate people. That is 100% wrong. What Petraeus is arguing is the opposite. We *should* be there, because if we don't protect civilians, then we can't be seen as the better alternative to Al Qaeda. When we abandoned the Afghani rebels and the Shi'ites in the early 90's, we did exactly this - we left them alone. We caused Zero collateral damage, and we earned nothing but the hatred of Iraqis and Afghanis during that time. We said, "We're not helping you; you're on your own." And nobody thanked us for it. Instead, they spent the 90's plotting against us. Understanding that problem is a basic precursor to understanding what's going on in the world today. The terrorism problem we have now built up during the 90's, when Clinton was President and we did little to nothing to stop Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein.

Thwarted Pirate Attacks

... on Chinese ships, and by Indian Navy, among others...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_af/piracy_13

Rice on Piracy

A quote from Secretary Rice at the UN, speaking about piracy:

"To make piracy costlier and more difficult to undertake, the United States, with the agreement of the Somali Transitional Federal Government, believes that the Security Council’s authorization today that states may pursue pirates into their places of operation on land will have a significant impact. History has demonstrated again and again that maritime operations alone are insufficient to combating piracy."

Pirates!

Piracy has become a problem that's so big it's now almost comical. The problem runs far deeper than the loss of a few ships off the coast of Somalia. There are several reasons why piracy is such a big problem:

1) There are many other areas around Africa where piracy is rampant. There are even more historically active pirate hotspots in and around Indonesia.

2) Piracy is connected to terrorism. It's not that the pirates are terrorists, exactly. But consider this: the people who shot up Mumbai recently came in on boats. In fact, they hijacked a fishing boat somewhere near India, which they used to get into port. This is a colossal problem.

Imagine if a hijacked tanker were blown up at the mouth of the Port of Long Beach. This could disrupt the flow of imports and exports to and from the entire US west of the Mississippi for days or weeks.

Right now, there is a hijacked Ukranian boat in the hands of pirates loaded with tanks and other heavy weapons. There is also an oil tanker. It would be simple to cause an Exxon Valdez-caliber disaster in an incident of eco-terrorism.

Even worse, a large boat makes the perfect mobile weapons laboratory. If kept in the right place, there would be no one who could even legally board/search it.

For all these reasons, and many others, I was excited to see this story today, about how the UN has authorized operations at sea and on land to get at the pirate menace.

3) Piracy creates a need for rapid-reaction forces to interdict sea traffic. India, China, the US, Japan, Great Britain, Australia, and others will obviously need to plan how they will deal with a remote hijacking five thousand miles away. Will pirates be able to hijack Chinese missile shipments near China and then get into Indian waters? If so, will the Chinese try to attack the ships? Will the US be able to push India to board a Chinese flagged ship full of military equipment? The potential for international military and political incidents is immense.

A Bonds Primer

It's time for another super-condensed lesson on bonds...

Bonds are a loan to a company. The traditional type works as follows:
You loan the company $1,000 (you buy the bond). The company pays you interest (the coupon rate, or interest rate) every period. At the end, they pay you back the principle of the bond. In this sense, it is very similar to a CD. You loan the bank $1,000 for 6 months, they pay you a certain amount of interest each month, then they pay you back the $1,000 of principle.

Many variations exist.

Because the bond is tradeable and has a limited duration (for example, 10 years), the prices of bonds can change. You might buy one that has 2004's interest rate, and will only last for an additional 6 years. Someone else collected the first few years' worth of interest and then sold it to you. The YTM (yield-to-maturity) is an attempt to capture the value of the bond that's "left".

The price of a bond varies inversely with the prevailing interest rates. Here's why:
Let's say you buy a 10-year bond in 2005 for $1000 that pays 5% interest per year. Every year it pays $50. Now, let's say it's 2006 and the interest rate has gone down. Today, new bonds are offered for 10 years with a 2.5% interest rate for $1000 (the $1000 is called the face value or par value). If you bought bonds today, and you wanted to get $50/yr in interest, then you'd have to buy TWO of the 2006 bonds, because each one pays only $25/yr. Therefore, your bond from 2005 is now worth TWICE as much as the bonds from 2006. If you sell your 2005 bond on the open market, it will have a price of roughly $2,000 (actually, there are other factors that go into the price, but that's the main idea).

So, you can make money in 2 ways from bonds: 1) the interest payments, or 2) the price of the bond goes up and you sell it. The price of a bond can go below $1,000, but you will still get $1,000 if you hold the bond when it's due (the end of the bond, also called the "call date").

The interest payments for most bonds are paid quarterly, yearly, or twice-yearly. The interest is often taxable, but not always. There are also "zero-coupon" bonds, where instead of receiving interest every year, you buy the bond at a discount and get a larger lump-sum back at the end. It's as if all the interest is lumped together and thrown into the principle. These kinds of bonds have two main differences: 1) they do not generate income in the short-term 2) you do not pay taxes on the interest as regular income every quarter or year.

In general, bonds give you a higher return than cash, but with a higher risk. They will generally give you a lower return than stocks with a lower risk than stocks, because if a company goes bankrupt, bonds are paid off first, before stockholders get anything.

Here is a list of types of bonds, with descriptions of each. I have made a chart that summarizes the main types; and specifically the types in which you might be interested. One key thing to remember is that bonds can be taxable, or tax-free. Mostly only government bonds are tax-free. These tax-free bonds look like they have much lower interest rates (or yields), but they may be better or worse for a given investor, because you don't have to pay taxes on them. How valuable the tax-free bonds are depends on what tax bracket you're likely to be in while collecting the interest and how the rates compare to the taxable bonds.


Here is a chart that explains the bond ratings. The rating is a measure of the risk. The higher the rating (like AAA), the lower the risk. Bonds with ratings of BB+/Ba1 are generally considered speculative, higher-risk (AKA "junk") bonds. This doesn't mean they are bad. It means that they carry more risk and pay higher interest rates than the higher-rated or "investment-grade" bonds. Like with stocks, if you want to buy these higher return bonds, you should probably not pick individual ones, but should pick some kind of junk-bond fund or mixed bond fund. Such a fund might also be called "speculative" or "high-yield."

Two other interesting notes:
Callable bonds can be "ended" early. Some are callable by the company (seller), and some by the owner (buyer). If you have a long-term bond with a very high interest rate, it might seem like a great investment, but if it can be recalled by the company, you will get your money back, but you may not be able to continue receiving that interest for the life of the bond.

Although there are many choices, they are generally priced very fairly. It hardly matters which you pick because they're all roughly worth the same amount, given that people have bid up or down the prices for you already. The factors that are most important for most people are: 1) taxable or non-taxable, 2) interest-bearing or zero-coupon, 3) risk level (rating) - higher risk, higher reward.

Country Right-Sizing

Have you ever thought about whether it was "fair" not to let the South secede? We seceded from Great Britain. Why shouldn't the South have been allowed to secede from the north? I was thinking about this topic in the context of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's relationships to Georgia.

These were semi-autonomous provinces, whose autonomy from the Georgian government was encouraged by Russia, which Georgia tried to pacify and re-conquer/re-occupy. Is that fair? Is it right to force someone to be part of your country?

Here, I explore this issue somewhat. A few notes...

A Country of One
The right size for a country, or a nation, is probably not one person. It's probably not just two people, either. Whether defining a nation-state as a collection of ethnically or culturally similar people who live in a common society with shared infrastructure and societal rules and norms, or as a group who individually participate in a social contract for their mutual defense and benefit, there will likely to be many people in the same society.

Why do we Unite?
Whether to manage the use of a pasture or water-supply, or to protect from invasion, the smallest size that makes sense is at least a whole village or town. As communication and transportation have improved, though, the much larger nations, with millions of people spanning multiple thousands of square miles, have made more and more sense.

But what about uniting cultural or ethnic groups? In the old days, there was much more overlap between cultural or ethnic group and mutual defense or common markets than there is now in Western countries. In other parts of the world, though, such as Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, there are still many who see ethnic or cultural similarity as the primary basis for participation in a common government.

The Case Against Secession Differs
The case against secession differs vastly depending on why you are united in the first place. If you're in a society that unites or conquers for common benefit and mutual defense (much like the 13 original colonies of the United States, or the Roman empire), then a secession that endangers or weakens the whole can be rationally (and perhaps legitimately) resisted. When Benjamin Franklin originally said, "Either we all hang together or we all hang separately" he was quite serious. It was literally untenable for the colonies to secede separately, because they were too small, in comparison to England. Disunity would endanger them.

The case against secession from an ethnic group or a culturally defined body politic, though, is quite different. The argument in that case focuses on two factors:
1) Whether or not people actually represent a distinct group, and
2) Whether being a distinct group entitles a people to self-determinism or autonomy.

The Nation State is a Fairly New Concept
Weird as it may seem, the nation-state is a fairly new concept. Multi-ethnic empires have been around for a very long time. Even the Akkadians and Sumerians were cognizant of the need (real or perceived) to incorporate other cultural groups into their "empires" for strategic (or sometimes just greedy) reasons.

While there were culturally defined groups which also functioned as political entities, these tended toward the city-state size until the 19th Century, when they had really outgrown the feudal model of control. It wasn't even until the late 19th Century that Germany or Italy was united as a single country.

One problem that we have had since about the 19th Century is that the Slavic world, the Caucasian world, and, in general, the entire area from Japan to East Germany, has struggled mightily with the tension between culturally or ethnically defined political entities and political entities defined more by what we might call a "social contract."

So, What Size is the Right Size?
The tension between these two notions of government comes into play when the East and West clash (as well as within the Eastern and Western worlds, separately). When we think about whether South Ossetia is more "Russian" or more "Georgian" what we are really asking, in some ways, is whether or not Georgia is a country based on an ethnicity or based on a compact between individuals for mutual benefit and their common defense. If the latter, we then ask, in which country are these people better off and to what extent are the different parties able to defend such claims?

Russia's position of advocating for South Ossetian and Abhkazian independence is ideologically nearly untenable. If Russia believes these people need to be part of Russia for strategic reasons, or that the benefits accruing from such a relationship outweigh those of unification for the tiny regions with Georgia, then it must complete its own (Russian) takeover to realize such gains. If Russia believes these peoples are ethnically similar to Russians, then they cannot pretend they want these tiny states to function autonomously. If they think that these people are ethnically similar to NEITHER Russians NOR Georgians, then it would make sense to encourage independence, but it would make even more sense to encourage the independence of many others who are currently part of Russia, but are less similar, ethnically.

Which Side Should We Take?
Whereas the American Civil War was largely about the right of self-determinism, state vs. federal control, and the disagreement over the economic and strategic viability of differently sized unions, with most of these issues taking the form of arguments about slavery, the situation in Russia is more of a conflict between a "nation-state" mentality and a "social contract society."

When we ask ourselves whether we should have supported Georgia more or less in the reconquista, we really must ask ourselves, "Are we advocating against the idea of nation-states?" When we compared stopping the ensuing Russian attacks on the Georgian capital to halting the German advance in the 1930's, were we really saying that we feared the (re-)surge(nce) of a Slavic nation-state?

Democracy is more than just self-determinism, because true and complete self-determinism is just anarchy. So, given that democracies limit self-determinism and individual liberties in key ways, we must ask, "for whom are these rights to be protected?" For ethnic groups? Or for societies organized willingly for the common benefit? Answering this question will help us frame our approach to the five-day war in Georgia this August.

Anderson Silva

Remember, Anderson Silva is NOT invincible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=267i7rKeECA

My Life

I think my life can more or less be summed up as the average of these two pictures:

Yep, that about does it.

Predictions and Predilections

I have lately had the feeling that it was time for alternative rock to make a comeback. Maybe it was a new-Metallica-album induced feeling, or maybe it was Gavin Rossdale's re-emergence. Whatever started it, I can't say.

But, I did just buy several Stabbing Westward albums, a Local H album, a Gravity Kills album, an Oleander album, and a Toadies and a Veruca Salt song.

I don't generally like to go way out on a limb with a hard prediction, but that's exactly what I'm doing right now. It's time for a 90's rock revival.

Here's a link to get you started.

The Origins of Donnie Darko?

For some reason (I can't remember why), I had a 1950 movie called "Harvey" in my Netflix queue. It's one of the movies that Netflix has made available, via Starz, for instant viewing on the Xbox. However, it's only available until Dec. 1st. Noticing this, I moved it to the top of my queue today.

What I found was most surprising. This movie is very good, and it features a 6' 3.5" rabbit that can stop time.

More research shows that Donnie Darko was probably based, in all or part, on the Bunny Man legend of Fairfax County, Virginia.

And the legend is based, I suspect, directly or indirectly, on the movie, "Harvey." Because Donnie Darko was such an important catalyst for me in thinking about time and space, its origins are of particular import. After seeing Harvey, I decided to watch Donnie Darko again. Whether it was intentionally based upon Harvey or not I can't say, but it is clearly closely related, and Donnie Darko makes a whole lot more sense to me this time through.

I am also quickly coming to believe that Donnie Darko was heavily influenced by Dark City.

Asymmetrical Information Warfare

This story, which includes official ackowledgement of something that has been going on for weeks (or maybe months), shows just how prevalent so called "information warfare" tactics are becoming.

The military seems to have adapted to this problem fairly well, but there will be future attacks. It's important to remember, though, that this isn't just a case of the military trying to "catch up with the internet." Information asymmetry and the denial of, or intereference with, communications and signals intelligence is nothing new for the military.

In fact, quite the opposite, much of the technology we take for granted today (wireless, the internet, radar, satellite communications) was developed, at least in part, by the military to address these information warfare issues.

Innovation Nation

I recently finished reading Innovation Nation by John Kao. I actually read most of this book months ago, feverishly and late at night, because I knew I was going to meet Mr. Kao the next day.

First of all, I was very surprised to see a quote from Eric Best, who is, of course, my ex-girlfriend's father.

Secondly, the book was fairly good, and has caused me to slightly tweak my understanding of what constitutes good governance of the economy. Since roughly 1997, when I took economics, learned about Milton Friedman, and read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I have been an ardent supporter of free markets. I have never, however, been a market libertarian. It is obvious that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, the common defense, and generally, in addressing externalities, both positive and negative.

My studies in political economy under Beverly Crawford at Cal taught me a lot about how exactly governments have done this, and I became an avid student of Alexander Gerschenkron and what I might dub the modified linear stage theory of economic development. In essence, the modification to the theory is that governments play a keen role in helping nations "skip" stages of development, but only when they start out behind and are catching up.

The change I'm now making to this theory, partly inspired by Innovation Nation, is the idea that "infrastructure" extends beyond physical, legal, or organizational things. While I still think that the government should not be in the business of "guessing" which technologies are going to make it and seeding them with massive investments, I have come to believe that there is an aspect to technological infrastructure that I had not previously considered or understood. Governments must explore technology to create a framework for its commercialization. This framework is a combination of trained and accessible labor (and appropriate laws), an intellectual property scheme, and working capital markets willing to invest in high-risk ventures.
The government need not be the investor, but it does have a role in making sure this infrastructure exists, because there is a positive externality to "things" such as The Silicon Valley. The value of the Valley is larger than the sum of the profits enjoyed by its participants and residents.

I am going to write a letter to Mr. Kao and explain my thoughts on this subject. Helping him couch his concepts in more "sound" economics-y language will help lend his ideas credibility.

Ulysses

I am about 1/4 of the way through Ulysses by James Joyce. First, I must praise Joyce. This is perhaps the finest book ever written, and certainly one of the finest of all modern novels.

Second, the obvious influence of this novel is astounding. It's clear to me that Tolkien was influenced by it, as were many other famous 20th-century writers. One might go so far as to say that all of the Sartre-Camus-school existentialist writing is essentially one absurdly thorough interpretation of Leopold Bloom's character, taken to certain logically extreme conclusions.

Obama's Economic Plans

President-elect Obama is pushing a very large stimulus program that's aimed at long-term projects. I was initially very opposed to this sort of program on the theories that:
1) long-term projects don't help the economy in the short run (don't provide 'stimulation');
2) this was just a way of expanding the government's size;
3) these programs were designed to prop up industries such as the construction industry, which don't deserve to be propped up, in my opinion.

However, I am beginning to conditionally support this sort of program, on a couple of conditions:
1) the money should be used for infrastructure building programs such as roads and levees, not for helping the construction industry build houses or office buildings;
2) the provisions of the plan must be temporary in nature. Programs must expire after a few years, not continue indefinitely.

With those conditions, I think this kind of program may be a good idea, because the economic downturn appears it will last at least through 2009, if not into 2010 or 2011.

The President-elect is also saying he'll hold off on raising the taxes of high-income people in this country, which is a very wise choice, because raising taxes now will only stifle the economy further and crowd out business investment and financing.

Yahoo! Fail

Well... mr Yang is out at Yahoo! And not a moment too soon, judging by what my Yahoo! news reader thinks...

Click on the pic to make it bigger.

Housing Prices Must Be Allowed to Fall

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today about how home builders are pleading for $250B in federal aid.

This aid basically comes in the form of huge tax breaks for people who buy houses. This is one of the worst possible things the government could do. The builders are correct that housing prices underlie a lot of the financial woes right now. But, the federal government should be doing three things:
1) Encouraging people to realistically assess their housing situations. Rather than encourage people to buy houses, which is exactly what they were doing too much of the federal government should be helping them get out of their mortgages and move. The government should increase the tax credits for people who relocate between states, and create an extra tax rebate for those who sell houses in which they have negative equity.
2) Actively promoting retraining for housing industry employees and aiding them in moving out of the housing and construction industries.
3) Encouraging banks to move people out of unsustainable loans quickly, instead of waiting while the slow foreclosure process takes its toll on both the homeowners and the mortgage banks.

The faster people accept what their houses are worth (or rather, what they aren't worth), and start making rational decisions, the faster we will "hit bottom," both in terms of housing prices and in terms of asset portfolios based on mortgages. It is only "hitting bottom" and getting these assets re-priced which will, in the long run, allow growth to begin again and allow the gears of finance to start turning.

Proposition 8

I voted 'no' on Prop. 8 (the one about gay marriage). The proposition proposed to amend the California constitution to specifically prohibit marriage between homosexuals. I voted 'no' on this for many reasons, not all of which I will go into at length here. Suffice it to say that I believe this proposition should not have passed, but I don't feel this way because I love gay marriage. I think there were several other reasons why this proposition was bad. I am surprised that the proposition passed, because there are so many good arguments against it.

People in San Francisco (of both the gay and straight varieties) are largely upset that the proposition passed. Many are indignant and convinced that anyone who voted for Prop 8 must be a moron or a homophobe. I disagree with this and I believe that had the "No on Prop 8" organizers been more cognizant of their opponents' points of view, and less smug, they could have defeated the measure.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the opposition to Prop 8 was wrong-headed and shows exactly what's wrong with the "American Left" even though I, myself, opposed Prop 8, and don't consider myself a part of "the left."

Gay Marriage as a Right

The No on 8 campaign was fixated on the concept of 'marriage as a right,' and of the denial of marriage to homosexuals as a violation of rights. This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as a right of marriage, for homosexuals or heterosexuals, any more than there is a right to do anything which is not specifically prohibited. It's important to wrap your mind around this concept before you continue reading. If you are stuck on the idea that "marriage is a right" you are part of the problem, not the solution. You must first learn what "rights" are, before you can use them as an argument for or against anything. Everything that is "allowed" is not a right. I am allowed to drive in the left lane of the freeway right now, but if they close it for construction tomorrow, that doesn't mean my rights have been violated. There was no prohibition against driving in that lane before, but that doesn't imply that an inalienable right was created.

Why is there no Right of Marriage?

Why would there be one? Marriage is a contract entered into by two parties, with one or two overseeing or governing bodies: religious authority and/or civil institutions, such as city governments. It's not even clear what a right of marriage would be, since almost every other right we think of is an individual thing. I don't have the "right" to marry you without your consent, and if I do have the right to marry you, with your consent, then is marriage, rights-wise, any different than a contract between two private parties?

Historically, without the sanctioning of either the church or the government, all marriages were unofficial. Note, the fact that they are unofficial doesn't mean they aren't valid, it just means that the society doesn't recognize them explicitly. Imagine that the government stopped issuing marriage licenses and the churches stopped performing weddings, for any reason(s). This wouldn't mean that marriage would cease to exist as a concept, but it would essentially mean that all marriage became unofficial. Unofficial marriages could still be contracts between individuals, but there would be no official recognition of marriage's contractual norms by the government or the Church, the two bodies which have historically sanctioned marriages.

The No on 8 Campaign's Mistakes

The No on 8 campaign completely failed to understand what a "right" is when they wrote all their commercials and pamphlets. They also completely failed to respect that, historically, the church has been just as involved in marriage as has been the government. The idea that governments can unilaterally redefine marriage without the consent of the church OR the popular sentiment, while not necessarily wrong, was certainly likely to invite attack, criticism, and opposition, which it did. That people now indignantly assume that anyone who voted 'Yes' on 8 must be crazy or homophobic further proves that the organizers (and many of the supporters) of the No on 8 campaign fundamentally lack respect for religious people and institutions. Without respecting and understanding the other side of the argument, they come across as smug and arrogant. As I learned from a wise man (my father) long ago, it is far easier to argue well against the side you believe in than for it, because when you argue for it, passions confound and circumvent logic and rational consideration.

The City of San Francisco, Mayor Newsom, and all the people now indignant that Prop 8 passed, make this fundamental mistake of arrogance. They assume there is nothing at all which might be correct in the opposition's (Yes on 8's) point of view. This is completely wrong. Of course there are valid points for Prop 8. SF and Newsom assumed that it made no difference what the religious community or even other city governments thought, though, because they didn't adequately consider the arguments against sanctioning gay marriage.

Another example of the arrogance of the 'No on 8' campaign was the education issue. The issue was basically this:
The 'Yes on 8' people were saying that allowing gay marriage meant that 'gay marriage' would be taught in schools. There was a lot of disagreement about whether this was true or not. While it's not fundamentally important that gay marriage be 'taught' in schools, it is fundamentally important to acknowledge this issue. The real issue was: do we want to redefine marriage? Imagine your child asking you, "What does married mean?" And you say, "It means two people love each other and raise children together and have a family." You can no longer say that it's only between men and women, or that the woman will be pregnant and have the baby, or whatever, because the definition of marriage has been broadened. Wrong or right, it's an issue. To pretend that somehow there was no impact on the 'definition' of marriage is non-sensical. In fact, the 'No on 8' campaign should have directly acknowledged that, in fact, they *wanted* to redefine the family and marriage in this way, instead of pretending that there was no 'issue' of redefinition, for which the 'what would be taught in schools' issue was a proxy. Preserving the definitions of words over time IS important.

This brings me to my next point: "What is the harm in allowing only domestic unions instead of marriages between gay people?" The American Bar Association (and the state bars) decides who can call themself a lawyer, and I can't call myself a lawyer. It makes no difference how much I know about the law, how other people feel about it, etc... They don't allow me to sell myself as an attorney, because they feel like a societal purpose is solved by defining the word carefully and restricting many people from using the term. Does this violate my "right" to be a lawyer? Not really, because anyone can be a lawyer if they meet the criteria, which are there to promote a societal purpose (that lawyers be trained and in good standing with their peers). If there is an expectation that marriage is about procreation, then it is entirely logical to define marriage in a heterosexual way. Am I saying it "should" be defined that way? No, I'm not. But it's completely arrogant to assume that somehow you have the sole right to define what marriage means, against the will of the church, the majority of civic governments, or the will of the majority. It may be that society "defined" marriage in a heterosexual way for a reason, and that reason must be addressed before the term (or the concept) can be redefined. Gay people have every opportunity to get married today, just not to people of the same sex. Is that weird? It's no weirder than the idea that I have every opportunity to go to UC Berkeley if I meet their acceptance criteria.

If we allow gay marriage, do we have to allow polygamous marriage? Why not? These slippery slope arguments are tough, because everything is a step in a direction, and sometimes we have to be in the middle, not on one edge, but, if that's the case, then the 'No on 8' people should have been advocating that this was the "right" compromise now, or should have been arguing that all forms of marriage are acceptable. If they are arguing that this is the "right" compromise now (allowing gay marriage but still prohibiting other things, like polygamy), it must be based on some of the same utilitarian principles which justify the government sanctioning of marriage in the first place. Gay marriage advocates need to make the argument NOT that gay marriage is a right (because then, why isn't having 5 wives, one of which is a sheep, a 'right', too?), but that gay marriage is actually good for society, just like straight marriage, is, and should therefore be encouraged.

Why does the concept of marriage still exist at all? If two men, who might be celibate, decide to call themselves a gay couple, and be married, then they have the ability to check off different boxes on forms. If this is important, and we want to allow people to do this outside the government-sanctioned marriage rules, why don't we simply allow anyone to choose one person to share tax breaks with? If, on the other hand, marriage does serve a very specific societal purpose (promoting a certain family structure) and we value that, then it's entirely logical that we can't expand its definition arbitrarily. So, if we can't expand it arbitrarily, then we have to have some criteria to use for expanding it. This criteria might be about the reduction in promiscuity. It might be about promoting "love" bonds as a concept. It might be about creating "two-parent" families for children.

The Paternalism Problem

There is a logical discontinuity in the literature of gay rights activists. They often take the approach that the government shouldn't decide what goes on in the bedroom. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable position. They are saying, "it's not the government's role" to decide whether I should be gay or straight. If that's the case, though, then the role is left to the people. If the role is left to the people, then why is the City of San Francisco saying that gay people are going to be married "whether you like it or not?" You can't be a progressive and not believe in paternalism. The whole point of the progressive movement is that the government must actively lead the way, sometimes against popular sentiment, to foster change. That means the government IS in the business of deciding things, like what should go on in the bedroom. You can't have the government be "hands off" when you disagree with them, but actively legislate for change when you agree with them. That's just called selfishness (and a complete disregard for other people).

The logical conclusion of the anti-paternalism argument is that all official marriage should be abolished, not that marriage should be redefined in an unpopular way.

Reasons Why 8 Should Have Failed That Have Nothing to do With Sexuality

1) The courts had already decided. Every time we overrule the courts, especially without a more substantial process than getting 50.1% of the (mostly uninformed)voters to say 'yes' one time, on one ballot, we lessen the grip of the rule of law and slide closer to the anarchistic populism that has signaled the end, historically, of many fleeting attempts at democracy.

2) We can't put propositions on the state ballot to decide every issue. It is City Governments that issue marriage licenses, and so by putting this on the state ballot, we have taken that power away from local governments. San Francisco is allowed to have different laws than other places, and we shouldn't limit that allowance for local independence.

3) Amending the constitution is generally undesirable. We shouldn't amend the constitution to solve problems. This argument is related to number 1, but is slightly different. Not only do we lessen the power of the judicial and legislative branches by amending the constitution by ballot proposition, but we also imply that amending the constitution is appropriate redress for grievances. In general, it should not be.

How Should the 'No on 8' People have Made their Case?

First of all, they should have stressed the constitutional, rule of law, and anti-populism points I mentioned above, but they should also have taken a different tack on the 'social' issues.

The commercials should have shown an orphan being played with by two lesbians. They should have said, "The courts have already decided. Do you want to take these loving guardians away from this child or force her to be told that her parents are not married? Would you rather put her in a foster home or allow these people to simply continue their loving family?" The, the commercial should have shown a dumpy looking foster home or a statistic about how bad foster parents are on average. That argument directly addresses the societal benefit of marriage and explains it. Will it appeal to everyone? No, of course not. But, it might appeal to one in 20 people, which would have been enough to defeat the proposition.

The 'No on 8' campaign should have had an Episcopal, Anglican, or Presbyterian Bishop on TV saying the proposition was bad. He should have been saying that marriage is about commitment and protects people from the sins of promiscuity and helps stabilize families. He may represent only one voice of the church, but the idea that the church is divided, and potentially transforming itself, is important. Rather than pretend the church has nothing to do with marriage (which is absurd), those people within the church who advocate for gay marriage should have been highlighted.

The 'No on 8' campaign should have admitted that they are progressive paternalists. They should have said, "Society has changed. It's time to lead the way by redefining marriage for our society. Let's stop promiscuity, discrimination, and single-parenting. Let's allow loving couples to raise children in two-parent families regardless of what gender they are. Besides, the courts have already decided, so if you respect the American system, you should accept the ruling of our judicial branch. What if 51% of the people thought you should move to a different town one day. Do you want to live under the tyranny of the majority? Or the rule of law? The law has spoken. The law has redefined marriage in a way that helps society. Respect it."

I think those arguments would have swayed 3%, or so, of the people in the middle, and that would have been enough. That argument isn't arrogant, because it doesn't say, "I'm right and you're wrong." It says, "There are good things about two parent families, equality, marriage, and the rule of law." Do you want to be the one to take those things away?

Expectations for the President-elect

President Elect Obama must quickly act to reset expectations, or a new Newt Gingrich will sweet the Republicans back into a majority in the Senate in 2010.

Here is what I recommend, issue-by-issue:

On Iraq:
Obama should keep Gates as his Secretary of Defense. Not only is the man capable, but he's been one of the masterminds of the strategy that is currently working. Obama should push to have some of the US troops there as long as needed, probably until some time in 2012 or so. He should then request that a small contingent remain to fight terrorism and support the Iraqi government. I imagine this being a base of about 20,000-30,000 soldiers, similar to what we used to have in Saudi Arabia. Part of the point of this whole war, after all, was to move our permanent bases out of Saudi Arabia.

On Afghanistan:
Obama should immediately confer with General Petraeus and craft an aggressive plan for pacifying Afghanistan. Much as we will have spent three quarters of a trillion dollars in Iraq, we should now be prepared to spend several hundred billion dollars to clean up and rebuild Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.

On the Economy:
Obama must avoid the temptation to over-regulate the economy, and the banking industry in particular. We don't need safeguards to keep people from borrowing or lending money. We need regulations that ensure that transactions are transparent and understandable, and that the risk level of securities can be assessed and insured correctly. We need markets for all securitizable entities, so that things like collateral debt swaps don't get traded "off the market" in one-to-one exchanges, which provide no information to the broader market. Yes, this is a form of regulation, but moving things out into the open is the regulation we need; simply restricting what people can do is not what we need. Too much restriction and businesses will turn against Obama.

On Taxes:
Obama needs to start being honest with people about how taxes are going to rise. The net tax paid by most people will go up under Obama, not down. The "tax cuts for 95%" are misleading, because half of those people pay little federal income tax, and even if the taxes are raised on, say, businesses for their part of health care insurance, this ultimately affects employees. They either get higher payroll taxes, lower salaries, or fewer jobs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Obama needs to explain how raising taxes could help the economy. If he doesn't, then he will come under harsh criticism for taking money out of circulation precisely when the economy is sputtering. If the total federal tax receipts go up as a result of policy, during a rough economic time, Obama will appear to be doing the opposite of what Keynes suggested.

On Energy:
A cap&trade system, or anything that puts the burden correctly on polluters, is good. The alternative energy and green fuel subsidies he's proposed are probably a bad idea because: a) they are distortive and b) they don't help the economy enough to justify them as "stimulus" measures.

If you still think the subsidies are a good idea, think about the ethanol/corn subsidies of the last few years. Not only has ethanol not made the hoped-for major strides as an alternative, but the government has spent TONS of money promoting it, raising corn prices, which has raised many food product prices worldwide. Lest you think that was just "the wrong specific thing to push" ethanol seemed very logical. Corn was cheap and abundant a few years ago. The US can produce lots of ethanol. Many cars on the road could already use E85 (which is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) and making more cars that could run on ethanol required only minor engine modifications. Just because something seems like a good idea, doesn't mean that it is. The market is much better at deciding which ideas are truly valuable. Obama should use it.

The Champ is Here!

Tuesday is the last day I will have a Google badge. It's slightly sad, although not very sad, since my new job is so much better.

#1 highlight from my time at Google:

Getting to meet Muhammad Ali. I'll never forget this. It was in 2006, and, of course, he could barely move or walk.

I didn't know he was coming until the day he was there, and I wasn't part of the group meeting and eating with him. But, I hung around, watched, and waited. I kept hearing him say, "The champ is here!" in my mind, over and over.

At one point, his eyes became fixed on me. Whether or what he was thinking about me, I will never know, but there was still a fire in the eyes of that man that burned me.

He was the only person who has ever intimidated me by his gaze alone.

Junior Bonner

Steve McQueen as Junior Bonner is totally badass. And he gets Barbara Leigh:




This movie also has really weird pseudo-montage scenes, and is far better than people appear to give it credit for being. This is one of Sam Peckinpah's last attempts at a subtle drama.