Orwellian Freedom Tower. Or: there is a tale that the island people tell...

I turned CNN on the other morning. The people who tend to adopt the viewpoint that "MSNBC is left-wing, FOX is right-wing, therefore objectively reporting means listening to both sides and declaring it a tie". And the other morning they had extensive reporting on "Octomom". I'll save you some time:

1) Her mortgage is in trouble. But that's OK, because "a lot of people are in [this sort of] trouble now". So don't let the latest update on the status of her mortgage bother you.

2) Some people criticize her for having so many children.

3) She "defends herself" against such accusations. She does not appreciate them one bit because they don't know her!

4) There was spilled paint. This paint was spilled by one of her sons, and is not indicative of disrepair which is contrary to what some people said. People need to get off her back because they don't know her!

So, you know, important stuff.

Then they talked to great length about the fact that some people were offended by a speech in a high school. It's all very important and not transitory drama at all. Journalism is alive and well.

Anyway:

They also mentioned the "Freedom Tower". It's the tower that was erected in response to the 9/11 attacks, the wikipedia page tells me that its real name is "One World Trade Center" and that Freedom Tower was its previous name. That's all just background detail, I want to focus on the rationale behind naming it and referring to it as the Freedom Tower even if its official name has been changed.

It bothered me. It took me awhile to figure out exactly why. Then it hit me: they're implying that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on the concept of freedom. Put another way: the 9/11 attacks were motivated by a hatred of freedom. Well, OK, I knew that realization still bothered me but I couldn't figure out exactly why.

What's wrong with characterizing the terror attacks that way? Doesn't Al-Qaeda want to restrict freedom? Aren't they opposed to many of the things that the United States enjoys? Democracy, a secular government (contrary to a wonderfully ignorant poster I saw the other idea which used the ceremonials deist phrase "One Nation Under God" as an argument that *of course* America is a Christian nation designed to be governed according my denomination's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament of the Christian Bible except for the bits I don't like, but definitely include the bits we do, and let's add some more and pretend it has some passages about the relations of particular clumps of cells to the concept of personhood - *it's so self evident that our money says so!* But, sigh, I digress), free speech (including both words and actions), and so on. Clearly Al-Qaeda is against all these things, and hates freedom!

Well, if you pay attention to my off-topic rants then you can see where I'm going with this. Al-Qaeda hates freedom, sure. But that isn't what drives religious (using that term instead of the more specific Islamic or Fundamental Islamic helps highlight what I'm trying to say) terrorism is righteousness. A love for righteousness and a desire to please God. Their search for righteousness leads them to believe that the best way to show your devotion to God is to use the government to force everyone adheres to the rules God has given us.

That understanding is somewhat unsettling. But, like so many things, it's the only conclusion I can reach which doesn't leave me with unbearable cognitive dissonance.

That's why it bothered me to hear CNN refer to the Freedom Tower more than it bothered me to hear them report on inane drama-inducing pop culture trivia. I can hear the latter all day long and let it go in one ear and out the other. But when I heard the former something struck in my head, like a mental reflex. I didn't know the precise cause but I knew there was one.

By naming it the Freedom Tower we're using Orwellian language to misrepresent reality. We're framing the issue as something which is easy to swallow: foreign garbed people following a bizarre religion with bizarre customs (AKA outsiders) hate our freedom! In reality, the problem is much closer to our culture. People are willing to hurt others in their search for righteousness. They're willing to do this in ways that seem bizarre to outside observers. It can take the form of blowing up a building. It can take the general form of misrepresentation and ignorance and dogmatic belief concerning abortion or contraception. It can take the specific form of the Catholic Church lying to ignorant Africans and instructing them that condom use increases AIDS transmission. It can take the specific form of a recent Arizona law declaring that every woman who is potentially pregnant (that is: not menstruating or what normal people call "pregnant") will be retroactively declared pregnant.

It takes all sorts of forms. But whether we like it or not, whether we hear all of this and think "well, yeah, because their theology is wrong - that's the problem!" the same thing that motivated the 9/11 attacks is alive and prosperous in our own society. As I said, that can be a bit unsettling. It's certainly more difficult than thinking "9/11 happened because The Outsiders hate freedom!", but I think it's true. And unless we acknowledge this fundamental fact then we'll never be able to have a constructive discussion on how to move on from 9/11.

It's easy to be right in hindsight, but I think this misunderstanding was one of the many factors leading to invading and occupying two predominantly Muslim countries. We as a nation were forced to hold two beliefs: Muslims were responsible for 9/11 because the Quran advocates it, and also Muslims were not responsible for 9/11 because the Quran doesn't advocate it. Many people took the former belief because it's easier. But the truth is neither of those things; the truth is more complicated.

I think it deserves an honest discussion which we can't have as long as we do things like have Freedom Towers. Using that Orwellian language obfuscates (Yes Franklin and Bash, it is a real word) the issue and renders honest conversation impossible. That bothers me.

Europe, Austerity, Interest Rates.

I think it's oversimplified to say that Europe has instituted austerity measures and they've failed. I don't think they've been successful but it's complicated. Also, all of the numbers I'm using I'm completely making up without regard to scale. That being said:

A government can raise money through taxes or by borrowing ("debt-financing"). There are (IMO) legitimate reasons to borrow money to pay for things, and there are (IMO) illegitimate reasons for a government to borrow money. But the bottom line is that governments in Europe often borrowed a lot of money.

A note about interest rates: they could borrow the money cheaply. Which means low interest rates. A low interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year and at the end of the year paying back $1,001. A high interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year and at the end of the year paying back $1,500. Low-risk borrowers get low interest rates. High-risk borrowers get high interest rate.

Think about loaning to someone you trust versus someone you don't trust. You're willing to loan money to someone you know will pay you back, it's a very safe investment. You're very unwilling to loan money to someone you think will never pay you back. As a way of compensating for this, people charge a lot of money when they're worried they might not get it back, and people charge very little money when they know they'll be paid back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of high-risk borrowers versus low-risk borrowers in real life, using real numbers:

A source for the numbers if you wantto see themyourself, an article on paydayloans and a payday loancalculator

An extremely safe loan is loaning to the US federal government. You can loan them money for a year and earn about .18% interest. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In a year you get paid back $100.18

Or from the point of view of the borrower (the US federal government):

• Borrow $100
• In a year pay back $100.18
• Pay an annual interest rate of .18%

A slightly riskier, but still very safe, loan is loaning to a city or county in the US. You can loan them money for a year and earn about .208% interest. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In a year you get paid back $100.208

Or from the point of view of the borrower (a city or county in the US)

• Borrow $100
• In a year pay back $100.208
• Pay an annual interest rate of .208%

An extremely risky loan is loaning to someone as a payday loan. Interest rates vary, but let's assume a common interest rate of 15.5%, a loan of $100, and *instead of a year* the loan is only for 2 weeks. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In two weeks you get paid back $115.50

Or from the point of view of the borrower (the person getting a payday loan)

• Borrow $100
• In two weeks pay back $115.50
• Pay an annual interest rate of 403% (yes: four hundred and 3; it's not a typo)

So you can see how some people can borrow money easily, only having to pay a little for it. And how some people have difficulty borrowing money, and have to pay out the ass for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A government is usually seen as really stable. Meaning you can lend them money without worrying that they'll go bankrupt, and you know they can always pay you back by raising taxes. So the governments in Europe borrowed a lot of money and they borrowed it cheaply and easily.

So a simplified hypothetical budget:

Revenue

$5,000 through taxation

$3,000 through borrowing

Expenses

$7,500 spending

$500 paying loans

Total

Balanced ($0)

Then the financial crisis hit. Suddenly 1) they have to pay more for the money they've borrowed 2) they have to pay more to borrow additional money 3) citizens have less money to pay in taxes 4) more citizens need more support (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc)

Now their budget looks like:

Revenue

$4,000 through taxation

$2,000 through borrowing

Expenses

$8,000 spending

$1,000 paying loans

Total

Non-balanced: $3,000 gap

They're taking in $6,000 and spending $9,000. You can't do that!

Which leaves 3 options:

1) Raise taxes. That's unpopular, and it takes money out of the economy at the precise time your economy needs more money. So that's not a good call.

2) Austerity measures. This means spending less. Which means that at the precise time your citizens need help and your economy needs increased spending, you're spending less. So that's not a good call.

3) Borrow more. This will put you farther in debt. The more you borrow, the riskier you become, and the more it costs to borrow. So that's not a good call.

So a lot of governments chose austerity measures. Remember when I mentioned the whole "your economy needs increased spending, you're spending less" problem? Yeah, it's a serious problem.

People spending money is what keeps the economy going. Think of it as lube in an engine that keeps the whole thing running smoothly. You spending money one place gives that person money to spend another place which gives that person money to give you, and so on. It's a giant circle, a smoothly running machine, a well lubed engine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simplified example:

Imagine a household composed of two people: Mother Mary and Daughter Diane. The mother owns a lumber yard and the daughter goes to school. Now imagine a business, an ice cream shop owned by Ian.

Mary earns money, she gives $5 to Diane every week. Diane spends $5 at the ice cream shop. That $5 is now Ian's $5. Ian turns it into $6. Ian then spends $6 at the lumber yard. Now Mary has $6.

• Mary has $5
• She "spends" it by giving $5 it to Diane
• Diane spends it by giving $5 it to Ian
• Ian spends it by giving $6 it to Mary

AKA it's all good. $5 has become $6. Rinse, repeat, keep churning out the dough.

Because of some CDO swap gone bad by a banker in London who complains about his annual $5,000,000 bonus turning into a mere $4,500,000, lumber becomes more expensive. Mary can only afford to give Diane $3. Diane spends $3 at the ice cream shop. That $3 is now Ian's $3. Ian turns it into $3.50. Ian then spends $3.50 at the lumber yard. Now Mary has $3.50.

• Mary has $3
• She "spends" it by giving $3 to Diane
• Diane spends it by giving $3 to Ian
• Ian spends it by giving $3.50 to Mary

Well, that's still good. $3 has become $3.50

But now Mary has less money to spend. So she stops giving Diane anything. (OK, her love, but no allowance.)

• Mary has $0
• She doesn't give anything to Diane
• Diane doesn't give anything Ian
• Ian doesn't give anything to Mary

And now we have a serious problem. No one is earning money because no one is spending money.

Keep in mind this situation wasn't brought about a cabal in Geneva. No one bribed a politician to manipulate the economy in such a way that non-rich people get the short end of the stick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people stop spending money the engine stops running well. So you know the problem that governments faced by the financial crisis? That gap of $3,000? When people stop spending money it places further pressure on that gap. It exacerbates the problem. Revenue goes down (no money, how can someone pay taxes when they don't have money?) and the need for spending goes up (more unemployed people, more need for assistance, etc).

So how do we fix this?

Austrian economics says that it's better to let the system sort itself out. Yes, there's short term pain. But that pain is necessary. Like ripping off a bandage: it's better to do it quickly and painfully and move on. This means austerity measures. Not surprisingly, advocates of this view are often wealthy or motivated by resentment (i.e., LOOK AT THE DEBT, IT'S TRIPLED BECAUSE THE MEXICANS GET WELFARE AND ABORTIONS).

Keynesian economics says that it's better for the government to intervene. So you have things like stimulus packages (even though about 40% of that was tax cuts...) and TARP. Intervening by borrowing money which increases the debt in the short term. Wait a minute, you might say, doesn't borrowing money make it more expensive and turn into a spiral?

Remember those incredibly low interest rates for the US federal government? They're an incredible blessing! The US federal government can borrow money for a year at 0.18% while, for example, Greece can do the same thing at 14%. US treasury bonds are about the safest investment, while Greek bonds are incredibly risky. The economy of the United States is growing at 2.2%, Greece is shrinking at -5%. That's the fundamental difference between the general case and the specific case.

But back to the austerity. When the government cuts back on spending it takes more money out of the economy. Remember the above example with the Mary to Diane to Ian to Mary loop? It's broken in a bad economy. You have to remember that it's not just her link with Ian, it's her link with many people and their subsequent link. As an aside, President Bush wasn't wrong when he told people to go shopping after 9/11. Anyway, given austerity measures we might see things like:

• The police force has been scaled back, Mary's business is now in a more dangerous neighborhood requiring more money for insurance
• The roads aren't maintained as well leading to a higher cost for auto maintenance
• Her child's school stops offering subsidized lunches, leading to a higher cost for Mary
• The post office closed, now Mary has to drive across town daily. Leading to increased transportation costs

And so on.

I wasn't being entirely accurate when I said Mary's link with everyone was broken. It was damaged. And all of these things caused by austerity measures damages it further, leading to a feedback loop of economic failure. As fewer people participate in the economy, it then necessarily causes fewer people to participate which then necessarily causes fewer people to participate, and so on.

So when the governments in Europe instituted austerity measures they helped increase the intensity of that loop. And by doing so they found themselves in the exact same budget gap problem they had before, only now it's worse. They have to figure a way out of it and there's no easy answer.

So when someone says:

Look at how the debt has gone up recently! Gosh darn high debt is bad therefore Obama is mismanaging our money by wasting it on welfare queens and illegals. I'm not bigoted or resentful, that's just the only frame of reference I have for thinking about the government or taxes.

 Don't be misled.

Mocking Don McLeroy: an examination of ignorance

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-23-2012-don-mcleroy

The whole episode was amazing, as usual. But I particularly enjoyed Colbert interviewing of Don McLeroy. He's the former head of the Texas State Board of Education which was responsible for using the government to teach children all sorts of inaccuracies and misrepresentation. It's not particularly surprising that he shows unforgivable ignorance and stupidity. It's kind of scary. A few take aways:

1) Scientific truths aren't unearthed by the hunches of poorly educated dentists. Believe it or not, some people actually make their living by what the layman might refer to as "doing science". It consists of a lot more than getting a puzzled look and concluding magic is a better explanation.

2) Scientific truths aren't voted on. We're free people who are free to believe anything we like. Perhaps someone thinks that flipping a light switch is casting a magical spell which happens to turn lights on. That's fine, but don't teach children that. You're intellectually crippling them when you act as if truth is dependent on a vote.

3) Evolution is not "random". The barest and most simple Internet search dispels this myth. If someone claims the right to teach children that evolution (AKA "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words") is false... It's extremely disappointing to see them so completely and unforgivably ignorant.

4) A university is not a left-wing seminary. I suppose if one considered reality to be left-wing then it might be, but I doubt if Dr. McLeroy would accept that definition. It's entirely disingenuous, misleading, and false to claim that because educated people largely hold different opinions than uneducated people that both beliefs require an equivalency and both were brought about by indoctrination. Learning how the world works isn't something that should be feared.

5) The so-called experts are so called because they are experts. I'm not sure how pointing out how widespread acceptance evolution is - how all real scientists accept it as fact - is evidence that it's untrue. But I suppose I'm using so-called reasoning to reach that conclusion.

6) "Somebodies got to stand up to experts". Well, yeah. Like other scientists. That's how a self-correcting processing works. We don't gain better understandings of the world by asking the uninformed and purposely dense for their input under the guise that's "standing up to experts". And we certainly don't then claim "well, some people say this, some people say that, who can know?"

There's a reason I don't march into the astronomy lab of my university and announce that I'm standing up to them by teaching their children that the theory of heliocentrism is false. There's nothing particularly admirable about being ignorant and attempting to ensure the schools keep children ignorant.

7) "Evolutionists". Again, he's trying to create a false equivalence of evolution and creationism. Hey, both are called theories and grammar allows us to identify those who advocate them by adding "ists", so who can know which is more likely to be real? Evolution is a fact and a theory (there's literally an entire Wikipedia article on it). Calling someone an evolutionist is akin to calling someone a gravityist or a bacteriaist or a germist. It's misleading and dishonest.

8) Homo sapiens didn't walk with dinosaurs. One doesn't get to call it a "personal scientific view", any more than I have a "personal scientific view" that France is fictional place or a "personal scientific view" that instead of the Sun it's actually an illusion brought about by vampires on the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't get respect for "personal scientific views" that are incorrect by placing the word person (i.e., a preface announcing that courtesy demands respect of whatever idea follows) at the beginning of the sentence.

9) "Jonathan Edwards said that nothing is what a sleeping rock dreams of". The quote is originally attributed to Aristotle, and the quote is "nothing is what rocks dream about". It muddles the metaphor to refer to the rock as sleeping, since that's the entire point: rocks don't sleep neither do they dream.

Of course, I'm trusting the so-called experts to have translated that correctly, so Aristotle may have really said "about rocks? Nothing dreams of that!". The point is, we can't trust the experts except when we can. What can we trust? That ignorant hunches are a better source of scientific truth than so-called science conducted over hundreds of years by so-called scientists who have made so-called paradigm theories for their so-called scientific fields, like the so-called biology.

That's all I am: just a fellow traveler looking to reconfirm what I was taught as a child. Reality sometimes gets in the way - :( - that's why I'm a skeptic!

Spiders are scary... or are they?

I read this today: "people tend to develop phobias for evolutionarily relevant threats (like snakes and spiders) rather than for things that are far more likely to kill them (like automobiles and electrical sockets)". So I got these 4 pictures and if you're anything like me you'll find that 2 of the objects appear benign, while two appear sinister to the point of causing discomfort.

Then it struck me that, once one understands evolution, this should have been incredibly obvious. One shouldn't find out something so simple and experience a feeling of enlightenment. Especially someone like me who considers themselves relatively intelligent and (accounting for age) relatively well-educated. This apparent paradox frustrated me, so naturally its been on my mind since I first read the original sentence.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized how utterly fantastic it is that we're able to experience such frustrations. There are 2 main reasons: we exist in a time where we can have the knowledge of something like that, and what the actual knowledge means.

We can compare time from the earliest life to 2012 by using a calendar. I calculated the calendar by scratch using a yellow pad and Wikipedia, so feel free to verify. There are of course some limitations to any such representation, but the underlying theme is well established fact. I set the start date of the calendar to January 1 at midnight, and the end date is December 31 at 11:59:59, and I'm using the calendar of the year 2012:

January 1st: Primordial ooze beings to exist

May 16, 9:00 pm: The great oxygenation event

September 12, noon: Sexual reproduction arises

November 6, 6:00 am: The first multi-cellular creatures arrive

November 10, 7:30 pm: The earliest brain appears via a flatworm. And these are still around! So consider that before defining *Homo sapiens* as the pinnacle of evolution.

November 14, 10:03 pm: The first vertebrate appears

November 27, 4:39 pm: The first recognizable limbs begin to appear

November 30, 10:12 pm: The first mammals appear

December 21, 9:00 pm: At this point there's a common ancestor of mice and men

December 27, 8:24 am: Primates diverge into subgroups

December 28, 5:15 pm: Old World Monkeys diverge from apes

December 29, 7:13 pm: The common ancestor of humans and great apes is alive

December 30, 2:08:44 pm: Very early hominin genus, they had brains 1/5 the size of modern humans

December 30, 5:25:48 pm: Loss of body hair, full bipedalism

December 30, 8:01:09 pm: Homo erectus is thrust into the world

December 30, 8:42:54 pm: We learn to control fire

December 30, 11:13:11 pm: The earliest anatomically modern humans

December 30, 11:50:19: pm: Behavioral modernity (e.g. using tools, symbolic thought, cooking food)

December 30, 11:52:02 pm: We leave Africa and interbreed with Neanderthals

December 30, 11:58:25 pm: Europeans develop light skin, Homo sapiens become the last living species of the genus Homo

This isn't comparing, say, from the Big Bang or even from the Earth's creation. This is just our ancestry! For the "first 364.99" days every living creature was incapable of anything much more complicated than fishing or drawing crude pictures. Even once Homo sapiens emerged, our first ~100,000 years we lived to around 25 and if we were lucky enough to avoid a brutal violent death our teeth would kill us. For emphasis from Jared Diamond: "the actual percentage of the population that died violently was on the average higher in traditional pre-state societies than it was even in Poland during the Second World War or Cambodia under Pol Pot."

And yet here we sit! The beneficiaries of a previously inconceivable explosion of safety and progress. We can reliably bet that we won't be murdered, we won't be robbed, and we can freaking download Wikipedia on a handheld device. We're so powerful our contraptions will render the Earth largely uninhabitable unless we purposely change our behavior. We're capable of walking on the moon, or investigating quantum mechanics. We're capable of studying human brains and behavior and the Universe in general and learning so much more than has ever even been conceived by previous generations! We're capable of recognizing the common link between spiders and ourselves, recognizing why we behave a certain way when we see one, and easily disseminating that information to anyone with access to books, the Internet or other people who know. Just think about that for a moment. Throughout almost all of time there has never been a creature capable of anything even remotely comparable to what we can do. Unless of course one wanted to define "greatness" as longevity in which case I think we'll have to hand that trophy to trees and flatworms.

Which brings me to the second reason my frustration, once reflected upon, became utterly fantastic. Think about everything that happened that led to the feeling of discomfort when looking at a spider. Untold generations of our ancestors had to get hurt by spiders - entire lineages dying out because of one interaction with one small spider - before we learned to instinctively recognize that a spider is dangerous. That feeling of discomfort are the genes of your ancestors crying out to you! The states of your brain today are being influenced by the interactions your ancestors had in the Pleistocene era. The lessons they learned by watching their neighbors die were learned so well that we can sit in our AC, drink tea imported from Japan, watch a video from Syria, eat fruit imported from South America, discuss the finer points of philosophy, and yet just the sight of an insect is enough for our ancestors to cry out so strongly it changes our brains. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson's stardust quote, that's a whole new level of connectivity we share with the world.

I think it's pretty cool.

Corporations are people my friend!

http://prometheefeu.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/mankiw-is-right-buffet-is-wrong/

I read the above article this morning and its been bothering me since. It's a well-written informed opinion piece with a conclusion I disagree with. God knows it's a pleasant diversion from "Newt Gingrich's adultery is *actually* an indication he should be president" style drivel. I couldn't help but feel something was off about the argument but until just now I couldn't translate my gut feeling into words.

A corporation is more than a group of people (eg shareholders) who have pooled their money. I'm not up on my financial lingo but entities exist to fulfill that role: partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability corporations and the like. The U.S. tax code has provisions for people who want to pool their money and have the resulting entity basically be "a group of individuals".

(My understanding of) the reason people form corporations is precisely because they want to form an entity separate from the people involved. They want an entity that can go bankrupt, for example, without the shareholders as individuals go bankrupt. They want an entity that the Supreme Court can rule - ಠ_ಠ - as having freedom of speech. Again, my knowledge limits me, but I hope the point is accepted: people form corporations precisely to create an entity apart from the shareholders.

Which is why, once we keep that in mind, it's bizarre to argue that corporations should be independent entities in every way except when it comes to calculating tax burdens. I don't want to blame someone for arguing for something that benefits them (although that sentence alone speaks volume about society) but it's transparent that the argument only holds water if one is a shareholder themselves. I can't see any justification for arguing that corporations are people when it comes to tax burdens but very much aren't people when it comes to everything else.

A quick thought on those who demonize SNAP

I was having a conversation with some friends, and it just hit me what I dislike about the attitude that leads to demonizing people who receive food stamps. I'm on my lunch break, so I'll be brief. Although I do officially recommend trying Seitan, I just had it for the first time and it's pretty great. It's the resentful attitude of "us vs them" that attacks those who often can't defend themselves.

Obviously when it comes to SNAP recipients this resentment is often drawn along racial lines, but I think it's entirely possible to draw lines using some other method. But it's the attitude that while every government service we use is justified, a black person receiving money from the government for groceries is over the line. Proponents have to admit that everything they use: clean air, clean water, education, knowledge that the ER has to take them (absent freaking universal healthcare), education of workers, police, fire, safe products, the justice system, everything they use is a normal and accepted government function. They have to argue that there's something unique about SNAP, and I think that argument is always fueled by A) racism or B) an "us vs them" mentality.

It's really clear when you pay attention to some of the language. The theme is always something like "they're spending our money" or "I, as a taxpayer, shouldn't have to give them money". It's unique in that this attitude is never applied to, for example, the mortgage interest deduction or occupying two countries. There's criticism of those things - and a lot more! - but this "us vs them" attitude seems to only rear its head when talking about welfare or SNAP. It's not acceptable in society to demand that someone claiming the mortgage interest deduction has to humble themselves before you, there are no chain emails discussing how Social Security recipients should "get rid of their flatscreen and 20's if they want our money".

It's used to A) serve as a scapegoat for real problems, which means it's also a false solution (AKA the country's budget would be in shape if it weren't for lazy unemployed black welfare recipients) and B) it serves the *really important* function of defining groups. It's our money; they're taking it. We work hard; they don't. We're employed; they aren't. We don't waste money on flatscreen TVs and 20's; they do. I don't think this is a good function! But in the context of the conservative "every man for himself, let the chips land where they will" demonizing SNAP is extremely effective. It's divisive, its claims are untrue, it's resentful, it's irrational, but it's really freaking effective.

Follow up on Occupy

This (video) and the aftermath is a perfect example of the sort of behavior that I was trying to characterize in my previous post. The message that was spread after this incident was basically "police officers needlessly pepper spray innocent protestors". That message is inaccurate, or at best shows poor judgment with all the facts (of course my conclusion is also assuming I have all the facts!) available

The videos released, the pictures accompanying the news articles, all the evidence seemed to indicate that the police acted inappropriately, to put it very mildly. The Google personalizes results so it's anecdotal evidence, but when I typed in "uc" "uc davis pepper spray" was the 6th suggestion, and when searching "uc davis" the bottom half of the first page of results were all related to the pepper spray incident. Some of the police officers involved were put on leave, and I just realized anyone who cares enough to read a blog post about the UC Davis pepper spray incident probably knows the basic message about what happened and the aftermath.

That's why this more complete video of what actually happened is so important. IANAL, but it appears that a crowd of protestors surrounded a group of police officers, refused to let them leave, were pepper sprayed, then the police were allowed to leave. I've never been involved in a protest but it seems like refusing to comply with the police results in the police giving up or being arrested. And the police action should be reasonable because police brutality is something I take very seriously. The right to legally protest is something I take very seriously.

I always understood protests - civil disobedience - is when one is saying "I'm protesting by breaking the law with the understanding that while my stand is morally justified in my mind, it's illegal and I refuse to stop until I'm forced to by police". And what happens is some variation of:

1) Police/Law: What you're doing is illegal so stop doing it

2) Protestors: No it isn't! Or, it's illegal but I'm publicly going to continue doing it to raise awareness of my cause or somehow change society

3) Police/Law: We get that. It's still illegal and you still need to stop doing it

4) Protestors: No, we can continue. It's so important that we're willing to risk arrest

5) Police/Law: Seriously guys, we will arrest you and physically make you stop.

6) Protestors: That's the price of taking an ethical stand

7) Police/Law: We're *this* close to making you stop. We've told you repeatedly, we told you yesterday, and now we're standing in front of you literally shaking the pepper spray can. It's about to happen.

8) Protestors: (they literally said this) Don't shoot children!

And then the police used pepper spray. And guess what? The protestors were forced to comply without the police using unreasonable force. On top of that, the police didn't even force them to comply with what had been ordered the day before. The police settled for just being allowed to walk away. 

Occupy's response? Label it police brutality, and release edited video and pictures that seemed to prove that it was police brutality. I just can't sympathize with a group or with people whose mentality is that the truth is less important than furthering their goals. That isn't to discount the distaste for their general mentality that I find easier to describe rather than justify. Screaming don't shoot children? Believing they have a right to civil disobedience without repercussion? They consistently adopt all sorts of ideas that I take very seriously and ruthlessly cheapen and exploit them. The best parallel I can think of is the phenomenon of adding "-gate" to the end of everything, but of course Occupy does this in a much more directed purposeful way. 

I agree with a lot of their goals but I can't support using lies and misrepresentations as evidence or cheapening serious ideas. TBH, I think my distaste for the movement stems from how close they are to something I would love to support and yet they're also so far away.