Greed, Gekko, and Us

Gordon Gekko has emerged as a stock figure in the national psyche, or at least he's a recurring figure over at the Slate Culture Gabfest. And apparently, the "Greed is Good" speech is a cultural touchstone in itself. (I must confess to never having seen all of Wall Street, from whence the character and speech come, but I'm pretty sure I've got the gist of it. Apart from Emilio's turn as Otto in the delightful Repo Man, I tend to avoid the Sheen boys.) Apparently Gekko's little oration, in blind disregard of the practically unambiguous evil of the character himself, actually became a rallying cry for the era that followed. "Greed is good!" an unironic cheer of the striving, trading classes.

I think the problem is largely semantic. There used to be a term, although I have not heard it in a while, for an alternative to "greed," namely "enlightened self-interest." Perhaps it was too unwieldy or just didn't fit the times, post Gekko, but it seems worth considering. As someone who will still stick up for the ideals of free markets, even in these dark hours, it is precisely this distinction that matters. "Self-interest" is fine. It is natural, healthy, and IS in fact the driving force of economic growth. (Innovation, among other things, enables growth, but the engine is self-interest.) As long as you play the game by the rules, it is fine to try and make money, even a lot of it, and I believe it should be your right. "Greed" is actually the exact point when things go off the rails--it is the point where you break the rules in order to get ahead. Breaking the rules, in economic terms, basically means theft in one form or another (fraud, for instance, is merely another form of theft).

Even Gekko, when he first introduces the "G" word into his monologue, actually says, "Greed, for lack of a better word..." He is thereby implicitly acknowledging something about the semantics and connotations of the term. Gekko is indeed evil, and indeed greedy (so I am given to understand, since I still haven't seen the film), but the speech he is giving is arguably about self-interest, and defensible on those terms, if you permit the distinction. If you do NOT lie, cheat, and steal, then it is OK to get what you can in the world. Simple enough.

But this has never been entirely accepted, even on the terms I propose. There seems to have always been a conflation between the two forms of self-interest, and it is not merely a left/right distinction. "Populists" of both flavors have always stood ready to impugn the profit motive. Making money is an unseemly pastime for the moral scolds of both stripes. The left maintains, incorrectly, that it must involve exploitation of someone, by failing to distinguish between positive sum and zero sum transactions. The right holds, incorrectly, that it must undermine other values like family, country, and God.

Yes, greed is bad, by definition. But "enlightened self interest," now that makes the world go 'round! Or so I will hold...

First thing we do, let's kill all the canaries and roosters!

Comes word from on high that market regulators are considering banning or otherwise restricting short selling, to "help stabilize the markets." Genius. Thank God our men and women of vision are on the job, saving us from the evil speculators.

It brings to mind how in the old days, miners would take various birds, most famously canaries, down into the mines, presumably because they enjoyed the plumage--the mines being otherwise such a dark and dreary place. Trouble is, the birds would die occasionally, and there was very often a buildup of toxic gas in the mine at the very same time! Clearly the canaries were a serious hazard, the gas buildup often sickening or even killing miners. Thankfully, the practice is now a thing of the past, the birds are rarely taken into the mines, and the number of gas-related miner deaths has declined apace!

On a related note, it has come to my attention that nearly all recent stock market declines have taken place during daylight hours (market local time, that is). Given the seriousness of this problem, I call for a large scale rooster-slaughtering program. Eliminate the sunrise, and I can nearly guarantee that the stock market will stop dropping (if not immediately, then at least after one final round of selling). Yes, this does raise the problem of how we will get more chickens in the future, but I am simultaneously calling for our genetic scientists to get to work on cloning hens, which should resolve the matter in short order.

You can thank me later.

Biden v. Palin Update

Let me make the VP debate my own little theme here, for a while. (Why not? I am thinking of retooling the whole blog idea away from politics and toward philosophy, physics, metaphysics, that sort of thing, but for the time being, this is sort of fun...)

Dahlia Lithwick offers sound advice to Biden & co. over at Slate. I think this is perfectly fine, as far as it goes. It is perfectly consistent with my own take, where I simply suggest, "be confident, relaxed and charming." Lithwick offers other substantive notes on the gender/culture dynamics at work in the debate. While, again, I think she has sound advice, it is merely a list of helpful suggestions about maximizing Biden's debate performance, and minimizing some of Palin's natural advantages, and it is not, alas, a real prescription for winning.

It does not affect the fundamental dynamic, as I have called it: Palin wins the pre-debate expectations game, and therefore wins the debate...

But go, go, counter-meme! It is just barely possible that the "Palin should win" counter meme could win out, and an expectations inversion saves the day! As an Obama partisan, I'd be happy to see that happen, but I'm still doubting it.

More On Palin's "Surprising" Debate Victory

Tim Cavanaugh at Reason is calling it for Palin, also. He predicts

[T]he hyper-informed Biden will demonstrate his mastery of the facts, leave no doubt about his flair for complex policy questions, get his ass handed to him in the debate, and never understand what went wrong.

An "ass-handing" no less! If this kind of talk can gain MSM credence (and I believe it is highly unlikely) then it could cause an inversion of expectations. Again, this is nothing the Obama/Biden camp has any control over, it is all about the media narrative, the dominant expectations meme in the media environment at the moment of the debate.

The most likely outcome is a "functional" ("actual") tie, meaning competence on both sides and no major gaffes. The "win" will go to whomever is the consensus "underdog" going in, which is almost certain to be Palin.

The only way Palin can lose (barring improbable meltdown) is if she is somehow expected (by media consensus) to win.

And the Winner of the Vice-Presidential Debate...

Palin! Natch. Mickey Kaus is already calling this one, and I pretty much agree.

Here's how it breaks down: The expectations game will easily break in her favor. Biden's much greater relative experience level will raise his performance expectations and keep hers dampened. She will study hard. (Seems to be capable enough, and will master her flash cards easily enough--this is not snark, Biden will study as well, but he has less of that sort of prep work, because of said experience.) She will easily rattle off whatever foreign policy talking points are required. She will be focused (as will Biden) on attacking the top of the opposing ticket. She will easily meet all the basic requirements. Merely even "holding her own" against Biden will be declared a victory for Palin in the media meta-story, and not a damn thing Joe Biden or anyone else can do about it.

Caveat: As of today, I see only one narrative line that leads to a potential Palin weakness in the debate. It is possible that she will stay in full-bore attack dog mode so much of the time that it could come to taint her aura. (Some have already dubbed her a "pit bull in lipstick".) She was apparently quite scathing in her convention speech, which certainly played well to the base, but there is a possibility of taking it too far for the swing voters in play. Doesn't seem likely. First, apparently there is something of a gender/appearance card in play, whereby (non-Hillary) women get away with saying nasty things that would backfire on a man (see: Ann Coulter, Sarah Silverman). Second, even if this stigma does begin to attach to her, she would just need to dial it back a bit for the debate, and presto! Perfect lady again!

The odds breakdown (as of September 4):

1) Media calls "Palin Win" - 90% (Note sub-breakdown below.)

1a) Palin "wins" by keeping it close and "beating expectations" - 85%

1b) Palin truly beats Biden by any reasonable measure - 5% - This means even partisan Dems agree she wins. She masters all questions, gives better answers, gets in all the zingers, and/or Biden chokes with major gaffe or loss of composure.

2) Media Calls "Draw" - 5% - This means Biden really does look better, but no so-called "knockout blow" is landed. By still "beating expectations," she is given the draw.

3) Media Calls "Biden Win" - 5% - Palin really stumbles. Gets lost or stumped, loses composure, or commits serious gaffe.

Biden's best hope? Look charming and confident, cross fingers. Perhaps another hurricane or other act of God intervenes, scrapping the debate...

Tortured Logic, and the Outlaw Administration Rides On

We've addressed the nauseating semantic games about "waterboarding," also known as "drowning," here before, but there is also an opportunity to deal with legal precedent. The game, apparently, is to treat the status of this procedure as somehow "ambiguous" and "unsettled" as a point of law, or a matter of individual (and apparently partisan) opinion, at least in the hands of people such as right honorable Senator Orin Hatch, when discussing our (apparently) new attorney general.

Bullshit.

The technique (and a number of closely related procedures) have all been defined in American courts as torture. This is not partisan or political; it is about as firmly established as law gets. Former J.A.G. Evan Wallach gives a brief history in the Washington Post. If you are up for a longer read, check out Wallach's journal article (in draft form) heavily laden with citations.

We include some relevant quotes here. These are taken from the "Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East", which was convened in the aftermath of WWII to try Japanese war criminals.

The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops... Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy in both training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment...
...
There were two forms of water torture. In the first, the victim was tied or held down on his back and cloth held over his nose and mouth. Water was then poured on the cloth... As he opened his mouth to breathe or to answer questions, water went down his throat until he could hold no more...
...
In the second, the victim was tied lengthways on a ladder, face upwards, with a rung of the ladder across his throat and head below the latter. In this position he was slid first into a tub of water and kept there until almost drowned. After being revived, interrogation proceeded and he would be reimmersed.

The practices map precisely with those described in our current discourse as "waterboarding." I guess the modern penchant for euphemism knows no bounds. So, as explicitly as possible: we tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for torture, for using these techniques on American soldiers, as well as civilian internees.

Any questions?

The Democratic "leadership" has, once again, proven itself worthless and spineless. Dahlia Lithwick efficiently eviscerates Feinstein's "elegant" compromise, which is really nothing but a sham, a cave-in being spun as a compromise. Those feelings I have--where I am inclined to vote for Dems because they are, in all their awfulness, still the lesser evil--are going fainter every day...

Waterboarding is Drowning, Not "Simulated Drowning"

I find myself, again, getting viscerally angry as we play semantic games about torture. I don't want to repeat all the arguments in detail. I understand there are those who make arguments about the moral acceptability of torture in certain circumstances, and I do not accept those arguments.

If you have thought seriously and deeply about the issue and disagree, I can respect that, even if I believe you are profoundly and dangerously wrong. But let's not obfuscate the issue with contrived rhetorical dodges--if you support torture, you should say so and defend your position. Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning, not "simulated drowning." (Follow the link, it is compelling stuff, and please note the source, this is no liberal-pinko-commie pansy, this is a U.S. soldier whose job was training soldiers to withstand torture. Think about it.)

The Bush administration wins yet another victory over a compliant press corps as long as they are permitted this phony distinction. Torture is torture. Are you up for it?

Jon Stewart Fodder

We had CNN on at my house this morning, just before I left to go to the office. They were camped out at the airport (in Houston, I think) in order to get the shot of Lisa Marie Nowak, the crazy homicidal astronaut lady, do a perp walk from the plane to the police car. Yes, CNN had a reporter and camera crew waiting at the airport so we could see the crazy astronaut lady walk about 20 feet across a runway. This, of course, set me into full rant mode. Thank goodness they were there for that! Clearly the most important news of the hour. It's not like there's a war on, or grave environmental threats, or nuclear proliferation, or anything else to worry about.

(Just as a point of clarity: I don’t condemn the whole storyline outright. It is indeed a startling, shocking story, so I can understand why it is news, in a general sense. While it isn’t necessarily the better angels of our nature that find such a sordid tale compelling, it is pretty near a universal failing, and I won’t be a hypocrite on this, and so I won’t join the inevitable tut-tutting of a certain elitist class of social critic that is bound to emerge, predictably, from the woodwork. But it is this particular “event” that is so ridiculous. The woman got off a plane. Completely significance free. Absurd. CNN, at long last, have you no shame!?)

But the thing that caught my ear was this: I happened to be still in the room when the actual "event" occurred, and I heard the CNN reporter make a comment along the lines of, "well, a number of the people standing around here are wondering why they've been standing around for some time, just to see this few seconds of a woman getting off a plane." Yes, yes, it's the people who are foolishly standing around for this trivial "event." I'm sure the CNN camera crew had nothing to do with it. If that particular clip doesn't make it onto The Daily Show tonight, I'll be disappointed. But isn't this sort of candor a potential CLM, for a news channel reporter? Surely pointing out the idiocy of the entire enterprise live on the air has to be a major faux pas, perhaps just short of blurting out obscenities.