Marcus' World

Why the Left is Right

As part of my sporadic quest to understand opposing viewpoints, tonight I sat down to read a recent issue of the conservative publication the Weekly Standard. 

One page carries this piece by famed cartoonist Michael Ramirez, the bane of US liberals everywhere.  Ramirez laments the fact that the United States is a nation of laws, as he adopts the curiously common conservative practice of using Al Queda as America's moral compass.

I'll keep trying to understand other points of view.  But cartoons like this are a good reminder of why the left is right.

Wikipedia: The Satire

We will soon live in a world in which every single Wikipedia edit is shown live on YouTube.

As we head toward that day, be sure to read this week's New Yorker article about the ongoing battle between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.  If you don't have time for that, you must read the Onion's hilarious spoof of Wikipedia.  Who knew that Chuck Norris actually started the American Revolution?

The Man Who Would Be King

For those who doubt that we are living in an Orwellian nation, consider President Bush's frequent habit of  appending signing statements to many bills.  The President has signed laws-- thereby implying agreement with them--only to attach statements that show he has  no intention of honoring parts of the law that he does not agree with.  The most notorious example was when, after Abu Gharib, he deviously gutted a Congressional ban against torture by military forces.

He could veto any measure he would like to, of course.  But so far he has only become that angry over life-saving stem cells.  Signing statements are a backdoor way for the President to have a line-item veto, which is not allowed by the Constitution. 

With a president like this, who needs a legislature?  Apparently President Bush thinks we are still a British monarchy, and that he is King George.

There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.  This week Republican Senator Arlen Specter will introduce legislation to allow the Congress to sue the President for egregious use of signing statements.  It may not pass, since many GOP senators are still beholden to Mr. Bush.  But it is good to know that at least one member of Congress is fed up with presidential humiliation.

On the Campaign Trail

This morning before work I handed out flyers for Mark Green, who is running for Attorney General to replace Eliot Spitzer.  I think he did a good job as the City's public advocate, and would also be good as Attorney General.

I stood next to the subway stop at 14th St/1st Avenue, and tried to get people interested in Green. Most were not--just like I am not when I walk by people trying to hand me things. So now I have more sympathy for lowly political volunteers.

Perhaps of every ten people, three or four wanted my flyer.  Those who didn't want it had a variety of strategies.  One woman apologized and said she was not registered in New York State.  Several people said, "No thanks."  Some people looked at it and decided they didn't want it.  Other people confused my flyer with that for a candidate for another office, which was available ten feet away.  One woman huffed, "I ain't gonna vote for him!"  My favorite strategy was the people who would suddenly move to the edge of the sidewalk and not make eye contact.

Green is pretty liberal, and I noticed that no readers of the conservative New York Post--available for sale three feet away--wanted my flyer.  Also, people with iPods were less likely to take a flyer.  But if people took the other candidate's flyer, they were more likely to also take mine.  And some people actually wanted the flyers; one man walked quickly toward me to grab his very own.

The funniest moment came when two young lovebirds unclasped their hands to get around me.  I apologized, but by then they were reunited. 

All in all, not a bad way to spend 45 minutes.  But thank goodness I'm not actually on the campaign trail.

Thinking About Those Breached Levees Again

One of my current projects at NYU is to assist researchers who are studying the legal framework for responding to public health disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.  Reading through their materials today, I happened upon the federal government's National Response Plan for natural disasters or terrorist strikes.  The plan was adopted in December 2004, nine months before Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast.

Like any government document, it is a behemoth.  Way down on page 342 (page 360 of the PDF, because there are 18 pages of prefatory material) of the 426 page work, there is some very interesting language about the relationship between federal and state and local governments in times of crisis:

"In accordance with NRP provisions for proactive Federal response to catastrophic incidents, the NRP-CIA (National Response Plan-Catastrophic Incident Annex) employs an expedited approach to the provision of Federal resources to save lives and contain the incident.

Guiding principles for a proactive Federal catastrophic incident response include the following:

The primary mission is to save lives, protect property and critical infrastructure, contain the event, and protect the national security;

Standard procedures outlined in the NRP regarding requests for assistance may be expedited or, under extreme circumstances, temporarily suspended in the immediate aftermath of an incident of catastrophic magnitude, pursuant to existing law;

Preidentified Federal response resources are mobilized and deployed, and, if required, begin emergency operations to commence life-safety activities; and

Notification and full coordination with States occur, but the coordination process should not delay or impede the rapid mobilization and deployment of critical Federal resources."

Remember all those excuses about the slow federal reaction?  Homeland Security Michael Chertoff didn't know how to turn on CNN at one point, and President Bush falsely claimed that nobody could have anticipated the breach of the levees.  Not only was this anticipated, but the federal government itself had planned for how to respond to such incidents.   

Certainly the Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana deserve some blame.  But the lion's share of the blame belongs in Washington.

There's an international parallel to this domestic incompetence.  In Iraq, the State Department did excellent work to predict and prepare for the consequences of an invasion.  All of it was ignored, lost to a messianic zeal to transform the Middle East into a beacon of democracy.  Likewise, the Bush administration does not see any role for government in responding to disasters--Not really.  This is why words on paper did not translate into action on the ground.

Guess Those Embryos Are Best Left in the Garbage

Abortion has always been a complicated moral issue for me.  I support a woman's right to choose, but have sympathy for the moral claims on the other side of the issue.

Research that utilizes the stem cells of human embryos is not so morally complicated.  These are embryos lying in freezers, often from fertility clinics, that will be discarded anyway.  They are not fetuses growing inside a womb.  And so the prospect of harvesting stem cells from these embryos to cure debilitating diseases does not cause me a second thought.

President Bush ostensibly sees things differently.  But if he really thought that harvesting stem cells was tantamount to murder, he would have sought to block federal funding for it altogether.  Instead, he has allowed the research already ongoing in 2001 to continue. This is when he decreed that there could be no funding of new stem cell lines.  Yesterday's veto, of a bipartisan measure to increase federal support of stem cell research, merely keeps the old limits in place.

Philosophical consistency argues that what is "murder" in 2006 was also "murder" in 2001.  The lack of consistency reveals that, unsurprisingly, the veto was an act of political expediency.

Most Americans back increased federal support for stem cell research, just as most Americans desired that Terri Schiavo should die with dignity last year.  But the right wing of the Republican Party wants to interfere with the medical decisions of other families, and also ban the type of research that would make these decisions less painful.  These are the people to whom the President pays tribute. It is why he used the first veto of his Presidency in support of a cause that will cost American lives.

Rockaway Beach, and Mississipi Memories

Today Helen and I ventured out to Rockaway Beach, New York's prettiest slice of the Atlantic Ocean.  It was an epic subway ride, due to subway construction and the fact that we initially went the wrong direction on the Rockaways.  But we eventually made it to the beach, and had a great time.  Helen brought along our cute little surfboard, collected sea shells, and dug a big hole in the sand.  I went "surfing" with her, held some of the shells, and read the Times.

Along the walk to the beach, we passed an African-American church that's run out of a converted house.  It was around 1 PM, and it looked like the church was letting out and people were getting ready to eat together. 

This reminded me an experience exactly ten years ago.  One Sunday in July 1996, I attended an African-American church in Oxford, MS, and it remains a very fond memory.

This was the summer after my freshman year at Northwestern, and I was living with my Aunt Linda in Murfreesboro, TN.  She's a practicing psychologist, and I was her receptionist for the summer.   One weekend I decided to drive down to Oxford, to visit the birth place of William Faulkner.  I didn't actually get there, but I did look around Ole Miss and pay a visit to Square Books.

Sitting in my motel room that Saturday night, I decided I wanted to go to church somewhere.  This was on the cusp of the time when I changed from a fierce evangelical (it's true) into a horrified apostate.   

I looked in the phone book (no laptop or in-room wi-fi available then) for area churches and called people up to get directions.  I actually spoke to a white minister who encouraged me to come to his church. 

But apparently I felt a need to go to a black church instead.  If I go to church in Harlem next week, it would feel like a contrived gesture.   There is something to be said for youthful idealism, which was the impetus for this decision.

On that Sunday I attended a church with 10-12 pews on either side of an aisle.  It was a humble structure in a rough neighborhood.  I sat next to a family, and one of the kids offered me some candy. One of the songs that week was about God's punctuality--"He's an on time God. Yes he is!" 

I still recall the core of the sermon, ten years later, because the delivery was so good and the message so timeless.  The scriptural passage  was about the "widow's mite."  Jesus praises a poor woman for giving everything she has, which is hardly anything, to the church.  This is a greater gift than that of the rich folk in town, who give much more in monetary terms.

The minister used this passage as a meditation on the general importance of "little things."  Smile at your wife when you head out to work.  Slow down and smell the grass on a beautiful summer's day.  When troubles happen in your relationships nip them in the bud, before the little things become big things.

This lesson is valuable for the firmest atheist, and is much easier said than done.  I'm going to try to keep it toward the forefront of my mind.

After the sermon, a kindly man named Walter Spurlock came up and introduced himself.  Then he brought me back to the church kitchen and invited me to have lunch.  Not everyone was having lunch; this was a special invitation for me.  It was so open-hearted that I was stunned.  I politely declined, but in retrospect I  should have accepted. 

Maybe I shouldn't have been so surprised. Mr. Spurlock was just being mindful of the little things. 

Satisficers and Maximizers

Dinner with our friend James last night was very illuminating.  He's currently reading The Paradox of Choice, a 2004 book by Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College.  Schwartz argues that, while some choice is better than no choice, too much choice presents its own set of problems.  When people have too many choices, they are anxious because deciding upon one course inevitably means foreclosing other attractive options.  Satisficers go with their gut at times like these, while maximizers seek out as much information as they can before making a big decision.

In a nutshell: Satisficers (a term coined in 1957)  are content to make less than optimal decisions, on the theory that most of the time any decision will be good enough.  Maximizers seek as much information as possible before making a decision, with the confidence that the decision will be better than it would have been otherwise.

This is a distinction that seems apparent in retrospect, but that I never would have articulated. Helen and James are maximizers and I am a satisficer. 

A trivial example: At any restaurant, I'll glance at the menu and make a snap decision. It's rare for me to take more than 3 minutes, and I never ask the waiter any questions.  All the food should be good, so why worry about it? 

A professional example:  Whenever I have to work on something important, I would much rather share  drafts with just a few people rather than many people.  Sometimes this is politically inappropriate, but it is my preference.  If I send something around for general comment, I do not know how to sift through the responses and worry about hurting somebody's feelings by not taking their suggestion.  In theory, more eyes should improve any product.  But I feel swamped.

Librarians tend to be maximizers, I think, so perhaps I am an oddity in the field.  There's always one more resource to consult for any question, and if the librarian has five more minutes on the online catalog they will find it for you.  At the reference desk, I find myself falling into this pattern, against my satisficing instincts and when it is obvious that the patron wants to leave.   

One of my Northwestern instructors warned us about this librarian tendency, in a moment that still makes me chuckle.  She had arranged a session at the library, so that a reference librarian could describe good resources for the course (I forget which one.)  After the librarian left, the instructor encouraged us to come to the library but warned us not to be surprised if you came home with more than you bargained for.

Satisficing is a nice way of life, all things considered.  (That sentence itself is the work of a satisficer!)  It's a recognition that the costs of obtaining superior information are greater than the costs of making a mistake and trying something else. 

But if any fellow satisficers are reading this blog,  I must acknowledge that our style does have shortcomings.  For major life decisions--say, taking a job at the library of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--satisficers are ill prepared to ask tough questions. If they had this ability, they could figure out that something that looks good is really not a good fit for them.

"Good enough" usually works, but sometimes you need great. 

New Neighborhood Greenmarkets

Helen and I have loved going to farmers markets for years, ever since we lived in Evanston.  One sign that summer had finally arrived was when we could go and pick out fresh produce on Saturday mornings.  Often the Evanston market would have entertainment as well.

In Washington, DC we were regular attendees at the DuPont Circle farmers market, which featured artisanal cheeses beside violin prodigies trying to earn a few bucks.

In New York the "greenmarkets" are everywhere.  We're fans of the big market at Union Square, which has a great selection of flowers and artwork in addition to the food.  But one problem with the Union Square market is that it's a trip just to get there, and if you buy anything perishable you have to come right back home.

So it's wonderful that, as of this summer, there are two markets within walking distance.  Today we went to the market on 82nd St between 1st and York, six blocks away, and picked up some delicious cherries.  It will never be as impressive as the Union Square market, but is not bad either.  Soon we need to go up to the market at 92nd/1st, which is adjacent to a block of public housing.  This is one of ten new markets opening near city public housing developments this summer, which I think is great.

Upper Green Side is keeping track of all these new developments, and has some great shots from the opening of the 82nd and 92nd St markets.  Today was just the first of many visits.

The YouTube World

Just this week I have watched  four clips on YouTube,  the video sharing service that is sweeping the world.

On Monday Helen found the amusing video "Where the Hell is Matt?"

On Thursday John sent me the wonderfully absurd "You Got the Touch."

On Friday Sallie sent me a unique camera angle of Zidane's headbutt felt 'round the world. 

Then, Friday night Aunt Linda sent me some fun with President Bush. 

And although I didn't see them this week,  let's not forget Matt and Jill's NeoCon and HMO-Lympics. 

The cornucopia of videos this week really made me appreciate how YouTube is changing how people express themselves, and how friends communicate with each other.  My own interests tend toward writing, which is why I keep up this blog.  But other types of creativity, or just plain silliness, now have an outlet on YouTube.  No doubt there is some disturbing stuff on the site if you look for it.  But that's human nature, and has nothing to do with YouTube per se.  I am happy to be living in a YouTube World