Month: July 2009

Why Do The New Atheists Lean Right?

by Patrick Appel

Robert Wright tackles the subject:

It must strike progressive atheists as a stroke of bad luck that Christopher Hitchens, leading atheist spokesperson, happens to have hawkish views on foreign policy. After all, with atheists an overwhelmingly left-wing group, what were the chances that the loudest infidel in the western world would happen to be on the right? Actually, the chances were pretty good. When it comes to foreign policy, a right-wing bias afflicts not just Hitchens’s world view, but the whole ideology of “new atheism,” especially as seen in the work of Hitchens allies Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Wright goes on to explore the contradiction between advocating a certain type of foreign policy while also believing that religion is the root of all evil. Yglesias adds his own two cents.

What’s the Point of Diversity on the Supreme Court?, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I found Conor Clarke's post on the point of diversity to be interesting, but I think you're not covering the whole picture.  For the "increasing social utility" justification, I would argue that it is cultural diversity that matters, rather than racial diversity.  Race obviously is not inherently tied to distinct cultural differences, but in the social reality of the U.S., it's simply a fact that the main differences between races are those of culture.

 The other things you mentioned — sex, sexuality, language, religion, class, etc. — also are aspects of cultural differences, but I would argue that race is a larger determinant of cultural differences than most of them.  As for why cultural diversity increases social utility, well that gets to the empathy issue — any institution that seeks to serve the general public would benefit from an understanding of the cultural differences that characterize our country's diverse population.  Any person is capable of empathizing with any other, with enough effort, but it's certainly easier for someone from a minority culture to empathize with the dominant culture than the other way around.  I don't think that racial diversity is being treated as more important than diversity of sex, as Sotomayor will not be the first female supreme court justice, but the fact that she will be the first justice familiar with a culture that is (more or less) shared by about 15 percent of the population is significant.

Another reader adds:

The post by Conor Clarke on the impact and role of affirmative action on the Supreme Court is well taken. But there’s another type of diversity no one seems to care about on the modern bench: diversity of career experience. 6 of the current 8 graduated from Harvard or Yale, and Ginsburg graduated from Columbia AFTER transferring from Harvard. Every last one of the justices came from the federal appellate bench, and nearly all of them clerked for federal judges at the beginning of their careers. The prosecutorial experience is virtually nil. Only Sotomayor will have sat as a trial judge at any point in her career. For the body responsible for ultimately deciding the limits and boundaries of defendants’ rights and criminal prosecution procedures, there is shockingly little experience with the day-to-day work of being a trial attorney.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted

by Patrick Appel

Fear of A Red Planet compares the uprisings in China and Iran:

Despite being widely heralded as a potential weapon against autocracy, [in China] Twitter had little effect in spreading news about the disturbances unfavourable about the government. Blocked in Xinjiang and now the entirety of mainland China, the reports that were relayed from Xinjiang via it using the rapidly dwindling number of un-blocked proxies were largely repeats of Chinese state media, or reports from Han within the region. I have been unable to find even one Uyghur twitterer in Urumqi (although I would be happy to be put in touch with one) – this is not surprising, whilst China has a good number of people using either Twitter or the Chinese Tweet-a-like FanFou, these are almost entirely east-coast Han Chinese. Essentially, even the Twitterers who managed to get around the block were still largely repeating the governments line…

Sundry Thoughts on Health Care

by Conor Friedersdorf

As I ponder an Obama Administration health care reform bill, whatever that turns out to look like, I am struck by how different the debate is on the left, where Ezra Klein and other wonks are deep in the weeds on health care policy, and the right, where objections to a greater federal role are predicated largely on a general principled aversion to interference in markets and a rapidly expanding state. I'd like to pose a few questions meant to stoke conversation between these groups, and to highlight a couple of my own (possibly mistaken) ideas about health care in America. As I've yet to study this issue deeply, I am persuadable on most points, and I expect some who share my opinions are too.

  • I am convinced of the need for major reform in the health care sector, especially due to three arguments. a) The current system is an economic drag insofar as it ties people to jobs they'd otherwise leave, discourages entrepreneurship, and otherwise lessens healthy risk-taking because people fear losing their insurance. b) There is a moral obligation to ensure that every citizen has some minimum level of health care, in the same way that society has decided everyone should have some baseline level of food. I find it difficult to pinpoint what level exactly, but I suspect we're currently falling short of it. c) I suspect the government can play a useful role pushing measures like electronic medical records that I doubt would happen absent a state coordinating role (including privacy protection measures). I'd be curious to hear the best arguments against those propositions.

  • I am skeptical that I'll be able to support the plan progressives intend to put forth. This is due to three concerns. a) Its cost. I'd bet a hefty sum that expanding coverage and the role the federal government plays in health care is going to significantly increase rather than decrease costs. Since we're already paying for costly foreign wars, generations of accumulated debt, a massive bailout, and other entitlements with rapidly rising costs, it doesn't seem like we're in a fiscal position to pile on more government spending. b) Fear of excessive state power. It shouldn't be too difficult to imagine another Dick Cheney or Richard Nixon in the White House. Are we really comfortable assuming that the state will never use its role in health care to pressure political opponents, or collect frightening kinds of data, or politicize medical decisions more than is now the case? Isn't there any size and scope of government that progressives deem to be too big on prudential grounds? Why doesn't this put us there? Isn't it better for one among many health insurance companies to deny coverage, compared to one government run entity deeming something uncovered, as could happen if a public option drove some or most insurers out of the market? Health care is really important. Isn't it unwise to concentrate too much power over it in any one place, the federal government included?  c) Fear of lost innovation. I keep seeing the argument that America is the leading health care innovator, and that if our system looks more like what Europe has, there won't be anyone left making strides in research and development. I haven't seen a convincing rebuttal, though there may well be one. Links?

  • Lastly, a few scattered thoughts. a) It seems like we should train people other than doctors to perform certain discrete medical tasks that don't require all those years of medical school — a mix of pharmacists, professional bone setters, nurse practitioners and others should be able to dole out a lot of routine examinations, procedures and cures at a lower cost. b) I hate the attitude among doctors that patients should keep quiet, refrain from asking questions, and basically remain totally ignorant about the process of diagnosis. People ought to know how their bodies work. Yes, I'd get sick of patients convinced by Web MD that they've got lupus too. But there is a pretty astonishing ignorance about the basics of how the human body works for which the medical establishment is partly to blame (so is the biology curriculum in high schools). c) What is the objection to a fair formula that largely determines damage awards in medical malpractice cases, rather than relying on the vagaries of the jury system? Wouldn't this make the risk insurers are taking on more predictable, and significantly lessen the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors? And wouldn't a set of payouts — perhaps based on a formula that factored in relevant differences between cases — result in a fairer distribution of award money?

In sketching out these questions and arguments I'm sure I've made some faulty assumptions, fallen prey to some clever talking points that don't hold up to scrutiny, etc., but I think it's worthwhile to raise certain matters in good faith, if only to narrow the gap in the conversation by airing arguments, weighing rebuttals, and reasserting a more refined position.

Why I Hope Conspicuous Consumption Dies in the Age of the Kindle, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I had a laugh at this – a Kindle is a $300 dollar device that lets you read a book! It’s not $300 dollars worth of pages and print; it’s the equivalent of spending $300 dollars for a blank cover and binder. You still have to spend more money to load the actual print you want into it, and the whole thing may be moot as soon as the next upgraded version comes along. People who buy a Kindle are saying they have the money to commit to not just the  Kindle, but also the software and the implied arms race of continuous upgrades the device implies. If that’s not a form of conspicuous consumption, I don’t know what is.

Bill Clinton Supports Same-Sex Marriage

by Conor Clarke

That happened last week, but it's only slowly crawling across the Interwebs. At last week's Campus Progress conference, Bill Clinton was asked if he supported same-sex marriage and responded in the affirmative. It seems to me that this is pretty big news and of interest to Dish readers.

As far as I can tell, Clinton is the highest profile Democrat to back same-sex marriage. He's also the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and left us with Don't Ask Don't Tell. So I guess he's a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the equality party, and maybe he's only showing up for opportunistic reasons. (Most democrats now back gay marriage.) Nonetheless, I'm glad to have him on the right side of this issue.

Outing Iran: Abbas Kiarostami’s “10”

Ten

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

My favorite Iranian film, and one of the all-time greats, is "10" by Abbas Kiarostami. The film, shot in ten scenes from a dashboard camera, features a divorcee driving around Tehran giving rides to people from all walks of life, including an old woman going to mosque and a prostitute. Here's a clip of her with her son, in which they discuss what the father's new wife might be like. The scene centers on how the mother's choices are butting up against what her son thinks a woman's role should be.

The film is quietly funny, quietly moving, with an honest and unmanipulated feel. It envelops you in a trance as it shows the many sides of Tehran circa 2002. The female protagonist reveals herself in layers: headstrong and deferential, self-absorbed and empathetic, and always intelligent and compelling. Lovely stuff and highly recommended.

The Guardian recently ran a profile of the renowned director:

Now 68, Kiarostami has made more than 40 films in Iran in as many years. He is renowned as an artist who stayed in the country after the Islamic revolution of 1979, when others fled abroad. Yet, applying for a visa to direct this month's production of  Così fan tutte at the English National Opera, he was asked for a deposit by Britain'sAbbas-scorcese visa office, to guarantee that he would not become a refugee.

Shirin [his latest film] will not be shown in Iran, where none of his films has had a screening licence for a dozen years. Once released abroad, "half-price illegal copies find their way back into the country" as pirated DVDs. "Our government policy is focused on using cinema as a tool of propaganda and religious manipulation, as they've done for 30 years," he says. "Even tolerating independent cinema is unimaginable – they're very suspicious of it."

Kiarostami was born in 1940 in northern Iran. His father was a painter and decorator. "We were many children, with a minimal living, but with peace and quiet. I remember silence at home." After a degree in fine art at Tehran University, he worked as a graphic designer and for a film ad agency before joining the Centre for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults (Kanun) in 1969, established by the shah's wife. […] Under the strict censorship of the Pahlavi dictatorship and the shah's Savak secret police, Kiarostami depicted children as stubbornly determined free agents making moral choices, in an education system based on coercion and indoctrination.

His films have also been seen as a cinematic equivalent of Iranian modernist poetry of the 60s. "The calling of art is to extract us from our daily reality, to bring us to a hidden truth that's difficult to access – to a level that's not material but spiritual," he says. "That's what poetry and music do, and that was the first calling of religion. Religion works on some people but not on everyone, because it says, stop thinking and accept what I tell you. That's not valid for people who want to think and reflect. Art is a better way of achieving that, though the aim is the same."

He shared the disillusionment as the 1979 Iranian revolution was overtaken by religious fundamentalism. "I took part in politics only twice: when I was 15 [after the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup against Muhammad Mossadeq restored the shah] and in the revolution," he says. "I'll never take part in any political events again. I'm sure revolution has legitimate motivations, but it's always emotional and irrational. This is what causes legitimacy to be lost. Then evil power comes and takes control, and leads it in another direction."