Just to kick off the new semester on this blog, and since we were talking about it in class, I thought some of you might be interested in this discussion of whether or not it is politically dangerous to ask about how your state came about, and whether any answers you find should be papered over with myths and lies:
http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/09/%C5%BEi%C5%BEek-and-kant-on-philosophical-taboos-or-on-the-demise-of-philosophical-history.html
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mock Arms Control Negotiation
As part of the Public Policy School’s International Security
class, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a mock arms control
negotiation with a delegation of Russian students visiting the United States. The
goal of the exercise was to have a U.S. delegation and a Russian delegation of
students come to some kind of agreement about how to take steps to lower the
nuclear arsenals of both countries.
I have worked in groups before, but, in this case, was
struck by how infinitely more complex the task becomes when you have to not
only deal with dynamics within your own group, but also dynamics between two
groups from different countries. Words were chosen extremely carefully. Sentences
were stopped midway, as people would self-censor their ideas. One could chalk up
this dynamic to the normal cultural barriers that exist between citizens from
different cultures or awkwardness that exists when strangers are thrown into a
room together and forced to work together, but, in this situation, there seemed
to be a different dynamic at play, which was the perception that we were also representing
the broader interests of our countries.
If one was to put 15 competent people with background
knowledge of an issue in a room and asked them to come up with a solution to a
problem, it might be difficult, but they would likely be able to come up with a
proposal. However, because there were intra- and inter- group dynamics, as well
as broader political and cultural pressures, the task was nearly impossible.
Further complicating this effort was the issue we were
seeking to address. The United States and Russia each posses thousands upon
thousands of nuclear weapons, more than 90% of those that exist in the world. Part of the original reason both Russia
and the United States developed their arsenals was because of deep seeded
distrust and hostility between the two nations. Although the Cold War is over
and most of the people who participated in the class exercise were not adults
during the Cold War, there was a palpable tension in the room. Coming to
agreement on this goal, not to mention implementing it, would require an
enormous amount trust, transparency, and effective communication between the
parties. These elements were barely a part of our mock negotiation. I can only
imagine how difficult an actual negotiation must be.
For anyone interested in participating in this exercise, it is part of the International Security course taught in the Spring, not in the Fall.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
The Interrupters Documentary and mediation
Here's a clip of the Interrupters. It's about 4 and a 1/2 minutes. It gives one a good sense of the mediator role that law enforcement and associated individuals can play in communities to defuse conflict.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
For the hell of it ...
In an attempt to combine past lessons on citizenship/deliberative polling and the role of religion in democracy I invite you to test your own religious knowledge by taking a short quiz created by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
After completing the quiz, compare your knowledge with the American public -- overall population and specific religions -- by reading the full Pew Forum report on U.S. religious knowledge.
Both the national survey and interactive quiz were inspired by the book "Religious Literacy".
After completing the quiz, compare your knowledge with the American public -- overall population and specific religions -- by reading the full Pew Forum report on U.S. religious knowledge.
Both the national survey and interactive quiz were inspired by the book "Religious Literacy".
Friday, April 20, 2012
Are facts a casualty of fervent opinion?
In light of our recent discussions on Aristotle and value disagreements, this may be informative. Can we agree that there are facts or as Aristotle referred to them as "universal principles"?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-19/news/ct-talk-huppke-obit-facts-20120419_1_facts-philosopher-opinion
Ironically, I'm asserting this new bit of knowledge on a blog!
cp
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-19/news/ct-talk-huppke-obit-facts-20120419_1_facts-philosopher-opinion
Ironically, I'm asserting this new bit of knowledge on a blog!
cp
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
antibiotics in livestock
yay! I finally figured out how not to be anonymous on here, and how to post things. Many of you may have come across this when we were doing research in class yesterday, but I just saw it and thought it was intriguing that it was published Wednesday: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us/antibiotics-for-livestock-will-require-prescription-fda-says.html?_r=2
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Citizenship Lecture
Also: I know I haven't been as active in responding to stuff y'all have posted in the past few weeks, sorry! I will try to ramp it up and annoy you with nitpicking more, scout's honor.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Reading for the Democracy Presentation
On Thursday, Mark, Jeremy, Mike, and Victor will be talking to us about compulsory voting in Australia:
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/voting/files/compulsory-voting.pdf
Enjoy!
http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/voting/files/compulsory-voting.pdf
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Can President Obama Live Up to the Accomplishments of His Predecessors?
Originally appeared at http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2012/03/can-president-obama-live-up-to-the-accomplishments-of-his-predecessors.html.
President Obama was recently overheard saying to Russian President Medvedev that, assuming he prevails in the election this November, he would have more flexibility to negotiate on arms control issues. In response, some Congressional Republicans have implied that President Obama may have secret plans to aggressively pursue arms control in his second term.
Perhaps Republicans are concerned that the United States will cut its arsenal in half. Maybe they are concerned that President Obama will eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Or, maybe they are concerned he would do something dramatic like try to negotiate the total elimination of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. Well, if he were to accomplish any of these tasks, he would be in good company. These are all feats attempted by Republican Presidents in their second terms. Every second term Republican President since the beginning of the nuclear age (i.e. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II) proposed drastic changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
George W. Bush
Most recently, President George W. Bush made sweeping reductions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal during his second term. In 2007, President Bush approved a nearly 50 percent cut in the deployed nuclear stockpile and pledged to cut it by an additional 15% by 2012. Notably, the announcement of these reductions occurred while the Bush administration was simultaneously planning to cut 7,200 nuclear weapons-related jobs, arguing that the way in which the United States maintained its nuclear weapons was outdated and cost too much.
At the time, not a single prominent Republican attacked President Bush for pursuing such a policy. In fact, in 2004, Republican Chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which is responsible for funding nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, applauded President Bush’s effort to reduce nuclear weapons, stating “it may not be to the degree of where he wants to get right now, but it’s a lot better than where we are today” and “After years of maintaining a nuclear stockpile sized for the Cold War, we are finally bringing the numbers down to a more realistic and responsible level.” In contrast, Republicans have relentlessly attacked President Obama, who has provided more money for nuclear weapons than any previous president and pursued extremely modest reductions by his predecessor’s standards, because of perceived “underfunding” or lack of commitment to the nuclear stockpile.
Ronald Reagan
Arguably, President Reagan made more progress in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons in his second term than any other President, Democrat or Republican. While his eventual support for the abolition of nuclear weapons is widely known, his ambitious efforts to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons deserve more attention.
Following the 1983 incident in which Soviet leaders, interpreting a U.S. nuclear exercise as a first strike, prepared to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, President Reagan became more hands on in dealing with nuclear weapons policy. In a 1986 meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev discussed a proposal for completely eliminating Soviet and U.S. nuclear weapons. Although they were not able to agree on terms, this marks the closest any President has ever come to abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. In 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe Treaty (INF). The INF required the United States and USSR to verifiably eliminate nuclear missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. Throughout this period, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated to increase transparency and verification of nuclear testing and, despite being criticized by his own party, Reagan made significant progress in negotiating reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons. This negotiation process was completed by his successor, George H.W. Bush, in the form of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Richard Nixon
President Nixon’s second term lasted slightly over a year and a half; yet, even he was able to make progress in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. In 1973, Nixon signed the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, helping to reinforce détente between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1974, he signed the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the United States and the Soviet Union from conducting nuclear tests greater than 150 kilotons, a precursor to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. During this time, Nixon also pursued further restrictions on US and Soviet nuclear arms, building on the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT I) between the Soviet Union and the United States negotiated during his first term.
Dwight Eisenhower
President Eisenhower was certainly no dove when it came to nuclear weapons, approving significant quantitative and qualitative increases in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. However, towards the end of his presidency, Eisenhower also began moving away from his hawkish nuclear ways. In his second term, Eisenhower began legitimate negotiations on a verifiable test ban, which included working with Khrushchev to draft a treaty. In 1959, he was also the first President to establish a testing moratorium. While the moratorium expired in December 1959, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union tested nuclear weapons again until 1961.
This brings us to Barack Obama, who of course has yet to win a second term, but has made no secret of his goals regarding reducing the threat from nuclear weapons. In a speech President Obama delivered on March 26 at Hankuk University in Seoul, Korea, President Obama renewed his pledge to further reduce the threat of nuclear weapons by “taking concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.” The speech outlined a number of goals the President first proposed in Prague in April 2009 and would seek during his second term, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further reductions in all types of Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons. Contrary to arguments put forth by critics, these goals are the continuation of decades of work by Republican Presidents in their second terms.
President Obama was recently overheard saying to Russian President Medvedev that, assuming he prevails in the election this November, he would have more flexibility to negotiate on arms control issues. In response, some Congressional Republicans have implied that President Obama may have secret plans to aggressively pursue arms control in his second term.
Perhaps Republicans are concerned that the United States will cut its arsenal in half. Maybe they are concerned that President Obama will eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Or, maybe they are concerned he would do something dramatic like try to negotiate the total elimination of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. Well, if he were to accomplish any of these tasks, he would be in good company. These are all feats attempted by Republican Presidents in their second terms. Every second term Republican President since the beginning of the nuclear age (i.e. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II) proposed drastic changes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
George W. Bush
Most recently, President George W. Bush made sweeping reductions to the U.S. nuclear arsenal during his second term. In 2007, President Bush approved a nearly 50 percent cut in the deployed nuclear stockpile and pledged to cut it by an additional 15% by 2012. Notably, the announcement of these reductions occurred while the Bush administration was simultaneously planning to cut 7,200 nuclear weapons-related jobs, arguing that the way in which the United States maintained its nuclear weapons was outdated and cost too much.
At the time, not a single prominent Republican attacked President Bush for pursuing such a policy. In fact, in 2004, Republican Chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which is responsible for funding nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, applauded President Bush’s effort to reduce nuclear weapons, stating “it may not be to the degree of where he wants to get right now, but it’s a lot better than where we are today” and “After years of maintaining a nuclear stockpile sized for the Cold War, we are finally bringing the numbers down to a more realistic and responsible level.” In contrast, Republicans have relentlessly attacked President Obama, who has provided more money for nuclear weapons than any previous president and pursued extremely modest reductions by his predecessor’s standards, because of perceived “underfunding” or lack of commitment to the nuclear stockpile.
Ronald Reagan
Arguably, President Reagan made more progress in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons in his second term than any other President, Democrat or Republican. While his eventual support for the abolition of nuclear weapons is widely known, his ambitious efforts to reduce the dangers posed by nuclear weapons deserve more attention.
Following the 1983 incident in which Soviet leaders, interpreting a U.S. nuclear exercise as a first strike, prepared to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, President Reagan became more hands on in dealing with nuclear weapons policy. In a 1986 meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev discussed a proposal for completely eliminating Soviet and U.S. nuclear weapons. Although they were not able to agree on terms, this marks the closest any President has ever come to abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. In 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe Treaty (INF). The INF required the United States and USSR to verifiably eliminate nuclear missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. Throughout this period, the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated to increase transparency and verification of nuclear testing and, despite being criticized by his own party, Reagan made significant progress in negotiating reductions in deployed strategic nuclear weapons. This negotiation process was completed by his successor, George H.W. Bush, in the form of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
Richard Nixon
President Nixon’s second term lasted slightly over a year and a half; yet, even he was able to make progress in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. In 1973, Nixon signed the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, helping to reinforce détente between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1974, he signed the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the United States and the Soviet Union from conducting nuclear tests greater than 150 kilotons, a precursor to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. During this time, Nixon also pursued further restrictions on US and Soviet nuclear arms, building on the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT I) between the Soviet Union and the United States negotiated during his first term.
Dwight Eisenhower
President Eisenhower was certainly no dove when it came to nuclear weapons, approving significant quantitative and qualitative increases in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. However, towards the end of his presidency, Eisenhower also began moving away from his hawkish nuclear ways. In his second term, Eisenhower began legitimate negotiations on a verifiable test ban, which included working with Khrushchev to draft a treaty. In 1959, he was also the first President to establish a testing moratorium. While the moratorium expired in December 1959, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union tested nuclear weapons again until 1961.
This brings us to Barack Obama, who of course has yet to win a second term, but has made no secret of his goals regarding reducing the threat from nuclear weapons. In a speech President Obama delivered on March 26 at Hankuk University in Seoul, Korea, President Obama renewed his pledge to further reduce the threat of nuclear weapons by “taking concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.” The speech outlined a number of goals the President first proposed in Prague in April 2009 and would seek during his second term, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further reductions in all types of Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons. Contrary to arguments put forth by critics, these goals are the continuation of decades of work by Republican Presidents in their second terms.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
This American Life Retraction
Perhaps relevant to the discussion about Apple and worker safety we had last week, This American Life is retracting "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory."
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Can't Get Enough Moral Dimensions?
FEAR NOT.
If you are so excited by the MD class you pay for that you want to get more deep thought - this time for free - two colleagues of mine and I will be teaching a free class on "Freedom" at the Baltimore Free School (notice the synergy). All are welcome to attend!
If you like that sort of thing, you can see a flyer here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8FV_uCcG0JOMjZjQUZQQUVTLW1DelpXM0g4RWhTZw/edit
If you are so excited by the MD class you pay for that you want to get more deep thought - this time for free - two colleagues of mine and I will be teaching a free class on "Freedom" at the Baltimore Free School (notice the synergy). All are welcome to attend!
If you like that sort of thing, you can see a flyer here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8FV_uCcG0JOMjZjQUZQQUVTLW1DelpXM0g4RWhTZw/edit
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Nationalism vs. Cosmopolitanism Lecture
It's in two parts. This is just a combination of life and my limited video editing skills - in part 2 you can hear me say that I'm giving myself a spot to cut to so I can put them together... and then utterly failing to convince ffmpeg to cut off the first 11 seconds.
Argh. Enjoy!
Argh. Enjoy!
Sunday, March 11, 2012
A Good Trade?
Should the welfare of someone in your state be valued above that of someone born abroad?
We'll attempt to engender a conversation around this subject by discussing the benefits and costs of trade between nations. As a proxy for this debate, we will examine the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). You can access the entire document here. To gain a quick understanding of the trade agreement please see the "preamble" and "objectives" sections.
For perspective on how NAFTA was viewed at its inception see this 1992 New York Times article. Also feel free to check out a retrospective analysis of the trade agreement from both a primarily Mexican and American viewpoint.
To conclude our presentation we'll broaden the conversation to the impact of globalization. This discussion will touch on some of the arguments explored in this 2011 Atlantic article.
There are numerous policy issues inherent in a debate on trade. For the purposes of this presentation please attempt to sideline -- as much as possible -- overarching concerns related to environmental and/or labor policy. Instead focus on a more direct moral question: Why would a job in America matter more than a job in Mexico?
Enjoy,
Richard Auxier, Alex Chafitz, Brian Lynch and Nina Rosenberg
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Bully Pulpit Games
Though reaction to Cap and Trade seemed a bit mixed, for any of you interested, the game came from the fine folks over at Bully Pulpit Games.
Jason Morningstar and his crew over there have a bunch more stuff (Cap and Trade was part of them releasing a bunch of small things for free that had been on the back burner for a while), including other fine somewhat-educational games like Grey Ranks (about child soldiers in the Polish resistance) and fine games where absolutely nothing at all is learned, like Fiasco.
(Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with BPG except knowing Jason a bit and liking his games, I don't get kickbacks or anything. Plus, if you hated Cap and Trade, now you can tell him. Actually, if you have any comments/reactions to the exercise, and you feel like sharing them here, I'd love to hear them so I can decide whether this sort of thing is worth doing in future classes, and how it might be tweaked, and I can pass them along.)
Jason Morningstar and his crew over there have a bunch more stuff (Cap and Trade was part of them releasing a bunch of small things for free that had been on the back burner for a while), including other fine somewhat-educational games like Grey Ranks (about child soldiers in the Polish resistance) and fine games where absolutely nothing at all is learned, like Fiasco.
(Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with BPG except knowing Jason a bit and liking his games, I don't get kickbacks or anything. Plus, if you hated Cap and Trade, now you can tell him. Actually, if you have any comments/reactions to the exercise, and you feel like sharing them here, I'd love to hear them so I can decide whether this sort of thing is worth doing in future classes, and how it might be tweaked, and I can pass them along.)
Fixed! Health Policy Lecture
Hopefully all of you have seen this by now, but here it is for posterity. Thanks to Alex for pointing out the corrupted audio!
Monday, March 5, 2012
Is Apple Doing Enough to Safeguard Worker Health and Safety?
In anticipation of the unveiling of the new Ipad this week, we will be taking at the worker health and safety conditions in the factories that produce Apple products.
The central document for Thursday's class will be Apple's recent audit of factories that manufacture Apple products. Take a look at the audit report (worker health section page 12-15). Does Apple effectively enforces its code of conduct? Is its code of conduct stringent enough? What barriers may be preventing better health and safety conduct.
For another look inside factory conditions, take a look at recent stories from the New York Times and This American Life.
-Sarah Edelman, Nick Roth, Natalie Martino, and Meg Imholt
-Sarah Edelman, Nick Roth, Natalie Martino, and Meg Imholt
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
DOD Health Care
Before reading further, please be aware that the person mentioned in this post asked that his presentation be off the record. While I do not mention the specifics of his presentation, I would prefer that any of my references to the presenter not be used for purposes beyond this blog post discussion or class.
-----
Last week, I missed
class because I was meeting with Maryland's Center for International and
Security Studies invited speaker, David Mosher, who is the Assistant
Director for National Security for the Congressional Budget Office. Initially,
I was interested in his analysis of the recently proposed defense cuts. His
analysis was thorough and the solutions he suggested were thought
provoking. However, this was not the part of his presentation that I ended up
finding most compelling.
David spent a great
deal of his time talking about the drivers of projected massive increases in
defense spending. To my surprise, the projected increases in costs were not
just caused by the development of expensive weapon systems or inefficient
procurement programs. Defense Department health care programs are a significant
cost driver for defense spending. This struck me as an economic issue deeply
rooted in the topics that have been discussed in our moral dimensions class.
For DOD employees and
their families, health care is significantly less expensive than for other
Americans. In many ways, can be considered socialized medicine. One argument is
that, because of health care is so inexpensive, people who participate in these
health plans seek medical advice and attention at a higher rate than those who
participate in civilian health care plans. Having only looked at this issue in
a cursory way, there is still a lot I do not know. My first question is whether
health care costs are increasing because of inexpensive health care or are the
increases caused by the wars that have been waged over the past decade. Another
is how these costs increases compare to other points in history. Finally, what types of medical visits
and procedures are people under these plans getting?
Even with these
unanswered questions, this leads me to wonder what the United States’
obligation should be to those who are part of the defense establishment. Should health care be free, or next to
free, for those within the defense establishment? On one hand, defense spending
is increasing at an astronomical rate, eating up money that could either be
spent on social programs or be in the pockets of Americans. A utilitarian
argument might be that population is best served by paying less for its
military and devoting those resources for other purposes. At the same time,
another contradictory utilitarian argument could be that a decrease in benefits
to the military would weaken the United States’ ability to attract employees
and, ultimately, protect itself.
On a moral level,
there is the additional question of what does America owe its troops. In
exchange for being put in harms way and, perhaps, having to deal with lifetime
psychological and physical ailments, maybe soldiers should have unlimited
access to inexpensive health care. Under this line of logic, maybe health care
SHOULD be the biggest cost driver in Defense Spending.
There are economic solutions out there
that would minimize costs, but these do not answer the more fundamental
questions about how we should treat those in the military. What do others
think?
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
IAT
here's the link to the implicit associations test that Professor Levine mentioned in class.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Safe Streets Evaluation
Yup, this is Moral Dimensions and I'm going to drown you in statistics.
I'm a bit disappointed in Safe Streets assessment I linked earlier. The conclusions sound pretty rosy, but there are two things that - while they mention - they don't really emphasize in declaring Safe Streets a success.
First, that the overall statistically significant reduction in violence represents a serious reduction at the Cherry Hill site and less/no change or even an increase at some of the East Baltimore sites. I don't want to make it sound like they don't discuss this, because they do... but in the end the hypothesis is that the site that saw the increase was maybe where a war was brewing anyway. Which might be true. But deflects any deeper inquiry into what characteristics might distinguish neighborhoods or implementers for whom Safe Streets/Ceasefire works from those for whom it doesn't. I need to dig up the Chicago assessment (but I'm too busy getting ready to record y'all's Environment lecture. Did I mention I know jack about environmental policy?).
Second, and this gets an even briefer mention, the impact of the BPD's Violent Crime Impact Section on Homicide+NFS is larger than any other statistically significant impact on the combined measure. This strikes me as something specially interesting because of the wall that the Safe Streets model erects between outreach and police. Again, it's not like I'm saying they should work with police. But given the apparently positive impact, it seems like ways in which police and outreach responses might interact bears more investigation.
Kathleen, tell David Simon to drop Treme. I demand a season six of The Wire that's all Prez and Freamon hunched over STATA for 13 episodes.
I'm a bit disappointed in Safe Streets assessment I linked earlier. The conclusions sound pretty rosy, but there are two things that - while they mention - they don't really emphasize in declaring Safe Streets a success.
First, that the overall statistically significant reduction in violence represents a serious reduction at the Cherry Hill site and less/no change or even an increase at some of the East Baltimore sites. I don't want to make it sound like they don't discuss this, because they do... but in the end the hypothesis is that the site that saw the increase was maybe where a war was brewing anyway. Which might be true. But deflects any deeper inquiry into what characteristics might distinguish neighborhoods or implementers for whom Safe Streets/Ceasefire works from those for whom it doesn't. I need to dig up the Chicago assessment (but I'm too busy getting ready to record y'all's Environment lecture. Did I mention I know jack about environmental policy?).
Second, and this gets an even briefer mention, the impact of the BPD's Violent Crime Impact Section on Homicide+NFS is larger than any other statistically significant impact on the combined measure. This strikes me as something specially interesting because of the wall that the Safe Streets model erects between outreach and police. Again, it's not like I'm saying they should work with police. But given the apparently positive impact, it seems like ways in which police and outreach responses might interact bears more investigation.
Kathleen, tell David Simon to drop Treme. I demand a season six of The Wire that's all Prez and Freamon hunched over STATA for 13 episodes.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Rape Statistics
Following a depressing discussion with one of your colleagues, I thought I'd do a quick check of the numbers. Needless to say, trigger warning if that's an issue for you.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Marxism and Radical Libertarianism Links
Since it came up in class, I thought I'd post some things here. The great thing about Marx is that his combination of being in the public domain and having fanatical devotees means you can get almost anything you like of his online!
The piece I was talking about that lays out the distinction between Marx' view and a pure "labor theory of value" is The Critique of the Gotha Programme.
If you want more, the piece that we're planning to use for the Ph.D. normative comprehensive exam is the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
The book I had in mind when I was discussing a version of libertarianism that simply dispenses with democracy even for the minimal state that's left is Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed. To be fair(1), it's probably more accurate to call Hoppe an anarcho-capitalist than a libertarian. To be fair(2), I know this book entirely via secondary discussions (though the link is to the author discussing it, so should at least not be unfair to his views, I hope).
The piece I was talking about that lays out the distinction between Marx' view and a pure "labor theory of value" is The Critique of the Gotha Programme.
If you want more, the piece that we're planning to use for the Ph.D. normative comprehensive exam is the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.
The book I had in mind when I was discussing a version of libertarianism that simply dispenses with democracy even for the minimal state that's left is Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed. To be fair(1), it's probably more accurate to call Hoppe an anarcho-capitalist than a libertarian. To be fair(2), I know this book entirely via secondary discussions (though the link is to the author discussing it, so should at least not be unfair to his views, I hope).
Global Poverty Lecture
The lecture for global poverty (2/23) is now up. I apologize in advance if I'm a bit scratchy and loopy, as I have a bit of a cold.
Friday, February 17, 2012
More on Gangs/Crime in Baltimore
For any of you who may be interested in the issue (and there are lots of ethical concerns lurking here!):
Article on Baltimore's Safe Streets outreach program
Hopkins School of Public Health assessment of Safe Streets
Article on Baltimore's "Black Guerilla Family" (including lots of links to previous coverage of the gang/movement - interesting especially from the perspective of issues about the legitimacy of criminal groups)
Article on Baltimore's Safe Streets outreach program
Hopkins School of Public Health assessment of Safe Streets
Article on Baltimore's "Black Guerilla Family" (including lots of links to previous coverage of the gang/movement - interesting especially from the perspective of issues about the legitimacy of criminal groups)
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Reading for Poverty Group Presentation
Here is the document we will be analyzing. We are going to consider the morality of the research ethics policy from the chronic poverty research center, along with research ethics more generally when dealing with people in poverty.
This issue was a defining factor in a recent study I did down in El Salvador going to people's houses to do a census. Last year when I did a census study down there, I didn't think about things at all, but this year in the context of developmental research ethics, my whole perspective changed. Instead of how do I get this done? to a matter of - How should I approach collecting data from the villagers? How do I talk about these people? What is fair to share outside of the community? How am I affecting them by census-taking?
Good topic, looking forward to the discussion.
-Jessica
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
How Much of Baltimore's Violence is Political?
As some of you know, my main "beat" is civil violence, but since my return from Ghana, I've been thinking more about violence here stateside, particularly urban violence (actually, the interest ultimately comes from a conversation I had with one of our Ph.D. students before heading to Liberia about "resilient communities," but that's another story).
As even more of you may know, my home turf of Baltimore is a pretty violent place (28XX Greenmount Ave? Basically right around the corner from my house). If you're not aware of this, jeepers, go watch The Wire already. It's only Februrary, and so far we've had 16 homicides (see the sidebar). In 2011, Baltimore had a total of 196 murders, and that was a significant drop from the 300+ murders per year the city had been seeing in the 1990s. For comparison, the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset counts you as having an armed conflict if there are 25 battlefield deaths per year. And the Correlates of War datasets count you as having an intra-state war if there are at least 1,000 deaths per year (the same overall number is used for their newer non-state war dataset) - but in a whole country.
Of course, the difference between Baltimore and, say, Darfur, is supposed to be that the violence in Baltimore isn't political.
As even more of you may know, my home turf of Baltimore is a pretty violent place (28XX Greenmount Ave? Basically right around the corner from my house). If you're not aware of this, jeepers, go watch The Wire already. It's only Februrary, and so far we've had 16 homicides (see the sidebar). In 2011, Baltimore had a total of 196 murders, and that was a significant drop from the 300+ murders per year the city had been seeing in the 1990s. For comparison, the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset counts you as having an armed conflict if there are 25 battlefield deaths per year. And the Correlates of War datasets count you as having an intra-state war if there are at least 1,000 deaths per year (the same overall number is used for their newer non-state war dataset) - but in a whole country.
Of course, the difference between Baltimore and, say, Darfur, is supposed to be that the violence in Baltimore isn't political.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
The moral definition of child abuse
Do parents have a moral obligation to protect their children? What does that mean? Protect from what?
A recent video went viral of an Asian man sending his 4-year-old son out into the cold snow of New York in only his underwear and shoes. The boy was borne with several health problems and the parents have learned from their cultural tradition that sickly children can be made stronger through exposure to physical challenge. This experience, which the boy clearly did not enjoy, was one of several methods to improve his strength and immune system.
The question some ask is if this should be characterized as child abuse subject to the punishment of the law.
Is it? Or is it a cultural practice that has wisdom in tradition.
One commentator, a member of a child protection advocacy group "When a child is cold that's a parent's responsibility to keep them warm." This is a statement of morality.
To read more, click here.
What does everyone think?
A recent video went viral of an Asian man sending his 4-year-old son out into the cold snow of New York in only his underwear and shoes. The boy was borne with several health problems and the parents have learned from their cultural tradition that sickly children can be made stronger through exposure to physical challenge. This experience, which the boy clearly did not enjoy, was one of several methods to improve his strength and immune system.
The question some ask is if this should be characterized as child abuse subject to the punishment of the law.
Is it? Or is it a cultural practice that has wisdom in tradition.
One commentator, a member of a child protection advocacy group "When a child is cold that's a parent's responsibility to keep them warm." This is a statement of morality.
To read more, click here.
What does everyone think?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Feminism and Science
Thanks to Sara's question in class today, I've done a bit of poking around on folks who have been talking about the impact of scientific research on feminist theory and care ethics.
Of course, Carol Gilligan is the mother of care ethics (though not feminism on the whole), and was a psychologist researching moral development, not a philosopher per se. Her In a Different Voice is one of the classic texts, and spends a lot of time on her experimental work. And, as I mentioned in class, Michael Slote, especially in The Ethics of Care and Empathy, is very interested in the research on how children develop empathy, etc.
Beyond that, it was to the Googles and the Philosopher's Index!
... and I didn't find much on my first pass.
It turns out that there has literally just been published an anthology on feminism and cognitive science, Neurofeminism. Of course, I haven't read it, but it looks interesting.
This is a little bit the obverse of the original interest, but may also be interesting: The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy's entry on Feminist Philosophy of Biology.
I have the word out to some of my colleagues who are experts on this stuff, though. I'll update this post as I learn about more resources.
UPDATE 1: One colleague recommended Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which argues that most of the differences that are attributed to "natural" differences in male and female brains are in fact more correctly understood as cultural influences on our neurology.
Of course, Carol Gilligan is the mother of care ethics (though not feminism on the whole), and was a psychologist researching moral development, not a philosopher per se. Her In a Different Voice is one of the classic texts, and spends a lot of time on her experimental work. And, as I mentioned in class, Michael Slote, especially in The Ethics of Care and Empathy, is very interested in the research on how children develop empathy, etc.
Beyond that, it was to the Googles and the Philosopher's Index!
... and I didn't find much on my first pass.
It turns out that there has literally just been published an anthology on feminism and cognitive science, Neurofeminism. Of course, I haven't read it, but it looks interesting.
This is a little bit the obverse of the original interest, but may also be interesting: The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy's entry on Feminist Philosophy of Biology.
I have the word out to some of my colleagues who are experts on this stuff, though. I'll update this post as I learn about more resources.
UPDATE 1: One colleague recommended Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, which argues that most of the differences that are attributed to "natural" differences in male and female brains are in fact more correctly understood as cultural influences on our neurology.
The video for the libertarianism lecture is up on YouTube, and I'll be adding the download to the Bb site presently.
I couldn't resist putting ads in the libertarianism video. If you want it ad-free, of course, download the mp4 from Bb.
Also, Alice, we don't actually play D&D, we play Burning Empires and Apocalypse World instead. Because D&D isn't nerdy enough.
I couldn't resist putting ads in the libertarianism video. If you want it ad-free, of course, download the mp4 from Bb.
Also, Alice, we don't actually play D&D, we play Burning Empires and Apocalypse World instead. Because D&D isn't nerdy enough.
Locke's view of individualism and consent
Here is the Lockean concept I was referencing. Let's discuss!
Sec.140. It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?
Friday, February 3, 2012
Liberal Egalitarianism Lecture
The Numbers and Stuff on Breast Cancer Screening
In class yesterday, we didn't end up digging into the numbers as deeply as I thought we might. But, if you're interested, here are links to at least some of the relevant data:
CDC Mortality Tables by Cause/Sex/Age
Review Article on CBA of Breast Cancer Screening by the Cochrane Collaboration
CMS Data on Fees for Screening Mammograms in DC/MD/VA (high cost)
Data on Fees (incl. for Screening Mammograms) in NV (low cost)
CDC Info on National Cancer Screening Programs
CBA Article on National Cancer Screening Programs
Planned Parenthood's 990 Form
CDC Mortality Tables by Cause/Sex/Age
Review Article on CBA of Breast Cancer Screening by the Cochrane Collaboration
CMS Data on Fees for Screening Mammograms in DC/MD/VA (high cost)
Data on Fees (incl. for Screening Mammograms) in NV (low cost)
CDC Info on National Cancer Screening Programs
CBA Article on National Cancer Screening Programs
Planned Parenthood's 990 Form
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Michael Walzer, Public Policy, and the Romance of Atrocity
Last week, we had Mia Bloom in to give a job talk as a potential hire for the School. I'm not sure how many of my students were able to attend her CISSM forum on the role of women in terrorist groups, but if they didn't, they should check out some of her publications, as she's done some interesting work.
But what I wanted to talk about for a second was the brief conversation we had about Walzer when I met with her beforehand - especially since we're reading his Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. The conversation helped me put my finger on what I find really disturbing about Walzer.
I forget how we got on the topic exactly, but Bloom mentioned that she'd read Just and Unjust Wars, and been surprised that Walzer had then gone on from defending a pretty restrictive picture of when war could be justified to be supportive of the use of forceful measures short of war (including the no-fly-zones and sanction regime) in the case of Iraq, and in particular to criticize France and Germany for not supporting "coercive containment," despite his acknowledgment that the no-fly-zones were military operations (at least not clearly supported by international law) and the sanctions were notoriously harsh (though, to be fair, he did make at least some mention in his Iraq comments of the need for "smart sanctions").
Despite Walzer being the standard-bearer for contemporary just war theory (for better or worse), I feel that there is a strong undercurrent of romantic infatuation with atrocity in a lot of his work. You see it, for instance, in his description of Churchill's response to the Dresden bombers in Just and Unjust Wars: Walzer says that it was appropriate for them to be denied public honors, even though their atrocities were justified by military necessity (according to Walzer, if I'm remembering him correctly). But at the same time, I at least couldn't shake a feeling that, in his view, those who flew the bombing raids could take a secret pride in their actions that, if anything, is enhanced by the fact that they will be misunderstood by the masses with their petty bourgeois morality. Similarly, in "Dirty Hands," Walzer sets the conflict between the utilitarianism that the policy maker qua policy maker must adopt and the basically Kantian/deontological everyday human morality that binds her as a tragedy - but in the very portrayal as a tragedy romanticizes, ennobles it. The policy maker who acts against human morality must recognize the indelible wrongness of her actions, but at least I have trouble shaking the feeling that Walzer admires her for adhering to a higher morality. It reminds me of Borges' reassessment of Judas, of if that's too heady, Henry Rollins talking about how "real men stand on the frozen dawn, the icy line, and they look into the future!" (quote is at about 8:42) Or, I hear, the attraction of fictional characters like Jack Bauer (but while I'm willing to stoop to the level of quoting a punk icon like Rollins, I couldn't maintain my snooty academic elitism if I watched 24). And I think it's easy for that to lead to a view that we need to not be sentimental in confronting "evils" like Saddam Hussien (or, in other works, terrorism).
I worry about it because I think this is a line of thinking that it's really easy for policy types and political philosophers to fall into. We spend a lot of our time thinking about what would be the best thing to do - best policy, best government, whatever - and then we get frustrated when we have to descend into the muck of reality and try to get it implemented (every semester I teach Moral Dimensions, I have at least one student who expresses the view that maybe not everyone should get to have an equal say, the way democracy supposes they should). So it's easy to daydream about and romanticize the idea of just making things right even if you have to break a few eggs, or a few bones.
Unfortunately, history is littered with broken Utopian projects. The impulse is always, "yeah, if we ram this policy through/bomb that village/ignore that law/assassinate that dude/torture that person, that's bad, but it's for the greater good." But that assumes not only utilitarianism of some kind of another, but that we're really, really smart. The problem is that, in the real world, you very often only end up with the short-term lesser evil and the greater good never materializes, or doesn't materialize in a way that clearly justifies the evil you did (was Dresden justified in the end? I hate Nazis as much as the next guy with a Jewish nose and no surviving European family...). That's what's led folks like Shklar to her "liberalism of fear" - her liberalism was closer to what many folks call "libertarianism" (even though if you use it that way, you may get punched by an anarchist), but motivated not by a view that it would be inherently wrong for the government to do more than protect some very basic rights - rather, she just feared that doing any more would inevitably lead to the cruelty of sacrificing real human beings to an imagined perfect future.
And, frankly, a lot of conversations on these topics cheat. When people propose "ticking time bomb" scenarios about torture, in the example we know that this person has the information, and we know that we will get it if we torture them, and we know that there is no other way. But in the real world, we probably don't know any of those things (and if we had enough intel to know any of them, we probably wouldn't need to torture anyone to find out where the bomb was).
This line of thought always leaves me at an impasse. At the end of the day, I think some form of consequentialism is correct (not just for the policy perspective). But perhaps we need to have a fearful consequentialism, not one that even implicitly congratulates itself from seeing beyond petty taboos. And as human beings, I fear that it's far too easy for regret and tragedy to become a kind of self-indulgence.
Walzer skips ahead to the question of, "how should a moral agent react to knowing that she did the right thing, but had to act wrongly to do it." I think maybe that's too fast. As serious moral agents, if we make decisions that harm some for the putative good of many, we shouldn't ask, "how much regret should I feel over the lesser evil?" We should maybe ask, "What if I got it wrong? What if I harmed a bunch of people for nothing?"
But what I wanted to talk about for a second was the brief conversation we had about Walzer when I met with her beforehand - especially since we're reading his Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. The conversation helped me put my finger on what I find really disturbing about Walzer.
I forget how we got on the topic exactly, but Bloom mentioned that she'd read Just and Unjust Wars, and been surprised that Walzer had then gone on from defending a pretty restrictive picture of when war could be justified to be supportive of the use of forceful measures short of war (including the no-fly-zones and sanction regime) in the case of Iraq, and in particular to criticize France and Germany for not supporting "coercive containment," despite his acknowledgment that the no-fly-zones were military operations (at least not clearly supported by international law) and the sanctions were notoriously harsh (though, to be fair, he did make at least some mention in his Iraq comments of the need for "smart sanctions").
Despite Walzer being the standard-bearer for contemporary just war theory (for better or worse), I feel that there is a strong undercurrent of romantic infatuation with atrocity in a lot of his work. You see it, for instance, in his description of Churchill's response to the Dresden bombers in Just and Unjust Wars: Walzer says that it was appropriate for them to be denied public honors, even though their atrocities were justified by military necessity (according to Walzer, if I'm remembering him correctly). But at the same time, I at least couldn't shake a feeling that, in his view, those who flew the bombing raids could take a secret pride in their actions that, if anything, is enhanced by the fact that they will be misunderstood by the masses with their petty bourgeois morality. Similarly, in "Dirty Hands," Walzer sets the conflict between the utilitarianism that the policy maker qua policy maker must adopt and the basically Kantian/deontological everyday human morality that binds her as a tragedy - but in the very portrayal as a tragedy romanticizes, ennobles it. The policy maker who acts against human morality must recognize the indelible wrongness of her actions, but at least I have trouble shaking the feeling that Walzer admires her for adhering to a higher morality. It reminds me of Borges' reassessment of Judas, of if that's too heady, Henry Rollins talking about how "real men stand on the frozen dawn, the icy line, and they look into the future!" (quote is at about 8:42) Or, I hear, the attraction of fictional characters like Jack Bauer (but while I'm willing to stoop to the level of quoting a punk icon like Rollins, I couldn't maintain my snooty academic elitism if I watched 24). And I think it's easy for that to lead to a view that we need to not be sentimental in confronting "evils" like Saddam Hussien (or, in other works, terrorism).
I worry about it because I think this is a line of thinking that it's really easy for policy types and political philosophers to fall into. We spend a lot of our time thinking about what would be the best thing to do - best policy, best government, whatever - and then we get frustrated when we have to descend into the muck of reality and try to get it implemented (every semester I teach Moral Dimensions, I have at least one student who expresses the view that maybe not everyone should get to have an equal say, the way democracy supposes they should). So it's easy to daydream about and romanticize the idea of just making things right even if you have to break a few eggs, or a few bones.
Unfortunately, history is littered with broken Utopian projects. The impulse is always, "yeah, if we ram this policy through/bomb that village/ignore that law/assassinate that dude/torture that person, that's bad, but it's for the greater good." But that assumes not only utilitarianism of some kind of another, but that we're really, really smart. The problem is that, in the real world, you very often only end up with the short-term lesser evil and the greater good never materializes, or doesn't materialize in a way that clearly justifies the evil you did (was Dresden justified in the end? I hate Nazis as much as the next guy with a Jewish nose and no surviving European family...). That's what's led folks like Shklar to her "liberalism of fear" - her liberalism was closer to what many folks call "libertarianism" (even though if you use it that way, you may get punched by an anarchist), but motivated not by a view that it would be inherently wrong for the government to do more than protect some very basic rights - rather, she just feared that doing any more would inevitably lead to the cruelty of sacrificing real human beings to an imagined perfect future.
And, frankly, a lot of conversations on these topics cheat. When people propose "ticking time bomb" scenarios about torture, in the example we know that this person has the information, and we know that we will get it if we torture them, and we know that there is no other way. But in the real world, we probably don't know any of those things (and if we had enough intel to know any of them, we probably wouldn't need to torture anyone to find out where the bomb was).
This line of thought always leaves me at an impasse. At the end of the day, I think some form of consequentialism is correct (not just for the policy perspective). But perhaps we need to have a fearful consequentialism, not one that even implicitly congratulates itself from seeing beyond petty taboos. And as human beings, I fear that it's far too easy for regret and tragedy to become a kind of self-indulgence.
Walzer skips ahead to the question of, "how should a moral agent react to knowing that she did the right thing, but had to act wrongly to do it." I think maybe that's too fast. As serious moral agents, if we make decisions that harm some for the putative good of many, we shouldn't ask, "how much regret should I feel over the lesser evil?" We should maybe ask, "What if I got it wrong? What if I harmed a bunch of people for nothing?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)