Why I Don't Blog Israel

The short answer is probably that I've had a blog for all of 6 months, 5 of which were spent not blogging. The long answer is more like "why I don't get into political discussions about Israel."

I've got two posts in the can that have been waiting to be written for a couple weeks now - one on BSG, and one a reaction to an increasingly old 538 post. I'll probably get the prior out before the New Year, and the latter out around the time the new congress gets sworn in (so it'll be quasi-topical again). But, given recent events, I feel somewhat compelled to write this one.

On most issues, the policy space is filled with a large-enough chunk of John Rawls reasonable actors that a discussion of the issues makes sense. Sure, there are wide swaths of extremists on both sides, behind a wall of thier views which no amount of logic can penetrate, but they usually don't constitute a majority - or, at least, a large enough so that discussion isn't productive.

For some reason, any discussion about Palestinian terrorist attacks towards Israel or Israeli response towards Palestine makes normally rational people into the extremists who won't listen to a damn thing you have to say.

I've tried discussing the Israel-Palestine situtation in the past with many of my fellow tribesmen (for the goyem out there: that means Jews). I've tried rational and strageic appeals about how Israel's response is counterproductively radicalizing the Palestinains. I've tried moral appeals about the asymmetry of power, the immorality of targeting civilians, and how "they did it first" can never make it right. I've even tried religious appeals, mustering all of my limited memories of Jewish "Sunday School" (usually on a weeknight, mind you) to point out that the sort of response that Israel all-too-often falls back on is just not the Jewish thing to do. None of it works. All too often, instead of engaging in a thoughtful debate, they'll just wall off. I don't get it, but for some of my fellow Jews - people who are otherwise the very model of the typical Jewish liberal - nothing about Israel can ever be questioned.

But, of course, its not a one-sided thing. Not to be outdone by the blindly pro-Israel cohort, there's another set who can only ever see the harm done by Israel. Every harm done by Hamas, Fatah, or whatever other group can be explained away. Every possible slight by Israel must be magnified and condemned.

I generally haven't gotten into many debates with these folks, but that's not because I don't find their positions equally indefensible. Its because Palestinian attacks don't make the news. Hamas was busy shooting rockets at Israel before Israel decided to go insane in retaliation. Now, the rockets weren't hitting anything, so maybe that's why it wasn't a big deal - if it bleeds, it leads, after all.

And its not that terrorist attacks on Israel don't get reported. If someone straps a bomb to themselves and blows up a bus in Tel Aviv you can bet it'll lead the 7 o'clock. But we all know what'll be coming next - if Hamas kills 20 on a bus, Israel will kill 50 with an airstrike. And, again, I'll find myself having to argue with the pro-Israel hardliners that Israels actions are just as bad.

Now, maybe you'd think that you could escape this insanity by stepping outside of the Jewish community. Sadly, no. Probably thanks, in large part, to the AIPACs of the world calling anybody who dares question Israel anti-semetic, the rest of the population is polarized too. Either Israel can do no wrong, or Israel can do no right.

There's no point to discussing what's going on in Israel right now. The immorality and strategic innanity of Israel's widely disproportionate response are plain. The fact that there has to be a discussion to establish this proves how pointless the discussion is in the first place.

This post has obviously had a slant further to the side of "Israel is wrong" than "Hamas is wrong." In part that's because the AIPAC set are "serious people" while the "Israel can do no right" set are dirty fucking hippies. As such, only one side ever gets their views aired publicly. That's also probably why I ended up arguing with the AIPACers more. But it doesn't matter. Neither side is going to listen to a word you, I, or anyone has to say.

Instead, they'll read blog posts like this and send flames calling me a neo-con war criminal, or an anti-semite self-hater. Thank God I only have zero two readers.

Ethics of Gift Receiving

When most people bat about the ol' "it's the thought that counts" phraseology, its generally used as sort of an excuse for a bad gift. However, it shouldn't be understood as excusing a bad gift - rather, it's an imperative to the recipient of the gift.

A few years ago, my mother gave me a ton of iPod accessories for Hanukkah, along with a receipt from the apple store in case I didn't want them. My brother commented on the absurdity of the situation, but truth be told I didn't want them, and was glad for the opportunity to return them for something I might enjoy. Then, a few days later, it hit me how right my brother was.

When someone buys you a gift, they put thought into it - no matter whether they spend a whole day souring store after store, or if they just see something that they think you might like and grab it at the last minute. We buy each other gifts because we think that the particular recipient will appreciate it, because of their personality, their tastes, their hobbies... for whatever reason, we think it will bring joy into their lives. And with that thought comes a responsibility on the part of the gift recipient to enjoy the gift in the manner intended.

This includes the old wear-the-ugly-sweater-when-grandma-comes-to-town routine, but it goes beyond that. When someone buys you a gift, your obligation is to try to figure out why they thought you would enjoy it, and to then do your best to enjoy it in the manner the giver intended. We give gifts to bring joy into each other's lives. Accordingly, we should receive gifts in a manner to bring joy into our own lives. Indeed, we have an obligation to do so.

I threw away the receipt from the apple store without looking at it, and made as much use of the gadgets my parents had gotten me as I could. The JBL On Stage speaker/dock system is still sitting on my desk, stage-right of my laptop as I type, even though it won't interface with my iPhone - its still how I charge my nano, and its speakers may yet get a few more workouts in their lifetime. The monster cable 16th-inch-to-RCA-adapter, entirely superfluous given my exessive audio cable collection, has continued to be my go-to cable, even as the RCA plugs have started to fall apart. The remaining gadgets have stopped working in the last 5 years, but I made every effort to use them all as much as I could when I had them, even when I had already owned something which did the trick just as well.

Truth be told, I was perfectly happy playing my MP3s on my computer and charging my iPod in the wall socket. But that wasn't the point - my parents wanted to enhance the joy I got from my MP3s and my iPod, and I had (and still have) the obligation to use those gifts as they were intended.

Ethics of Gift Giving

The Economic Theory of Gift Giving states that, unless you give cash, you're being inefficient. There's no way that you can spend $X on someone better than they could spend it themselves. Sometimes people suggest that you can get away with giving people stuff they need anyways, like batteries or stamps (especially stamps - they come in designs that you can tailor to the recipient!) but, still, you don't know what percentage of the person's annual bundle of goods is going to be devoted to stamps or batteries, so you might easily overbuy. Plus, time-value of money, etc., etc.

Of course, this is obviously the bunk. If you can't see why, try giving your significant other a bunch of batteries for Christmas. Especially if you're a dude.*

So, once we've established that gift giving is, and should be, inefficient, what does that tell us about gift-giving? Well, my theory has long been that, ideally, a gift should have a very high value-to-utility ratio.

And what do I mean by value-to-utility ratio? Well, let's suppose someone really likes chess. If they don't have a lot of disposable income, they might buy a set of cheap plastic chess pieces and a foldable vinyl chess mat. Its not particularly nice, but it gets the job done. High utility, low value.

If you were to shop for a gift for this person, perhaps you might buy them a very nice ornate chess set. They would certainly appreciate it. However, the new chess set would have no additional value over the vinyl-mat-and-plastic-piece set they already have. Both sets get the job of playing chess done quite fine. Thus, the utility remains the same - and, in fact, the marginal utility is almost zero. However, the new chess set has very high value - especially for a chess enthusiast. Thus, the high value-to-utility ratio.

So, the take home? If you're going to spend $X on someone for a gift, you should try to put as much of that $X into getting something *nice* rather than something *useful*. When you give a gift, get something that someone would love, but would never get themself. If you don't, then you're doing the one thing you should never do when giving someone a gift: being efficient.


* - Given that I have zero two readers, this part of the post is surplussage, but whatever.

Sexism - Ann Arbor Style Pt. 2

Following up on its previous guffawing post, AtL has published an email sent out anonymously to the Michigan Law community by the law student sex worker assaulted by a Michigan professor. Thankfully, this time AtL did so without comment - I might prefer some words of support for the victim, but given what happened last time, I think this might be the best we can hope for.

And, as it turns out (as anyone with half a brain would have guessed) the "assault" described in the original article and reported by the police is a tad bit under-descriptive:

Most of you probably don't know what it's like to push a boxcutter into your own wrist and neck. Or what it's like to walk home from the psych ward, and set to the task of cleaning a room covered in your own blood. Or how humiliating and degrading it is to be penetrated against your will.

Ahh, yes, describing a rape victim as an assault victim who got beat about the face a little bit. You stay classy Ann Arbor PD. Oh wait, you already are:

It's clear to me now that the AAPD thinks this is funny. That's why they're not going through with the assault charge.

What Michigan 2L Sexual Assault Victim doesn't understand is that it is funny. Because she's a Law Student. And she was raped by a professor. While she was selling sex to pay her tuition.

And she went to the police because she thought they would do their job and investigate the crime, instead of making jokes at her expense in the press.

Get it?

A Small Request.

Could Circuit City hurry up and go out of business, so I no longer have to watch their "creepy dude has feminine leggy TV pimped out to him by Circuit City employee" ad campaign?

kthxbye

Bizarre Language Conventions

Over at TPM, there's a link on the right panel to a Chicago Sun-Times article entitled "Blago Could Decide Future By Monday." The link itself says "Report: Blago Could Decide Plans Monday."

I often make use of the "may or may not" linguistic construction myself, and I'm aware that things like "could decide" or "may or may not be" indicate that a possibility of something exists, where the default assumption would be that its not there. However, its still the case that saying "Blago Could Decide Future By Monday" is to say that Blagojevich could, theoretically, decide to resign, and that Monday is a day in the future.

Sexism - Ann Arbor Style

Sgt. Roger Kinsey, FTW!

The University of Michigan is investigating one of its associate professors accused of paying a U-M Law School student for sexual acts after meeting her online, officials said...

The case came to light in April when the student went to an Ann Arbor police station to report she was assaulted by [Prof. Yaron] Eliav after they met at a hotel on the city's north side. The student told police she was advertising sex acts online via Craigslist to help pay tuition costs...

The rarity of how the case began - with a law student showing up at the police department's front desk to report she was assaulted while committing a crime herself - was not lost on investigators.

"Perhaps she should have cracked a legal textbook before coming in to the police station to talk about this," Ann Arbor Detective Sgt. Richard Kinsey said.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Get it? Because she's a law student! And, because she was selling sex, the police can ignore the fact that she may well be the victim of an assault and crack jokes at her expense! Who doesn't like a good old fashioned game of Shame the Slut?

Usually, when I come across a quote like this, I'd expect it to be in the context of a blog post on modern sexism, probably by Ezra (Klein Sucks!), Matt (Yglesias Rules!) or SpAckerman. As a general rule, I don't expect to find them in posts laughing right along with the police officers on Above the Law.

Normally, I'd credit AtL with a hat tip, but there's nothing about the sexism in the AtL post that deserves a tip of the hat.

Why We Need Universal Health Care

Noted without comment:

Starla D. Darling, 27, was pregnant when she learned that her insurance coverage was about to end. She rushed to the hospital, took a medication to induce labor and then had an emergency Caesarean section, in the hope that her Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan would pay for the delivery.
...

Ms. Darling and Wendy Carter are among 275 people who worked at an Archway cookie factory here in north central Ohio. The company provided excellent health benefits. But the plant shut down abruptly this fall, leaving workers without coverage, like millions of people battered by the worst economic crisis since the Depression.

About 10.3 million Americans were unemployed in November, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of unemployed has increased by 2.8 million, or 36 percent, since January of this year, and by 4.3 million, or 71 percent, since January 2001.

h/t Yglesias (Klein sucks, Yglesias rules!)

Lee Adama is the Final Cylon

Alright, I'm calling it. The fifth of the Final Five Cylons in Battlestar Galactica is Lee Adama.

As all zero two of my readers are aware, the primary promotional material for the second half of season 4 of BSG has been this image:



And, to compare, here is a non-original-copy-but-close-enough-and-way-easier-to-see version of the last supper:



Now a lot of effort over the interwebs has gone into comparing these two and analyzing them. However, what most people have missed is the fact that the BSG image is flipped horizontally. To wit:



Before I go on, there are three things I ought to address:

First - while I did identify this flip independently, I was not the first to do so. ShadyWriter's post also contains some analysis of the flip, which is very similar to the analysis I initially did, identifying the "grail" cup as the spot for the missing Cylon, and tying it to Philip. According to both ShadyWriter and wikipedia, Philip is always listed fifth among the disciples. As will be made clear below, I thnk the "grail" is a red herring, and Lee Adama corresponds to Philip, but if you think I'm the bunk, then his post is another good analysis that wouldn't be.

Second - The following analysis is based heavily on comparing characters in Battlestar Galactica to several of the disciples of Jesus. I'm Jewish, and basically only know what wikipedia tells me. Take my analysis with as many grains of salt as you like.

Third - Furthermore, I haven't even gotten past the middle of season 3 in my viewing of BSG yet, and, again, wikipedia. So, yeah, really, many grains of salt.

Ok, moving along:


Listing the similarities, left to right, we have:

• Both Bartholomew and Adama at the left end leaning in
• Immediately to the right are James the Lesser/Helo with their arm around Andrew/Athena
• The hand immediately to the right of Andrew/Athena holds a dagger, to the left of the shoulder of the next person.
• Anders kissing Starbuck puts them in a position very similar to Peter and John.
• John and Starbuck are both leaning at a very similar angle
• Jesus and Head 6 are both looking towards their left/the viewer's right
• A hand is extending out towards the left from the group of 3 at the far right.
• Ronald D. Moore has said that Tigh's positioning shows him turining a "blind eye" to events. Matthew, positioned 3rd from the right like Tigh, is turned away from Jesus, looking to Simon.
• Both Simon and Roslyn are leaning away.

There's also something interesting going on with the knife here. In the Last Supper, the knife is held by Peter, who is leaning in so that his hand and body are to the outside of Judas, while his head is to the inside. There is no similar crossover in the BSG picture. However, the knife vertically aligns pretty precisely with Judas' bag of silver. This vertical alignment is actually rather telling, because the whole picture is very very precisely vertically aligned:


EVERYBODY is almost exactly vertically aligned with one of the disciples. And many of the alignments make sense.

To wit, Baltar is aligned with Thomas, who wikipedia tells me is known for questioning and disbelieving Jesus' proclamations about his death and resurrection, demanding to touch Jesus' wounds before believing him, then proclaiming "My Lord and my God" upon receiving proof. This is not unlike a certain Gaius Baltar, who consistently questioned the proclamations and divinity of Head 6 and the Cylon God for much of the series, and tends to have a thing for tangible proof (not surprising for a scientist).

Also, Cait, who knows more about both Christianity and BSG than I do, assures me that Starbuck and John are also a tremendously good fit.

Once we realize this, we're left with the conclusion that the "grail" is a red herring. In fact, this makes sense - conspicuous by its absence in the original last supper is a grail of any kind. The missing gap isn't to the ouside of Lee, its to his INSIDE!

So the missing disciple isn't Philip, its James the Greater. But who does this align with? Well, like the grail in The Last Supper, there is one person conspicuous by their absence in the BSG picture: Tory Foster.

"But, wait!" - you say - "Tory can't be the last Cylon! She's ALREADY known as one of the final five!"... Well, no, you don't say that, because you read the title of this post and you know where I'm going with this.

Be that as it may, we're still left with an important question: Why are we assuming that the missing person is the final Cylon? Because Roger D. Moore said so? Well, uh, hate to burst your bubble there, kid, but no he didn't:

Someone is indeed absent from the table, admits Moore: "We have not yet revealed the final [unknown] Cylon." Does that mean the people already at the table aren't the final Cylon? Moore laughs. "You ferreted that out pretty slyly. I didn't really want to give that away."

Yeah, that's not really saying "yes" now is it? In fact, its exactly the sort of thing you might say if the answer was "yes," but you didn't want to say something that would lead people to think the answer is "yes." If you don't want to confirm it, then things like "Yes" or "No Comment" are out the window.

So, why Tory for James the Greater? Well, there are a few reasons. For starters, why the heck wouldn't Tory be a part of the picture in the first place? She's one of the final five Cylons - the other three that we know about are all at the table, and the last spot is generally assumed to be for the unknown Cylon. It would be odd to only include four of the five at the table.

If Tory were to be placed in the image, the natural spot would be by Baltar. Both the Starbuck-Anders and Helo-Athena couples are next to each other. In season 4, from what I understand, Tory and Baltar develop a relationship. Based on the placement of the other two established couples with each other, the natural placement for Tory would be by Baltar.

Finally, there's something of a fit between Tory and James the Greater. James was one of the first two disciples to join Jesus. Tory (again, from what I understand), more than any of the other final five, has embraced being a Cylon, and was the only one who immediately went to join the Cylons when D'Anna arrived to offer the Cylons in the colonial fleet sanctuary.

So, if Tory is the missing participant, and corresponds to James the Greater, then the final Cylon is one of the people already at the table. So, why Lee Adama? Because he is vertically aligned with Philip.

As noted above, Philip is always listed fifth among the disciples. Wikipedia further informs that Philip is identified as being from the same town as Andrew (Athena) and Peter (Anders) - both Cylons.

But maybe I'm just wrong about this vertical alignment thing, and the "grail" isn't a red herring - that's actually the seat for the final Cylon. After all, just looking at this in order would seat Philip there.

However, there's one last thing which connects Lee to Philip. According to Wikipedia, Philip is also associated with Bartholomew. In fact, Bartholomew is only ever mentioned in the company of Philip.

And who is Bartholomew in the BSG last supper?

William Adama.

Lee Adama is the final Cylon.

Solidarity Forever (or: The Free Market Roots of Wage Stagnation and Income Inequality)

Or: The Post in Which I Totally Needlessly Use the "Title (Or: Alternate Title)" Convention

So, I was going to wait until after finals to re-start Cheeto Dust, furiously post for two days, realize I have nothing to say, and close up shop all over again - but then, while making lunch, I had the following train of thought, and decided that the mediocre and uninsightful ramblings of a man whose economic training consists of an introductory macroeconomics course at Carnegie Mellon University is something for which the interwebs (or, at least, my zero, err, two readers) can no longer wait!

So, hey, no big secret, but I think these "computer" and "internet" things are gonna be big. Productivity in the last, say, 15-20 years has probably grown pretty f'n astronomically, and pretty consistently so over any sub-period of that timeframe. Yet, at the same time, wage inequality has also grown astronomically, while median income has pretty much stagnated (especially so over the past 8 years). If you want to get an idea of just how much the benefits of the productivity boom have gone to those at the top... well, I don't have the numbers or charts handy, but just go search Matt or Ezra a bit and you'll have no trouble finding them. (Klein Sucks! Yglesias Rules!*)

Anyway, while chipping off bits of my big block of parmigiano-reggiano, I was thinking about the market failure of this all, and how it'd make another good entry for my continuing series: "How to Talk to a Libertarian (If You Must)." As such:

Productivity goes up => Value of 1 man-hour of labor goes up
Value of 1 man-hour of labor goes up *SHOULD* => Cost of 1 man-hour of labor goes up
Value of 1 man-hour of labor goes up & Cost of 1 man-hour of labor stagnates => *MARKET FAIL*

And, thus, the libertarians are chastened, and we all celebrate into the night while burning Ayn Rand in effigy. Huzzah!

Unfortunately, I then realized this factor as well:

Productivity goes up => Cost of produced goods goes down
Cost of goods goes down => Joe the Plumber Factory Worker needs less money to buy a basic bundle of goods
Joe needs less money => Joe's opportunity costs go down (i.e., since Joe needs less money, Joe can willingly take a job that pays less and still get by)
Joe's opportunity costs go down => Cost of 1 hour of Joe-labor goes down.

So, what does all this increased productivity mean? Well, if my one semester of introductory macroeconomics taught me anything, its that People = Pig Iron, and we can model this all with supply and demand curves!

Because one man-hour of labor produces more, one man-hour is worth more, so people will want to buy more man-hours (men-hour?). Ergo, demand curve shifts right!

At the same time, products are cheaper, so people's opportunity costs are down, and they're willing to supply one man-hour for less. Ergo (because I need to be symmetrical, natch), supply curve shifts left! And what do we get? Equipoise!**

So, in other words, as we continue to follow Moore's Law and double our technology every year-and-a-half, the benefits will all accrue to our Capitalist overlords thanks to the magical invisible hands of the free market. Its enough to make you want to go read a Manga adaptation of Das Kapital.***

* This is an inside joke - population: Me. I may use it again in the future. You have been warned.

** Well, realistically, probably not, but close enough for blogging.

*** The Answer? Well, I've got a suggestion...

UPDATE: Relatedly, this. Yet more evidence that Klein sucks, Yglesias rules.

LIKE, A WEEK LATER UPDATE: Right! Supply curve shifts Right! Equipoise in wage, but more people employed! Man, I can't believe I mistyped that...

The Mandatory, Masturbatory, "OMG I'M RE-STARTING MY BLOG ROFL!!!!1!!!11!!ONEONE" Post

Blame Cait and Fletcher.

Also, in case anybody needs a refresher on the oh-so-clever* naming of this blog:



* - By clever, I may or may not mean "unoriginal and kinda lame."