inconsistency

if this poster comparing flag burning to 9/11,
especially offensive to me as a New Yorker,
is protected free speech,
why isn't flag burning also protected?

Ross Gelbspan: Scenes From The Field

Inspired by reactions to the above lecture on global warming and journalism.

Bias disclaimer

1. I view perfecting efficiency and equity (ie, Economics) as "good"
2. I view perfecting systems of power (ie, Politics) as just getting in the way, or at the very least just a means and not an end unto itself.
3. Global warming is real and must be addressed.
   

Global warming (GW) is not a moral issue

1. The carbon being released was once in the atmosphere--we're not "creating" it
2. GW is economically expensive and counter to human interest
3. Life as we know it necessitated a long succession of mass extinctions and climate alterations
4. To equate human and economic interest with "universal good/injuction" is actually hubris
5. The problem we're dealing with is mostly just uncorrected externalities--a warping of the free market, not "rampant capitalism"

Scientists must capture the economic card from the GW denyers

1. Rejecting the card based on ideology (ie, given scientist/Democrat was Marxist in college) is self-indulgent and plays into the hands of industries which the invisible hand says shouldn't be so prevelent
2. Gelbspan argues the "free market" is too slow. But he does so by defining "free market" as no taxes, no externality correction, unprosecuted misinformation, etc. This is the definition the oil industry wants you to have--don't play into their hands.
3. Subsidizing oil is portrayed as "supply-side." uncorrected (or miscorrected here) externalities do have supply-side effects--long term negative ones! supply-side is long term by definition. short term positive effects are really just borrowing benefit from the (supply-side) future: a subsidy.

Defintions
In economics class we discussed the "strengths and weaknesses of economics." However, it was actually a discussion of the "shortcomings of microeconomics"--ie, the cost/benefits of cost/benefit analysis itself.

1. Microeconomics is "produce at MR=MC (cost/benefit)"
2. Macroeconomics is "trade=good"
3. Economics is the study of "scarcity and choice"
4. The goals of Economics of are "efficiency and equity"

Shortcoming of economics:

1. goals other than efficiency and equity
2. the phenomenon of populism--studied in the field known as political economics
3. not equity (wealth distribution)--that's a quantified goal of economics

Shortcomings of libertarianism? 無!
Libertarian's recognize the government's role in maintaining a free market, not "limiting" it:

1. Protecting property rights
2. Keeping information more perfect
3. Correcting externalities (an uncorrected externality behaves like a subsidy by warping the free market)
4. Checking market power (ie, monopolies, unions)

Media Bias

1. There is a media portrayal that GW upholding is "divisive," "political," and "partisan" (wasn't Margaret Thatcher conservative?) while GW-denying is "based on economics"
2. Is GW really the rouse to distract the public from more urgent issues like gay marriage? Is it denyers or upholders who are politicizing GW?
3. Perhaps the problem with American journalism is claiming neutrality--giving each side of an issue equal and not proportionate weight/time. This is related to the "culture of politicization": how top editors learn to see everything as political
4. "[...] balence is not relevant when it comes to facts" (Gelbspan)
5. GW in the media may parallel intellegent design (ID); both are linked to American resentment of intellectualism

circumstance

yesterday i attended a deliberative dialog on gender.
the options to be discussed were:

1. enforced gender neutrality,
2. enforced gender equality, and
3. enforced gender non-duality

all these solutions had problems, mostly because of the interventionism.
the best solution would incorporate:

1. non-interventionism
2. non-heteronormality

personal anecdote:

at my first college experience (MOO) i was shocked to find that for the first time i wasnt expected to hold two modes of speaking for the two sexes. we were all just people, students, individuals. right off the bat i knew i was onto something good.