Review of The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver

  During these times of dubious economic and political stability, the buzz word "uncertainty"  is often heard in the media and felt in our personal lives.  When hearing of the success in which Mr. Silver predicted the outcome of the 2012 election, I became curious as to how he was able to so closely call precinct results and bought this book.
  Not being a gambler per se, and knowing very little about statistics, I was a bit apprehensive at first; but soon comforted by the straight-forwardness in the text, and how conversational it read. Also, I could see why it was listed among self-help books, and like how broadly the concept of finding our personal signals (reliably factual), amid ambiguous noise, could be applied.
  The author's analyses among various topics reveal a plethora of knowledge and wide range of experiences that serve as examples of how to think in specific ways in given situations. His gift for conveying what went wrong and why makes the book intriguing and fun to read. Far from the tone of a condescending know-it-all, Nate Silver writes as a buddy who is willing to show you the ropes in sports, investments, medicine, weather, etc. In short, he offers you a key to reliability.

Review of Plutocrats by Chrystia Freeland

  The disparity between the top 0.10% and the 0.01% of income brackets featured in The Plutocrats runs  hand in hand with the fractal inequality described in Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites.  Chrystia Freeland presents a well documented account of the values and culture of the super-elite, and points out the disparity even within the range between the merely wealthy and the wealthiest. Her book reveals intricacies within this exclusive group of global investors who are shaping our economic future in their financial endeavors that are unfettered by national interests, and furthermore defining the shape of things to come in this century. In a world without political boundaries, their economic fiefdoms lay in waiting not so much for large and sluggish corporations modeled on entrepreneurs of the late nineteenth century, but for a new more ethnically diverse generation in a second Gilded Age (piggy-backing or leap frogging the technological precedents of the first), and whose speed in pouncing on investment opportunities in industrial development exceeds the standard paradigm of big eating small.
  Ms. Freeland's acceptance of oligarchic behaviors is a reality check. Her distinction between rent-seeking investors- who capitalize on existing enterprises (usually through government contracts) - versus the truly innovative industries like Microsoft and Apple wherein the gravitational pull is reversed, provides insight into the dynamics of money and political power. More importantly, she demonstrates that oligarchic power isn't necessarily exclusive; and that opportunities exist for it to be broadened by those unselfish enough not to pull the ladder of social stratification up behind them.
  The Plutocrats is a good book to read on the heels of Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites; America After Meritocracy because it lends to a refreshing outlet from the static, tail-chasing depiction of our bloated meritocratic institutions, that are becoming increasingly dysfunctional by their insulation and segregation from their purposes. What may not strike the reader as refreshing is the scope of the topic; it's global now. I would recommend this book to those prone to accept conspiracy theories about the power elite, and those who aspire to entrepreneurship. For the former, it presents the dynamics of finance and power; for the latter, some character traits among the successful personalities interviewed by the author.

The social / fiscal conservative coalition is dysfunctional. When will the Republicans realize it?  The loosely coupled groups' mismatch is rooted in the 19th century schism between the pre-Darwin philosophical status-quo and neo-pragmatism.  The latter, possibly an unintended consequence generated by The Origin of Species, was adopted by industrialists as a way to embrace the practical use of technology, bereft from moral absolutism, as revolutionary philosophies emerged and swept across fields of science, politics, finance (and to a limited extent, religion) in the wake of the Darwinism.

   Today, Republican unity is compromised by social conservatives' challenge to become the dominant ideological component of its party, and the encroachment of their religious principles on empirical science should indicate a severe disjunction among their fiscal counterparts.  Aside from the topic of climate change, where congruity between the two exists for the sake of economic growth, the more reactionary rhetoric should compel the more powerful moneyed interests in the party to quell the corrosive impact of the radical voices. For decades, prayer-in-school and pro-life advocates on the political fringe have been exploited by party leadership (and more recently homophobes) to help secure a populous base which otherwise couldn't compete with Democrats in numbers.

  The post-Bush desperation incited party leaders to organize a crusade of disenchanted voters with nearly as much fervor as conscription toward a campaign against "the professional politician"  in 2010, with a losing vice presidential model, who projected a mirror image of the constituency, already in place.  Now that the ensuing representation bubble has burst, bearing the unfortunate consequence of congressional mediocrity.  I'm pleased to see fiscal conservatives seeking an end to some of the absurdity and hope to see them demonstrate the power of money to put their house in order.

Carefully Connecting the Dots

  Although inferencing is inherent in our personal selections for those seeking public offices, this election cycle poses a particularly more challenging task among the undecided in casting a conclusive vote for president. In this high stakes arena it is a given that competitors will deliberately obscure rival messaging, but the oddity of a candidate obscuring his own is rare, if not unique. In the event that such campaign calamity is of no consequence (while it certainly cannot be perceived as an effective strategy) and happenchance yields a victory, political rhetoric based on substance and truth risks being diminished even further than it is already, eroding ideals in democracy along with it.  However, the clamor for more specificity from candidates speaks to the health of an informed citizenry, and keeps hope alive. Albeit candidates will offer voters a paint-by-number method of presenting themselves, the electorate should stand to gain a more qualitative democracy by carefully connecting the dots.

Debate Etiquette

  The unpleasant experience of having someone with an opposing view point poke a hole in the comfortable bubble of my own has, on occasion, widened my knowledge base and helped to recognize my own biases.  In some instances it has provided a greater understanding and in some cases reinforced my resolve, but gratitude in both.  Being less of an activist nowadays has curbed many direct confrontations, and moreover sheltered me from the frustration of futile attempts to be persuasive.  However, I've come across a helpful tool in the research by Yale law professor, Dan Kahan, who classifies individuals as either "hierarchical" or "egalitarian" in their cultural values, and frames each in what he calls "motivational reasoning."  For those who sincerely seek to represent their viewpoints in articulate and respectful ways, it's worth reading his work.  I found his advice in avoiding the "culture war of facts" by speaking to value first  (giving the facts a fighting chance) to be valid.

  Lizz Winstead uses the American apple pie's old school recipe as an exemplary metaphor for the making of a president; both are a  made from scratch process. One who values good old fashioned ways should appreciate how the road to the White House is a slow and methodical process founded on substantive leadership; and how back-in-the-day electorates were given more opportunity to slow cook their consideration and think more deeply about their representative choices at the ballot box. In contrast, today's technologies have accelerated this process much in the way microwave ovens have made apple pies quick, easy and less delectable.  In an election cycle politically charged with  sound bites and tweets, they have empowered fractured broadcast journalism and social media to outpace that of print journalism, quantitatively richer in detail. Syndicated columnist, Bob Franken, points out that in such a climate, process has also been undermined by well financed distortions that obscure core themes in campaign rhetoric via massive infusions of money and negative advertising.

  In this way, an egalitarian thinker may find an inroad toward a more effective discussion with a hierarchical one, by addressing a conservative value at its forefront. Hopefully a more amiable and fruitful dialogue will ensue.

  In Defense of the Affordable Care Act

  The institution of healthcare in the post modern era has become problematic, much like that of slavery during America's revolutionary period.  With equality and human dignity the battle cry in the Age of Enlightment, our founding fathers excluded addressing the issue of slavery at the Philadelphia Convention, although some colonial governments and state constitutions had taken small steps toward curbing it.  During the immediate post revoluionary decades a growing consensus among the nation's leaders (including some slave oweners themselves) that slavery was a doomed institution of labor, failed to materialize legal measures to universally end its practice. James Wilson, of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention  predicted the inevitable emancipation of all slaves in the nation, and in 1774,  Benjamin Rush thought "there will be not a Negro slave in North America in 40 years."  Nevertheless, this enormous problem of democracy was left to fester until its catastrophic end.

  Is  a similar mistake being made by pursuing the repeal of the Affordable Care Act?  Who can deny that the rapidly accelerating cost of healthcare is not monumental?  Will our nation's leaders (both present and future) really dismantle this comprehensive effort toward a solution, for the sake of those who profit from the status quo? Really?  Does the "Now is not the time; let's rethink this thing" argument not resemble the attitude held by many lawmakers  prior to the Civil War in regard to slavery and those who stood to profit from it?

  The vestige of racism in the aftermath of emancipation lingers today, but one can only imagine the ramifications brought about by the absence of a national healthcare system that insures us all with medical coverage.

President Washington's Farewell Address

  After finishing Chapter 5 of Gordon Wood’s Empire of Liberty; A History of the Early Republic 1789-1815, I had to find “Washington’s Farewell  Address” to read for myself, which used to be required reading for public high school students.  I had yet to read it. I wouldn’t have been able to read it in high school, besides understand and appreciate its scholarship (It used to be read in the U.S. Congress frequently, probably during filibusters); however, I was awestruck by how much it meant to its author to publicize the advice derived from his deeply committed concern for the welfare of the infantile republic.   I’m curious as to whether presidential candidates would be able to identify their favorite parts.  

  I found much of it be useful for both our major political parties to keep in mind.  The address emphasizes the importance of eliminating debt during peace times, and revenue.  He also names religion and morality as indispensible supports to free republics, and the primary importance of institutions to diffuse knowledge as an enlightened public is essential to the structure of government.

My favorite clause is pertinent to today’s election year political wrangling:

 “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."