Contemplations on Attempts to Amend Alaska’s Constitution

Feb6 by Marc Grober

Jack Balkin, in his text “Living Originalism”, suggests that the US Constitution provides an opportunity for the public to daily redeem itself, to reconnect and re-establish our commitment to a way of life despite ever changing circumstances, to pursue a more perfect union. He goes on to say,

The Constitution is an intergenerational project of politics, and the generations of We the People are the participants in the project. The Constitution contains commitments that We the People have only partially lived up to, promises that have yet to be fulfilled, and it is the task of each generation to do its part, however great or small, to help fulfill them nd to achieve a more perfect union in its own day. The participants in the project will argue among themselves about how to continue the project; they will make mistakes and commit injustices, but this by itself does not detract from the point of the enterprise. As the Talmud says, we are not required to complete the great Work, but neither are we free to refrain from it.”

If you read the proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention (click here to listen here to Senator Gardner reading from the archives) you can still hear the same sentiments echoing off the chamber walls as our Founders strove to improve on what they found, so as to adopt a Constitution for their day:

“I believe we should take direct steps to maintain a free public education not encroached upon by any quarter. I think it might be well to bring out in the argument for the direct or indirect benefit of public funds for education is the matter that is now being faced in Europe and in particular in the Netherlands where they have what is called the form of educational pacification, where the government is splitting the tax dollar among some 500 different church groups providing for a parochial school benefit on an indirect basis, and in a community where there is maybe 500 school children there will be as high as seven or eight small schools scattered out throughout the community, not providing for the fullest benefit in the educational field as far as having a good complete centralized program. I think that sectarianism segregation in our educational system is bad for the children. I do not deny the right of people to have their own schools. However, I think that we should always look to the interest of the founders of our nation when they brought about the separation of church and state.” Jack Coghill Floor speech quoted in full with cite below.

Constitutions are, as Jefferson might suggest, sacred not so much for their text as for the compact they represent, our oath that as a society we will strive for the common good. That sense of responsibility is in fact the reason that there are among us those who signed our Constitution who have argued that no matter what else, the power to amend our Constitution should never be used in such a way as to rend asunder that which the Constitution has brought together (see quotes of Jack Coghill, Sr. and Vic Fischer, below.) Unfortunately, the Alaska Senate is engaged in just such a consideration this session.

Let there be no doubt that Joint Resolution 9 is not about rectifying historical faux pas, nor is it about rectifying an “old mistake”. But the underlying purpose, as distressing as that is, almost pales before the grief that this resolution is intended to bring to the people of this State. For this is in a very real sense a cynical ploy; an effort to do just what we should never do. This is an effort to drive a wedge through the heart of Alaska. This is designed to promote the most vitriolic clash in Alaska’s history, to rend our very soul in twain, and is is being done, believe it or not, in the name of Alaskan youth. For shame.

There are Alaska Senators who believe that they should use the Constitution as a political weapon, a device with which to promote their political agenda, not because it is in the best interests of all, but because they think they can get one over on someone else and get their way. In a 1996 article for the Atlantic Monthly about Jefferson and about the true nature of America’s “civil religion” (a far cry from the Protestant intolerance informing the positions of many in Juneau today), O’Brien states, “In an address at Michigan State University on May 5, 1995, President Bil Clinton warned right wing militias not to attempt to ‘appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes..” And that it is what we face today.

But the Alaska Legislature does not represent the interests of some Alaskans. It represents the interests of ALL Alaskans, and I have to ask the Legislature, in all sincerity, if they truly believe the horrific politicization of education that this resolution would unleash is going to benefit Alaska.

We do not live in a democracy. Indeed our founding fathers were terrified of democracy as well they should be, schooled as they were in Greek Philosophy. Instead they fashioned a republic specifically designed to prevent demagoguery. Specially fashioned to insure that popular passion would not result in momentary advantage. In order words, to protect us from what the Legislature is here asked to unleash.

We understand now that JR9 is about holding hostage the students of this State for the purpose of promoting a highly polarizing effort to divert public funds to private purposes, among those purposes, religious education. It is about opening Alaska media to millions of dollars of
outside advertising intended to destroy public employee unions and public education. It is about the Texification of Alaskan education.

I call on all Alaska Senators to uphold that redemption offered by our Constitution, and acknowledge that the Alaska Constitution, that organ of unification, must not be used as a means of shattering the public trust or confidence in its public institutions.

Resources

Balkin, J.M. Living Originalism. Harvard University Press, 2011. 75 http://books.google.com/books?id=khidNUWpY8UC&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false

O’Brien, Conor Cruise. “Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist.” Atlantic Monthly, 1996. Accessed March 27, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/obrien.htm.

‘But in his opinion, some of the more than 20 amendments have been political in nature, and unnecessary. “It’s not that the Constitution is a holy document. It’s that it has proven very effective.”‘ http://www.litsite.org/index.cfm?section=Reading-and-Writing&page=Pass-The-Word&viewpost=2&ContentId=1597

‘ “My inclination is to leave it alone,” Coghill says. “It’s a real simple and well put together document.”’ http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/constitutional-questions—in-you-can-vote-for-a/article_012327eb-76e8-5a72-9b5d-2ec4b55c146d.html

“COGHILL: Speaking in defense of my proposed amendment, I would first like to say I am very prone to the problem of putting any religious persecution into the Constitutional Convention or among the delegates. It would be the same thing as me trying to convince Mr. Ralph Rivers of the principles of the Republican party, and he in turn of the party he belongs to. I don’t believe that is the problem at all. I think that they certainly have a right, a private right or a religious right, or a parochial right under our constitution to have schools. However, I believe that the way our government was set up 175 years ago, that the founders felt that public education was necessary to bring about a form of educating the whole child for civic benefit through a division of point of the home taking a certain part of the child, the church taking a certain part of this education, and the government or state through public schools taking the other part. I adhere to that principle, and I might say that I am the president of the Association of Alaska School Boards and one of the formers of that twelve-point program we developed in Anchorage last October. I think that the problem could probably be well misconstrued here as to the motive and intent. However, I feel that the intent of public education is primarily a state function and does not belong to any private or any one particular group, whether they are in the minority or the majority. I believe we should take direct steps to maintain a free public education not encroached upon by any quarter. I think it might be well to bring out in the argument for the direct or indirect benefit of public funds for education is the matter that is now being faced in Europe and in particular in the Netherlands where they have what is called the form of educational pacification, where the government is splitting the tax dollar among some 500 different church groups providing for a parochial school benefit on an indirect basis, and in a community where there is maybe 500 school children there will be as high as seven or eight small schools scattered out throughout the community, not providing for the fullest benefit in the educational field as far as having a good complete centralized program. I think that sectarianism segregation in our educational system is bad for the children. I do not deny the right of people to have their own schools. However, I think that we should always look to the interest of the founders of our nation when they brought about the separation of church and state. The problem was brought, and it was brought about by Thomas Jefferson quite well when he said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in the state of civilization, it expects something that never shall be”. Therefore out of his deliberations with John Madison they brought about a form of free public education starting in Virginia, and it has come forward ever since under the intent of having the tax dollar only brought to the public educational system. I know there have been many law cases on it, Supreme Court rulings and what not, and I think that the matter still is divided as far as the general public is concerned, as between the sects of religion and not on the principle of preserving the free public education as an instrument of the state.” From the Minutes of the 48th Day of the Alaska Constitutional Convention Accessed at http://www.law.alaska.gov/doclibrary/conconv/48.html

Screen Shot 2014-02-06 at 9.32.44 AM

Simple is as simple does….

Feb6 by Marc Grober

There has beena good deal of tooth grinding about the current ASD budget gap, some of the ideological rants, some well intentioned efforts to focus the public eye on various issues. An example of the latter can be seen at ElectronicBonsai , David Block’s Blog. Tip o’ the hat to David in that he is generally accurate, but his conclusion unfortunately is not – there is no “simple” answer to ASD’s budget woes, in no small part because it is, at its base, a political problem and our politicians are doing a Tastes Great/Less Filling on us, and we continue to drink the slop.

Certainly bringing back the BRT system would increase community involvement in the budget on a more granular level. In fact, I served on BRTs during every cycle since they were implemented by Carol’s predecessor and we in fact help cut millions from ASD’s budget (mostly mission creep, as opposed to waste.) But any number cruncher will likely tell you that while the BRT system will give the community a better sense of what is in the budget, it is fairly obvious where cuts can be made, and we are likely not going to go there…..

On the other hand, David’s use of the term “infiltrated” with respect to federal education programs is unfortunate. As David Teal suggested (repeatedly, as it were, on LegTV) the State would have implemented the same programs as the Federal government offered financial incentives to pursue, so while an easy target for whiners, there is not much to complain of there. However, we should note that ASD has never fully complied with many policies that bring in Federal funds, but has always continued to receive those funds while they are afforded substantial room to move inside grant scoping parameters. But grants come with overhead and, as David correctly notes, run dry. One might even argue that Alaska School Districts should look at running their base functions off the base student allocation to avoid the boom and bust cycles that Ms. Comeau used to her advantage over the past decade to erode teacher compensation. But as most everyone will agree, that would be virtually impossible.

Books, though, could be cut with a bold turn into the headwinds of the 21st Century. But while we’ve wasted millions on technology that really won’t help, we have spent little on technology that could help. And while Mr. Steele, while a Board member, actually suggested that turning the Tech BRT into a standing District body might produce long term benefit, that idea was quickly snuffed when it became apparent that the BRT was not going to be led about quietly…. But even the savings that could be realized from appropriate technological policy won’t make a dent in the hole artificially created by our leading lights.

If one looks at budget expenses over time you see that adjusted for inflation what goes in to the classroom has not changed much over a decade, while overall spending has risen sharply. And most of that rise is attributable to low cost bonds pushed by the current and past administration for construction and administrative costs (which go far beyond just a few extra ineffective unit administrators.) In other words, the folk who are complaining most about the current cost of education are largely responsible for the cost sectors that they are whimpering about. And in the meantime, what most of Anchorage seems to forget is that most of us make no net payment for any State or local service. Let’s say that again: “most of Anchorage seems to forget is that most of us make no net payment for any State or local service.” The “taxes” that David references are offset by payments from the State to the populace, so from an accountancy perspective, we are being paid to pay our taxes and cry pitiably should anyone suggest that we actually reach into our pocket for a sous more.

We have made our bed and now it is time to lie in it. At the local level we have a fractured and polarized community, and we elect to the Board far right ideologues (who simply want to shut down public education and public employee unions) like Don Smith and centrist nodders who purport to be in support of public education and then give the nod to whatever looniness central administration runs up the flagpole (like Jeff Friedman who thought it was just fine that ASD should violate State law with respect to teacher credentials.) The current crop is so ineffective that none of them have apparently demanded that staff publish the working documents used to develop the scandalous e-mail that went out referencing a change from 6 to 7 periods, though the public asked the Board to make that information public 3 weeks ago. We have municipal administration that believes it can run roughshod over the community because it has an extra vote in the Assembly and we have a State government that is controlled by people who are approaching delusional.

BSA Funding by year

In a very real sense, the source of our problems is the focus of our problems; we have so poorly managed public education that we have failed to produce what public education is intended to produced, an literate and informed public that can parse logic and rhetoric to engage in critical thinking for the purpose of making rational decisions. In fact many are trying now to gut our Constitution so that the State will fund “schools” that promote instruction in the supernatural while they applaud Mr. Ham and Creationism! Is that the fault of teachers? Well, far be it from me to argue that we don’t have more than a few rotten apples in the barrel, but that even the best teacher faces an impossible task with the odds we have stacked against them. But while Evaluation under The Danielson Group will require teachers to spend more time in peer review, reflection and lesson planning, they will be provided less time to do that, increasing class sizes (though class size should be halved), and reduced respect and compensation.

The rational response to all this might be to follow the age old advice to put the shovel down and back away from the hole, but that is not likely. What we are going to do is get very angry and scream our way into a few extra bucks, which in the long run will not in any way address the issues underlying our problems. The “simple” fact of the matter was well framed when Senator Dunleavy recently inquired of Superintendent Paramo regarding SJR9. Paramo ducked the question. And that is what our big school districts are all doing about State funding, they are all ducking. They use State politics to batter teacher negotiations. They throw up their hands and say, “It is out of our control!” instead of saying, “We are shutting this fiasco down because this entire discussion is ludicrous.” It is high time for local school districts to choose, because we all know that otherwise the choice is made for them, and that choice results in lots of people employed doing little more than babysit.

Culturally Competent Educational Systems

Jan22 by Marc Grober

We really do not have an economic crisis with respect to school funding in Alaska. We can easily produce the funding necessary to maintain our schools to the extent we decide is appropriate, and as I have mentioned elsewhere (https://opinion.alaskapolicy.net/pardonme/?p=250) the arguments over “sustainable” budgets is largely a smokescreen.

What we do have is a fundamental failure to communicate, and this failure manifests itself among the political elite, the educational elite and the general population, the target of our education policies.

At the political level it has been clear from some time that few if any share a common vision of what education is, and there is a lack of a shared vocabulary with which to even discuss this. I mentioned to Senator Gardner almost a year ago that before trying to discuss inflation-proofing education, she should first attempt to realize a common sense of the nature of education with her colleagues, and while the Legislature has wound its way around lots of issues, I have yet to see any reconciliation as to just what education means.

In the educational world, there is so much Sturm und Drang regarding “reform”, “testing” and so much other nonsense that rational discourse is pushed to the margin. While the concept of data driven decision making is an important one, what it has produced is the manufacture of drivel used to drive policy that the data simply does not support, as well as inadequate research run up this or that flagpole to press one ideological point or another.

But worse by far is our failure to communicate effectively with the general population, the folk who are frankly dubious about the entire idea of education, in no small part because it seems to them, based on what they hear from the elite, that education “is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.”

I stopped short in my tracks when I first heard mention of the need for a “culturally competent healthcare system”, largely, to be honest, because I am unnerved by the concept of a racially segregated health system. But the concept does not address so much cultural medicine, as recognizing cultural barriers to medicine. What are the linguistic,m cultural, socio-economic hurdles to facilitating a healthy population.

And it was then that I realized that we have the exact same issue with respect to education. What we have is really not an economic problem but a cultural problem, and if one took the literature about “culturally competent healthcare systems” and replaced “healthcare” with “educational”, we would have a rather complete picture of the problems we face in education today.

Babel Fish

While I certainly have a well defined vision of what an education is and why it is necessary, I am just as certain that others in my community don’t share my views, and many think that what I see as necessary for everyone is a ridiculous waste of resources. While some wax smarmy and opine that “the stupid is strong”, that only reinforces the arguments of those who don’t see the inherent value in education, or perhaps more accurately, don’t share Ms. Smarmy’s views. And their arguments are grounded in the economics of our State, where everything especially our politicians, are for sale, and someone who flunked out of high school can brag to their kids that an education is over-rated and is not feeding or clothing them.

It is time to put aside jargon and ideology, to ask Ravitch and Chavous to take a pill, and to actually discuss like intelligent and rational creatures what kind of society we wish to see and how we intend to achieve that society. Then we can invite those who wish to establish a theocracy to emigrate to an emirate and those remaining can then get down to brass tacks and pay for what is needed instead of hurling mindless one liners about as if they actually meant anything.

A Last Supper

Jan1 by Marc Grober

Listening to the Alaska House Task Force squabble over their report brings back memories of that vintage Super Bowl bit of Americana evidencing that Americans are the most gullible creatures on Earth. Perhaps the cleverest application of that bit of MadAve genius might be credited to a comment by Cheryl Bezaire, “ The Lord’s Supper: Tastes Great / Less Filling”, but the leveraging of that piece of inanity is legion.

What was so ironic about the ad (and it is as chilling now as it was almost 30 years ago) is that the public is suckered into accepting that the discussion is about beer worth drinking. Likewise, whatever the take of a particular faction on the Task Force, the fight on the right takes one thing for granted; education funding must be reformed because the money we spend is not being spent well. Yes, some argue we need to cut back, and some argue we need to spend smarter, but they all agree on a matter not in evidence, which is that we need to go on a education funding diet.

It is a bit frightening to suggest that Andrew Halcro is holding down the progressive end of an argument, but that is what happens when one gets sucked into the vortex of “Tastes Great / Less Filling” – even the most self-evident of acknowledgments appears sage as compared to hysterical pronouncements of self-fulfilling prophets. If you want to avoid a budget crisis, throwing away millions for redundant playgrounds and billions to bribe oil companies will tend to sap the zest out of any savings plan…

But what the whiners and the renders fail to recall is that most Alaskans pay a NET ZERO for all their State and Municipal services. Let’s just repeat that, shall we? Most Alaskans pay a NET ZERO for all their State and Municipal services. That is because Alaskans pay no income tax and their payment in other State and Local taxes are largely offset by their receipt of a yearly payment from the State. Yes, all the gnashing of teeth and the doom and gloom is over the nightmare of the residents of Alaska actually having to assume some personal responsibility with respect to State spending.

The upshot then is that the Task Force is hustling the Alaska public like Miller Lite hustled America; excuse us while we obscure from your view the fact that funding education is really not a problem in that all we have to do is PAY FOR IT. The argument over whether public education is an investment or a cost (or vice versa) takes advantage of the same ploy; it leads one, as a sheep to slaughter, into arguing over accounting fictions and missing the fact that in the largest sense it is neither.

And therein, perhaps, lies the rub, because the subtext is that the folk driving the Alaska Legislature not only don’t want to pay for anything, they want others to pay them to do what they want. Yes, they want the State to pay parents so that parents can shield their kids from things like science. Yikes!

Meanwhile, the Administration is knee-deep in it’s own form of “education reform”, arranging for millions to be spent on outside contractors by State Districts to engage in constructivist assessments. Yes, while on the one hand teachers are advised they must engage only in research based pedagogy, the Alaska Administration of Sean Parnell has launched a mandatory attack on Districts requiring the use of expensive proprietary non-research based ideological methods as for evaluating teaching staff, which teaching staff, already overworked, is now somehow expected to find an additional 10-15 hours a week to play make believe over developmental theories that are not research based.

Are our problems so intractable? We have bozos declining revenues on the one hand, while we have other bozos wasting money on the other hand. It would seem that the easy answer (though I do NOT subscribe to easy answers) wo0uld be to get the bozos off the bus, and as those bozos all self-identify as Republicans, the choice for Alaskans would seem to be clear. Unfortunately, things are never as clear as they appear to be, which is perhaps the text of the AEA President who cautioned against suggesting that there was anything Revelatory (the topic of the Whore of Babylon having been broached) about the Task Force discussions. No, our Dems would likely be just foolish (they certainly demonstrate such foolishness in their strident whining about assessments.)

The folk gathered around the Table at the Task Force barkfest were there because, at least ostensibly, they figured that they were so bright they could see their way to a “solution” where others could not (or were intentionally obstructing.)The humorous turn here being that we are seeing a race to the bottom between the Administration (reform) and the Legislature (cut.) Great Taste. Less filling.

Under the Table things were not perhaps so civil, because the hunt has been on for ways to defund public schools, and where you can’t make that fly under the flag of religious freedom, perhaps you can make that fly under the flag of freedom of educational choice, though the intent, to allow the inculcation of children with delusional commitments to the irrational and supernatural at public expense, is the same.

The Table in Ms. Bezaire’s comment was set for Pesach (Passover) which strangely enough celebrates religious freedom. And ironically enough, we once again have stood the concept of religious freedom on its head as we turn the idea of freedom from theocracy into a device to secure public funding of religious education. Round and round goes the nasty beer as we offer the bracha: Great taste! Less filling!

The First Annual Anchorage Christ-off

Sep20 by Marc Grober

It is one thing to consider some apoplectic bozo sputtering about blood guilt, quite another to try to reason with someone who is ignorant of the history and theology surrounding “Jesus” yet is rabid about how they are “more Christian” than someone else (berating and verbally abusing, in the process, the other), especially when the other arguably deserves to be scorned for their heartless self-involvement and theological delusions?

Certainly, if the abuser chooses to argue that they are “true” adherents to the social gospels, then one would have to respond that their abuse is obviously inconsistent with both the “Christian” message to ‘turn the other cheek’, as well as the Muslim message (echoing the Old Testament concept) that justice is “the Lord’s” and humans should always treat other humans with patience and acceptance (see e.g. the Bee Sura.) 16_127

But for those who think that the gospels also portray Jesus as flatly revoking Deuteronomic law and rejecting the concept of a religiously ordered community, how does attempt to broaden their view of the complex issues of 2 millenia ago? And to try to address such positions in the online “press” or on Facebook, of all places? The ignorance of history and theology so often seen online is disturbing; that it feeds a rather bizarre attempt at refutation of the claims made for a particular religion by others, such as we saw this past week (Shannyn Moore: These Christian churches wouldn’t vote for Jesus Christ | Shannyn Moore | ADN.com) is simply bizarre. While the believers in the myths of Christian America are possibly delusional (reserving judgement on the mythos proposed by Jack Balkin), their despisers, relying on the same or similar myths are no worthier.

Of course, as an aside, one is reminded of what a Richard Dawkins might ask, “Why is anyone suggesting that we be guided in our modern ethical obligations solely on the basis of a deeply the massaged canon of a Roman demi-god cult which initially endorsed a continuation of stoning and other delightful practices and was largely devised as an instrument of the imperium?” Might we not come to the conclusion that putting people out to starve is wrong without trying to lift that instruction out of bizarre texts thousands of years old?

While I am indeed upset by the deplorable impact I think Jerry Prevo’s theology is haing on my community, celebrating a self-proclaimed forfeit over Dr. Prevo in a Christ-off will not have the effect of mending the ways of Prevo’s flock; just to the contrary! Dudley’s “Broken Words” is a vibrant testimony to the response of the fundamentalist evangelical right to such controversy. Nor will her screed push those in the “middle” away from the Puritanism of Prevo et al, as would any rational adult attracted by such teenage angst? Would anyone pursuing a progressive agenda wish to really be associated with this tumultuous bellowing over whose musty magician does better magic? Is this even remotely appropriate?

No, no and, no. The irony in “let my people go” is almost too much to bear… It is just so unfortunate that “Christians” have lost contact with the allegorical tradition once extent in Christian thought. And it is that kind of public diatribe that also paints agnostics in a poor light (to the extent that others see “blue domers” as agnostics.) We may be able to do without religion (and do very well, thank you) but as E. J Dionne and others have noted, we don’t do well without community, and one of the functions of religion (perhaps the most important function of Jesus’ religion — and he was certainly and unabashedly NOT Christian) is the maintenance of community.

As far as I can see, the taunters and the tauntees are tools all.

A clash of iron; a season of irony

Sep14 by Marc Grober

This is the season for vengeance, sayeth the “patriots”. Over and over again Americans are assault with some form of prescription intended to stir our military loins in recollection of a the destruction of the Trade Towers. Most recently, I saw a primary school teacher accoutred in hand printed US Flag Tees with her students. I have been thinking about that photo for almost a week now and am still not sure what the lesson was, nor am I sure that I want to know. Perhaps, in all the confusion, I am sure about one thing, that dressing kids up to wave the flag in this season is one of the most ironic images that I think I will ever live to see. How can one look at that image and not call to mind the images of children, murdered under the same flag.

Look on those kids (even the one picking his nose.) Not one of those cute children understand what took place on 9/11/73. Not one sees the stark irony in howling about the injustice of one 9/11 while ignoring the other. Of my favorite authors, perhaps Vonnegut captures the irony of this season best. Like Vonnegut we seem to be masters of temporal distortion and disorientation, accomplished at auto-hypnosis and selective amnesia. As I sneak a peak in to the future, this is what I see for future Septembers, “9/11” grief celebrations that extol military virtue not unlike Russian Mayday celebrations.

This year, the 40th anniversary of the American sponsored pusch that deposed the democratically elected President of Chile and ended with the installation of August Pinochet, takes place during ‘aseret yumei tschuvah”, the Jewish ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashana (the Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) with Yom Kippur taking place on shabbat. Amazingly enough, while the local School district still won’t allow activities on Sunday, it made a special arrangement to move high school football games to Thursday and Friday this week, indocating that it was hopeful that the Friday night game would be over by 8:00 pm (when Shabbat and Yom Kippur start.)

The timing of the holidays this year poses much the same questions as the Holocaust did for our grandparents. Are there any innocents, and can you forgive without being forgiving; can you expect atonement from others without owning your own misconduct? What responsibility, if any, does the victim have in his own demise? In a perfect world perhaps the taunt, “You asked for it,” would lose all meaning, but in the world in which I live, a world peopled by those with long memories, simmering resentment and deep anger, owning up to one’s responsibility seems unappetizing to people who wear the red, white and blue.

There are, I suppose, quite a few ways to look at “atonement’, but I tend to see it as requiring a willingness to forgive, as well as a effort seeking forgiveness. It is a process of reconciliation that is not addressed by mailing greeting cards.

While Americans cry that they will never forget the trespasses of others, they might try remembering their own trespasses.

Not Agreeing About Much of Anything

Mar17 by Marc Grober

The title is taken from a theorem that references Aumann’s ¹ 1976 paper demonstrating the logical impossibility of agreeing to disagree, which is referenced by Eli Dourado in his piece in Ümlaut ² suggesting a theory of meta-rationality and arguing that Internet Austrians and Paul Krugman are not meta-rational. Dourado explains the meta-rational as,

honest truth-seekers who choose opinions as if they understand the problem of disagreement and self-deception. According to the theory of disagreement, meta-rational people will not have disagreements among themselves caused by faith in their own superior knowledge or reasoning ability.

relying on a paper by Cowen and Hansen ³ which argues,

honest truth-seeking agents with common priors should not knowingly disagree. Typical disagreement seems explainable by a combination of random belief influences and by priors that tell each person that he reasons better than others. When criticizing others, however, people seem to uphold rationality standards that disapprove of such self-favoring priors. This suggests that typical disagreements are dishonest. Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein

It would seem however, that Aumann argues his paper “might be considered evidence against this view, as there are in fact people who respect each other’s opinions and nevertheless disagree heartily about subjective probabilities.” Aumann goes on to state,

It seems to me that the Harsanyi doctrine is implicit in much of this literature; reconciling subjective probabilities makes sense if it is a question of implicitly exchanging information, but not if we are talking about “innate” differences in priors.

Yet Lehrer et al ⁴ note,

Can agents have common knowledge of their beliefs? In a seminal paper Aumann (1976) demonstrates the impossibility of agreeing to disagree: For any posteriors with a common prior, if the agents’ posteriors for an event E are different (= they disagree), then the agents cannot have common knowledge (= agreeing) of these posteriors. Thus, the short answer to our opening question is that agents cannot have common knowledge of their beliefs when they are different.

What does all this mean for Dourado’s application of Cowen and Hanson’s argument about meta-rationality?

First we must address the underlying matter of whether irrational equates with illogical (and vice versa.) Then we must consider the difference between rhetoric and logic. And lastly we need to consider whether Homo sapiens can have common knowledge. Quite a tall order, when Dourado simply wants to point out that Krugman is not fully addressing counterarguments, but then, might Dourado be meta-irrational?

A discussion of whether rational equates with logical, reason with logic, might well start with Max Weber, if for no other reason than Weber described no less than four types of rationality, none of which were mathematically (i.e. logically) defined. Kant argued for two types of rationality (theoretical and practical.) Certainly Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach suggests rather eloquently that logic and reason may easily be contrarian. In other words, Hofstadter suggests that logic is not necessarily meta-rational. Strike one.

The trivium was the introductory medieval course of university study, comprising logic, rhetoric and grammar. Sister Miriam Joseph ⁵ is instructive:

Grammar is concerned with the thing as-it-is-symbolized,
Logic is concerned with the thing as-it-is-known, and
Rhetoric is concerned with the thing as-it-is-communicated.

Need we look further to acknowledge that rhetoric and logic are not congruent, must as logic and reason are no congruent? The point to be taken here is, as Miriam puts it, “Grammar is the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; logic is the art of thinking; and rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance.” Strike two!

And now we must return to Aumann et al., and it would seem that logic tells us that Dourado struck out, as it is unlikely, if not impossible, that Homo sapiens, engaged in argument, can have common knowledge. It would seem that the basis for Dourado’s argument is illogical, but is there rhyme to his reason, rhythm in his rhetoric? Perhaps the reason that we see the concept of meta-rationality promoted are the problems of self-reference and uncommon priors.

“Internet Austrians”, besides assuming that Homo sapiens acts rationally for rational purposes. assume that there can be a state of perfect knowledge and that this state can be obtained naturally by virtue of the population acting rationally for rational purposes, which it is assumed, what the population in fact does. The basis of Austrian thought then is tautological in the sense that according to that School, there being no way to empirically test the assumptions made, the arguments must be a matter of faith.

Of course, the fact that this state has never been observed is attributed to “the venality of Man’s desire to defeat the free market for their own advantage.” ⁶ In other words, the alleged beauty of the wholly free market, the mechanism by which perfect knowledge would be obtained, will ever be defeated by the natural proclivities of Man. Ouroborous; need one say more?

Now we come to the question of uncommon priors which brings us full circle to the question of logic vs rhetoric. While Cowen and Hansen promote theory of logic, as we have noted, logic need not be rational, and it may not be the tool of choice depending on the purpose., as rhetoric is arguably more appropriate to persuasion than logic.

Krugman opens himself to Dourado’s analysis because Krugman, unlike Austrians, argues for external and testable priors, but as Dourado argues (as well as Syll ⁷ and Keen ⁸ , the noted instances just examples of criticism), Krugman does seem to engage in the practices to which Dourado objects. No, Krugman does not do it all the time, but he has been criticized in this vein by other than a young PhD student (who doesn’t, in his piece, connect all the dots to actually demonstrate the “truth” of the criticism he makes.) So, from a gross perspective, Dourado is correct, in that, whether or not he proffers adequate evidence of his points, Krugman’s own peers (and Krugman himself, as we see in his criticism of Stiglitz earlier this year, touted here by David Henderson) engage in such criticism, arguing that various perspectives are or are not accurate, and the basis (or lack thereof) for the criticism.

We have to inquire, though, whether what we are witnessing is a logical academic effort, or a rhetorical policy directed effort, and it would appear that on the face of it, we must agree to agree that the arena Dourado is examining is one of public opinion, where rhetoric holds sway. Does rhetoric render a speaker dishonest? This is where the “theory” becomes unusable in that the theory would require agreement on “facts” and process, and as we have seen, “fact” is illusory and there is no agreement on rhetorical process.

And here is the cross that social science must bear; the elite must, in Cowen & Hansen’s terms, clear a meta-rational space for the discipline, free of the static of “ceteris parabus” and other nonsense. But the academic space is a separate domain from the forum of public opinion, whether that is problematic or not. In the forum of public opinion, Dourado’s criticism may be well placed, but with respect to academics, he has made no case. The rhetorical effort to promote rational policy based on an argument of economic analysis in the public square is a far cry from the court of academe, and in this situation, as in so many others today, we seem to be losing those distinctions; we are in a 21st Century Reformation where any internet blogger presumes himself to have an opinion as valuable as any Nobel Laureate professor.

And this all begs the question presented by Luther some 600 years ago (and in a larger sense presented by Rushdie and Kazantzakis), how does one decide? Dourado promotes Luther’s argument and that having been disastrous once before, I see no reason it wouldn’t be disastrous again, but more on that in the next post…..

Aumann, Robert J. “Agreeing to Disagree.” The Annals of Statistics 4.6 (1976): 1236–1239. JSTOR. Web http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958591 . 17 Mar. 2013. Citing, Harsanyi, J. (1967-1968). Games of incomplete information played by Bayesian players, Parts I-III. Management Sci. 14 159-182, 320-334, 486-502.
“Paul Krugman Is Brilliant, but Is He Meta-Rational?” The Ümlaut. Web http://theumlaut.com/2013/03/13/paul-krugman-is-brilliant-but-is-he-meta-rational/ . 17 Mar. 2013.
Cowen, Tyler, and Robin Hanson. “Are disagreements honest.” Journal of Economic Methodology (2002). Web http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Are%20Disagreements%20Honest%20-%20WP.pdf 17 March 2013.
Lehrer, Ehud, and Dov Samet. “Agreeing to Agree.” Theoretical Economics 6.2 (2011): 269–287. Wiley Online Library. Web http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/TE578/abstract . 17 Mar. 2013.
Joseph, Sister Miriam. The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric : Understanding the Nature and Function of Language. Paul Dry Books, 2002. Print.
Wingo, Gregory Allen Facebook rant. One might inquire whether it’s more accurate to say “the venality of Man in promoting the free market”…..
“Krugman’s Vindication of Neoclassical Macroeconomics – Brilliantly Silly.” LARS P SYLL. Web http://larspsyll.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/krugmans-vindication-of-neoclassical-macroeconomics-brilliantly-silly/. 17 Mar. 2013.
“Steve Keen: How Krugman Lost Equilibrium (Part 2) « Naked Capitalism.” Web http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/03/steve-keen-how-krugman-lost-equilibrium-part-2.html . 17 Mar. 2013.

Other references:
Hofstadter, D.R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books, 1999. Art of Mentoring Series.

“You’re not the boss of me!”

Mar9 by Marc Grober

It occurred to me, on the occasion of re-reading, of all things, one of The Economist’s blogs on President Obama’s State of the Union Message (and the blog is well worth reading) that Rawls is an unknown quantity to most Americans. This is not unexpected as so many in the US are under the spell of the credible, but inconsistent (blame Bertand Russell for that) John Locke. Many, if not most, in the US are repelled by the name Machiavelli, but hold as the source of their highest moral authority the concept that they own themselves. Me. Me, of course, leads to Mine. And as the high priest of acquisition, Locke insists that More is a moral imperative.

A major focus of the campaigns against Obama was based on a deliberate effort to misconstrue and misrepresent the President’s speech in which he pointed out that what private business does is based on public infrastructure. The result was the “we built that” flag waving and the accompanying entrepreneurial chest beating that the country endured. What appeared to most Americans as either shallow campaign drivel or at most a principled disagreement on the nature of the welfare state vs personal liberty (though few of those engaging in such discussion really understood those concepts), also offered a third level.

Rawls argues for a collective ownership. You may own property, but your ownership of that property is not absolute in that you could not have obtained it without the assistance of the collective, assistance that from the perspective of the Lockean is at best a beneficial externality if considered at all. Hence, in claiming that “I built that” the Lockean’s unstated claim that he built that on his own, the American entrepreneur is engaging in a deception that Rawls would lay bare.

In suggesting a “just” society, Rawls is doing in a broader sense what we have legislated in the narrower sense with regard to the numbers racket. And as the anarcho-capitalism of the Mafia is arguably the love-child of Austrian economics, Rawls just state offers equality, a value that Locke would have us waive.

So how would that sit with those worshiping at Locke’s altar of Dominionism? They are of course outraged that their authority is not absolute, and just as you would expect from any child confronted with some limitation as to their behavior, they stomp their feet and issue juvenile challenge we all know so well…….

Pardon me, but….

A serious place for some serious discussion

Category Archives: Marc Grober

Contemplations on Attempts to Amend Alaska’s Constitution

Simple is as simple does….

Not Agreeing About Much of Anything