An eventful weekend

Well, I was doing a lot of work this weekend, but I did manage to do a couple of really fun things, which I will talk about in chronological order.

First, I got to go see Borat on Friday night. Of course, everyone was looking forward to this. I was wondering what sort of reception it would get. No worries. It was a bit more lowbrow than I expected (not sure why I expected it would be any more sophisticated) and while it had its moments of higher-level humor it had plenty of gross-out antics as well (more than plenty, really). I think everyone was fairly satisfied. Personally, I give it 3 of 4 stars - of course, the same as Berardinelli.

Second, I got to go to the TAMU-OU football game on Saturday in College Station. It was a close A&M loss (17-16). I did get some cool pictures which I will try to post when I get a chance (probably on Facebook first though). I guess Coach Franchione has been taking some heat all year for questionable calls and there were definitely some in this game. A&M's defense made good adjustments and was great after a tough first quarter, but the offense never came through, and Franchione made two decisions to kick field goals in the second half rather than going for it on fourth down. Had they made it once on fourth down and gone on to score a touchdown, they would have at least tied this game.

Bush is predicting again!

"If their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, Nov. 7 is going to be a good day for the Republicans." --George W. Bush on the Democrats. (see article)

Several possible reactions:

a) Which economic predictions are talking about here? The ones that said that inequality would continue to increase and good jobs would continue to not be created?
b) Or the ones that said tax cuts would close the deficit?
c) Perhaps if "good day for the Republicans" means the day their pensive rebuilding can begin.
d) And if your electoral predictions are as reliable as your Iraq predictions...

Beitenu is home

So Lieberman has agreed to join the government and take one ministry. He hopes to force out Labor eventually and take more. Meanwhile Labor is evenly divided about what to do. Arab members of Labor say they'll quit if Lieberman joins and Peretz is technically opposed, but influential members want to do it. Peretz is doomed and Labor is weak...

Who is Labor? What is the reason for the party's existence, other than opportunism? Technically, I guess, it represents secular, economic left, non-dovish voters. But how many of those are around? Eventually everyone who represents the hawkish (and economically liberal) wing will join Kadima (or whoever succeeds it) and everyone from the dovish side will unite with Meretz-Yahad. Or so one would think. But the remaining structure and advantages that exist (resources) to campaigning with Labor may continue to prolong the agony.

My relative optimism

It is finally time to be optimistic again about U.S. politics. Kind of. I mean, the Democrats still have no plan whatsoever, but at least the Republicans will have to stop implementing their plan, and that's worth it.

As I'm still not registered to vote in Texas (oops), I will be voting absentee for, uh, whoever I am registered to vote for in Washington. That means a vote for Maria Cantwell, and perhaps Jim McDermott, or maybe Jay Inslee, if one of those is my representative (maybe it's someone else entirely). Inslee is a good representative of the 1st District and he'll be in Congress for a while to come unless he leaves of his own accord.

On the national level, I'd still love to see Lieberman get beat. Not that I love Ned Lamont (who?) but I hate Joe Lieberman. Here in Texas we have a four-way governor's race that means Governor Perry will probably get reelected somehow. I daresay this won't help Houston's inequalities.

Perhaps more later, but we all know the States isn't my specialty.

Quantifying coffee

The New York Times has an interesting article about Starbucks in which is discussed the company's foray into creating culture (not just the perfect brew).

Meanwhile, from here in Houston I've been debating how to label Starbucks. It's certainly true (as most would agree) that the experience here is not the equal of that in the Seattle area. So far I've come up with a few areas: ambience (environment, cleanliness), service (speed, friendliness), drink quality, etc. There are a number of subcategories to each. As a former barista I have the advantage of knowing what was looked for by "Snapshots" (the outsiders the company hires to rate service).

Soon I hope to start categorizing the service I get and, hopefully, become influential on the Houston Starbucks scene.

On the world today

It's been a while since I've had the time to make a post on here. The world has changed in those three months. We've gone from "convergence" in IsPal to the new Lebanese war... Iraq is, well, okay, Iraq is still bad and getting worse...

Briefly: I never thought I'd be getting tired of the Middle East, but I finally am. Like everyone else, I have my tolerance level. That said, I still read Ha'aretz pretty regularly and I still generally think a real Palestinian state is the best way to go. The proposed unity government will be a good thing if it gets off the ground. For a while, the calls for the dissolution of the PNA looked like a good idea, but at this point if a unity government can be constituted and call for deployment of an international force in the territories, it would be a very positive step and one that Israel would have less traction in responding to (at least it would put Israel on the defensive, not that they'd ever agree to the idea, yet).

And Mexico! The U.S. government has done a good job of staying out. Calderon is the winner, and I feel comfortable saying that having supported AMLO in the election. Once the IFE certifies Calderon, AMLO will have a much tougher time getting out supporters, or so it should be hoped.

Plenty else is going on, but I don't have that much time. I'll be back as soon as I can to keep offering my unrequested thoughts on whatever catches my eye.

On leave...

Hey all, should have mentioned it earlier, but I'm taking some time off, since (1) I just graduated from college, so I am no longer a random college student, and (2) I'm in a pretty intensive summer program at the moment. So, I will be back... when I'm back!

Referendum?

Abbas says he'll call a referendum. Hamas says he'll need to go through Parliament to do it. In the end, he'd probably be able to do it...

The plan that was worked out in an Israeli jail isn't that new. Would there be any ramifications beyond Hamas' agreement? Doubtful--surveys have indicated Palestinian support for the same thing for years and had no effect. Israelis have never particularly cared about the Palestinian stance, only about their own practical concerns.

About a referendum... I assume this is a PA referendum and not a "Palestinian" referendum, since there is talk about the PLC needing to approve the thing. The latter sort of referendum would encompass Palestinians in camps in other Arab nations--and possibly other exiles too. A logistical nightmare, but to be truly legitimate, the referendum (or at least the final referendum on a peace plan, if there is one) would have to include them. It won't. They are being ignored and will continue to be, except as a bargaining chip.

Another interesting note: So, the boycott led Hamas to agree to transfer control of finance to Abbas. Huh. Weren't they elected to clean up Palestinian government and crack down on corruption? And now Abbas and Fatah will control finances again? Huh. Oh well, the boycott was worth it...

Social democracy as a principle

“Social democracy,” as an ideology, as a phenomenon, has certainly seen its more popular days. The post-Cold War-driven shift to the center, the “Third Way” as it has been called (though many things have been referred to by that moniker), has altered the concept in many ways, although the core values remain the same.

Social democracy, at its beginning, referred to a peaceful Marxist transition from capitalism to socialism via the democratic route (“reformism”). It was a broad enough concept at the beginning of the century that Lenin’s party was called the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. After the Russian Revolution, the historic socialist-communist split led to the foundation of explicitly Communist revolutionary, pro-Soviet parties, and the remaining “socialist” parties gradually drifted rightward, though the balance between the socialist and communist parties differed in various countries.

Today, we are seeing the second transition of social democracy. Social democrats in Europe have been admitting officially what they had already conceded privately—that socialism is not the end goal, that a “tamed capitalism” and a mixed economy are the goals of social democracy. Liberty, equality and solidarity remain the principles of social democracy, but the movement’s concept of and approach to pragmatism and reality has been altered substantially.

As with any other ideology, the effect and reality of social democracy in government is correlated to the environment in which the individual party finds itself. The general trend towards moderation (though not without disputes) in SD parties has continued, but moderation is a relative term depending on the country (with SD parties in Scandinavia, for instance, still defending their traditional welfare state).

Classical liberals may want to claim for themselves the mantle of historic pragmatism. But liberalism has its not-so-proud moments, its regressive alliances over the years, not to mention its (classical) refusal to admit the value of public goods above and beyond the basic provision of markets.

Social democracy differs from liberalism in more than one way. Whereas liberalism is individualism at its pinnacle, adopting the principle of “individual gains” and “rationality” and accrediting it as the natural order of things, social democracy is idealistic, change-oriented and yet simultaneously pragmatic. Social democracy recognizes the need for substantial public goods and the maintenance of the collective, the commons, in ways other than simply the sustenance of clearly visible economic gains via the market. Social democrats believe that health care, quality education, employment, a quality environment, and other public goods are crucial to the survival of the market, and are positive not just as mechanisms for increasing productivity, but in creating a society that can support all of its citizens and maintain its long-term legitimacy.

This implies the most vital thread of social democracy: social democracy can be a way of living, not just a political ideology. Liberalism fails as a way of living: a belief that the individual gain will always be the major consideration is self-fulfilling. Pragmatic social democracy believes that the individual gain and the collective gain are oftentimes competing principles, which must be reconciled as best as possible, but that we must always strive towards an ideal, where we can see equality of outcomes produced across society.

None of what I write here is new, of course, but hopefully it puts my opinions into context.

"These innocent people"

"[Palestinians] are the victims of their own extremist, fundamentalist, religious, inflexible and unyielding leadership, and we will do everything in our power to help these innocent people." --Ehud Olmert, quoted in Ha'aretz, 19 May 2006

How, exactly, does Israel propose to help the innocent Palestinians, who apparently chose Hamas to lead them without realizing the character of the organization, and apparently before earlier this year were the victims of something else. Exactly what they were the victims of (previously) isn't specified. Certainly not Israel, or the settler movement, of course. It really is too bad that all these innocent people are around in the Middle East and the only reason there is no peace is the intransigent, recently elected Palestinian leadership.

I'm sure that Ehud Olmert will do everything he can to help the Palestinians. Energy payments, essential goods out of the Palestinians' money that he won't give them? That will resolve the situation.

And Israel will continue to be the good guy, and the gentle father of the Palestinians. Sorry... Palestinians?... the Arabs of Eretz Israel. It's too bad about their leadership.