Religion, politics, and freedom

Here is a topic that everyone has a really strong opinion on, few people can possible think it all the way through because it’s so complex, and too many people let other people think and decide about it for them.  Yes, I am talking about religion.  I think about religion a lot because I am in a few study groups.  But the connection of religion and politics is particularly an issue these days for several reasons.  

I am not against religious people or using religious values in secular decisions.  I think I make good secular decisions and my religious philosophy guides them every time.  But it isn’t a bias towards people of my religion or people who share my religious values.  It is a bias towards selecting the option that I think will achieve my values, whatever that option may be.  Even if it goes against specific people in my own religion (or gender or race or socio-economic class, or . . . ).  Even someone without religion has values and ethics that would guide their decisions; they just got them somewhere else. 

Mayor Bloomberg is planning a “minimalist” ceremony for the 10^th anniversary of 9/11 with no religious leaders giving sermons.  My guess is that it isn’t necessarily “minimalist” that he is going for but he knows that the shit will hit the fan from half the population if he invites an Imam to speak and from the other half if he doesn’t invite an Imam to speak.  So he found a middle path to avoid the question.  Brilliant politics if you ask me.  It was the only way to keep the focus on the 9/11 victims and their families, where it should be.  Otherwise, we would have been right back in the argument when they were going to build the Interfaith Center on the Freedom Tower block.  As useful as that debate COULD have been because it involves very important issues, it quickly degraded into something very ugly.  I would have loved to see the look on people's faces if he ONLY invited an Imam. 

Another reason this is coming up regularly these days is the particular slate of GOP candidates we have running for President.  You have two Mormons, two evangelical Christians, and one very conservative Catholic.  And Ron Paul who wants to keep religion completely out of politics.  There are more candidates, but these are the ones I know about and who have brought up the topic of religion in their campaign.  The question is whether their religious views should affect your vote, and whether their religious views will affect their decisions as President.  These two questions are tied together intimately.  There was a big controversy during the GOP primary debate when Bachman was asked a question about her religion.  The whole crowd booed Brian Williams.  But he asked a very important question.  Bachman believes that the bible tells her to be subservient to her husband.  The part of this that matters is how it would affect her decisions as President.  If it wouldn’t, then she can say so and we can move on.  But if it would, we need to know before voting.  If her husband is going to influence her decisions, then we need to have him in the debates too.  Of course, all Presidents’ spouses have a great deal of influence I am sure.   But subservient is an order of magnitude more than influence.  

So as much as religious freedom is an important value, that doesn't mean we can dissociate it from politics or policy.  

Casinos in Massachusetts

The current plan is 3 full casinos and one racino.  Some experts say the state can’t handle more than one.  I would like to see two, with totally different business models (and I am ambivalent about the racino)

Downtown Resort-style Casino:  High end, dressy, high minimum bets, expensive drinks, Mortons Restaurant,

Western Mass local casino: Modest fixtures, jeans, low minimum bets, happy hours, Applebee’s Restaurant.

By targeting, they can increase the fit with a larger base of customers and still give people what they want.

Income inequality and happiness

Income inequality and happiness

I recently posted in my Human Factors blog on the book The Cheating Culture.  He also talks about the effects of income inequality on happiness.  Here are some points I thought were important to share:

• When people are getting really rich, even doing reasonably well makes everyone else unhappy.
• This is compounded when the rich are getting richer by having privileges you don’t have or by getting away with breaking the rules.  Unfairness makes the rest of us less happy, even when we are doing fine and haven’t been treated unfairly personally. 
• Our economy seems to be winner take all.  This makes it perceived as more of a zero sum game.  So other peoples' success really does indicate our own loss.
• He cites evidence that the rich are getting richer and happier and middle class is getting sadder.
• The American “ethic” is that if you work hard you will get ahead.  When we lose this dream, we are even more sad.

He suggests some public policies that he thinks would address this problem.

• Enforce laws more evenly and fairly
• Encourage the development of non-economic values like respect and compassion.
• Increase income at the bottom through minimum wage, EITC, subsidies for higher education, birth endowments and the like.
• Reduce insecurity at the low end by providing them with subsidized health care and child care
• Equalize perceptions of influence: Endow less power to lobbying groups, corporations and other established interests.
• Get ordinary people more involved in civic life: voting, etc.  If we all perceive involvement as a valuable, influential exercise, we will do more of it. 
• Create more livable communities.  Feelings of community have been shown to increase happiness.
• Encourage more racial, ethnic and religious (and other kinds of) tolerance.  One big happy melting pot.
• Include ethics and character education in K-12 education.  And make schools walk the walk by enforcing honor codes and not behaving unethically themselves.  [I think this one addresses the "Cheating Culture" more than unhappiness, but it couldn't hurt.]

Colbert does it again

There was a controversy that made the national news in the Alaska Senate race when people misspelled Lisa Murkowski’s name on a write-in campaign.  The republicans wanted any misspelled ballots to be tossed.  Democrats wanted them all counted.  The judge decided that if it was close enough to be obviously a write in for her, then it would be counted, but if it was uncertain, it shouldn’t be counted.

So Steve Colbert, in his brilliance, has thrown a real wrinkle in the Iowa strawpoll.  Rick Perry is planning to announce he is running for President on the day of the poll.  So his name is not on the ballot and lot of people plan to write his name in.  After the Murkowski precedent, if someone writes in Rick Parry, that would be seen as close enough since no other candidates' names are even close.  So Colbert’s superPAC has put out commercials to vote for Rick Parry as a protest vote.  Now, if someone writes in Rick Parry, there will be no way to know if they are responding to Colbert or if they really just misspelled Perry (which is apparently very common). Here is his commercial on YouTube. 

Now what would happen if Colbert did this (which he still could) in a real election?  He could really throw the result into doubt, like in the Murkowski case. This could actually undermine the whole idea of a write-in vote.  Any rich superPAC could run commercials promoting a misspelling of someone running a write-in campaign and screw it up if that person even comes close to winning.  That probably wouldn’t happen in a Presidential campaign, but we saw it with Alaska Senator.  And one more person in the Senate could switch the majority from one party to the other.