Why Occupy Wall Street?

The wave of "Occupy" movements claiming to represent the "99%" of Americans who have not shared in economic success have been criticized for lacking a coherent message. This criticism is accurate, but unfair. Very few of the Occupy protesters understand anything about what happens on Wall Street and in the financial institutions. Even fewer have any good ideas about what to do about it. But these are complex systems and potentially wicked problems. What many Occupy protesters share is the vague but powerful feeling that something is very wrong with "the system." They are right to be worried.

Capitalism is suicidal. Standard modeling of a free market economy usually assumes equilibrium. However, an ideal free market, left to its own devices, will proceed tragically towards its own demise. In capitalism's youth, it was generally accepted that its destructive tendencies must be tempered by government. Recent decades have seen a paradigm shift in the United States and various western liberal democracies to a new neoliberal mode of state-sponsored capital accumulation. Corporations are accumulating ever-increasing wealth and power. The wealthiest 1% have been getting exponentially richer while the middle class is disappearing. It is not by coincidence that the system has been acting out lately. Restoring the ability of capitalism to improve the quality of life across the economic spectrum will require a reversal of recent neoliberal government policies. Because of globalism, this must be done at an international level. This must begin with a recognition that financial stability is now a global public good.

In Defense of Nickelback, or, The Applebee's of Rock

As I write, there is an online petition growing towards 50,000 signatures with the intent of replacing Nickelback as the lead act in the half-time show for the Lions vs. Packers Thanksgiving Day game. For whatever reason, this has attracted the attention of some mainstream and popular media outlets, i.e., ESPN, Huffington Post, even The Drudge Report picked it up. It has generally been assumed that the people of Detroit would prefer a home-town act. This is misinterpreting the frustration with Nickelback. Sure, Detroiters like their home-grown music acts, generally. But the petition is not for a Michigan act. They just hate Nickelback. At issue here is what could be called creative differences. “Nickelback sucks” is perhaps the pithiest statement of support for the petition.

It’s difficult to make an empirical case that Nickelback sucks. They’ve sold a bajillion albums and sell out stadiums wherever they go. There are a lot of Nickelback fans, and they are understandably annoyed to see Nickelback the subject of such ridicule. The fans can’t understand why Nickelback is so hated; it's just music. They can’t understand because Nickelback fans have no taste in music.

Notice that there is a distinction between “no taste” and “bad taste.” For example, one might remark that fans of acid jazz or anime, for example, have bad taste. But at least it is a taste - a recognition of something uniquely expressive. Art, practically by definition, is the product of an artist. It is a unique expression of the human condition as seen through a unique perspective. Nickelback, in this sense, does not produce art. Their music is the product of a process - a formula. It may be music, but it is has no personality, nothing to say, nothing to taste. It was produced for the music market in the way that any mass-produced product is; TVs, refrigerators, Ford Explorers, etc.

Nickelback doesn’t suck. A secret about Nickelback that many rock aficionados may not know is that Nickelback are talented musicians who have actually released some very good music. Their first two albums, Curb (1996) and The State (2000) were personal, inventive, and unique. They were art. They rocked, actually. But they had limited commercial success.

After The State, the band apparently decided they were more interested in making money than art. Chad Kroeger (lead singer and writer) quite brilliantly deduced a formula for commercial success. Beginning with their 3rd album, Silver Side Up, their music was simple, repetitive, hook-y, and clean enough to sell at Wal-Mart. It is good music from a commercial perspective - but it is not art. It has no element of the artist. It was written, for the label, for mass market appeal. I would guess that Chad Kroeger would admit as much, if he were really pressed. People with a taste for music—any taste in music—recognize how vacuous Nickelback’s music is. Nickelback sold out, but they couldn't buy cool. People with no musical taste can never really understand this. All music sounds generally the same to them. Nickelback is kinda like the Applebee's of rock music.

Applebee’s sells food. It looks, smells, and even tastes, generally, like food. But "foodies" justifiably can't stand to eat there. Applebee's produces and mass-markets food, but they cannot make a good meal. There is no ownership of the product. It was assembled. There is no one who cooked it – no one that could emerge from the kitchen and ask with genuine concern how the food is. It was produced. It has no personality; no soul!

Having no taste is not a character flaw. It's quite common - probably even more common than having that undefinable a priori cognition of quality that allows some people to truly appreciate art. It is possible to live a full and happy life without ever appreciating why, for instance, The Beatles are better than Nickelback, or why the Star Wars Trilogy was better before it was "fixed," etcetera. Taste can't really be learned, you just have to know. There is no reason that people with no taste cannot enjoy music, movies, or art - but they will never appreciate a quality product of human labor that some one with taste will. And that is why so many people think Nickelback sucks, and Nickelback fans will never understand.

Applebee's may make food, but it is not a meal. Nickelback may make music, but it is not art.

Yeah, OK then.

Collaborative Planning Theories and Criticisms

"We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.... Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem."

- President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981

In the wake of the Second World War, the citizens of the United States maintained faith in a benevolent technocratic nation-state capable of harnessing objective scientific conceptions of reason and rationality in order to maximize societal progress. This societal acceptance of rational-technocratic sovereignty was extended to urban and regional planners of the day. Though buoyed by boosterism, planning and economic development in the modernist mid-twentieth century retained idealist principles of the Age of Enlightenment and the subsequent Progressive Era. An expanding economy and new technologies of the industrial age allowed the construction of ambitious physical representations of such ideals. Operating under an assumption of the public interest, planners routinely used state power and bureaucracy to enact major restructuring of the built environment, often despite public and/or capital opposition. Unfortunately, unforeseen or un-considered effects of mega-projects and master-plans on neighborhoods, communities, and the environment were sometimes devastating.

Conventional Morality: Seeking Universal Moral Guidance from the Geneva Conventions

Abstract:
Political deliberation in western liberal democracies is in a crisis. Moral relativists, from Aristotle and Hegel to Hayek and Habermas, have effectively dismantled the metaphysical moral foundations of rational discourse – at least, in theory. Contemporary political discourse has devolved into battles of primitive rhetoric, rationalization, and outright coercion. Political actors operate under increasingly disparate worldviews – a result of increasingly pluralistic democracies and contextualization of "truth." Contemporary sociologists and political scientists struggle to define universalities necessary to even begin constructive debate. While academic consensus of a foundation for deliberation will likely never be reached, it is vital to find quasi-universal, functional and practical inter-subjective truths from which formal discourse can begin. In this essay, it is offered that the practical necessity of warfare has offered us a foundation for communicative action. Regardless of conflicting faiths, values, and ethics, the overwhelming majority of the global population lives within states that have ratified the Geneva Conventions – rules of warfare from which inter-subjective values can be deduced. States that have ratified the Geneva Conventions should extend the underlying ethical foundations to political discourse of internal affairs and public policy debates – for the benefit of all citizens.

US Military and Veteran Suicide Risk

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Suicide rates among US military service members and veterans has been a concern in recent years. In viewing this photograph, and others like it, consider the difficulty that is encountered by veterans returning to civilian life. Even the vets who are uninjured and are not diagnosed with PTSD have been living in a world like this for months - or years. People become suicidal for a variety of reasons. There are no easy answers. Often, it is a matter of the person no longer being able to make sense of the world around them, and seeing no way that their life could improve. A CBS News investigation found that military vets have a suicide rate more than double the normal US rate - which itself is rather high. Historically, active duty suicides were remarkably rare, but this is not longer true.

If you have a combat vet in your life, support them in any way that you can to make a transition to civilian life. If they say that you don't understand, they're probably right. But just that you take the time to try may save a life.

National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-TALK (8255)
A free, 24-hour hotline available to anyone in suicidal crisis or emotional distress. Your call will be routed to the nearest crisis center to you. This is available to anyone who thinks that they, or somebody they know, may be suffering a breakdown.