Race in Hungary

Just before the holidays Dora and I were eating dinner when we heard a man yelling down in the street. I went to open the window. We could then hear the clearly drunk man chanting the Hungarian equivalent of "Jew go home."

How can you respond to that - especially when you live in the 7th District, the traditionally Jewish district of Budapest?

I've used this space in the past to vent about Hungary's troubled relationship with the minority communities in its borders. It's a topic that gets me riled for two reasons:
1) The worst of examples are violent and motivated by little more than demagoguery.
2) As an outsider, more often than not my views on the issue are dismissed out of hand.

That's a frustrating place to be when you would like to seek a deeper understanding of a problem - perhaps even engage in a constructive effort to improve things.

That frustration is very much related to the paper I'm working on. Much of the reading I've been doing for this project is about young people who do not fit the profile of the typical college student. The effort to bring their views into the academic community seems like a noble cause, but like so many noble causes, it's complicated. In order to interact with an established community, a person must learn and accept the methods the community uses to interact: who is considered an authority, what gives a person the right to challenge an idea/argument, what beliefs are held as truths. These kinds of interactions are dictated by culture and values. So if you want to bring an outsider in, you sometimes have to challenge the person's culture and values. Like I said, it can get complicated.

I hadn't thought of myself as the outsider in such a situation until last week. Dora's extended family got together to celebrate a collection of birthdays and an anniversary. At dinner I sat next to Mate (say "Ma-tey"). He's a law student. He's very smart and very opinionated. He and I don't see eye-to-eye on every issue, and that's okay. But I always try to challenge his take on the Roma (Gypsy) population. He believes that many of Hungary's problems stem from the Roma. Last week I spent at least fifteen minutes listening to Mate explain how the Roma are destroying his country.

I have very little patience for this kind of talk. I believe Hungarians who hold Mate's view are trying to shift the responsibility for the nation's many serious problems to a minority population - a population that has very little political or financial power. The issues that have hampered Hungary's growth are rampant corruption, the public acceptance of tax fraud, and a bloated bureaucratic government that provides very little when you consider people are supposed to pay 50% of their income in taxes. It is absurd to blame these kinds of problems on a group that composes no more than 10% of the population (and that figure is considered a gross overestimate by many).

I've tried to confront Mate's view directly. I've tried to question Mate's assumptions. I've tried acting stupid and forcing him to explain what it is that the Roma have done to make his life so difficult (his life is not very difficult btw). Whenever I get anywhere close to making a point, my views are dismissed. Since I am not Hungarian, I cannot understand how serious the problem is. So my questions and arguments are moot.

My beliefs keep me at arms length from this debate, but it's frustrating because I live here. I am a part of the community - but not really.

Strange as this may sound, I'm thankful for the experience. As a white heterosexual male with a stable family background, it is difficult for me to understand what it means to be a member of a community who lacks certain rights or abilities. This is a rather minor example of that, but it provides some insight.

I like this take on the Sen. Reid thing

Frank James' take on the gaffe by Senator Reid speaks to a lot of my frustrations with manufactured controversies.

In it, James gets at how people are willing to twist the facts in a debate. Often participants get so worked up about an issue that they grab at anything resembling evidence in their support. In such haste, however, the issue often get lost and people end up simply shouting insults at each other.

I'm not in the States to see how intense this "issue" is getting, but I was surprised to hear people compare Reid's comment to Lott's 2002 comments supporting the breakaway segregationist party of 1948. That seems to be a lopsided analogy at best...
A tasteless and politically incorrect description of Obama
versus
A 2002 statement of support for a party with this in their platform: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

It may not be apples and oranges, but one is certainly more rotten than the other. Don't you think?

What is Fair Play?

This article was in the Washington Post today.

GOP Senators tried to filibuster a military funding bill. If the filibuster had succeeded, Democrats would likely have to drop health care reform and find an alternative to funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The filibuster did not succeed, but only 3 of 36 Republicans voted to end the filibuster (and only after all 60 Dems had already voted 'aye').

I recognize that right now the GOP's number one priority is the defeat of the Dem's health care reform bill. Nevertheless, what does it mean when politicians are willing to betray one of their core values while in pursuit of a goal?

How is a soldier supposed to view of this event? "The GOP didn't really want to withhold support from the military; they were just using our troops as political capital."

Someone who is willing to concede "core values" in order to win the day does not have real core values. Maybe it sounds naive to hope politicians are guided by certain principles, but they're the ones claiming to have them in the first place.

Poorly Rationed Reasoning

So my new goal here at Hogs is to play around with some of the big arguments of the day. On Monday I dove into the troubles that erupted around the climate change debate after the computers were hacked at CRU. The most interesting comment for me was Karmavore's distinction between "Climate Change Skeptics" & "Climate Change Disbelievers." The difference is important, and it will affect the way I engage in that discussion in the future.

I hope that kind of thing will happen more often here. I want to look at the divisive issues that are too often cast in black and white and then seek out the gray areas.

The hot button issue for today is health care, more specifically last week's ruckus around the word rationing. The issue came into sharp focus after the results of a study on mammography were released by the Preventive Services Task Force. The study recommends that women do not need to start regular screenings for breast cancer until the age of 50. The previous recommendation had been to start screenings at 40.

Patients can ignore the study and get screened in their 40s anyway. However, the people signing the check for those screenings may object, and since most people do not sign the check for their own health care, there is a conflict. People are nervous that the check signers might listen to the experts and certain tests won't get paid for.

Of course that nervousness spilled over into the health care reform debate.

Last week the WSJ's opinion page suggested a lot of things that might happen if the government tried to reduce health care spending. The piece critiques how the government plans to decide what medical procedures to pay for? The idea is to put experts in place, experts like the ones who put out the study on mammography.

With that study out, suddenly we have a stand-in for "the bureaucrat that will get between you and your doctor." And that bureaucrat is advising us to reduce breast cancer screenings. I understand the uproar. Women have been told that regular screenings can save their lives. Now some acronym is telling them to forget about that. It is a powerful reminder of the fact that personal heath care decisions are not always up to the individual. And with the reform bill ready for debate next week, powerful reminders like that are explosive.

My concern is that such explosive material can be misused. Private insurers are also likely to take note of the mammogram study. No matter the insurance scheme, there is a limited amount of money in a pool, and someone needs to decide how to best spend it.

Peter Singer's July piece in the NYT Magazine asks readers to do the following: think about the spending limits you would put on another person's medical treatment if experts claimed that the treatment was not effective in most cases. Singer asks for a number. It's a tough call.

This is the decision any insurer must make. The pro-reform people have cast the private insurers as heartless for refusing service, but the measures up for debate in Congress will put similar decisions in the hands of government appointees.

And that is the heart of the matter: Who do you want making those decisions about rationing?

I like the government appointed panel of experts, because we can demand transparency. The debate over the mammogram study is an example of how a government panel's findings are open to the public and up for debate.

What do you think?

Why the CRU Leak Isn't the Biggest of Deals

I can't speak to the details around the leak at CRU, as the data is out of context. But at first blush it does look like the scientists at that facility are doing some less-than-ethical work. And less-than-ethical is not a euphemism here. It's an accusation. Data needs to inform the theory, not vice versa. When this all get sorted out, if the science was bad, then the results from that lab are tainted.

But CRU isn't the only body of scientists looking into climate change. Here's an article that cites data from 2 peer review journals. The data does not come from CRU, nor is it interpreted by the people at CRU. The results are not pretty: Even if we could cut greenhouse gases by tomorrow, the ocean levels look like they will rise a meter by 2100. If I have grandchildren, they will see coast lines and island nations disappear.

The movement to slow our contribution to climate change isn't going to stop this. According to most experts, however, we might be able to mitigate the damages.

So here's my question for skeptics of anthropomorphic climate change: Why/how would scientists from a variety of fields, policy makers, and business leaders collaborate to execute a hoax on a global scale?

The groups involved are not like-minded. What could possibly motivate them to work together to forward a false cause?

Job security? The scientists at UT studying "nearly seven years of data on ocean-icesheet interaction... collected by the twin GRACE satellites" do not need global warming to ply their trade. They have tremendous analytical and technical skills. They'll find work.

Political motives? Have you ever met a research scientist? Seen one on TV? Probably not. They are not political creatures.

Greed? Well, Gore is set to make a lot of money if the energy sector goes green. If his motive was just money, however, why not buy a drilling platform? That would produce faster returns that are more secure?

Stupidity? Are we to believe that a select few have convinced top scientists, world leaders, and savvy business people to believe in something that is baseless? Who are these evil geniuses, where is their secret underground base, and why are they doing this?

The CC skeptics are claiming that disparate groups of well trained specialists have either met in secret to dupe the world OR that they have themselves been duped by a group with a desire to transition the planet to clean energy for unspecified reasons.

The moon landing conspiracy theory looks rational by comparison. You'll have to excuse me for siding with the diverse group of experts who have found something to agree on despite it's challenging implications. While the other side's accusations of conspiracy allow me to comfortably continue my life unchanged, the accusations are asking me to believe in something much more unrealistic than greenhouse gases.

Our Voice is Changing, It's an Awkward Time

It took me a couple of days, but I got around to listening to the This American Life/Planet Money episode from last weekend.

If you want to listen to a couple of people working to change the tone and register of how the American public discusses economic issues, this episode is a great place to start.

I've learned a lot from the Planet Money team this past year. What strikes me each time I listen is this: That group is aiming to enlarge the audience of economic news - news that has a profound effect on all of us - and they are doing it by bucking the system that made economic news a "members only" club.

Average people of average intelligence have the right to this kind of information, and I'm happy to see a set of journalists acknowledge that. Here's a couple of other journalists acknowledging that acknowledgment.

If these are the kinds of lessons we are learning in the current shift to new media, then let the shift continue.

Public Discourse and Obama's School Speech

I need some help from any readers I may have left after a summer of sporadic blogging.

I enjoy following American politics, but I am not in America.

So the venomous nature of the current political discourse snuck up on me. At first I thought the public's intense emotions were a reaction to the size of the challenges we face with health care reform. Then I read about the resistance to Obama's speech to school children.

I read the views of those who feel the speech is too political. I read the views of people who think the President is intruding into the sphere of state and local school districts. My reactions to these points are,
A) The speech doesn't read as overtly or covertly political.
B) I don't think such a speech exerts nearly as much Federal influence as the No Child Left Behind program.

People can argue with me about those points. That's fine, but I'm worried about the way our political dialogue is being shaped. When I look at the tone and content of this 'school speech' debate through the lens of my current research, I'm left wondering this: What is the aim of such a discussion?

The President wants to give a "Stay-in-School" speech today, and people are acting very upset. Which struck me as odd until I posed this theory: People aren't really that upset about the speech. The objections are actually an attempt to hijack the process of public political discourse by objecting to any-and-everything the President does.

I wouldn't say this about the health care town halls. That is a deeply divisive issue, and while I think some people are out of line, I understand the passion behind the debate.

But parents have threatened to keep their kids out of school because the President wants to encourage children to do their best and set some goals. Really? What do those parents hope to achieve... other than truancy?

The school speech uproar casts a light on the strategy being used by some members of the opposition: "Raise hell every time Obama tries to do anything, and eventually we'll paralyze the Administration." It's straight out of the Rush Limbaugh "I hope he fails" playbook.

Added 9-9-09: In his article at Forbes.com, Tunku Varadarajan expresses a view close to my own, and he and I are not on the same side of the political spectrum. & Here's the WSJ's reaction to the speech objections. End of added material.

I think the flood of objections is ridiculous, and I'm upset such a strategy has been effective in any way.

My concern about these theories is this: I like Obama.

I've agreed with much of his policy thus far. So it is hard, if not impossible for me to be objective. And with that in mind, I forced myself to remember how often and how vehemently I opposed the policies of Bush 43. Is it possible that my ilk and I employed a similar strategy?

This is where I need some help. I'd like my readers to use the comments section to build a list of the topics/issues that non-extremists have objected to under the Bush and Obama administrations.

My goal is to evaluate those lists and see if the tactics have changed since Obama took the Oath. It isn't fair to evaluate the volume of dissent - Bush had more time in office.

I'll start things off:

Large-scale public objections the left had/has about Bush's policies:
* The rush to war in Iraq
* The detention of terror suspects
* The warrantless wiretapping
* The "over-politicization" of the Federal Courts
* The supervision at military prisons in Iraq
* The support of waterboarding as a legitimate interrogation method

Large-scale public objections the right had/has about Obama's policies:
* The auto company bailout
* The stimulus package
* The closing of Gitmo
* The push to reform health care (specifically with a public option)
* The speech to school children

If we get a good list together, I'll compile the comments in a new post and we can all evaluate it.

If you don't know how to sign in and leave a comment, just check the "Anonymous" box and click "Publish Comment." That is the easiest way to comment.

Theory in Practice

I've recently been involved in a lively email debate with a small group of friends and family over the health care issue. It's been interesting because we don't all agree, but the conversation has remained civil - for the most part.

Earlier this week I posted a description of my current research project. When I started that post, I intended to present this debate as an example of an emerging discourse community (DC). For better or worse, I got a little wrapped up in trying to describe my academic work with non-academic language. It proved to be a good exercise for me, but as a result my example went by the wayside.

Like I said, it has been a lively debate. There have been carefully laid out arguments, jokes, jabs, sharp back-and-forths, and an ongoing balancing act as we try not to take ourselves too seriously while still addressing a serious issue.

The debate started with one of those video clip montages that show Obama on the campaign trail stating his support for single-payer health care and comparing those clips to his current line that the reforms do not represent a move toward single-payer health care.

The video was sent to a distro list along with the comment, "Hogan should love this one..."

I suppose now would be the appropriate time to say that I am the only person in the group who is for the eventual move to single-payer health care. I responded with my argument for such a plan.

Then the sparks started to fly. Below you will find a summary of the exchanges. You don't have to read it. I only include it here to illustrate the tools used in an emerging DC.

First a former Rear Admiral who will remain unnamed sent a set of statistics. Those were questioned.
Then a small business owner chimed in with how the current system's problems have been exaggerated, and the type of reform proposed is going too far.
These ideas received a lot of positive feedback from other group members.
There was a wise crack about the Obama administration surveilling our discussion.
The debate then turned to the movement resisting the current reforms. One member favorably contrasted the town hall disruptions with some protests held by the extreme left.
This was followed by the small business owner's call to leave the extremists out of our debate. In his request he pointed out that the freedom to dissent is a privilege, and he linked this to successes in the recent war in Iraq.
This was followed by the quip, "Amen! Or whatever the Islamic equivalent is."
Which led to me ranting about the oversimplification of the argument, in which I accused several people of demagoguery. I probably over-reacted.
We then got bogged down in the details of the difference between supporting the current reform proposals and supporting the eventual creation of a single-payer plan.
The nit-picking over semantics is probably what led to a group member sending this image with the caption: Very Important Finding this weekend!!! An archeological team, digging in Washington DC , has uncovered 4,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Democrat.

Things have trailed off since, but looking back, I learned a lot about how people exercise power and persuasion in a DC.

• There was the use of authoritative quotes and statistics.

• There were attempts to respectfully point out logical flaws in other arguments.
• There was the use of sarcasm and humor to dismiss others' views.
  
• People presented their own credentials in order to give more weight to their points.
• Accusations were bandied about.
• The group decided it wasn't interested in semantics.

All of these rhetorical tools were introduced and tested on the group. Some worked. Some didn't. Some members took the debate seriously. Others shoot spitballs from the back of the classroom. People's ideas were misunderstood, and they had to find ways to explain themselves without losing face. A lot happened.

Bottom line, we all spent time trying to discover how to best argue and persuade within a group where relationships of authority were fluid. When you take a step back from such an experience and examine the decisions people were making, there is a lot to learn about how we communicate within a community.

Those are the lessons I hope to bring to my composition classroom when I ask them to build their own DC.