Sunday, September 26, 2010

Wall Street 2 movie was so-so

I was really looking forward to see the new Wall Street 2 movie ("Money Never Sleeps") and although it had quite a few good moments, overall it just wasn't as satisfying as I had hoped. Despite the severity of the recent financial crisis, the movie just didn't have the visceral punch that I though Oliver Stone would bring to this encore.

Michael Douglas was great, but he was great in the original, so no new ground was broken there. "Jake" as his nominal protégé was okay, but not great. His girlfriend, Gordon's daughter was... well... pathetic (or more charitably I could say that this was great acting to portray a pathetic character) but maybe that was intentional to forcefully illustrate how "toxic" the cretins of Wall Street really are.

The ending was quite lame, but maybe given the current cultural context Mr. Stone felt obligated not to leave people in a state of complete despair. That would be bad for ticket sales.

On the positive side, the acting of Frank Langella and Eli Wallach as aging investment bankers was absolutely fantastic.

As I noted, there were plenty of great individual scenes and lines such as you saw in the two trailers.

Maybe the bottom line is that Mr. Stone did in fact portray the culture of Wall Street and its denizens as being irredeemably "toxic", although his lame ending inscrutably seemed to let them off the hook and even excuse illegal activity.

There were a few scenes that reminded me of Wall Street activity that I hope the so-called Volcker Rule will eliminate or at least dramatically reduce, but only time will tell.

Maybe that is ultimately the fatal flaw with this movie: there is too much in it that is borderline documentary and cuts painfully too close to the bone. At the end of the credits it reminds us that it is a work of fiction and that similarities to real people and places is... "unintentional." Yeah, right. Sure, they changed the names of the investment banks, but we all know who they were talking about.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, 10/7: Can higher education solve the problem of prejudice?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet in two weeks, Thursday, October 7, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Can higher education solve the problem of prejudice?" The topic was suggested by Kasuyo. Note: I will not be there since I will be at a technical conference in Boston. Frank de Canio may be acting guest moderator.

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes:

  1. Do we need dueling in a democratic society? (3)
  2. Why communism failed in Russia. (4)
  3. Can higher education solve the problem of prejudice? (9) *
  4. True or false: The examined life is not worth living. (7)
  5. Did William James kill Buridan's ass? (4)
  6. What do we respect in others? (6)
  7. Can a true philosopher be a capitalist? (6)
  8. The difference between quantitative and experiential knowledge. (6)
  9. Charisma. (6)
  10. Leader and leadership. (4)

Topics proposed from the previous session:

  1. Why is there something rather than nothing? (4, 4)
  2. What determines achievement? (3)
  3. Could we live well with borders? (4, 5) *
  4. Can a dictatorship do more for the good of a society than democracy? (2)
  5. Did William James kill Buridan's ass? (3)
  6. Would dueling have a salutary effect on society? (4, 2)
  7. Is today's democracy more of a plutocracy? (3)
  8. Are we learning violence from the media or are we violent by nature? (3)
  9. Is representative democracy viable? (2)
  10. If change is good. (3)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending as a participant.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There are also usually some attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

The New York Times article... in Portuguese

The New York Times article from Friday by Sewell Chan entitled "Small Gifts Sent to Ease U.S. Debt" that quotes me about making contributions to pay down the public debt and has my picture has been translated into Portuguese on this Brazilian web called Economia with the translation entitled "Para pagar dívida de R$ 23 trilhões, uma doação de R$ 554 - Crescem nos EUA as contribuições voluntárias para diminuir o rombo nas contas do governo, mas impacto sobre os débitos é mínimo". My original quote in The New York Times:

"I get mixed reactions," said John W. Krupansky, 56, a software developer in Midtown Manhattan who started reading about economics during the dot-com crash a decade ago, and has blogged about his tax deductible gifts, nine so far, of $25 each. "Some people are annoyed; they think the right thing to do is complain about the debt, not actually do something about it. Other people are amused that anyone would waste their time to do such a thing."

Translated into Portuguese:

"Ouço reações diversas", diz John W. Krupansky, de 56 anos, desenvolvedor de software no centro de Manhattan que começou a ler sobre a economia durante a crise das empresas pontocom, há uma década, e tem escrito em seu blog sobre suas doações - nove até agora, cada uma de US$ 25. "Algumas pessoas ficam irritadas. Elas pensam que a coisa certa a fazer é reclamar da dívida, e não fazer algo concreto sobre isso. Outras pessoas se divertem com a ideia de alguém perder seu tempo para fazer uma coisa dessas."

-- Jack Krupansky

Friday, September 24, 2010

Huh, I'm in the paper for trying to pay down the public debt... in the New York Times!

Huh, my meager efforts to take responsibility for paying down the public debt have gotten me a little attention... in The New York Times of all places! Today they are running an article by Sewell Chan entitled "Small Gifts Sent to Ease U.S. Debt" that actually quotes me:

"I get mixed reactions," said John W. Krupansky, 56, a software developer in Midtown Manhattan who started reading about economics during the dot-com crash a decade ago, and has blogged about his tax deductible gifts, nine so far, of $25 each. "Some people are annoyed; they think the right thing to do is complain about the debt, not actually do something about it. Other people are amused that anyone would waste their time to do such a thing."

And they even ran my picture.

-- Jack Krupansky

Monday, September 20, 2010

Whenever, Whatever - my current motto

With everything as crazy as it is these days, my current motto is: Whenever, Whatever. (Or should that be Whatever, Whenever?) In other words, flexibility is the key to managing expectations and balancing them against reality.

-- Jack Krupansky

Government without borders

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet this week on Thursday, September 23, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Could we live well without borders?" This continues my preparation for that discussion with some thoughts on government without borders.

The first thought is whether the agenda for some people is so-called world government, whatever that really means. It could be something as simple and loose as the European Union or something more grandiose such as the United Nations on steroids. I would simply note that if even the Europeans have been unable to form a single, unified government, it seems extremely unlikely that the rest of the world would go even further along the route to world government.

Another approach is closer to the EU model, where the national governments remain intact, but the borders are essentially fully open to citizens of the union. But other than elimination of a relatively minor hassle with physically crossing borders, this doesn't really change much at all. One thing that is changed, at least in the case of the EU, is that people can freely cross borders to find work. That is a significant difference, but in practice, relatively few people even want to move anywhere away from their home, let alone into another country even for something as important as work. So, that is a marginal benefit.

And we still have the problem of countries that may not be formally recognized or who are being formally sanctioned. Movement of their nationals needs to be restricted.

Hmmm... if we instantly switch to government without borders, I wonder what would happen with Kashmir, caught between India and Pakistan. Or Israel and Palestine.

Tax collection and law enforcement would be even more problematic with government without borders.

Government without border is a great concept for "sunny days", but borders provide "fire walls" that protect countries and their citizens on "rainy days" or at times of great stress.

-- Jack Krupansky

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Borders and cultural boundaries

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet this week on Thursday, September 23, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Could we live well without borders?" This continues my preparation for that discussion with some thoughts on cultural boundaries.

The chief impetus for national political borders is to provide recognition of where the direct political influence of a country ends. That is using the term "political" in the sense of the constituted government of the country as opposed to simply the activities of politicians and political parties.

Meanwhile, the people of a country may or may not constitute to some degree a homogenous culture that is completely harmonious with the government and national borders of the country. A great example is the Kurdish people who are divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Immigrants and resident workers are other examples of peoples who are not completely in harmony with national borders and whos interests can span borders.

Religion is one aspect of culture that can "join" people across borders, despite national differences.

Interests such as environmental concerns can also bring people together across borders. Greenpeace is an example.

Another great example of trans-border cultural cooperation is Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), which which bills itself as "an international medical humanitarian organization working in more than 60 countries to assist people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe."

Entertainment, such as movies and music, is notorious for disrespecting national borders.

Athletics on the other hand seems to strictly respect national borders, whether it be the Olympics, soccer, or rugby. Interest in organized athletics certainly "spans the globe" and athletic events certainly hop borders, but each team has a clearly defined "country."

Even on the political front there is a variety of trans-border cooperation, with bilateral and multi-lateral agreements and treaties.

Scientific cooperation and collaboration can span borders.

In the technology sector we have international collaboration for standards (e.g., ISO or International Organization for Standardization) and open source software projects (e.g., the Apache Software Foundation.) Such efforts thrive and are based on the efforts of businesses, academia, and individuals, and not strictly driven by national governments or national interests.

Still, even with all of this transnational cooperation and collaboration, such efforts pale in comparison to efforts that stay within national borders. Geography is not a fatal impediment, but clearly it is more than just a speed bump.

In short, we see a variety of cultural boundaries, some coincident with or within national boundaries and others than spat borders.

Whether life would be "better" without borders remains quite unclear. On the one hand, borders and national identities can clearly interfere with global interests, but on the other hand national identities can sometimes emphasize and even enhance differences that can make life more interesting (e.g., sports, movies, and music) and provide opportunities that might not exist in a "one size fits all" world.

-- Jack Krupansky

Friday, September 17, 2010

Do borders really impede anything?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet next week on Thursday, September 23, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Could we live well without borders?" This continues my preparation for that discussion with some thoughts on whether borders really interfere much at all with many activities.

Here are some significant entities and activities that occur on a regular basis, apparently unimpeded by the existence of national political borders:

  1. Multinational corporations
  2. International investment on both a large scale and individual basis
  3. Multinational and international banking
  4. Tourism
  5. Education
  6. Terrorism
  7. Smuggling
  8. Drug trade
  9. Human trafficking
  10. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and activism
  11. Environmental activism
  12. Limited immigration

So, if all of these entities and activities are essentially unimpeded by the existence of borders, why bother considering the elimination of national borders?

Technically, immigration is on the list, but only in a limited sense. Immigration into the U.S. is a great example of how borders can be a dramatic impediment to human activity, at least in some cases.

Variations in laws can hamper or confuse human activities as well.

Commerce and investment may sometimes occur freely, but sometimes individuals countries may place onerous or confusing limitations on financial transactions or transfers.

People cannot just pick up and go live just anywhere for arbitrary amounts of time due to visa limits.

Some countries, such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Somalia, etc. are effectively off limits to the citizens of some countries.

Some or actually many countries actively seek to protect their national identity and actively discourage to varying degrees any attempts to water down their national cultures. France is a notable example, protecting the language, deporting gypsies, seeking to ban various religious attire, etc.

Although many forms of communications occur freely across national borders, national languages offer a hurdle to free and open direct verbal communication between people, although this is not an insurmountable hurdle.

Human relationships can occur freely, to some extent, across borders, and even marriages, although sometimes with varying degrees of difficulty related to immigration.

To be continued, maybe.

-- Jack Krupansky

Thursday, September 16, 2010

What is the significance of borders?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet next week on Thursday, September 23, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Could we live well without borders?" It is time to explore the nuances of that question.

We have to start by exploring what we even mean by the concept of borders.

First off, there are a lot of kinds of "borders", but I will assume that we are primarily interested in political borders.

There are lots of types of political entities, including towns, boroughs, cities, counties, states, and countries, which all have a lot of common qualities, but I will assume that we are primarily interested in national political entities or countries.

So, when we casually refer to "borders" we are typically referring to the borders between countries.

One nuance is that there is distinction that could be drawn between borders and boundaries. A boundary is more of an imaginary or virtual "line" between adjacent countries, as in the lines drawn on a map, whereas an actual border is the physical manifestation of that imagined boundary in the real world, such as signs, fences, walls, other markers, checkpoints, etc. In some cases there may be no actual border per se, such as a country bounded by an ocean, or where a lake or river separates two countries and the division is only that imagined boundary line.

The border between Iraq and Iran is a great example. In some places there is a very visible border with border crossings under strict control. Then you have the southern portion of the Tigris river to the Persian Gulf (actually referred to as the Shatt al-Arab waterway) where there is no real border per se other than the imagined boundary in the middle of the Tigris waterway. That lack of a clearly discernable border led to the capture of British sailors by Iran who claimed they were in Iranian territory. One report indicates that Iraq and Iran have no formal agreement as to where the boundary line is, so the simple notion of an imaginary line down the middle of the waterway (relative to some agreed tidal conditions) is up in the air in that situation. Recently we have seen the case of the alleged "hikers" in northern Iraq who supposedly "strayed" across the border into Iran without even realizing that they had in fact crossed any "border". In other words, there is no visible border unless you are aware of local custom, even if legally there might be a more formal virtual boundary that may be clearly discernable on maps.

Another nuance is air travel where you hop on a plane "in" one country and then "land" in another country without physically encountering any actual border, just a traversal across that imagined boundary line or maybe even an ocean. In fact, you may "fly over" any number of countries during that flight, but are you ever really "in" any of them? Have you ever really "entered" a country except by passing across a physical border or a surrogate for the border in the form of an immigration station at the airport?

Personally, I would say that I have never been "in" Vietnam, but back in 1987 or so I was on a flight from Singapore to Hong Kong and the pilot announced that we were "over" Da Nang (I think, or one of the other notable cities in Vietnam.) I would not say that I have been "to" Vietnam, but maybe I can semi-legitimately claim that I was "in" Vietnam in the sense of being within its boundaries, at least as a crow flies.

Some borders are heavily fortified or require advance permission (a visa) to cross, or at least some sort of documentation such as a passport or drivers license to cross. Then there are the borders within the European Union which are effectively open, regardless of which member country you are a citizen of.

To me, this discussion topic is less about the physical manifestation of a border than the abstract concept of the imagined boundary. Even further, it is not the actual boundary that matters, but an abstract boundary that for all intents and purposes is just a circle or rectangle that lets us refer simply to "here" and "there" or "us" and "them." So, I think the core subject of the discussion topic is not borders per se, but what I would call abstract national borders.

But even that is still not be specific about the desired concept. My hunch is that ultimately the discussion topic is really about whether dividing the world and people into countries is necessary or necessarily advantageous. In other words, maybe the discussion is about whether world government is viable, or is it beneficial to divide people and places into separate and distinct nations with clear delineations between them. Or maybe we could say that we are interested in discussing the notion of national identity and whether it is needed or not or beneficial or maybe even harmful.

In any case, the four big things that people seem to care the most about relative to borders are laws, culture (including language and customs), communications, and trade. Political borders allow a clear distinction in how law is decided and structured. Culture does not require borders per se and can differ dramatically by regions within  country that are not necessarily political in nature, but is still a major differentiation between countries. Trade certainly occurs regardless of whether there is a political boundary involved, but the terms of the trade, including laws that relate to trade can be affected greatly by political differences between countries. Communications seems to stand out as something that is likely to occur regardless of borders, although regulation of the communications infrastructure within and between separate countries can be impacted by political considerations within and between separate countries.

I'll stop there for now to give myself and others a chance to review and ponder all of that before continuing.

-- Jack Krupansky

Monday, September 13, 2010

Made my ninth payment to pay down the public debt of the U.S. government

I just made my ninth monthly payment to pay down the public debt of the U.S. government. Not much, just another $25, but it is a matter of principle, albeit mostly symbolic. It may take me another 45 billion years to pay it all down all by myself at this rate, but, as I said, it is a matter of principle.

According to the U.S. Treasury web site, the total public debt outstanding was $13,441,762,397,157.23, as of September 10, 2010. It was $13,317,048,837,517.10, as of August 12, 2010, for an increase of about $125 billion over 29 days, about $4.3 billion a day or $1.57 trillion per year (annualized daily deficit.)

Here is what I wrote back in January 2010 when I made my first donation/gift/contribution/payment:

Everybody is whining and complaining about the ballooning debt of the U.S. government, but who is actually doing anything about it? Well, for starters, ME! Yes, that's right, I, Jack Krupansky, just did something to reduce the U.S. government debt. Really. No kidding. I actually paid down a small slice of this debt. Granted, it was a rather small slice, but a slice nonetheless. Okay, sure, it was only $20, but the point is that at least I am one of the very few people willing to stand up and DO something about the problem, rather than be one of the whiners and complainers who refuse to acknowledge that it is their debt and their problem, not just the fault of mindless politicians in Washington, D.C. After all, every politician ultimately answers to voters and most of the so-called wasteful spending of the U.S. government is simply politicians responding to the demands of their consistituents (voters.) Maybe my one small contribution to paying down the debt won't really make any difference to any of those whiners and complainers, but for me it is a matter of principle. I consciously choose action rather than the inaction and lack of responsibility of the whiners and complainers.

If you have any sense of principle, you too can pay down a slice of the U.S. government debt yourself at Pay.gov. You can pay via credit card or debit transfer from a bank account.

So do the right thing and show all those whiners and complainers (including so-called "tax protesters") how mindless and spineless they really are. PAY DOWN THE DEBT! And that has to start at the grass roots with us individuals before politicians will ever pick up the lead.

For the record, the only real way out of the deficit is not to merely cut expenditures or raise taxes or some combination of the two, but through economic growth, which includes a healthy amount of immigration in addition to unemployed workers going back to work and young people entering the work force. Sure, we need to manage the federal budget more carefully as well, but the big focus has to be on achieving sustainable economic growth.

-- Jack Krupansky

Friday, September 10, 2010

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, 9/23: Could we live well without borders?

Cafe Philo in New York City will meet in two weeks, Thursday, September 23, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "Could we live well without borders?"

The suggested topics for the upcoming meeting and their votes:

  1. Why is there something rather than nothing? (4, 4)
  2. What determines achievement? (3)
  3. Could we live well with borders? (4, 5) *
  4. Can a dictatorship do more for the good of a society than democracy? (2)
  5. Did William James kill Buridan's ass? (3)
  6. Would dueling have a salutary effect on society? (4, 2)
  7. Is today's democracy more of a plutocracy? (3)
  8. Are we learning violence from the media or are we violent by nature? (3)
  9. Is representative democracy viable? (2)
  10. If change is good. (3)

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending as a participant.

Catch up with preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There are also usually some attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Reminder: Cafe Philo in New York City this week, Thursday, 9/9: The value of being wrong

This is just a reminder that Cafe Philo in New York City will meet this week on Thursday, September 9, 2010 with a discussion on the topic of "The value of being wrong." Ron Gross suggested the topic and provided this description:

To err is human. Yet most of us go through life tacitly assuming (and sometimes noisily insisting) that we are right about nearly everything, from the origins of the universe to how to load the dishwasher. If being wrong is so natural, why are we all so bad at imagining that our beliefs could be mistaken -- and why do we typically react to our errors with surprise, denial, defensiveness and shame?

Why do  we find it so gratifying to be right and so maddening to be mistaken, and how does this attitude toward error effect  our relationships -- whether between family members, colleagues, neighbors, or nations?

In her recently-published and widely acclaimed book BEING WRONG, Kathryn Schulz  takes us on a fascinating tour of human fallibility (the gist of her book is available on her entertaining website, www.beingwrongbook.com, which also features  confessions about being wrong from renowned folks from every field, from Google's Peter Norvig to maverick food critic Anthony Bourdain).  Of course you can obtain other "takes" on her book by Googling "Being Wrong".

I have been acting as guest moderator lately. Bernard Roy has been attending this year as a participant, but is spending the summer in France, as usual.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Afghan Restaurant at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. A glass of red wine can be had for $6 (plus tax and tip.)

After winding down our discussion, we entertain and vote on proposals for the topic question for the next meeting.

There are also usually some attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Pub for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philowww.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky