Visual Awesomeness

Following in the trend of photography-related posts, I thought I'd send it into the weekend with this gallery of pictures from (amateur?!) photographer Sean Heavey. Cool stuff.

[Daily Mail]
(h/t to my friends at the Shuckstaposition blog)

Becker & Posner on Catholicism & Contraception

I often read the Becker-Posner blog, a blog co-written by a pair of University of Chicago professors who aim to bridge the gap between law, economics, politics, and public policy. They often have very interesting takes on complicated issues--think Freakonomics on a grand scale--and I find their posts (they typically post once a week, both writing on the same topic) to be consistently thought-provoking.

Having spent time in the Vatican and Florence last week--and having been overwhelmed by the breadth and grandeur of Catholic imagery throughout Italy--I found their posts this week (Becker; Posner) on Catholicism and contraception to be both timely and intriguing. For the purposes of this post, I will focus on Posner's post. He writes:

It is always difficult to decide whether a religious tenet of a hierarchical religion, such as Roman Catholicism, reflects religious belief or institutional strategy. The Roman Catholic Church is a huge “corporation,” one that reached its present size, wealth, and influence in a competitive environment, where it had first to confront paganism and Judaism, and later Protestantism and secularism.

The Church has long been hostile to contraception, but the nature of its hostility has changed, and may be changing yet again with the Pope’s recent acknowledgment that the use of condoms may sometimes be justified as a way of preventing the spread of AIDS. I want to consider the institutional as distinct from doctrinal considerations that might explain the history of orthodox Catholic views of contraception.

In the early years of Christianity, the Church had to steer a middle course between Christian extremists who thought sex a form of purely animal behavior that Christians should eschew, and pagans, who had a notably relaxed attitude toward sex, including masturbation, homosexual and other nonmarital sex, and contraception in the form of coitus interruptus and abortion. Rejecting sex altogether was not a viable policy for an ambitious Church (think where rejection of sex got the Shakers), but accepting the pagan view would have resulted in a failure to differentiate Christianity from paganism, and perhaps reduce Christianity’s appeal to women.

The compromise position that the Church adopted was that sex was proper as long as it was oriented toward its proper function, which, the Church held, was procreation within marriage. But it had to qualify this view to avoid condemning sex by married people who turned out to be sterile, for example because the wife had reached menopause. So the Church allowed that a secondary lawful purpose of sex was to reinforce the marital bond. 

This compromise worked well for a while (think of the number of massive Irish Catholic families in cities like Boston, families very similar to my own), but ran into problems when heavily Catholic nations achieved greater prosperity.

For various reasons, birth rates fall as prosperity rises, which led to a growth problem for the Church. The Vatican tried to hold its ground by embracing the "rhythm method" of contraception, but has found itself in a place today (according to Posner) where Catholics around the world use contraception at the same rate as non-Catholics. Posner concludes,

The Church finds itself today in a quandary: its proscription of contraception is so widely ignored, and so anachronistic given today’s sexual mores, as to invite derision—to make the Church seem “out of it.” This might not matter a great deal if Roman Catholicism were a fringe faith, as Christianity was at its inception. It is, as I said, a vast “corporation.” It has hundreds of millions of “customers.” It has been losing customers in the Western world, but gaining them in Africa—but Africans, ravaged by the AIDS epidemic, are pressing for a relaxation of the Church’s ban against contraception because condoms are a cheap and effective method of preventing infection with the AIDS virus. 

It is therefore not surprising, from an institutional perspective, that the Pope should take a first, albeit hesitant. step back from the proscription of contraception by acknowledging publicly that condoms might be justifiable as a method of reducing the incidence of AIDS.

The risk, of course, is that the Church could undermine its religious authority in favor of self-preservation. Any religion derives its primary power from the faith of its constituents, but there is often a conflict between the believers of the past and the believers of the present (and future).

My own checkered history with Catholicism derives from precisely these types of conflicts--and the Church's bizarre inability to reconcile them satisfactorily. The Catholic sex abuse scandal hit close to home for me at a formative time (right around the time of my Catholic confirmation), and certainly soured my opinion of the Church to the point where I no longer actively practice any religion.

The question for the Vatican is whether or not it is possible for the Church to reinvent itself without stripping away its own authority. We no longer live in a time where religious authority implies political authority (as it most certainly did in the Holy Roman Empire, not to mention throughout the Middle Ages), and the Church is uncertain how to respond.

To admit that "corporate" concerns play a huge role in religious doctrine may seem unsavory, but it is likely the only way for the Church to remain relevant in the modern world. Posner is right on in his analysis. The Church can no longer hope to achieve growth (or even maintain relevance) through higher birth rates; it must instead make sure that its message has maximum relevance in today's world. It's a lesson that the Church has been slow to learn.


[Becker-Posner Blog]

What is the role of the mainstream media?

I've written here a bit before about responsible journalism, and what it looks like (and doesn't look like). In the wake of the Wikileaks situation (which I'm honestly still catching up on--but some of the responses to it have been downright scary), I think this issue has taken center stage. Witness this article from Gareth Porter, posted over at CounterPunch (emphasis mine).

A diplomatic cable from last February released by Wikileaks provides a detailed account of how Russian specialists on the Iranian ballistic missile program refuted the U.S. suggestion that Iran has missiles that could target European capitals or intends to develop such a capability.

In fact, the Russians challenged the very existence of the mystery missile the U.S. claims Iran acquired from North Korea.

But readers of the two leading U.S. newspapers never learned those key facts about the document.

The New York Times and Washington Post reported only that the United States believed Iran had acquired such missiles - supposedly called the BM-25 - from North Korea. Neither newspaper reported the detailed Russian refutation of the U.S. view on the issue or the lack of hard evidence for the BM-25 from the U.S. side.

The Times, which had obtained the diplomatic cables not from Wikileaks but from The Guardian, according to a Washington Post story Monday, did not publish the text of the cable.

The Times story said the newspaper had made the decision not to publish "at the request of the Obama administration". That meant that its readers could not compare the highly- distorted account of the document in the Times story against the original document without searching the Wikileaks website. As a result, a key Wikileaks document which should have resulted in stories calling into question the thrust of the Obama administration's ballistic missile defense policy in Europe based on an alleged Iranian missile threat has instead produced a spate of stories buttressing anti-Iran hysteria.

Say what you will about the wisdom, legality, morality, or potential consequences of Wikileaks. The allegations that major news outlets have been making journalistic decisions based on input and requests from Obama administration officials is incredibly damning, and must make us wonder what purpose our media is now serving. In this case, who is less responsible as a "journalist"--Wikileaks or the New York Times? It's a difficult question to answer.

In an ideal world, our newspapers and other media outlets are our watchdogs, investigating and reporting to serve the public benefit. In a nightmare scenario, however, the media is the mouthpiece of government (or corporate) policy, spewing the biased propaganda of whoever may be pulling the strings. If we can't trust our press, the democracy suffers.

The freedom of the press is a fundamental right that has allowed our nation and economy to prosper, which makes these allegations of press complicity incredibly worrisome. A properly functioning democracy depends upon a well-informed populace; without it, a "perfect" democracy is impossible. To have that well-informed populace requires that our media outlets be unbiased, presenting balanced accounts of all stories. Regardless of whether we think the Wikileaks documents should have been released, once they have, it is the mainstream media's task to present the fairest possible accounts of their contents. Anything less must be considered irresponsible journalism.

Our government and media outlets ultimately both should be serving the public benefit, but this does not always mean that they will be working together (or toward common goals). When they are, we as the public should become very suspicious of them both--only in fascist regimes do the government and the media work in concert.

In fact, I believe that the Wikileaks situation would never have happened to begin with had not our media outlets begun to betray the public trust. When the collective believes that the media is serving its investigative purpose properly, there won't be any public desire (or need) for a site such as Wikileaks in the first place. But the founders of Wikileaks recognized that public distrust of the media was growing daily, and stepped into the void with an incredibly (and perhaps excessively) unfiltered version of the news.

Wikileaks is a symptom of a disease, not a disease itself. The mainstream media must recognize it as such, and respond properly.


[CounterPunch]

Clip of the Week

Even though I haven't been around this week, I've still got a Clip of the Week to give you, thanks to Barry Ritholtz. It's old, but it's amusing. Barry goes into some more detail on his post, which is worth reading.

FIFA says "f*** you" to the world

In the annals of terrible (and terribly selfish) decisions, the ever-corrupt FIFA delegation created a new category for itself today by awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a country with little soccer history, limited existing infrastructure, oppressive weather conditions, an incredibly small population, but very deep pockets. The United States, which welcomed record crowds when it hosted the 1994 World Cup, was the initial favorite but lost in the final round of voting.

Qatar, the smallest nation to host the World Cup, used its 30-minute presentation to underline how the tournament could unify a region ravaged by conflict. Presenters also promised to overcome summer heat of up to 130 degrees by air conditioning outdoor stadiums it will build, then dismantle and give to needy nations.

Really? That's your closing argument? Yikes. With so little going for it except money, there's simply no other conclusion to draw than that FIFA (like the voters in the delegation) was overwhelmed by Qatar's oil-lined bank accounts.

Former French star Zinedine Zidane (he of the infamous head-butt) will reportedly pocket $15 million for himself as a result of the Qatar win, after having appeared in a series of advertisements promoting the nation's bid. Given that, it's definitely not much of a reach to wonder if (or assume that) other pockets were lined during the bidding and voting process.

Qatar's soccer team itself has never qualified for the World Cup, and the nation has zero stadiums that are currently World Cup-ready (in contrast to the United States, which has dozens). Qatar has plans to build between 7 and 9 stadiums (reports vary) specifically for the Cup, many of which will be dismantled immediately afterward.

The nation made its innovative plans to air-condition the stadiums with solar technology a centerpiece of its bid, but its history must cast some doubt on its ability or willingness to actually see that plan through. Qatar is first in the world by a long shot in CO-2 emissions per capita--blowing away every other nation--at a rate nearly triple that of the United States.

By rewarding a nation with such an abysmally dubious distinction as that--and one which profits handsomely from the rest of the world's oil addiction--FIFA has sent a troubling message to the world. At a time when the whole world should be asking itself tough questions about its energy usage and what it means for our future (and I'm not just talking global warming, I'm talking about the question of what types of rogue governments we support with our inability to kick the oil habit), FIFA is instead cheerleading for one of the greatest benificiaries of our gluttonous oil consumption.

Is FIFA alone responsible for setting the precedent that the rest of the world should follow? Certainly not. But as the guardian of the world's most popular sport, it has political reach and clout that few organizations can claim, and today it showed that it has no interest in using that bully pulpit to bring social good. Today's vote isn't about promoting the global growth of soccer or of giving poor Middle Eastern kids a chance to enjoy the world's greatest game (to paraphrase Zidane). Those arguments are smokescreens, and weak ones at that. Today's decision was about money, pure and simple, and about utter indifference with regard to that money's source. Score one for big oil. Thanks, FIFA.


[ESPN]

A great one from the Journal of Consumer Research

As you can probably tell from my lack of posts yesterday, I'm not yet fully recovered from my trip back from Italy. I fell asleep at my desk about five times yesterday, and I'm still pretty out of it. But I came across this study from the Journal of Consumer Research, and the abstract alone was intriguing enough for me to write a post about it. Essentially, the researchers conclude that credit cards make you fat (though they use bigger and more confusing words...how I miss academia). Emphasis is mine.

Some food items that are commonly considered unhealthy also tend to elicit impulsive responses. The pain of paying in cash can curb impulsive urges to purchase such unhealthy food products. Credit card payments, in contrast, are relatively painless and weaken impulse control. Consequently, consumers are more likely to buy unhealthy food products when they pay by credit card than when they pay in cash. Results from four studies support these hypotheses. Analysis of actual shopping behavior of 1,000 households over a period of 6 months revealed that shopping baskets have a larger proportion of food items rated as impulsive and unhealthy when shoppers use credit or debit cards to pay for the purchases (study 1). Follow-up experiments (studies 2–4) show that the vice-regulation effect of cash payments is mediated by pain of payment and moderated by chronic sensitivity to pain of payment.

I wonder further if our shift from a cash-based economy to a credit (or debit)-based economy has further increased the amount of impulse buying across all categories. It's a lot easier to throw down a credit card and sign on a dotted line than it is to go to the bank, withdraw cash, and then physically hand over the bills. This dynamic is especially acute on larger purchases, where we'd certainly think a little longer before handing over $500 for a handbag (for example) if we had to do in hard currency.

Even if we are living within our means (and many who use credit cards are not, which is a whole separate issue), it seems that the increased use of plastic has meant worse consumer choices. We are more likely to spend conspicuously, to make large purchases, and apparently to buy junk food with cards than with cash. Obviously the increased use of credit (and fractional reserve banking) has enabled the growth of our economy that we now hold dear, but I wonder if some of the unintended consequences of credit are worse than we might appreciate. Strange unintended consequences like this one are particularly troubling.


[Journal of Consumer Research]
(h/t Naked Capitalism)

Back in the country

Well, I'm back in the States (in body if not in mind), and my blood is probably half red wine by now, but so be it. Fun trip, glad to be back. I'll be back to posting on a full schedule now, just as soon as I'm able to catch up on everything that's happened over the last 10 days (and I do mean North Korea).

As for today, I'll post a couple things as long as I'm able to stay awake. Since I was awake and traveling for 24 straight hours yesterday, that's no guarantee. Happy December, everyone.