Barcelona 5 - Real Madrid 0

In the game that is more than a game for a club that is "more than a club" (their official motto), things could even have gone better. Messi hit the post with an audacious effort on six minutes, chipping a curling shot over and around a strangely unsuspecting Iker Casillas, only to see the effort rebound of the inside of the post and be cleared. At 2-0, there was a moment when Messi clearly should have passed instead of shot and it would almost certainly have gone to 3-0. And when Xavi rounded Casillas early in the second half, he too, should have squared back across goal rather than attempting to hit a volley from a ridiculous angle.

But Barcelona had to take only some of their chances on a night in which they were utterly dominant. The 98,000 Nou Camp faithful were singing after only 10 minutes as Iniesta's perfectly weighted ball through five Madrid defenders skipped up fortuitously of the heel of Xavi for him to volley delicately around Casillas. The masters of the tiki-taka, as Barcelona's style of play is called, combined in their unique way to go one up on Madrid. Less than ten minutes later, it was some truly awful defending from Ramos and rather uninspiring play from Casillas that led to Barcelona's second. Sensing danger, Ramos followed one of the midfield runners into the box, but in so doing, left Madrid's right flank entirely open. Villa received a 50-yard cross field ball in acres of space, and as Ramos went back out to meet him, Villa danced around him and played in a low cross that Casillas could only parry into the path of Pedro who happily tapped in.

The second half opened at a blistering pace, and after Xavi couldn't finish after rounding Casillas, the same exact ball from Messi put Villa through and he was never going to miss. Three-nil. Three minutes later, instead of a 10-yard ball from Messi, it was a 50-yard ball as he sent Villa in behind a ball-watching Ramos. Villa finished exquisitely, slipping the ball between brave Casillas's legs. Four-nil. Barcelona were content at this point to sit back and resume their monologue with less attacking impetus, although had Bojan not stumbled when played through shortly after his introduction, it surely would have been five. Madrid could produce nothing, though, and Barcelona hit them on a counter late on, Bojan firing in a cross for fellow youth-academy graduate Jeffren to slot home.

What more could one have asked for? Five goals. The first loss for Real Madrid under Mourinho. Mourinho's worst defeat in his managerial career. Ronaldo stymied yet again. 3 goals from products of La Masia, Barcelona's youth academy. 4 assists from youth academy graduates. As Tom Adams wrote on Soccernet.com, "The school defeated the bank." The most expensive team in the history of the world succumbed to the Barcelona monologue in startlingly average fashion.

Surely the euphoric mood in Barcelona has not yet abated. This is not merely a sporting event. It is a battle of the two regions' historical ideologies, with Barcelona providing the leftist resistance to a history of Madrid-based domination under Franco. Everything for which Barcelona stand was repressed by a dictatorship that may have gone so far as to get involved in breaking up the transfer of Alfredo DiStefano to Barcelona so that he would wind up at Real Madrid.

That so many of Barcelona's players are Catalán is not merely a byproduct of a good youth development program; it is partly the goal of the program. Pride in Cataluña is a central tenet of the Barcelona way. Five of Barcelona's players last night were born in Cataluña: Valdes, Piqué, Puyol, Busquets, Xavi, and Bojan. Messi and Iniesta have both been there for a decade and as one admittedly biased Brazilian colleague of mine said, "Messi is more Catalán than Argentinian."

The most telling moment of the night for me, however, came on 31 minutes when Barcelona's coach, Pep Guardiola, held the ball a little too long for the liking of Ronaldo who was attempting to take a quick throw in. Ronaldo shoved Guardiola who, to his credit, didn't go down in a moment of play-acting. It is the only time in my life when I can remember Iniesta getting angry. Iniesta is consistently one of the most fouled players in the game. And he might ask for a card. He might require treatment. He might go down too easily for some fans' liking, but he never gets angry. He is never disrespectful. Well, when Ronaldo shoved Guardiola, the diminutive Iniesta went over and got in Ronaldo's face. He was the first one there verbally abusing Ronaldo, the ever-disrespectful monstrosity of a human, who is undoubtedly 50% larger than the little midfield maestro for Barcelona. The immediate defense of Guardiola, a man who wholly embodies the Catalán cause, by the entire team (Valdes rushed some 70 yards from his goal to get himself involved) is truly indicative of the sense of cohesion the coach as created in the team. They love him for everything he is.

The season is long and the lead is only two points, but Barcelona could not have dealt their most bitter rivals any more of a psychological blow. Valdes had only two saves to make on the night, and in an even more telling statistic, Casillas made only one. A shot-stopping percentage in the teens is never a good statistic for a 'keeper, but Casillas's reputation is such that the statistic speaks more to the success of the Barcelona way (pass the ball into the back of the net) than anything else. Madrid have Valencia at home next week, and the season could quickly spiral out of control for them. Barcelona will surely own the head-to-head tiebreak at the end of the season, and that means that Madrid must now win the league outright.

Barcelona 5 - Real Madrid 0. Absolute Euphoria.

Ethics, Politics, Economics, and Limiting Individual Liberty

Although I am relatively unfamiliar with the field of ethics within philosophy, my simplistic understanding leaves me with the sense that there are two basic approaches. One may either operate with a rules based system or a consequentialist system. The most common example of the former would be the ten commandments. The latter is based entirely on the end outcome of the decision in question. Lest you think this consequentialist system to be Machiavellian, it is not the case that the means are ignored. In fact, the means are also ends in themselves so long as we are treating a consequentialist system seriously.

A prime example of the difference between these two systems can be seen through the famous trolley car problem. In one iteration of the problem, we suppose a trolley car is rolling down the tracks and if you don't do anything, it will hit a group of five individuals. You are standing at a switch, however, and so you have the ability to divert the trolley car onto a different track. Of course, if there were to be no negative consequences of diverting the trolley car, we wouldn't even think twice about doing so, but in this problem, there is one person on the track onto which you could divert the trolley car. Now is where we see the difference between the rules-based thinker and the consequentialist thinker. If the rules-based thinker believes himself unallowed to kill within the bounds of his ethical framework, he will be unable to throw the switch, for this would amount to killing. If he merely allows the events to unfold, he has not directly killed anyone. If he throws the switch, saving five lives but killing one, he has killed. The consequentialist thinker, on the other hand, doesn't even think twice about throwing the switch. He knows that if he throws the switch, he saves a net of four lives. Clearly five alive and one dead is better than one alive and five dead.

Yet although the rules-based thinker may seem to be acting stubbornly in this scenario, we can design many scenarios such that those who operate with the rules-based system and those who operate with the consequentialist system are much closer in number. Imagine, for example, that the only way to stop the trolley car was by pushing a fat man onto the tracks. What about a fat woman? What if the only option were to throw a baby? Suddenly there are many more people saying, "Wait a second. There's no way I could throw a baby under a trolley car to stop it even if it would save five lives."

My hypothesis, and there may be some evidence to support this, is that conservatives choose the rules based system more frequently than liberals do. My first argument for that would be that conservatives are much more religious than liberals, and so they're more used to thinking within such a framework, but really what I'd like to get to today is the economic arguments made by libertarian economists, because I believe that they use a rules based approach to discussing the ethics of government involvement in the economy where a consequentialist approach would be better suited.

Perhaps I haven't fully grasped the libertarian argument, but I believe it generally goes as follows. Individual liberty is the foundation of western society. The government should do everything in its power to avoid infringing upon individual liberty. The economy functions most efficiently when the government doesn't limit the power of individuals or collections of individuals (i.e. corporations). The government exists for the purpose of protecting individual liberty (i.e. ensuring that your person and property are not unduly harmed). The government may, in special circumstances, break up monopolistic entities in the economy. Any extension of the government's power beyond these basic principles would be a violation of someone's individual liberty and, ergo, would be a transgression of its mandate.

How is this system dependent upon rules-based thinking? It takes individual liberty as the only moral good. It then supposes that, excepting limits placed of individual liberty's own protection, any limitation of individual liberty is morally unjustifiable. A rule has been created; thou shalt not limit individual liberty. But this method clearly possesses innumerable problems.

The first problem I see is its disregard for historical context, concretely that we do not currently (nor, many would argue, will we ever) live in a society that tolerates all types of people equally. So long as there is discrimination of any sort at a system-wide level, we must take measures to help those whose individual liberty is systematically marginalized. Yet any compensatory measure, such as affirmative action, will be decried by libertarians as an infringement upon the individual liberties of those who do not suffer from systematic abuse of their liberties.

A second point of concern for the libertarian argument on individual liberty stems from its justification for individual liberty being the highest moral goal. The justification, I believe, is that individual liberty for all to the greatest extent possible is the system which is most fair. This argument only holds if people begin from an equal point. A quick look at American society easily demonstrates that this has never been (and again, many would say never will be) the case. Its not as if most of the poor in this country have ever had the same opportunities as the wealthy. And this is true dating back to the time of the arrival of the first settlers from Europe. The wealthy have systematically exploited the poor for the duration of western civilization. So given that the origin of the wealth of the wealthy is, in many cases, from so long ago that nobody even knows where it came from, and that society has always operated in such a way as to allow this to translate into far greater opportunities for the wealthy, it makes zero sense to suggest that a system which grants as much individual liberty as possible is in any way fair.

So what does the ethical consequentialist point of view have to offer to this discussion? Well for starters, it would take into account some positive effects of the limiting of individual liberty. Say, for example, that a governmental regulation could help alleviate intolerance in American society, but that to pay for the system would cost the wealthy more than it would cost the poor. Well, that disproportionate amount would be decried as libertarians as an affront to the individual liberties of the wealthy. But doesn't the moral good achieved through the limiting of their individual liberties by virtue of creating a tolerant society far outweigh the moral cost of taxing the wealthy more than the poor?

At the end, it inevitably boils down to taxes, and here is where we see the advantages of a consequentialist point of quite clearly. Whereas the rules based system must necessarily argue for a flat tax (any other treatment would be discriminatory and, thus, a violation of individual liberties), the consequentialist system would show that the marginal utility of a dollar to a person with $10,000 is far greater than the marginal utility of that same dollar to a person with $10,000,000. The consequentialist system offers a balancing act between individual liberties and a compensation for the enormity of disparity of opportunity, which results in allegedly equal individual liberties contributing to systematic oppression.

And the libertarians will comment in 3, 2, 1...

David Brooks Should Say Something

David Brooks used to be my least favorite columnist at the NYTimes - at least until Ross Douthat got there.  It had seemed to me, however, that over the course of the last couple of years, while the country has moved farther and farther to the right, Brooks has come to fall, rather than on the right side of the political spectrum, somewhere in the center.  His column today in the NY Times, however should leave readers uncertain as to where his political ideology places him.  

Brooks is critical of what he sees as a lack of psychology, emotion, and morality in liberal economic policies.  And many of his points are good ones.  Our conception of economics is far too rational, calculated, and non-inclusive in its regard for humanity.  But I see this as neither unique to the left nor the right.  Brooks claims that conservatives are now making psychological, emotional, and moral arguments against stimulus or stimulus-equivalent policies, but he seems to have taken an exceptionally generous reading of such arguments and falsely attributed them to only one side of the political spectrum.

Let's take the argument that the national debt is too high, and that it creates an unstable economic environment that discourages investment.  I don't think most liberals would disagree with that.  Neither I nor any of my leftist friends would argue that we should be unconcerned with the national debt.  Liberal are merely suggesting that in times of economic crisis, trimming down the national debt is a secondary concern to fixing immediate problems resulting from the ups and downs of the business cycle.  And if we seek to place the national debt argument in a historical context, as did James Fallows of The Atlantic, it is Republican administrations under which the national debt has burgeoned.  

My concern with Brooks is not that he makes bad arguments, rather that the arguments are incomplete.  He attacks liberals without looking at conservatives, without asking what conservative proposals are on the table.  What is the human component behind the flat tax?  Let's tax the poor and the rich equally.  Or what about a national sales tax?  Equality of taxation negates the possibility of equality of opportunity, a concept which is in itself, a moral argument.  

Has Brooks fallen onto the wrong side of the partisan trap?  I had thought him the one man big enough to stand up and say to the Tea Party, "you guys are psycho."  His critique of liberals in an article entitled "The Two Cultures" leaves that hypothesis clearly in doubt.  

On Greek Life at Dickinson College

Following the panel discussion on Greek Life at Dickinson College, I thought I would offer some reflection about both the event specifically, and Greek Life at Dickinson more generally.

While the event may have served to illuminate some points of the debate for those who had not thought critically about the issue before, this is, of course, contingent upon them having listened. I am skeptical as if the majority of people on either side of the issue found themselves particularly enlightened by the comments made by any of the panelists - not that the panelists were not making good points - rather that the point at which anyone hears criticism in that context, he is likely to shut down the higher faculties of intellectual thought and become defensive.

Being rather anti-Greek myself (for reasons which I will lay out shortly), I found two points to be of particular interest on the other side. First was the argument that the Greek organizations are more different than they are the same. While it is true that non-Greek students very often tend to lump Greek organizations together, I find this argument that the Greek organizations are more different than similar difficult to swallow. The recruitment process, as one questioner pointed out, is the same for all of the traditional Greek organizations. The pledging process and the group philanthropy are also elements in common that apply to few non-Greek organizations, with the exception of the athletic teams, with which Greek organizations overlap considerably, and organizations specifically designed to do philanthropic work. So yes, although non-Greek students should strive to understand the more nuanced role of the Greek organizations on campus, it seems a far cry to suggest that there are more distinctions to be made between the Greek organizations than there are commonalities among the them.

Another point I found elucidating is that Greek students feel at times marginalized by the wearing of their letters. One panelist's comment that people ignore her on days when she wears her letters was disturbing. I would have expected more of my fellow students than to assume that a particular organization to which a student pertains becomes more of her identity than the totality of other interests and affiliations. But there is a certain irony in this problem as well, for I know it to be the case that within one female Greek organization on campus, the pledging process requires that recruits not talk to members of the opposite sex. It is certainly befuddling in this context that while with one hand a Greek organization can be mandating the exclusivity of its members at the same time with the other be upset for being excluded.

Although these points were interesting and important, there were other essential components to the discussion that, unfortunately, I felt were not adequately addressed. The first of these issues is about space. Although this was brought up briefly, it wound up being swept under the table without a good response from the Greek students on the panel. The criticism, which I found to be a quite astute one, was that the type of conversations such as were being had, never take place in a neutral space on Dickinson's campus. When there are discussions that involve Greek students about Greek life, they invariably (it seems) either include practically the whole of the Dickinson Greek community or none of it. And from the array of letters and seating patterns of the Greek students at this discussion, it seems as if that fact has not been understood to be problematic by the Greek community. Surely one must be able to understand that sitting in such groups displaying loyalty to them is intimidating to those not in them, especially when the vast majority of the audience was Greek.

The second point that I felt was not adequately addressed was the fact (I don't believe it can be debated) that Greek culture wields a disproportionate amount of social power on Dickinson's campus. Because Greek organizations have the venues, the numbers, and the money to host parties, they do. And one faculty member was correct to point out that surely this must be the reasoning behind some students' decision to join Greek life. Good evidence of the disproportionate amount of power wielded by Greek organizations is the fact that many students who don't go to parties feel as if they are, in some way, not partaking in the quintessential college experience. That these assumptions about college life are present in students is unquestionable, but the college should be (and is) working to make sure that they go away. I would have been curious to hear the responses by the Greek students on the panel to whether or not they agree that they have a disproportionate amount of social power, and how partying is viewed in relation to the college experience within their particular Greek organizations. Perhaps this post will generate such a discussion.

Other discussion points about Greek Life about which I am not well-informed enough to make a good argument are how these organizations relate to class, race, and sexual orientation. Some statistical information would be useful in this regard. What percentage of students in Greek organizations are on financial aid? What percentage of students in Greek organizations are minority students? What percentage are international? And given the perception that professors apparently have that belonging to a Greek organization is detrimental to one's academic performance, how does the average GPA of a Greek member compare to the average of the student body as a whole?

But of course, during the discussion, the elephant in the room was the question of the continued relevance of Greek Life at Dickinson; and I think this could rightly be extended to liberal arts colleges more generally. If Greek the exclusivity of parties, one of the most problematic components, and the lack of transparency in the affiliation process, another large issue, were to be reformed, what would be left of Greek life other than a collection of friends who did community service together. I challenge Greek students to offer a unique contribution their organization makes to the college community that could not be made through a more transparent and inclusive organization. If such an argument could be made, and I have my doubts, I would be willing to consider that the retention of Greek Life would have value. Of course, the unique contribution would have to overcome the problems associated with Greek Life, such as the objectification of women, the disproportionate social influence, the exclusivity, the lack of transparency, etc.

There are other points to be made, but my goal here is to start a discussion, civil and respectful, that treats some of the harder and more contentious issues pertaining to the continued existence of Greek Life at Dickinson College, so I will leave those additional points for the discussion. The contributions of all are welcome.