When Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia on December 17^th, 2011, it started a revolution that sent aftershocks around the world, from Egypt to Syria, with plenty others in between.

When the subprime mortgage bubble collapsed in the United States it too affected much of the world, as we saw during the eerily similar crises that followed around Europe.

Now, the world seeks to contain the European sovereign debt crisis.

Italian PM Mario Monti (credit: pbs.org)

All over Europe, people are dissatisfied with the mutli-party political systems that have been in place since World War II. The current frameworks are too divisive for times of such extreme economic distress, and political vitriol is destructive for the health of any nation, as the United States discovered when an argument over the debt ceiling forced its credit rating down to an “AA+”.

In place of party politicians, so-called “Technocrats” – officials not linked to a career in politics, but rather to expertise in their given academic field – have provided beacons of hope for the European (and thus, the world) economy.

In Italy, Mario Monti is pushing to reign in sovereign debt and make Italy a leaner competitor on the world stage. An economist by trade with experience in the European Union, Monti has been described as “competent,” and “gifted,” far cries from Italy’s previous PM, Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, a media magnate with a wild personality and a history of scandals during his time in office, stepped down as economic conditions in Italy worsened.

Last November, Greece saw the appointment of Lucas Papademos as interim Prime Minister. Papademos, with a background in banking and academia, is arguing for cuts to Greece’s pension system, as well as tax and benefit reform.

Greece's interim, Papademos (credit: telegraph.co.uk)

More and more often, countries are looking for a scientific approach to solving fiscal dilemmas. Two European leaders throughout the current crisis, France and Germany, are working to keep the Eurozone afloat by insisting on tight budgets and lowered deficit spending. Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor and an austere star in the economics world during these past few months, has come out particularly strongly against irresponsible government and tax policies.

Even in the United States, Republican presidential hopefuls have battled over their respective commands of business knowledge. In the end, it seems as if Mitt Romney – who holds business and law degrees from Harvard University – will be the party’s presumptive nominee to run against Barack Obama in the 2012 general election.

So, why a push towards Technocracy? In an economic age in which the complexity of problems is outweighed only by the difficulty of their solutions, leaders with strong academic foundations and little interest in lengthy careers in government offer answers outside of the day-to-day political battles that now seem so petty.

One is reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer who, in a time of war, was called by his fellow citizens to take the role of dictator and save Rome from attack. They found him in his back yard, maintaining his fields. He exchanged his plow for a sword, and led Rome to victory. 16 days after assuming the dictatorship, he returned voluntarily to his farm.

Cincinnatus’ story rings true with many around the world struck with the current sovereign debt crises. Politicians interested in short-term victories and long-term legacies aren’t what Europe is looking for, and the technocratic option has risen to become the most viable one. For now, the deft guidance of expertise will try its best to lead Europe through the storm.

Yes, divorce rates are high in the Untied States relative to other industrialized nations, but so is the rate of remarriage. In America, for example, 50% of children who experience a breakup in their parent’s marriage find themselves in a new stepfamily within three years; a rate much higher than in Sweden (33%), Germany (29%), France (23%), or Italy (8%). If the US divorce rate suggests marriage is dying in America, the rate of remarriage suggests the opposite. What is more, 90% of people in the United States are projected to marry (a figure that has remained stable for the past couple of decades and shows no signs of decreasing). These two paradoxical findings – high rates of both divorce and marriage – indicate that there is more to the story of marriage in America than the TLR article suggests. If marriage were dying, it would not be such a popular institution, nor would so many people rush to remarry after experiencing divorce.

Professor Andrew Cherlin of John Hopkins University, widely regarded as the preeminent researcher in family sociology, explains this paradox by analogizing the state of marriage in the United States to a merry-go-round. American’s are hoping off and on the marriage wagon at a rate much higher than their counterparts in Europe. Cherlin suggests that the confluence of two strong cultural ideals – individualism and matrimony – explains this turbulence in American marriage relationships. They are the cultural forces that spin America’s marriage-go-round, which simultaneously pushes people into and out of marriage relationships.

Although the USA can loosely be described as individualistic since its inception, sociologists use the term expressive individualism to describe American culture in the modern context. This variant form of individualism arose as women began to participate more fully in the labor force and is characterized by an added emphasis on the self. That is, it emphasizes personal and emotional growth and establishes this as the ultimate standard of success. By this new standard, however, many marriages in time fail. Whereas before, women had no choice but to remain in troubled and or devitalized marriages, women in the modern age face no such contraints. Indeed, both sexes have come to regard personal development and growth as the primary purpose of marriage. This cultural ideal pushes many unions toward dissolution and it is one of the main reasons why divorce rates are so high in the United States.

The rate of marriage and remarriage in the United States, however, also remains high. Cherlin explains this by observing that marriage in America remains a strong cultural ideal:

The United States is unique among nations in its strong support for marriage, on one hand, and its postmodern penchant for self-expression and personal growth, on the other hand. You can find other Western countries where marriage is strong, such as Italy…and you can find Western countries with highly individualistic values, such as Sweden…but only in the United States can you find both.

The Cherlin thesis is thus, in one respect, the exact opposite of that offered by “True” Love Revolution. Cherlin posits that it is precisely because marriage remains a strong cultural ideal in America, coupled with the equally strong cultural ideal of individualism, that we see in the United States high rates of marriage, divorce, and remarriage – a situation unique among Western nations.

Who is correct then? There clearly is a mass of sociological literature on both sides of this matter, as there typically is on all hot button issues. There is no need, however, to resign the search for objectivity. Readers should carefully evaluate the explanatory power of the Cherlin thesis, relative to that advanced by “True” Love Revolution. If marriage is dying, why do marriage rates in this country hover around 90%? Why do remarriage rates remain so high after divorce? And why is debate on the definition of marriage so heated in America, relative to other nations? It is precisely because marriage remains a strong cultural ideal in this country that the aforementioned phenomena are observable. It is precisely because marriage still means something important in our society that both liberals and conservatives are fighting so ardently to define it.

The whirlwinds of individualism and matrimony have left marriage in the United States viable, yet fragile. I share with members of “True” Love Revolution a concern for this new fragility and the deleterious effects it has on the rearing of children. I disagree with them, however, on how best to remedy the situation. The TLR article suggests that only in reverting to a “traditional” definition of marriage can we strengthen matrimony. This remedy is nothing more than empty words. If there is one consensus in the sociological community on matters of family, it is that there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage. Marriage has meant something different from one culture to another and from one generation to the next. Moreover, numerous sociological studies confirm that various family-types are suitable for the proper rearing of children once one controls for confounding variables such as poverty. In the end, the single greatest factor that contributes to the well being of children is stability – something that grandparents, heterosexual parents, and homosexual parents can equally provide.

How to achieve stability in marriage is a question I will not attempt to answer here in any great detail. However, I very much doubt that stability in our time will be found by looking to the past. Newly emerging research suggests that peer marriages, where men and women have equal and indistinguishable roles in matrimony, offer a more resilient marriage model for the present era. Indeed, the circumstances that place modern marriages under duress are unique in world history. For this reason, those who seek to remedy the present situation by offering a pill marked “traditional” offer a therapeutic that has already expired.

Concluding Thoughts

Marriage is not dying; it is only changing. The rise of expressive individualism in the United States coupled with the continuing strength of marriage as a cultural ideal has created a uniquely American context characterized by high levels of both divorce and marriage. For the time being, the confluence of these two cultural forces has resulted in marriages that are much more fragile than has historically been the case. There is hope, however, that in the future new progressive norms around marriage may add stability to these relationships. In the end, marriage itself (no matter how badly bruised by modern forces) remains a viable institution. Indeed, the very fact that marriage is changing suggests its viability. That is a point that perhaps is lost on some conservatives, who time and again fail to see that in society, as in nature, the only things that die are those that fail to evolve.

The four Republican primary candidates are learning the hard way something that every orange-juice-drinking, airboat-riding, sun-bathing, Sunshine State resident has known for a long time: Florida is one big state.

All 50 of Florida’s delegates, now “at-large” due to RNC sanctions, are up for grabs to today’s number one vote getter, but Florida’s political landscape is truly unique. Pinellas County, home to Tampa, holds 26% of the primary electorate. Seminole County has 21% (Orlando), and Miami-Dade County has 14%.

That’s right; more than half of Florida’s Republican primary voters are split between just three counties. What this means for the four Republicans currently romping across my home state is simple: The battle of the airwaves will determine Florida.

Because of Florida’s size and diversity, it’s fairly impractical to try and win the state in a ground game, especially if the election is “winner-take-all,” as it is this year. Rick Santorum won Iowa by knocking on doors and stopping by pizza ranches, but in Florida, we have a name for the cross-state road trip: The 1,000 Mile Journey. Combine that with a reliable elderly voting population that would rather stay home than go to campaign events and the message is clear: stick to commercials.

So who’s the smartest guy in this regard? Mitt Romney. In terms of sheer numbers, Mitt Romney has vastly outspent any of his competitors by millions of dollars in Florida, and the results show it. Including the super PACs that support him, Mitt Romney has aired 12,768 television commercials in Florida as of Wednesday, according to a study by the Wesleyan University Media Project. Newt Gingrich and his super PAC allies have shown just 210. And indeed, according to the most recent poll by Quinnipiac University, Mitt is ahead 43% to 29%.

This influx of advertising is an increase for Romney compared to his 2008 campaign in the state. This is mainly due to the increased influence of super PACs since 2010′s Citizens United ruling.

So, what’s a poor old Speaker of the House to do? Frank Luntz said it best in a recent quote to the Washington Post: “Newt may not have the money, but he has always had the skill of grabbing attention.” Targeting Florida’s space industry, immigrant population, and huge amount of foreclosed homeowners, Speaker Gingrich is focusing his energy on trying to break Romney’s momentum. Besides his sermons preaching a moon colony, Gingrich launched fierce attacks on Mitt’s supposedly anti-immigration past. And increasingly, Newt is hitting Mitt where it hurts: the Governor’s history at Bain Capital and on Wall Street.

As usual, Newt Gingrich shines when he has an enemy. Mitt can count on the Speaker’s unrelenting wrath until at least tomorrow night, but it seems as if the sheer amount of money involved on Romney’s side will carry the day. For now, at least, the lesson is hammered home once more: For a precursor to Florida’s primary results, look to the TV guide, not the town bulletin.

Photo credit: www.adweek.com

With the fourth contest in the 2012 Republican primary season just days away, the race in Florida has become increasingly heated. As evident from recent debates, tensions run high and attacks abound. The Florida primary may very well be the most significant election in the nomination process, providing the champion the momentum necessary to convince the GOP that he is the most qualified. Governor Mitt Romney and Speaker Newt Gingrich have fought tirelessly for the lead in the primary season thus far, and a victory in the Sunshine State would provide a valuable boost to the winner’s campaign. Senator Rick Santorum, recently declared the victor in the Iowa caucus, would also greatly benefit from a first or second place victory, as it would provide the spark that his campaign has lacked since his impressive finish in Iowa. Finally, Congressman Ron Paul, the only candidate who has not claimed a top finish to date, is perhaps most in need of a victory in the near future to provide confidence to his supporters and voters across America.

Photo Credit: David S. Holloway/CNN

Florida offers the winner of Tuesday’s election far more delegates, fifty, than any of the past three states, despite losing half of its votes (it had 99 originally) due to a penalty for setting its January 31 election date earlier than March 1, the earliest date allowed by the Republican National Party. Florida is one of five states, along with New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Arizona, to suffer delegate losses in 2012 for violating voting date regulations. However, the loss of delegates is likely compensated for by increased influence in determining the future of the election and this is presumably the Florida Republican Party’s motive for setting its date earlier than permitted. This highlights a recent trend of states attempting to move their primary election dates earlier each election year in an effort to be more influential in determining the nominee. A primary in a state such as Florida with an earlier voting date could play a significant role in the primary process, resulting in a candidate dropping out or gaining momentum that he rides to the nomination, while a state whose election is on Super Tuesday (when eleven other states are voting) is relatively inconsequential in determining the nominee, who may have all but won the race at that stage.

So who is in prime position to win Tuesday’s race? Following last week’s South Carolina primary in which Gingrich defeated Romney by a 13 point margin, Gingrich enjoyed a seven point lead in Florida. His strong debate performances were mostly responsible for this lead, in which his fiery rebuttals to Fox News’ Juan Williams and CNN’s John King received standing ovations and impressed conservatives. Coupled with Mitt Romney’s relatively dry debate performances and the criticism the Governor received for how he handled calls to release his tax return statements, Gingrich began to win over skeptics who previously thought he was incapable of defeating President Obama. However, according to the latest Rasmussen poll released Thursday, Speaker Gingrich’s lead has evaporated, as Mitt Romney has jumped into the front runner position, claiming 39% support in Florida, compared to Gingrich’s 31%; Rick Santorum has 12% support in Florida, and Paul (who has actually already moved to Maine to begin campaigning) has just 9%. Without the luxury of another debate, Gingrich may not be able to recover his lead before Tuesday.

The candidates know the economy will be at the forefront of concerns for Floridians, who suffer from a 9.9% unemployment rate. While all claim they will cut taxes drastically and balance the budget to reduce the U.S. debt, Romney has an edge as a result of his business experience at Bain Capital (though this has been used against him in recent weeks as well). Another issue that is significant to Floridians (17.3% of which are retired) is entitlement reform, and Social Security and Medicare reform are issues that all the candidates have promised to address as President. All candidates publicly support Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposals for reform, but none have offered specific plans that have attracted significant attention. These two issues, the economy and entitlement reform, are key issues in the Florida election, and will be in the general election, but no candidate has emerged as having the strongest, most supported plans to date, which emphasizes the significance of this election to the future of the primary season.

One thing is certain: Tuesday’s election has the potential to provide momentum to the victor and a major inhibitor to those with weak performances. And while the selection of the nominee does not hinge solely upon the results, it will likely provide clarity on the future of the race, with the hectic March rush just around the corner.

Photo Credit: International Business Times

Now, standing at the end of the thirty-year-old Apollo project that took men to outer space and then to the Moon, there is a grim feeling among us, especially those who shared the excitement of the moment when Neil Armstrong’s foot touched the extraterrestrial dust on the cover of the Moon. As the Apollo project takes its place on the dusty covers of history, and Atlantis, the last space shuttle, completes its mission, it is quite clear to many that humankind’s dreams of exploring the secrets of the outer space is quietly dying with the project as well.

What will happen to the dreams of the previous generation, to the dream of mankind walking among the stars? The next target, the next dream has been to successfully send a person to Mars and bring him safely back to Earth. However, as a society, we face many critical problems that prevent us from achieving this dream.

John F. Kennedy during his famous speech in Congress.

First of all, the public faces diminishing marginal returns from space exploration. Placing satellites into orbit in inner space has distinct advantages compared to sending probes to outer space, especially manned ships. The most obvious advantage is the economic one: it much cheaper to send a rocket into the Earth’s own orbit than to send one into the orbit of another planet. It is also true that we obtain many societal advantages from our satellites and probes in Earth’s orbit; these devices have revolutionized weather forecast, telecommunications, geology, and agriculture. Other than the overhyped “colonization of outer planets to save our species” argument, we do not get the same level of tangible benefit from the probes we send to Mars or the rest of the Solar System.

Second, it is unfortunate yet accurate to state that society in the 21^st century does not share the same passion for outer space exploration that its counterpart in John F. Kennedy’s time did. A major component of space exploration is the sheer human curiosity and imagination that drive humanity’s passion to always move forward. Revenues gained from the public are used to finance these exploration projects, and without the same amount of dedication and determination from society, it is quite difficult to convince the public to pay billions of dollars for a mission whose social and economic returns are unclear.

Another major obstacle is the technological barrier that aeronautical engineers have to overcome. Sending probes without humans into space is technologically complicated enough. Adding the human variable complicates the process beyond imagination. We can send humans to Mars with the current technology we have, but we do not possess enough technology to supply the force needed to bring them back from the surface of Mars.

All of these arguments leave us with an upsetting question: has the Space Age come to an end?

The historic moment: Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the surface of the Moon, with the flag of the U.S.A.

The leaders of the last space race from the Cold War, the United States and Russia, still have the most developed space technology in the world by far, but both seem to have prioritized social engineering over rocket engineering. Although the Russian agencies are continuing their space missions to some extent, the most likely future leaders in space exploration are the Chinese and Indian governments. The Chinese government has made considerable progress in space exploration, including sending a man into orbit in 2003, becoming the third country to do so. Yet the Chinese still have no rigid government agenda like the one John F. Kennedy had in 1961 . Even if they manage to send a man to the moon in the next decade or so, they are still more than half a century behind the original space race.

Many argue that private companies can prosper in the space race in lieu of public investment. Considering the economic and technological circumstances of outer space exploration beyond the Moon, however, this is a highly unlikely option. Sending a space tourist to the International Space Station costs around $30 million, while the cost of the Apollo program was nearly $20 billion (which is significantly more in today’s dollars). Yet, considering the fact that only a handful of people can afford space tourism beyond the limits of Earth’s atmosphere, it is quite unrealistic at this point to imagine that private enterprises can pick up from where NASA left off.

As men decide to walk only on Earth, it seems as if the dreams of an entire generation – to walk among the stars, to go where no man has gone before – are slowly falling into the ancient pillars of history.

Photo Credit 1: NASA History Office

Photo Credit 2: Daily Mail

Like many Establishment Republicans, I spent last weekend wondering what was happening to the world. Newt over Mitt? Why?

Because Newt is more conservative? No

Labeled “the least conservative candidate” by conservative standard-bearer George Will, Gingrich has often strayed from modern conservatism—here’s a (partial) rundown. He pushed the federal health insurance mandate long before Romney implemented a state mandate, and he later applauded the passage of Romneycare. He has savaged Bain Capital in particular and private equity in general, fundamentally questioning free enterprise and “embarrassing” himself in the Wall Street Journal’s estimation. He attacked Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform plan, the conservative political Bible, as “right wing social engineering.” He appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi pushing for climate change solutions, his immigration stance is well to the Left of Romney’s, and he was the victim of conservative rebellion as Speaker of the House.

If Gingrich had stood by his less-than-conservative beliefs, that would be one thing. He could say, ‘yeah I have some positions that don’t mesh with orthodox conservatism, but at least I’m being honest with you about what I believe.’ He hasn’t, though. He branded his support for a health insurance mandate “wrong,” called his denigration of Paul Ryan’s reform plan a “mistake,” and referred to the climate change ad as “probably the dumbest single thing I’ve done in recent years.”

So Newt isn’t more conservative than the alleged Massachusetts moderate, and he’s a flip-flopper too. We can rule out consistent conservatism as the reason for the Gingrich surge.

Is it because he is the populist in the race? No

Romney and Gingrich may both seem out of touch—Romney because he really is smarter and more successful than most, Gingrich because he only thinks he is. Romney is an elite by nature, Gingrich by choice. Newt is the author of perhaps the most elitist note in history in which he characterized himself as an “Advocate of civilization, defender of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who form civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, and leader ‘possibly’ of the civilizing forces.” He was pompous enough to suggest he is such a good historian, not just such a good Washington insider, that Freddie Mac paid him $1.6 million for his opinion, and he has revealed that he made $60,000 per appearance on the speaking circuit. Personal qualities in general can’t be driving the Gingrich surge given his history of infidelity, ethics charges, Tiffany’s expenditures, and more.

If voters were looking for the most non-elite candidate (Ron Paul aside), they would have gone to Santorum, not Gingrich.

 So is it because Newt is better equipped to handle today’s issues? No

The central issue of this entire election season is the economy—Romney markets himself as the turnaround artist and business expert who will fix it, but Gingrich has no similar case to make. Romney’s strengths and the needs of the country overlap well, but Gingrich has no business experience to bring to the White House. Instead, he is a Washington insider and former politician, and thus he cannot speak to the anti-Washington sentiments and economic frustrations many Americans are feeling.

Voters may be looking for someone who can debate Obama in the fall, and Newt is a good talker, but so is Mitt. It’s not critical current issues that are behind the Gingrich resurgence.

What the Gingrich appeal is really about

If the Gingrich appeal is not about conservatism, populism, or solutions for today’s pressing issues, then what is it about? It’s about anger. Gingrich has been successful because he has been the maddest.

Republican primary voters are furious about the Obama presidency and the direction of the country, and Gingrich manifests that anger better than any other candidate. His tirades against the liberal media and personal attacks on President Obama are met with standing ovations and roaring applause. Romney, meanwhile, channels Ronald Reagan, cheerfully focusing on American exceptionalism and optimistically looking forward to an “American century” guided by conservative ideals.

The problem is, this isn’t the Reagan era. Just look at how many times per day Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, “thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” is violated. Good candidates like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty who didn’t embrace the doctrine of anger have failed. Huntsman’s characterization of President Obama as a “remarkable leader” was a near campaign-ender in its own right, and Tim Pawlenty was derided for refusing to repeat his attack line on Obamneycare in front of Romney. They weren’t mean enough, mad enough.

In South Carolina, this primary was really about, to the exclusion of nearly all other considerations, who showed the most anger. Gingrich’s indignation may score him more victories, but only if Romney doesn’t take note. All Romney has to do is start spitting some venom. Candidates for public office attack and question one another’s character and qualifications all the time, but this is different. This is about anger for anger’s sake.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Let me be clear, I sympathize with the pro-piracy crowd (or are they anti-stopping-piracy? Or anti-“censorship”? Is this the reverse of the anti-life vs. anti-choice conundrum?) I find the prospect of having to pay for content that could be free intensely annoying. To think, the only thing standing between me and watching the new Katherine Heigl movie for free is the greed of some multinational corporation! I’ll try not to consider the possibility that my desire to avoid parting with my own hard-earned cash is fundamentally similar to the desire of an artist to be paid for their work.

Leaving aside the individual moral implications of internet piracy, let’s take a look at some of the blogosphere’s arguments on the economic and policy implications.

Our own Tom Leberg runs down the ways that SOPA and PIPA were hopelessly flawed and would have negatively impacted sites that don’t help people pirate. These problems make the proposed legislation unpalatable. The idea of enforcing intellectual property protections online in general, though, deserves a more realistic discussion than the one it is currently receiving.

Matt Yglesias, in his infinite trendiness, is against stopping internet piracy and in favor of “illegal competition [as] a valuable consumer pressure on the industry.” ¡Viva la revolucion!

Yglesias argues that the deadweight loss created when a producer charges money for an extra copy of a TV show episode that was essentially free to produce is mitigated by illegal downloading. This blatantly ignores the fact that while the copy of the episode was free to produce, the episode itself was not. Yglesias, perhaps, would prefer if producers covered their costs from the ticket fees of live studio audiences only.

Caleb Crain, also of Slate, does a fairly good job of taking apart Yglesias’s argument that piracy is OK because the money not spent on a pirated item enters the economy in other ways:

If I were to visit the Slate cafeteria, sit in Yglesias’ chair, and eat his lunch, it’s not as if the money that I failed to spend on a lunch of my own would vanish into a black hole. No! The economy will not suffer! Yglesias, after all, will have paid for the lunch I ate, and the money that I didn’t spend would still be in my pocket or my checking account or whatever. So I could take that money and spend it on, say, the new Shins album. Now I can afford vinyl! Flourish, Keynesian multipliers, flourish!

Still, I think he misses the point as much as his colleague. Poking holes in a flimsy Yglesias argument is a far cry from suggesting a better intellectual framework for the discussion.

Yglesias takes a stab at using deadweight loss to justify his position, and Crain somehow manages to take apart this justification despite the fact that he clearly doesn’t know what deadweight loss is. I think it makes sense, then, for me to take a stab at explaining the reality of internet copyright laws with another topic from introductory economics: the excludability of goods.

As defined by Harvard Economist, Mitt Romney’s continually ignored economic advisor, and prolific textbook author N. Gregory Mankiw, a good is excludable if “someone can be prevented from using it.”

Congress can't stop you from looking at these fireworks. Can they stop you from downloading songs?

So, for example, a private party with N. Gregory Mankiw is excludable because I can station bouncers at the door to prevent you from entering unless you’ve paid the cover charge. Conversely, a fireworks show in celebration of N. Gregory Mankiw’s birthday is not excludable, because I can’t realistically prevent you from standing 100 yards away from where I’m launching the fireworks and enjoying all of the pretty colors.

What isn’t immediately obvious, but is immensely important to this analogy, is the government’s role, or lack of role, in these two scenarios. In the case of the private party, if you somehow manage to overpower my bouncer and get into the party, the government will intervene by sending a police car and arresting you for trespassing.

In the case of the fireworks, the government isn’t going to help much. But they could. If Congress decided that you “stealing” my fireworks show was a grave concern worthy of sparing no expense to solve it, they could build really high walls around my fireworks display, or put together a special anti-fireworks-stealing-task-force to hunt you down and shield your eyes. The reason they don’t do these things is because they’re impractical. The cost of government enforcement of my profit-earning-potential outweighs the benefit.

This same logic holds for things like music and movies. If the government can cheaply and easily prevent you from pirating stuff (and if our elected officials want to), they should. If, on the other hand, the costs—which might include, I don’t know, the internet shutting down in protest—outweigh the benefits, they shouldn’t. This issue isn’t so much one of morality, or even of government incompetence (although it is that too). It’s an issue of practicality. If a law isn’t worth enforcing, it shouldn’t be enforced.

The other interesting wrinkles to this are the international implications. Whereas Yglesias’s argument about the health of the market might hold to a certain degree within the US—that is to say, the US economy probably isn’t hurt a great deal by something like an American pirating a song owned by an American record label, assuming they spend the money they’re saving from pirating on American products, a big caveat—it’s a whole other ballgame when we go global.

At the risk of generalizing, the US has a competitive advantage over the rest of the world in creating things (designs for iPhones, pharmaceuticals, and even media), and a competitive disadvantage over the rest of the world in making things (assembling those same iPhones). Because of this, the US government is right to be preoccupied with international intellectual property law. It’s why you see it near the top of the agenda for every trade negotiation with a foreign country. The relationship to copyrighted material on the internet is this: even if it isn’t worth the government’s time and resources to prevent Americans from pirating, it certainly is worth at least some resources to prevent foreigners from pirating.

Unfortunately, this is where practicality rears its ugly head once again. The internet has no borders, and there’s a good chance that any site that assists Russian kids in pirating music helps American kids do the same. From there, things are complicated further by the fact that the Russian kid might spend that surplus income on an American product, and the American kid might spend his surplus on a Russian product. In the end, the walls that would have to be built to keep American intellectual property excludable may be just too tall. Our conversation, at the least, should be about what shape those walls would need to take, and if they are worth building.

The Tampa Bay Times Forum, site of the 2012 Republican National Convention

However, that changed dramatically over the course of a week. Newt Gingrich, who has thrived in debates throughout the campaign, wowed many South Carolina conservatives with fiery performances in two consecutive debates. Romney, meanwhile, spent much of the week leading up to the South Carolina primary on the defensive about his reluctance to release his tax returns. Meanwhile, Perry dropped out and endorsed Gingrich; Santorum was declared the winner in Iowa after a recount; and Gingrich ultimately won a resounding victory in South Carolina, putting a serious dent in Romney’s aura of inevitability.

It is not yet clear what Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina means long-term. It likely makes Florida almost a must-win for Romney, while Gingrich needs to at least do well enough in Florida to remain a viable alternative in the eyes of voters. Even assuming Rick Santorum stays in the race following his third-place finish in South Carolina, he may not stop Gingrich from achieving his goal of creating a united conservative, anti-Romney coalition. Gingrich seems to have enjoyed at least a short-term bounce in Florida polls from his performance in South Carolina. Nevertheless, recent polls show an extremely close race in Florida. There is still a decent chance that Romney wins Florida and goes on to win the nomination, even if South Carolina allows Gingrich to carry on the fight longer than was once expected.

However, there have been some rumors about another scenario—a scenario which presently seems far-fetched, but might become less so if Gingrich wins Florida. Nate Silver wrote back in December that “Republicans are dangerously close to having none of their candidates be acceptable to both rank-and-file voters and the party establishment.” Indeed, a sizeable bloc of conservative primary voters remains unenthusiastic about the prospect of Romney as the party’s standard-bearer. Gingrich, meanwhile, is unacceptable to many establishment Republicans, who view him as undisciplined, unreliable, and likely to self-destruct in the general election. Gingrich has near-universal name recognition and an unfavorable rating approaching 60% among the general electorate, meaning that he would have an uphill battle in the general election, even if he could manage to stay on his best behavior. If the fight between Romney and Gingrich continues for months, both candidates may become so damaged that they seem even more unappealing and/or unelectable. This raises the question: what if neither candidate wins enough delegates in the primaries to secure the nomination?

According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, many prominent conservatives in Washington are “trying to figure out a way to get to a brokered convention.”

A brokered convention occurs if nobody secures a majority of delegates on the first ballot at the national convention. At that point, all delegates are free to switch their allegiances, and horse-trading and further ballots ensue until someone gains a majority of delegates. This has not occurred since the Democratic National Convention of 1952. The last Republican brokered convention was in 1948. There have been more recent conventions—the 1976 Republican National Convention and the 1984 Democratic National Convention—that began without any candidate having won a majority of delegates, but in which the eventual nominee won enough delegates on the first ballot. Whether by coincidence or not, in all of these cases, the eventual nominee (Thomas Dewey in 1948, Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Gerald Ford in 1976, and Walter Mondale in 1984) lost in the general election. The same is true of several other contentious (but not brokered) conventions in recent memory. Hubert Humphrey, nominated at the notorious 1968 Democratic National Convention, George McGovern, nominated by the Democrats at the contentious 1972 Convention, and Jimmy Carter—who had secured a majority of delegates before the 1980 Convention but had to fend off an unusual convention challenge from Ted Kennedy, who lobbied for a rules change to allow Carter delegates to switch to him—also all lost in the general election.

Many Republican voters have long wished that another candidate would enter the race. Several conservative favorites, including Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, declined to run, although some have continued to beg them to make a late entrance. A brokered convention could be the perfect opportunity for those who are not happy with either Gingrich or Romney to make a final pitch for an outsider to enter and save the day. Interestingly, Daniels was tapped to give the GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, giving Republicans a chance to see him perform before a national audience.

The Republican Party’s rules could also increase the likelihood of a brokered convention. According to Republican Party Rule 38, “No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” This has been taken to mean that delegates are technically free agents, even on the first ballot. Under normal circumstances, a delegate who does not vote for the candidate to whom she is pledged might face considerable opprobrium. However, that might not be the case if there is a widespread embrace of an outside candidate. Another rules-related issue that might increase the likelihood of a contentious convention, if not a brokered convention, is the fact that some states (including Florida) have disregarded party rules by holding primaries before party rules permit and by declaring their primaries to be winner-take-all. Thus, a candidate who loses such states could demand that some or all of their delegates be disqualified (recall the controversy over the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan in the 2008 Democratic campaign).

The likelihood of a brokered or chaotic convention may still be slim. However, given the volatility of the current race, and the number of unexpected twists and turns so far, it seems that nothing is impossible.

Photo Credit: http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com

Harrison’s condition, much to the crowd’s glee, consisted of being “partly strangled, disemboweled, castrated, and shown his organs being burned before being decapitated.” Pepys wasn’t particularly offended by the proceedings, seeing that his next move was to take a few friends to the local tavern for some oysters. But to modern readers, the crowd’s giddy reaction would be universally condemned as inhumane and unimaginably cruel.

Such differences in reaction hint that we are less violent than our extreme torture-tolerant ancestors. But to those who dismiss such differences and point to the unparalleled carnage of the 20th century, Harvard psychologist and bestselling author Steven Pinker has a startling and controversial declaration: You have been deceived. Armed with statistics, studies, and – his greatest strength – stories, Pinker asserts in Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined that we currently enjoy the good fortune of living in the most peaceable era of our species’ existence.

Pinker’s painstaking quest to prove such a debatable thesis spans 800 pages, but such length is unavoidable. Pinker is well aware that the majority of the general public disagrees with him. Converting these nonbelievers is a Herculean task – but one in which he succeeds, crafting a monumental and successful work that intertwines both history and psychology to create a valuable message.

A Foreign Country Called the Past

Better Angels of Our Nature encapsulates so many developments in human history that it would have been overwhelming without Pinker’s meticulous categorization. He calls his book “a tale of six trends, five inner demons, four better angels, and five historical forces,” and it is these six trends that comprise the bulk of the book and are the most essential. They begin with the dramatic decline of violence associated with humanity’s early transition from anarchy to agricultural civilizations – dubbed the “Pacification Process” – and end with the present-day “Rights Revolutions” of civil and animal rights. The latter are so farther down on the totem pole of violence that it’s easy to see how far humanity has progressed. Where the world once had chronic carnage-filled raiding and a fivefold higher rate of violent death, we now have Switzerland’s 150 pages of regulation dictating how to be a proper dog owner.

Throughout these thousands of years of history, Pinker manages to include multipage synopses of every violence-related issue to fortify his thesis: homophobia, racism, religion, misogyny, human sacrifice, animal rights, terrorism, sadism, empathy, anarchy, torture, dueling, honor, and the Enlightenment, to name just a few of the many. And throughout all these topics, Pinker’s skillful storytelling is ultimately what keeps his audience engrossed – not only by succinctly describing harrowing anecdotes, but also by picking the right ones to describe in the first place.

He is especially successful in dispelling our ironic nostalgia for the good old times, the days of chivalry and biblical altruism. But Pinker’s stories, usually no longer than a paragraph or two, reveal a past in which people not only tolerated torture, but also reveled in it. The graphic descriptions infused throughout the book – especially those about torture devices, of which Christian Europeans were evidently very creative producers – exist for more than shock value. In what Pinker calls “the foreign country called the past,” it is all too easy and common to overlook the rampant violence. Pinker forces us to remember.

Pinker’s sense of humor isn’t quite dark enough to match Pepys’s, but it easily pulls readers through what is inarguably morbid and dense material. “‘Bloody Mary’ did not get her nickname by putting tomato juice in her vodka,’” he quips early on – then applauds the modern British monarchy for “not having a single relative decapitated, nor a single rival drawn and quartered.”

The Problem of Proportions

Pinker spends a disproportionate amount of time on the chapter “The Long Peace,” in which he successfully as possible negates the cliché espoused by just about everyone: That the 20th century, with its two world wars and the Holocaust, was the bloodiest one in human history.

Pinker doesn’t quite kill that cliché, but that’s only because it is impossible to do so. His argument hinges on the fact that although the sheer number of people killed in warfare in the 20th century is higher than any other century, the proportion of people killed compared to the human population is not. Whether or not absolute numbers matter more than proportions is an issue of opinion, and Pinker himself admits it.

The numbers supporting Pinker’s conclusions are still ultimately supported by his storytelling. Certain subsections like “The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels” are less riveting in comparison, and Pinker even throws in some mathematical probability for good measure. The mathematically and scientifically illiterate have nothing to fear. Pinker never delves deep enough into these areas to be too confusing or aloof, and readers who are convinced that violence has indeed declined can skim through what Pinker affectionately calls “the statistics of war” and still understand a majority of the more valuable points.

The Western World at Center Stage

For all Pinker’s storytelling prowess, one might easily decry Better Angels of Our Nature for its lingering sense of Eurocentrism. The vast majority of the anecdotes and figures are indeed devoted to medieval Europe and the Western world.

For this flaw, however, the book can be forgiven. Pinker spends more time sifting through the Anglosphere than he does anywhere else because this is where the downward trek of violence is most pronounced. That is where he has the most to prove, and that is where most of his attention is accordingly directed. After all, the overarching question of the book is not why there is still violence, but why there is unparalleled peace.

Regions of the world still seeped in this violence do not go entirely unmentioned. “The Muslim world, to all appearances, is sitting out the decline of violence,” Pinker observes in the chapter “The New Peace.” Indeed, a pocketful of countries still severely punish or kill homosexuals and adulterers – but the fact that most of the world no longer does should be noted and applauded. Pinker never pretends that there is no more progress to be made. Violence may have declined, but it certainly has not yet died.

Hands Off the Future

Despite the wide breadth of topics and adept writing in each of them, Pinker identifies promising trends without making many predictions. But for the future’s sake, Pinker implies that this most peaceable era is not one to take for granted. He evokes George Santayana’s famous quote toward the end of his book: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” As Pinker so skillfully warns us, that past we want to avoid – like a happy crowd in 1660s London – is much bloodier than we tend to remember.

That’s the prevalence of the Harvard name for you, and part of the reason I feel so privileged to be here. Though there are countless worthy institutions of higher education in the United States, in India, it’s the H-bomb that will elicit those awed eyes or the offering of a business card. India is a country that truly values knowledge, and Harvard has earned the reputation of being at the very pinnacle of knowledge-acquirement. Perhaps it’s because Harvard accepts so few undergraduates from India (the class of 2015 has only six Indian students from India) that their reputation for high standards has become so deeply ingrained in Indian society. College applications and acceptances in Indian high schools is the worst kind of rat race; you compete against kids who have straight 2400 SAT scores, who fight for every mark on every test, and who are truly diligent and hard-working.