Yet, the American government refuses to raise its revenues to fund the $9 billion/month we're spending on average on the war in Iraq.  True we're cutting away some of our domestic spending in an effort to get the government's budget in the black, but what seems pretty obvious to me is those who bear these burdens are the same - future generations (i.e. posterity.) Friedman has an op-ed in the New York times Sunday on this subject that helped me realize that this is ultimately why I have such a distaste for politics in America.

 

I abhor the short-term tactics of the two-party system which has sliced and diced our voting districts for their benefit (i.e. gerrymandering) that have left this country seemingly crippled to stand up for itself and demand accountability from government servants. The war in Iraq has been a mess from the start from misinformation from top government officials to a lack of support in terms of changeover and equipment for our troops once in battle. Not to mention, we have not raised revenue to pay for this war; rather borrowing ahead on the credit of our children. The same credit we have squandered by not making the difficult decisions regarding healthcare and social security that has left people my age with this knowing feeling that although we pay into the safety net we better make damn sure we build our own because we will never collect under the current system.  Not to mention that it's possible in my lifetime that we run out of affordable oil and gas, yet politicians today refuse to call on our auto industry to make vehicles at least as efficient as those in China.  But what does it matter what you borrow from future generations if the United States continues to be so arrogant as to believe coming up with a goal by 2009 is making serious headway on climate change?

 

I wonder how long my generation and those younger will sit idly by and watch our future squandered. I wonder how my parents sleep at night realizing they are leaving little option for their grandchildren. I thought Americans prided themselves in building a better future for their children. It is time Americans explain and are held accountable for these decisions.

 

Last year, the Bush Administration tried to restrain NASA's lead climatologist from speaking out about global warming. When that didn't work, they quietly rewrote the mission of NASA to eliminate support for global warming research.

 

OLD NASA MISSION: “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.”

 

NEW NASA MISSION: “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”

 

DIFFERENCE: We no longer care to understand and protect Earth.

 

For more on the story, check out this NYT article.

 

It seems, perhaps, that global warming is An Inconvenient Truth that our government still doesn't want to fully recognize that we need people like NASA's Jim Hansen to study and solve.

 

First, a thank you for the nomination to the BOB's site.

 

Second, a plug to see this amusing new satire from Cynically-Tested Pictures: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2750016?ns=1

 

Third and final plug.. I've got a friend in the Minneapolis Gay Men's Chorus and they're doing a Southern tour..which I lovingly call "Unbuckling the Bible Belt" -- read all about it and if you live down south..go to a show: http://community.livejournal.com/tcgmc/

 

Now, on to the idea of a basic income...

 

Feeling the frustration of free market inundation in the classroom at odds with the homeless people in the neighborhood, I found myself at a gathering of similarly frustrated students - what struck me as odd was here we were ivy-league students sitting at a chic cafe talking about the plight of the poor, but I was desperate. Here's the proposal: provide everyone with a basic income of, say, $10,000 garnered from a higher tax somewhere else. Then, the proposal goes, all people could afford their basic needs... food, shelter, etc. Obviously, $10K won't buy you a house or really afford you rent in a metropolitan city, but you could partner with your friends and live in a communal situation, so the proposal goes. This wouldn't be seen as welfare because all people regardless of income receive the basic $10K income... wouldn't it be grand?  suggests the proposer.

 

I must be missing something because this makes 1) absolutely no sense to me and 2) doesn't appear to have a shot in hell of coming to fruition politically. First, if all people were given $10K more dollars, wouldn't that shift the prices of all goods (especially finite goods like affordable apartments in new york city) up so that that $10K was the new $0? Not according to the proposer, rather more people would get in the business of building homes because there was money to be made.... but wouldn't that drive up the cost of building homes (not to mention that the market is thwarted by the lack of space in places like nyc) as well? I'll give you it's not directly linear...every dollar of income equaling a dollar higher price of all goods, but I think that on limited goods like housing in metro areas the result would minimize the opportunity of the $10K. The income would also have an effect on the labor market...some people would choose to work less perhaps because they could cover their expenses with the basic income and only half the work they use to do . . . but maybe not because of full-time benefits like healthcare.

 

In the process of challenging the proponent and his idea, he pointed out to me that Alaska provides all its citizen with the equivalent of a basic income . .. that being the petro fund dividend which can be in the thousands. I think it's a weak example: 1) it's an anomaly in the US; 2) it's based on the profits of oil companies drilling not taxation of the employees; 3) there is no evidence that this fund has led to the utopia suggested by the basic income proponent.

 

Wouldn't providing basic needs, like universal healthcare, be a better solution to addressing the needs of the poor than providing all people with $10,000? Or is that not giving the free market enough credit?

 

 

I welcome thoughts on the concept of a basic income.

I think I'm finally back. I've been decompressing after my first year of graduate studies and settling into a summer of research on energy efficiency markets and incentives. Anyway, we all know you could care less about my dull life, and want to get to the textual gold I provide for your hungry, eager mind(s).

 

Today, it's the disservice of great, powerful minds who chose not to engage in the rigmarole of politics and academics. It's inspired by the rebirth of my soul this Spring. After a year of early morning lectures on the glories of the free market, my once constant questioning of the assumptions that humans are all rational beings and that markets operate freely became struggles to make it to lecture or a handing over of my critical thinking skills for my information absorption and graph making abilities. I could find the dead weight loss (hisss..hisss... let the market be free!) in any government policy. I could recite all the economist who came up with nifty ways to think about trade when you could isolate reality away from economics. And it was pretty and neat in round numbers and colored graphs (well maybe not my problem sets, but the solution sheets were.) It was like the reality of a reality show, edited to arouse and numb my mind, and failing to provide much substance. When almost all hope was lost, John Kenneth Galbraith passed away. Suddenly, I woke from my stupor to realize... what was happening in my early morning economics course was far more heinous than just a sugar-coated lesson in semi-futile information . . . it was a culture war.

 

What do I mean? I mean the Galbraith once taught at Harvard. Was the president of the American Economic Association. And quite frankly thought what I learned this year was not proper preparation for dealing with reality and critical economic issues plaguing the globe. If you can get your hands on it, read Power and the Useful Economist which was his address to the American Economic Association. This should be required reading and the stepping stone to a broader understanding of the relationship of power and the market... when the U.S. establishes a new catfish economy in Viet Nam and then destroys that economy when it threatens the American catfish industry that's not a free market.  Ask anyone on the street and they will associate money with power and vice versa. This is common sense, and it's something my classes didn't address.

 

Who cares what goes on in some stifled classroom? In this classroom sits future presidents, directors, politicians, etc. Those who find something wrong with government and politics today should care. When we walk away from these egregious failures in the classroom, when we see the cracks in the facade of higher learning and opt out, we are throwing in the towel - allowing "the way it is" to be decided by those who showed up. Galbraith showed up, and outnumbered as he may have been he rose to the forefront. It is time that those who think that money and power are related, that markets are influenced by politics, and that the growing divide between the rich and the poor is a problem to step up to the challenge - to sharpen their minds against the grain of free market economics and to challenge the assumptions made at the training ground of our future leaders.

 

When the Republicans and conservatives couldn't win a national election and state elections weren't easy either, they went back to the basics. Republicans ran in droves to School Boards, and when you think about it the move was genius. Perched over future generations, they restructured education and a new educational order entered... challenges to evolution in science classes, abstience-only sex education, banning of classic books, and the quieter war over what economics and ethics should be taught. It is not enough to realize the failures of society; rather we have a responsibility to work toward their redress.

 

 

 

If you live in Minnesota, then consider it a unique opportunity to work with Keith Ellison on his campaign for U.S. Representative in the 5th district (Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, etc.) He epitomizes hope in a DFL party that desperately needs it since the passing of the great Senator Paul Wellstone. He stands up for what he believes in, and works tirelessly to positively effect the lives of so many.  I had the honor of working with Representative Ellison during the creation of the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota. His dedication, passion, and commitment to organizing, community involvement, and a better future shines through in his work with EJAM and at the state Capitol. I have no doubt he would be a tremendous asset to politics in the nation's capital.

 

He is a rare breed. One to be treasured and supported. Please do what you can to make him Minnesota's next U.S. Representative.

 

The masses have spoke and I'm behind in paying tribute to progressives who have died, so here it is if a bit late:

 

There was no typical email letter from the Dean today alerting us to the loss of a great thinker with ties to Harvard University. There was no murmering on campus about the loss, the man. Rather, there was a large inflatable chicken chased by "surgeons" with bats as a farce on the all-consuming spring exercise  focused, this year, on preparing for a pandemic flu (read: avian flu.) I'm not kidding.

 

Galbraith was to the 1950s-60s what Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics) is to today - a popular economist whose contributions are to society not the study itself.They're not really that comparable, except that they both challenge the status quo. Okay, back to Galbraith...

 

If you recognize a growing gap between the rich and the poor, then you're onto something Galbraith identified in The Affluent Society (1958) where he uncovers the roots of American consumerism (mega corporations and meaningless consumption) and their effect on the growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

 

He was a major contributor to the U.S. Democratic party's economic policy.He was a prolific writer. He was 97. He was someone to remember.

 

 

Some Galbraith quotes:

 

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."

 

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable."

 

On 'Trickle-down Economics': "If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." 

 

 

This summer SEIU and the largest growing unions of AFL-CIO split from the union beast citing a need to move toward organizing and politics (I wrote a blog about it somewhere on here.) Now, they're proposing rejoining since they hold more than 33% of AFL-CIOs past membership and the unions with the most potential for growth in memberships. So far, Sweeney has shrugged off the proposal. Here's the full story.

Bringing  you the news you might have missed...I've got something to say about school districts in Omaha.

 

Recently, Senator Ernie Chambers suggested a radical shift in education in the United States. He suggested we segregate school districts, and he was successful. How radical is this really when you think about the levels of segregation that exist in our country, really? I'd say pretty radical because this takes the covert segregation - a perturbation since the times of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) when it was established that segregation was unequal and required integration of school districts across the nation - and makes it overt again. Will this last? I doubt it. But here's the hook: Senator Chambers is an African-American. My guess is that is largely why this proposal passed.

 

His claim is that the current system is flawed and doesn't allow racial minorities in Omaha to have control of their own destinies. So, split the one school district into three, neatly along the housing segregation lines in the city. The result would be separate Latino, White, and African American districts.

 

Any thoughts?

Alright, I'm back to my blogs being about something other than a cataloging of my daily activities and links to ninjas.

 

First, you can now get for free what inspired me in part to take on this enormous grad school debt! Go to www.iop.harvard.edu and you can get podcasts of speakers or you can look at 25 years of archived videos.

 

Secondly, I attended a lecture today that posed the question: do environmental disasters lead to environmental regulations? Interesting question because I know a few colleagues who would say yes based on experience and intuition, but here was an academic who was going to break it down into a science of sorts to see just how right those colleagues of mine are. So, he took a look at some 7 disasters (Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Time Island, Galapagos Island, Exxon Valdez, and Love Canal), their subsequent media coverage, and then U.S. Representatives votes on "green" bills (as determined by the League of Conservation Voters. Then he set up a linear regression (and boy howdy if this isn't where I started to feel like all those stats classes were paying off, and I'm actually serious (except for that boy howdy) because it's amazing how you can play with data to find "associations" and "causes" using regressions.)  Let's stop for a little fun.... what do you think might have been factors that were associated with a representative voting for a particular bill on environmental reglations?

 

Did you think what region the Representative was from? Education of their constituents? Political ideology? Whether the state had a nuclear facility? Past "green" voting record? Past voting on a similar bill? Political party? Media coverage? What is missing?

 

Each of these potential factors can be "controlled for" which basically means you hold those factors constant and only look at the relationship between the disaster and the votes for an environmental regulation bill. These are some, actually many, of the factors the presenter controlled for in presenting his results.

 

Interesting findings:

* The most "pro-green" Representatives are from the Midwest (take that California and East Coast!)

* Representatives were less likely to vote for an environmental bill (note: there was no distinction between regulatory and non-regulatory bills; and more importantly, there was no distinction beyond the seal of approval of the League of Conservation Voters on the type, strategic or real importance, etc. of the bill) in the year of an environmental disaster.

 

Not so interesting findings:

* When looking at a similiar bill to increase the liability of the nuclear industry in case of an accident pre- and post- Chernobyl, the data suggested that the environmental disaster actually led to less "green" votes. There is a lot left out of this analysis, in my opinion: 1.) the difference between 1975 and 1987 politically with regard to regulations and business; 2) what votes changed (the table showed 27 votes switched from yes to no in that time period, but when you look at the ideology of the Representative (according to Poole and Rosenthal) they were the swing voters (-1 is liberal; 1 is conservative; 0 is middle... the swing voter was +-.07); 3) what influences swing voters?... the nuclear industry had more than a decade of awareness that Congress had narrowly defeated a bill that would result in potentially significant economic loss for the industry, the nuclear industry has a measurable presence in the form of lobbyist and contributions on Capitol Hill, and Chernobyl/Three Mile Island served as reminders that accidents resulting in high costs (monetary and human lives)... maybe, when the bill was put to a vote the nuclear lobby outdid the environmental lobby when it came to swinging votes? If this is the case, is there really a negative association between an environmental disaster and the vote on this bill? Or is lobbying carry potential omitted variable bias? I think OVB is a real concern in this regression.

 

 

I'm running out of steam, but that's a flavor not only of a talk I went to, but also the basics of econometrics.

 

I hope you enjoy.

 

michelle

 

 

Okay, really. Two news items this week have "proven" at the 5% significance level that humans can no longer claim that they are the most intelligent species on the planet. Let me explain....

 

1. Dubai upset about giving over control of U.S. ports decides to drown sorrows (and future rich people) by building four islands off their coasts. That's right. They're going to build three large conglomerates of islands shaped like palm trees and one shaped like the world...oh don't worry they're building a breaker to protect the new luxury islands from tsunamis and the like. Would someone share the scientific evidence with these developers that the whole ocean is on the rise?! Not to mention how extravagantly wasteful this project is. I know, Dubai (UAE), why not use that money for good?

 

2. FEMA finally figures out some people took advantage of federal assistance and those $2000 Visa Checkcards who weren't victims of Hurricane Katrina. With tens of  millions spent, FEMA decides to require people to pay the government back.  FEMA means business too. If you don't pay them back in 30 days, they're going to charge you interest. Can I just offer a tidbit of advice on this one? Don't you think that those who were committing fraud were a little wily about it? Say maybe not giving their real names, etc? For the poor souls who didn't know they were commiting fraud or are being abandoned from federal assistance, this is worse than going to one of those payday loan "banks" because at least then you know you're getting screwed. Here, your life has been thrown to shambles, you're trying to rebuild, you've used the assistance you expected your tax dollars have for years gone to support, and then the government changes its mind, demands repayment, and gives you a 30 day grace period before it begins to charge interest. I know we want to catch the fraudulent bastards that take advantage of situations like this, but at what cost to the true victims? I'm ashamed, FEMA, and not just because you left poor, predominantly black people on stranded on roof tops or in dangerous living quarters in stadiums... If it wasn't ruining so many peoples lives, you would almost have to laugh at this level of incompetence.

Take this quiz, and let me know how you did:

 

 

(what? It's easier than writing a blog no one reads or comments on. Oh, aren't I dramatic.)

That hot title has you ready for a great read now, doesn't it? I've reached my wit's end with the generations of children who have grown up in the age of Political Correctness. They have traded in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding for soundbyte accusations that they're being oppressed. It somehow has become vogue to be the oppressed, and it's always been easier to react instead of comprehend. (This in no way denies the existence of oppression, read on and you will understand.)

 

What I'm on about is this article in the Minneapolis City Pages on two professors from my undergraduate school (one of whom I took a class from) being persecuted by a minority of students in a personal attack for classes on race relations in America. One attack from an Asian woman was that the class only focused on Black-White relations in the U.S., and after the professor reminded the class of later class meetings on Indigenous and Asian immigrant issues, she still claimed the class oppressed her voice. Another student took offense when the professor spoke of Jonathon Kozol's work on race and education where he often makes the claim that being black can be a disadvantage to educational opportunity by mentioning how a young black student was encouraged to go to a trade school and become a hairdresser... a girl in the class infuriatingly asked "what's wrong with being a hairdresser? my mother is a hairdresser." And one more example that I thought summed it all up well: when challenged that the class needed to be more representative of the multitude of race issues in the US, the professor said the class wasn't a smorgasbord and to understand race relations in the american context it made sense to look at the history of black-white relations more than others...to which the student replied, "you're equating race with food." Students, you are missing the point entirely!

 

This is an era of students coming to be with the idea that they are entitled, they are right, and that they don't need to commit themselves to understanding and learning because what is being taught is oppressive. There is a time, and a place, where this has and is true; but these students go too far. They treat race like the Academy's preciously rewarded movie, Crash, in soundbytes... in glaring "bumping and crashing into one another to feel" as the movie would say. But the reality is that movie and these students are superficial. If that were all, then we could dismiss them and move about our day; however, these students are also destructive and that is impermissible. Hanging diatribes around campus chastising the professors could be dismissed as an exercise of free speech, but not when the professors and the institution do not share the other side of the story. The professor I had has resigned from ever teaching the class again over the immense personal attacks, and has retreated after attempting to debate the issue through the campus media. The University has thrown it's hands up, covering its eyes, ears, and mouth allowing the students to continue their rampage at the expense of the respect and dignity of its professors. Like spoiled children nagging, these students are getting what they want even though it's not a good for them. They will silence professors who challenge stereotypes and soundbytes . . . the very people that could give them valuable lessons in what race, intellectual discourse, and academic pursuit really means. In the end, all the students and the institution will lose; as will you and I.  

We grew up watching animated figures duking it out for good and evil, but is life really that "black" and "white"? If, as I suggest, it's more grayscale, is there any such thing as good or bad people? Let's narrow this down straightaway by eliminating those with mental conditions that lead to sociopathic tendencies, etc. and rather settle this discussion on the following question: Is there a difference when it comes to good/evil between Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and Martin Luther King Jr.? In other words, is all life politics and power grabbing - where the only real difference between the power-grabbers is "whose side they're on"?

 

I know some who would answer that all three individuals are the same because they will manipulate the public for their own interests (granting their interests may be the interests of many.) I would answer that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and a myriad of politicos (politicians, comedians with political agendas, nonprofit leaders, etc.) may be the same, but there exists something that transcends the political fray - something on which social movements are born - and Martin Luther King, Jr. is an example of that (albeit not the only one.)

 

Here's how I reach that conclusion:

 

1. Manifestations of Interests "for the Public Good."

 

The crux of my argument relies on the idea that truly great social movement leaders transcend the "rules of the game" which regulate politics and political actors. Rush and Al play by the rules, for the most part, and as a result are able to bash their opposition. I imagine them as Coke (no pun intended on Rush's prescription drug addiction) and Pepsi, where in a taste test the only defining difference is their political views. Now, if we add to that taste test Martin Luther King, Jr. he is like apple juice in the equation he transcends the definition that to "make a difference" you have to play politics like everyone else (or to be in the taste test you have to be a soda.) Rather, he brings a new set of rules to the table (non-violence, respect, and integrity) and abides by them, urging others to abide by them as well. It's not just talk to him; rather, it is another way of handling the world. This does not naively suggest that he wasn't politically strategic. In fact, quite the opposite... he was more politically strategic than most politicians and Rush and Al because he realized that people will respond to leadership that rises above the fray and addresses their concerns in an attempt for real solutions not political control (if it's not obvious I've lost almost all hope in our political parties.) King was for an end to segregation and a move toward greater equality; Rush and Al are for an end to their opposition's political power.

 

2. Actions Speak Louder than Words

 

Along the same lines, let's leave Rush and Al alone, and look at more traditional political types in comparison with social movement leaders. This time, let's look at Karl Rove or John Edwards vs. Mahatma Gandhi. If asked all parties would say they're interested in improving their society, but what are they doing to make that a reality? Karl Rove appears to believe rules are made to be challenged/broken and has a strategic mind for increasing political power of his party for its interests (which supposedly improves society). John Edwards brings a crowd to its feet when talking about the need to address racial and economic injustice in America, and recently launched a pseudo-social movement, Opportunity Rocks, at a series of college campuses across the country  to supposedly improve society. Obviously, both men also do more to further their aims, but when push comes to shove its unclear if their aims are for the good of society or for the good of their careers. Now with Gandhi, like King, he took the "high road" holding himself to higher standards and by doing so inspired millions to work together for change. In both Gandhi and King's examples, as is the case with social movements in general, members of society step beyond participation as a vote to more direct forms of democratic participation. For anyone who has ever been an organizer, the difference is between political parties' mobilizing and true grassroots/community organizing.

 

In conclusion, not all leaders fall victim to "playing by the rules" of politics; although, all must be conscious those rules exist and monopolize most of the power to affect change. Some leaders have understood that a far greater power exists in the ability of people in society to affect their own future and have transcended the political fray (while using (not abusing) it to meet their aims) and are true examples of a good that exceeds political partisanship.

 

This is basically a question of ethics that examines common good, justice, and democratic legitimacy (in which democracy is more than a vote)  simplified because I'm lazy. 

Unmotivated to begin my financial management case or study for a quiz on multivariable regressions, I spent my time supervising library patrons watching 12 Angry Men. I think I may be the last person on the planet to see this movie, but on the off chance that you haven't seen it . . . rent it immediately.

 

It came out in 1957 and it's a great movie. It's no CSI or Law and Order, and that works to its benefit. Nothing fancy...it mostly takes place in the jury room, but the story captures and holds you (or at least it did me.) The wonder that is our jury system, the perspective we take when hearing the facts, certainty and truth, it all comes to play. As I study public policy and different ways we make our decisions, this is the lesson that continues to come home the most: the world is not black and white, but rather shades of gray. To think otherwise is to do yourself and others a disservice. When we say a program/policy/project's benefits outweigh its costs and vice versa, we must ask ourselves like Henry Fonda asked the jury to consider for a moment our certainty. This is readily apparent to anyone who has worked on a public project because how do you measure the benefit of saving a human life? preventing an asthma attack? preserving a mangrove forest? And vice versa what are the costs of conserving land that could be prime real estate? increasing energy costs? etc. Anyway, this is what I like to think about when avoiding work.

 

The only other thing I'll mention that was interesting about the movie, and is something I'm fascinated in in general, is the group dynamic and social psychology. Without giving away the story, suffice it to say how an individual behaves and what personality/worldview they bring to a group affects group dynamics... be it building trust, destroying credibility, etc. Too few people I think are aware of how they and the group they're in interact . . . too many people get fixated on themselves and their own version of the truth that they miss the lack of understanding/communication with others. Anyway, it's the best movie I've seen in a long time. I know all this rambling about policy doesn't necessarily sell the movie, but trust me and see it. Oh, and I think it's amusing how vapid the ad executive is (reminds me of Bill Hick's advertising rant.) 

 

I'm off to New York this weekend to visit a friend I haven't seen in  over a year, and meet her husband for the first time. It's suppose to be spring-like conditions. We got a foot of snow in Boston on Sunday, but today most of it melted. It was a beautiful day, and the walk along the Charles River is stunning (I can't wait to see it when spring is in bloom.)

Tonight I attended a speech by Chris  Mooney on the Republican War Against Science. How many wars can we fight at once as a nation? Afghanistan, Iraq, Drugs, Poverty (oh wait, I don't think we took that one on and if we did we've long since evacuated), and now Science? Not to mention, Bush seems to be itching to send our troops on tour through Iran as well, but that's for another time.

 

The premise of the talk was that the U.S. has seen an increasing trend by the government (especially the Republicans) to deny sound science. I don't know how you can dispute that reality . . . recently, Dr. Hansen, NASA's climate expert, went to the media charging that NASA tried to censor him. (The link is an Andrew Revkin story . . . he's a tremendous reporter.) Before gagging Hansen, the government has repeatedly "edited" scientific reports on topic ranging from mercury pollution to global warming. "Editing" means removing the science that highlights the real dangers of relying on fossil fuels like coal which significantly contributes to  mercury and green house gas emissions into our environment. It's not just the environment that has witnessed this war against science firsthand; another common target is evolution. Mooney called it a "brushfire" of intelligent design proposals "sweeping" across the country. Intelligent design isn't a science, and should not replace evolution. I don't go so far as to say it has no place in schools, as I think culture and religion shared in schools may help the next generation to get over the deep division we're experiencing in the U.S. currently.

 

 He offered the Republicans' base (religious conservatives and corporate interests) and the one party government as a rationale behind this move away from science toward ideology, junk science, etc. that serves the interests of their base. This doesn't seem like rocket science to me, and I was left wondering what has changed in recent years to suggest this is surprising. It's blatant, it's personal (by attempting to discredit the scientist and thus the science), and it's rampant. What else , if anything, besides the Right's base is encouraging  this war? Mooney mentioned the media's "50-50, he said, she said, we can't think for ourselves" approach to covering stories grants junk science more importance than it deserves and thus encourages confusion among the public. He also suggested that the public's shrinking attention span and lack of adequate science training in schools fuels the war.

 

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.

 

My recent comment on Nick C.'s blog is longer than most people's blog entries, so in the spirit of somewhat regular updates of this blog . . . please visit: http://spaces.msn.com/ncarte01/ where I comment on "Cartoon wars" in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Religion, rock and roll, sex, and politics... well maybe not those last few. You'll have to check it out to know for sure.

I recommend checking out this Foreign Policy article on Refashioning Authoritarianism. For those of you who don't take my recommendations seriously, it suggests that Hugo Chavez (Venzuelan President) is branding a new form of authoritarianism designed for the democratic era. And for those of you secret rulers of the universe wannabes they offer a concrete list for how you can accomplish just that.

 

So, I've been thinking a fair amount about what it means that the elections are turning out as they are in Latin America... and now Hamas in Palestine. If you haven't kept up on the Palestinian election. You may want to take a look at this Washington Post Op-ed by the Deputy political bureau chief for Hamas called "What Hamas is seeking." Compare that with some flagrant excerpts pulled from Hamas's Charter by the U.K.'s Telegraph. In an exchange of ideas today, two of my friends highlighted these varying sides of Hamas and the democratic election in Palestine. The result of this election will probably lead to greater suffering by the Palestinian people in the form of insufficient economic aid due to political pressures of the international community. Meanwhile, the tension between Israel and Palestine increases at the time of elections . . . pushing Palestinians to Hamas who has taken credit for handfuls of terrorist bombings in Israel, and who knows the direction Israel will take in March when it holds elections. The most frustrating of all is that Israelis and Palestinians are so immersed in the daily fear and anger of living in a perpetual state of conflict that they can't trust each other to reach peace, and the international political community has claimed an "objective" analysis of what is best for long term stability in the region without grasping how their solutions are mere bandages insufficient to care for the festering wound of distrust, fear, and anger. There is little objectivity in the world. Period. There is even less when eternal conflict, fear, and anger shapes the lives of the citizens of two nations whom claim one capital.

 

And so begins my second semester. It was great to see people again. It's amazing how quickly you bond with your fellow classmates. I guess it's the shared experience. This semester will be a most momentous occasion with the following classes: Introduction to Financial Management (Finance), Economic Analysis of Public Policy (Econ), Empirical Methods II (Stats), The Strategic Management of Public Organizations (Management), Leadership, and my elective.....drum roll please.....Public and Private Development (the future of public subsidies and how tax increment financing works.) For those of you playing Fantasy Will She Pass her Classes, I'm happy to report to those of you who believed in me that I have indeed passed all of my Fall classes, and am well on my way to having the first of two years completed.

 

Welcome to the rollercoaster.

Had a brief conversation with a friend recently that had me thinking how circular life really is . . . when do we break out of the mold and make it to the next level? I'm quite serious, I want an answer.

 

We were talking about a newish book (The Rebel Sell) and an anti-advertising campaign in Canada which got me thinking about critical social theory papers written with a good friend in college over a bottle of Jamaican rum on what exactly it means to be a subculture - counter culture. I get it by now - counter culture is not enough because without culture what is it? It needs culture (status quo, etc.) to exist. Check. I'm down with that.  Then you have the Civil Rights Movement which was much more than counter culture movements (think punk before it became a fashion trend at Hot Topix in most malls) it stood for something that could exist beyond what it fought against - it fought for something. It succeeded for a time, and people died. Now, we've named a day for Martin Luther King Jr. (of which his efforts are deserving) but does that swallow up the resistance, civil disobedience the fight for equality requires? So, you can be counter-culture or you can be co-opted by the status quo, but what does it take to be revolutionary in America today? Can we have another Civil Rights movement? There were the WTO protests, anti-globalization seemed poised to make a mark... but it's all but disappeared in the U.S. Does change not come in revolutions of grandeur, but in the baby steps we make in our own communities?

 

So as my friend sets out to read this new book which seemingly regurgitates the analysis of the past, I impatiently demand something more, something new, something with a purpose. But is to demand to take the onerous off myself like those who think counter culture is enough. I know Gandhi's famous 'be the change you wish to see in the world', but what if I don't know where to begin?

 

 

Related: What do you make of Adbusters? They're counter-culture, but they continually lash out with ideas, philosophies, manifestos... does it work? if not, why?

 

Disclosure: I'm not a political analyst (especially on this topic), student of Miss Cleo's academy of fortune tellers, or even all that astute, but something in Latin America got me thinking....

 

It started with the charge by Venezuela's elected "dictator" ( I use the quotations because the U.S. and some media has labeled him a dictator, but from the poll results he appears to have the support of a majority of Venezuelans, more than can be said of many leaders in today's world.) Here was an anti-capitalist (not all that unusual in South America given economic conditions, family structure, and community-focused culture) calling President Bush out on supposed threats to his life and then in his next breath showing no fear in breaking away from free market capitalism to offer gas to developing countries (and even to some low income charities in the United States (Boston)) at deep discounts as the free market prices sky-rocketed. At the same time, Cuba's Castro stood on higher ground offering assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina while lambasting President Bush's inaction. Now in Bolivia, home of the famous people's revolt against water privatization (unocal), the country's first Indigenous person has been elected president with Chavez by his side. A left-center socialist in Chile, Michele Bachelet, is the first woman to lead her country. With still a handful of countries holding elections this year, it will be interesting to see if the trend continues. Again, it's not an immediate shock that anti-capitalist leaders would be elected in Latin America. What is interesting is the vocal opposition and its media coverage to U.S. leadership and policy and active foreign policy toward a new way of world trade in which the brothers and sister countries suffering offer each other a hand against the giant that is free trade which often costs the poorest the most.

 

Obviously, this is just the rambling of my mind as I read the media on the elections in Latin America. It's augmented by the report of the U.S.'s overarching "nearing the breaking point" military investment in the Middle East which potentially changes the level of engagement we can have with Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. It's also born from seeds planted by Shalimar the Clown (Salman Rushdie's newest book) which tells the story of a world in which the bonds of the Middle East, Asia, and other developing areas can be imagined especially in times of darkness like the War against Terrorism and the times of terrorism that inspired it. These are not new times entirely, but something can be said about a growing hesitation at the seemingly unfettered acts of pre-emptive war, torture, terrorism, media manipulation and disappointment, and the repealing of the rights of humans to their livelihoods and their privacy.

 

Questions I would love answered (and should research in my spare time):

 

1. Has the level of U.S. involvement/engagement in Latin America changed in the past 5-10 years?

2. What is the economic impact of Venezuela's policy to not sell its resource on the free market and instead benefit the poorest?

3. Is there a level of collaboration between the developing world (specifically Asia, Middle East, and Latin America)?

4. What might a scenario look like in which these countries continued to challenge the U.S.?

5. A power analysis of international relations and Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, etc.

 

This week's The Economist notes the sway in Latin America and says the U.S. would be foolish to pay it much mind.

 

 

Two things about chickens: 1) don't kiss them; and 2) don't be them. As the bird flu migrates to Turkey and more human cases are confirmed, we're on the verge of another media pandemic about its danger. But maybe, this is what we need? After all,  one of the newest cases of the bird flu was the result of a young girl kissing her dying chickens. For all of you prone to kiss chickens, let me attempt to prevent the media outbreak and potential death by disease with a recommendation that not only should you not kiss your dying chickens, but probably avoid contact entirely. Hire professionals (there have to be some by now) to destroy the contaminated birds. Now on to more pressing matters, according to me....

 

The U.S., Australia, India, China, Japan, and South Korea have formed a "voluntary" emission reduction "pact" which in effect undermines the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory reduction limits. Yes, yes... the age of regulation is over... business as usual rules the world (or at least the U.S.), and being chained to emission limits stifles the creative solutions that will be voluntarily reached if governments and businesses are left to their own devices. After all, the only solution to global warming is technology, and lord knows we won't see technological development if budgets are instead dedicated to fighting regulations. According to my economics course, regulations result in deadweight losses and only voluntary programs (like cap and trade programs) fully realize the potential of the market to deal with problems like global warming.  Well that's great if we could trust that voluntary pacts actually resulted in action, but we can't. For example, Minnesota had a voluntary program to reduce mercury emissions from three primary sources: products, mining, and coal/energy. The results were unimpressive after the state set goals of 60-75% reductions after 15 years the total reductions are estimated at 5%. Fifteen years later, the state has made little progress because voluntary programs have no teeth and now must consider regulations. It's like me with my assignments and projects...without a strict deadline, they'd likely never get done. The U.S. is afraid to set real standards and hold itself accountable to slashing its carbon dioxide emissions because it will cost money, call on technological solutions, and result in less coal and oil in our energy mix. In other words, it means an end to business as usual. However, the options are, well frankly, non-existent. Global warming is a real threat with real impacts on our lives today. We've wasted enough time questioning the science, doubting the solutions, and avoiding reality... we simply don't have time to waste on voluntary programs. What will it take for our government to realize this?