The recent release of Dick Cheney's book just as the machinery of remembering and hallowing the victims of the attack on the Twin Towers gets underway, reminds us of just what we really lost ten years ago. We did not see a paradise crumble and fall, but we surely moved into a darker world than we'd enjoyed, closer to Mordor than Gondor, and saddest of all,we chose to do so willingly. Dick Cheney underlined just how far down the path of darkness we've come.
As when the execution of bin-Laden was portrayed as a victory for the techniques of torture, the calluses on our soul have grown so thickened that we spend our time parsing the irrelevant - did Condi Rice "tearfully" admit Cheney was right when he advised George Bush to not accept responsibility for false information presented to the public, did Cheney take cheap shots at his erstwhile opponents like Colin Powell - while basically accepting the most disturbing assertions with nary a murmur of dissent. Cheney remains, unsurprisingly, a firm advocate of torture. I'm not sure, but he may be the only advocate who also accepts it for what it is rather than attempting to hide behind fig leaf terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques". One must salute the man for his willingness to acknowledge torture for what it is; there is nothing else in his position that I cold commend. When did torture cease to be morally acceptable? When the accounts are finally tallied, that may be the worst legacy that Cheney bequeathed us.
Previously when torture was discussed, we talked about the "ticking clock" and how maybe, moral positions needed to be changed when thousands of lives were at stake and we could gain the information to save them with a little judicious torture. We grappled with the agonizing questions that followed - how many lives need be at risk to justify torture? How small a window did we need to justify torture above conventional means? If we were unsure of the culpability of our suspect, should we torture a potentially innocent man in hope that we may save hundreds? Cheney basically circumvents all moral questions about torture by flatly accepting the need to torture terrorists - we have the right to torture these people because they're
terrorists. And we know they're terrorists, otherwise we wouldn't be
torturing them! Torquemada wold have approved the logic, since it was the exact principle of the Inquisition - and how useful torture proved to be, if we have any lingering doubts about the new morality of Dick Cheney.
In the end, Cheney with his narrow antagonistic world view, where everyone is either an unquestioning and uncritical friend or an enemy to be destroyed, has succeeded in defining a new enemy to hate and fear. The terror of the Red Menace has been replaced by loathing of the green crescent. When Americans object to intrusive searches of their persons, they qualify it with a willingness to see "the others" humiliated and searched in those same objectionable ways. I've said before that the stupidest part of targeting Muslims is that most Americans have no idea what a Muslim would look like. To a majority of them, A Muslim is a brown-skinned man, maybe wearing a turban. Not only did this simplistic view lead to the tragic killing of a Sikh man in Phoenix - especially ironic given the historic animosity between Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab - but it is patently false. The Muslim world sweeps from West Africa, all along the north coast of that continent through west Asia, where it splits to plunge into Central Asia and the edges of China, while the southern branch twists across India and all the way down to the Philippines and Indonesia. So every African, and Asian, and even European - for the Kurds, Turks and Central Asians are not so easily distinguished from their European cousins - may be potentially a Muslim. Names too can take you only so far - while a name that includes Mohammed is likely enough Muslim, there's plenty of names that offer little evidence either way; some of those names may be distinguishable to someone from the same area, but would likely be as obscure to the average American. And a name like Kieth Ellison and John Walker Lyndh offer absolutely no clue to the faith of the men.
The only thing that distinguishes our enemies from the vast majority is their ideology. That remains the place they must be fought and defeated, but instead in this scared new world of ours, we spend our time attempting to block the construction of mosques and passing meaningless laws banning Sharia - all we do is alienate the as yet, liberal pro-America Muslims who live amongst us. emphasizing that they are not part of our country, that in a land that celebrates the freedom to follow any religion, the exception is theirs. The debts and economic inequalities of the Bush era will pass long before this legacy of fear, hatred and distrust that is the poisonous gift of Dick Cheney even as he robbed us of a part of our very souls, leaving us morally crippled and blind to the Furies he unleashed in our hearts.
If the original Mad Hatter had a blog, everything would start with "T". This is what his views might have been.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
This Thing of Ours
Today is India's Independence Day, a day when a nation newly minted stepped forth into the community of free people and prepared to address the critical question of just what kind of government it should adopt. The word is instructive, for India chose her form of government, and while it often leaves much to be desired, and can drive its people to near insanity with its Byzantine forms and methods, it still is the government selected by the people of India. It is a day when I find myself musing on the nature of government itself, and its role in our life today, especially here in the United States.
In my current domicile, faith in government, tenuous at best is dropping once more, driven by a disgust at partisan gridlock and our elected representative's Nero-esque mastery of fiddling and fed in part by a strange delusion that it is American to distrust one's government. Whether such distrust is historic I cannot say, but one thing seems to be fairly certain - the current distrust and hatred of every aspect of our government is fruit of the Reagan revolution. Ronald Reagan, that master of the pithy soundbite, injected a poison into the body politic stronger perhaps than even he realized, and today we still suffer the consequences. When he declared that government was not the solution to our problems, but the problem itself, Reagan gave a catchy slogan to opponents of government and started us on the path to destroying ourselves.
Today, there is a strong constituency in the country that believes that whole government, or at least a very large part thereof should be shut down and those functions handed off to the private sector. This is, to view it charitably, a philosophy that seems largely ignorant of history. The American government, more than any other in the world, and certainly the first of its kind, was not a system of rules imposed upon the nation by an external force; rather it was a compact formed by the people and adopted as the most effective way of meeting the challenges they faced. This is a government, as Lincoln put it, by the people and for the people. And yet today we face a group of people who continually talk about the government as an alien entity that must be opposed and destroyed; one might as well seek to cut off one's arm or leg in a fit of pique.
There are two broad views of the fundamental nature of government. The minimalists believe that the government should be of such size and power that it cannot impact their lives at all, it should have no power to tax, or regulate. Being of the opposite camp, of course, I exaggerate their position, but based on statements by some of the loudest cheerleaders, I do not think I state it very wrongly. They would have people live by their personal means, and would have the government never aid or hinder the progress of any person, nor their destruction. There are naturally shades of difference, and this libertarian viewpoint is often compromised by those who would impose their own social values upon the rest through the medium of government.
On the other hand, there is the liberal view of government, of which I am a firm believer. Government was formed by us to serve our needs and purposes. It is a tool we have created to ensure our safety and progress, and it serves us at every level, from city to state to nation, and we have bestowed powers upon our government to serve specific needs in response to specific challenges. There is no magical level at which government becomes unacceptable and at some point the artificial walls between nations will crumble and be swept away and a world government will succeed our national governments as the highest power - this is the arc of history and we can embrace reality or stick our heads in the sand; the result will be the same with the difference being the level to which we can fashion the government that forms. As a liberal, I believe that we have formed our government to ensure equality and equal opportunity. It is something of an article of faith amongst believers in capitalism that "a rising tide will lift all boats"; we liberals believe in the same concept, that if we help our less fortunate brothers, it will benefit everyone.
It is sometimes suggested that liberalism is the enemy of capitalism. While some left-leaning governments have misstated the case, nothing could be further from the truth, really; the two are not mutually exclusive systems and should in fact bring out the best in both. Capitalism when it works, rewards excellence. A liberal government would actually ensure a healthier market to consume the fruit of a capitalist' labor and by promoting equal opportunity would actually inure the market against it's naturally monopolistic, and self-defeating tendencies. If there had never been a bust up of AT&T would we have enjoyed the explosion of mobile technology, or would we have been forced to suffice with whatever a monopolist company deigned to give us? Can capitalism thrive if there are no consumers for its produce? If capitalism is allowed to concentrate all wealth in the hands a very small number, wherefore the capital to fund development and innovation and improvements, given that great personal wealth rarely is harnessed in pursuit of the greater good?
And that really is the crux of the question: do we want a liberal form of government dedicated to the greatest good of the greatest number or do we wish to plow our lone farrows neither seeking help from anyone else nor offering any in turn? But in the end, no man is an island, and in the words of Disraeli, we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Teaching Moment
One sunny afternoon some weeks ago, as my co-workers and I returned from lunch, one of them remarked that it was high time we got rid of the teacher's unions, which in his opinion was nothing but a means to ensure that lazy good-for-nothings could never be disciplined or removed. He cited their right to tenure as a glaring example of their unfair advantage over the school districts.
This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.
I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.
It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.
All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.
This attitude seems to be spreading, fueled in part by a major campaign against all organized labor across the nation, wherein somehow our friends and neighbors become the personification of all is evil socialism the moment they cross into their workplace. Governors Walker and Christie have done more to dismantle the power of organized labor than any leader since President Reagan, I'll warrant. And teachers, as members of one of the most visible public employees' unions, have drawn a disproportionate level of invective. Teachers have been accused of many socialist evils, and at least some of the dislike of the may be rooted in their distressing desire to teach students about such objectionable subjects as Darwin's theory of evolution and equality of humankind, irrespective of race, color, gender, religion or sexual orientation - unacceptable obviously and a clear attempt to corrupt the minds of the youth. It appears that hemlock is not as easy to procure today as in classical times. and so we must find other ways to deal with the malaise of an out of control teaching establishment.
I once met a woman who explained that her hyperactive five-year old son was not really out of control even when he was wrecking his school room, he was just active and full of energy and if the teacher would just hold him gently by firmly for a few minutes he would calm down and stop smashing things. She was in absolute earnest that the teacher, given charge of fifteen or twenty children should adopt this unique maternal approach to handling one child and should not get angry with his destructive behavior. Of course, should a teacher actually attempt such an approach, there would probably be other parents lining up to scream about inappropriate behavior and all but ready to lynch her. This is the world our teachers work in, and they receive scant compensation for the work they put in.
It is popular to talk about how teachers have summer vacations and the school day ends at 3pm compared to the longer hours we work in 'real" jobs. But teachers work far past the end of school day. I had a roommate who was a teacher and she spent evenings grading homework, and preparing for the classes of the next day. I've taught a few classes in my days at graduate school and I know that it can take as much time out of class as in the classroom. Then add in the sheer variety of challenges that teachers deal with in their classes daily. Most of us, service industry excepted, deal with a fairly uniform group of people from day to day; how would we fare if we had to deal with students ranging from near moronic to smart enough to me in MIT, and bored if the class moves at anything slower than their own aptitude. Teachers are hamstrung too, in the level of discipline they are allowed to impose on their charges, and in the attitudes of parents to any shortcomings in their offspring. We expect teachers to turn the children into paragons of virtue and wisdom, but we give them no assistance. On the contrary, parents seem ever more eager to point the finger of accusation at teachers. In which other job are staff expected to put up with lewd comments and get no succor (and we'd be fooling ourselves if we think female teachers in any class above fifth grade do not face it)? In which job do staff face the risk of violence as teachers must? It may not happen all the often, but it's a very real possibility? And what do we offer them in return? A low salary, constant criticism and abuse, little to no appreciation and untenable situations. We have even stripped teachers of the right to a personal life, with some teachers losing their jobs for the wildly inappropriate image of being seen with a glass of wine while hanging out with friends.
All this do we do, and then we ask the teachers to also be willing to lose their jobs at the whim of the market. It's time to realize that good teachers are not created overnight, that experienced teachers are worth their weight in gold. If we dismiss teachers whenever we need to balance a budget we will never have any institutional knowledge, nor will the teachers have any incentive to do anything beyond the absolute minimum. Why would teachers work past the end of day to help students with extra curricular activities? Do we really think those teachers do that for money? As Matt Damon explained, teachers in the vast majority do what they do because they love their work, not for the inadequate money we pay them. Most of them could earn more in other jobs, but choose to work as teachers for love of educating and molding minds. Giving them the security of tenure is a way to encourage them to put forth all their energies into what they love without the fear that their efforts of one year will be swept away the very next, along with their jobs. If we pretend otherwise, we will assuredly get what we pay for, and it won't be a pretty sight.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Change of Heart For A Self-Confessed Oil-o-Phobic (Or "Drill, baby Drill")
By most measures, I'm just a typical common or garden-variety environmentalist or at least a person who would rather see environmentally friendly policies than not. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, I recycle religiously, drive a Prius, support a gas tax and more public transportation and would rather sit in front of my TV on a Saturday morning than burn gasoline driving out to some beautiful scenic trail in the middle of nowhere. So, it was with some surprise that I reached the conclusion that it's time to turn right about in our position on exploration for and exploitation of oil resources in continental America.
Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.
Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.
We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.
But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.
But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between. Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.
The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.
Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.
Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.
We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.
But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.
But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between. Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.
The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Not Quite a Sunscreen Song
As I drove into work the other day, I heard the "Sunscreen song", played to mark the end of most college semesters and as I listened to the best commencement speech never given, my thoughts drifted to the increasing number of articles I've seen questioning the value of a college education. I've ignored those articles for most part, since they are too late to influence my choices in that direction, but the very fact that such ideas are even being debated is disappointing in many ways. I've always considered my college years as the best times of my life, and it's sad that the next group of high schoolers will forgo that rite of passage in favor of plunging straight into the workforce.
It's possible of course, that the debate is less about skipping college and more about focusing on a more practical, and quicker, post-high school education that will prepare one for immediate entry into the job market without a lot of unimportant courses. Perhaps the traditional college degree isn't for everyone, just as it wasn't for everyone in the past. A person with absolutely no interest in education would obviously be wasting his money on a college degree. And it is certainly worth asking if education costs are worthwhile, when the average student will incur a cost of over $100,000 for a degree at any major school. But again, it's worth remembering that college does not have to include the big schools - a degree at a community college can be as good and, if the NBC sitcom is any barometer, far more fun than I ever had at school.
Those are valid questions that every student needs to face and answer for themselves. But today, I want to address the more insidious suggestion that college education in general is unnecessary. It is beyond doubt that college education, as high school education includes a lot of subjects that seem to have little bearing on our normal lives and that will be rarely if ever used in our careers after graduation. How many Wall Street wizards use their knowledge of history of European art as they craft toxic financial instruments? Will a knowledge of ancient or modern Chinese assist a mid-western farmer? Will intimacy with differential equations aid a trucker as he rolls across the length of America? Perhaps not, but with the vast range of courses available at any major college, well counseled students can pick a bouquet of useful and interesting classes that will broaden their understanding of the world around them and open new vistas to explore. We live in an increasingly connected world, and an understanding of the culture and motivations of people beyond our immediate circles is actually an increasingly critical and sought after skill in resumes.
But beyond the obvious and visible advantages of courses that apply to the world around us, college offers a chance for students to mature, to learn critical social skills, to broaden their critical thinking abilities and to generally acquire well rounded characters. Schools may do their best, but in the smaller student bodies, students face less diversity, not just racial or economic, but also cultural and intellectual; it's colleges that provide the microcosm of the real world that prepares students for the maelstrom they will soon face. Even without a variety of courses - my engineering course included none of the humanities or liberal arts that are mandatory in the US - I can still say that I came out of college a vastly more mature and developed person than the callow youth who entered four years previously. In the end, it was not engineering that was the most important of lessons learned, but the discipline and concentration I developed there, along with such intangible skills as working with people very different from me and learning to solve problems, involving both mathematical and people; the mathematical ones were the easy ones.
And finally, all practical advantages aside, college is the crucial time when we come of age, when boys become men (girls usually grow up earlier). It's a last time to enjoy life with few responsibilities and the knowledge that those responsibilities hover just beyond makes the joys of college all the sweeter. It's fun with a tinge of adulthood, carefree enjoyment with the edge of real life. Some people miss it for reasons beyond their control - Dafur or Congo being just two places that come to mind - but for kids here in the US, it would be a crime if they chose to turn their backs on this gift that's theirs for the taking, and a crime if they were advised to forgo college by people who have enjoyed it themselves. It's a last magical idyll and no one should miss out on the experience.
It's possible of course, that the debate is less about skipping college and more about focusing on a more practical, and quicker, post-high school education that will prepare one for immediate entry into the job market without a lot of unimportant courses. Perhaps the traditional college degree isn't for everyone, just as it wasn't for everyone in the past. A person with absolutely no interest in education would obviously be wasting his money on a college degree. And it is certainly worth asking if education costs are worthwhile, when the average student will incur a cost of over $100,000 for a degree at any major school. But again, it's worth remembering that college does not have to include the big schools - a degree at a community college can be as good and, if the NBC sitcom is any barometer, far more fun than I ever had at school.
Those are valid questions that every student needs to face and answer for themselves. But today, I want to address the more insidious suggestion that college education in general is unnecessary. It is beyond doubt that college education, as high school education includes a lot of subjects that seem to have little bearing on our normal lives and that will be rarely if ever used in our careers after graduation. How many Wall Street wizards use their knowledge of history of European art as they craft toxic financial instruments? Will a knowledge of ancient or modern Chinese assist a mid-western farmer? Will intimacy with differential equations aid a trucker as he rolls across the length of America? Perhaps not, but with the vast range of courses available at any major college, well counseled students can pick a bouquet of useful and interesting classes that will broaden their understanding of the world around them and open new vistas to explore. We live in an increasingly connected world, and an understanding of the culture and motivations of people beyond our immediate circles is actually an increasingly critical and sought after skill in resumes.
But beyond the obvious and visible advantages of courses that apply to the world around us, college offers a chance for students to mature, to learn critical social skills, to broaden their critical thinking abilities and to generally acquire well rounded characters. Schools may do their best, but in the smaller student bodies, students face less diversity, not just racial or economic, but also cultural and intellectual; it's colleges that provide the microcosm of the real world that prepares students for the maelstrom they will soon face. Even without a variety of courses - my engineering course included none of the humanities or liberal arts that are mandatory in the US - I can still say that I came out of college a vastly more mature and developed person than the callow youth who entered four years previously. In the end, it was not engineering that was the most important of lessons learned, but the discipline and concentration I developed there, along with such intangible skills as working with people very different from me and learning to solve problems, involving both mathematical and people; the mathematical ones were the easy ones.
And finally, all practical advantages aside, college is the crucial time when we come of age, when boys become men (girls usually grow up earlier). It's a last time to enjoy life with few responsibilities and the knowledge that those responsibilities hover just beyond makes the joys of college all the sweeter. It's fun with a tinge of adulthood, carefree enjoyment with the edge of real life. Some people miss it for reasons beyond their control - Dafur or Congo being just two places that come to mind - but for kids here in the US, it would be a crime if they chose to turn their backs on this gift that's theirs for the taking, and a crime if they were advised to forgo college by people who have enjoyed it themselves. It's a last magical idyll and no one should miss out on the experience.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Tide is Turning
Last night, New York became the sixth state in the Union to legalize marriage for all human beings. The world did not end, the earth did not rend, spewing forth molten magma and swallowing the citizens of modern day Sodom. Nor did celestial trumpets blare forth a paean of triumph. It could be just another proof that there is no god directing our destiny. Or more charitably, it may be proof that an omnipotent deity concerned with the creation and ordering of the entire cosmos has far better things to do that wonder about whether men should lie with men and that our lives, our futures and all we aspire to is up to us. Whatever the truth of god's existence, there is no doubt that we are at our best as human beings when we look within ourselves for the answers we seek and find the strength there to do the right thing by our fellowmen.
It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.
Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.
I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.
In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.
In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!
It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.
Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.
I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.
In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.
In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Immigrants Behaving Badly
Last month the President decided to bring immigration reform to centerstage once again, if only to highlight the obstructions raised by his political opponents. Since then, interest has languished again and the moat and alligator business I'd hoped to start up may have to wait a whiles till funding to build the same is approved by Congress. But meanwhile I thought I'd dust off some old thoughts on immigration and publish them in this snazzy blog that is such a credit to some unknown developer. This is actually part of a two-chapter posting on different aspects of immigration and let me lead off bu discussing this article in the Washington Post from a few years ago that illustrated a very interesting aspect of Hispanic immigrants and explodes several negative myths about their role in US society. Distilled down to the essentials, the various studies show that Hispanic immigrants don't act according to stereotype.
I know a little bit about immigrants who don't fit stereotypes. Immigrants are supposed to stick with others from their ethnic group, they are supposed to speak the language of their home country rather than English, they are supposed to go mostly to their particular ethnic restaurants and celebrate their own particular religious and secular days. I can testify that every morning I see a would-be immigrant who doesn't fit the mold. Sure, he looks like typical immigrant and judging from the reaction of others, sounds unlike the average American. But it just goes to show that appearances can be deceiving. Or rather that stereotypes are, more often than not, totally wrong.
Returning to the article, studies show that as generally perceived, a majority of first generation Hispanic immigrants do fall below the poverty line and also tend to earn significantly lower wages than Americans in the same job. However, the wage gap between immigrants and natives tends to close quickly. Far more interesting however is the revelation that these immigrants do not think of themselves as poverty-stricken, nor do they behave as such. It seems like someone forgot to tell these immigrants that they are supposed to be different, that they are supposed to drag down US society. Instead, in their ignorance they react positively, in much the same way as every other immigrant community that ever called America home.
These are people who earn less than the $20,000 annual salary that the US government defines as dividing the poor from the rest. And, these poverty level salaries are typically earned in urban (and expensive areas). While many settled natives might think that it is impossible to live on around $11,500 a year (or barely $225 a week), these people beg to differ. They manage and their attitude is that of the middle class - they manage the best they can in education for their children, manage to save a little (!) and nearly always manage to send some money back to their families and relatives in their native country. Imagine that – they are supporting not just themselves, but also large extended families. Several economies south of the border are heavily dependent of these remittances. And since this money comes without IMF-mandated conditions or high interest rates and repayment timetables, every last penny goes into improving the lives of the recipients. These immigrants have discovered so many truths - you don’t need a 52-in plasma TV or a TV in every room, or a night out on the town every night, you don’t need to drive the latest model car or have the newest computer or I-pod, there is life without a Playstation or Xbox. And they are living out the economic theory that just won the Nobel Peace Prize, creating economic and social development from the grassroots, and actually alleviating the conditions that force so many to immigrate to America in first place.
According to the article, a majority of immigrants own or plan to own their own homes and businesses. They are working hard to improve their living conditions and provide a brighter future for their children, and they expect fewer government handouts than many natives (think about the corn farmers or oil companies). Sounds familiar? It should. It could describe any previous immigrant community. It could describe the American Dream.
This study was focused on Hispanic immigrants, who are right now the target of most negative myths and stereotype, but I'm willing to wager that other prominent immigrant communities are similar. In fact, I'm so sure of this that like Oliver Twist's interest acquaintance, Mr. Grimwig, I'll eat my own head!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)