Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.

Rights of the Children of Ham

This past week has been eventful, to say the least, from activists massed in New York protesting something regarding Wall Street to further rumbles in Greece portending the collapse of Europe's dream of unity to the latest blow against al-Qaida when an aptly named Hellfire missile met Anwar al-Awlaki halfway and sent him on his merry way to discover in person the truth of stories of paradise and dozens of virgins. It is the latter topic that forms the burden of my song, for matters economic are harder to understand.

After a few days of quiet exultation, the dissenting voices began to be heard questioning the legality of executing al Awlaki. Amid the liberal voices was an unlikely protester in the person of Dick Cheney, demanding that the President recant his criticisms of Bush Administration policies. Perhaps nothing spurred me to think this over quite as much as our former vice president; it's usually a safe bet that we will be on opposite sides of near any argument. And as I listened to the debate, a sense of disquiet stole over me. True, there was much questioning of the legality of the strike, which executed an American citizen without trial or due process. And therein for me, lies the dilemma. I fully appreciate the concerns of the liberals, but inherent in their dissent is a suggestion that trial and due process should be extended only to American citizens but foreign nationals who we have identified as enemies may be eliminated by any means necessary.

To be fair to my liberal brethren they likely are not comfortable with our actions against non-citizens but must choose their battles with care, given the general mood in America. Public opinion is firmly in favor of muscular response to any perceived enemies and such niggling problems as lack of evidence and reasonable doubt are blithely brushed aside in favor of security over freedom. I've argued before that we need to heed the maxim that forsaking liberty for security oft leaves one with neither, but this is beyond pragmatic arguments. The overriding issue for me is moral: do we have the right to execute, without trial, anyone who we declare to be our enemy? Does it really matter if that person is an American citizen or not? From a narrow constitutional focus, the citizenship question is paramount, but the wider question should be if those guarantees of due process are meant only for those born within these blessed shores. We are not bound to uphold the rights of any foreign nationals against their treatment by their own government, but when their freedom and liberty are held forfeit by us, our actions should be constrained by the same constitutional fetters that protect citizens. It is no coincidence that any resident of the US enjoys all civil rights as an American. But when fear blinds us, we are happy to pretend that those rights are complimentary, to be withdrawn at our pleasure in the name of national security.

If, as I argue, non-Americans in the so called "war on terror" should enjoy the same protections as US citizens, one would argue that we would be hobbling ourselves and depriving ourselves of any chance of striking at our enemies as they plan attacks upon us. Some, including Christopher Hitchens argue along those lines basically that since al-Awlaki is evil and our enemy, actively engaged in attacking us we have the right to execute him, be he a citizen of USA or not. But this is a false argument, because it conflates two different issues; I do not gainsay the evil or enmity of al Awlaki, but that is no justification for executing anyone. But al Awlaki's engagement in attacking us is a very different matter - this is specific, concrete action that opens him to retaliation or even preemption. But what  I would prefer to see would be a clear policy declared by the government of who they perceive as enemies, what actions constitute a threat to America, and how the US government would respond. Transparency has been sorely lacking in government response to terrorism for the past ten years. Advocates of this secrecy might argue that we cannot reveal our knowledge to our enemies. But it is unlikely that bin Laden or al Awlaki expected anything but death from us, and President Bush was fairly clear that he intended to "get bin Laden, dead or alive". We do not have to reveal our powers, but it would be in everyone's interest if we tried these terrorists in-absentia if not in person. Once we have a conviction against them, their killing is simply an execution of sanctioned punishment. And if we cannot obtain a conviction of a terrorist when they're not even available to mount their own defense, then we really need to re-think our policies and ask ourselves if we know who our enemies really are. But most importantly, as a nation, we need to ask if we know what our policy truly is and once we declare our policy, are we comfortable with the ramifications. I cannot state for sure what policies I would support or oppose, but knowing those policies would be the first step along the path of decision.

Not-Quite-Paradise Lost

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.