California Propositions

From Calitics

Here we go again, another round of endorsements.  The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here.  On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions. Proposition The Calitics Position Calitics Tag 1A (High Speed Rail) YES, YES, YES! Prop 1A 2 (Farm Animal Conditions) Yes Prop 2 3 (Children's Hospital Bonds) Yes Prop 3 4 (Parental Notification Again) No, NO, and NO AGAIN Prop 4 5 (Drug Rehab Programs) Yes Prop 5 6 (Runner Anti-Gang) NO Prop 6 7 (Renewable Power Standard) No Prop 7 8 (Anti-Marriage) NO! Prop 8 9 (Runner Victim's Rights) No Prop 9 10 (Pickens Natural Gas) No Prop 10 11 (Redistricting) No Prop 11 12 (Veterans Bonds) Yes Prop 12 See the flip for more information on the props...

Calitics Editorial Board :: Our Positions on the Statewide Propositions

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail: YES! Prop 1A, recently revised on the ballot by legislative action, will allow the state to purchase $10 Billion in Bonds for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system.  The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars as well as attract private investments.  This is a no brainer, but if you need more information, check out Robert's HSR Blog. Prop 2: Farm Animal Conditions: Yes This is a simple law that requires farm animals to be able to stand up and turn around in their cages. While there are lots of protests from factory farming interests, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers.  Polls show this one strongly leading. The campaign has also produced a cute video with a singing pig. Prop 3: Children's Hospital Bonds: Yes While some of us are conflicted about the purchase of more bonds for another narrowly defined interest, this seems to be a net plus.  Simply put, this would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for our children's hospitals, hopefully for capital improvements.  Our hospitals in general need a lot of work, but it would be even better if this money would go instead to ensure all county and other public hospitals remain viable. Not sure about that cheesy commercial though. Prop 4: Parental Notification: No, NO, and NO AGAIN! We've done this twice before, in the special election of 2005 and again in the general of 2006.  Enough already. We've said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe, not use them as political pawns.  Prop 4 requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional family, but can be dangerous in an abusive home.  The proposition allows for a judicial bypass, but how many scared, pregnant teens have the wherewithal to go through that? This one is running close, so get the word out! As a sidenote, this is a good case for initiative reform to include a limit on how many times you can bring something to the ballot. Prop 5: Drug Rehab: Yes A sound policy reform to decrease the number of nonviolent offenders in our jails by placing them in rehabilitation facilities instead.  Prop 5 also reduces sentences for these nonviolent offenders based upon their successful completion of the rehab program. While not "ToughOnCrime", it is SmartOnCrime.  This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back. Prop 36 saved us millions of dollars, this likely will as well. Unfortunately, today Senator Feinstein has come out against Prop 5 in a wildly speculative press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let's be smart, not pseudo-tough. Yes on 5. Prop 6: Runner Gang Measure: NO Another wasteful ToughOnCrime measure from the legislators Runner.  This is just plain bad policy that won't actually reduce gang violence.  The measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders (really, now?) and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year.  The Mercury News breaks it down: It would require spending $965 million next year - and more every year thereafter - on law enforcement, probation and police programs, with a focus on gangs. That's $365 million - 50 percent more - than last year. And the amount will grow, because the initiative guarantees annual increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of the new or longer sentences it would impose for 30-plus crimes. Add in $500 million for jails that the initiative requires for more prisoners, and it's a daunting number, at a time that the overall crime rate has been dropping. Far too expensive for far too few results. Prop 7: Renewable Power Standard: No There already is a renewable power standard in California as part of recent anti-global warming legislation.  This bill would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025 - but several small wind and solar power companies are opposed because the measure would essentially toss them out of the market by excluding plants smaller than 30 megawatts from even counting toward the standard.  That appears to cripple innovation and tilt the playing field away from sound renewable power development.  This is a noble goal which is poorly written to create winners and losers.  It's a close call, but we're voting no. Prop 8: Anti-Marriage Amendment: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!! Not much to explain here. Prop 8 would eliminate marriage rights for same gender couples. It is time for Californians to stand up for equality. No on 8. Prop 9: Runner Victim's Rights: No Another "ToughOnCrime" measure by the legislators Runner, this time funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Why is that relevant? Well, Mr. Nicholas has himself been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing "Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers." Classy. The measure itself reduces frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. I'll let the OC Register, which suggested a No vote, explain the prop: Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from the current one to five years to three to 15 years. I'm fine with victim's rights, but that shouldn't extend to creating bad policy and increasing our already ridiculously high prison population. We already have a crisis, we don't need to exacerbate it. Vote No on "Marsy's Law." Prop 10: Natural Gas Giveaway: No Prop 10 would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars.  The problem of course is that clean is defined as to mean natural gas, and not hybrids. Huh? Furthermore, it wouldn't require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state.  This is simply a boondoggle for Swift Boat Veterans Funder T. Boone Pickens to get his natural gas company a ton of new purchasers and to get the state to build his natural gas highway. Natural gas is slightly cleaner than gasoline, but it's still a technology of yesteryear.  We need real renewable energy, not more fossil fuels. Prop 10 is a waste of money at a time when we can't afford to fully fund our educational system. No on 10! Prop 11: Redistricting: NO! Another waste of time redistricting measure that accomplishes little other than guaranteeing Republicans additional power over the redistricting process.  Prop 11 would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process.  It's a flawed process that gives Republicans too much.  It's opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party.  For more information, see this diary here at Calitics. Our diary is actually recommend over the "official" No site, which is so hideous as to be nearly useless.  Anyway, Vote No on Republican Voters First! Prop 12: Veterans Bond: Yes These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It's a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.

Clichy Sous Bois

Very cool.  You can see a fictionalized account of the riots in France a couple of years ago which started with the electrocution of Bouna and Ziad.

Reconstitution de la mort de Ziad et Bouna 1/4 Larabe-Strait
by Nhomme-Beur-One

Casino Unroyal

Keynes:

"When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done"

Peggy Noonan Watch: Fractured Right

Sign #7,650,432 that the Republicans will probably loose this election: Peggy Noonan splits from the party line.

There has never been a second's debate among liberals, to use an old-fashioned word that may yet return to vogue, over Mrs. Palin: She was a dope and unqualified from the start. Conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, continue to battle it out: Was her choice a success or a disaster? And if one holds negative views, should one say so? For conservatives in general, but certainly for writers, the answer is a variation on Edmund Burke: You owe your readers not your industry only but your judgment, and you betray instead of serve them if you sacrifice it to what may or may not be their opinion.
Here is a fact of life that is also a fact of politics: You have to hold open the possibility of magic. People can come from nowhere, with modest backgrounds and short résumés, and yet be individuals of real gifts, gifts that had previously been unseen, that had been gleaming quietly under a bushel, and are suddenly revealed. Mrs. Palin came, essentially, from nowhere. But there was a man who came from nowhere, the seeming tool of a political machine, a tidy, narrow, unsophisticated senator appointed to high office and then thrust into power by a careless Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose vanity told him he would live forever. And yet that limited little man was Harry S. Truman. Of the Marshall Plan, of containment. Little Harry was big. He had magic. You have to give people time to show what they have. Because maybe they have magic too.

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? For seven weeks I've listened to her, trying to understand if she is Bushian or Reaganite—a spender, to speak briefly, whose political decisions seem untethered to a political philosophy, and whose foreign policy is shaped by a certain emotionalism, or a conservative whose principles are rooted in philosophy, and whose foreign policy leans more toward what might be called romantic realism, and that is speak truth, know America, be America, move diplomatically, respect public opinion, and move within an awareness and appreciation of reality.
But it's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just . . . says things.
Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.
No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can't be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush's style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don't, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.
In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.
I gather this week from conservative publications that those whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives. In one now-famous case, Christopher Buckley was shooed from the great magazine his father invented. In all this, the conservative intelligentsia are doing what they have done for five years. They bitterly attacked those who came to stand against the Bush administration. This was destructive. If they had stood for conservative principle and the full expression of views, instead of attempting to silence those who opposed mere party, their movement, and the party, would be in a better, and healthier, position.
At any rate, come and get me, copper.

Of course, she is overly concerned with the "vulgarisation" of politics and seems to apply that brush to the Democrats as if they practice this stuff in equivalent measures, but I'll forgive her for that here.  A little honesty does a person good.

100K Strong

Does anybody have a comparison graph of crowd sizes at campaign rallies?  Obama is bringing people in.  100k in St-Louis:

No papers? Burn yourself.

This is a tragic case.  A woman set herself on fire in order to protest her partners imminent explusion from the country.  No need to explain what I think.  There should not be such a thing as "illegals" or "non-documented."  These are constructs to appease nativists, not solve problems.

Une femme dont le compagnon sans-papiers est menacé d'expulsion vers l'Arménie a été grièvement blessée, samedi 18 octobre, après s'être immolée devant la maison d'arrêt du Mans, dans la Sarthe. Vers 8 h 50, la femme qui avait donné rendez-vous à des journalistes de la presse locale s'est aspergée le corps d'essence avant d'y mettre le feu.

Selon un correspondant de l'AFP, elle aurait voulu protester contre l'incarcération et l'expulsion de son compagnon. Le compagnon de la victime purge une peine de deux ans à la maison d'arrêt du Mans pour avoir refusé à 18 reprises de monter dans l'avion qui devait le reconduire en Arménie.  Read more at Le Monde...

Things Republicans Hate, from Natasha Chart at MyDD.

Republicans don't like people who are Arab.

Republicans don't like people who drink wine.

Republicans don't like people who eat lettuce.

Republicans don't like people who live in cities or suburbs.

Republicans don't like people who now think that the Iraq war was a mistake.

Republicans don't like people who are Hispanic or speak Spanish, unless they are pro-torture.

Republicans don't like people who are gay, unless they STFU about wanting to marry the people they love.

Republicans don't like people who organize unions or want better treatment and more protection from their employers at work.

Republicans don't like people who are professionals or college educated, unless those people pretend to be 'folksy' latte-haters.

Republicans don't like people who take the extreme position that people who are women are just as good as people who are men.

Republicans don't like people who are offended by the use of racist threats and stereotypes targeted towards people who are Black.

Who's left over after all that? Republicans, I guess. Real Americans, some Republicans might say. Other people might call them 27-37% of American adults, depending on whether you count the leaners.

Now probably a good few of the leaners don't pass the full 'real American' screen, but let's be generous, and say that Republicans like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann would consider about 30 percent of American citizens to be real, pro-American types.

Once again, with feeling, this is "inherently ridiculous."

ACORN: Register voters, follow the law, become a target

Crooks and Liars:

Just as surely as night follows day, violence is being directed at ACORN offices and officials in the wake of the flood of right-wing demagoguery about its vote-gathering efforts:

An ACORN community organizer received a death threat and the liberal activist group's Boston and Seattle offices were vandalized Thursday, reflecting mounting tensions over its role in registering 1.3 million mostly poor and minority Americans to vote next month.

Attorneys for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now were notifying the FBI and the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division of the incidents, said Brian Kettenring, a Florida-based spokesman for the group.

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain, have verbally attacked the group repeatedly in recent days, alleging a widespread vote-fraud scheme, although they've provided little proof. It was disclosed Thursday that the FBI is examining whether thousands of fraudulent voter-registration applications submitted by some ACORN workers were part of a systematic effort or isolated incidents.

Kettenring said that a senior ACORN staffer in Cleveland, after appearing on television this week, got an e-mail that said she "is going to have her life ended."

A female staffer in Providence, R.I., got a threatening call from someone who said words to the effect of "We know you get off work at 9," then uttered racial epithets, he said.

John McCain has played a leading role in whipping up this frenzy of hatred. In Wednesday's debate, he charged:

We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

This is consistent with the hateful language being spewed from the right by the likes of Lou Dobbs, who has taken to routinely characterizing ACORN as a "radical left-wing activist group" as well as "a Democratic Party adjunct".

In fact, the hysteria's being generated across a broad spectrum of the Right, from Outer Malkinite Wingnuttia to Inside Beltway Villagers, from McCain and Palin to the frothiest freepers.

And we can see what's coming, too: We're being set up for a running yammer from the right after Obama wins questioning his legitimacy because of a supposedly "tainted" vote. Conspiracy theories and talking points from the right will circulate, driving up the temperature and feeding the right-wing populist frenzy.

And they're not even waiting until Election Day to begin.

How to do things with words: repeat lies, encourage hatred and mistrust, wait.

The End of Anomie

I just posted over at Open Left:

Then End of Anomie

Between roughly 1968 and 2004, United States (and its politics) has been dominated by a form of social relations that is defined, paradoxically, by a lack of social relations: Anomie. It is that feeling that comes about when one feels that the anchors of one's life have been cut, when traditional values such as family, friends, community, church and work seems to be evaporating. In anomie, family, neighborhood, community and church become, as often as not, institutions in transition that subsequently raise as many questions as they answer.

This has been as true for our urban areas as for our rural ones. The exodus to the suburbs brought on increased feelings of separation from our friends and neighbors and family. Our suburbs, while offering some benefits like front yards to play in and spacious living quarters for our smaller families, conversely brought us increased busing and commutes, and fewer family dinners. Our countryside was nearly fully transformed into a large factory that produced for the our cities. Our rural areas became not autonomous regions of self-sustenance but places where people worked for low wages to produce materials for the city based the economics of the city. Diversity of crops and of labor was sacrificed to the predictable (but meager) world of monocrop production where local supermarkets imported carrots, salads, beets, and sweet corn so that the surrounding acreage can produce soybeans or cattle feed. Like their urban counterparts, the rural folk no longer felt in control of their own destiny. They were strangers in the small towns... [click here to keep reading]

Confessions of a(n) (In)Secure User

Ok. I'll admit it, I don't use anti-virus protection. Also, with the exception of a Microsoft Outlook infection that overtook our campus 7-8 years ago and that reached the address book on my pc, I've NEVER had a virus.

Is that smug? Probably, and now that I'm writing this post, I'm expecting a massive attack and crash. But you need to understand that I'm very careful and I've just been doing a couple of simple things and I've never had a problem. Besides, the folks at Wired agree with me:

The gospel is familiar: An antivirus program paired with anti-spyware/malware measures will shield your PC from just about anything. In fact, the marketing of those products is so good that security apps are about the only software people still expect to pay for. But the best stuff doesn't cost a dime. Programs like AVG and Ad-Aware are free, and they won't hit you up for upgrades like the big security suites.
Those guardians are fine for Grandma's Gateway, but the truly savvy eschew them altogether. Even the most well-meaning program bogs down your box. And it's not hard to dodge infection; just abide by the basic tenets of Internet common sense: Don't click on mysterious email attachments, don't bother with the free pr0n, Ch3@p Vi@gr@, and Nigerian millions, and never open .exe files. Email is still one of the biggest infection vectors, so be cautious and use a good webmail service like Gmail, which automatically scans your messages. Don't leave your computer online when you're not on it. Beware of anything that immediately asks for personal information. Don't reuse passwords.

Stiglitz

A vision of the future

If you don't read openleft.com, you should. I can't say it with enough emphasis: Chris, Matt, Dave, et al--they get it.

Here's Chris Bowers:

So, what happens if this rout holds up, and Democrats score a trifecta that includes a 100 seat House majority and 60 seats in the Senate? In the extended entry, I take a look at the macro political ramifications of such a massive Democratic rout.
In my crystal ball I see:

* Republican Party moves to the right: Yes, that's correct--I am pretty sure the Republican Party will become even more conservative if they are entirely blown out in this election. The reason is simple: all remaining mechanisms for pushing left will have been either removed or discredited, while all mechanisms that push them to the right will remain intact. The Club for Growth will still play successfully in Republican primaries. Conservative media will become even more important to the conservatie rank and file, as a loss of this magnitude is heavily blamed on the dreaded "MSM." The party will still be owned by the same large and corporate donors who control it now. However, Republican "moderates" will have been pushed to the very edge of extinction, and borne the brunt of congressional losses / retirements. Moderating figures like John McCain will have been discredited. Self-identified moderates and liberals will have abandoned the Republican Party in droves, many now both identifying and registered as Democrats. The only thing left in the Republican Party will be the true winguts, and they will lurch the party even further to the right.

* Aimless, confused center-right punditry. With neoliberalism destroyed by nationalization, socially conservatives whites clearly losing their power as the center of the swing voting universe, and with the Republican Party pushed out of Congressional control for a long time, the center-right pundits that dominate cable nets, Sunday talk shows, and many large newspapers will be downright confused and aimless. The changes in David Brooks over the last two weeks are a good example of this. Mind you, they won't embrace progressivism, as their formative experiences in the 70's and 80's will still be too powerful to them. Also, most of them will hold onto their jobs and prominence, even if we score a couple more Olberman's and Maddow's. But their world will have been shattered, and they just won't know where to go for a while.

* The Democratic Party will lack a clear center of power and become more factional: Obama edged out the Clinton power center, but he didn't destroy it. They will now operate side by side. Same with the reviving progressive advocacy infrastructure, which Obama relented on a few weeks ago. The House will be a mess, with Hoyer, Blue Dogs, Speaker Pelosi, Emanuel / New Dems, and the emerging Progressives all holding a share of power. The Senate will continue to be the Senate, with most major legislation passing with 75 votes, not 60. Grassroots progressive infrastructure will be at it's peak, but also might lose steam under Democratic trifecta rule. While the party could never possibly be as factional as it was during the New Deal coalition, it will be more factional than it is now.

* Demographics cement Democratic congressional majority for at least six, and possibly sixteen, years: Since voting habits set in after a person reaches 30, a new generation that grew up and began voting under Bush will be used to voting for Democrats after this election. The country will continue to become less white and less Christian at rapid rates, providing Democrats with a natural edge in elections. While the country has given Republicans and conservatives roughly a 51%-48% base advantage in elections from 1986 forward, that 3% base edge will now flip toward Democrats. It isn't a guarantee, but it is a nice head start. With majorities approaching 100 and 20 seats in the House and Senate respectively, it will be enough to hold onto Congressional power for at least six years, and possibly sixteen.

* The country will still be in a world of hurt. This is perhaps the most important marco trend of all, and could cancel out all of the other trends listed here. The country will still face disasters on multiple fronts (militarily, economically, diplomatically, environmentally, etc), and it won't be easy to fix. The degree to which the Democratic trifecta is able to make the lives of Americans better will be the largest factor in determining future Democratic electoral prospects. The specific policies and factions that succeed, or fail, in making American lives better will go a long way toward deciding the upcoming factional fight in the Democratic Party, as well as the destination of the aging center-right punditry.

If we pull off the rout, that is how I see the future. What do you see following a huge Democratic landslide?

Terrorist

In case you forgot what was going on:

Virtual Obama

Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com points out Obama's virtual advertisement in Burnout Paradise:

"Look closely. That's not a picture of an Obama billboard ad in front of a few cool cars. That's a screen capture from the Xbox 360 racing game Burnout Paradise. Advertisers can buy space on the billboards in the game. And the game publisher has confirmed to GigaOm.com that that's an official Obama ad, placed by the campaign."

Cool.  There are really no virtual worlds.

Jeez, the stupid!

Ok, for reasons I won't explain, I was over at Roger Kimball's website. He should learn from Tucker Carlson: bowties do not make you smart!

He says:

I think Ms. Rabinowitz is right. Whatever else it is, this election is a referendum on two very different visions of America. Obama’s vision is of country crippled by sin; McCain and Palin’s vision is of a country fired by high ideals and expansive opportunity.

“You’re beautiful, I love you, now change.” That is Team Obama’s message. “You’re beautiful, I love you as you are”: that is the message of McCain and Sarah Palin. It’s the difference between the utopian–who finds himself disgusted with every real-world polity, and who finds himself willing, indeed, eager, to sacrifice real people for the sake of the ideal ones he wishes to create–and the simple patriot who says Yes to the family, community, and country in which he finds himself.

Most Americans, I believe, love their country for what it is–not what it could become if suitably socialized, taxed, neutered, and otherwise recast. If McCain-Palin can effectively articulate that message, they will win."

Well, Roger. I hate to tell you, but one can love one's country and disagree with it and want to change it. Also, please consider the fact that the Republicans who have dominated presidential elections since 1968 and who've controlled congress and/or the White House from 1996 to 2006 might be somewhat responsible for the various political and economic crises our country faces, crises which just might (justifiably) be ruining the Republican brand name. Given that John McCain has bent over backwards to conform to the religious right to get this nomination and "fit the brand," and that he has always bent over for Wall Street, are we supposed to forget what he stands for and where he came from? If Americans are making some connections that are entirely logical maybe you could do the same.

McCain may win, but don't hold your breath.

Could I also just say that your commenters--the ones who agree with you--make you look really bad. Now, I know that Republicans never use guilt-by-association methods (cough, Ayers, cough) and that you would never stoop so low, but can I just quote a few (my emphasis):

...

he will absolutely win. the polls are always wrong, and exactly how many folks outside of the cities and college towns will vote obama?

mccain signs are 20-1 over obama signs in real America where i live

...

LOOK AT THE CROWDS PALIN IS DRAWING-LIKE USUAL,THE HATE AMERICA MEDIA(THESE POLLSTERS ARE PART OF IT,THEY NEED TO DO WHAT THE MEDIA WANTS TO GET ATTENTION) IS TRYING TO SHOW THE COMMIE PIG OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS. IM NOT MUCH OF A MCCAIN FAN,BUT AT LEAST IM PRAYING PALIN CAN SHOW HIM THE LIGHT.

...

I know Senator McCain will win. I just want the patriots out there to realize what will happen when he is elected. It’s going to be mayhem. Just like Kenya.

...

I do know that this is not the America in which I grew up, the America I learned about in school and the America my husband served with his heart and soul for 26 years. I want my country back. The socialists have taken over.

For those who contend the Republicans should have stopped the friends of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the Clinton administration - you need to go back and really learn what happened. Just because there is a majority of one party doesn’t always mean the majority wins. It also doesn’t mean that all Republicans are true conservatives.

The bottom line is that subprime loans are at the bottom of the economic crisis. Subprime loans were created by the Democrats as a socialistic effort to give to “the have nots” by taking from the “haves”. It “worked” for awhile and that’s what brought us to this point. However, we certainly can’t ignore AIG’s insurance of these pieces of crap bundled into bigger pieces of crap as to being a contributing factor.

Get it? You see, real Americans pray and never get subsidies, Republicans are never responsible for anything bad and even if they are then they are not "real" Republicans. Even if McCain wins, the socialist race war is here and we'll be just like those African countries because, well, America is no longer the good ol' country it used to be.

Oy.

Depressing

"Clark Hoyt on election coverage in the New York Times: Through Friday, of 270 news articles published in The Times about the election since the national tickets were formed in late August, only 29, or a little over 10 percent, were primarily about policy substance"

More about Krugman

What does the Krugman prize mean?

Probably not much, but along with the current crisis, the anointment of Krugman, the popularity of Obama, the growth of progressive groups, and the unpopularity of Republican and DLC "Let the market handle it" facile truisms could be a symbolic tipping point. I think we're seeing, finally, a moment of relative honesty about our "system."

Will historians look back at this and see it as a historic shift? Nothing is written in stone, but events are converging...

I'm keeping my eyes open and my fingers crossed. This could be the end of the free market myth birthed and promoted by von Hayek, Friedman et al.

Paul Krugman Wins "Nobel"

It warms my heart that one of the Bush administrations most unrelenting critics has won the "Nobel" Prize in Economoics. He has brought the only other intelligent voice to the Times' besides Bob Herbert.   Alternative history--to counter page 1's Miller's and Bumiller's--was being written as history happened.

Refreshing.

Of course, it's easy to kick the Republicans when they are down, but thanks anyway to the Swedish banking community.

You'll note that I didn't say the Nobel Foundation.  You see, the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is an invention of the extremely conservative Swedish banking community.  For years it was (and probably mostly still is) a mouthpiece of neoliberal policy à la Milton Friedman.  Ironically, Sweden suffered a horrible banking crash in the early 90's.  Ironic because Paul Krugman has been a great opponent of Greenspan's bubble and his allies in the White House, that is, Krugman opposed the Sweden-styled bubble that is now popping all over the U.S. and the world.

Having possibly learned their lesson, do the Swedes know something we don't?

Anomia

Anomia: a disentegration of social bonds.


From Wired:

People turn to terrorism for social solidarity. He theorizes that people join terrorist organizations worldwide in order to be part of a community, much like the reason inner-city youths join gangs in the United States.
The evidence supports this. Individual terrorists often have no prior involvement with a group's political agenda, and often join multiple terrorist groups with incompatible platforms. Individuals who join terrorist groups are frequently not oppressed in any way, and often can't describe the political goals of their organizations. People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.
For example, several of the 9/11 hijackers planned to fight in Chechnya, but they didn't have the right paperwork so they attacked America instead. The mujahedeen had no idea whom they would attack after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, so they sat around until they came up with a new enemy: America. Pakistani terrorists regularly defect to another terrorist group with a totally different political platform. Many new al-Qaida members say, unconvincingly, that they decided to become a jihadist after reading an extreme, anti-American blog, or after converting to Islam, sometimes just a few weeks before. These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more. The blogs they turn to don't have a lot of substance in these areas, even though more informative blogs do exist.
All of this explains the seven habits. It's not that they're ineffective; it's that they have a different goal. They might not be effective politically, but they are effective socially: They all help preserve the group's existence and cohesion.
This kind of analysis isn't just theoretical; it has practical implications for counterterrorism. Not only can we now better understand who is likely to become a terrorist, we can engage in strategies specifically designed to weaken the social bonds within terrorist organizations. Driving a wedge between group members -- commuting prison sentences in exchange for actionable intelligence, planting more double agents within terrorist groups -- will go a long way to weakening the social bonds within those groups.
We also need to pay more attention to the socially marginalized than to the politically downtrodden, like unassimilated communities in Western countries. We need to support vibrant, benign communities and organizations as alternative ways for potential terrorists to get the social cohesion they need. And finally, we need to minimize collateral damage in our counterterrorism operations, as well as clamping down on bigotry and hate crimes, which just creates more dislocation and social isolation, and the inevitable calls for revenge.

The Good Fight and the Pedagogical Moment

Donna Brazile, who appears on our talk shows all too often repeating Washington Conventional Wisdom--you know, the WCW that we should invade Iraq, the sage opion that the smart people of Wall Street know what they're doing and should be trusted, the wisdom that trickle down economics works, you know that conventional wisdom--well, the real Donna broke through today, and she got to the heart of the matter.  She said that she sensed something deeply troubling in the Republican ranks, something truly wicked, something beyond the pale, something truly, deeply, madly racist.

Indeed, we have:

Sit down, boy.

Then there are the enlightened souls screaming, at the planned mention of Barack Hussein Obama (emphasis on Hussein), "terrorist," "kill him," and "traitor."

Update, and thanks to youtube, you can see these Republican supporters talking about Obama's "bloodline," his "muslim background," and say that he's a "one-man terror cell": (h/t digby)



Nevermind that Sarah Palin's husband was/is a member of a separatist/secessionist group.  (Though we should remember that abortion clinic bombers and militia members and the various Timothy McVeigh's of the world are never anti-American, they're anti-government.  I repeat: these killers are never anti-American, they're anti-government.)

So we have people like Sarah, people like John conducting, orchestrating events attended entirely or almost entirely by white people and, let's be honest, encouraging their crowds to jeer at the mention of the name Hussein.  This is not about policy or politics.  It's not even about personality, though some in the punditry might use such terminology to gloss over the situation.  This is about hate, this is about wanting to kill, imprison or humiliate someone because they have a different name, a different color skin.  Go ahead, say it--growl it, scream it: "Hussein."  This name, apparently, is supposed to make you mad.

While it is perhaps true that John and Sarah may not hear the remarks from the podium, they have by now heard of them.  They know this is happening.  We thus have what might be called "a teachable moment."  One of these prospective "leaders" of the United States could and should plan on interrupting their speech when they or one of their entourages hears the epithet.  They should interrupt their speech and show themselves to be above this and to signal to these crowds that its wrong, just plain wrong, plain un-Christian to act in such ways.

This won't happen.  As Digby says:

"This is the kind of thing that really makes me fear for Obama. They are already screaming "terrorist" at Palin's rallies and shouting "kill him." The whole "Obama is a muslim" thing is bizarre, but with his name and childhood spent partly in a Muslim country --- and the fact that he's black, which makes everyone flash on Louis Farrakhan --- makes the right wing lizard brain twitch uncontrollably. They will use this, I have no doubt. There is an entire wingnut industry devoted to stirring up tensions in the middle east and another on devoted to character assassination of Democrats. Obama brings them together in serendipitous loathing and paranoia. It's going to be ugly."

Ugly.

Or, as Josh Marshall quips:

"Shorter McCain Campaign: He's definitely black; probably Muslim; and maybe a terrorist."

So, Donna, thanks for the reminder.   Now do this on teevee!

My Fellow Prisoners

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. We're prisoners of debt, militarism, crony capitalism and greed.

Of course, McCain is probably just suffering from dementia and/or fatigue, so this will slip conveniently beneath the radar. Just imagine if Barack Hussein Obama had said that! What if Petain had said it?

Venerate and Despise

A friend sent me this today, it's from the Guardian.

By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said.
  
 And so she preceded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity.
  
It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

De Tocqueville could not have said it better.

Trust Your Local Psychologist

My friends blog/My friend's Blog

"It’s McCain’s social skills that seems to belie his ability to effectively debate. He could almost pull it off, but as Chris Matthews was saying after the debate, Obama has this sincere smile that feels real and a natural ability to connect. McCain comes across as really creepy and insincere when he laughs/smiles. As a psychologist, I have to say that these social mistakes McCain keeps making get people at a real gut level. They don’t know what it is about McCain that’s rubbing them the wrong way, but people who are savvy socially know something just ain’t right - whether they can say what that thing is or not."

It's not hard to figure me out

If you see a dead bird, it means something innocent has died.  Something innocent died today.




Image: elratondecamp.com

Quote of the day

"It is another privilege of gentlemen that when they commit a crime, they are not punished as rigorously as the common people."

Loyseau: Traité des ordres et simples dignitez, 1610

Educating Millenials

Here's an interesting read from virtualwayfarer.com:

An educated populace is the cornerstone of a successful, affluent culture and a necessity if the United States wants to remain competitive. ...  Education, more than any other factor, is responsible for America’s success. It is for that reason that the current shift in enrollment and completion rates among males in higher education may be seen as a crisis. ...

While there are a lot of theories as to the cause, no one has been able to accurately explain why young male Millennials are abandoning the education system and especially, higher ed. The lion’s share of the discourse on the subject has focused on the increased presence of females in higher education, the shifting nature of male’s roles in society, and other similar concepts. While these may be factors, I believe they overlook the true cause and scope of the issue.

The Cause
The infusion of brilliant young female minds into higher education is a wonderful thing and there is without question some validity to the observations made that womens’ aptitudes are better suited to the standard classroom format. That said, I don’t believe the introduction of women to higher education is what’s causing men to drop out.  Rather, we are seeing a surge in the individual student’s ability to learn and comprehend in a more complex reality. The issue stems from the way members of the Millennial generation are developing and their use of complex, multi-tasking skill sets that have been honed in the daily practice of video gaming, internet access, chatting, and involvement in online social networks.  Simply put, tech savvy Millennials are not being engaged or challenged by the one-dimensional delivery systems in a majority of today’s classrooms. They are not interested in sitting passively and having information spoon fed to them. Much of this information is not interdisciplinary or connected to the real world. They can do better on their own in this new, comprehensive ‘digital classroom’. If we don’t reevaluate the way we educate Millennials, I expect female enrollment numbers to peak and begin to decline as they become more engaged in technology which follows the trend we are currently seeing among males.

Click here to keep reading...

Beloit's Mindset List

Every year for the past 11 years, Beloit college has released a list that, in words of its authors, "provides a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students entering college."

Here's the beginning of this years list:

1. Harry Potter could be a classmate, playing on their Quidditch team.
2. Since they were in diapers, karaoke machines have been annoying people at parties.
3. They have always been looking for Carmen Sandiego.
4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.
5. Coke and Pepsi have always used recycled plastic bottles.
6. Shampoo and conditioner have always been available in the same bottle.
7. Gas stations have never fixed flats, but most serve cappuccino.
8. Their parents may have dropped them in shock when they heard George Bush announce “tax revenue increases.”
9. Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option.
10. (Click here to see the rest of the list)

Of course I get the usual chuckle when I see this. It is funny to be reminded that events that are so clear in my memory that they could have happened yesterday were never part of the cultural landscape of our incoming students. It is fun to be reminded about life circa 1990 when I was already an adult.

Something has always bothered me about the list, though. For starters, the list is more about us teachers than the students since the cultural markers it references are mostly for adults (i.e., Martha Stewart). Secondly, the list is mostly about pop culture, which is fine and sometimes extremely important, but it limits the scope of what the authors mean when they say "Mindset List." Does knowing who Rosanne Barr is determine one's mindset? Somewhat perhaps, but to me it would be much more interesting to say that these children probably didn't benefit from welfare because Bill Clinton "ended Welfare as we know it." It would be more interesting and revealing to say that these children have only known Defense budgets that increased and education budgets that mostly decreased. It would be more telling to note that today's youth are more likely to have grown up poor than their parents. You get my drift, right?

Finally, look at the list. It is really from a White middle-class perspective. That does not come close to representing the ever more diverse U.S.

Yes, I know, my "list" would a bit heavy, but there could be some good things to it too: Today's students have always known an openly gay character on TV. Today's students are not scared by terms like "cold war" (just GWOT!).

My point is that if we're going to talk about mindsets, let's talk about the institutions and structures that have as deep or deeper connection to the existences of everyone rather than sticking to the cultural references like TV and shampoo. Let's also try to make our list a little more culturally informed with references to people other than, say, Martha Stewart.

Maybe I should make my own list. Hmmm.

Nah. I'll just be a curmudgeon.

Excuse me,

I've got an rss to feed.

How to Collaborate Without Even trying

Luckily I work in a place that is generally friendly and collaborative.  In fact, we collaborate in our teaching, our research and our committees more than most places I've had the opportunity to observe.  That said, we don't always succeed, that is, we fail miserably.  As the new school year approaches, this post from the folks at lifehacker, might serve as a reminder that a little civility can go a long way.

Memorize the names of those with whom you work. Sounds so simple but many of us don’t even know the people in our department or division. Learning their names makes them seem somehow, more human.
Learn from those around you. No one person has the monopoly on the truth so learn from those around you. Is there an application that someone could help you use more effectively? Is there a policy or protocol that you are rusty with but the next guy is an expert?
Be likable. No surprise here- nice people get results. This is not to have you be a pushover at work but an ounce of niceness goes a long way.
Walk the hall. This is not a diversion to help you avoid your own work but an easy way to get to know people is just to pop by and ask them how they’re doing. You’ll also learn something from them by seeing how they work. You might also find that you have something in common with them simply by seeing their workspace.
Compliment with tact. A quality compliment can earn mileage long after the comment is made. During a meeting, in casual conversation or in an email, a quick one liner can build up your collaborative bank account.
The best thing about all of these suggestions is that they’re all free. Being collaborative doesn’t have to be difficult but it does take intentionality. Don’t get me wrong- I’m still competitive but now I see it as one lens of many that can be used at an appropriate time. It’s not necessarily the default for everyday life at home and at work.

Again, these are frequently employed by the good folks at Whittier, so maybe this is just a note to myself...

A Fairly Significant List:

 Here's a nice list of all the films that cross-promoted through snack foods.  Remember, when kids are screaming at you to buy something, it's not their voice that speaking, it's the corporate mind-cloud.

H/t to AS.  Go read the full article here.

The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius•• (canned pastas and soups,snack chips)
American Idol•• (candy, cookies, toaster pastries)
The Ant Bully•• (QSR children’s meals, non-carbonated beverages)
Avatar•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks)
The Backyardigans•• (fruit snacks, fruit)
Barbie: Fairytopia•• (breakfast cereals, toaster pastries)
Batman•• (canned pastas and soups, fruit snacks)
Blue’s Clues•• (breakfast cereals, fruit snacks, fruit, yogurt)
Care Bears•• (fruit snacks)
Cars ••(QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks, snack bars, breakfast cereals, toaster pastries, frozen waffles, canned pasta, pudding, cookies, snack crackers, popcorn, yogurt, non-carbonated beverages)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory•• (candy)
Charlotte’s Web•• (QSR children’s meals)
The Cheetah Girls•• (macaroni and cheese)
Chicken Little ••(fruit snacks)
The Chronicles of Narnia•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, cereal bars, snack chips, fruit snacks, toaster pastries, packaged salads)
Clifford the Big Red Dog•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit juice, snack crackers, breakfast cereal)
Curious George•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack cakes, fruit juice, bananas)
Danny Phantom•• (canned pastas and soups, children’s frozen meals, frozen desserts)
Disney Princesses (breakfast cereals, fruit snacks, yogurt, frozen waffles, toaster pastries)
Doogal•• (QSR children’s meals)
Dora the Explorer•• (breakfast cereals, canned pastas and soups, snack crackers, fruit snacks, cookies, fruit, yogurt)
Dragon Booster•• (QSR children’s meals)
El Chavo animated series (cookies)
Elmo•• and other Sesame Street characters (fruits and vegetables)
The Fairly OddParents•• (snack chips, macaroni and cheese, fruit snacks, frozen desserts)
Finding Nemo•• (fruit snacks)
Flushed Away•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack bars, snack crackers)
Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends•• (QSR children’s meals)
Go, Diego, Go!•• (fruit snacks, yogurt)
Goosebumps•• (QSR children’s meals)
Happy Feet•• (QSR children’s meals, snack crackers, breakfast cereals, yogurt, fruit snacks, baked goods, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Hello Kitty•• (fruit snacks)
Holly Hobbie and Friends•• (QSR children’s meals)
I Spy•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit juice)
Ice Age 2 ••(QSR children’s meals, yogurt, fruit snacks, cereal bars, breakfast cereals, toaster pastries, frozen waffles, children’s frozen meals, canned pasta, pudding, cookies, snack crackers, popcorn, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
King Kong ••(fruit snacks, snack cakes, cookies, carbonated beverages)
Klutz•• (QSR children’s meals)
Lady and the Tramp•• (carbonated beverages, snack cakes)
Leroy & Stitch•• (fruits and vegetables)
The Lion King ••(fruit snacks)
Little Einsteins•• (breakfast cereals)
The Little Mermaid•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, candy)
The Littlest Pet Shop•• (QSR children’s meals)
Looney Tunes•• (QSR children’s meals, fruit snacks, fruits and vegetables)
Madagascar•• (fruit snacks)
Mickey Mouse Clubhouse•• (breakfast cereals)
Monster House•• (frozen pizza)
Monsters, Inc. ••(fruit snacks)
My Little Pony•• (fruit snacks)
¡Mucha Lucha!•• (fruit snacks, frozen desserts)
Nanny McPhee•• (food service pizza and burritos served in schools)
Nintendo characters such as Mario and Donkey Kong (QSR children’s meals)
One Tree Hill•• (carbonated beverages)
Open Season•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, children’s frozen meals, popcorn)
Over the Hedge•• (QSR children’s meals, yogurt, snack chips, snack cakes, popcorn, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Paz the Penguin•• (fruits and vegetables)
Peanuts•• (QSR children’s meals)
Pirates of the Caribbean•• (QSR children’s meals, candy, frozen waffles, fruit snacks, breakfast cereals, lunch kits, popcorn, non-carbonated beverages, fruits and vegetables)
Polar Express•• (popcorn)
Robots the Movie ••(fruit snacks)
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer•• (breakfast cereals, snack cakes)
Rugrats•• (fruit snacks)
Scooby-Doo•• (breakfast cereals, snack crackers, macaroni and cheese, fruit snacks, yogurt)
Shrek•• (breakfast cereals, macaroni and cheese, yogurt, fruit snacks, snack crackers, cookies)
Sony PlayStation characters Spyro the Dragon and Crash Bandicoot (popcorn)
Spider-Man ••(QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, cereal bars, cookies, pancakes, fruit snacks, snack crackers, snack chips, sliced cheese, macaroni and cheese, frozen desserts, non-carbonated beverages)
SpongeBob SquarePants•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, snack crackers, macaroni and cheese, lunch kits, fruit snacks, cookies, yogurt, fruits and vegetables)
Star Wars Episode III•• (fruit snacks)
Strawberry Shortcake•• (QSR children’s meals)
Stuart Little 3•• (QSR children’s meals)
Superman Returns•• (QSR children’s meals, breakfast cereals, milk, cereal bars, snack chips, snack crackers, fruit snacks, packaged pasta, carbonated and non-carbonated beverages)
Surf’s Up•• (popcorn snack)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles•• (fruit snacks, fruit juice)
Trollz•• (QSR children’s meals)
The Wiggles•• (fruit juice)
The Wild•• (QSR children’s meals)
Winnie the Pooh•• (fruit snacks)
Winx•• (fruit snacks, fruit juice)
Xiaolin Showdown•• (breakfast cereals)
Yu-Gi-Oh!•• (QSR children’s meals)
Zoom•• (QSR children’s meals) 

Why Ayn Rand Was/Is Wrong...

Dear 18-year-old nerds and Alan Greenspan:

Here's a little article on why excessive individualism (aka, a purely "ownership society") can lead to bad results.  I know it probably won't change your mind.  After all, you say, libertarianism (or conservatism) never fails, people only fail libertarianism.  Well, just think about it, ok?

The Permission Problem, by James Surowiecki: In the second decade of the twentieth century, it was almost impossible to build an airplane in the United States. That was the result of a chaotic legal battle among the dozens of companies—including one owned by Orville Wright—that held patents on the various components that made a plane go. No one could manufacture aircraft without fear of being hauled into court. The First World War got the industry started again, because Congress realized that something needed to be done to get planes in the air. It created a “patent pool,” putting all the aircraft patents under the control of a new association and letting manufacturers license them for a fee. Had Congress not stepped in, we might still be flying around in blimps.
The situation that grounded the U.S. aircraft industry is an example of what the Columbia law professor Michael Heller, in his new book, “The Gridlock Economy,” calls the “anticommons.” We hear a lot about the “tragedy of the commons”: if a valuable asset (a grazing field, say) is held in common, each individual will try to exploit as much of it as possible. Villagers will send all their cows out to graze at the same time, and soon the field will be useless. When there’s no ownership, the pursuit of individual self-interest can make everyone worse off. But Heller shows that having too much ownership creates its own problems. If too many people own individual parts of a valuable asset, it’s easy to end up with gridlock, since any one person can simply veto the use of the asset.
The commons leads to overuse and destruction; the anticommons leads to underuse and waste. ... Even divided land ownership can have unforeseen consequences. Wind power, for instance, could reliably supply up to twenty per cent of America’s energy needs—but only if new transmission lines were built, allowing the efficient movement of power... Don’t count on that happening anytime soon. Most of the land that the grid would pass through is owned by individuals, and nobody wants power lines running through his back yard.
The point isn’t that private property is a bad thing, or that the state should be able to run roughshod over the rights of individual owners. Property rights (including patents) are essential... But property rights need to be limited to be effective. The more we divide common resources like science and culture into small, fenced-off lots, Heller shows, the more difficult we make it for people to do business and to build something new. Innovation, investment, and growth end up being stifled. ...
In theory, one should be able to break a gridlock by striking a deal that would leave all sides better off. Sometimes that happens. ... [But...] One reason deals founder is that there are simply too many interested parties. If, in order to create a new drug, you have to strike bargains with thirty or forty other companies... often things go awry because owners won’t make a deal at a reasonable price...
Recent experimental work by the psychologist Sven Vanneste and the legal scholar Ben Depoorter helps explain why. When something you own is necessary to the success of a venture, even if its contribution is small, you’ll tend to ask for an amount close to the full value of the venture. And since everyone in your position also thinks he deserves a huge sum, the venture quickly becomes unviable. So the next time we start handing out new ownership rights—whether via patents or copyright or privatization schemes—we’d better try to weigh all the good things that won’t happen as a result. Otherwise, we won’t know what we’ve been missing. (h/t: Economist's View)

BLS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics, as Atrios points out (and as Kevin ... also discussed in Harper's), keeps an array of data of unemployment.  For some reason, which I'll say is probably political expediency,  the "U3," which is basically all those who are out of work AND seeking work, is our official rate.  But the U3 does not count people who have given up after months of trying and who still want to work.  The U6, " Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.." Has a different and more comprehensive look at unemployment.  Click on the graph to see full size.  You'll note that U3 is 5.7 and U6 is 10.3.

As Kevin Phillips points out, the "truth," or at least a better picture of the various truths that one can glean about an economy, could set us free for some real discussion:

"The corruption has tainted the very measures that most shape public perception of the economy—the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), which serves as the chief bellwether of inflation; the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which tracks the U.S. economy’s overall growth; and the monthly unemployment figure, which for the general public is perhaps the most vivid indicator of economic health or infirmity. Not only do governments, businesses, and individuals use these yardsticks in their decision-making but minor revisions in the data can mean major changes in household circumstances—inflation measurements help determine interest rates, federal interest payments on the national debt, and cost-of-living increases for wages, pensions, and Social Security benefits. And, of course, our statistics have political consequences too. An administration is helped when it can mouth banalities about price levels being “anchored” as food and energy costs begin to soar.

The truth, though it would not exactly set Americans free, would at least open a window to wider economic and political understanding. Readers should ask themselves how much angrier the electorate might be if the media, over the past five years, had been citing 8 percent unemployment (instead of 5 percent), 5 percent inflation (instead of 2 percent), and average annual growth in the 1 percent range (instead of the 3–4 percent range). We might ponder as well who profits from a low-growth U.S. economy hidden under statistical camouflage. Might it be Washington politicos and affluent elites, anxious to mislead voters, coddle the financial markets, and tamp down expensive cost-of-living increases for wages and pensions?" [Number's Racket, Harpers, May 2008]

The South

Hailing from the South, as I do, I'm always on the lookout for interesting interpretations of its development. My father, who became a sociologist and studied the effects of bringing electricity to the southern Appalachians, of noted the importance of having just a single electric light dangling from the ceiling--it changes everything. Children can study, farmers can work on record-keeping, all setting of a chain reaction of personal and public development. Mark Thoma points out this study today:

A novel contribution of this paper is that it appears to provide a real-world example of the 'Big Push' theory. Never heard of the 'Big Push' theory? Well, here is how the authors describe it:

According to the “big push” theory of economic development, publicly coordinated investment can break the underdevelopment trap by helping economies overcome deficiencies in private incentives that prevent firms from adopting modern production techniques and achieving scale economies. These scale economies, in turn, create demand spillovers, increase market size, and theoretically generate a self-sustaining growth path that allows the economy to move to a Pareto preferred Nash equilibrium where it is a mutual best response for economic actors to choose large-scale industrialization over agriculture and small-scale production. The big push literature, originated by Rosenstein-Rodan [1943, 1961], was initially motivated by the postwar reconstruction of Eastern Europe. The theory subsequently appeared to have had limited empirical application... [S]cholars have found few real-world examples of such an infusion of investment helping to “push” an economy to high-level industrialization equilibrium.

Until this paper, that is. The authors continue:

We argue here that the “Great Rebound” of the American South, which followed large public capital investments during the Great Depression and World War II, is one such application. Although 1930s New Deal programs are typically presented in the context of their attempt to bring relief and recovery to the U.S. economy through demand-stimulating public expenditures, the long-term economic effects of these and subsequent wartime expenditures were profound for the South. Specifically, and consistent with big push theoretical literature, the infusion of public capital—roads, schools, waterworks, power plants, dams, airfields, and hospitals, among other infrastructural improvements—fundamentally reshaped the Southern economy, expanded markets, generated significant external economies, increased rates of return to large scale manufacturing, and encouraged a subsequent investment stream. These improvements helped create the conditions that allowed the region to break free from its low-income, low-productivity trap and embark on its rapid postwar industrialization.

This paper deals with the break from the South's poverty trap. The sustained nature of the South's postwar economic recovery has been covered by other studies: Connolly (2004) looks to improved human capital formation, Cobb (1982) points to industrial policy, Beasley, Persson, and Sturm (2005) finger increased political competition, and Glaeser and Tobio (2008) discuss the merits of the climate or Sunbelt effect. (I will also note I have seen somewhere the advent of air conditioning did wonders for development in the South).

New Deal socialism spurred the development of the "New" South. My parents knew that because the saw it first hand, my father even wrote about it. I'm glad to see the dismal science is now joining in with a "Big Push" Theory. What's interesting to me, of course, is the degree to which the South has forgotten that the roots of its 20th-century growth were planted by FDR, instead opting to side with the neoliberal "conservative" faction. This is in no way surprising, since surplus labor in the South is still regarded as a story of race and not class, which has allowed for the divisive politics of the last 40 years. Division represents politics and economics in the South, where a vibrant middle-class has yet to arise, and where income disparity remains the greatest. I made up the following (hard to read) graph to show this. D.C., NY and CA all have great income disparity for their own reasons--NY and CA both have extremely large concentrations of wealth, for example. Of the next 10 states that follow them in income disparity, 8 are in the south: Lousiana, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Connecticut, New Mexico, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee. (I apologize for the chart being so hard to read. Click on it for the full size.)

While the "New South" is in some ways only following the line of increased division between the rich and poor, it tends to be leading the way. By the way, you can find the data for the chart here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/state/state4.html

"Free Markets"

Joseph Stiglitz sayz:

"Fannie’s and Freddie’s free lunch, by Joseph Stiglitz, Commentary, Financial Times: ...The US government is about to embark on ... a partnership, in which the private sector takes the profits and the public sector bears the risk. The proposed bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entails the socialisation of risk – with all the long-term adverse implications for moral hazard – from an administration supposedly committed to free-market principles.
Defenders of the bail-out argue that these institutions are too big to be allowed to fail. If that is the case, the government had a responsibility to regulate them so that they would not fail. No insurance company would provide fire insurance without demanding adequate sprinklers; none would leave it to “self-regulation”. But that is what we have done with the financial system."
 [h/t economists view]

I heard some "left wing" talk show host yesterday on AM 1150 who kept going on and on about free markets and how if we just let them do their job everything would be ok.  Well, no.  Free markets, as an idea, may be perfect, but the truth is that they are a utopian concept, a shadow on the wall.  Power (as seen above) will always intervene, and, indeed, power structures (lobbyists, politicians, Wall Street) were present in the first place as Fannie Mae was massaged into a corporate model (with benefits for shareholders).  Until we have an open discussion about who is wielding this influence and whether such influence is undue and subject to corruption and failure, then our conversations will also remain in a "utopian" netherworld that fails to account for what is really happening.

Capitalism, the marketplace are incredibly dynamic systems, but they can be a threat to democracy when they become a corporatocracy.  It's funny, someboday was telling me how much China was becoming like us; I looked around and thought: "No, we're becoming like them."

(Death) March of the Penguins

Why global warming might not be good if you're a penguin:

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- Hundreds of baby penguins swept from the icy shores of Antarctica and Patagonia are washing up dead on Rio de Janeiro's tropical beaches, rescuers and penguin experts said Friday.

More than 400 penguins, most of them young, have been found dead on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro state over the past two months, according to Eduardo Pimenta, superintendent for the state coastal protection and environment agency in the resort city of Cabo Frio.

While it is common here to find some penguins - both dead and alive - swept by strong ocean currents from the Strait of Magellan, Pimenta said there have been more this year than at any time in recent memory.

Zirin does it again.

Thank you David Zirin.  It's rare that I post links almost entirely, but you say it all:

Zirin:

Let's start with an email I received this morning from Kap Fulton:

"Who are Justin, Josh, Lance, Ryan, Dan, Grady, Chase, and Evan?

A. Roll call for a second grade class in at a suburban Ohio elementary school
B. The most popular boys names in Denver, CO
C. Characters from the new 90210
D. Bud Selig's attempt at diversity: one Canadian."
If you answered D, take a bow. Yes, Justin Morneau, (the Canadian), Josh Hamilton, Lance Berkman, Ryan Braun, Dan Uggla, Grady Sizemore, Chase Utley, and Evan Longoria were the contestants in this year's Home Run Derby on the eve of the 2008 All Star Game, and it was quite the Caucasian ovation (although, as I've learned since posting this column, Grady Sizemore's father is African American). Granted, the big time rainbow coalition of home run boppers like David Ortiz, Alex Rodriguez, and Ryan Howard declined to participate, but it was still bizarre and even a touch disturbing to see a home run derby that looked a lot like a contest out of 1946, before Jackie Robinson integrated the game. The vibe wasn't helped when one of the announcers celebrated Josh Hamilton's record setting derby barrage, by exclaiming, "This is a bad night to be an atheist!" (Please may God have better things to do than watch - and intervene in - the Home Run Derby.)
Yet an all-white derby complete with hallelujahs and hosannas might be appropriate for All-Star festivities drenched in nostalgia for its host site Yankee Stadium. The 85-year-old ballpark is of course known as "the house that Ruth built," a testimony to the dominance of Babe Ruth in the 1920s, when the game was segregated and Ruth never had to face great Negro League pitchers like Satchel Paige or Smokey Joe Williams. In the All-Star game itself, the only African American to suit up was Milton Bradley, a player excoriated four years back for saying, "White people never want to see race-with anything. But there's race involved in baseball. That's why there's less than 9 percent African-American representation in the game."
The numbers back up Bradley's frustration.  In the 2008 Racial and Gender Report Card, Richard Lapchick, Nikki Bowey and Ray Mathew wrote,
"The game has the lowest percentage (8.2) of African-Americans in the two decades that we have published the Report Card. That number is less than half what it was in 1997 on the 50th anniversary of [Jackie] Robinson's debut with the Dodgers, when African-Americans made up 17 percent of the players, and less than the percentage of blacks in the general population of the U.S. (12.3 percent)."
Ironically this is occurring while baseball has gone global, with 29% of all Major Leaguers born in Latin America, with impact players from Asia making their mark as well. The number of white players has remained remarkably constant with the numbers at 58-60%. (86% of college baseball players are white.)
The debate about why the number of African American players has plummeted has been explored aplenty. The predominant argument is that baseball has an "image problem" in black America. It has no cultural cache and therefore young athletic black men gravitate toward basketball and football. I think this gets the argument completely backward, (although it can't help baseball's image in the black community that Barry Bonds can't find a team while all manner of proven juicers grace major league rosters). To make this an argument about whether or not baseball is "cool" is like saying there aren't any prominent African American harpsichord players because the harpsichord just isn't funky fresh. While it's true that if you poll an inner city classroom, and ask how many young people want to be baseball players you may get the same number that want to play the harpsichord. But is this a question of what is "cool" or is this about actual access, choices, and opportunity? Baseball requires equipment, investment, and infrastructure. But baseball owners have chosen to make this investment beyond the border where players can be developed signed and discarded on the cheap. This game of baseball that was so closely associated with the black freedom struggle in the days of Jackie Robinson has been removed physically from our cities, and is now as culturally alien in many areas as the steeplechase. I recently spoke with sports sociologist Dr. Harry Edwards and he put it very sharply.
"Forty percent of baseball is foreign born, they've gone global, globalization in sports follows globalization in corporations with the same outcome. There are off-shoring the jobs... Blacks are going to be displaced. The reality is that because of deterioration of education in the community, because of the violence in the community, we're disqualifying, jailing and burying our potential boxers, wide receivers, and baseball players. When you see that happening, then you understand that the Black athlete is really just a canary in the mineshaft because what they're really telling us is something happening in the African-American community. They're merely a canary in the mine shaft saying we have serious problems of survival."
If baseball is sincere about seeing the game return to the cities and if they don't want home run derbies whiter than the Republican National Convention, they are going to need to do more than offer meager urban academy programs. Major League Baseball might have to use its political clout to make sure our cities aren't hollowed out husks. They might have to forgo public stadium funding for a different set of priorities that pours money in instead of vacuuming it out.

Be sure to go to his page for some interesting comments.

Learning Styles--Not!

Sorry for Borat-style "not!", but I just attended a conference where the term "learning styles" was used over and over. I don't pretend to know a lot about the subject, but I have to say that, at best, it is a very grey area.

Stahl (1999) notes in particular 1) the flawed assessment tools used in determining learning styles and 2) how learning styles "theory" has little practical to offer in the classroom:

"I have interviewed a number of teachers who have attended meetings of 200-300 teachers and principles, who paid $129 or so to attend a one-day workshop or up to $500 to attend a longer conference. They have found them to be pleasant experiences, with professional presenters. The teachers also feel that they learned something from the workshops. After I presed them, what it seemed that they learned is a wide variety of reading methods, a respect for individual differences among children, and a sense of possibilities of how to teach reading. This is no small thing. However, the same information, and much more, can be gotten from a graduate class in the teaching of reading.
These teachers have another thing in common--after one year, they had all stopped trying to match children by learning styles." [Different Strokes for Different Folks?]

Of course, I'm only citing one article, but that is one more article than the conference organizer's used to convince me of learning style theory.  There is nothing ground-breaking in the idea that EVERYONE learns best when confronted with a multiplicity of activities.  And there may be evidence that learning occurs most precisely when students find themselves obliged to work with methods that take them away from their metacognitive "comfort zone" because this forces them to contrast and compare.

There is a lot to say, of course, and this blog post is certainly not a review of all the literature, but, please, oh please, don't bombard me with learning style theory without discussing the negative literature on it or the negative side effects of perhaps wasting class time determining "how students learn."

It rained last night

It rained last night and was such a relief. It washed away the long, stressful week and was a particular treat since we had worked all day on our backyard project and because we usually don't get a drop of rain until November or December.

non-French French

At a conference

I'm currently at a conference on language learning with a team from Whittier College. There is interesting discussion of integrative learning, metacognition, technology, etc. There is a lot of overlap with NITLE types of issues. I'm quite intrigued by inserting more critical thinking, literature and culture into the 1st-year language experience.

Some of the influences on this are the writing of Barbara Ganley: "For the past 25 years I have tried to get my students out into the world...to have those slow conversations that billow out around the central learning purpose, deepening, and adding complexity and richness to the learning--making it real. I want them to feel what Ted Nelson says: 'Human ideas, science, scholarship, and language are constantly collapsing and unfolding. Any field...is a bundle of relationships subject to all kinds of twists, inversions, involutions and rearrangement.'... But it has not been easy. Our educational systems conspire against a messy, organic approach to learning."

Celebrate the ideas

As I read the news today about an embedded reporter who was barred from further reporting because he dared take pictures of what a suicide bombing actually does to people, I'm reminded that this is not the season to celebrate our country, but rather a time to celebrate the ideas on which it was founded. Jefferson was ok. I don't like Washington. Madison, definitely. Most importantly:

Arctic Ice Cap Gets Capped.

This is good news:

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field. "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

I'll be conferencing and blogging the next few days if the wifi gods are with me, but I'd rather be swimming. At the North Pole, of course.

Words to live by

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do," [Kit] Bond said." (via GG)

Forget FISA, let's look at pictures.

Ok, I'm still fuming about the house vote today. I am also upset that Obama is playing right in the dirty, unconstitutional hands of the current administration and the telecoms.

So let's change the subject.

Did I tell you I took pictures in morocco?

Click on the picture to see the show

I just made my contribution

Steny Hoyer must go. I just made a 50$ contribution to the act blue page. The link to contribute is at the very in of Glenn Greenwald's post, which I quote here:

Our first ad, featuring Steny Hoyer, is almost finished and will run as a full-page ad in The Washington Post and in numerous newspapers in his district, aimed at his core Democratic base. We are excited that Color of Change -- the online, grass-roots African-American organization devoted to demanding more responsiveness from Washington officials -- has now joined our coalition and is directly working with us on this ad campaign against Hoyer. And we hope to expand our work with them to include the other campaigns we are doing, including -- just for now -- the ones against Rep. Chris Carney and Rep. John Barrow.

The total amount we have for this campaign is now almost $250,000. The response has been overwhelming. I know that many of you have donated as much or even more than you could, but the more we raise, the more of an impact we can make against the individuals responsible for this travesty. Making them know there is a real price to pay when they do this -- not by getting deluged with angry phone calls or merely having primary challenges, but doing everything possible to expose their real character, remove them office and put a permanent end to their political careers -- is the only real way to deter its repetition. Contributions can be made here.

Thanks, Linda.

Here's what I wrote to my congresswoman a few minutes ago:

Dear Congresswoman Sanchez,

I was writing to follow up on today's vote on the FISA bill. While the bill still passed, your 'nay' vote is greatly appreciated. I hope that when it comes time to elect a majority leader, Steny Hoyer will not be at the top of your list!

As always, thanks for your service to Whittier and congratulations on being patriotic and voting against laws that undermine the constitution.

I will be contributing to your election campaign.