Democracy Run Amok

While the Middle East continues to struggle to topple dictatorships and establish the roots of democracy (TNR Article), at home we continue to push further and further away from it. Since the 70s, there has been ample evidence that Republicans are not that fond of democracy -- from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Florida 2000 debacle to the diverse efforts by the Bush Administration to establish a Presidency above national and international accountability or law. Citizens v. United States of America (an ironic title if there ever has been one) further undermined democracy and the voice of the people, by allowing the much more heavily subsidized voices of corporation to have an even larger (unlimited) role in elections. Now we learn that the Republicans who spent an unprecedented amount of money to take back the House are not only working to overturn Obama's healthcare reform (which is still unpopular), but also the watered down Wall Street reforms that he passed with popular support: Politico. However, since Wall Street Reform remains popular with a public still suffering under its excesses borne of the deregulation of the past 30 plus years, Republicans decided their efforts to reform the Dodd-Frank should be a little less publicized -- or, wait, not publicized at all. The GOP, claiming that new regulations on derivatives, credit rating agencies and private equity firms are undermining economic growth by "raising the cost of doing business in America but also send jobs overseas." Besides the fact that these are relatively absurd claims, is the fact that those reforms, as meager as they are, are a direct response to the root of the financial crisis that emanated from derivatives gone wild, credit agencies that profoundly overrated what were essentially worse than junk bonds and private equity firms that callously continued to sell CDOs, while openly acknowledging they were garbage. Again, the voices of the people are silenced and corporate interests brought to the fore of policy. And yet again we see a Washington DC that seems completely oblivious to the sources of our continuing financial crisis and ways to solve them.

Bipartisanism in the Shadows?

The Washington Post reported a couple of weeks ago about a bipartisan group of Senators working behind the scenes to tackle the disaster that potentially looms from our skyrocketing debt: Link. Their discussions include addressing entitlement costs, increasing the retirement age to 69 and simplifying the tax code to increase revenue from corporate taxes. What is not included is any increase in taxes for the wealthiest Americans. One of the members of the unofficial group, Senator Chambliss, actually went as far as arguing, ""None of us have ever voted for a tax increase, and I don't intend to. But the tax system is 'way out of kilter,' producing $1.1 trillion in revenue in 2009 while giving away $1.6 trillion in deductions and other breaks. We can do it in a fair and reasonable way and . . . actually lower rates and at the same time raise revenues." Sounds like the old Laffer Curve come back to haunt us -- even after being proven wrong for years. The tone deafness across DC to the reality of our current situation and potential ways to solve it is astounding. While billionaires like Gates and Soros are slowly giving away their fortunes to try to improve the world, others work arduously to ensure that they don't pay any more in taxes. We are working toward establishing a plutocracy in this country, with the help of politicians, pundits, Supreme Court justices, technocrats, lobbyists, pseudo-intellectuals and others supporting a system that will hurt them in the end. As Verbal espoused in the 1995 film The Usual Suspects, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." And the devil is in the details of our collective collapsing future ...

Subwayization?

Many scholars have been talking for years about the McDonaldization of the world, with U.S. "fast food"/consumer culture spreading across the globe undermining local cultural traditions, national pasttimes and, even, more healthy dietary practices. While I've always found the discourse on American cultural imperialism a little deterministic and reductionist in ignoring the agency of non-Americans to American culture and the reality that the power of capitalism and consumer culture is its ability to channel desire and offer ephemeral cathexis of the very wants, needs and desires it pawns as natural.

Well among those who still adhere to the "McDonalization" discourse, it might be time to update your moniker. Apparently, Subway has overtaken McDonald's as the biggest chain restaurant in the world (Link). McDonald's still remains the most profitable chain with $24 billion in sales to Subway's $15.2 billion. But Subway, which first made its international foray in Bahrain in 1984, has a total of 33,749 restaurants to McDonald's 32,747. Subway plans to continue growing internationally and to have more foreign than domestic restaurants by 2020 (Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts are also expanding internationally, particularly in China where the former will triple their chains and the later plans to open thousands of new outlets in the coming years). A McDonald's spokeswoman was not terribly disturbed by the news: "We remain focused on listening to and serving our customers, and are committed to being better, not just bigger." And thus the marketing magicians who gave us Supersizing, among a number of other practices that have made buying anything at a restaurant or theatre feel like culinary harrassment, have decided that size doesn't matter, except in your French Fries, of course.  

And the Great World Spins

The world stands in chaos today, from protestors across the Middle East, to renewed violence in Israel/Palestine (where a husband, wife and infant were stabbed to death in their beds) to rebels under attack by government forces in Yemen and Libya to continued protesters in Wisconsin and the devastating effects of the earthquake in Japan. Reading through the L.A. Times, it becomes clear that the battle between humans and nature is far from over and that people fighting for a better world will always confront strong challenges from entrenched power. Even in victory, Egypt and Tunisia stand in chaos, with increased crime, violence and unstable governments that are having trouble establishing order in the wake of revolution. Here in the U.S., floods in Ohio, protesters in Madison and battles across the country against a radical conservative agenda that seeks to undermine the power of the government and further solidify the corporate takeover of the state continue. One interesting article detailed the power of radio personalities Kobylt and Chiampou and blogger Jon Fleischman in working to enact their anti-tax agenda, even as the state stands on the brink of financial disaster.

What is at stake across the globe today? The future of democracy is clearly at the forefront as well as the future of humanity, as we continue to experience the effects of our mistreatment of the planet. And on the other side of confronting these issues stand fundamentalism and its inability or unwillingness to adopt to a changing world. While dictatorships in other parts of the world are certainly more forceful in their attempts to maintain and even expand their rule over the people, here it is ideological, anti-democratic reforms that stand at the forefront of the fight for our collective future. It is the fundamentalist belief of the increasingly powerful radical right wing that seem increasingly able to influence lawmakers and enact policies that stand in stark contradiction to addressing fundamental problems today. Even as unemployment remains far above recent levels, as poverty increases, as we continue to pollute the world and as money stands in as the greatest arbiter of decision-making at the local, state and national level, the call is simply to continue shrinking government and cutting taxes.

In California, the radical agenda seems ready to seriously undermine the education of children in our public schools, cut services that many need simply to survive, lower the status and quality of education in our world-class public university system and actually shrink the economy rather than admit that the quality of life of millions of people is more important than a deficit that largely resulted from their blockage of almost any attempt to raise taxes. Fundamentalism in all forms is dangerous, as it fails to react to a changing world. The Enlightenment attempted to confront and overcome this adherence to orthodoxy and mythology, by making science and reason the build blocks for a better world. As Adorno and Horkheimer argued in the 20th century, this faith in science and instrumental reason were themselves dialectic, failing to acknowledge the human element in decision-making and true democracy. This led to a profound critique of the new world order and its positivist predilections. Now we need to critique the most dangerous fundamentalism today. No, I'm not thinking of Islam. It is neoliberalism and its blind faith in the market and absolute skepticism toward the role of government in working to mitigate and solve social and economic problems. Rather than admitting that tax raises on the richest Americans could solve much of the budget mess we are currently suffering through, the only answer is cuts and those cuts must be in education, in undermining unions and in shrinking the size of government for the long run. And even though there is a strong case for green policies that could actually increase the revenue the federal or state governments receive (according to, among others, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz), we continue to essentially sell the futures of our children and grandchildren down the river rather than make sacrifices for the common good. Unless we do, I believe the U.S. and globe stand in peril of destruction at the hands of those who cannot adopt to changing reality and instead rely on the unquestionable validity of received wisdom unsubstantiated by empirical reality, or even logical coherence.

Photoshop as You Shoot

Have you ever felt that photographs don't really capture the real you? Do you turn away whenever someone places you in the aim of their image creating machines? Are you about as photogenic as Richard Nixon? Well, Panasonic has a solution just for you: Reuters -- a new camera that has a "beauty re-touch" function. The camera can whiten your teeth, increase the translucency of your skin, remove dark eye circles, make your face look smaller or even magnify the size of your eyes. While models and the less physically-adept rejoice, those mired in the world of online dating are given further pause in their pursuit of love -- or an easy one-night stand. The current epoch many have labeled "post-modern" has certainly benefited from new technology and media; and now it appears that new technology and media are instantiating in the real the abstract claims of the theorists that defined the movement.

It's the Unions, Silly!

Magnanimous Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has threatened to fire 1,500 public sector workers if the 14 Democratic State Senators who escaped the state don't return for a vote enacting his new bill to take away collective bargaining rights from state workers. Following through on a strategy he suggested during a crank call with an activist posing as conservative billionaire David Koch, he will use these workers as leverage to pass a bill that it appears most in the state and country don't want. A recent poll from Rasmussen, in fact, finds that 57% of Wisconsin residents are opposed to the new Governor's agenda and 48% strongly disapprove. In a recent national poll, 52% of respondents said they support unions and another showed that many would rather that taxes on the rich are passed than that social services are cut. These are interesting findings, given that Republicans swept into power in the House based on what appeared to be the opposite perspective.

In a broader sense, one wonders if the 30-year battle to change common sense about unions is about to change. Unions had outlived their purpose, they were inefficient and corrupt and they were holding back the economy. That was the conventional wisdom shilled by conservatives from Ronald Reagan forward. And many came to embrace this idea as if it was an irrefutable fact. Many people I talked to hated unions and many workers were actually against the organization that provided us with the minimum wage, 40-hour work week, paid vacations, company-sponsored healthcare, pensions and the like. The truth is actually the opposite. Unionization percentages (or labor power in places like France) is the best predictor of income inequality in a country. The higher the percentage of the workforce that is unionized, the less inequality experienced in the country. As the U.S. moved from Fordism to Post-Fordism and a service economy, union percentages decreased dramatically and income inequality increased precipitously. If workers don't have collective bargaining rights, employers will use the opportunity to cut wages and benefits.

When the economy is bad, this situation grows even worse. And that is what the new governor was counting on. But people in Wisconsin and across the country have been protesting against these changes with a populist vehemence that pulled Obama to a landslide victory in 2008. Now one wonders if the tide will turn and politicians will start listening to the people and reaffirm the rights of employees to a livable wage and reasonable working conditions. Business is doing everything in their power to ensure that this doesn't happen. I guess we shall see if the will of the people can trump money this time; as it appears to be across the Middle East ...

Arsenal Blues

I am that odd sort of American who actually thinks about football as soccer, and the U.S. version as American football. Having long been a Jets fan, disappointment has been a central feature of my longer relationship with the American version of the sport. And while the Yankees certainly give me moments of glory, the Knicks have also been the heartbreak kids on numerous occasions. Yet my true love for the past several years has really been Arsenal, a perennial disappointment for the six long years since their last trophy. There have lost finals, missed opportunities and suffered through a complete collapse at the end of last season that cost us a chance at the second most important trophy -- a league title. I thought that would all end today, as they came in big favorites to finally win some medal in the final of the Carling Cup against Birmingham. And yet we once again found a way to lose, this time with a heartbreaking mistake by our young Polish goalie Szczesny at the stroke of full time. I'm not sure anyone who reads this blog cares about the beautiful game, but one of the things that makes it beautiful is the potential for an upset on the grandest of stages. That is exactly what happened, as Arsenal seemed severely limited without stars Fabergas and Wolcott. Bendtner. Nasri and the upstart Wilshire certainly provided some opportunities, but the Fagergas sub Rosicky continued to fail in finishing some good opportunities. The thrill of a victory against the best team in the world Barcelona less than two weeks ago is now overshadowed by the agony of a defeat that again showed a team not living up to the moment, or it's potential. In the mid-2000s I became a huge fan as they won several trophies with a spectacular team led by the inimitable Frenchman Thierry Henry. Now they seem poised to follow in the footsteps of the Jets, and find ways to lose games and tournaments they should or could win. I suppose I can only hope for a miracle in the return leg to the city that brought me to the game in the first place (Barcelona) ... or take respite in the fact that, as a New Yorker, I might just revel a bit in the minor and major tragedies I have come to expect.

The "New Classic" Man

The rube in the big city has long been a Hollywood staple , from Mr. Smith Goes to Town to Mr. Deeds to The Hudsucker Proxy. The protagonist in these films generally becomes a hero as he unearths the decadence, elitism and corruption of the urban denizens that serve as his straw men and shows that honor, honesty and, of course, innocence are central features of the American male. With the birth of the 80s and the new American character, these characters fell into the background, replaced by the savvy, greedy but ultimately redeemed protagonists who broke through the morally corrupt world and found success and happiness in the process. With Cedar Rapids, we return to this well-worn theme, though this time the "big" city is Cedar Falls and the hero is an insurance salesman who has never flown, never stayed in a hotel and who dates his old high school teacher.

Time Lippe (played by Ed Helms of The Office and Hangover fame) is an honest man thrust into the rather dimmed spotlight of an insurance conference, after being forced to replace the company's darling salesman turned deviant, who dies with a belt around his throat and his pants at his ankles. He packs up his suitcase and heads to Cedar Falls where a hooker Bree (Ally Shawkar), a promiscuous wife and mother Joan (Anne Heche), a Black nerdy insurance man named Ronald Wilkes (Isiah Whilock, Jr.) and an obnoxious lout (Dean Ziegler played by John C. Reilly -- who seems to have taken a break from quality acting), all show him the way out of his staid existence. He first wins a riveting Scavenger Hunt with Joan, parties with the gang, sleeps with Joan, parties with Bree, pays for the prestigious two diamond award upon which his company and his job depend and then comes clean and undercuts the selling of his company. Redeemed, though alone, in the end, we are led to believe that he has grown as a result of his foray into the medium-sized, Midwest city and is now a better, more mature man who has succeeded in business and life.

The film works on a few levels, but is less funny than it is soft-spoken in its approach and many of the jokes revolve around our credulity toward the innocence and stupidity of the characters, including nods to the old staples of homophobia (in a shower scene with the pious (though we later learn corrupt) president of the insurer's association) and a good ole salacious drug party scene that culminates in a fight before the star-crossed lovers Tim and Bree decide against consummating their new love as she offers up her bum for his sexual pleasure. The film, like most of what Hollywood does today, is derivative, but that is not necessarily a reason not to see it -- as the bankruptcy of ideas certainly did little to undermine the incredibly entertaining and uproarious Hangover. Instead my real critique of the film, which is still entertaining in its modest goals, is its celebration of innocence and simplicity as goals to which men should aspire. While the art house and alternative films tend to revel in our collective hypocrisy, disillusionment and even, sometimes brilliance, mainstream Hollywood films tend to celebrate the opposite. From Adam Sandler films to frat boy flicks to action movies and the cop/robber caper, stupidity is put forth as a funny, and really admirable, American male trait.

Rocky is a hero not only for beating the Black man (Apollo, in case the message is lost) who was "stealing" jobs from the working class White American male in the 70s, but embodied our love affair with the lovable dolt, the hapless loser, the incurious beast who could become rich through no fault of his own or even, under the right circumstances, President. The days of the mook might be on the decline, but we still have plenty of Homer Simpsons, Tom Greens, Jackasses, Sandlers and Coaches to keep us laughing, and teach our teenagers what cool is all about. This is backed by advertisers who love to celebrate this credulous dupe, often informed now by preteen children who send him on the path toward enlightenment; which itself seems odd given that they have none of the "experience" that we hold so dear. We can think of the daughter in Definitely Maybe, the sister in (500) Days of Summer or the teenager in the recent remake of True Grit. All seem to have wisdom well beyond their years, while the adults that surround them act like the youth of yore, still innocent, easily manipulated, unempathetic, immature and unable to really navigate the world around them without the women and children they rely on to survive. The irony here is that we celebrate the innocence of youth across the consumer culture at the same time we tell those same kids to hurry and grow up before those stupid adults they shouldn't respect destroy the universe. One hopes that at least they learn this valuable lesson and ignore the call toward stupidity and indifference that seem to reign supreme today.

The More Things Change ...

In a post-Tuscon world ... little appears to have changed. In a Town Hall meeting in Georgia a few days ago, a participant stood up and asked "Who is going to shoot President Obama?" (Salon Article) The crowd responded with laughter and then Tea Party representative Paul Braun, one of the most conservative members of the house, said the following: "The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare." So while not outright inciting violence, he did little to temper the storm. And this isn't the first time Braun has been involved in controversy. In November 2008 he warned that Obama might try to install a Nazi or Marxist dictatorship in the country. This comes on the heals of the Texas decision to insist that colleges and universities allow students and professors to carry concealed handguns, a wonderful choice unless we consider that a low grade, an off-color comment or simply a student who is hungover and was just broken up with the night before might decide to take out his or her ire on the professor or fellow students. And their was the Wisconsin ADA who advocated using live ammunition against the protesters trying to protect the rights of public workers in the state, and decided that instead of an apology he would hold steadfast to his belief they are unAmerican troublemakers that deserve injury death for having the gaul to challenge the fiat of the Koch brothers governor elect (who, by the way, didn't even graduate from college).

The country has moved from a fringe of radicals to radicality in the mainstream and it bodes poorly for the future of the country and our democracy. Even after bellicose rhetoric led to tragedy, their is little attempt to temper the incendiary nature of discourse in American politics today. Rather than reasoned, informed debates about the key issues of our times, we simply demonize the enemy and call for violent contestation. Instead of debating the relative strengths and weaknesses of a particular perspective or bill, there is an absolutism that leaves no room for compromise. In the place of objective research and fact checking, we have a media that invokes a he said/she said style of reporting that refuses not only to take a position, but to challenge outright lies. And instead of tolerance and ecumenity, we have a model of mutual hatred that cuts off the ability to debate. Why is it that those who claim to represent and love the country the most seem intent on destroying it?

Man vs. Machine

Two events yesterday brought into acute focus the man/machine debate; at least for me. The first, reported widely, was the victory by IBM supercomputer Watson over the two greatest Jeopardy champions of all times, Ken Jennings (who won 74 straight times) and Brad Rutter (who won over $3 million in prize money): Montreal Gazette. The computer was created over a six-year period for the sole purpose of answering questions (or really answers) in the particular format that jeopardy uses. And it worked -- as it essentially slaughtered the two geniuses of trivia by a whopping $77,147 to $24,000 and $21,600 respectively. Jennings added a footnote to his Final Jeopardy response in day two -- "I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords." Maybe he's not far off, as we continue to make computers with artificial intelligence that seems to either match or exceed that of humans. Why IBM would spend the money and time to create a machine focused solely on winning a trivia contest is itself a worthy question – but it just seems to be the next step in the robots that will someday probably take over our lives.

The other event was the long anticipated first leg of the Champions League tie between Arsenal and Barcelona. Pitting two of the best football teams in the world against one another, the game lived up to its billing, with Arsenal coming back from a goal down to win 2-1 in stunning fashion; beating what is clearly the best team in the world, if not of all times. How does this relate to the battle between man and machine? I believe football (aka soccer) shows the limits of the machine. On the pitch, it is the creativity and split second decision-making of the players that moves the game from the mundane to the sublime. And it is hard to see a computer ever giving us that sort of visceral experience. In fact, I have never had a transcendental experience related to technology, except maybe a film (which of course always includes human actors, human directors, human editors, human producers, etc.). The machine may be able to process information more rapidly, act more rationally, solve more complex problems and make our lives easier, but it is our interaction with other humans and our creative spirit that makes life worth living. And so the neo-Luddite in me was left a little confused by the fact I watched such sublime human accomplishment through the very technology I am now maligning.

When a Lie is Not a Lie

Anderson Cooper has been getting lambasted by the media for days now, for the unforgivable sin of, gasp, calling a lie a lie. The lies, told by ousted President Mubarak, apparently should have been reported without the modifier of their truthfulness, at least according to the new standards of journalism -- where reporting what people say is their only job. Howard Kurtz of CNN, James Rainey of the LA Times and Chris Dickey all believe that the call to objectivity disallows the ability of a respected journalist to actually differentiate between fact and fiction. It is this sort of absurd call to "objectivity" that is at the heart of the problem with journalism today. Where once journalist sought to follow in the hallowed footsteps of Edward R. Murrow or Woodward and Bernstein, unearthing the truth from behind the shrouds of power, now the media tends to serve those very interests while holding steadfast to some absurd call to a higher duty. Luckily we still have journalists on the margins like Olbermann, Stewart and Moyers, willing to call a lie a lie -- but until the mainstream media begins to restore their integrity by actually serving as the fourth estate, the line between truth and fiction will continue to blur. Global Warming? Well, some guy in a coffee shop in Iowa said it's a lie and I guess it's the responsibility of venerated newsmen to report that as if it were an incontrovertible truth. Where have you gone Cassandra of Troy?

Social Network (2010)

I finally got around to seeing The Social Network last night and have to say that while it was a good movie, it wasn't anything earth shattering to me. The film was not particularly compelling from a visual perspective, the narrative structure was average and the acting was good but not great. In fact, it appears that the endless hype surrounding the picture had more to do with its covering of the topic on everyone's mind than the film itself. Certainly Facebook has become an almost nonpareil social phenomenon, starting in a dorm room at Harvard and expanding to being the most popular website on the planet. Some people spend hours on the site a day and now have a tacit control over their networks that once seemed impossible. The site is wonderful for communicating the mundane details of our lives to others, for reading the mundane details of others lives, for organizing parties, political action and online campaigns, for launching businesses (as a few of my friends have), for catching cheating partners and, really, for wasting time alone as if we were wasting it with others. It is clearly addictive, though I have found that addiction has waned to the point where I can go days without even surfing through the news of my "friends" lives. In any case, getting back to the movie, I wonder what the point of the film was. Are we to take away the point that Zuckerman just isn't that nice a guy? That he is our Revenge of the Nerds doppelganger for the new millenium? That he is redeemed in the end, because we all love facebook and he is the youngest billionaire in history? Or is this a tragic tale of a deeply-scarred asshole who is still in love with the girl who ditched him in college? There is, of course, a lot more going on in the film, and it certainly touches on the uber-competitive, backstabbing, success-at-any-cost world in which we live today -- and I imagine that was one of the themes the adept screenwriter Sorkin was attempting to elicit. And a further theme could be the ways that even technology meant to bring us together tends to alienate us from others and to treat them in instrumental (really inhumane ways). Yet one wonders how the film was received by viewers enamored with Facebook? Is Zuckerberg the anti-hero turned hero we learn to adore? Is he a cautionary tale on how success and money can't really erase the scars of social-exclusion? Or is he just a brilliant genius who should be forgiven for his shortcomings -- including screwing friends and enemies alike? In the end, I believe the film highlights the changing nature of social interaction in America today and the ways we have learned to embrace the new world order without really recognizing either its costs or ramifications for our collective future. But it was fun to watch ...

On Language: Conservative Framing

In this blog, I often talk about conservative framing. One of their brilliant strategies was to relabel what had become expected government services as "entitlements" (see David Brook's op ed today). Should we really think of social security, a system we all pay in to, as an "entitlement?" Given the fact that the economy has been kept afloat primarily by deficit spending at the individual and governmental level, and thus "negative savings," for years -- isn't social security our only bastion from returning to the pre-Great Depression situation of most elderly people being poor? Regarding, Medicare and Medicaid, most countries in the developed world have much larger socialized medicine programs -- should we just ignore the elderly and poor, and allow them to drop dead in the streets, just upping the number of street cleaners we hire?  And unless I'm stuck in a dream, didn't we just pass a watered down healthcare bill that attempts to deal with the skyrocketing costs to famililes and businesses (and the even larger strain to come)? It is clear that the current level of deficit spending is unsustainable, but why does the discussion never go to the obvious -- raising taxes for those at the top who have benefited the most from the new world order? Given the success of Republicans in making "taxes" as bad a word as "liberal," I guess the answer is evident.

Tea Party Congressman: Good for Absolutely (Something), Say it Again

Well, the Tea Party might be more than just a bunch of right-wing radical conspiracy theorists and racists after all. New Tea Party GOP congressman have shown their mettle in a fight over renewal of the Patriot Act, causing the bill to fail in the House of Representatives: LA Times Article. Like many leading Democrats and those who support civil liberties, they believe the bill oversteps the power of the government to watch and intervene in our lives. As Democratic Representative John Conyers of Michigan put it, the act is "one of the worst laws this body has ever passed."

Unfortunately, in another signal that Obama is moving further and further to the center (which is really the right of a few decades ago), the administration supports renewal of the bill through 2013. Along with his concession on extending Bush's tax cuts, the continued war in Afghanistan, the turn to fighting the deficit over creating jobs, the inability to pass a substantive financial reform bill, a continuation and expansion of the failed educational policies of his predecessor and little forward progress on addressing global warming, it is now clear that hope and change meant little more than more of the same. One wonders if there is a space for a true progressive in America anymore?

The Crazy Times We Live In

A series of stories today show how crazy the country has gotten, and how crisis appears to bring out even more nut cases than America has always cultivated (including, of course, one of our most recognizable media personalities -- the truly loony Glenn Beck):

A freshman Tennessee lawmaker credits her success on Hooters: New York Times

The Colorado GOP Chairman will not seek reelection to a third term, because he is "tired of the nuts" and fighting with "those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner: The Denver Post

Tax revenue has fallen under Obama (to rates not seen since the 50s), partially because of the huge tax cuts instituted by Bush and Obama's recent concession to continue them into the future. So are conservative happy? Of course not. "America's tax system is clearly broken," said former Bush economic adviser Donald Marron. "It fails at its most basic task, which, lest we forget, is raising enough money to pay for the federal government." AP

According to a recent survey of 900 biology teachers, only 28% teach evolution according to the National Research Council recommendations, and many continue to teach creationism (even though it's unconstitutional): New York Times

Who's Serving Your Burrito?

Wall Street darling and favorite of the commodified pseudo-ethnic chain movement Chipotle Mexican Grill is apparently in trouble as its hip and ecofriendly image abuts against a growing probe over the number of "illegal" workers they employ: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110207/ts_nm/us_usa_immigration_fastfood/print. The situation highlights the great paradox of one aspect of globalization -- the growing migration of peoples across national borders, and particularly to the Global North. On one side, it fits the neoliberal discourse of opening the world markets up to free trade and movement of capital and people. It helps supply cheap labor to industries that need it within the borders of their home country: for example, the agricultural, meatpacking and fast food industries here. And it provides opportunities for those suffering in the Global South (remember when we liked the melting pot metaphor?). On the other hand, it is true that in some cases these workers take jobs away from Americans -- for example in trade industries like construction (though it's worth noting that many fields dominated by "irregular" migrants are ones that white Americans would rarely if ever take -- for example migrant farming, child care, landscaping -- or that were once done by teenagers). It is also true that politically two intertwining realities help immigration become a wedge issue -- particularly in times of crisis. The first is the challenge to "national identity" that is brought on by immigrants that don't look or act like we do. Not only Americans, but populations across the globe fear for the loss of their home culture over time. A second issue is the perception that the immigrants from the Global south are perverting or corrupting our culture, based predominantly on stereotypes and long-standing biases that only seem to disappear if enough members of that group gain middle class or elite status. In any case, the paradox of opening or closing the borders really relates to our identity more than direct economic issues, and it is here where I fear it will stay as the proportion of the population of Latino/as continues to grow.

The Revolution Will Be Televised

A few years ago, a documentary came out called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_%28film%29) about the coup d'etat attempt in Venezuela. The irony, of course, was that the film was in fact televising the revolution that almost was -- as the attempt to unseat Chavez ultimately failed. I think what is fascinating about what is happening in Egypt and Tunisia and how it seems to be planting the seeds of change in Sudan, Yemen, Jordan and other countries across the region, is its viral nature. The media and technology are not only capturing images and scenes that bring the revolutionary spirit across the globe, but framing and deconstructing it as it happens -- spreading the message of democracy and the power of the people to the far reaches of the planet. This forces not only leaders like Obama to react, but people all around the world to take a position on issues far beyond the scope of their daily lives, much as Marshall McLuhan argued television would do (and arguably did during the civil rights movement and Vietnam War). The military learned this lesson after Vietnam and has controlled framing of the two subsequent wars with Orwellian precision. Yet the power to control the images available and the framing of those images has been severely circumscribed by media savvy revolutionaries, gonzo-journalists and the Internet and its still largely unregulated space.

The power of the image to speak to us, even when heavily mediated, is profound. And even in repressive regimes, it appears that images of others struggling to unseat dictatorial power has the viral effect of infecting those around them with that same spirit. Thomas Paine once noted his surprise at the fact that people had so rarely used their ultimate power -- their number and the ability to revolt against tyranny -- to change the status quo. As we watch these revolutions in the MENA countries unfold, one wonders if the media is changing the dynamics of social upheaval forever more ...

Democracy on the Mind

The new year has started with a surge of populist democratic movements across the globe. In Tunisia, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was pushed out of power after a month-long popular uprising against corruption, lack of jobs and a clampdown on civil liberties: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=revolution+in+tunisia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=dded8f20a6bb9442. In Egypt, continued protests seem on the verge of ousting President Mubarak's 30-year dictatorial, repressive reign (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2283149/?wpisrc=newsletter) as the army refuses to shoot at Egyptian citizens and Nobel Laureate ElBaradie set to step in and institute democratic reforms.And anti-government protests in Sudan seem on the verge of reaping the desired secession of the South: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12324646. Even in the U.S., a protest emerged against the billionaire Koch brothers and their largely secret work on behalf of the Tea Party and other conservative movements: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-koch-brothers-20110131,0,3791885.story.

After the institution of austerity programs in the U.K., the anti-labor push in Germany and the huge mid-term victories for conservatives in the U.S., there was certainly concern that neoliberalism was to survive and flourish at the tail end of the financial crisis. But these movements and continued unrest among populations in the core nations certainly challenge the notion that the status quo will be restored without challenge. The power of democracy has always been its tendency to extend beyond the contours of its birth. Today populations across the globe seem poised to demand a more just and democratic future that reflects their interests and challenges the position of entrenched power.

The Face of the New GOP

This article provides interesting background on Ryan: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158010/paul-ryan-republicans-thinker?rel=emailNation. Apparently, his idea of "fiscal responsibility" is to advocate for another great transfer of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top. Among the ideas of this acolyte of Ayn Rand:

• Reduce tax rates, eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest, and abolish the corporate tax, the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. (The average tax cut for the top 1 percent of the population (with incomes over $633,000) would be $280,000. The richest one-tenth of one percent, who had incomes over $2.9 million in 2009, would pocket $1.7 million a year in tax breaks.
• Unravel employer-based healthcare plans by eliminating the tax credit.  
• Eliminate traditional Medicare and cut Medicaid.
• Cut $100 billion out of "non-security discretionary spending" this year - requiring cuts of 20 percent in everything from the FBI to cancer research, Pell grants for students, Head Start and grants to public school districts.

It appears "compassionate conservativism" has died a natural death and is being replaced by Social Darwinism and survival of the richest.

State of the Union

Yesterday, I happened to catch most of the Republican response to the SOTU speech. One thing I found fascinating was the series of myths that continued to be utilized as if they were unquestionable truths. The first was the rather obvious, and reported, reference to the cost of the healthcare reform package -- which appears to actually cut the deficit, not increase it. But the much more important mythology revolves around an ideology that continues to be promoted as if it is received truth -- essentially that government is the problem and markets the solution. Even after the latest financial crisis, and the fact that unemployment and foreclosures remain high, there appears to be a general belief among conservatives (and unfortunately a more center-right post-mid term election Obama administration) that we must now deal with the deficit and long term debt over working to stimulate the economy in any way. This belief, which stands in stark contradiction to sensible analysis of the causes of the crisis including financial deregulation, poor risk management and lack of effective oversight, essentially argues that more of the same will save us. It is backed by two rather absurd assumptions: 1. The stimulus did nothing to help the recovery, but rather hindered it (an argument completely unsupported by any credible economists) and 2. Somehow the crisis accelerated under Obama. The rewriting of history is a popular modern political strategy for both parties, but conservatives have come to assume a public that has the memory of Leonard in the 2000 movie Memento. And they seem right. Ryan appeared to argue last night that Obama took a small financial mess and made it into a full-blown crisis, a ridiculous claim that stretches the edges of credulity, if similar arguments haven't been used effectively for years. Remember that surplus we had when Bush entered office; that never happened. Remember those weapons of mass destruction we never found -- well we went in there to spread democracy and freedom anyway.

The most troubling aspect of the new common sense to me is the complete lack of empirical evidence to support their claims. Economic research tends to show that government intervention, while it may lower profitability and technological advancement in the short run (in some cases), tends to reduce inequality, lessen the magnitude and frequency of financial crises and lead to more robust and sustained growth. That is exactly the case in the BRIC countries today -- and the model used by not only China but the four tigers to grow rapidly over the past decades (irrespective of their financial crisis of 1997-8). It is also worth noting that it was the model employed by the United States, with the federal government subsidizing new technology and strategic goods, placing barriers to trade that helped these nascent ("or infant") industries grow and helped maintain comparative advantages to this day in international trade arrangements. While America has always been fearful of the dangers of excessive government power (as they should be), there is also the fear of excessive corporate and financial market power that should now be thought of in a similar light. Is tyranny of the market really that different than the tyranny of a crazy King who doesn't care much for a colony across an ocean? Can we really trust those ideas and people that got us into this mess to get us out, particularly if they plan to just give us more of the same? When (if ever) will a real populist movement emerge to challenge this myopic view?

Investment Just Another Name for Spending to GOP

In preparation for the State of the Union address, Republicans showed up on the Sunday talk shows to warn that they seek cuts in all areas of the economy: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/us/politics/24union.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print. "Investment" in silly luxuries like education, infrastructure and technology is just a democratic trick to try to help those who are unemployed, underemployed or working for meager wages (i.e., the lazy and "illegal immigrants"). Obviously in these difficult times of soaring corporate profits and growing wealth at the top, it is still unfathomable to either raise taxes on the richest Americans or seek to stimulate the economy through approaches that worked for the better part of 30 years, until the stagflation crisis of the 70s. The underanalyzed (at least outside of academia) language games of conservatives have altered political debate in this country away from even a modicum of reason or sanity; continuing unabated by truth, an even cursory understanding of economics or a reasonable discussion of the growing underclass in America. "Social justice" is just another word for "socialism," (as is government stimulus spending or tax hikes), talking about race is "race baiting," talking about social class is engaging in "class warfare," all democrats are "tax and spend" addicts and the deficits they continuously accumulate while they are in the White House become magically based on the policies of those who inherit them. Now "investment," one of the pillars of neoliberal discourse for the past 30 years, is a bad word itself and many Republicans are seriously considering letting states go bankrupt. When will the madness end? Maybe when they outlaw the democratic party itself and can simply spew their destructive policies with no resistance at all.

So That Explains It?

News that astronomer signs are misaligned by as much as a month (due to "wobble" in the earth) has sent people into identity crises that rival that following news the earth was not the center of the universe and that Liberace was gay: http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/113100139.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU. Tauruses are trying to be less aggressive and not as impressive in bed, Scorpios less vindictive and Virgos less accommodating. People who have long wondered why daily horoscopes have not led them along the path to success and fortune are reading a paragraph down, hoping happiness is just around the corner. Historians are now trying to determine if this explains the Reagan presidency and the continued success of boy bands. Lawsuits against the Psychic Discovery Network are being filed at record levels, though they have hired the leading global warming doubter PR firm to challenge the new theory.

Sparking Uprising?

It is still unclear whether the shooting of Arizona Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was politically motivated, but it is clear that the increasingly bellicose rantings of conservative leaders and popular culture personalities could be leading the country along a very dangerous course. Impassioned political discourse has always been part of the American experience and it often leads to more healthy manifestations of democratic participation and debate. Yet one wonders if we are on the verge of a return to the political violence of the 60s, where assassinations and massive violence confronted attempts to alter American politics. Today, tea party candidates and personalities like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are capitalizing on popular discontent in ways that could have dangerous implications.

Some examples from a New York Times article today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09bai.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print):

- Sarah Palin's infamous "cross hairs" map that included gun targets focused on a number of close races, including that of Giffords
- Sharron Angle speaking of "domestic enemies" in the Congress and "Second Amendment remedies"
- Rick Barber using a political ad to "gather your armies"
- Michael Steele saying he hoped to send Nancy Pelosi to the "firing line" last year
- Glenn Beck claims that Obama faced an assassination attempt

The general discourse of socialism, tyranny and fascism employed by the right since Obama's run to the presidency are clearly absurd exaggerations of a President who many on the left see as essentially a centrist. But the larger issue is whether it is irresponsible to use rhetoric that could incite violence for political ends. The harm principle Supreme Court decision against "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" showed us that there are limits to freedom of speech. Several decision since fortified this position, including the Scheneck case establishing the clear and present danger precedent and the more recent hate speech legislation. Political discourse on both ends of the political spectrum should I believe be held to two standards: 1) Does not incite violence and 2) Has some semblance of truth attached to it. The latter is particularly necessary in political advertising, the largely unregulated sphere where manipulation, lies and fear mongering reign supreme -- often helping to decide elections. The public must hold politicians responsible for the ramifications of their words and demand a more reasoned, though not necessarily civil, level of dialogue. Civility is too often used as a cynical ploy to cut off real debate, as was the case post-911, but some responsibility to what we say and what it means does seem a reasonable demand.

Bringing Out the Dead

Obama announced yesterday that he is naming William Daley as his new Chief of Staff and will announce today that Gene Sperling will become the head of the National Economic Council. Daley previously served as Commerce Secretary under bill Clinton and was key in orchestrating NAFTA. Sperling worked at NEC in the past and was instrumental in passage of the Financial Modernization Act of 1999 -- that many blame as a key factor in the 2007 financial crisis (as it repealed large portions of the Glass-Steagal Act that helped stabilize banking during the Great Depression). Both of these Clinton-era figures are thus heavily implicated in policies that many would agree augured the troubles to come in the financial sector and broader economy.

Both also appear to be big friends of business. Daley has spent the past seven years working for J. P. Morgan, after several other stints with other large corporations. In a December 2009 op-ed for the Washington Post, Daley wrote that top Democrats need to "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans—and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan." And the Chamber of Commerce, which gave 93% of its campaign contributions to Republicans, heralded the choice.

So what happened to the Obama of two years ago, who turned his back on the DLC and defeated their candidate (Clinton) in stunning fashion? He appears to have gone the way of so many other democrats -- suffering a setback and quickly disavowing all that he proclaimed to believe in. What worries me the most is what happened the last time we brought political veterans out of retirement to run the country ...

ESP?

ESP has generally sat alongside UFO sightings, flouridation, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, life on Mars and the like, as the ranting of lunatics. That was until now, as a respected Psychological journal is planning to publish a paper that claims ESP does in fact exist. Daryl J. Bem, a ienowned emeritus professor at Cornell, has been testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen for over 10 years: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?pagewanted=print. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects who were tested by, among other things, categorizing pictures and finding pornographic images they couldn't see. Like much of the work in randomized social science research, the methods are open to major questions. Just because kids find pornographic images they can't see at a rate of 53% versus 50% does not really indicate any strong ability to see into the future. Nor does reversing the order of a classic memory test by finding that students had much better success at memorizing words they later studied. This sort of silliness would probably be completely ignored, but for the respect these experiments hold in general. For example, in the increasingly popular world of cognitive science, subjects are hooked up to machines that look at their brain activity while they are offered various stimuli -- after which major claims are sometimes made about what this says about human nature; without acknowledging that experiments are about as realistic as reality based TV. In any case, maybe ESP does exist. If you have it, feel free to email me with the winning lottery numbers for the next draw.

Payoff is Sweet

The House of Representatives will change hands today and already Republicans are getting ready to pay back their corporate sponsors (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/46995.html). First a quick look at the numbers. Candidates spent a whopping $4.2 billion on campaign TV ads alone (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327814/Mid-term-Elections-2010-Politicians-spent-4-2bn-adverts.html) in this midterm election. Outside groups increased their spending from $16 million in 2006 to over $80 last year (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/groups-spending-elections-dwarfs-parties/). And the Chamber of Commerce spent $31.7 million dollars, with 93 percent going to Republicans. On top of all this, unreported contributions have climbed precipitously based on the Citizens vs. The United States Supreme Court decision. Now Republicans are going to offer their payback, just as they did when Bush II entered office as the first corporate-sponsored President in history. Darrell Issa, the incoming chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent out letters to 150 trade associations, companies and think tanks asking what federal regulation is hurting economic growth.

Issa is apparently troubled by expanded oversight in areas including  food production, energy production, and finance. "Is there something that we can do to try to ease that [regulatory] burden and stimulate job creation?" said an Issa spokesperson. "Is there a consistent practice or regulation that hurts jobs? Until you have all the facts, you really can't make a lot of determinations and judgments." The irony, of course, is that profits are up and companies are doing okay -- they're just not hiring workers. And given the environmental and financial crises that persist to this day, is it really wise to turn the clock back and give corporations more carte blanche to do as they please? I suppose when they are flipping the bill for your election/reelection it does.

In economic terms, moral hazard refers to a situation where individuals or groups act less responsibly because they are covered for losses. A classic example would be buying insurance on a new bike that pays 100% if the bike is stolen. The person with that insurance is less likely to take steps to protect that bike from theft, given that there is no cost to replacing it except time. I believe we have a moral hazard problem today that is systemic. Corporations spend money to ensure that they are not held culpable for their behavior: through lobbying and campaign financing, lining the court with friends of business, influencing the public sphere (media) and all levels of education from Kindergarten to the University and even running for office. With all of these protections in place, the financial sector even feels comfortable handing out huge bonuses in the middle of a financial crisis and spending gads of money to ensure that no regulation is put into place to protect against collapse in the future. And yet people continue to believe government is the problem. Hmm . . .

Economic Arguments Against Small Government

I often write in this blog about the social justice and empirical arguments against the "small government" discourse. I thought I would add a few economic insights that support the claim that we need a strong government in some instances to deal with market imperfections. Three that are well-known in economic circles are the issue of externalities, market power and asymmetries of information and power.

Externalities are a key issue in economics, as they are benefits and costs not accounted for in the pricing system of supply and demand. Common externalities include pollution, health and inequality/poverty. The market does not account for these externalities and thus generally is unable to properly deal with them. As regards the most important externality today -- pollution and global warming -- some economists argue technology and science will save us from the long term effects of carbon emissions and the cutting down of forests. Yet the acceleration in environmental degradation appears to be beyond the power of science alone to handle the looming crisis. Government intervention is thus necessary to regulate market activity and ensure that these negative externatilities are accounted for. There are also positive externalities associated with public goods like education. If we privatize these goods, market interests often undermine the positive side effects of those institutions. We already see this in education with the diminution of civics education, physical education and the humanities -- all undermining the broader goals of education to spread freedom and democracy.

The second issue is market power and it is governments alone that can regulate industries to ensure the monopolies, oligopolies and cartels don't form that raise prices above their natural levels. It is clear that market power has again concentrated across the globe with the rise of multinational corporations and the inability of current global governance to regulate them. Corporations were once given their charters by states with an explicit clause that they must serve the public good. Without government intervention to ensure that corporations (like Microsoft), or groups of corporations (like the gas companies) don't gain too much power thus raising prices, cutting production and, often, cutting jobs. Market power leads to excessive profits without the concommitant economic benefits for the nation or society at large.

Finally is the issue of asymmetries of power and information. The first relates to issue discussed above, with excessive power not only undermining the market for goods but democracy itself. We see that today with lobbying and campaign financing, where the interests of huge corporations and industries like the financial sector working to undermine the will and interests of the people. But asymmetries of knowledge can be just as important -- as consumers are left without sufficient information to make wise choices and have any say in the decisions that affect their lives.

All three of these issues fundamentally undermine the argument for limited government intervention. Regulation, oversight and enforcement are all important aspects of ensuring that corporate interests don't trump those of the public at large. Yet beyond that, without government intervention, externalities, market power and asymmetries also undermine the effectiveness of markets themselves, undercutting economic efficiency and economic growth. What surprises me the most is the disingenuous nature of economic debates in the West today that fail to account for these three economic issues and their huge role in the financial crisis we continue to be mired in. A more honest accounting of the truth of the global market economy today might lead to more sensible economic policies that can restore some sanity to policy debate and action.

Tween Queens

Some of us remember the age when kids should be seen but not heard, or maybe even not seen that much. Youth was to be lived freely, spending hours outside with friends, hiding in the kitchen or upstairs as parents had the parties and went out. Those bygone days are long gone, with kids increasingly dominating parents lives from the moment of inception. Parachute parents, soccer moms and the many other monikers used to describe middle-class and rich parents today all conjure images of overplanned youth, living vicariously through kids, play dates, harassment of teachers that borders on assault, educational videos and software and, of course, fashion that can start in infancy. Many have decried the way we have deified youth in popular culture and the press, but we seem to be further going along the path of acceptance that every year of our lives moves us away from the apogee of youth and naivete. Yet the deification of youth has certainly turned toward the absurd in recent years. From boy and girl bands to teenager fashion lines to megastars like Hannah Montana, we have entered a parallel universe where teens and even preteens are becoming the biggest market for popular culture. Of particular concern is recent trends in film, television and commercials to show youth as the ones with all the wisdom and savvy and doltish parents led along the path of enlightenment by said tween sages (think Definitely Maybe among so many). Now the tween market has decided to label some of these young girls as fashion icons, who in some cases are starting their own lines: http://www.salon.com/life/fashion/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/12/22/elle_fanning_tween_fashionista&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2528Premium%2529_7_30_110. What does this say about our culture? One obvious thing is the idea that innocence and youth are the apogee of existence, and that aging is the process of moving away from perfection. That is obviously an old trend, but it's interesting to consider how this aligns with the sexualization and aforementioned push to make these kids grow up to fast. Is youth preferable because of the lack of responsibility and marring effects of experience or simply because they are less cynical and their bodies don't sag yet? Another related trend is the anti-intellectualism so endemic to American culture. All you need to know about the world is available to kids of 11 or 12, even before they've experienced it (in the case of Definitely Maybe, love and romance). So what use is school or education? Third, is the idea that youth is sellable, like everything else in the universe. Kids are a huge market and the idea that one should enjoy that youth has been largely supplanted by two trends: marketers desire to sell them cool (which usually means acting older and more cynical then kids would otherwise be) and an education system that makes it clear their futures are riding on getting the appropriate grades and test scores to succeed economically as adults. I wonder if the loss of childhood bodes poorly for the future of democracy, as these kids are brought into the adult world so early they never have access to the idealism and creativity that often serve as the foundation of hope in a better world. If the kids are indoctrinated into the new world order before they even know who they are, is there any "them" that exists outside that social structure?

On a completely unrelated note, I think it might be time to retire the "What would * do?" trope. It was funny for a little while mocking the "what would Jesus do?" movement, but it really has just become a phrase that, like "thinking outside the box," actually demonstrates the lack of creativity of the one using it. RIP WW*D, I hope.

Oped Objectivity?

Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he is adding an opinion section to his financial news organization: http://www.salon.com/news/michael_bloomberg/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/21/bloomberg_opinions. This opinion section will apparently offer only "ideology-free, empirically-based editorial positions about the pressing issues of our time." And what do "ideology-free" editorials look like? Bloomberg news editor in chief Matt Winkler argues they are "based on a sensibility that attempts at least to understand what are all the facts that we're dealing with when we bring our wisdom to an issue ... to look at things as they are and then to come up with a solution to make them better. It's a realistic approach." A realistic approach is what editorials try to do in general, isn't it? And as Bloomberg himself has made clear by touting his educational achievements based on flawed statistics and simply making state tests easier (the national NAEP scores in New York City are actual flat over his tyrannical stewardship of the NYBOE), facts and empirical evidence can be skewed to say just about anything we want them to say.

The deeper problem with the idea of "ideology-free" opinions is there adherence to a positivistic perspective that continues to dominate American research and epistemology today. By pretending at an objectivity that is impossible, it gives the imprimatur or reality without much to back up that claim. Beyond the ability of numbers to be manipulated is the ideology invoked in a "realistic" or "pragmatic" approach to policy and reform. Both signify an underlying cynicism of the possibility of radical change and an unspoken adherence to the status quo. At most, pragmatic policy advocates call for slow, incremental change -- even when the situation is dire. And though Bloomberg is certainly not the classic conservative -- as he is liberal on social issues, has occasionally raised taxes on the rich and sees a much more active role for the government in legislating healthy behavior -- he is, at bottom, a capitalist who is supportive of Wall Street, anti-union, pro-trade and bases his governing style on a mixture of tyrannical fiat (or bullying individuals or groups to his will -- as with the police, fireman, teachers union and city council on term limits) and scientifically-based efficiency, that tends to eliminate the human element from the equation. 

Many point to Bloomberg as a model example of how to run a big city effectively, but that certainly depends on who you talk to. Rents continue to rise even as the non-Wall Street workforce of New York City suffers. He undertook an ambitious redevelopment plan for the city, with many of those plans left undone as the financial crisis hit. He has, in my estimation, worsened the education system in NYC (with some minor improvements to his credit) and created a general political climate that undermines the rather vibrant democracy that has always defined New York. And some of his bad decisions appear to relate to an immutable hubris that he is above political games and essentially right about everything (because he is rich enough not to be encumbered by special interests or ulterior motives). On the surface, there seems to be some merit in the ability of a billionaire politician to stay above the political fray and enticements of public office, but what is missing in this narrative is the biases that tend to come with being a billionaire to begin with.

Bloomberg believes he can run the government like a business, a now commonly held belief among most conservatives, and many centrists and liberals. But the problem with this line of reasoning is that private and public organizations have different aims, different strengths and weaknesses and different stakeholders. Where efficiency might be the main goal of private enterprise, other concerns influence decision-making in the public sphere -- for example positive and negative externalities and concerns about the common good. People and numbers are not the same thing and we can see on a global scale what the cost of business models of governance look like -- increased poverty, increased inequality, lack of accountability, major asymmetries in power and decision-making and environmental and health crises that seem without solution. "Objective" and "ideology-free" opinions sound wonderful on the surface, particularly in these partisan times, yet what is lost? A deeper structural analysis of problems and new, creative solutions. Moving beyond the what is to the what can and what should be. Any nod to utopian notions of a better, more just world. And too often the human element that should be at the center of any public policy decision.

Population Trends Favor GOP

The U.S. Census Bureau released findings today that show an expected shift away from Democratic strongholds in the Northeast and Midwest to warmer states including Florida, Texas and Arizona. The big winner is GOP stronghold Texas, which will gain 4 seats. Florida will add two and South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah and Nevada will each gain one. The losers include New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2) and Illinois, Mass., Michigan, Missouri and Iowa (1 each). Califronia broke even for the first time since 1920. The shift is amplified by the fact GOP governors reside over GOP state legislatures in six of the eight states that will draw new district lines for the 2012 election. So after a short-lived hope that we might be experiencing a political realignment away from the 30 years of conservative rule, it appears likely that they will solidify their hold on the House in the next election. As to the 2012 presidential campaign, the electoral college changes do not appear to be sufficient to affect Obama's chances of reelection, though things will most certainly change in the next two years.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513727657644.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection

Fluoridation Conspiracy?

In the classic Stanley Kubrick spoof Dr. Stranglove, a mad general believes the Russians are contaminating our water to take over America. Fluoridation conspiracy theories have been around for decades, but what about a real threat to our water? One might remember the film Erin Brockavich, based on the true story of a woman that helped stop PG&E to pay more than $330 million to the families in Hinkley, California that had suffered through high cancer rates and other sicknesses. One would think after such a find, the EPA would test water to determine if Cromium-6 was present. But of course rationality has little to do with government regulation, particularly when big money and large corporations have a stake in the regulation. And so a just completed study by the non-profit Envionrmental Working Group found that 31 states have levels of the carcinagen that are dangerous to humans: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/20/carcinogen-found-in-31-of-35-cities-water-supply. Even drinking bottled water might not be safe as much of it is not properly filtered. Examples like this only amplify the need for the revaluation of values I mentioned in post below: a way to force corporations to measure their bottom line versus the social costs of their actions. On a more positive note, a week after the bill seemed dead, the Senate passed the first major food safety legislation since the Great Depression (arguably another victory for Obama): http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/food-safety/134447-in-sunday-evening-surprise-senate-passes-food-safety-bill-by-unanimous-consent?tmpl=component&print=1&page=.

DADT Finally Over ... Missile Treaty Might Die as Well

A piece of good news emerged today as Obama finally came through -- ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and hopefully putting a first nail in the coffin of the final form of acceptable discrimination in America. While Gay Marriage is still not legal in most of the country, this might be the start to ending the absurd anti-constitutional double standard when it comes to sexuality. Unfortunately, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConell appears to be ready to take out his anger at the decision by working to undermine the latest arms treaty with Russia: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20start.html. McConnel following the Republican penchant for going against perceived wisdom -- in this case that of the administration and nation's military leaders -- claims it could inhibit development of missile defense and that eight months was not enough time for adequate debate. This appears as disingenuous as arguments against global warming, but the truth has little to do with conservative orthodoxy these days.

What's at Stake?

As I contemplate the Republican victory in the election last month, it occurred to me what is at stake in a broader sense. I have often spoke of the environmental damage, of increased inequality, of growing poverty and of the possibility of America falling further behind its competitors to the East and West. In a broader sense, what is at stake is the moral and ethical foundation of our very society. Republican rule over the past 40 years has led to a profound revaluation of values that has placed the individual at the center of social and economic life. After the Great Depression, the government and community took center stage and led to a period of increased civic responsibility, government intervention, regulation and a sense that the common good trumped the interests of the power elites. This story, of course, simplifies history, but it was clear, as Kenneth Galbraith among many noted, that governments could work toward reflecting the interests of the common good.

Since LBJ's Great Society, there has been constant pressure to reign in the size of government, to undermine the Keynesian goal of full employment and to deregulate the economy. At it's heart, neoliberal ideology is founded on the principle that the common good is best met by allowing individuals to act in their own interest without the influence of the government. Citizenship was rearticulated in consumption-oriented framing and attacks on the Nation-State and Welfare State sought to undermine the role of the government in regulation, ameliorating the deleterious effects of the market economy and ensuring relatively fair allocation of the costs and benefits of society. Thus ensued a period of privatization, dismantling of the social safety net, a shift from a focus on unemployment to low inflation, an anti-union and anti-labor stance, a backlash against feminism and civic rights legislation and a major change in tax laws that has resulted in one of the greatest transfers of wealth toward the top in history.

The new common sense is premised on the efficiency of markets and the relative ineptitude of government. It harkens back to the invisible hand of Smith without any reference to economic theory since the 70s, which has highlighted the flaws in this argument -- from asymmetries in power and access to knowledge, to barriers to entry for new firms, to market power and imperfect pricing mechanisms. While economists have recognized the necessity for government regulation of markets, conservatives have pushed for just the opposite, and have largely succeeded in establishing a society where corporations are responsible to no one but their shareholders. Yet history has consistently shown that government intervention not only protects citizens from the excesses of corporations, but tends to lead to more economic stability and growth. Even today, with the new realities of global competition, countries like China, India, South Korea, Malaysia and Brazil have all benefited from strong government oversight and planning of economic development -- while others that either embraced or were forced to accept neoliberal models of development have seen increased poverty, lower or negative growth and a general decline in sovereignty and quality of life.

So when I think of what is at stake, I believe it is the future of the globe and quality of life of its inhabitants. Are we to establish international bodies that can temper the excesses of the market system? Are we to find ways to more equitably allocate the costs and benefits of society (through a return to progressive income taxation and a stronger, more just legal system)? Are we to find ways to align corporate and social interests? Can we create a new ideology that places social responsibility alongside individual interest? Can a renaissance of democracy undermine the power of corporations to largely control public discourse and policy? Our collective futures are at stake, and I only hope that citizens wake up to the direness of the current situation before it is too late.

Extra Extra . . . Don't Read All About It

A Bloomberg poll on the eve of the election found that two-thirds of likely voters believed that, under Obama and the Democrats, middle-class taxes had gone up, the economy had shrunk, the billions to bailout banks were forever lost, that illegal immigration had skyrocketed and that the healthcare bill would increase the deficit. The truth ... 1. Taxes are lower for 95% of U.S. Citizens, 2. The economy has been growing for five straight quarters (though minimally) 3. Most of the TARP money has been paid back 4. The number of illegal immigrants has fallen precipitously (by over 1,000,000) and 5. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the healthcare bill will actually LOWER the deficit.

So what is the problem? Is it merely an ignorant, apathetic citizenry that's not paying attention? Is it Obama and the Congress failing to get the message out on their successes? Is it a media that has abrogated its responsibility to report the truth to the public? Is it the unprecedented hundreds of millions spent on this election cycle by corporations and Wall Street to ensure their interests are protected? Or is it a combination of all of these? I believe the truth is the last. People appear to be bamboozled by a power structure that always has them looking in the wrong place for the answers. From the right wing demagogues on the radio and television waves to fear mongering attack ads to a mainstream media even more feckless than the Democratic party, the truth has become too inconvenient for the power structure to abide. And one of the worst education systems in the developed world, backed by a media culture that celebrates stupidity and anti-intellectualism with the aplomb of Jerry Lewis fans, has created a populace that can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

What can be done? There are certainly no short term solutions to this problem, but it certainly points to the need for alternative news sources that can reach the masses, for real improvements in the education system that go far beyond constant testing and a focus on basic skills, community organizations that help inform local citizens of the truth and charismatic leaders that hold steadfast to their ideals, rather than being swayed by cynical management of image and popular opinion. At it's heart, the real issue is one that Clinton once argued for (even as he is one of the primary architects of turning the Democratic party to the right on the issues that really mattered) -- to get people to think. We live in a world where knowledge is more readily available than at any time in history, but people must seek out information less tied to particular ideological positions and scavenge through the piles of bullshit to find the truths that would lead them away from a party interested only in supporting a status quo that hurts the average citizen more and more every day. At a deeper level, we need a revaluation of values that fundamentally questions the ethics that dominate decision-making in the U.S. and world today.