The Monday following the Kentucky Derby the Dow advanced triple figures, supposedly on the basis of the usual economic reports investors look at. I would bet the rally had more to do with the astounding come-from-behind win by Mine that Bird, the longest Derby shot since 1913. Although he subsequently lost at the finish line to a filly named Rachel Alexandra in the Preakness, it was another glorious day for horse racing and for optimism about the future of gender equality and long shots. Even if your horse didn’t win, it was fun to be witness to both of those historic races in 2009. All of the horses were in good company.
As if we don’t have enough fears, the idea of closing Guantanamo and relocating prisoners to American soil has America boiling with fear and loathing. The trio of horses called “The Economy,” “The Swine Flu” and the really dark horse, “The Future” are not seen exactly as great bets for the current race toward recovery. Why augment our woes by adding Guantanamo to the race card? As the New York Times points out, based on information supplied by the Pentagon, one in seven terrorists released goes back to terrorism, so why increase our odds of seeing the Guantanamo horse stumble on the way to the gate let alone down the stretch? Leave that horse in the stable for now. We have enough fears without unnecessarily adding new ones, or so the argument goes.
The optimists among us trot out the old Roosevelt aphorism: “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” That was easy for Roosevelt to say, for he was a privileged man. However, even he, in the midst of his recovery plan, changed strategies because he feared inflation would run rampant, so he killed the recovery for another decade by raising interest rates just as things were on the brink of getting better. That led to a wiser aphorism: so much for fear itself remaining the only fear, even for privileged aphorists.
But Roosevelt had a point, although he didn’t stay his own course. As behavioral economists and psychologists have indicated, fear itself is not good medicine for us or the economy. Just when we need to start spending again, we are hording what little or much we retain and thereby adding to the problem rather than the solution. We aren’t even at the track, let alone on track to bet on anything. We’d rather sit in our fear than venture forth because the inertia of fear has us in its grip. And the more we listen to fear-mongers like conservative talk show hosts, Little Red Hens (red state Republican politicians), and Hen-pecked Red Roosters (Democrats from traditional red states) straddling the middle of the road and pretending to be tough, the more fear we generate. The less action we take.
NOW HEAR THIS: We can fear this bailout or that regulation or socialism or eating pork or prisoners escaping maximum security prisons. Or we can choose not to. We can surround ourselves with or listen to people who reinforce our fears or we can surround ourselves with or listen to people who alleviate them. The question is: which strategy will do the most good?
My advice is: listen to the guarded optimist, not the prophet of doom or the slick, oily salesman. You are the key to a successful recovery, not just the BIG GUYS. Your guarded optimism will get the machinery going again and the economy recovering.
Here’s how it works. Although the subject of the following is happiness, it shows how optimism can spread among us as well. The following is a summary prepared by Dan Ariely of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business for Time Magazine. He summarizes the work of a noted physician and sociologist from Harvard, Nicholas Christakis.
Social scientists used to have a straightforward, if tongue-in-cheek, answer to the question of how to become happy: Surround yourself with people who are uglier, poorer and shorter than you are - and who are unhappily married and have annoying kids. You will compare yourself with these people, and the contrast will cheer you up.
Nicholas Christakis, 47, a physician and sociologist at Harvard University, challenges this idea. Using data from a study that tracked about 5,000 people over 20 years, he suggests that happiness, like the flu, can spread from person to person. When people who are close to us, both in terms of social ties (friends or relatives) and physical proximity, become happier, we do too. For example, when a person who lives within a mile of a good friend becomes happier, the probability that this person’s good friend will also become happier increases 15%. More surprising is that the effect can transcend direct links and reach a third degree of separation: when a friend of a friend becomes happier, we become happier, even when we don’t know that third person directly.
This means that surrounding ourselves with happier people will make us happier, make the people close to us happier - and make the people close to them happier. But social networks don’t transmit only the good things in life.
Christakis found that smoking and obesity can be socially infectious too. If his thesis proves out, then the saying that you can judge a person by his or her friends might carry more weight than we thought.
We can choose to listen to the fear-mongers like Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh, or we can listen to the practical and principled wisdom of President Obama. More importantly, we need to surround ourselves with people who will spread the much needed optimism for a real recovery (flu, economy, future) to take place.
We also need to live up to and demonstrate our principle of justice for all, not just when it is convenient. The Guantanamo “horse” needs to be saddled and ridden sooner or later and not frightened off the track by scare tactics voiced by those who may have personal information to hide. Our short-term fears are miniscule when compared to the long-term consequences of failing to address the world’s perception of what Guantanamo currently stands for, namely American injustice.
The Belmont Stakes is next. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The New "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Secrecy is a weapon of mass destruction. It destroys a people who bear it. It eats away at the greater good until there is no good greater. It is time “to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world.” (Thoreau, Walden).
The Obama Administration has been trying to walk beyond the torture perpetrated and rationalized by the Bush Administration, but it cannot take the high ground standing in the swamp that simply will not evaporate. It must appoint a blue chip commission to investigate the truth about the torture, which is what a model democracy does when it goes astray. We cannot hold Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan accountable or steer them toward democracy if we do not uphold the principles of democracy ourselves, one of which is transparent interpretation and application of our constitution. We cannot expect to lead by example and continue to sweep the past under the historical carpet for the historians to judge. We must attain a judgment now.
The argument that full revelations of truth about the torture will put our troops at greater risk is nonsense. The enemy imagines and propagandizes much worse than whatever happened. They deal in absolutes so preposterous and in some cases so accurate that our image is that of a monster, a faceless one at that, thanks to the drone warfare we are conducting and the collateral damage the drones produce. We are losing our democratic face, not because of what torture occurred in the past or any further revelations of it; we are losing our face because of our superior technology that removes us from danger and makes us a remote unknown, cold, mechanism of death. That’s the face of America the folks in remote parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan have of us. Revelations of past torture might put a face on the monster from our point of view, but it presumably will be a face from the past, not the present. The enemy’s zealotry is so blind, he does not need an actual face as evidence; he is certain we are monsters and infidels because of his absolute faith that we are.
Both Pelosi and Cheney want the evidence revealed, the former so that the CIA will be shown to have lied to her and the latter so that torture will be shown to have worked. The American public sees them both as culpable, so let’s have the truth and settle the matter once and for all.
The Obama Administration has been trying to walk beyond the torture perpetrated and rationalized by the Bush Administration, but it cannot take the high ground standing in the swamp that simply will not evaporate. It must appoint a blue chip commission to investigate the truth about the torture, which is what a model democracy does when it goes astray. We cannot hold Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan accountable or steer them toward democracy if we do not uphold the principles of democracy ourselves, one of which is transparent interpretation and application of our constitution. We cannot expect to lead by example and continue to sweep the past under the historical carpet for the historians to judge. We must attain a judgment now.
The argument that full revelations of truth about the torture will put our troops at greater risk is nonsense. The enemy imagines and propagandizes much worse than whatever happened. They deal in absolutes so preposterous and in some cases so accurate that our image is that of a monster, a faceless one at that, thanks to the drone warfare we are conducting and the collateral damage the drones produce. We are losing our democratic face, not because of what torture occurred in the past or any further revelations of it; we are losing our face because of our superior technology that removes us from danger and makes us a remote unknown, cold, mechanism of death. That’s the face of America the folks in remote parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan have of us. Revelations of past torture might put a face on the monster from our point of view, but it presumably will be a face from the past, not the present. The enemy’s zealotry is so blind, he does not need an actual face as evidence; he is certain we are monsters and infidels because of his absolute faith that we are.
Both Pelosi and Cheney want the evidence revealed, the former so that the CIA will be shown to have lied to her and the latter so that torture will be shown to have worked. The American public sees them both as culpable, so let’s have the truth and settle the matter once and for all.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Transparency, Privacy, and Prevention
In America we are innocent until proven guilty. We also have the right to remain silent. The 4th Amendment protects the U.S. citizen against improper search and seizure. Law enforcement recently has been trying to circumvent the search warrant by planting GPS devices on suspects’ vehicles without a warrant. Cases in Wisconsin and now in New York will bring the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court sooner or later.
On Wall Street and in Washington there is talk of taking care of the derivative mess by creating two categories of derivatives: those traded publicly and those traded privately. The publically traded derivatives would be subject to regulation; the private ones would not, or so Secretary Geithner has proposed.
What do these two issues have in common? They both illustrate the paradoxical, if not contradictory nature of the American ethos: we want as much freedom as possible to go about our business and we want protection from the negative consequences of that freedom.
A third issue that stands before the country whose ultimate solution lies in prevention is health care. The sooner we start asking America to invest in prevention or in the promotion of health, the lower our intervention costs will be. Instead of pumping billions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry and expensive diagnostics, we should be focusing our energy and money on wellness and prevention of illness.
A healthy economy and a healthy society should follow the same model. Instead of resorting to the same old economic deception and gamesmanship that mutates into bubbles the way diseases mutate into pandemics, let’s not leave any soft spots in the economic membrane where bubbles can form. Let’s tame the wildly speculative aspects of the market and encourage investors to invest in companies that actually make things, rather than in betting that they can or can’t. Let’s not allow unregulated derivatives. They are unhealthy in any long run. If we can’t come up with the economic equivalent of a GPS for derivatives, they should not exist. The greater good is far more important a value than the speculative economic freedom of the individual.
Privacy is a right in America. Its protection is essential. However, there are very clear cases in which the greater good must be protected against harm done by the individual. For example, the harm done by a shoplifter is not the same as that done by a terrorist. If a person is suspected of links to terrorism, a GPS without a warrant is fair because the potential damage is great. Besides, GPS is a far better source of information and considerably less invasive than, say, torture. Yes, the GPS tells more than the police need to know, but it provides good information that may lead to prevention without harm to the innocent.
America needs to take a hard look at itself and not resort to the same old principles of freedom and privacy above all else. When someone’s “freedom” to smoke raises my insurance premium, my freedom to spend my money as I see fit is compromised. When someone’s right to privacy creates a bomb that blows up my family, my family’s right to life is compromised. When someone’s right to invest in private derivatives puts the whole economy at risk, my economic well-being is compromised. It is time to look at the greater good for America and not trot out the same old principles of individual freedom and privacy as sacrosanct at all costs. That’s a sure way to impale America on its own sword of belief.
On Wall Street and in Washington there is talk of taking care of the derivative mess by creating two categories of derivatives: those traded publicly and those traded privately. The publically traded derivatives would be subject to regulation; the private ones would not, or so Secretary Geithner has proposed.
What do these two issues have in common? They both illustrate the paradoxical, if not contradictory nature of the American ethos: we want as much freedom as possible to go about our business and we want protection from the negative consequences of that freedom.
A third issue that stands before the country whose ultimate solution lies in prevention is health care. The sooner we start asking America to invest in prevention or in the promotion of health, the lower our intervention costs will be. Instead of pumping billions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry and expensive diagnostics, we should be focusing our energy and money on wellness and prevention of illness.
A healthy economy and a healthy society should follow the same model. Instead of resorting to the same old economic deception and gamesmanship that mutates into bubbles the way diseases mutate into pandemics, let’s not leave any soft spots in the economic membrane where bubbles can form. Let’s tame the wildly speculative aspects of the market and encourage investors to invest in companies that actually make things, rather than in betting that they can or can’t. Let’s not allow unregulated derivatives. They are unhealthy in any long run. If we can’t come up with the economic equivalent of a GPS for derivatives, they should not exist. The greater good is far more important a value than the speculative economic freedom of the individual.
Privacy is a right in America. Its protection is essential. However, there are very clear cases in which the greater good must be protected against harm done by the individual. For example, the harm done by a shoplifter is not the same as that done by a terrorist. If a person is suspected of links to terrorism, a GPS without a warrant is fair because the potential damage is great. Besides, GPS is a far better source of information and considerably less invasive than, say, torture. Yes, the GPS tells more than the police need to know, but it provides good information that may lead to prevention without harm to the innocent.
America needs to take a hard look at itself and not resort to the same old principles of freedom and privacy above all else. When someone’s “freedom” to smoke raises my insurance premium, my freedom to spend my money as I see fit is compromised. When someone’s right to privacy creates a bomb that blows up my family, my family’s right to life is compromised. When someone’s right to invest in private derivatives puts the whole economy at risk, my economic well-being is compromised. It is time to look at the greater good for America and not trot out the same old principles of individual freedom and privacy as sacrosanct at all costs. That’s a sure way to impale America on its own sword of belief.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Making Parks and Credit Cards Safe for Democracy
The strategy seems simple: Attach an amendment about gun-use in national parks to an obviously unrelated bill about protecting credit card users from issuers’ whimsical manipulation of interest rates and you get moderate democrats to vote in favor of allowing guns in national parks. Apparently, that’s the strategy of Senator Coburn from Oklahoma in his attempt to ensure that if big banking can’t have the freedom to do whatever it wants, at least the folks who go to national parks in fear of being mugged can take the law into their own hands and defend themselves.
If this is the latest pragmatism on the part of Democrats, let’s remind them about what pragmatism doesn’t looks like: It’s not mixing apples and oranges, interest rates and self-defense, or guns and butter. If allowing guns in parks is meant to be an example of reaching across the aisle, you better holster that thought. If your strategy is to count on the House to rectify the bill because of how it voted the first time, you have no integrity. You simply reinforce the image that Republicans have created: you have no principles.
Statistically, the most dangerous weapon to a policeman is his own. If that is true of police, imagine how that fact must translate for the common citizen. We need fewer guns and fewer places to carry them, not more.
The gun folks cite the old adage, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I love old adages for their “truth” which results from another old adage that states the following: if they are repeated often enough, they must be true. Robert Frost lays that truth out vividly in “Mending Wall,” one of his most celebrated poems. The adage there is, “good fences make good neighbors.” The gated community crowd in America has bought into that adage wholesale, although a false sense of security is all it buys.
The unintended consequence of guns in America is that since 9/11, 120,000+ people have been killed by guns in this country. Compare that with the 4000 + American soldiers killed in Iraq. Guns are not the solution, 2nd Amendment or not. They are the problem. Letting them into national parks simply invites greater carnage, not less.
Attaching a guns-in-parks amendment to a credit card bill of rights law is not just mixing apples and oranges; it is tossing a bad apple into the orange crate.
If this is the latest pragmatism on the part of Democrats, let’s remind them about what pragmatism doesn’t looks like: It’s not mixing apples and oranges, interest rates and self-defense, or guns and butter. If allowing guns in parks is meant to be an example of reaching across the aisle, you better holster that thought. If your strategy is to count on the House to rectify the bill because of how it voted the first time, you have no integrity. You simply reinforce the image that Republicans have created: you have no principles.
Statistically, the most dangerous weapon to a policeman is his own. If that is true of police, imagine how that fact must translate for the common citizen. We need fewer guns and fewer places to carry them, not more.
The gun folks cite the old adage, “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I love old adages for their “truth” which results from another old adage that states the following: if they are repeated often enough, they must be true. Robert Frost lays that truth out vividly in “Mending Wall,” one of his most celebrated poems. The adage there is, “good fences make good neighbors.” The gated community crowd in America has bought into that adage wholesale, although a false sense of security is all it buys.
The unintended consequence of guns in America is that since 9/11, 120,000+ people have been killed by guns in this country. Compare that with the 4000 + American soldiers killed in Iraq. Guns are not the solution, 2nd Amendment or not. They are the problem. Letting them into national parks simply invites greater carnage, not less.
Attaching a guns-in-parks amendment to a credit card bill of rights law is not just mixing apples and oranges; it is tossing a bad apple into the orange crate.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Hang 'em Dry
The Iraq War stems from the same kind of thinking that drives materialism: Don't buy something you actually need; simply justify it somehow and it will be right. Rationalization will never be the same as reason because rationalization always involves self-deception and false premises. America loses its moral compass because it practices self-deception as an everyday aspect of living. Americans confuse need and want more than perhaps any other culture. We spend and acquire recklessly and end up bankrupt, both economically and morally. What we want we want NOW, at any cost. Harness that dynamic with power and you have a recipe for hubris that makes for Captain Ahabs, John D. Rockefellers, and Bernie Madoffs.
Dick Cheney, a Captain Ahab of sorts, painted Iraq's Saddam Hussein as some sort of white whale and went after him with monomaniacal vengeance without regard to facts. If the facts didn't fit, he and his harpooners just made them up. Ahab’s white whale may have contained whale oil, but that was beside the point to Ahab. In Cheney’s case, oil was the point, although he framed it as a WMD and Al Qaeda issue. Cheney just may have cried “whale” (aka wolf) and then had the military and staff round up any available “witnesses” to “help them remember” that they saw “the whale” as well. Meanwhile the rest of the crew from both port and starboard sides of the political Pequod were shamed or frightened into agreeing with the plan to invade.
What is amazing to me is that no rugged individual or maverick within the Republican Party has stepped forward and called for an investigation into “Iraq-gate,” torture and all. In the wake of Obama’s plan to move on, it would be a wonderful opportunity for a Carpe Diem moment by the Republican Party to do its own laundry rather than simply hope the stink blows away in the strong winds of the current economic storm. Is Dick Cheney still too powerful to prosecute, even by Republicans, who could only gain in the long run by hanging him out to dry if he is guilty of crimes against our country? For Republicans to stick by their man even when he may wreak of corruption does nothing toward their gaining moral high ground in the future. Where are Republican principles, really? If America can prosecute governors (Illinois most recently) it can certainly do the same with Vice Presidents if that is warranted. If Bush was actually involved as he purports to have been, then he should be fair game as well.
No pardons this time. What got us into Iraq is a far greater matter than espionage or break-ins at Democratic headquarters. If we are going to be a moral example in the world or even an example to our own children, we need to do our own laundry first. Leaving it all to the historians to decide is not the proper venue for justice.
Dick Cheney, a Captain Ahab of sorts, painted Iraq's Saddam Hussein as some sort of white whale and went after him with monomaniacal vengeance without regard to facts. If the facts didn't fit, he and his harpooners just made them up. Ahab’s white whale may have contained whale oil, but that was beside the point to Ahab. In Cheney’s case, oil was the point, although he framed it as a WMD and Al Qaeda issue. Cheney just may have cried “whale” (aka wolf) and then had the military and staff round up any available “witnesses” to “help them remember” that they saw “the whale” as well. Meanwhile the rest of the crew from both port and starboard sides of the political Pequod were shamed or frightened into agreeing with the plan to invade.
What is amazing to me is that no rugged individual or maverick within the Republican Party has stepped forward and called for an investigation into “Iraq-gate,” torture and all. In the wake of Obama’s plan to move on, it would be a wonderful opportunity for a Carpe Diem moment by the Republican Party to do its own laundry rather than simply hope the stink blows away in the strong winds of the current economic storm. Is Dick Cheney still too powerful to prosecute, even by Republicans, who could only gain in the long run by hanging him out to dry if he is guilty of crimes against our country? For Republicans to stick by their man even when he may wreak of corruption does nothing toward their gaining moral high ground in the future. Where are Republican principles, really? If America can prosecute governors (Illinois most recently) it can certainly do the same with Vice Presidents if that is warranted. If Bush was actually involved as he purports to have been, then he should be fair game as well.
No pardons this time. What got us into Iraq is a far greater matter than espionage or break-ins at Democratic headquarters. If we are going to be a moral example in the world or even an example to our own children, we need to do our own laundry first. Leaving it all to the historians to decide is not the proper venue for justice.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Texas: The "Show You" State
The You Tube video “Shopping in Texas” circulating among my email friends features a woman in a boutique trying to open a classic whiskey decanter. Finally, it opens with a loud pop which prompts the rest of the patrons to draw their pistols and hand-turret them around the room. The video keeps alive the stereotype of Texans as gun-slinging Second Amendment nut cases.
Rick Perry, the former cotton farmer and now right wing Obama bashing governor, joined his fellow tempestuous “tea party” goers in threatening to secede from the Union if the government doesn’t stop spending all of Texans’ hard-earned tax dollars on bailouts for corporations. He, of course, didn’t mention the long-term, on-going bailout of Texas cotton farmers who have received subsidies since at least the Eisenhower Administration. But let’s not muddy the waters. Let’s be clear by telling half-truths and ignoring inconvenient ones (Whoops! Wrong expression! Inconvenient truth belongs to that commie-liberal turn-coat southerner former VP Gore and his Global Warming nonsense.)
Most Texans don’t fit the stereotype. But the stereotype stays very much alive because of the few who do fit. And when the governor of Texas joins the few, he helps reinforce the stereotype with rebar. Nice going, Rick. You’ll show them.
The American political Right Wing is a bird with multiple right wings, and no left. Therefore, it doesn’t fly. It just flaps its wings and scurries around the barnyard in circles, much like a chicken with its head cut off. It has the wing against gay marriage; the wing against evolution; the wing against illegal immigration; the wing against corporate bailouts; the wing against current deficit spending but not against Bush league deficit spending; the wing against all deficit spending except right wing earmarks. The only difference between the Texas Right Wing and the American is that the Texas variety thinks it’s an eagle.
Imagine if Texas Republicans, for instance, actually wanted to get rid of illegal immigration. They don’t of course, except when they are wearing their Republican hats. The inconvenient truth is undocumented workers once provided cheap labor for contractors, agri-businesses, and factories. They helped smaller businesses that couldn’t afford to ship their manufacturing abroad to compete with those multi-national ones that do. They kept the cost of produce down in the supermarket and they prevented huge losses of crops because they were the most available, efficient, and cheap source of labor for domestic agriculture. Those same business owners and farmers will also holler about unions and the high price of documented labor. And yet, those same business owners will put on their Republican hats and shout about those undocumented Mexican migrants who break the law by crossing the border, and shoot themselves in their economic foot. They would prefer to turn the Texas border into one long Alamo and shoot the lawbreakers on principle, even if the vigilante principle contradicts the economic one. But they’ll show you!
Let’s call Rick Perry’s bluff. Let’s put Texas on sabbatical for one year without pay. Let’s show Texas what life would be like without federal support. Let them distract their Obama-targeting secret militias with full-time employment on the Mexican border instead of the Feds spending federal tax dollars on National Guard troops and Homeland Security to do the job. Let them put their money where their mouth is. We don’t need their oil (they have little left), nor do we need their cotton (we can get it cheaper elsewhere). Let the “Show You” state show us how great life will be without the rest of us. Lone Star, Lone Ranger, You’re on your own. My guess is undocumented Mexicans, most documented ones, and most Mexican-Americans born in Texas would move out or stay out of Texas…and so would three-fourths of the rest of the state. It would end illegal immigration into Texas because no Mexican in his right mind would want to live there.
That self-destructive contradiction reminds me of a movie Rick Perry should see: Sergio Arau's 2004 film "A Day without a Mexican." The message of the movie is that southern California’s entire economy would shut down without Mexicans. And maybe he ought to take another look at the movie The Alamo. As I recall, it doesn’t have a very happy ending for the Texans.
Rick Perry, the former cotton farmer and now right wing Obama bashing governor, joined his fellow tempestuous “tea party” goers in threatening to secede from the Union if the government doesn’t stop spending all of Texans’ hard-earned tax dollars on bailouts for corporations. He, of course, didn’t mention the long-term, on-going bailout of Texas cotton farmers who have received subsidies since at least the Eisenhower Administration. But let’s not muddy the waters. Let’s be clear by telling half-truths and ignoring inconvenient ones (Whoops! Wrong expression! Inconvenient truth belongs to that commie-liberal turn-coat southerner former VP Gore and his Global Warming nonsense.)
Most Texans don’t fit the stereotype. But the stereotype stays very much alive because of the few who do fit. And when the governor of Texas joins the few, he helps reinforce the stereotype with rebar. Nice going, Rick. You’ll show them.
The American political Right Wing is a bird with multiple right wings, and no left. Therefore, it doesn’t fly. It just flaps its wings and scurries around the barnyard in circles, much like a chicken with its head cut off. It has the wing against gay marriage; the wing against evolution; the wing against illegal immigration; the wing against corporate bailouts; the wing against current deficit spending but not against Bush league deficit spending; the wing against all deficit spending except right wing earmarks. The only difference between the Texas Right Wing and the American is that the Texas variety thinks it’s an eagle.
Imagine if Texas Republicans, for instance, actually wanted to get rid of illegal immigration. They don’t of course, except when they are wearing their Republican hats. The inconvenient truth is undocumented workers once provided cheap labor for contractors, agri-businesses, and factories. They helped smaller businesses that couldn’t afford to ship their manufacturing abroad to compete with those multi-national ones that do. They kept the cost of produce down in the supermarket and they prevented huge losses of crops because they were the most available, efficient, and cheap source of labor for domestic agriculture. Those same business owners and farmers will also holler about unions and the high price of documented labor. And yet, those same business owners will put on their Republican hats and shout about those undocumented Mexican migrants who break the law by crossing the border, and shoot themselves in their economic foot. They would prefer to turn the Texas border into one long Alamo and shoot the lawbreakers on principle, even if the vigilante principle contradicts the economic one. But they’ll show you!
Let’s call Rick Perry’s bluff. Let’s put Texas on sabbatical for one year without pay. Let’s show Texas what life would be like without federal support. Let them distract their Obama-targeting secret militias with full-time employment on the Mexican border instead of the Feds spending federal tax dollars on National Guard troops and Homeland Security to do the job. Let them put their money where their mouth is. We don’t need their oil (they have little left), nor do we need their cotton (we can get it cheaper elsewhere). Let the “Show You” state show us how great life will be without the rest of us. Lone Star, Lone Ranger, You’re on your own. My guess is undocumented Mexicans, most documented ones, and most Mexican-Americans born in Texas would move out or stay out of Texas…and so would three-fourths of the rest of the state. It would end illegal immigration into Texas because no Mexican in his right mind would want to live there.
That self-destructive contradiction reminds me of a movie Rick Perry should see: Sergio Arau's 2004 film "A Day without a Mexican." The message of the movie is that southern California’s entire economy would shut down without Mexicans. And maybe he ought to take another look at the movie The Alamo. As I recall, it doesn’t have a very happy ending for the Texans.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Sustainable Orchestration
Sustainable Orchestration
The current economic crisis affords opportunity and even invitation to come up with creative solutions that are the positive equivalent of cluster bombs and falling dominoes. Here is an example.
The San Luis Valley in Colorado is poised to become a significant source of renewable energy in the form of solar power. Sun Edison has already established itself here. Several more companies are also exploring the possibility of building solar facilities whose power would be sold to Excel Energy and transported through an upgraded infrastructure to communities beyond the valley.
Rather than simply allowing “market forces” (investor bets) to once again determine the number and scope of these facilities to be developed, as has been the case with oil and gas across the country, why not actually take a look at what would be ideal utilization of the land for sustainable energy in relation to the proximity of the quietest National Park in the country, the presence of a unique spiritual community, a productive agricultural resource, numerous large wildlife refuges, and a precious aquifer.
In turn, rather than allowing any oil and gas development in the region, which could seriously compromise all of the existing resources mentioned above and continue down the unsustainable path of “bubble and bust,” give the survivors of the banking crisis a tax incentive to retire mineral rights in the valley as part of investing in solar energy. The companies developing solar energy could also be given tax incentives to retire mineral rights as well, so that old, unsustainable energy sources would not compete with new sustainable ones for the same territory. Since the West has been an attractive resource for oil and gas development in the past thanks to vast tracts of sparsely settled land available for exploitation and the unstoppable and antiquated split-estate mineral rights law, more than enough land has already been compromised and more oil and gas development would only inhibit good land use policy aimed at sustainable solar or wind development.
As rural communities across the country wake up to the benefits of alternative energy, they are going to put up with only so much energy development of any kind in any one location. Why not encourage, as part of our economic recovery, the development of sustainable energy and the retirement of unsustainable energy and thereby eliminate one of the potential future bubbles that have plagued us in the past, namely another oil and gas boom and bust. This move will give the recovering economy a boost of confidence for investors who will be investing in something that won’t “go bad” at some time in the future, and that change will help augment much needed faith in our revised economic system.
Oil and gas companies are flooding the media with renewable energy coated advertisements asking for our support for their continued oil and gas exploration. Chevron and Exxon-Mobil even try to create an image on PBS of how education-minded or broad-minded they are in their “new” approaches to energy development and human service. Hogwash! They are dinosaurs on the brink of extinction, just like the flora and fauna that produced their primary exploit. Let’s bury our dead (retire the mineral rights) and build appropriate solar energy plants in ways that minimize impact and maximize a sustainable future. We could even give oil and gas tax incentives to retire targeted mineral rights leases in strategic locations where alternative energy development makes sense.
We need to orchestrate a coordinated solution to our energy needs, global warming, environmental degradation, and promotion of quality of life. That will take cooperation among a host of government agencies, private non-profits, investors, sustainable industries, oil and gas industry, and universal banks. Going at it piecemeal is the old way: it says to each stakeholder, you’re on your own. It invites unwarranted and destructive competition and conflict. We can all avoid being losers, (even gas and oil’s investment in mineral rights), under an orchestrated plan. This is the vision. Who will hold the baton and direct this orchestra remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
