Stupid Kids

This came from San Francisco columnist Mark Morford: "...the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens. Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog."

The whole column can be found at here. The title of which is, by the way, "American kids, dumber than dirt". Pretty pessimistic. In it he argues that public schools are filled with kids raised in intellectual voids, whose brains have been miswired as the result of too much t.v. at too young an age, poor nutrition, and an educational system that is focused on testing rather than developing thinkers. When I hear these things I generally attribute it to what he termed, "generational relativity", the habit of crabby old men to think every teenager is an idiot and that his generation and those that came before were more virtuous, moral, hard working, etc. than the current. And to a certain extent I think that's what this is. But only to a certain extent.
As a teacher I know too much of what he is saying to be true. I do not believe that we are really dedicated to a democratic educational system. We are not dedicated to passing on the values necessary to the preservation of democracy and civil rights in this or any country. We are far more concerned with furthering the nationalistic mythology that passes for social studies than we are about studying civilization, understanding the diverse nature of the world and supporting real democratic values by developing citizens who consider it their responsibility to to knowledgeably criticize their government. These are the kinds of things we are definitely not doing. Well educated citizens are capable of articulately debating with one another the important issues of the present while having a strong understanding of the past events that have brought us here.

That is not what is expected of a public school education in America. An America education promotes the study of skills that can make one productive in the economy. An American education stresses submission to authority. A proper social studies education is expected to build a foundation of patriotism and nationalism with a structure built of trivial knowledge about presidents and captains of industry. It is the type of education that leads to fascism or a dictatorship of the majority.

Until we dedicate ourselves to a real public education, we are screwed. And right now we aren't even close.

pic from: http://outreach.thecollegetrack.com/matriarch/images/classroom.jpg

Application for President

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who believes they should be president of the United States. The fake humility with which most of them approach the job is vomit inducing. These are people with Trump-size egos and ambitions to match, not reluctantly drafted civil servants just doing their duty. Since we are already being inundated with the flood of mendacity that is the presidential (and soon to be congressional) pre-season, I've been thinking how most of what candidates are asked rarely passes my bullshit detector. Not just the answers, mind you: I expect evasiveness and outright fabrication from the candidates themselves. It is the questions. Rarely are they given a prompt to discuss specific policy issues. When they are, and when they are predictably evasive and pandering to imaginary Joe and and Jane America, their interrogators rarely follow up. Not sure how to fix that one, except to say that Wolf Blitzer does not belong within 20 miles of a mayoral debate let alone one for president. But, we can encourage more direct, even biting, questions about topics that matter, rather then asking them to say something nice about the candidate standing next to them. Here's a few that I've thought might be more helpful.

1. As the American lifestyle is completely unsustainable due the requirements of habitat loss, polluting energy, non-renewable resources, and the military action necessary to sustain it, what specific actions are you going to try to implement to make our economy more sustainable now and in the future?
Likely answer from generic candidate number 1: First of all let me say that I believe in the promise of the American future. We have always risen above difficulty and adversity and we will continue to do so. The American people defeated tyranny in World War II and the presided over the liberation of millions from godless communism during the Cold War, and I believe that in this, we will persevere as well.
Follow up: Perhaps you didn't understand the question: I asked what specific strategies you had in place to end America's gluttonous appetite for resources.
Follow up answer from from generic candidate 1: Blah, blah, blah, America, blah, blah, blah, freedom, blah, blah, blah, greatest country in the world.

2. As cars and trucks are major emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States, do you support limits on urban sprawl, the reduction of subsidies to car companies and oil companies in the form of more than 40 billion a year in highway money and investing a large portion of that in cleaner, more efficient transportation technologies like railroads?
LAFGCN2: Unlike candidate number 1, I am dedicated to the protection of the environment. When I was a kid growing up in (insert state here), I used love going to my grandparents house out in the country. I'd spend days out there chasing butterflies, lying in the sun, and just appreciating all the goodness in God's creation. I believe we have a responsibility to protect all of that, and I believe the American people wisely recognize that.
Follow up: Are you people having difficulty hearing the questions up there? We aren't interested in your idyllic childhood, we want to know if you'll push for less federal money on highways and more federal money on railroads.
FUAFGC2: Blah, blah, blah, congress, blah, blah, blah, my voting record, blah, blah, blah, I liked riding trains as a child, blah, blah, blah, economic growth.

3. China has recently surpassed the United States as the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. As the rest of the world races to match America's standard of living, greenhouse gas emissions will grow exponentially, exacerbating global warming. What strategies do you have in mind to encourage cleaner development in underdeveloped nations?

4. Like a drunken super bowl hero caught with a 14 year-old prostitute, the United States has completely destroyed its image as defender of freedom, etc., etc. What tangible steps will you take to restore that image? For instance, would you close Guantanamo Bay? Would you stop sending more aid to Israel than to any other nation on earth? Would you stop sending soldiers to occupy foreign countries to fulfill narrow political aims? Would you stop hypocritically supporting totalitarian regimes while claiming that's why we need to be in Iraq to support democracy?

5. Will you close Guantanamo, restore Habeas Corpus, and give all persons detained by the U.S. the right to a public trial?

6. Are you willing to set aside nationalist aims to work in cooperation with other nations to find solutions to the problems facing the world, even if that means asking the American people to sacrifice cheap fuel, i-pods, etc. ?

7. How do you think the world should limit population growth?

8. Do you see war, as a technique of foreign policy, as unsustainable due to its cost in human life, material, energy, political capital and due to the fact that it almost never secures it's proponents objectives?

These are just a few questions I think ought to be given serious consideration by national candidates for any office. But they won't. Because we're screwed.

Trouble With Governance

In my last post I stated that limits needed to be placed on economic activity and that these limits were to be imposed by a governing body of some sort, rather than self imposed by individuals. The reason I state this is that left to their own devises, even the best intentioned individual will see his or her small part in the 6.5 billion whole so insignificant that self interest carries the day. It doesn't matter that I spray chemicals on the weeds that grow in the cracks of my driveway, it is an insignificant amount of harm. Of course, isolated, it would be, but the point is that millions of others think and do the same thing, and billions of others are often engaging in environmentally destructive and ultimately unsustainable behavior out of sheer need for survival. When we are looking at the scale of human economic activity, it will require far more knowledge than individuals often have and far more sacrifice from the developed world than individuals are willing to make.

This brings up a very tricky issue: who makes the decisions? What criteria will be used in setting these limits? How do we balance the liberal idea of personal freedom with the idea of imposed restrictions on economic activity? And, how do we deal with the constant problem that governments are notoriously inefficient and corrupt, even in countries with long histories of democracy?

The various experiments in democracy and capitalism have been going on long enough for us to glean some lessons from them. First, and perhaps most importantly and most difficultly, we can not afford to allow governments to define and pursue narrow nationalistic interests. These interests are rarely in the long term interest of the nation and are of course counter to the goal of sustainability and peace. There are literally thousands of examples of this, of course. The most recent and most obvious might be the American invasion of Iraq. Though it may have served some narrow interests (ideologues wanting to prove their neo-conservative ideas, free marketers wanting same, those who wanted to reform the balance of power in the Middle East, ridding the region of Sadam, guaranteeing access to the large proven oil reserves), the long term consequences for Iraq, for the region and for the credibility of American intentions and American values will no doubt be severe. To prevent these sorts of short-sighted unilateral international action, sovereign nations will have to give up some freedom and strictly adhere to international agreements and a strong internationally recognized governing body, such as the UN. Internationalim should prevail over Nationalism in all actions, including military actions, tariffs, treaties, etc. Nationalism has to be recognized as an impediment to sustainability and environmental protection.

Second, in all governments, especially the most powerful governments (America, China, etc.) absolute transparency must be the foundation of governance and international relations. Secrecy in government breeds mistrust and corruption. National "secrets" are more dangerous as secrets than as knowledge. This sort of transparency needs to be written into constitutions and international agreements. All attempts at secrecy, and all corruption needs to be both publicly acknowledged and prosecuted. There should be no executive privilege of any sort. Also strict term limits can help prevent the sort of election cycle decision making that goes on now.

The sorts of people who are going to make decisions about the limits of economic activity can not be subject to the whims of the political system: they should not be political appointees. They should be economists, biologists, sociologists, physicists, climatologists, etc. They should not be politicians. They should not be tied down by things like constituencies or special interests. They will be civil servants who meet minimum requirements in order to hold their posts.

We already acknowledge that there ought to be limits to economic activity, this is just an expansion of an already accepted idea.

(One) Trouble with Capitalism

I struggle with capitalism and free markets. On the one hand, it fosters innovation, some good and some bad. On the other, left unchecked, it leads to consolidation of power and wealth. And there's always the tricky issue of labor. Labor isn't just a cost, its people. If those people have too little power and they're in Sinclair’s Jungle, working twelve hour days, losing the occasional limb and getting a nickel an hour. If they have too much power, they create the true workers paradise: as little work as possible for as much pay as possible. Productivity stagnates, profits plummet, chaos ensues.

The biggest issue related to capitalism, however, is that it is dependent on continued growth. This growth, of course, is a myth. Though the economic activity of the world has indeed grown at frightening speed over the last century, it ultimately has limits. Why? Because the stresses put on the environment by human activity, much of it motivated by capitalism (though some, like the depletion of the Amazon rain forest, is carried out by individuals lowest on capitalisms food chain, as opposed to, say, Alcoa). There's a catch 22 here. Though continued economic activity is ultimately undermining the environmental stability our species has enjoyed up to this point, it appears that as a country's average household income increases, some types of stresses on the environment will decrease. For example, the world's most desperately poor often depend on fire wood for fuel. This will lead, often, to deforestation. As their lot in life improves, however, they are more likely to depend on other sources of fuel, lessening the impact of millions of people scavenging for fire wood.

So the simple solution is to simply redistribute wealth, thus reducing those immediate stresses to the environment, right? Sort of. People with higher standards of living, like those in say the US or Japan or Belgium aren't wantonly cutting down their last trees for fuel. They are also likely to have fewer children. This is good. However, wealthier people also tend to consume much more in resources than their poor neighbors, the most obvious resource being petroleum. So called "developed" nations produced far more CO2 emissions than so called "under-developed" countries. Hmmm... seems like we're screwed.

Ahem.

However, there might be some way out of this. Free market capitalism may some day result in a more equitable distribution of wealth (though certainly some will continue to be "more equal" than others). But in order to get there, we are going to end up with more strip mines, more CO2 emissions and more waste than the planet and its inhabitants (all of 'em, not just us) can handle. There needs to be limits. There needs to be a recognition that the whole world can not live at the level and wealth and consumption of the United States, and that includes the United States. After all, an American living in 2000 square foot, air conditioned home with two cars in the garage is a mighty hypocrite if he says, "oh, well, I can live this way, but there needs to be limits to economic growth in the Sudan. The environment, you know."

We live in a land of excess. Of waste. And everyone else wants to get here (figuratively, though sometimes literally, of course). The problem is, "here" is unsustainable.

So there need to be limits.

But from whence comes said limits? Who is going to ask the American public, as well as the Japanese, the Germans, the Chinese, the Rwandans, the El Salvadorans to make sacrifices? Well, I can tell you this: if Americans don't cut back on consumption and growth, there is certainly no good reason for anyone in other countries to.

A change in the culture is in order, but that is slow going my friends.

I can't help but think that the limits must be imposed from the top. This is counter to my belief that the only meaningful and permanent change can occur when culture changes, when beliefs change, but we may be at a crisis point, and by the time we decide that excess is bad, it might be too late.

Next... the trouble with government imposed limits, of course.

A Start

When you see that your society and your government are engaged in destructive activity, Thoreau suggested that you engage in some civil disobedience. Failing to overturn a policy or societal behavior should lead one to at least withdraw support. So he stopped paying taxes he believed were supporting an unjust war. He was right, it was an imperialistic war (with Mexico, we took more than half of all of Mexico as a result), but what did his little protest do? Nothing, except that we are still talking about it as an example today. Each of us has the opportunity to be an example to those around us, to encourage others to take those first steps toward developing a culture dedicated to peace and sustainability. Riding my bike isn't going to end global warming, but more of my coworkers and friends and family may begin to consider doing the same and they in turn might encourage their friends and family. Change is slow. But we need to start.

So... where do we start? Here's a list that I suspect will continue to grow.

-Throw out your TV. Now. It contains programs and commercials that are perpetuating the type of hyper-consumer thinking that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Let's start with energy:

Household Energy:
-Plant trees around your house to keep it cooler.
-Open your windows at night.
-Install ceiling fans.
-Get used to it being a little warmer in your house.
-Turn off lights when you leave rooms.
-Trade all of those incandescent bulbs for CFLs (compact florescent lights) or LED (light emitting diode) bulbs-- they use WAY less energy.
-Add insulation to your attic.
-Wear a sweater.
-Hang your clothes on a line to dry.
-STOP watering your lawn. You'll mow less, too.
-If you have a small yard, use an old fashioned push reel mower.
-If you have a big yard, get an electric mower.
-Turn off your computer when you are done using it.
-Wrap your water heater in a heat conserving blanket. Turn it down. Or get rid of it. There are cool products that heat water as you need it. They're called tankless water heaters. Very smart.
-Move into a smaller home, or consider an apartment.

Petroleum:
-Stop eating meat.
-Buy local. Go to farmers markets, etc.
-Grow your own. Even a little will make a difference (remember the "victory gardens" of
WWII).
-DRIVE LESS: car pool, walk, take the bus, RIDE YOUR BIKE, ride the train, move closer to
work, live in a city, abandon the exurbs and suburbs.
-Drive smarter: start paying attention to your driving habits. Drive the speed limit, slowly start
from stoplights, coast to stoplights, coast down hills, keep your tires inflated properly. Check
out more advanced techniques: http://www.hypermiling.com/
-Fly less: this one is hard for a lot of people. We've developed a habit of extreme mobility.
Taking just a couple domestic flights a year doubles your household energy use. Take the
train, take a bus, or simply stay home more.
-Shop less, buy less stuff, buy stuff that uses less packaging.
-Stop using PLASTIC BAGS!! Don't take a bag for a few items. Bring your own bags for lots of stuff (groceries), or reuse the bags already in your home.

Here's a place to look for more energy reducing strategies:
http://www.ase.org/section/_audience/consumers

Only YOU can stop destruction.

You. Not the government or the automobile companies or the mining companies or the energy companies, but YOU.

This is as much a moral issue as it is a public policy or economic issue.

Each of us has to take personal responsibility as the greatest consumers of resources history has ever known in order to reduce the likelihood of environmental catastrophe. Faith in leadership or technological advances isn't going to cut it. It never does. Neither political leaders nor corporate leaders are driven by morality (though some of the former seem to believe they are), but you are. Whine all you want about Bush pleasuring various industries with lax environmental protection, but you are still driving your SUV and drinking Starbucks out of a disposable cup.


STOP!

Stop driving. Or drive a lot less. Move closer to work. That's a hassle? You like your suburban lifestyle that sucks life from this planet? Tough. YOU will need to start making sacrifices. YOU will need to have fewer children or have none at all (though I believe the act of raising a child, especially if done well, is one of supreme sacrifice, the decision to have one is completely selfish). YOU will need to stop building homes. YOU need to force your government to stop the subsidization of the auto and home building industries by stopping them from building new roads and highways. YOU will need to face the reality that unrestricted economic growth is not only unsustainable, it is destroying everything.
"But I don't want to suffer," YOU say. "This isn't my fault." Yes it is. All of us are as culpable in the destruction of this world as we are in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If enough of us did something about it, it would stop.

So what do we do next? There's lots to do, but mostly it is a change in attitude. You need to start acting as if your behavior matters. Every economic decision no matter how small (taking a plastic bag from your convenience store) or how large (buying a new house) matters.

EVERYTHING you buy or steal has an environmental, social and economic consequence.

Start here:
http://www.treehugger.com/gogreen.php
and here:
http://environment.columbia.edu/docs-wycd/reuse-recycle/reduce.html
and here:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy.asp

There's lots of places to go. You're clever. You're dedicated. You need to start telling everyone else, too. Your parents, your siblings, your children, your friends, the checkout lady at the grocery store, the creepy guy you work with. The government can't legislate morality. It tries, but it can't. Only we can change the world view. Only we can change culture. This is going to be a LONG period of change, generations likely, but we HAVE to start NOW!

How much do you owe?

There seems to be a large percentage of Americans and legislators who believe that America should no longer maintain troops in Iraq. Due to the frightening incompetence of the current administration and the American public that put it in power, the quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein has only resulted in chaos, violence and terror in much of Iraq. Only recently has a belated American conscience led to a call for change. Many of those who rightfully opposed a military invasion of Iraq back in 2003 now feel vindicated in the president's inability to "spread democracy" as Stalin had once hoped to spread communism; though this time with corporate sponsorship. Others, those that had been duped or who had chosen in hopefulness to ignore the obvious, now turn their reactionary backs on their once beloved decider. And, of course, there are those who defy reason and intelligence and believe this has been a noble effort all along, who blame the negative media attention for putting our soldiers in danger.

Democratic legislators hope that their late interest in oversight of the executive branch can erase their five year sloth and patriotic knee jerking. By baptizing themselves in the renewing waters of bombastic oratory, they believe, most likely correctly, that the forgetful American public will turn toward them in averting their gaze in embarrassment of the excesses of the least popular presidency since Richard Nixon (no slouch in excesses himself). The voting public will indeed forgive congress' fecklessness in shirking their duty to to preserve democracy in the homeland. And the public will expect these born again legislators to end this war with the same zeal they expected Bush's army to kick ass.

That this was an immoral war carried out with childlike ardor by incompetents there is no question. The premise of the war was a frightening but wholly created fairytale, the ensuing occupation has been a gyre of corruption, hubris, crime, ignorance and profiteering, and it has all been led by an executive smugly dedicated to torture and the elimination of civil liberties and due process.

And yet there are people living in the formerly functioning state of Iraq. A people to whom the American public (all of us, I'm afraid, not just the Bushies) needs to make reparations. It would be easy for the right to claim that tab was paid with the removal of the machinery of the dictatorship that had haunted them more than a generation. And it would be easy for the left (or some of it) to say, "I tried to stop it, I didn't vote for these guys, I protested, I wrote my representatives and senators and they waged war anyway, in spite of my protest, so I am not responsible. Lets get those kids out of there." The argument of the right is easily dismissed in light of their inability to replace said dictatorship with anything resembling order, peace, stability, etc. As for the argument of the left: too bad. This is democracy, and sometimes the deciders aren't chosen by us and sometimes they have the aptitude of a dancing monkey. But they make the decisions that represent us and we have to live with them, and fix them if necessary. The subjects of Louis XIV may not have been responsible for the wars being fought by France, but our guy does not rule by divine right (despite pervasive beliefs). We are all responsible for the mess in Iraq. All of us.

We, the people of the United States of America, have a moral obligation, as well as an incentive, to make every sacrifice necessary to undo the mess the current administration has made of the Mesopotamian state and give the people of Iraq, at the very least, the standard of living and order enjoyed before the destabilizing effects of the invasion and subsequent occupation. Does this mean a continued occupation as well as the expectation that American servicemen and women will continue to give their lives? It may, but I don't think so. If it does, there should be a draft. But it shouldn't. It defies reason to believe that continuing more of the same will produce better results. However the mess is undone, it must be done with oversight. Strong oversight. Perhaps by outsiders. Maybe the French. It will have to be done with skepticism and pragmatism rather than through the lens of ideology. And it will have to paid for with American tax dollars--lots of them (which will mean repealing those tax cuts). It will have to be done with great amounts of diplomacy (even with so called terrorists) and with the help of Iraq's neighbors (even the ones we don't like). And finally, it will take years, maybe decades, of determination. From all of us. Because that, my friends, is what democracy is all about. The deciders fuck up all the time. And sometimes they are down right evil. But they're our deciders, and we've got pick up after them when they are done.
And then put 'em in jail. That would rock.

Grow Less Corn, Eat Less Beef

There aren't a lot of people in the modern world, let alone America, who think we should grow less food. Population continues to grow at an exponential rate, as Malthus predicted so long ago, we'll need to find ways to increase yields to feed all those babies. Bigger mechanized farms utilizing the latest designer seeds, pesticides and fertilizer are clearly needed to protect our children and all those Chinese and poor African babies, and what about all those Russian orphans. So many babies to feed. Indeed. So we should grow less corn (and fewer babies, too).
What's this, you say? Grow less corn? But the babies! The farmers! You are an unpatriotic baby hating communist!

While all that may be true, growing more corn is keeping people (un-American people) poor, stressing the environment and wasting lots of land to feed cows, pigs, make sweeteners and ethanol. Though that corn is used in lots of products and fed to lots of animals, none of it is used to feed people. In 2005, Iowa alone produced almost 12 million acres of corn producing 2.2 billion bushels of corn.1 That's a whole lot of corn being used for something other than direct human consumption. All that corn is, of course, rotated with beans so as to not deplete the soil, but is also grown using lots of chemicals that end up in the rivers and streams and most of which end up in the Gulf of Mexico and which has produced a "dead zone" the size of New Jersey in which no life, plant, animal or otherwise, can grow.2

Most of that meat you eat is made out of oil. Oil isn't fed to cows, of course, but all the indirect oil usage whether in growing the feed corn or transporting the meat means lots of petroleum is being used for your Big Mac.3 And as our desire for meat and ethanol and other corn based products increases, more people are looking to make a profit off of it. This causes a couple problems: 1. land that is currently under dense rain forest is being burned because of pressure from agriculture and livestock in the Amazon, and 2. the U.S. government is still paying subsidies to American farmers to encourage them to continue growing corn. Of course subsidies allow them to pay their bills and feed their families even when the price of corn is very low. But all these American farmers receiving subsidies are in direct competition with small farmers in other parts of the world (who probably should depend on an export cash crop, but that is a different issue) and the market is saturated with corn and the price is kept down.4 Good for consumers (cows and pigs and their owners, ethanol producers) but bad for unsubsidized producers (poor farmers in the third world).

If we stop subsidizing corn growers in the U.S., if we reduce our demand for corn based products produced with massive amounts of chemicals, we will start to solve some serious issues. Not least of which is the pollution of our creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and even oceans with runoff. We will use that land to diversify our food production so that it is less dependent on oil, and finally the reduced demand will make it less desirable for poor farmers to grow the crop in ecologically fragile areas.

How?

Eat less meat. Or stop eating it all together.5