California Sinking May 18, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, California budget problems, Joseph Stiglitz, Meg Whitman
add a comment
The ballot propositions being voted on in today’s election are likely to go down to defeat, according to latest polls, as well they should since they will not solve the budget deficit and will hamstring the state for years to come.
Even if they should pass, California is faced with at least a $15 billion dollar deficit.
Thus far, the only solution to the budget deficit offered by the clown show that is the Schwarzenegger Administration is draconian cuts to health, education, and social services.
In an economic crisis, budget cuts are the last thing we need. In a recession, consumers cut back on their buying and businesses cut back on production. As a result, the state has to encourage spending, so people can stay employed, businesses are encouraged to produce, and eventually grow buy hiring new workers. By contrast, state spending reductions that entail unemployment or underemployment for thousands of teachers and state workers reduces consumption and thus reduces production.
This is elementary economics and it is hard to fathom why Schwarzenegger and his Republican stooges in the legislature don’t get it.
What kind of response do we get from Republicans? From Andrew Ross:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger‘s latest grim budgets bring to mind assertions by opponents of Propositions 1A-1F that, in the words of gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” Given that the state is facing a $21.3 billion hole, does not a $11.7 billion revenue drop count as a problem? …The three major sources of state revenue – income taxes, sales taxes and corporate taxes – fell by $12.4 billion, a 16.4 percent drop.
How is this not a “revenue problem”?
Schwarzenegger, since he has been in office, has constantly used the argument that business will avoid the state if taxes are raised. But what business will want to stay or relocate here when schools are decimated, college is unaffordable and inaccessible, and unemployment is skyrocketing?
In a recent letter to New York Governor David Patterson who is facing his own budget crisis, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued that raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents would help pull the state out of a recession more quickly by maximizing the total spending in the economy.
“Every dollar of state and local government spending enters the local economy right away, generating a greater economic impact,” he wrote.
“Raising taxes on high income households also will reduce spending, but by less than the amount of the tax increase since those with plenty of income typically spend only a fraction of their income,” he wrote.
Yet, raising taxes is not on the agenda.
Just as George W. Bush presided over the demise of the U.S., Schwarzenegger is presiding over the demise of the Golden State. I doubt that in 10 years anyone will want to live here.
Wikipedia Hoax May 17, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts.2 comments
A sociology student placed a fake quote on Wikipedia. That is not a surprise. Anyone can update articles on Wikipedia. Any serious use of Wikipedia requires independent fact-checking.
The problem is the false information was repeated in a variety of newspapers across the country, according a Dublin News Service.
Shane Fitzgerald, a student at Ireland’s University College Dublin, added the false information to the Wikipedia entry for Maurice Jarre, a recently deceased Oscar-winning composer, just to see how far the information would spread.
“I didn’t expect it to go that far. I expected it to be in blogs and sites, but on mainstream quality papers? I was very surprised about,” he said.
Traditional journalism is in trouble as newspapers across the country are going out of business. The argument for lamenting the demise of newspapers is that their reporters can do research that the rest of us cannot do.
But anyone can look up information on Wikipedia. It kinda undermines their argument.
,
Friday Food Blogging May 15, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Food and Drink.Tags: consumption patterns in U.S., obesity rates, slow food movement
add a comment
Related to Ian’s recent posts about the slow-food movement (here and here), Catherine Rampell in the NY Times extrapolated some data from a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Society.
Here I’ve plotted out the relationship between time the average person in a given country spends eating and that country’s obesity rate (as measured by the percentage of the national population with a body mass index higher than 30).
There appears to be a inverse correlation between time spent eating and obesity rates. Is their a causal relationship?
The French spend 135 minutes eating, and their food is incredibly rich, but they consume fewer calories than we do. We consume about 3790 calories, the French 3390, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Association.
If there is a causal relationship, I suspect the difference has to do with the role fast-food plays in the American diet.
Origins Of Life May 14, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Science.Tags: Evolution, origins of life research, prebiotics
1 comment so far
Evolutionary theory provides us with a powerful and well-confirmed account of the development of life. But it provides no explanation of how life started, of how organic matter developed out of inorganic matter.
This lacuna has provided fodder for the “God of the gaps” crowd to remonstrate about “evil scientists” foisting their “religion” on “good Christian folk”.
But there is a discipline called “origin of life research” (or prebiotics) and it is making progress:
Recent years have seen a number of discoveries about DNA’s close chemical relative, RNA, that suggest it played a key role in early protolife, leading to a proposal that life started out in an RNA world. One of the problems with this concept, however, was the fact that chemists hadn’t come up with a way to synthesize the basic building blocks of RNA using the chemicals that were likely to be present in the early earth. Now, by taking a systems chemistry approach, a team of researchers at the University of Manchester have neatly cleared that hurdle…
An RNA molecule is basically a polymer of individual units comprised of a ring-shaped base molecule, a sugar, and a phosphate. Chemists had figured out different ways that simple organic chemicals that were likely to be present in the early earth could form the base and sugar (phosphates are abundant). But, so far, they’d failed to chemically link them together in a functional unit…the researchers found that, by having the phosphate present in the reactions from the start, they could build up a three-ringed structure that would then react with the phosphate. That reaction would split open one of the rings, with the remaining two linked rings forming the cytosine base and sugar, all hooked up to a reactive phosphate that could undergo polymerization into RNA.
Of course, this doesn’t explain how, in fact, organic life emerged on earth, but answering the “how possible” question is the first step in that explanation.
The Story of the Lateralized Brain May 13, 2009
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Animal Intelligence, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Science.Tags: Lateralized brain; story-telling
2 comments
Weren’t we taught that (1) you’re either “left-brained” or “right-brained”? And weren’t we taught that (2) only humans have lateralized brains, i.e., brains that are divided into two asymmetrical brain hemispheres? Turned out we were lied to. Or (since I have a problem with accusing people of lying if they were just wrong) our teachers were misinformed. But now we hear (Zimmer, “The Big Similarities”) that other animals also have lateralized brains—something that those of us with pets have suspected for a long time. And why not? From bees to birds to mammals, our brains are specialized in right- and left brain structures, which may aid the individual in developing fresh survival strategies. And the “right-brained” and “left-brained” story has always been oversimplified; of course we all make use of all our brain, even if we have different talents (and the pop slogan that “We only use 10 percent of our brain” should be taken out and beaten to death). And we have known for a while that, as separate as the brain halves may look, the corpus callosum that unites them (which is thicker in female brains than in the male equivalents—so make of that what you will) is important for creating a unified conscious experience. So, if anyone is still in doubt, yes, we have animal brains. Some little critter a long time ago survived because it had a lateralized brain, and we have inherited it. But of course that doesn’t mean we haven’t improved on the first model, and the next, and the next, and made it into a uniquely human version. Zimmer’s article doesn’t much go into that, but there’s no shortage of research in that area.
What I’m curious about right now is our story-telling capacity. It resides in the left brain hemisphere, with our processing of words, but language is also processed in the right hemisphere, for its emotional content. We don’t tell stories without emotional values—otherwise it would be like reading from the phone book. So the good storytellers among us have a vivid cooperation between the two hemispheres. But how about non-human brains? Those big mammal brains that recognize faces, produce and understand meaningful sounds, communicate with body language, have strong emotional ties to their group, and remember where they buried last year’s bones? If future researchers were to find that those same brain areas also light up when scanned, maybe we should start looking for a grammar of nonhuman animal communications…and maybe some day I’ll have to stop saying that the ultimate human characteristic is that we are the ones who tell stories…
Follow up on Slow Food Co-option May 13, 2009
Posted by iduckles in Uncategorized.3 comments
As a quick follow-up on my earlier post about large corporations co-opting the language and rhetoric of the slow food movement, today I came across this article in the New York Times. There is a nice quotation in the article that, I believe, nicely summarizes why I find this practice so problematic:
“The local foods movement is about an ethic of food that values reviving small scale, ecological, place-based, and relationship-based food systems,” Ms. Prentice said. “Large corporations peddling junk food are the exact opposite of what this is about.”
The real concern here, I think, is that as large corporations increasingly co-opt and corrupt the language of this movement, people will lose touch with the ideas and values that inform the movement. As I see it, the Slow Food Movement is motivated, in large part, by an ethic of care (I would be curious to hear Dwight’s thoughts on this) in which one’s eating habits are guided and shaped by the relationships one forms with individuals in one’s community. Rather than buy food from who-knows-where grown by strangers one never even sees, one instead develops a relationship with the local farmers. In exchange for supporting her operations, she provides me with quality products that are grown in a responsible manner. I know they are grown in a responsible manner because I know the person who grew them and I can go and see the farm where the food is grown. It is this emphasis on forming relationships that is so important to the Slow Food movement, and which is lost through this co-option of the movement by large corporations.
Free Beer: As a quick side-note, I recently started brewing my own beer and am relatively pleased by my first efforts. I currently have way too much around the house, so if any of my colleagues would like to try some locally produced beer, just drop me a line and I will bring you a bottle or two.
A Case Study in Corruption May 12, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Ethics, politics.Tags: campaign finance, check the box, corruption, Joseph Crowley, tax dodge
add a comment
The Obama administration is trying to close loopholes in the tax code that allow firms to avoid paying taxes.
According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office,
72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
Some of this is from operating losses but much of it is due to tax loopholes and tax credits.
The study showed about 28 percent of large foreign corporations, those with more than $250 million in assets, doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $372 billion in gross receipts, the senators said. About 25 percent of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes in 2005 despite $1.1 trillion in gross sales that year, they said
One of those loopholes that Obama seeks to eliminate is the so-called “check-the-box” rule. It works as follows.
Under so-called “check the box” rules, companies can register their subsidiaries as separate units that aren’t subject to U.S. tax rules.
In one scenario, a U.S. company could use operations in the Virgin Islands to avoid paying taxes on investments in Sweden. The company does this by setting up three new corporations: a subsidiary in Sweden, a holding company in the Virgin Islands as well as another subsidiary owned by the holding company.
The Virgin Islands subsidiary makes a loan to the Sweden subsidiary for a new facility there. The interest on the loan would be income for the subsidiary in the Virgin Islands and a tax deduction for the Swedish subsidiary.
Many companies use such set ups to funnel income from high-tax Europe to no-tax Caribbean. While the company would pay taxes on the transaction if it occurred in the U.S., “check the box” rules allow the company to avoid paying taxes in both Sweden and the U.S.
One would think that ending this tax dodge would be a no-brainer, but the administration is getting pushback from business lobbyists and Congress, even from some Democrats. The reason is the usual obfuscation about costing American jobs.
Joseph Crowley, a Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he doesn’t want any tax changes to “harm” Citigroup Inc., his New York district’s largest private-sector employer.
But as Matt Yglesias describes Crowley’s district:
The NY-7 isn’t like some huge swathe of Nebraska where people depend on in-district employment. It’s primarily composed of a residential section of Queens—itself a part of America’s densest city—and the vast majority of Crowley’s employed constituents will either commute to out-of-district jobs or else work in small neighborhood businesses.
So why would Crowley be reluctant to eliminate the tax dodge?
Did anyone guess “campaign donations”. And why is this not called bribery?
Useless Education Reform May 10, 2009
Posted by Dwight Furrow in Dwight Furrow's Posts, Education.Tags: A Nation At Risk, education reform, National Assessment of Educational Progress, NCLB
4 comments
In 1983, educational reformers published research that garnered national attention. Entitled A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, the book reinforced the idea that our schools were utterly failing and it stimulated waves of reform measures. The currently ubiquitous high stakes testing including the federal No Child Left Behind Act and various state testing regimes are the culmination of these reform movements.
But this chart released last week by National Assessment of Educational Progress suggests there never was a crisis and that all the reform adds up to a hill of beans.
Contrary to the claims of A Nation at Risk, our educational system was not an utter failure in the 1970’s and apparently the reforms since then have produced only modest improvements at best. High stakes testing has not made much of a difference. 9-year-olds are doing a bit better in reading and math but not the upper grades—average scores for 17 year olds really haven’t budged.
To be fair, it is a bit too early to judge the effects of NCLB since it has only been operative since 2002. But there is not much evidence here of improvement.
This reinforces the point that critics of school reform have made over the years. The movement toward higher standards and accountability was largely manufactured by conservatives and business interests intent on undermining support for public education by blaming schools (specifically teachers and especially teacher’s unions) for a variety of ills, and denying the influence of poverty and school funding inequities.
Indeed our educational system is failing compared to other developed nations. But it fails because of poverty, children’s lack of access to health care, inequitable school funding, and an anti-intellectual environment that views education as a meal ticket rather than something intrinsically valuable.
A War against Women May 10, 2009
Posted by melindalucampbell in Current Events, Uncategorized.Tags: Taliban, Women's Rights
5 comments
As I read the news of recent rise in the strength and authority of Taliban forces in Pakistan, realizing what their coming into power means for any community that has fallen under their power, I shudder with a level of anger and feel a dismay far stronger than what I usually experience when learning about any display of man’s inhumanity and violent, aggressive nature. Not only does a takeover by the Taliban in a town, a city, or even an entire state (which has not happened yet but is their clear goal) mean the enforcement of a strict adherence to an extremist interpretation of Islamic law that recommends severe and brutal punishments for actions such as drinking, adultery, theft, and even criticism of Islamic law itself, but it also dictates the complete subjugation of the female half of the population. Under the rule of the Taliban, women are treated as a fearsome, evil, and chaotic force whose power must be repressed in all dimensions at all times. Not only would women have to forego any sort of formal or higher education, their basic rights as human beings would be usurped, and wanton brutality against women would not only be more widespread, it would be sanctioned by ”holy” law. This is not news to anyone; the Taliban’s radical use of violent force and warped notion of justice has become familiar to us since the U.S. fought them in the war in Afghanistan. And their cruel tyranny over women is also widely advertised. The question I raise here is why isn’t the fight against the Taliban (or any forces or factions in concert with their aims) seen not just as a battle between political factions, religious groups, or rebels and state soldiers, but rather as a universal struggle against a wholesale attempt to take away the rights and freedoms of women and girls, period. It is not just believers in Democracy, or political self-determination, or Jews, or Christians, or Westerners, or Americans who are the opponents of the Taliban. We should see the Taliban and their supporters as the destroyers of women’s rights and freedoms; hence we should see them as the enemy of humanity. Why isn’t the world acting in concert against them?
Friday Food Blogging: Food Justice and Philosophy May 8, 2009
Posted by iduckles in Culture, Education, Film, Food and Drink, Teaching.1 comment so far
Last weekend I attended the informative and inspiring Cultivating Food Justice Conference at City College. In addition to building a solar oven and learning how to make tempeh, the conference got me thinking again about the insane food policy we have in this country; a food policy in which the government encourages US farmers, through subsidies, to grow food that makes us sick, malnourished, and obese (yes, you read that correctly, many people in in the US and around the developed world are both obese and malnourished at the same time! See also Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me). In addition, though there is much more to learn, it is starting to appear that the swine flu Influenza A H1N1 has at least some relationship to industrial hog farming. All of this suggests a system that stands in need of major reform, but the question that emerged for me from the conference was, what can I do about it? I am already a vegetarian (some fish, some eggs), I grow food in my backyard, my neighbor supplies us with fresh eggs from her chickens, and I live a block and a half from the greatest, most socially responsible grocery store I have ever seen: Ocean Beach People’s Food Co-op. So, aside from changes in my own life, what can I do to affect the community at large?
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing reform in our country is that many people don’t quite realize how bad things have gotten. Few people ever experience a modern industrial farm and many still have a romanticized ideal of farmers, not realizing that most farms are run by large agribusinesses and that the family farm is (with some exceptions) a lost relic of the last century. Fortunately, in recent years there have been a number of important books and films that seek to shed light on the problems facing our country and also suggest some solutions.
One answer to the question of what to do that immediately occurred to me as a professional philosopher and teacher is to take a more active role in exposing my students to these issues and topics. One of the great things about being a philosopher is that there is, essentially, no topic that is out of bounds for philosophical investigation. Theologians shouldn’t really talk about science, scientists should probably stay away from religion, but as philosophers all these topics and more are fair game. Thus, I have decided that I need to take a more active role in incorporating issues of food justice into my courses. Since I mainly teach critical thinking, this is fairly easy to do.
More generally, I think it would be a great deal of fun to try and teach a course on the philosophy of food. Clearly, in the current economic situation, the idea of introducing a new course that doesn’t immediately suggest a transfer of credits to the UC’s or Cal States is ludicrous, but a fellow can dream. I think such a course could begin with an examination of philosophically significant theories of justice (Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls; the usual suspects). Then, in the second part of the course, we would apply these theories to various issues surrounding food and food policy. Fortunately, there is a plethora of recent books and films that would provide excellent material to examine. A partial bibliography might include:
- In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan
- The Omnivore’s Dilemma also by Michael Pollan
- The Unsettling of America by Wendall Barry
- Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser (the book, not the lousy film)
- Reefer Madness also by Schlosser (The book consists of three essays, one of which discusses the plight of migrant farm laborers in California)
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver
- Slow Food Revolution: A New Culture for Eating and Living by Carlo Petrini (founder of the slow food movement) and Gigi Padovani
- King Corn a documentary about industrial corn farming.
- The Real Dirt on Farmer John a documentary about one’s man’s effort to change the way food is produced and consumed in the US.
I think this would make a great course that many students would really enjoy (especially if I incorporated some “labs” and field trips intot he curriculum).
