Sunday, April 27, 2008

best senator...

Why I wish I was from Vermont...

Responding to the earlier post...


To the Editor:

There is an important point to add. The United States has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country — almost 20 percent.

Unlike other industrialized countries, quality and affordable child care in our country is largely unavailable for low- and moderate-income families.

Further, many of these low-income kids attend underperforming schools and drop out of high school at very high rates. To nobody’s surprise, a lot of these ignored, jobless and poorly educated youngsters then engage in destructive and criminal activity.

Perhaps if we adequately invested in the low-income children of this country, we could produce citizens who work and pay taxes, rather than criminals who cost us $50,000 a year to incarcerate.

Bernie Sanders
U.S. Senator from Vermont
Washington, April 23, 2008

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Things you already know

Front page of the NYT today...but since you took this class you already knew this...aren't you glad!


Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Monday, April 21, 2008

Door 1, 2, or 3?

Is Krugman Correct?

Running Out of Planet to Exploit

Paul Krugman April 21 2008

Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last. Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.

In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.”

Last week, oil hit $117.

It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years back. Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we haven’t heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?

How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three competing views.

The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking for high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.

The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill more wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right back down again.

The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good — that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food production and generally running out of planet to exploit.

I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.

There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who believe that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view, however, is this: Where are the inventories?

Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding. Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are only normal.

The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing now and the resource crisis of the 1970s.

What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line — I remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.

In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and resources got cheap again.

But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.

For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when growth in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted — and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources.

Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries, in particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset declining production from established sources.

And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a long-term manifestation of climate change.

Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does it mean?

Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God! We just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad Max” anarchy.

But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously close to the edge — or over it.

Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.

Social Problems = Sins?

From Danielle...


Would equating social problems with Sin make people care more or less, or would it have an affect at all on solving social problems?


The Vatican has brought up to date the traditional seven deadly sins by adding seven modern mortal sins it claims are becoming prevalent in what it calls an era of "unstoppable globalisation".

Those newly risking eternal punishment include drug pushers, the obscenely wealthy, and scientists who manipulate human genes. So "thou shalt not carry out morally dubious scientific experiments" or "thou shalt not pollute the earth" might one day be added to the Ten Commandments.

MODERN EVILS
Environmental pollution
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell".

The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession - or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.

According to a survey carried out here 10 years ago by the Catholic University, 60% of Italians have stopped going to confession altogether. The situation has certainly not improved during the past decade.

Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year. The priest absolves them in God's name.

Talking to course members at the end of the seminar organised by the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican department in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners, Pope Benedict added his own personal voice of disquiet.

"We are losing the notion of sin," he said. "If people do not confess regularly, they risk slowing their spiritual rhythm," he added. The Pope confesses his sins regularly once a week.

Greatest sins of our times

In an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Archbishop Girotti said he thought the most dangerous areas for committing new types of sins lay in the fields of bio-ethics and ecology.

He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. The archbishop brushed off cases of sexual violence against minors committed by priests as "exaggerations by the mass media aimed at discrediting the Church".

ORIGINAL DEADLY SINS
A confessional box in St Peters, Rome, 23 August, 2007
Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Lust
Anger
Greed
Sloth
Father Gerald O'Collins, former professor of moral theology at the Papal University in Rome, and teacher of many of the Catholic Church's current top Cardinals and Bishops, welcomed the new catalogue of modern sins.

"I think the major point is that priests who are hearing confessions are not sufficiently attuned to some of the real evils in our world," he told the BBC News website. "They need to be more aware today of the social face of sin - the inequalities at the social level. They think of sin too much on an individual level.

"I think priests who hear confession should have a deeper sense of the violence and injustice of such problems - and the fact that people collaborate simply by doing nothing. One of the original deadly sins is sloth - disengagement and not getting involved," Father O'Collins said. The Jesuit professor now teaches at St Mary's University in Twickenham.

"It was interesting that these remarks came from the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary," he said. "I can't remember a time when it was so concerned about issues such as environmental pollution and social injustice. It's a new way of thinking."

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Why I'll be having a Shot of Absolut Vodka this Weekend

This is what it has come to...Absolut Vodka has to apologize for an ad that depicted several Western and Southern states as part of Mexico...which they were before we took them. Has anti-immigrant sentiment reached this point?

I don't think i have had any vodka in the last ten years, but i will proudly order some absolut this weekend..

Here is a discussion of the ad...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/08/ap/strange/main4001346.shtml

Here is some commentary about the ad from two different blogs (one obviously liberal and the other conservative)

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/?p=241
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/02/absolut-reconquista/

Friday, April 11, 2008

Lobbying and Why Health Care Will Not Change If Dems are in Power

Another Record Year for Lobbying:

$2.8 Billion

__________________

Expanding Washington’s influence industry by 8 percent in 2007, industries and interests spent $17 million for every day Congress was in session. The drug industry spent the most of all, paying lobbyists 25 percent more last year.

____________________

WASHINGTON—Corporations, industries, labor unions, governments and other interests spent a record $2.79 billion in 2007 to lobby for favorable policies in Washington, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has calculated. This represents an increase of 7.7 percent, or $200 million, over spending in 2006. And for every day Congress was in session, industries and interests spent an average of $17 million to lobby lawmakers and the federal government at large.

“At a time when our economy is contracting, Washington’s lobbying industry has been expanding,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the 25-year-old watchdog group. “Lobbying seems to be a recession-proof industry. In some respects, interests seek even more from our government when the economy slows.”

CRP, which tracks lobbying spending on its award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org, found that, for the second straight year, health interests spent more on federal lobbying than any other economic sector—$444.7 million. The finance, insurance and real estate sector was second, spending about $418.7 million.

Looking more specifically within the larger sectors the Center tracks, the pharmaceuticals/health products industry outspent all industries by shelling out $227 million for lobbying services, or an average of $1.4 million for the 164 days that the 110th Congress met in 2007. The drug industry has spent $1.3 billion on federal lobbying over the last 10 years, more than any other industry. Its reported lobbying increased 25 percent in 2007.

The second-biggest spender among industries in 2007 was insurance, which spent $138 million on lobbying, followed by electric utilities, which spent $112.7 million, the computers/Internet industry, which spent $110.6 million, and hospitals and nursing homes, which paid lobbyists at least $90.5 million. The securities and investment industry, which ranked sixth, spent $87.3 million, increasing its lobbying 40 percent over 2006.

Drilling even further to look at particular corporations, trade associations, unions and other organizations, the biggest spender in 2007 was again the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Although the business booster’s reported lobbying decreased about 27 percent last year, following a record year in 2006, the Chamber and its affiliates still managed to spend nearly $52.8 million on in-house lobbyists and with K Street firms.

General Electric was the number-two spender ($23.6 million), followed by three interests in the health sector: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America ($22.7 million), American Medical Association ($22.1 million) and the American Hospital Association ($19.7 million). Other big spenders on the Top 20 list included AARP, Exxon Mobil, AT&T, General Motors, the National Association of Realtors, Verizon Communications and several defense contractors, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

The amount of money spent on federal lobbying has increased about 8 percent annually since the late 1990s, making last year’s growth typical. But some interests vastly increased their lobbying in 2007. Blackstone Group, the private equity firm lobbying to prevent higher taxes on its profits, ramped up 477 percent to spend $5.4 million. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, spent $9.2 million last year—up 464 percent—and presumably focused its lobbying on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act.

Among Washington’s lobbying firms, Patton Boggs reported the highest revenue from registered lobbying for the fifth year in a row, $41.9 million, an increase over 2006 of more than 20 percent. The firm’s most lucrative clients included the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, the candy and pet food company Mars Inc., telecom giant Verizon, the pharmaceutical manufacturers Bristol-Myers Squibb and Roche, and the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America).

The Center for Responsive Politics calculated spending on lobbying as narrowly defined under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, because that is what is disclosed to the Senate Office of Public Records (SOPR) and House Legislative Resource Center. Spending by corporations, industry groups, unions and other interests that is not strictly for lobbying of covered government officials, but is still meant to influence public policy, is not reported—and may exceed what was spent on direct lobbying. Such activities include public relations, advertising and grassroots lobbying.

Spending on lobbying was reported twice a year to Congress in 2007. The year-end reports were due Feb. 14 to SOPR, which was the data source for the Center’s analysis. The Center’s Lobbying Database on OpenSecrets.org now includes approximately 42,000 reports from 2007 that were available electronically from SOPR on April 7, in addition to data back to 1998. Despite SOPR’s new electronic filing system, it still took about eight weeks for complete year-end lobbying data to become electronically available to the public.

Beginning this year, lobbying reports will now be filed quarterly. April 21 is the deadline for reports covering lobbying in January through March of this year.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

What Monetary Policy Would You Recommend

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/09leonhardt.html?em&ex=1207886400&en=37ecbcf28a0d85b5&ei=5087%0A

again, we spoke about this earlier in the year and i know many of you were surprised to see the increases in inequality since the 1970s...the nyt seems to think this is somewhat new or at least new news to some people...what policy would you recommend knowing what you have learned this semester?

Good Example of Policy Shifts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/washington/09justice.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1207768286-NqHpT/FVhUiqsALqSZrQCQ

i can see both good and bad things coming out of this...there is a good podcast i have from npr i will try and attach somewhere in sakai or here that also addresses these shifts.

Friday, April 4, 2008

Is Obama Black Enough?

From Danielle:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html


I guess my larger question for the class is Does race matter--should it (we can start with the election, but as we ended class last night i think the examples and nathan's comment + we will begin with Kozol's discussion of the importance of race in education next week might propel us into a larger discussion) ?

Thursday, April 3, 2008

polls

this just in...notice that what a lot of americans are worried about are things we already knew...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/us/03cnd-poll.html?hp
why do you think the percentage of americans who favor tax hikes for those over 25ok is so low?