Regulation Shmegulation

In light of the never-ending riptide of financial institutions that have collapsed in the last ~12 months, many people in high places are asking themselves what to do. Some are blaming the people of the United States. Some are leveling their criticism at the government regulators. Should we buy out the debt of these troubled institutions? Some Presidential candidates have done a nice switcheroo, claiming at first that, "We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act," and then following up today with a gentle, "The government was forced to commit $85 billion...there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here." Uh-huh

But, no one seems to want to say that these sort of industries need more regulation. Sarah Palin says, "This crisis happened for several reasons... our regulatory system is out-dated and needs a complete overhaul... John McCain and I are going to put an end to the mismanagement and the abuses in Washington and on Wall Street... we're going to reform the way Wall Street does business... and we will get government out of the way of private sector progress." This is the text from one speech in Colorado. Now, are we going to reform the regulation processes, or get government out of business? Which is it Sarah?

This post is not to criticize the Republican candidates or to point out the inconsistencies in their responses. That's just a bonus feature of the writing today. This is to highlight the need for oversight in industries like this. Free-market capitalism gives private entities the ability and the freedom to conduct business in any way they see fit. This is one of capitalism's greatest strengths, it enables a large amount of production and innovation. But capitalism, as a pure economic concept, does not allow for many protections for other areas of the social network. Capitalism does not implicitly recognize the need for labor protection, environmental regulation, insurance, etc. Capitalism's job is to make money, which is does with great efficiency. It is the government's job to regulate capitalism to ensure that the people, the land, and the society upon which capitalism draws its resources is protected.

The breakdown of these financial markets is a good example of government not doing its job. Capitalism, in the guise of these lending houses and banking firms, developed a method through which they could lend money to less-than-ideal candidates. In order to lessen their own responsibility, they created a market to buy, sell, and trade this mortgage debt with other firms. And when the loans started coming back as default, they all realize that none of them had the money to cope with the fall-out. The government's responsibility is to ensure this stability, to keep these sort of dubious markets from materializing in the first place. The government failed in its job here, and now there is a major shakedown of the entire financial world due to the huge debt loads which are now coming due. The answer to this is not to "get government out of the way of private sector progress," but to reasonably and rationally utilize the government's powers of oversight to maintain an equitable and prosperous economy and society. This is the key step that some candidates are missing.

Slipping Stances on World Oppressors

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." - GW Bush, 2nd inaugural address, Jan 2005

What words of hope he spoke back then. Standing with the oppressed. Of course, he was referring to our imminent success in Iraq, our "mission accomplished" in helping the Iraqis stand against their oppressor Saddam Hussein. However, these days our stance seems more like the Texas two-step than a strong mission statement.

A lot of words has been exchanged about the recent turmoil in Pakistan. For those who might not know yet what is going on, I'll give you a quick recap: Faced with a promise he made of giving up his military post, and of Presidential elections in which most polls declared he'd be wiped out by opposition parties, "President" Pervez Musharraf has couped against his own presidency, declaring marshal law, dissolving the Constitution, placing several members of the Supreme Court under house arrest when they refused to go along with him, and jailing thousands of lawyers and other protesters for demonstrating against him. Oh, and he is silencing major independent news organizations.

The worst part of all this is the international community is doing nothing than muttering under its breath about the situation. Especially in the United States, where this administration has made a world-wide campaign against those who might use tyranny to further injustice and terror. We have invoked sanctions or traded harsh words with several nations who we consider to be conducting activities we deem anti-democratic. For examples, see Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran. In all those places, we have tried to bring our pro-democracy rhetoric to bear with some force, usually economic, to try and effect changes in how they do business with their own people.

However, now, when one of our "most important non-NATO" allies goes and shreds any hope of democratic reform, we sit idly by. We have even made excuses for General Musharraf's actions (as he is acting more a general than a president). "Oh, he has the bomb... we don't want to antagonize him" ... "Well, he's still fighting the war on terror for us, we don't want to disrupt him" ... "if he goes, Pakistan will only have anarchy and could fall into the hands of extremists." All of these are practically bullshit.

** Bomb - yes, Pakistan has the bomb. However, we have not shrunk from admonishing other nations with fully-fledged nuclear capabilities (China, North Korea). It is even more dangerous because Pakistan's nuclear engineers were responsible for helping North Korea develop it's own arsenal. This should be even more of a reason why the army should not be in control all the time ... they clearly do not have the mental or moral capacity to determine when to hold onto to their state secrets.
**Terror - Pakistan has made few contributions to the war on terror recently, and indeed seems to be taking some steps backwards. The same day he swept democratic precepts aside, Musharraf also released 28 Taliban prisoners in a prisoner-soldier swap with militants on his border. Some of those included bomb makers and transporters. Where are they headed now? Not to protest with the lawyers; they're most likely headed over the border into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is on a rebound and has posted several new leads this year, pushing close to Khandahar and other cities as they struggle to regain their grip on the country. And Pakistan's army is not fighting them. Not to mention how thousands have been called from the front line to fight and arrest the protesters, as if these people are the most dangerous threat to the country's future.
**Anarchy - This whole charade was well-timed to offset the elections and Supreme Court decisions, all of which were suspected to go against Musharraf. In a poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, Musharraf has a lower approval rating than recently-returned oppsition leader Benazir Bhutto (38% to 63%). It is widely believed that her party would sweep Musharraf from office in the elections (which have now been postponed indefinitely), and she has signaled support for the United States as a part of her moderate stance.

None of the arguments hold water. The end result is that we are supporting some modicum of short-term stability for democracy, lending credence to a dictator who is actively oppressing his people rather than step in and try to aid the people of Pakistan, in some way, with their struggle. It seems strange, as we have taken much effort to try to establish democracy in other portions of the world. Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into Iraq, trying to prop up a democracy and create a "model state" in the Middle East. If we value stability over democracy, why depose Saddam in the first place? He was very stable, we were keeping an eye on him so he was pretty pinned down (still no WMDs found), and was not in league with the Taliban, Iran, or other terrorist groups. Yet we brought him down to promote democracy. Cuba has been stable to the rest of the world for decades. Yet just last month President Bush stood beside Cuban exiles and railed against Cuba's denying of freedom to its people.

I am not urging we march into Pakistan as we did Baghdad. For one, we do not have the military means or public support to initiate such an endeavor. Also, perhaps Iraq has taught us that military force is not always the best way to effect "regime change" in a country. However, to let Pakistan stumble down this road without demonstrating that we will not stand for this type of behavior, even from our allies, is unconscionable. When 53% of Pakistanis believe that one of their top priorities as a nation is "Free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary" we should pay attention. When only 18% approve of suicide bombings, we should realize this is a society not filled with radicals, yet, but rational people who desire the means and ways to make their life better in the future, for them and their children. However, our image is tarnished there, whether beyond hope is debatable. How might things change if we were to help promote democracy in a peaceful way? One that is not seen as militaristic, or anti-Islamic, but moderate, accepting, progressive yet understanding? It is a tall order, but don't we owe it to our credibility in the region, nay across the world as a country whose defining purpose is to promote democracy, as it is the surest way to repeal terror and oppression around the world?

Consider also this hypothetical future: 53% of people disapproved of Musharraf even before this weekend's shenanigans. If he retains power, under the auspices of fighting terror and keeping stability, it is altogether possible that those young people who he claims to be protecting will only be further marginalized by his draconian measures. When free press and free courts do not offer people a legitimate avenue to redress their concerns with the government and each other, where will they turn? Madrassas, sharia law, militants, tribal organizations that can help give them what the "stable" government of Pakistan can not. Do you doubt this? Consider what happened when the Shah of Iran lost touch with his people, and used all means necessary to stay in power after he was returned to office in 1953. Where did the people turn, but to a small religious leader named Ruhulla Khomeini? And how did that example turn out, and how did it effect our world in terms of security, human rights, terrorism? Would we really want to sandwich Afghanistan between two of the same? Do we really want another Iran, this time with already developed nuclear capabilities?

To end this, I'll leave with another quote, used by GW Bush in his inaugural address, but also resonating into this conflict:

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." --Abraham Lincoln, from the April 6, 1859 letter to Henry Pierce

After those who deny freedom are no longer in power, how will what we have done (or not done) while they were in control affect what happens when they no longer retain it?

Wow, what a great thing sanctions are

I'm so glad that we have perfected the use of sanctions to help further democracy in the world. It really has worked out so well for us so far. We were able to put the squeeze on the communist regime in Cuba, forcing them to overthrow their government and become a truly democratic society. We are well on our way to pressure Iran to stop enriching Uranium and being a jerk to the rest of the region. This is quite a useful tool, we should think of deploying it more often.

In reality though, I can't believe what I am reading about everything these days. Sanctions, especially the unilateral sanctions that we tend to prefer, have proven over the last five decades to do nothing in terms of actually forcing change. And yet our government, whether Republican or Democrat, seems oblivious to that fact.

Two recent examples from the news further this reality. Recently, President Bush met with a room half of Latin American diplomats, and half Cuban exiles. His speech was directed at the transfer of power in Cuba, and the President expressed concern that the people take this opportunity to shed the government that has controlled their destinies for the last half century. Mr. Bush also took the time to re-iterate the U.S.'s stance that the travel and trade embargoes on the island nation will continue until such a time as the country returns to a democratic state. These embargoes have worked wonderfully so far, haven't they? Really brought Cuba to see the error of their ways, didn't it?

Actually, the United States is a victim of its own policy, making us impotent as well as a hypocrite to boot. Since 2001, after a visit to the island nation by Hurricane Michelle, the United States authorized the sale of food and medical supplies to Cuba, in the pretense of humanitarian relief. The supplies could only be purchased "cash-only," as if that made a difference. Since then, the US has become one of Cuba's top 10 trading partners, racking up millions of dollars in trade with the verboden country. This has also aroused the ire of our allies, especially Canada, in relation to free trade, but that is a topic for another time.

Of course, the Cuban exile portion of the room leapt into an ovation, according to the New York Times. The diplomats remained silent, probably thinking of the rhetoric that was spewing forth and how they've heard this sort of speech before, only with regard to the leaders of the Middle East. It wasn't going to fly.

Indeed, this administration has stepped up the "sanction and embargo" theme in the volatile Middle East, this week condemning Iran and levying sanctions against the Qud Guards and several Iranian banking institutions, which Mr. Bush designated as sponsors of terrorism. Despite the fact that there have been sanctions imposed on the region since the 1979 uprising. Despite the fact that the Guards, and Iran, still does major business daily across the globe, in full flaunt of whatever we say against it.

The message we should be learning from all this is that unilateral sanctions do nothing anymore. Iran is in business with countries who will gladly fill any void left by the United States, especially considering Iran's vast petrochemical wealth. China, Russia, and the EU are just some of the international groups willing to deal with Iran in order to continue global economic growth. Nothing the US can say or threaten will cease that. Globalism has undermined these sorts of efforts before. Cuba did business with Russia, Canada, and the EU (and now the US as well, behind our own backs) for decades under a US "embargo". The Sudan, another black-listed country, has also turned elsewhere for economic investment, finding plenty of suitors who want to work with their own oil reserves. The list goes on.

The only way sanctions can work is if it is a concerted effort by the major economic powers of the world (the US, EU, China, India, Russia, and Canada) to really bring the pressure to bear on these nations. Unilateralism went out the window when globalism opened the floodgates. We no longer control the majority of trade and money flow in the world; if a country cannot do business with us, it can find other lucrative partners more than willing to turn a blind eye to whatever humanitarian, environmental, or political atrocity might be going on inside in order to further their own domestic economic agenda. If we continue to go it alone in this effort, we only end up looking ineffective and out of touch with reality, as the rest of the world sits silently during out tirade, then cleans up financially in the aftermath. Better international diplomacy, and a good dose of the real world and its new global structure, would greatly benefit any pipe dreams we may harbor to affect real change in the world via economic pressures. Until then, the audience is holding its breath.

Finally, Someone's Thinking

It was slow in coming, very slow. The solution to the Iraq, problem, as I have stated previously, was in the partition of the country into various slices, mostly likely upon ethnic/sectarian lines. It is unfortunate that it should come to this, but keep in mind that the country borders of Iraq and much of the Middle East was constructed not by their own people, but by the colonial powers that contained power over the area at the early point of the 20th century. France and England were the principal participants, and when they were forced to give up power and return the land to the people of the region after WWI, they drew arbitrary lines and left it at that. They have a reputation of this, for the colonial powers did the same thing in Africa, which was one reason that led to the genocide in Rwanda so recently.

And, as it has been proven time and time again in the news and reports on the ground, the majority of the violence has been intra-sect homicide. These are three sets of people, with apparent intractable differences which prohibits them living together in one nation. There is nothing wrong with that; there are incompatible people all across the world. However, when forced to live under one flag, one border, conflicts can arise quickly. Can they ever get over this hatred? The optimist in me wants to say yes, but that is not easy or quick to achieve, and cannot be looked upon as a solution in the near future.

So, why divvy up the country? Well, the partition method also has some historical success. In Bosnia, when faced with factions that were at constant war and genocide, was broken into partitions in the 1990s, and has had considerable success since then. It may not be the popular thing to do right away, but it certainly can separate the factions into their respective corners, so to speak.

With the U.S. so bogged down here, with the troop surge generating mild if any successes, it is wise to look to a new direction. Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del, has been the chief sponsor of a plan to start a power-sharing partition plan in Iraq. It would de-centralize the government, putting more power in regional centers controlled by Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd forces. What is even more impressive is that the U.S. Senate approved the non-binding resolution. This is a powerful statement that the direction must change with respect to our plan in Iraq, even more than just removing troops, as senators have repeatedly suggested. I'm glad that someone is finally looking forward and in a "outside-the-box" fashion. Well done Senator Biden.

Of course, there are those who oppose it. The Iraqi central government condemned the resolution, with prominent Iraqis calling it a "flagrant interference in Iraq's internal affairs." This is to be expected; even though historical inequalities led to the government being formed, the people at its stead have the desire to keep the status quo going, even if it is not the best thing for its people. They do not want to see their own power diminished, so they will fight this plan however they can. The United States Embassy, which is beholden to the executive branch, also decried the resolution. However, partition for them, and our President, would only look like some sort of "defeat" in their eyes, even if it might be a more proactive, stabilizing direction to move. They also have things to lose: prestige, votes, finances, party loyalty. All that petty politics seems to drive men to do great or horrid things.

I urge you all to read that resolution, and think honestly about the implications it has for the country, for our country, and for the future of stability in the Middle East. For isn't it better to have three smaller, stable countries operating and peaceful, than one larger quagmire of destruction and misery?

Creating jobs from Smart Energy Policy

Some choice pieces from an opinion piece by Carl Pope.

At the moment, America lacks any real plan for bringing smart energy solutions into the mainstream, and it's missing out on major job opportunities as a result. Consider the manufacturing of wind turbines as just one telling example. Iron ore mined in northern Minnesota gets shipped abroad to make steel. Danish, German, and Spanish companies then use that steel to make wind turbines. These turbines are then shipped back to the United States on boats through the Great Lakes to Duluth, where they are placed on trucks and hauled to Iowa and other states with great wind resources. America provides the raw material and pays for the finished product but gets almost none of the economic benefit, foregoing increasingly dear manufacturing jobs. As if that isn't enough, NASA invented the technology itself.
Hmm, strange how capitalism can come back and bite you in the ass, eh? Free markets can indeed strip the championing nation of its wealth. But if we were to embrace the future of energy rather than hide behind the slick curtain that will prevent us from maintaining our leadership in the world, then we are only to blame.

America does not have a national plan that requires utilities to produce any power with renewable energy, but it could. And there's no reason why the United States couldn't decide to power 10 million homes with solar roofing. To be most effective, such policies ought to be matched with incentives and publicly assisted financing to get domestic manufacturers on their feet. In fact, there are many, many things this country could be doing to create a home-grown, renewable energy economy. It's been too busy giving subsidies to oil companies to do most of them.
I would second the call placed by Carl to generally plan for our nation's energy future. Do so, and invest the money here, in research and development, manufacturing, sales, and maintenance, and you will create a hybrid industry from the energy/engineering/environmental sectors which will have a market niche and room to grow. There are some states that have already started playing this game.

It's no coincidence that California has set a goal of producing 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources, and that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has an ambitious initiative aimed at putting solar power on a million roofs in the Golden State in the next 10 years. The state also makes a point of investing its state pension funds in companies that push the green envelope. Earlier this year, Nanosolar, which has seed money from Google executives, announced that it would build the world's largest solar manufacturing facility near San Francisco, creating several hundred new jobs in the process.
If only the rest of the nation could be on board. As a whole, the federal government could wield a huge power, should they chose to, and spark this green revolution off in a positive direction. Here's hoping the tide turns soon.

The Rag Rant

How destructive, the petty diversions of our life. Americans are being destroyed by consumption, and not the Violetta type. Our TV watching is approaching a third of our lives (up to an average of 8.2 hours/day/household, according to Time Magazine), and we continually fill our waking existence with intellectual tripe. Celebrity marriages, star gossip, fashion obsession. Are these items that will help you improve your lives? Will knowing that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby looks like (even getting a glimpse of her bronzed shit) help you in your own marriage? Improve your work life? Become healthier, wiser, a more active citizen in this country?

No, they will not. Instead, these trivialities are distractions from your life. While entertainment is certainly not looked down upon, to spend hours of television programming, newspaper print space, and vast amounts of time in your own life ingesting, memorizing, prioritizing these tidbits is unconscionable. Why do we care? What relevance does this have to our own selves? Nada. Rather, we use these pieces of pop culture to remove us from our own reality, to escape from the difficult thoughts that lie with our own lives and the decisions that need to be made regarding our future. It is easier to think about Brangelina than about the impeding death of Social Security; Jessica Simpson's new fling is more fun to contemplate than trade deficits or poor education or the illegal immigrant debacle.

Hollywood will not be denied; and in their cunning they have isolated ourselves from our own rational brains, fractionated off a portion of it in order to serve no particular useful purpose. And we have swallowed, as a society, hook, line, and sinker. We buy trashy magazines, watch the tabloid shows, participate in useless water-cooler tirades and gossip trading, rather than trying to use those neurons, use that time, use those contacts to try and actually do something constructive. Heaven forbid that we attempt to improve our lives, indulge in our own artistic side, try to construct a more perfect union. We face serious issues, and to sit around diddling our lives away on such star-studded bullshit is beyond me, and should be beyond us. Put down People. It is not about you, it is not for you, it exists merely to waste your money and time.

I cannot believe...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can behave like Neanderthals sometimes. This story out of Maryland demonstrates that principle clearly. A man, deciding to protest a Muslim candidate to the state’s House of Delegates, has staged a one-man “protest” outside of the candidate’s home, wearing a shirt that says, “Islam Sucks.” His reasoning for his protest? “I had heard that Muslims were generally intolerant of views other than their own, and so I thought I would put it to the test.” By insulting the person? By insulting his personal religion? Who would not be tempted to strike back, talk back, against such statements? The man has been warned of being prosecuted for trespassing. However, if this man were to happen to have a sign saying “Judaism Sucks” in front of a Jewish candidate’s house, you had better believe he’d be slapped with more than just trespassing. Hate crimes, bigotry, all sorts of labels would be associated with him. But since it is a Muslim candidate, then he’s only trespassing. To his credit, the candidate has not dignified the man with a response, saying there is nothing constructive about his dialogue. What true words!

The double-standard that is appearing, and the whole culture which resides behind this single man’s attitude is sickening. What sweeping ignorance has paved his path to arrive at this candidate’s front door. Such wide, blunt brushes he paints other cultures with. We paint cultures with. I thought as a nation we had progressed beyond such thing. We should be ashamed that this happens here in our country of the free. And do not bring to me the argument that it is free speech. The man himself defends his actions, saying they are not hateful, merely expressing an opinion. But the cultural connotations of his words transcend mere opinions into the realm of hate-driven expressions.

If I had chose a person I’d want as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, my decision would rest solely with the Muslim, rather than allow such a blunt-minded hypocrite to share my country with. This man repulses me to my core.

Not a Passing Mark

The debate over the California exit exams continues to rage, now making its way up the court levels to another appeal. At the heart of the matter is whether or not 20,000 students who flunked the exam, but otherwise fulfilled graduation requirements, should be awarded diplomas. The plaintiffs say the case is unfair, and not all students had an equal chance at learning the material necessary to pass.

This is definitely a sticky subject, as it touches on some fundamental problems in our educational system, especially in good ole California. However, the thought of exams to help assess our children’s academic acuity is appealing to me, especially as there are gross differences in the “grades” that different schools hand out. As such, and as much as people will claim there are biases and differences, I think the results should stand and the people should fail.

These tests have been coming for years now. There has been ample time for schools, and students, to prepare for them. For several years these tests were taken, but not mandatory for graduation. This is the first year it is required to graduate. The students knew it was coming; this was not a last-minute pop quiz given to them. If they felt they were behind, and their school wasn’t cutting it, they should have sought help elsewhere. That is what students have been doing for eons – you need help, you find a tutor.

Secondly, this is a state curriculum mandate. The board has said you need to know xyz to be considered graduated from high school. Yes there are inequalities associated with it. That happens with all things, and it is an indication for the schools to improve. You could make a similar argument with college acceptances. All students are not equally prepared to apply to Harvard, and they don’t have the same chances to get in. Does this mean therefore that all students should be accepted to Harvard carte blanche? No. While schools should be prepared to improve, to offer more services to their students, to better prepare and educate them, the fact is that there is a set of standards now set before the students, and they did not pass the test. Literally.

And they should hold themselves accountable for that in some part. That may sound harsh, but it is their responsibility to pass the test, just like it is ultimately their responsibility to go to school, apply to college, get a job, etc. If they don’t have what it takes, it is not the fault of the test to point out their deficiencies. It is not 100% fair, and it should be remedied for the future, but these students need to realize they don’t have what it takes. We need qualified students moving into our businesses, our government, and our colleges. It is the quality of this education that keeps us going as a country, and this is a dire sign we need to improve. But for the future of American sciences, economics, and our status as an innovative society, they should fail.

It's a Beautiful Day for a Neighbor

It seems, as though Americans are becoming more lonely by the decade. In this report by researchers at Duke University, more and more people are without close friends who they can rely upon, talk to, relieve stress with, or just have fun. In fact, nearly 25% of people said they had "zero" close friends. While the whys of this rather sudden drop in friends (in 1985, most respondents reported having three friends they described as close) were not probed, it seemed fairly certain that America's circle of friends is closing down.

So what? you may ask. Why does this matter? I have some friends, or I don't need friends. Whatever your response, you should be concerned. Having stable social networks is a key, in my mind, to a healthy functioning society. And the possible list of factors that are causing this isolation (working longer, marrying later, longer commutes, the internet) are all factors also have a hand in creating an unhappy society. No matter how big the GDP is, regardless how prosperous financially or materially a nation is, if you neglect your social interactions, then eventually you will collapse. Why? Because you stop caring for one another, it becomes a "me-versus-the world" attitude, life degenerates into unhealthy competition between people. Remember, we are a social animal, like it or not.

This touches on a broader scope of points I would like to investigate, looking at a renewed social outlook of our nation, our politics, and our direction. But in order for any social program to work the citizens must care about what happens to one another. And a good way to start that is by having close friends.

So go out and hug your friend today, or make a new friend, or even say hi to a neighbor or a stranger on a bus. Make today, and every day, Won't You Be My Neighbor Day.

A Total Non-Issue

You've got to hand it to our President, King of Smoke and Mirrors. He has proven yet again that his political acumen has developed serious glaucoma and has no clue as what to do about it.

This Monday the President formally reassumes his position behind an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bans same-sex marriage. His exact words were, "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution. For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure. America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives."

First of all, some bouts with his words. If people are free to choose how they live their lives, why can't they choose to commit to another partner that they love and respect and want to share their life with? And a society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens? Puh-lease. How does interjecting the government into a personal issue like this limit their influence in our lives? If you read his whole speech, you'll find holes galore that I won't waste time with now, from activist judges to treating citizens with respect and dignity. But as exemplified by the passage above, what a waste of oxygen those sentences were.

The President, in making this vague, short-sighted appeal to gut-reaction conservative politics, has successfully ignored or glossed over issues that truly are "critical to the health of society." You want to help our society? Great. Then let's talk about poverty-reduction, the war in Iraq, debt reduction for both the nation and our citizens' personal finances. Immigration reform, public health, even terrorism deserve to be the recipient of such lengthy discussion and support from our primary leader. But instead, he wastes his political capital, already so diluted, on this issue which is hardly critical to the future of the United States as a society. If you truly desire to solve the critical problems, Mr. President, it's time to focus on real issues, not pander to your mutinous political base. This grandstanding display of pseudo-authority is not fooling anyone.

Sympathy for the Devil

I know I am going to catch hell for this, but oh well. I found some quotes the other day tucked in a report authored by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt and released by the John F. Kennedy School of Government, of Harvard University. The report, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, takes aim at a lot of the issues brought about by the United States’ seemingly unconditional support of Israel, since its inception. They also go further, looking at the pro-Israeli lobby that helps to foster such support within our government. It is a fascinating article, a real eye-opener to some of the positions we have taken, and the political power that this lobby wields over our Congress and President.

But the quotes I mentioned are interesting, in my humble opinion, regarding the perception of Israelis towards the Palestinian movements. It is more interesting to note that they arise from prominent Israeli politicians, some of whom were the most Zionist in their approach to a Jewish state. The quotes seem to indicate an understanding of the Palestinian cause and root of the conflict. It also implicates the Israeli people as being complicit, even accepting, of terrorism as a means to get what a group wants (this is no new news; the Zionist movement used terrorism extensively in their fight against colonial Britain). Thus, how can the state of Israel as a whole denounce the Palestinians’ motives and methods, when they are rooted in the Israeli’s own history and collective psyche? Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I will leave you with these things to ponder on a Friday afternoon.

David Ben-Gurion: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country…. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and that is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”[1]

Ehud Barak: “[had I been born a Palestinian, I] would have joined a terrorist organization.”[2]

Yitzhak Shamir: “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.”[3]


1 - Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, trans. Steve Cox (NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p.99.

2 - Bill Maxwell, “U.S. Should Reconsider Aid to Israel,” St. Petersburg Times, December 16, 2001.

3 - Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999), pp.485-486.

Is America Falling to the Left?

It is unmistakable the swing to the left that Latin American politics has taken of late. Beginning roughly eight years ago with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, leftist leaders have popped up in a variety of countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and recently Morales’ election in Bolivia. And with elections in Peru, Mexico, and Nicaragua, even more Latin American countries could fall under leftist sway.

The large question is how did this come to pass? Not making any judgments on the merits or detractions of left governments in place in Latin America, but merely how did a segment of the political spectrum that the United States spent decades arduously striving to keep out of power return so confidently and abruptly? The United States used a multi-faceted campaign in Latin America to keep leftists, who were suspected of joining Cuba or the USSR, from coming to power. For example, the Chile Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (1976) details the interference perpetrated by the United States in Chile from 1963 to 1973. Included in its findings, the United States spent millions on covert intervention in Chilean politics from 1970-1973. The money financed such operations as planted “news” stories in Chilean magazines and newspapers; propaganda; and political activities among workers, students, women’s groups and other civic organizations. President Nixon, with Henry Kissinger, even developed and executed a highly secretive coup to prevent Salvador Allende, Chile’s Marxist leader, from ascending to power after the 1970 elections. The coup failed, so the US used various economic and propaganda methods to discredit Allende and foster hostility against him. These included cutting off access to international loans and stimulating local capital flight; feeding misinformation to Chilean military officers to engender fear of Cuban subversives working in Chile; and financing opposition groups, including terrorist right-wing movements. This method of approach was not unique to Chile either; America spent a great deal of money and energy to keeping leftist movements under the rug in Latin America. So why have we seemingly surrendered so easily now?

One could make the argument that, not that the Cold War is over, there is little to no threat of leftist governments making deals with Communists to become a “danger” to America. This is largely true. While Castro remains in power, Cuba’s Communist threat pales in comparison to the USSR of yesteryears. However, this lack of ideological enemy does nothing to diminish the fact that there is a lot at stake in this for America, indeed all of the Americas.

Latin America’s shift to the left has been precipitated from decades of mismanagement, interference, and neglect by the West, most centrally the United States. The emergence of Communist Cuba brought the US to abandon the Monroe Doctrine and actively begin direct and indirect interference in Latin American politics and economies. What arose from decades of such intervention was a mutant form of US-bred capitalism. This system consolidated power into the hands of right-wing governments and perpetrated the spread of rampant cronyism. The majority of the populace did not see an up tick in their relative stations in life, nor was there an improvement in basic governmental services. The result? Distrust for the American way of doing politics and economics.

These rebellions against American hegemony have become increasingly visible. The Summit of the Americas last fall is a perfect example, with major demonstrations against the United States, and the election of a non-US-backed candidate to the Organization of American States. Venezuela’s nationalizing of its oil programs has led Bolivia’s president-elect to begin nationalizing his country’s natural gas resources. The list goes on and on.

What does that mean for us as a country? Plenty. If the socialist agendas espoused by these new leftist leaders begins to succeed, and it brings up the majority of impoverished peoples in terms of their quality of life, then the American methodology of economics as a model to the rest of the world is compromised. Countries have a viable alternative that excludes the United States completely. While it is not necessary for everyone to follow the US’s method of development, it has been a doctrine, enforced by our capitalist business method, that we have enforced for decades, and has helped make us a very profitable nation. Thus, this could also shut out American business interests, as these countries would be more likely to work with other socialist countries or countries that are merely not the United States. And since American business has depended on developing nations to provide labor, land, and materials for so long, their loss of VIP status in such regions of the world could have drastic repercussions in the American economy.

There are other areas where we could fall as well. Politically, we would be undermined by this ideology of social equality and justice, should it succeed where our efforts to extinguish it have failed. We lose face, and also compromise the ability to have an effective input into the decisions of other regional leaders. Isolated. And, taken to an extreme, the socialist movement could find its way back to our own soil. Last winter, Venezuela’s president decided to subsidize heating oil to the poorer residents of New England, a move that was wise politically for him, as it also bolstered his image in the United States. However, it also gives some segment of the US population a taste of what socialism might hold for us. It is not a perfect system; not by any means. But there has not been a large socialist movement since the early part of the last century. If it were to gain momentum, due to partly the actions of these neighbor governments, there could be some major policy changes, both domestically and internationally, for the United States.

And not let us forget the drug war, that pest of American foreign policy. I have been against the war since I was old enough to make up my mind about it. But it has been a cornerstone of america’s foreign policy, particularly in regards to Latin America. But the left’s ascendancy has the potential to recreate our allies and stances on the war. Morales in Bolivia recently promised to legalize coca, the main plant used in forming cocaine, and Mexico’s government recently legalized the possession of small amounts of a variety of drugs, from marijuana to ecstasy. These changes, so openly in contrast to American desires, flaunts the left’s newfound power, and might force some reckoning by the United States to arrive at a compromise.

Now a lot of this is speculation, some of it far-fetched. But it represents a possibility of what can happen if the United States remains apathetic to the changes that are transpiring around us. These are the dangers that lie in being too complacent over what is happening to our neighbors. I would not advocate for a second moving back to the contras and coups which defined our policy towards Latin America for a long time. However, there are great implications that could arise from what is taking place down south in its drive to the left. And I hope these countries succeed; I would not wish destitution on any nation, and socialism has a great deal of advantages to it; some of which we would be wise to heed for our own citizens. But this is a warning to our own country that our policies are not as powerful, as embraced, as they once were (or as we hoped), and their fall, without an alternative, could prove disastrous to this country. America would do well not to interfere, but to listen to what these countries are saying, acknowledge their messages, and work together to form a better future for all of us.

A Little History Lesson

The biggest part of the news coming from the Near East in recent weeks has not been from Iraq. That some other piece of news would eclipse the ongoing trauma that that country is enduring is somewhat surprising, and definitely depressing. The last thing that region of the world needs is more drama, more aggression and sadness. The Near East is a truly remarkable place; the so-called birth place of civilization, it has seen empires from the Greeks to the Persians to the British cross its sands, and at one point harbored the greatest wealth of knowledge and scientific advancement on the globe. But the news today is about Iran. Specifically it is their continued nuclear development program, the end result of which is the spark behind the current news. Some think it will be nuclear weapons, bent on exterminating the Israeli people and re-introducing a nuclear-enforced Persian Empire. Iran claims it is for domestic energy production. Yet the constant vitriol put forth by the president of Iran makes this claim, to say the least, suspect. And, interjecting itself into the politics of the region is the United States. There is wide-spread debate on what should be done about Iran, be it economic sanctions or military action. No option seems to be extremely enticing.

However, quite lost amongst all of the clamor over what to do now that Iran has the potential to join the elite group of nuclear-capable nations, is the lesson we learned 50 years ago about meddling in Near East politics. A lesson we should have very much taken to heart. A lesson that seems to have fallen from view, and should be remembered, as it has grave consequences for how we came to be in this current situation.

The British controlled Iran for a long time. They were there for colonial purposes, until the first decade of the 20th century, when oil was discovered under Persian soil. This began a long string of unjust agreements and corrupted officials that kept Iranian oil flowing for British business interests. In the meantime, democracy stagnated in the country, and public ire grew. People had long protested these abuses, these neglects, but they mostly fell on deaf ears. In the late 1910s the Iranian people wanted freedom from Britain. After WWI their chance came, and they were supported by the United States in the form of Woodrow Wilson. He went against our allies’ desires and gave his support to the Iranian people. America was supporting democracy in the simplest way; to allow a people to decide their fate on their own terms, without foreign threats or influence. We were loved as a country there.

Britain did not follow suit, and continued to keep a ring of bribed officials to maintain their now-substantial business interests – oil. They were very effective at keeping Iranians as workers, while bleeding the country of their oil resources. There was thought to be no hope, as the Shah was kept isolated from the anger of his people by the relative comfort brought in by the oil. (In fact, Iran was going bankrupt from the Shah’s policies… he kept borrowing money to furnish homes, vacations, and the lot… all gladly loaned by British banks and persons.) No hope, at least, until Mossadegh came. This simple man was fiery in his approach, and his love, of his native country. He worked his way up the political ladder until he reached prime minister of Iran in 1951.

Then came the unthinkable. He had the power to put his ideas into place. Mossadegh demanded Britain release their oil interests in the country; he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Britain balked at the offer, turning again to America to mediate. This time it was Harry Truman who again sided with the Iranians, refusing to back Britain’s claims to the oil fields. Britain took its case to the World Court and the United Nations, where Mossadegh repeatedly came through the victor. He became wildly popular at home, championing leftist policies of land redistribution and poverty reduction. He was named Time’s Man of the Year in 1951. Mossadegh even had the support of the more moderate mullahs in the country. Democracy was moving forward. Dawn was on the horizon for Iran. Britain attempted to plan a coup, but Mossadegh found out and threw all British diplomats out of the country. Britain needed help.

Their help came in the form of Eisenhower’s ascension to the presidency of the United States. Churchill and Eisenhower both held that a military coup would be the only way to oust Mossadegh and keep Iran under control. As well as grant Britain its oil fields once again. For 8 months they worked on this plan, the CIA being majorly involved (since the Brits were exiled from Iran). And then in August 1953 the plan was sprung. Uprisings, military occupation, the whole works. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and the Shah was ushered back in as the main political authority in Iran. Concessions were made to the British, and life seemingly resumed. But it hadn’t. People in Iran knew the US was behind the coup. With the Shah returned, he resumed his despotic ways, bringing Iran further into debt and poverty. He retaliated against anyone who had supported Mossadegh, including the clergy. A young Ayatollah Khomeini was among those ostracized. His later role in Iranian history is well documented, and the revolution in 1979 had Anti-American rallying points focused on Mossadegh.

Even now, Mossadegh’s importance in Iran is officially mild (as he was against creating an Iranian theocracy), but his importance, and the importance of American infiltration into the politics of the region, remains very current. In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her reflection upon the ousting of Mossadegh: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."


After all of this, there are many conclusions that can be drawn. The most glaring to me is one of missed opportunities. America in the 1920s was well-loved by the Iranian people, as much as they hated the British. We were seen as champions of democracy, harbingers of good futures, justice and the triumph of people over aggressors. In less than 30 years we had reversed that position in the minds of the Iranians 180 degrees. Now we were the suppressors; we were the greedy people aiding the colonial ambitions of Britain. It was a hard lesson for the Iranian people, one they have never forgotten. Now all of our actions regarding Iran are skewed by this instance. We even re-enforced this opinion when the US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Another missed chance to help be the true spreaders of peace and democracy. Then in 2003 with the final deposing of Hussein from Iraq’s throne. Still no democracy.

And now this saber-rattling from Iran in the face of American opposition to its policies? Is it any wonder Iran questions our motives and our abilities in the region? Is it any surprise that they feel the need to stand up against us now, as they once stood against Britain? Is it a shock to find them still angry by this betrayal, inflamed by the theocratic rhetoric of the current leaders? But this time it is not oil that is the dividing issue, it is something much more terrifying. I am not debating whether a nuclear Iran is a good or bad option for the world. Rather, I would like to counsel how we once had the influence in the region for good, and we threw it away for short-termed gains. How we squandered the opportunity to be the guiding light in this region that has brought so much trouble to modern times. It is the aim to gain a bit of perspective as to the current thought trends in that troubled country, and to hopefully remind Americans we once stood for positive ideals which won us admiration and respect the world over, two attributes we are sorely lacking as a nation right now.

Update to "Brain Drain..."

What I pointed out months ago, and what others have been saying for years, has now hit the mainstream media. With the new edition of Time magazine, following closely on the heels of the 2006 State of the Union address, the topic of science education, funding, and development in this country and its future is now in main political sights. Where will this take us? Let a real battle for the future of our country begin.

Merit-Based Plan has Need of Improvement

There are few who are more in favor of paying teachers more money than I consider myself to be. Teachers are, without a doubt, the most important profession in this country at the moment, as they prepare our future generations to take on the responsibilities of a complex society and to lead it in new directions – and hopefully, new heights – of science, law, technology, arts, and culture. It never fails to engender a sense of anger when I see other professions that are far less important reap the benefit of large sums of money (think professional sports, for the cliché argument).

What Houston is trying to do is admirable [see article below], and works towards a general theory of merit-based pay increases and bonuses for school personnel. Rewarding a good teacher for propelling his/her students to do better in their scholastic achievements is a new and potentially useful tool in the run to improve our general schools. That such a large school system is willing to do this, following Denver’s lead, is admirable

However, I have several concerns for this type of merit-based bonus system, and it comes in the form of teacher creativity and student interest. Exclusively tying teacher compensation to student test scores, especially at the younger levels (K-8), runs the risk of handicapping the teachers into becoming too dogmatic in their approach to teaching. Children, more than learning the basic facts needed to pass a grade, come to school needing inspiration, the installation of a desire to learn and read and explore. Give them this beginning, and for the rest of their life they will continue to seek out new sources of information and be driven to pursue topics that interest them and will further their education. That college student levels are falling (a report recently showed especially teenage boys not enrolling in the levels they used to) shows very acutely that people are not interested in taking their education to the next level. Their self-motivation to pursue an education is limited to what is required by law, despite the plethora of reports and articles saying that college degrees guarantee higher wages and a better living. This sort of establishment of wonder, of interest, will serve them far well into the future more than making sure they have the minute details of some subject drilled into their heads. These people are more likely to take an active interest in the news, in current events, and thus be better citizens for a democracy.

When you rely on reaching a minimum of factoids during a school session, you limit the ability for teachers to take their classes in different directions, robbing them of their choice in being a creative educational force for young people. Instead, you make them human flash-cards, responsible for bombarding them with the certain data points that are required to pass the test, earn the teacher the bonus, and get the student perfunctory to the next level in their education. Quite frankly, this can be boring, both for the administer of the education as well as the recipient. Now, there are some classes where teaching-to-the-test methodology is accepted, even preferred. High school Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classrooms are perfect examples where this is even expected of the teachers. But not in 3^rd grade. 3^rd graders should be allowed to pursue topics that engender an interest in them of knowing more, exploring more, both scientifically and artistically and mathematically and historically. In all topics, they should be stimulated to be creative, dynamic individuals. Too much dogmaticism, you create robots, superficially intelligent and educated, but with no independent thought ability and creative nature.

Unfortunately, I do not have the perfect solution. Testing students in every capacity is an unattainable goal, and there are a number of characteristics of healthy students that escape quantification. Standardized test scores should be a part of the teacher’s evaluation in consideration for a pay increase, but I do not believe it should be the only facet of a teacher’s performance that should be considered. Perhaps independent reviews could be conducted, to better understand the way the teacher interacts with the students. Student evaluations as well are a possibility, but run the risk of a more biased outlook on a particular teacher. Other results could be developed as well, and I hope they are, for this will help maintain well-rounded, independent teachers who produce well-rounded, interested students, and that is the foundation for a better society.

Teacher pay tied to test scores in Houston schools
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-01-12-houston-merit-pay_x.htm

HOUSTON (AP) — Houston became the largest school district in the country on Thursday to adopt a merit pay plan for teachers that focuses on students' tests scores

By a 9-0 vote, the Houston school board approved a plan that offers teachers up to $3,000 in extra pay if their students show improvement on state and national tests. The program could be expanded to provide up to $10,000 in merit pay for teachers. The vote came after several teachers told the board during its monthly meeting they believed the plan was flawed and unfair because some teachers will be eligible for larger bonuses than others

”This is not a perfect plan but it is a beginning," said school board president Diana Davila. Other school districts around the country have implemented various types of incentive pay programs for teachers in recent years. Denver adopted one in November, becoming at the time the largest school district to do so. Houston, with more than 200,000 students, is the nation's seventh-largest school district

The plan is divided into three sections, with as much as $1,000 in bonus pay in each. The first will award bonuses to all teachers in schools rated acceptable or higher, based on scores on the state's main standardized test. The second ties pay to student improvement on a standardized test that compares performance to nationwide norms. In the third section, reading and math teachers whose students fare well compared with others in the district would be eligible for bonuses

The teachers' union doesn't approve of the plan, saying it focuses too much on test scores and is too complicated. In general, teachers across the country have been paid based on their years of experience and education levels. Starting teachers in Houston make about $36,000 a year. The average salary in the district is about $45,000.

Whoring Out Higher Education

I have watched the unfolding dilemma in our public education system with great apprehension, as should any American who values the future of our country, both socially, technologically, and economically. One of our greatest responsibilities is to maintain an educated populace and workforce. The benefits of such a society are innumerable. Not only would technological and scientific breakthroughs continue to improve our knowledge of the world and its potential uses, but educated peoples are more likely to take an active role in government, helping guide our nation to a brighter future. Uneducated masses are more prone to propaganda, secret legislation, more apt to fall into other modes of government that do not benefit the majority of the people. They are easier to mislead.

There are a plethora of problems inundating our school systems on a national level, more than there is space here to illuminate. Some of these are mere petty obstacles to be overcome with reason, like school prayer and intelligent design debates. These get a lot of press time because they are hot-button issues. Others are vastly more important, yet not nearly as reported upon as they should be. Such examples include physical education, arts and music education, scholastic standards, classroom sizes, teacher compensation and accountability, even finding qualified teachers. These issues I will hopefully touch on in the coming months.

Today’s topic, though, is on the funding of higher education, and the theoretical consequences thereof. The public college system is in grave danger from a lack of consistent financial support from all levels of the government. This precipitous drop has retarded the ability of public education at a college/university level to fulfill its stated duty of preparing the next generation of academic minds. One example is the University of California system, which has seen a 40% drop in state-based funding in the last two decades alone, according to spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina. Congress seems keen to follow this pattern, for in the House’s planned $50 billion in tax cuts, the amount designated for secondary education funding has fallen by nearly $3 billion. These shortfalls are even more abhorrent because they do not follow similar patterns in economic development or retreat (i.e. the California economy has not dropped 40% in the last 20 years). But that is another topic for another time. These institutions, facing such bleak prospects, are forced to turn to the few recourses they have available to them, each more drastic than the last.

The most obvious solution available to colleges is to cut costs. By reducing their financial need, the lowered amount of offered funding does not cut so deep into the school’s pockets. However, there is a trade-off, realized in a lack of services. These reductions manifest themselves in a variety of ways. Libraries cut hours or close altogether, “superfluous” student resources are removed. The number of class sections could be cut down, forcing professors and TAs into a larger student-to-faculty ratio. Administration also is considered expendable overhead. Wayne state university in Detroit cut 200 staff jobs to try and cover expenses. They were also forced to close an entire college, an extreme but not unrealistic example of how far schools must go in order to close the gap between spending and funding. This has repercussions that can be subtle, nuanced, but very apparent to students, who are faced with an absence of amenities that are quite essential to their function and productivity. Imagine telling a college student the library is closed at 5pm during finals. Or perhaps that the entire college has been wiped away or merged with another? Physics is difficult enough to master; what if the class or discussion ballooned to three times its normal size?

The second option is no more appealing than the first. Often schools will increase tuition and student-related fees to cover their margins. The New York Times reported that, from July 2004 to the same period 2005 the average public school tuition rose 7.1 percent. For comparison, private schools increased 5.9 percent, and inflation was 2.2 percent. The University of California Berkeley raised tuition 8 percent, from $6730 to $7434 a year in fees alone. Wayne State University shot up 18.5 %, and this was after the cuts described above were carried out. While the total amount required to attend a public school in your home state remains far below that of private schools - $15,566 to $32,000 – these constant, sometimes drastic increases are placing a huge burden on current and future students. With loan programs being trimmed as well, the financial obligation falls heavily upon the students themselves as well as their families. This translates into a continual widening of the gap between wealthy and low-income youth attending college. This under-representation could have untold consequences for our future society if a large proportion of minorities and low-income peoples feel unable to have schooling at their disposal for upward social and economic mobility (if there is any doubt to this, the events in France should stand out in sharp relief as a class battling against a glass ceiling. In that case it was mostly racial and ethnic; ours would be more socio-economic, but no less dramatic.).

The remaining solution, which to me is the most frightening, is the trend of schools to seek out private funding for their programs. Some of this money arrives in the form of research grants from private interests; others are private fundraisers pursued by presidents and deans for their colleges or departments; yet others manifest themselves as buildings, funded and erected with the money from corporate donors. It can be relatively innocuous: at the UCBerkeley College of Chemistry, the computer facility was sponsored by Chevron. But the problem lurking is where the limits exist on this donation process, and how much money one is willing to accept from them. The more money invested, the larger vested interest the corporation or other entity has in the school’s policies, and which could parlay into a larger role in the decision making process. Small computer labs are one thing – what if it were an entire college or department? Colleges are so starved for funds they cannot turn down this source of revenue, lest they be forced into more drastic cuts and fee hikes. All the same, this is beginning a trend of allowing private, especially corporate, influence in our schools. How much weight do you allow them to give? They could have unprecedented levels of control over the direction of the school’s courses, research, indeed their whole future. Do you suppose the Shell College of Chemistry would be willing to fund research on alternative fuel synthesis? Or that the Merck Department of Molecular Biology would look kindly upon a class in medical ethnobotany? These are idle curiosities at the moment, but could have grave implications on the freedom of our educational system if they do come to pass.

Allowing big businesses to dictate where our directions are headed in the minds of our scholars is bad news. These are the minds that are supposed to question; they are asked, even forced, to look at issues from new perspectives. Blocking even a remote aspect of the range of possibilities for inquiring minds to investigate, as they do in higher education, would be a major detriment to our society that might take years, even decades to realize and even longer to correct. Add in the loss of students due to potential fee hikes and the loss of facilities that come about from budget cuts, and the subsequent potential to our future is substantial, staggering even. Is it worth the risk to future developments, future innovations, further breakthroughs for our science and society to under-fund higher education now?

A New Form of School Rank

Washington Monthly has proposed a new system of school rankings for colleges and universities around the country. Their mission was to create a ranking system that asked what Americaneeded from its universities. Things like graduation rate and alumni donation, which are important to the U.S. News & World Report rankings, play a minor role here. Instead, their criteria for the school selection revolved around the question “What does Americaneed from its universities?” They go on to describe the three main aspects: “Universities should be engines of social mobility, they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service.” Note: the social mobility indicates the relative access to schooling that lower-income students have, either through their own financial workings or through grant and loan programs designed to help them afford college. These are the functions, they indicate, that make universities socially relevant and important. Their results are astounding.

Research helped catapult a number of surprising schools, ones who do not initially appear to have great social contributions, to the top of the list. The research facilities of MIT, UCLA, Berkeley, Cornell, and Stanford all helped propel them into the top 5. However, more than research was needed to bring about a high score, as is obvious when Harvard ranks #16 on the list. MIT’s service dedication was very high - #7 on that list – and that helped push it to #1 on the overall rankings. Due to their high proportion of lower-income students, public universities ranked high on the list. The University of California system had 4 of its 9 campuses in the top 20: UCLA (#2); UC Berkeley (#3); UC San Diego (#8) and UC Davis (#17). At the same time, however, Princeton finished far down, around Iowa State University. This is partially due to its status as a university (Princeton stresses teaching rather than research), but it also did poorly on national service and social mobility, areas where it should have done much better.

It is a fascinating re-evaluation of schools, one that looks at the social implications of their roles as educators, rather than mere student-performance based results. I encourage everyone to look at this ranking, for it helps to encapsulate some of the ideals we need to stress in higher education: good strong research, a willingness to help everyone achieve a good education, and an emphasis on giving back to the community and the country.

The whole article can be read at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html

Brain Drain to the World

The brain drain has begun. This article has to be one of the saddest, yet most unexpected, that I’ve read in a long, long time. It is no surprise to those who follow that the United States has been falling behind in science for quite sometime now. At first it was merely the slipping test scores and international competitions. We invented a programming competition in the 80s, and we came in first every time for the first few annual events. Last year, we finished a measly 17^th. Our math, science, literacy, geography scores are falling in comparison to the rest of the world.

The tide began to turn against us a long time ago. For me, the first real clue was when several high tech companies moved their research labs overseas. It was the first instance I had where they had not moved merely their manufacturing, as companies have been doing in the global arena for years, but pure R&D. Signifying that other countries had finally caught up to our level. China produces an enormous amount of college graduates every year. And the quality of education in Singapore, India, China, Japan, Germany, has reached the point where they can attract the top-name companies, and the research labs they possess. There once was a time when, if you wanted your child to go to the very best school in the world, s/he went to the United States.

Now, however, that is not necessarily the case. The home-grown universities are beginning to generate higher-quality educations, for a fraction of the price. And their dedication is beginning to show dividends.

And how are we keeping up with the rest of the world in science (my forte)? We slash funding for research. We deny access to stem cell lines. At the fundamental level of education in this country, K-12, when we should be inspiring children, planting in them a life-long desire to question, to learn, to progress, we want to teach them Intelligent Design. With all of the inherent problems in our education system, with all the bungles, red tape, excessive bullshit schools have to wade through, with all the inaccuracies, bad teaching, poor funding, we worry about Intelligent Design? Months, years have been spent debating a topic which was solved in the 1920s. And no other country in the world is having similar problems. It is purely an American phenomenon.

South Korea has taken up the torch to become the leader in stem cell research. They are doing things we can’t even come close to. Achievements that could have gone to the US, along with all the financial rewards (patents on medications, therapies, royalties, licensing), have slipped from our fingertips. We sit, debating on an issue which no other country seems to quarrel with. You don’t hear about stem cell debates in Europe; they realize the possibilities that lie within these multi-faceted cells. But we sit and bog ourselves down in these so-called “ethical” debates. And now we have lost two people who, "Without a doubt, are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer." Singapore is a more attractive place for the top two minds in our country rather than their homeland to continue their very important research. What a sham. It has been a long time since I have felt ashamed of what my country is doing to itself, how it is rupturing its future. Today I do.

Text of the article: Scientists Leave U.S. To Do Stem Cell Research

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001126033

November 21, 2005 3:00 p.m. EST by Andrea Moore

Stanford, CA (AHN) - Two government biologists recruited by Stanford University have decided to work in Singapore, saying they will face fewer restrictions on stem cell research overseas.

Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, geneticists for the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. A California ballot measure approved in 2004. say they are concerned about delays in the allocation of $3 billion set aside by a

The married couple are famous for discovering a way to accelerate the identification of cancer-causing genes in mice. The hope is to advance this discovery by using embryonic stem-cell cultures to build models of different cancers. If researchers can learn which genes are mutated in cancer, they may be able to develop drugs to block mutations.

At Singapore of Molecular and Cell Biology, the couple's discoveries would first be patented and used in Singapore.

"It is a loss for Stanford and a loss for America," Irving Weissman, director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology and Medicine told The Associated Press. "Without a doubt, they are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer."

The importance of Education

There are, and will always be, polls to predict what Americans think is the most important issue facing our nation/society/world at the present moment. A great many of the responses has to do with job security, the economy, recessions, etc. There are a lot of issues that people will voluntarily give as "important" but when the real issues come down to the ballots boxes or candidate platforms, other things get in the way. These issues include education, the environment, social reforms. Things that people espouse as important issues they give weight to, but ultimately fail to do so.

The more I have had a chance to contemplate it, the more and more education seems to be the most important issue facing our country right now. Education plays into such a wide spectrum of other problems facing us as a nation that we cannot afford to be lax in our support and criticism of the US's educational system. An educated populace creates more innovative young people, highlights more awareness about other problems (as well as fostering solutions), brings history to bear so that it may not be repeated ad naseum, and more. It is imperative, if we wish to maintain our own place in history on this planet, that we improve our educational system to be bar noone the greatest in the world. And there are a lot of issues facing our educational system.

First and foremost, you have to make education an attractive profession. Right now, the teachers are so abysmally compensated that they are only there for the love of teaching. While that is admirable, you have to entice those people who would like to teach and would be good teachers, but can't afford to be teachers, to come into the fold. When you have college graduates, saying to themselves that they can make 25% more being in industry and can payback loans faster than if they were a teacher, it is usually a no-brainer. You have to pay teachers what they are worth.
However, built into that compensation system is accountability. You have to have a system that allows the administration to cleanse itself of teachers who are inadequate at their jobs. I have had countless teachers who were obviously not fit to educate our next generations, but were still in their place after 20+ years due to limitations placed on hiring and firing of teachers. That is not acceptable, especially if you're giving them more money. You have to hold them to certain standards that they must uphold, or else they're gone. No questions asked.

Also, one aspect of teaching that is very overlooked is making it engaging, dynamic, and relevant. The stereotypical teacher is one of those pedantic boors who stands and drones on and on all day long about stuff the students don't care about in the least. That happens enough at the college level. But at the junior high and high school level you need to get students involved with what you're teaching. Rather than dry facts, dates, numbers, delve into the background of a particular subject. There are numerous ways to make education fun, from chemistry labs to juicy historical gossip. And it can still be relevant information. Teachers need to be encouraged to expanding the minds of their students. And with initiatives like No Child Left Behind, which mandate teaching to the test mentality among teachers, I fear this will only become more of a lost art with time.

Thirdly, we need to let teachers do the teaching, and stop trying to interfere. Teachers and schools are not the place to moralize your children. They are not the place to combat delinquents either. They are a place to learn. Also, debates like the intelligent design/creation/evolution debate are irrelevant. Modern science has dictated where the majority of evidence lies, and leave it at that. In a philosophy classroom or a historical science class, one is more than able to discuss these options. However, in biology, the way has been paved with nearly 150 years of strong science. Let it be at that.


The most important function of a teacher is not to drill into their heads the names of capitals from the world, but rather instill in them a desire to learn on their own; to read, to learn, far beyond their time in the classroom. That is what makes an educational system successful, far more than high SATs or other dogmatic measuring systems. Instill in your children that education is fun, useful, and a good use of time, and your society will reap the benefits for generations to come.