Your Dissapointment and Our Ignorance

There are two major points I would like to bring up regarding Senator Obama’s pick of Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate.

If the friends I have on Facebook are any representative sampling of the 18-30 demographic (and they aren’t), then it seems most young and white reactions were showing disappointment in the pick of Senator Biden.

There’s a few horrifying good reasons these people used to come to their disdain for Joe.  First, they love Hillary Clinton, and wanted that “dream” ticket.  So, let me get this straight.  After all the horrific things Clinton supporters say the Obama team did to them, they want to be part of the ticket?  And since when did being married to a guy who happens to be the President become “experience?” 

Even then, if you can remember (and you don’t by the way, because you would have had to of cared about politics back in high school, and you didn’t) one of the selling points on Bill Clinton was that with Hillary, it was like getting two presidents for the price of one.  So, what was she then?  A co-president?  And if so, would that not make it a bit weird to get her there again?  And what of Bill’s role in the White House?

Another real piece of hatred from my friends is their absolute vitriol towards Biden for the commencement speech he gave at the University of Delaware in 2004.  Apparently they did not know that Senator Biden is long-winded and likes to talk about things that matter; for example, the war in Iraq and America’s role in the world.  To those who graduated that day, Senator Biden should have talked more about inane and stupid important issues, such as how awesome college students are for being among hundreds of thousands of other college graduates who have yet to do anything special with their lives.  Truly, there could not be anything more important than us?

That brings me to my second point, and the reason why they did not notice that Senator Biden was trying to do in the commencement speech.  Biden was trying to convey a message regarding a prescient matter regarding the United States. 

Even then, none in attendance cared that what he said then, and still says now along with every other established leader in this country, continues to stay on pattern with what can be identified as “American Hegemony.”  That is to say, we influence the world, and so long as we do any action in question, there is no crime; just a misguided attempt at dropping our awesome “freedom bombs.”  No one questions that, why?  And if there was going to be anyone to have that conversation with, it would be Joe Biden.

And even more to the point, how does the vice president matter that much to these people?  If the pick of a running mate does matter that much, then Vice President Cheney has gotten his way and dutifully changed the way we view the executive branch.  Now, all of a sudden, the Vice President matters a great deal in decision making.  How come we don’t remember that at some point Dan Quayle was once Vice President?

Cheney also has made us think differently about the presidency.  Essentially, it’s become a monarchy.  The President must be convinced of what we do or do not do in foreign policy.  Congress is there for…I don’t even really know anymore.  I do not think that even congress knows why it exists anymore.

And once again, being that this is a “representative democracy,” if you want to blame someone for the way things are going, you can always point the finger at yourself.

Ultimately these two converging points of not liking Joe Biden (for idiotic reasons and thinking that it actually matters that you don’t like Joe Biden) force us ultimately to this conclusion: I’m not sure we really know what’s going in the world, or even how the U.S. plays a role in it.

Oh, and by the way, for those oif you “young Democracts” who watched Obama's acceptance speech, I have a few points for you:

- Stop watching so much of the cable coverage.

- Don't read just one review by the Associated Press, and then consider yourself an expert.

- Obama is still a politician, so don't tell me you were disappointed in his acceptance speech.  The only person who would not give you the kind of speech that Obama or any other politician would is Ron Paul, and you can see how America likes him.

Thinking about Vengeance

Over time, economists have been trying to answer questions that revolve around incentives. The research has started to expand into many fields, and answer questions that go far beyond monetary policy. I know, what’s more exciting than monetary policy? But, hold on.

The further economists probe into the questions of incentives for wine choices, dating, crime, and other non-monetary venues, the more hatred is spewed upon them from other academic fields. Psychologists, ecologists, biologists…take your pick, and no matter how hard an economist has tried to garner them as co-writers, the hate will spew forth.

The man whom I predict will receive the latest in inter-academic wrath will be Naci H. Mocan, who has just released a working paper regarding vengeance. He writes in the abstract that:

Females, older people, working people, people who live in high-crime areas of their country and people who are at the bottom 50% of their country's income distribution are more vengeful. The intensity of vengeful feelings dies off gradually over time. The findings suggest that vengeful feelings of people are subdued as a country develops economically and becomes more stable politically and socially and that both country characteristics and personal attributes are important determinants of vengeance.

It is important we understand that while Mocan is speaking of crime, he is not writing about terrorism.

You see, recently we had a change in conventional wisdom about terrorists. We used to think they latched on to terrorism because they had no jobs. Then, we started noticing that acts of terrorism were being carried out by people who were not exactly desperate for money, per se. Even Osama Bin Laden has gone to college.

The separation between terrorist and vengeful poor guy really comes from a state of mind. If the information that has been coming out lately is right, then the vengeful poor are vengeful because of actual economic reasons. “Class warfare” is a term that everybody hates, so I’ll use it. It seems as though terrorists don’t have to worry about the same thing that the vengeful poor do, so they have time to develop religious psychoses regarding desert land whose wealth is defined by the supply of a substance (oil) that would have no where near the value if the rest of the world was not as “secular” as it is.

The “cause” is a piece of land roughly the size of New Jersey; of course I’m talking about Israel. So, we have sovereign countries in oil rich land that want to retake land that has only religious significance. I understand that my use of the phrase “only religious” is a bit underestimating considering that wars have been started over religious grounds.

I think what we learn here is that vengeance comes to those who feel slighted, or cheated in some way. People who feel that the current system is stacked against them will most likely feel vengeful. Their outlying of the system can come either economically, or religiously.
Maybe we need to look at what people everywhere see as unfair because those who feel that they are treated most unfairly will seek to remedy their situations in some of the direst of manners.

(By the way, I started writing a week ago on Thursday, July 17th, but apparently Stephen Dubner subscribes to the same email lists I do.)

Active Citizenship

I have written before about “active citizenship.” But, what is it? What does it require? Why is it necessary?

Considering that the July 4^th anniversary (U.S. Independence Day) has just passed once again, there has been clamor once again over the idea of self governance. Americans are in love with themselves every July 4^th, and the idea that we are self governing; that we have our destiny within our own hands. But, beyond 9^th grade Civics, if we investigate deeper, we end up realizing that our idea of self-governance is really just a farce. Self-governance is merely the veil over our eyes to disguise us from the truth that we are not in control.

You need not look very far for the ideas against where we stand as voters. Those who vote often have absurd and diluted ideas of proper remedy to our nation’s concerns. Not only that, but voting is not in itself active citizenship. If I didn’t know any better, I could have sworn that I actually saw a farm animal in the voting booth in 2004.

Every election cycle I have constantly asked my own friends to abstain from voting. The idea being that my vote would count for more; as if I were the elected representative for our group of friends. But this does not even count as a dent; or any voting anomaly.

Active citizenship, sadly to me only, means that all citizens are informed and educated regarding the policies that are currently enacted, the goals they have for themselves, and the consequences of changing current policies and/or adding or deleting them. While I can write the instructions for such active citizenship in a sentence, the actual “doing” involves a generous amount of time spent reading and asking questions about what is going on in our nation and, maybe even more importantly, state.

Unfortunately, what most people consider active citizenship is devolved into what many people call, “hot button” issues. Or, as I like to refer them to, “Issues which will mean less and less over time.” Gay marriage is a perfect example. The more time goes on, the more people do not care. Yet, even though more and more people do not care, interest groups against gay marriage get louder and louder.

What about foreign policy? Taxes? Why can’t voters ever organize large enough for those items? Well, this is where active citizenship comes into play. You see, in areas such as foreign policy and taxes, we defer to so called, “experts.” This term, expert, I love.

A few times now I have hear Noam Chomsky give an example when people want to know about “doing more” and what it requires. He, and subsequently I, queried as to why people have the time to memorize a plethora of minutia on sport statistics while not bothering to know any real important history that could give context to our current political-global climate.

And sadly - because most everyone in the U.S. hates Noam Chomsky - he is right. Why don’t we know that the 1812 Overture, which is played every 4^th of July, is actually about the defeat of Napoleon, and nothing to do with America? I mean this kind of ignorance smacks of the humor that was in an episode of The Simpsons where at an air show, the announcer says, “Now, the pride of the United States Air Force, the British made Harrier jet.”

Apart from the effort of memorizing sports statistics, the fervor that people have in order to call in the morning sport shows and combat these experts is barely palpable. You see the difference now? Sports: YES! Politics: Why would I waste my time with that?

Once we can get past the idea that we can divert more energy into our political discourse for the everyday man, we then have to ask why it is necessary. The answer is actually quite simple really. We should act and care about our politics so that if we do complain, we’ll know why, and we’ll know that we’re doing something about it.

Look no further than our incumbency rates in the United States (95% if I remember correctly). Sure, the system is broken, but the apathy of our body politic does not help. And the numbers only show that if you’re complaining about how things are going, then we all need to ask why keep sending the same people back. Is there ability to blame others that good?

I’m not going to make a stance here, although I’m sure it sounds like I have. But what I have tried to do is give the idea some exposure. This is about asking yourself if you actually feel like you are governing yourself. And if you don’t think you are, then maybe we need to change some of the wording that we use to describe our political system.

Turning the Page

The status quo simply won't do any more. It never did much for me, and with Barack Obama heading into the general election as the Democratic nominee, I would like to think more of America feels the same.

This leads me to then ask why the Human Rights Campaign still holds as much of us captive as it does. Watching my friends and colleagues being treated as second class citizens is outrageous. Why hasn't more been done? Public opinion on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered community has changed so much within the past few years. Yet, with all the actual capital that the Human Rights Campaign has, it has not seemed to turn into much political capital.

Don't believe me? Look over at Andrew Sullivan, whom for this, it does not get any more personal:

Their main activity in the 1990s was selling the Clinton administration to gays. The reward was some jobs and sinecures for their own clique. And the reason they got along so well with the Clintons is that the Clintons are all about raising political money as well.

...

They get tens of millions of dollars a year from well-intentioned gay men and lesbians. They've been doing it for years. And what have we got? Nothing. Wake up, guys. Give your money to people who actually fight for gay equality.

But with Obama's nomination, I'm hoping the Human Rights Campaign learns that we all want a different way of going towards our goals.

If we can truly believe in the message of a candidate, when someone like Senator Obama talks about changing the way we work within politics, than maybe we can change the maneuvering that happens with many organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign.

If we truly are the ones whom we have been waiting for, then America, we Americans, need to make this happen ourselves. Political apathy is the nourishment of the status quo. Active citizenship is what our country requires in order to make it work well, let alone make it work the way we intend for it to work.

This all means holding the Human Rights Campaign accountable. This means writing and emailing them asking them what they do with your money. Continuing to write them asking for our voices to be heard, and our aspirations to be met.

Andrew Sullivan and I don't agree on every issue, but what I do enjoy the most about him is his ability to instill within us an understanding that we have the inherit abilities to make change. We all have the inherit ability to organize and make known what matters most in our lives. And that is part of the change that Obama himself has been talking about. I'm not saying Obama is the answer though. What I am saying is that a true working government is one whose citizens, all citizens, actively participate And in the vain of active citizenship, we have some work to keep doing.

Edit this page (you have permission)

Edit this page (if you have permission) | Report spam

Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.

What a Vote Could be For

Pundits are at it again. This time, Paul Krugman writes, "working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems." Now, it's not that I'm a cynic in thinking that most working class Americans don't vote on economic issues. But here's the thing - they don't know how to vote on economic issues. The old adage of "focusing too much on the trees so that you can't see the forest" applies.

And that is not to say working class voters lack the ability to think these polcies through. However, working class voter don't have the time to learn global and development economics for three months every four years when it becomes the subject du jour. All they know is that working gives them money to buy things. If their job is under threat, and it can be explained by illegal immigrants or cheaper labor elsewhere, then that's how the debate will be framed.

What is so important about framing the debate? Dani Rodrick once explained how Tyler Cowen and others forget that, "Food importing countries are food scarce countries, and as they open up to trade, the relative price of food falls. But if you are Thailand or Argentina, where other goods are scarce relative to food, freer trade means higher relative prices of food, not lower." But even then, to the regular American, that means lower prices. And since our jobs, and our price of food is important to us, then who cares if that tiny country has to pay more for its own food.

And even in food production there is a catch. As has been discussed before by msyelf and others, subsidising ethanol has created unforseen (to most politicians and the general public) price increases in food.

And it's not that Krugman gets the facts wrong entirely. Mainly, he misses the message, or, maybe Krugman is so involved in his own policies that he fails to see what Americans who vote for Obama are telling him.

Like here, Krugman seems to have forgotten to remind himself that there is a war going on. When supporters, and pundits alike, talk about "change" this election cycle, they are speaking on the grounds of changing the way our executive branch runs things, or if it should be running everything to begin with. It's about moving away from authoritarianism, and last time I checked, that authoritarianism is what most critics espoused of the Clinton administration.

Moreover, considering that the Iraq war is as draining as it is, then why not provide any background on a place where presidents have the most clout? Such as, foreign policy. At the latest Democratic debate, Clinton was far more assertive in saying that an attack on Israel could be considered as an attack on the U.S. Maybe our citizens don't want any such a foreign policy. Maybe a change in that paradigm of foreign policy is the change that Obama keeps talking about.

Maybe it's that change that Obama keeps talking about that will get people involved actively again politically. As I've said before, America really is active citizenship. Complacency allows others whose agendas you may not agree with to take hold of policy right from under our noses.

While Krugman might be able to get away with this kind of cynicism on regular readers, he won't get away with it from everyone. Right now, Senator Clinton is making sure she will do whatever it takes to get the nomination. So, simply saying that it's okay because what would happen in the fall campaign to Obama is much worse, is, by definition, cynical. And frankly, guess what, that type of politicking is another item that Obama is referring to when he discusses change.

And Krugman gets away with this kind of stuff because nobody cares to check and see why voters like Obama. Once again, it's the media telling us what to care about. I think a lot of the politically active citizenry still think authoritarianism is the big issue. Too bad, because today the media tells us it is the economy, which is one of the items the President cannot do much about.

Local Endorsement

After months of wading through the national campaigns of various presidential candidates, most of whom are now in the great category of "former presidential candidate," I have focused my attention locally, for governor of Delaware, Jack Markell, a Democrat.

Consider that Delaware's Libertarian party is paltry relative to Libertarians nationally. As well, many local libertarian parties find a lack in support due to the fact that state and local governments have the ability and right to operate in a different manner; which is why you hear many libertarians on the national scale saying things like, "that is a matter best left at the state level." Even then, a proper libertarian would not be able to ignore Jack Markell. From a candidate, I ask not for complete laissez -faire policy, but rather an honest approach to governance. You want health care for all? Fine, tell me how much it will cost, and how we plan to pay for it.

As State Treasurer in Delaware, Jack Markell has a keen sense of the possibilities of various programs, including a proposal for statewide health care. At some point, an honest discussion needs to be had regarding what the priorities of the average citizen are, and what we are willing to pay to make these priorities happen.

When Jack Markell endorsed Barack Obama, it became clear that Markell was a candidate who got it. In the times that I have met with Jack Markell, he has proven himself able and willing to speak on certain issues, and in certain places, where normally, any other politician would skirt around.

In a country where only half of those who can vote, do vote, it is obvious that the apathy towards politics has led to an inactive citizenship. Almost naturally, political apathy has been taken advantage of by many. Instead of policy arguments, or any forward thinking in speeches, we have seen fear mongering and scare tactics.

Improving Delaware at multiple levels is part of an idea of government that requires active citizenship. An active citizenship paradigm thinks not of the average citizen as an obstacle to be obfuscated, but rather as a peer and neighbor to work and be involved with. And only when there is someone willing to be honest about issues on their own merit, will such a paradigm exist. That someone is Jack Markell.

*****

Here is the latest Delaware Gubernatorial debate (on education) where I have taken the liberty to upload each part to YouTube.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

What is Fair

Is it me, or has Paul Krugman really gone to town on Senator Barack Obama? And is it not mostly because of the mandate in Senator Hillary Clinton’s health-care policy?

Now, before I go on, let me please state that I still admire and respect Paul Krugman. And, in fact, he has admitted that he would rather not write about such items, but write more along the lines of textbook economics. Moreover, I have to admit that when he is grilling Senator Obama, he is doing so on policy grounds. Or, at least, that is what he is trying to do.

But why does it seem so vicious? Why is it that when Sebastian Mallaby or Robert Samuelson discuss Senator Obama, their criticisms seem less attacking?

Some more caveats. Firstly, Krugman is the kind of man who prefers tackling opposition head on. That is to say, when you think the other side is wrong, you must call them out on it, even harshly at times. Obviously Obama's rhetoric has tried to go more toward the middle of the road. With that said, going towards the middle of the road brings us to another reason why Krugman is so stringent on Senator Obama. Because Senator Obama voiced his concern against mandates on health insurance, Krugman noted that Senator Obama was attacking Senator Clinton "from the right." By attacking Hillary Clinton "from the right," Krugman was noting that this would not help either candidate - and more importantly to Krugman, the health care plan - in the general election.

Yet, the tone of Mallaby and Samuelson differs from Krugman's. And I have to wonder why when I think of the disparity because Mallaby and Samuelson have raised valid concerns regarding Senator Obama.

What it all comes down to is why Krugman becomes silent when Senator Clinton makes an argument against Obama? Why is it okay for her to attack Obama from the right by saying that she and Senator McCain have more national security experience than Senator Obama? Once again, Krugman's arguments are not necessarily wrong, but he seems to miss the counterpoints. Whereas Mallaby and Samuelson make specific arguments against a ploy, tactic, or misconception, Krugman seems to not address the times when other candidates (i.e. Senator Clinton) do the same thing. So, he's not wrong, but I just get the feeling that I'm not being told everything.

And if I am not being told everything, I wonder what the average American is missing?

Displaying Foreign Policy

Do we ever stop to think about the way we create our foreign policy? This is not an argument if what we are doing is right or wrong, although I - and everyone else - do have my opinions on that. Rather, how do we come to our policy conclusions, and what are the criteria?

Here is an illustration to help make my case, where Justin Raimondo wrote in The American Conservative regarding Senator John McCain’s positions on Iraq and general foreign policy:

It is impossible to know what is in McCain’s heart.

Maybe the paradigm needs to shift away from “thinking with our hearts.”

We need to realize that there is still a significant contingent of American’s who believed that Bush could look into a Russian President’s soul and see the good in him. Yet, when it comes to what we write in the newspaper, or what we say on talk radio, we have to use our head in order to stand resolute against all of America’s enemies.

Is anyone else other than me worried about that dichotomy?

So, why are we allowed to use our heart in some places and only our heads in others? At the end of the day the rhetorical nonsense is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. At what point are we allowed to think with our minds?

The simplistic black/white, good vs. evil dichotomies that have been perpetuated does not help matters much either. And don’t think that I am the only person who thinks that this is a problem. Even people on the other side of foreign policy perspective think that the American public is not being told what all the relevant information and idiosyncrasies of foreign policy options. Here, around the 4:30 mark of the video is a clip of John Bolton discussing it with Jon Stewart.




So, then in terms of coming up with our foreign policy, maybe another question to ask is why our current government does not wish to disclose, or create discourse with the public on the real intricacies of foreign policy. Does our government think we are not smart enough to understand? Or, does our government not wish for us to know the intricacies because we may not agree?

And when we think about it that way, is that not as good a reason as any to make sure we think with our hearts? If we are thinking with our hearts, then it is all so simple, and we do not care what happens so long as the bad guys lose.

Unfortunately, sooner or later, the public ends up wanting to know.

Political Fans and Sport Fans

I believe when David Kuo replied to criticisms of his post in which he called the New England Patriots “cheaters,” he also made a parallel in terms of the paradigm that many citizens have with their own political party and politics in general.

My surmise at the connection is to relate the studies which show that when speaking in terms of politics, most people will simply forego rational responses, and as brain scans have shown, political thoughts deal more with emotional responses. Considering that all one would have to do to see the parallel with sports it to simply attend a sports bar, or go to a friend’s house to see a football game, then I think the point with associating sports and pure emotional thought is a very simple and obvious one to make.

So, when David Quo remarked that the Patriots are “cheaters,” he ticked off a few people. However, consider that their coach did illegally record the other team’s play signals. Is that not cheating?

I think what might be an important exercise is to understand the definitions of what certain parties are accused of. What is a “cheater?” What is a “war criminal?” Unless the definitions have changed, then aren’t the participants guilty?

Part of the reason as to why the rational section of the brain gets taken over is because of the perceived cost of and benefit of being a fan and taking a position. Consider that an individual’s ideological preference has more of a benefit than the cost for holding that belief. Bryan Caplan calls this rational irrationality. That is to say, there is a benefit to the person for holding an irrational belief.

One example I thought of was this: Since the probability of dying in a terrorist attack is so small, then holding a strong pro-torture position - which most likely creates anti-American sentiment that breeds more terrorists and terrorism – holds relatively little cost to the internal benefit of holding that ideological perspective. Therefore, since the ideological position holds so much weight for the individual, any effort to disagree with, or demerit the position will anger that person.

The hope is that with time, more and more people become aware of how emotional and irrational some of their paradigms can be. This is why even though I may not always agree with another economist, holding a conversation with them does not usually end in fistfights.

Of course, I may be wrong about mending these trends with sports. For some reason, people hold on harder to what they believe when it comes down to their local sport team. As Americans, we should simply be thankful for not having full-blown soccer riots.

Vocal Religious Fundamentalism

The following is an email I sent to my close friend and psychological expert, William. His thoughtful and eloquent response to this email is here.

Hi Will,

This afternoon, I would like to follow up on my statement as to the sorrow that one should feel after watching Tuesday's Nova: Judgment Day. You said that you felt "revved up" in watching the law bring back a very controversial topic in terms of teaching Intelligent Design within the Dover, PA school district, however I ordered caution because of the locality and numeration of what I anticipated would be a very harsh reaction.

As I have rightly anticipated, there was a very strong reaction to the negative towards PBS, as seen by the latest Ombudsman column.

Yet by about a three-to-one margin, the long compilation of letters from viewers that appears below were critical of the program, charging a one-sided treatment, a bias toward evolution colored by the producers, and that it was insulting to believers.

Here is just one of the many emails sent in to Michael Getler, the Ombudsman for PBS.

It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were "Created" by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you'll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our "Creator"!!! It shouldn't take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!

Sonya L. Johnson, North Port, FL

Once again, I, like Sam Harris, must ask you why you feel revved up about the Dover, PA decision while such a strong constituency has goals of turning our country into a theocracy. What is more, is that while fundamentalist Christianity can be argued as being a minority, many have admitted that the religious moderates are as much to blame for their lack of confrontation fundamentalism, and thereby allowing it to control the discourse of the U.S. public image.

Also, of an ironic nature, those who would so quickly take the United States to war against the theocracy of Iran would also just as quickly make our country a theocracy, just Christian, not Muslim.

I put the question to you, how do you think we will avoid war? Who are those of "cool" disposition, and how much of our discourse do they control, as opposed to war hawks and religious fundamentalists? I would like to hear how the U.S.' current theory of presidential powers prevents one of those of vocal minority to do as he pleases? Does our current theory of presidential power prevent anything?

The Achievement Gap, The NCAA, and Us

A few weeks ago, over at Science Blogs, Chad Orzel wrote:

Is it a good thing that only 52% of Maryland's black male athletes graduate? No. But the real tragedy is that only 54% of Maryland's black male students graduate. We should fix that problem first-- by improving public education so that students from poor and minority backgrounds come to college with the tools they need to succeed-- and see if the athletic graduation rates don't take care of themselves.

But it's easy to write self-righteous editorials blasting high-profile sports programs for their academic failings, while fixing the class and race problems of American education will cost real money, and require actual work. And nobody wants that.

I spent some time thinking over the reports that Orzel used to make his point. I make no claim to disagree with them whatsoever. Moreover, I do not disagree with Orzel on his point either. I myself have written in regards to the black-white achievement gap multiple times. The achievement gap is real, and is a cause for wage disparities and other socio-economic issues that impact our country.

However, I still stand by the piece of George Will wrote on the NCAA a few months ago. If the goal of the NCAA would be to further encourage the mission of the student athlete, then I would find it dishonest for anyone to think the 55% graduation rate that Will cites as anything worth of a passing mark. That is to say, I still believe the NCAA to be coming up short of its mission.

Nevertheless, the black-white achievement gap is and still should be the priority to eliminate.

Perhaps Chad Orzel felt that the attention has started to shift away from the achievement gap. With that most likely being his motivator, then Orzel’s post is commendable. Yet, I believe that it is still important to note that a graduation rate of “55 percent of football players and 38 percent of basketball players” is deplorable (taken from George Will’s op-ed).

Since the percentage of NCAA black athletes that participate in the “revenue sports” (football and men’s and women’s basketball) has usually hovered around the 50% mark (the literature and statistics for that can be found at www.ncaa.org), then there is a possibility that the numbers cited by George Will can be affected by the black-white achievement gap. With that in mind, perhaps the NCAA could soon garner some motivation and support to help tackle the black-white achievement gap for itself.

In any case, the achievement gap is real, and I think for the NCAA to continue to laud the student athlete is dishonest when the statistics behind it show that there’s room for improvement.

Orzel hinted at something else when he closed his blog post. He noted that there may be unwillingness for the public to address the achievement gap, and I believe Orzel to be right. There are cultural implications at stake here. Even over at the Freakonomics blog, Steve Levitt will mention his colleague, Roland Fryer, who continues to work on socio-economic issues, such as the black-white achievement gap. Again, Fryer has surveyed students who denote that being smart is “acting white.” Even recently, Levitt reported that Fryer found the latest euphuism to be “acting Asian.”

When anyone talks about having gender roles or seeing stereotypes forced upon others, then perhaps racial roles and stereotypes are themes peddled on by corporate marketers who choose to make products and profit based on those roles, which our culture accepts.

As someone with libertarian leanings, I hope that people will continue to step out of their own stereotypes, and the stereotypes imposed upon them by others. My hope is that with time, people can choose to be smart for themselves, rather than seeing the roles as fixed.

Revolt!

A friend from my college years is teaching in France, and had this to comment on a current student strike:

I think the best thing that I saw today though was the group of students who have started an anti-protest protest! I was handed a flyer when I walked onto campus and thought it was an announcement about the newly blocked buildings, but it actually read something more like this:

The Committee of the fight against the strike

Any student, French of foreign, has the right to go to class.

Whether for or against the university reforms, attending class is a non-negotiable liberty.

This LIBERTY must be respected.

The anti-strike group is protesting against the hostage of students by a small group of agitators.

This is why I have a deep seeded respect and love for France. They will have a revolution over anything. If I were to provide a pop culture metaphor to describe the French’s political activity, I would say that there democracy amplifiers have been turned to “11.”

Whether their paid for schooling yields better results than American college counterparts, I think that matter is up to debate.

A University's Secret Curriculum

A friend emailed me this link that shocked my libertarian leaning conscience, where we find that my alma mater, and former employer, had been trying to “educate” students through the University’s Residence Life Staff. Since the current president of the University made a statement declaring that the program would be shutdown, I believe it safe to assume that the program was in effect to some degree.

Now, what do we mean by, “Educate?” Essentially, Residence Life staff members, and most likely Resident Assistants – which is the position I held, and furthest down on the totem poll – were given a curriculum base for their residents. That’s right, while they are students at the University and already take classes all day, now the RAs had to administer new curriculum for the residents to learn.

The curriculum was based on the following (further explains and opinion can be found here):

• A re-education of students on various social issues.
• A mandatory participation basis. (While I would not see that expulsion from dorms as a possibility for a resident not attending, the RAs were in a sense being forced to make residents by means of performance reviews and such. Although, new testimonials are heading more towards the threatening possibility.)
• Essentially, the outcome would lead to a view of society that sees whites as privileged, and all minorities (based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identification) as marginalized.
• By changing the student’s paradigm, the University’s goal would be students who were more egalitarian.
• Also, those goals included having students who would end up making pledges for whatever causes the complex in which they lived set out.

If you are not sure where to begin with what is wrong in the program, don’t worry because I am not sure where to begin either. To put it differently, the University of Delaware essentially played the old, “My house, my rules,” card. There are a few things wrong with that, firstly which is that the University is not the parent of any of these students, and most of the students are over 18.

Why would a university hide its own curriculum? Even in some of the supporting documents, this is described as a curriculum. So, why is it coming out of Residence Life? You would think that being that there are so many other students in the University, maybe there could be some sort of requirement for a class on the brief sociological history of the U.S. and the world, which could cover topics ranging from sexuality to socio-economic, and racial concerns. Of course with that, the problem would be that the classes were mandatory. We have to remember that people are paying for this. As well, with that said, they are not paying for re-education on social issues from the University’s Residence Life apparatus.

Even then the point of this curriculum was not for education sake, but for making students conform to a paradigm that was already set by the University’s Residence Life arm.

Another problem with the curriculum is that Residence Life decided what the answers to the problems were, and based the education around that. Normally, especially in a higher education background, when ideological problems are given, it is up to the individual to make up their own mind on what they think is right or wrong, and what they want to do about it.

At the core of this, and apparently at the cause of FIRE.org, is the topic of personal liberty. It is a right of every citizen in our nation to espouse whatever stupid, false, and distasteful sentiment they wish. Forcing the students to go through a re-education is the sort of Orwellian doomsday that we all think laughable, but was apparently under way.

Such a program may as well be the affirmation of theocracy and in this case, a secular theocracy. The lack of individual liberty with regards to people’s opinions (however misinformed) is the antithesis of a liberal democracy. At least Jerry Falwell’s college is honest about the misinformation it portrays. And by the way, I still resent the fact that he chose the name, Liberty University.

This is probably the most secretive, and yet seemingly unsubtle form of manufacturing consent I have ever seen. In my experience, college students for the most part live and operate in a bubble that envies President Bush’s. Again, why was this made curriculum? Why was this kept secret in the sense that it was unannounced to residents for what it really was? Why was there such a strong effort to mandate that residents participate? This is at best, disturbing, and at its worst the plot of some sort of Bond villain.

And while I write this article, something of actual substance, that could of deserved the support of such an “open-minded” Residence Life Staff at the University of Delaware, actually hit the floor in the House a few nights ago, and passed. Up until the bill was passed, homosexuals were not protected from discrimination in the workplace while other minorities were. Please listen to someone who really cares about the topic, as opposed to having someone “re-educate” you.

(If you click on the link and follow towards Barney Frank’s speech, take note that he is trying to expose a tactic that the Republicans were using. At the time, Republicans were trying to tie in marriage issues into the bill - whereas the bill was really about work discrimination - in an effort so that bill would not be passed.)

Subsidizing Calories

Rob Hotakainen reports for McClatchy Newspapers that most of the money that goes towards farm subsidies goes for the foods that are not good for us.

What perplexes my logic is trying to figure out why on earth we would subsidize a product, or commodity, that we purchase the most of. You want to complain about subsidizing, or giving tax breaks to oil companies, then what about subsidizing our calorie consumption?

One of the possibilities that come to mind of why we would subsidize something that so many people purchase is for the need to smooth out price shocks that may come within the industry. The only real problem with that is when the industry that is being subsidized makes continuous profits.

Republican Senator Pat Roberts is right though – I never thought I would say that – the real fault of obesity lies within the person making the choice. To argue about farm subsidies in terms of how it could make people obese is really sort of a stretch. Especially when there are much better arguments for reducing or eliminating subsidies.

Tim Harford mentioned something just last week regarding our choices and how the government or firms intervene in our lives.

For example, in many places of work, you have to opt out of the 401k savings plan. That is to say, you are automatically enrolled. What have we seen since? People like it. They are doing something good for themselves – saving money for future retirement - that would otherwise not have been done because the choice was pre-made for them.

Harford used other examples, including smoking in England, and the possibilities of the English government providing more incentives for people to quit. Of course, couldn’t we think about that similarly in the US with what we eat?

I guess the argument could go both ways. Maybe we could subsidize more nutritional foods, and then have people pay higher (less subsidized) prices for other fatty foods. I believe Tim Harford called this paternal libertarianism – he was not advocating it, but simply educating his readers on the term for what we are seeing. Essentially, there is still a strong prevalence for choice, but just that the choice is priced for the ideal of common good.

In the end though, I still have to ask why we subsidize all those foods? Where is the evidence of price shocks? Oh well, why buy the cow when the milk is subsidized?

More than a Minute

Last time, I wrote about what influences there are in what we purchase on how we work, but have we ever thought about how we write, or express our thoughts?

In today’s society of 24-hour television news, 10-second online social quizzes, as well as social networking sites themselves, it’s a wonder how any observer learns of a situation, or a person for that matter, in a manner that is not merely shallow. Even in our emails, in business we have been taught that the proper etiquette is to keep things short and simple.

In the end though, the person who really has the interest has to keep prodding for more information. Why, even recently, I sent an email to a co-worker, and then had a reply telling me about policy of which I already knew. The email tried to explain to me that needed to see and sign the attached documents first. Well, those managers were on the distribution list, so there is the rub. And I find it quite disingenuous when you send something that is within policy guidelines only to have to read a reply to that very same message telling you that what you just sent has to be within policy guidelines.

Uhhh? Well, if what I sent was not within the guidelines, you could just tell me explicitly. Then again, they were within guidelines, so what would we even discuss? But people like their high horses, so let them ride.

But what if there was a different way? What if there was a better way socially, politically, and businesslike? What if thorough writing was first priority leading to encouraging – you do not have to require it – full responses that contain context?

The 24-hour news networks suffer the most. Since their goal is to keep everyone up to date almost every hour, they have to reiterate the same news pieces all day, with barely any addition to the story. And in case you thought that wasn’t bad enough, those stories get old. This situation is essentially what is meant by the phrase, “24-hour news cycle.” So, when these stories get old, they are discarded.

With that in mind, you can imagine how easy it can be for warrant-less wiretapping to lose its flavor for the average news viewer. And when you have an executive branch that can delay comment, action, and investigation, and can on top of that tell you that their executive privileges allow them do circumvent what we know as the law, or tell you that you are letting the terrorists win, I would be surprised for the story to go anywhere.

In fact, usually when news stories on warrant-less wiretapping do go somewhere, it takes a long time to come up with a report. When the report comes along weeks, or even months later, will anyone who is used to 30 second news clips bother to pay attention? Moreover, do they even know the report will be broadcast? What are the Neilson ratings for PBS’ Frontline? How do PBS’ ratings fair against NBC when it airs “To Catch a Predator?”

Some stories, no matter how important, lack the tangibility for people to provide the time out of their busy lives in order to make a difference. It may be because of this that some college students take up the cause. Unfortunately, some students are less educated then others, and you have the possibility of someone yelling obscenities for what seems to be absolutely no reason whatsoever.

So, instead of answering 10 second interviews for online social networking sites, write an essay about a topic important to you. Or, write an essay-autobiography describing what is important to you. If the paradigm were changed on what is required for giving people complete answers, we might actually get to know each other just a little better.

Influences

As I discussed in my last piece, race does not look like it will subside anytime soon as a hot button issue With so many people accusing each other of racism for taking certain positions (e.g. many citizens don’t like affirmative action), it’s a wonder how anyone even dares to explore any topics regarding race.

However, the fear of being accused a racist has yet to take hold of Kerwin Kofi Charles, Erik Hurst, and Nikolai Roussanov, who wrote a paper entitled “Conspicuous Consumption and Race.” From their abstract:

Using nationally representative data on consumption, we show that Blacks and Hispanics devote larger shares of their expenditure bundles to visible goods (clothing, jewelry, and cars) than do comparable Whites….[W]e emphasize instead a model of status seeking in which conspicuous consumption is used to reflect a household's economic position relative to a reference group.

Should we get out the pitchforks and start storming university research centers? No, of course not. Remember that even though we are all American, a cornucopia of cultures exists. For one culture to be into cars or jewelry more than another should not come to a surprise.

So, Kofi et al. describe what they are observing as status-seeking. Or, as I have interpreted it, the disparity in consumption is a form of signaling.

But what leads to the disparity? Coming up with a hypothesis, I think this is part of a peer effect manufactured by the general media and black media to black culture. Using the music industry as an example, a lot of material from the rap genre glorifies and tantalizes about an excess life style. Within that life style are the visible goods that Kofi et al. describe.

An important note is to remind ourselves that to call these expenditures good or bad is judgment call that I think hardly anyone qualifies for. For example, a financial advisor may not look too highly upon such goods that hold very little equity and depreciate rather quickly. On the other hand, people’s own utility functions operate in such a manner that almost all of the time the purchases they make are for goods and services that they really want.

So, while my hypothesis above shows that a peer/media effect may explain the reasoning for what some could describe as fleeting purchases, the peer effect for work and co-workers may be an entirely different story.

In fact, according to a paper by Jonathan Guryan, Kory Kroft, and Matt Notowidigdo, the people with whom we work may not affect our productivity. Now, we are not talking about a team project, or anything of the sort, but rather simply who works around you. The study the authors organized revolved around the pairings made at a golf tournament. Their results show that player’s scores did not falter even if paired with a player who had a considerably larger scoring handicap.

So, while trying to showcase lifestyle may be a product of observing and imitating culture (life imitating art), it seems that when it comes to making money, our influences are constrained only to what works, and in that sense, getting the job done.

Forces of Habit

Recently ESPN’s Jeff Perlman wrote a piece on the University of Delaware’s reluctance, refusal, awkward excuses, and non-responses to play Delaware State University

Perlman’s piece regards the incident as purely regarding race. However, the situation may be even more nuanced than Perlman lets on.

The school came to be in 1891 only because the men running the First State wished not to allow blacks into their grand university. Under the Morrill Act, a state either could open its public educational facilities to all peoples, or start a separate-but-equal school for blacks. Hence, Delaware State.

In the ensuing 116 years, Delaware has treated Delaware State not as academic/athletic brethren, but as a piece of gum affixed to the bottom of its loafer. Del. State is where the scary black people congregate, where "those" types of folk go to college.

The problem is UD v. Del State is more socio-economic than it probably is racial anymore. Yet, so many tragedies like this start out as misguided racial solutions (starting Del State in order for UD to remain an all white institution) only to become these habitual stances on how one regards another race and its institutions.

Moreover, a large part of UD’s 6% black student body is separated by the income gap from whites and blacks. To the point, Del State’s tuition rates are far less than the University of Delaware’s. So, unless we decide to subsidize more blacks to go to college, the numbers will stay the same. Situations like these are most evidently the reason why economists continue to study the black-white achievement gap with fervor.

Perlman’s article is wasted on football. Luckily for him, that is why he writes for ESPN. The bigger issue is the admissions department of the University of Delaware. Why is higher education only for some blacks, yet most whites? What are the separating factors? Surely couldn’t the University of Delaware release some of its decision making critiques?

Other questions that I have pondered before, but Perlman did not raise himself are: If the University of Delaware’s student body is only 6% black, how many students is that actually (keeping in mind Delaware State’s student body is smaller)? How many of those students are in-state students? And consequently, the same questions can be asked for Delaware State University. Since in-state students pay less, it is quite possible that the income disadvantage minorities face makes them less apt to attend the University of Delaware, especially when other schools may be financially equal, and with a better educational reputation.

If we want to argue about racism, fine, but maybe we should really be honest about what college football is about. Along the way, some of us have to stick to our principles, and I hope that at some point in the future, it won’t only be George Will. The white – black achievement gap is bigger than football because this involves the futures of many young students. If Perlman really wanted to focus on something in football that should be changed, what about the goals of the NCAA as George Will has discussed before?

How does the NCAA fulfill its proclaimed purpose of maintaining "the athlete as an integral part of the student body"? Only 55 percent of football players and 38 percent of basketball players at Division I-A schools graduate. The New York Times has reported that at Auburn, a perennial football power, many athletes have received "high grades from the same professor for sociology and criminology courses that required no attendance and little work." Eighteen members of the undefeated 2004 team took a combined 97 hours of those courses while at Auburn. Who believes such behavior is confined to Auburn?

My point is that the fate of Pearlman’s article was sealed before it was written. So much of what separates schools is in the price tag, and until we effectively reduce the black-white achievement gap, we will continue to bear witness to the University of Delaware’s racial composition and surreal attitude of playing Delaware State University as a…how did they say it back in the day…a peculiar institution.

Thinking Through Green

Despite this political appeal, we argue that the standards have a cost in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. In particular, we show that an LCFS [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] limiting carbon emissions per unit of energy (the energy-based LCFS) can achieve the first best outcome only under unrealistic assumptions. Moreover, we find that, contrary to the stated purpose, an LCFS can actually raise carbon emissions. Additionally, we show that the second best LCFS—from a regulator’s perspective—“under-taxes” all fuels and may require a nonbinding standard, i.e., the optimal standard may be no standard at all.

That is an excerpt from a working paper by Stephen P. Holland, Jonathan E. Hughes and Christopher R. Knittel. Reading through the simulated economic effects of environmental policy ideas becomes a difficult exercise. On one side, most everyone admits the externalities from carbon emissions exist and most likely harms long-term global climate. However, dealing with such global issues hardly warrants a “magic wand” approach to the problem.

No one policy can solve all problems. Moreover, having one policy simulated in best-case scenarios with maximum restrictions in place is not only improbable, but also unrealistic. Not even environmental regulations are always efficient. This is where policy fails us.

Once again, what we are seeing in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is an attempt to affect the free-market. We try to adjust the market so that people favor low carbon fuels, but this essentially makes the price of low carbon fuels so low, that the public uses the fuel to the extent that we end of polluting just as much as we were before.

There is a caveat however. Fore example, giving a corporation a tax break that realizes record profits is not necessarily a logical maneuver economically, albeit logical politically. Luckily, if you did not know, congress has rescinded on those tax breaks. Such tax breaks are of the same ilk as subsidizing already profitable farms.

And if you think policy is the only place where we can get it wrong on the environment, you might need to think again. As Warren Brown recently wrote in the Washington Post, what do we do when the time comes to dispose of the large batteries that come in hybrid vehicles? What are the real costs of the entire hybrid vehicle from its length of life, to its ability for salvage and/or disposal? Rather, would it not be more efficient to simply purchase a small economical gas engine vehicle?

Instead of having these questions of policy and “green” life style externalities answered, and instead of having facts and numbers discussed, the public sees a grandiose delusion about how to “help” the environment. What happened to the good old days where reducing, reusing, and recycling were key elements in not only helping the environment, but also being efficient?

If you read Warren Brown’s article, you’ll understand what he, many others, and I have been saying for quite some time now. The public is simply not ready to discuss the real costs of reducing our use of oil, which would best come by the way of a gas tax.

Education for Whom?

Have you ever stopped to consider why so many of our nation’s teachers go back to school to receive elaborate graduate degrees and even in some cases doctorates?

Well, whether they like it or not, Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor have answered that question by asking another question, what effect does having a graduate degree have on student achievement?

From the August NBER Digest, Linda Gorman summed the paper on graduate-degree teacher credentials and their effect on students educations. In the end the effect was put simply as, none.

According to Linda, the authors, like many before them, have gone through the statistics and found what their predecessors have found. What matters is not whether you have a graduate degree or not, but rather on your experience. (My apologies to all my friends who have become new teachers; I can only hope that you are the outliers in the data field.)

However, dare not think for even a moment that a teacher’s credentials are not correlated with how students perform in their classes. The authors have found that teachers whose credentials are weak have received disadvantaged students. This condition then leads to a further widening of the achievement gap that had been created by the students’ socioeconomic circumstances.

By asking the question as to what the effects of the teacher’s graduate education, the authors find that the motivations for attaining a graduate are plentiful. I believe increases in pay and better students/classroom environment would head the list for motive.

Is this truly the efficient manner to be taught? Should our most disadvantaged teachers consistently receive the most disadvantaged students? I emphasize consistently because there may be a need to provide incentives for teachers to take on these particular students. Quite possibly, the incentives may be misaligned. Perhaps more incentive should be provided to a teacher who takes on students who fall on the bad side of the achievement gap.

Conversely, the data suggests that teachers most likely receive incentive to attain a master’s degree so as to be pampered in how their future classes will be composed. That is to say, they go back to school not become better teachers, but rather, to get better students.

Economists have always spoken out on misaligned incentives, and this may yet be another case of such askew system. I am reminded of Arnold Kling’s feelings on the purchase of carbon offsets. The offset system in hardly efficient, and is an example of trying to eat a salad just because you are feeling guilty for eating cheesecake. That is to say, you are eating more and wasting resources all for the sake of one’s conscience.

Maybe it is time that the incentives for teaching were realigned so that taking on the students who need the help ends up being the fiscally rewarding. According to the data, whether a teacher has a graduate degree or not does not affect the student’s performance, so the other students would hardly be mal-affected since each teacher has to be qualified anyway. John Stossel may in fact be right; a more competitive, incentive driven education system could put the right teachers in the right places.

On What Grounds?

Prior to the Rogers Masters’ men’s tennis final this past Sunday, I spoke to my friend Kevin on what the final could be like. The following exchange took place.

Kevin: I'm sure Federer is going to own that guy that beat Nadal. I mean really, a weekend in which you beat Nadal and Federer - you wish.

Me: Novak Djokovic has been a man possessed as of late. Really, just because he's been playing loosey goosey. As this year has been his break out year, for the Serb.

Kevin: He ain't winning today's match.

Me: I won't go that far.

For those that are not aware of the outcome of the match, Djokovic won.

Kevin is by no means a tennis expert, nor does his knowledge of the sport come close to mine due in no small part to my love of the game and keeping track of the professionals. But yet, Kevin disregarded what I was saying, and went with his position. This is much the same protocol that actually got us in Iraq and keeps us there.

Sure, the personal and global situations are a stretch to compare, but what is so different concerning the mindset? The answer: not much. In both cases, we have someone of a higher knowledge of the subject having his warnings totally dismissed. And what has made our steps in Iraq all the more worrisome is that the decisions made to go to war seem as nonchalant as picking Federer to always win a match.

Of course the U.S. military is the best, but no one made the public aware of the important caveats and intricacies of Middle East cultural rifts, sectarian strife, and cultural divides. Much of our own Generals’ advice was not heeded. General Shinseki noted:

Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army. Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements.

I must catch myself however; someone did mention all the caveats of action in the Middle East. That man was Dick Cheney in 1994:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. . . .

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

For those people who most likely do not watch The Daily Show, Jon Stewart confronted Stephen Hayes about Cheney’s past comments and how 9/11 didn’t change the consequences of invading Iraq.

What we end up seeing at the end of this is that the media is rewarding us to take strong stances. Whether the opinions are wrong or right is irrelevant, what matters is the unwavering expression of the opinion.

In fact, look no further than to Hillary Clinton, who still sees no point in thoughtfully addressing her votes for many authorizations of which Bush has asked pertaining to unwarranted surveillance, or authorization for the war in Iraq. Many other presidential candidates refuse to answer the question of going to war in Iraq “knowing what they know now” because, “the question is based on a hypothetical.” On the other hand, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were just as hypothetical.