Via The Ethicurean, here’s a short but interesting segment from NPR about the rural U.S. and what a new administration can and should do for the people that live there. Though rural reform is often thought to be all about new agricultural policies, the rural U.S. needs that and more.

“Reality … for most rural people is that farming is not how we make our living,” says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky-based group that tries to attract attention to rural issues. “You’ve only got about 1 percent of rural America making their primary living on the farm. So what’s important is to think about those other 99 percent and what’s possible for them.”

Many rural Americans are challenged by a rural economy that tanked sooner and deeper than the nation’s economy. Thousands of rural manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. High energy prices have made food and long commutes more expensive. And most rural places are losing population.

So while quick agricultural reform is an increasingly urgent necessity, it must be implemented alongside others as well to have a significant and long-lasting effect on rural communities.

“Internet access is not just for watching YouTube. It’s an instrument of commerce and education,” Kozikowski says.

In fact, rural areas lag behind cities and suburbs in access to broadband, making economic growth more difficult. Kozikowski also wants attention given to the basic infrastructure of asphalt and concrete. “Bringing us into the age of technology for new commerce and educational opportunity doesn’t mean anything if you can’t bring your product across a safe road or bridge.”

Both moves would help “overcome the friction of distance. Or overcome the costs that are associated with distance to these locations,” as Gimpel puts it. He wants the new administration to recognize something else fundamental about rural life: “Key to the rural economy really is the notion of self-employment. Self-employment is much higher in rural America than it is anywhere else,” he says.

Davis also points out that there are many exciting possibilities for incorporating rural areas into new economic recovery plans for the entire country, focusing mainly on their potential for growing renewable energies systems and economies.

“We don’t have to think of rural as a deficit. We can think of it as a strength,” Davis says. “We can think of it as the way to begin to reimagine our economy.”

Can, and should.

Posted under Economy, Politics

UMass Amherst Green Energy Conference

I’m at the Mass Mutual Center in Springfield, MA, attending the “Clean Energy Connections” Conference, put together by the University of Massachusetts Amherst (my school). The topic is the new “green economy” – what it is, why we need it, and examples of what it will look like in the future.

The introductory talk was given by Bracken Hendricks, from the Center for American Progress (a Washington Think Tank) and also an advisor to Prez-Elect Obama.  He made some good (and by now, obvious) points, but as he went through the list of economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy, rewiring the grid, building insulation, the crux of what he was saying (that he outright came to in his conclusion) is that the primary reason that our species (and many others) face extinction is the failure of political leadership.  No doubt he’s correct – the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere has been understood by chemists since the early twentieth century, creation of cars with much higher fuel efficiency has been around for at least 40 years, and basic technology to insulate housing has been around since, well, since people used mud to keep the heat in their huts.

What has quickly become a cliche, Hendricks slapped the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama with the subtitle “HOPE” and “PROGRESS” on the screen, and proceeded to talk about how the country is “turning a new corner”, how the new president allows a “window to the future”, and generally how hopeful he was about the future.  But although he is likely unrealistic about Obama’s capacity to bring sufficient change, he did repeat what I’ve heard (thankfully) from many folks on the left side of the spectrum: We must “hold him [Obama] accountable” to the change that’s contained in the promise of his campaign.  I’m not sure who “we” is, and I’m not sure by what mechanism we have the ability to hold him accountable, but I’m grateful for this small bit of healthy cynicism when referring to the next president.

Other notes of interest from the conference:

• There’s no such thing as “green job” – building and installing wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water heaters, installing insulation, and the many other direct and indirect forms of energy conservation and renewability needs accountants, secretaries, IT professionals, managers, and everything else we currently have.  The folks involved in installing and manufacturing might need some training or retraining, but moving to a greener economy does not mean a revolution in how we “do” stuff.  It’s just about changing the impact of what we do.
• The coming greening of the economy – that is, making energy consumption cleaner, more efficient, and utilizing renewable energy – is inevitable.  As one of the speakers mentioned, there’s too much money to be made in the private sector, particularly given the rising price of petroleum and the risks associated with it, to stop investment and innovation in better energy.  The more important question is: Are we going to green our lifestyles just enough to improve the traditional economy, or are we going to green our world enough to prevent the longer term devastation of global warming?
• Growth DOES NOT EQUAL prosperity.  As one of the speakers on a financial panel pointed out, “growing” does not mean we’re going to be better off, it just means that someone, somewhere, is reaping higher profits.  The type of growth that we do, as a country, is important – and the type of growth that has been aspired to has brought us to a dead-end, time and time again.  We need a shift in how we gain wealth, work, and spend money.
• The question of the daunting costs of installing solar panels and other technology came up in the financial panel, and the prospect of taking on debt to facilitate such an investment.  While solar panels are likely still beyond the capacity of many folks, it was pointed out that there are two types of debt: (1) consumer debt that’s used to buy stuff, and (2) self-liquidating debt, that is used to invest in something that will eventually give you a return on an investment.  The debt of type (1) is “bad” debt, which has unfortunately been keeping our economy afloat more and more, whereas debt of type (2) is “good” debt – debt that in the long run produces wealth, returns the cost of the investment, and largely benefits society overall.  Debt of type (2) are things like college loans, home equity loans, and so forth.  Moving from type (1) to type (2) is going to be essential for any sustainable economy.

That’s it for now!

Posted under Economy, Politics

Claudia Lorena Castillo Sánchez, a successful trachea transplant patient

A transplant operation has been conducted (and successfully) in Spain that solely uses a person’s own stem cells. That means never having to worry about a match for tissue or organs, and never having to go on immunosuppressive drugs (which is often not part of the discussion about transplants, but are a permanent and precarious part of life currently after transplants). This has overwhelming implications for the future of medicine and the quality of life.

The folks at the University of Italy took a donor trachea, took off all the cells, and then used the patient’s own stem cells (taken from her own bone marrow, where our stem cells reside) to “coat” the trachea with the stem cells. And those stem cells, being the “Jack’s magical beans” of the biological universe, grew onto the trachea in exactly the way necessary to recreate a living, viable trachea.

Such technology means … we can live forever. Or at least for a mighty long time – whenever a part of us goes bad (i.e. cancer, from burns, even old age) – we just scoop out some of our bone marrow and grow us a new part. Welcome to the future! [Credit: Time/AP]

Posted under News

This is the final section of my series about school. Part I, Part II.

It seems to me that the foundational assumptions of traditional school are: that children, left to their own devices, cannot and will not learn; that children are basically helpless and stupid and deficient in curiosity; that children must therefore be taught, by a competent authority, or they will fail to grasp concepts and gain skills.

I think anyone who has ever spent any time with a child can attest that all of these ideas are patently false. Anyone who was ever spent time around a child who is learning to talk can attest as much with even greater confidence — tiny babies, unable even to feed themselves, crack the code of language with a speed and an enthusiasm most adults could envy. The reality, as far as I can tell, could not be farther from those assumptions.

And I do believe those are the underlying ideas. We would have to believe that children must be forced to learn in order to ask ourselves, “Is our children learning?”

That is an insane question. I know it’s also a much-mocked one, but no one would have laughed at it if our Ivy Leagued-educated* soon-to-be-former President had managed to formulate it correctly. And that’s absurd. There is no such thing as a child who isn’t learning. The only questions is, “Are our children learning things in the arbitrary order and at the arbitrary pace the school system requires?” If that’s more important to us than whether children are happy, healthy, curious, and engaged — and it certainly seems to be — we have our priorities precisely backward. Read More…

Posted under Culture

First, apologies for neglecting my duties here at Revolutionary Act last week; I was busy with school stuff and family visits. But on to more important things…

Last week, The Rolling Stone published an article on the Wall Street bailout by an author I think is always well worth the read: Naomi Klein. Klein examines the deals made in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.’ most recent economic disaster and contextualizes them. She points out that the orchestration of the bailout is fundamentally the same as that of the Iraq War and its “rebuilding.” Both adhere to the rules of the Shock Doctrine and allow private contractors to profit from the crises they’ve helped to create*. Again, even if you think you already understand how the meltdown came to be, what’s at stake, and why it will take a long, long time to see real results, I recommend always taking what Naomi Klein has to say into consideration. An excerpt:

It didn’t have to be this way. Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What’s more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.

And a question:

This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing?

Read the rest here.

*Read her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism if you can and haven’t already!

Posted under Economy, Politics

1. Most opponents of legal gay marriage, at least those aiming at respectability, say their movement is not anti-gay, but rather aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage.

But in all of the states that have legalized gay marriage, to the best of my knowledge, the legalization has been of civil marriage, with no impact on religious marriage.

But sanctity is a religious concept. Will the opponents of gay marriage who say it’s about the sanctity of marriage own up to imposing a religious value on a secular state institution? Is it fundamentally different from supporting a ban on stores opening on the weekend, to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath?

2. Why are so many “libertarians” – that is, people who profess support of capitalism, opposition to government programs, and love of liberty and the free market – so hostile to immigration? I’m thinking of prominent people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, who are way more immigrant-hating than even the Republican Party mainstream.

Isn’t free movement of people a fundamental liberty and an essential component of free markets?

Posted under Uncategorized

There’s much to be said about the election of Obama as President; there is the racial milestone, the end of the Bush era, the stopping of a McCain/Palin administration, and so on.  One of the most disconcerting phenomena since the election is the incessant praise for Obama (who has done little but win the election) and the oft-verbalized sentiment that “everything’s going to be okay”.

At the risk of appearing cynical, the election of any U.S. President (or any election) has never ensured a prosperous future.  On the contrary, politicians (and people in general) tend to do what they’re paid to do – and Obama’s $640,000,000 bankroll from the campaign means that there’s some rich folks who are expecting him to do things that will help them out.  Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Time Warner were not in the Top 10 of  Obama’s contributors because they believed that he would redistribute their wealth or give alms to the poor.  This is not a surprising expectation.  After all, sister Goldman once remarked, “Politics is the reflex of the business and industrial world.”

Even if Obama were an anti-war socialist with an agenda of ending world hunger (he’s not, and he doesn’t), he still faces a rather conservative Democrat majority and a reactionary Republican minority.  The machinations of the U.S. government are not easily pushed in the direction of change – even the tepid and abstract changes to which Obama has alluded.  The status quo tends to remain the status quo – and that does not bode well for most of the folks in the country (and the world).  For instance, even after populist uproar over the Wall-Street bailout/giveaway, AIG is getting another bailout of an additional $40 billion ($40,000,000,000) and this has evoked little response from Washington.

The fundamental question is whether we believe that we are sheep to be herded by a shepherd, or whether we are all shepherds of our own future.  Is what “democracy” means that once in a few years we choose one of two narrowly-chosen candidates and expect him to lead us to redemption?  Is being a citizen a spectator sport, in other words?  Or are we to understand that if we wish to control our own destiny, that we will have to get up and do just that?

What the Obama victory means, among other things, is that unlike a McCain/Palin administration, the new president might be responsive to popular organizations and movements calling for reform.  Real change (i.e. revolution) is not likely an option.  The problems that face us are unparalleled in human history: climate change, ongoing war and occupation, nuclear proliferation – the list goes on.  Despite the accolades on Obama, the belief that he’s “going to cure everything, make everything perfect“, it is going to take a great gathering of the people of good will and intention of this country to sway him.  He’s not (and maybe cannot) do it by himself.

Posted under Culture, Politics

(Picking up where I left off. This is Part II of III, or possibly even IV.)

When I was in 10th grade, Emily and I started going to the bookstore during our free periods. We’d get coffee, and then just wander, reading title after title, picking up anything that interested us. We often read whole books in a single sitting, crouched on the carpet at the back of one aisle or another, sometimes reading silently to ourselves and sometimes out loud to one another. We read novels, collections of poetry, nonfiction volumes about science and history and feminism. This was fun — it was great, unadulterated fun, and the things we learned are immeasurable. I would learn more in ninety minutes, exploring an interesting topic with my best friend, than I did in an entire semester in any of my classes. Overall I’m sure I’ve learned significantly more reading with Emily — in bookstores, bedrooms and the blogosphere — than I did in my three* years of high school combined.

Being forced back into class every day after this was incredibly demoralizing. I’ve always been an A student and liked school more than most, but this exposed the great hypocrisy of what I was being forced to do. I was learning, passionately — and it felt nothing like sitting in those classrooms. That framework of school was actively hostile to my education, actively preventing me from learning, by forcing me to sit in my plastic chair as an often pathetic teacher tried and failed to gain control of the classroom, and as the other kids joked and flirted in their stupidly transparent ways.

(Emily simply sat silently reading through every single class, managing to get some value of that wasted time.)

To add insult to injury, those school officials would regularly force me into discussions and activities about “learning how to learn.” Learning how to learn! As if they new the first thing about it! As if learning is some trick children must be trained, like dogs, to perform!

Needless to say, there is something profoundly wrong with the school system when it inhibits learning. There is something profoundly wrong with the school system when the bookish, academic kids hate it.

So what are we doing here?

We’re treating children and teenagers like they aren’t people. People — human beings — are sensitive, curious, self-aware, self-motivating, cooperative creatures. We treat children like they’re numb, stupid, belligerent, apathetic animals, and then we complain when they act that way.

And what happened to Emily and me?

We figured out that we were people. We discovered we were smart, caring, inquisitive and enthusiastic. We discovered we were human beings.

Once the kid knows she’s a person, you can’t expect her to sit back down and shut back up again.

(Thanks to Dave at How to Save The World for reminding me of this a few weeks ago.)

In the next installment, more about the fundamental assumptions of school, plus a suggestion for further reading. Finally, in Part III if it fits or IV if it doesn’t, some ideas about what school should do and be.

* At the end of junior year I started attending college under an arrangement in which both schools agreed to let me count college credits toward my high school graduation.

Posted under Culture

Taking a break from the recent election madness, I’ve decided to dedicate a post to an entirely different subject (almost) : music.  So I ask the question: What are the top 10 (unranked – that’s just too difficult) political songs in recent history?  And I’m not talking about “of all time” – I’m looking for recent (within the last decade) of songwriting (So “Las Barricadas” from the Spanish Civil War and all your favorite Dylan songs don’t count)

I’ll leave readers to suggest the other 7, but I think deserving to be in at least three spots are the following:

(1 of 10)
The Nightwatchman (Tom Morello), “Road I Must Travel”:

Read More…

Posted under Culture, music

Crossposted at Fitness for the Occasion

Now that we’ve successfully elected Barack Obama, we need to make sure he stays honest and true to his campaign.  This article from the Wall Street Journal uses an interview with his transition team to suggest he might not be.  When running for office:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

However the word on the street suggests otherwise:

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

“He’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues,” said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. “Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble.”

Given that this is coming from a single advisor I wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be simply wishful thinking on his part, or even playing to the media’s obsessive need to claim that Obama must run a centrist administration when a largely left-wing coalition won him his office.

This is too important an issue to let alone, we need to keep the pressure on.  So I’ve started a petition (which is only a small start).  Any other ideas?

Please sign the petition asking President Elect Obama to Uphold Human Rights.

Posted under News, Politics