More on Media

Little over twenty days ago, I wrote about the demise of the Seattle PI.  It is looking increasingly certain that the newspaper will not be sold and that the possibility of it maintaining some presence in the Puget Sound region as an online medium is remote.  

On Wednesday, the City of Seattle City Council's committee on culture, civil rights, and all else,  chaired by Councilman Nick Licata, held a hearing about the state of news media in Seattle.  While there was virtually no coverage of the hearing in either newspapers, the internet sphere has been busy Twittering and blogging about the hearing.  

Here are my several thoughts now that I have digested the news of the demise of the paper, the reactions from journalists and the comments from public leaders.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized I would rather have one quality newspaper than two sort of ok outlets.  When I lived back east in the largest city in the nation, I read only one newspaper (ok, I subscribed to a local paper for the local news).  Washington, DC essentially has one paper (sorry Washington Times).  Los Angeles barely has one paper.  Seattle will survive.

But will it's politicians?  What struck me in reading about Wednesday's hearing is that the policy makers have well managed relationships with journalists.  George H.W. Bush invited members of the media to the living quarters of the White House for intimate dinners when he was president.  Alan Greenspan's wife is Andrea Mitchell.  The press are friends of the policy makers, and now days when a journalist wants out, he or she goes to work for a politician or a corporate entity they used to report on.  Talk about conflicts!  And if you want to engage in your own reporting, try to get credentials or press passes.  It is a club that is difficult to gain entry.  So, it seems the politicians and powerful enjoy the dignified and should I say, gentle relationship between established media and themselves.  So what happens when the so-called reporting institutions die and people find creative and inventive ways to spread news?

There is no doubt that the demise of newspapers and the continued erosion of independently owned media outlets is bad for this country.  Anytime options are limited when it comes to understanding ourselves, it is not good.  The simple fact there are people in our communities who do not use computers much less have access, but who do read newspapers, is an argument for finding a way to keep newspapers in business.  

That said, there are a whole slew of new ways of disseminating information by a whole new crew of people.  While blogs like this really are written rants or soapboxes and are not "news," there is still a lot of information distributed through this and similar mediums that don't have the same types of conflicts main stream journalist have.  

I am a little concerned that local politicians find a need to hold hearings on the demise of a newspaper.  That they apparently questioned the "credentials" of a blogger who testified about his wildly successful blog which provides local news of a Seattle neighborhood.  In many regards the same business models that have brought down other institutions in this country (read: banks) are bringing down newspapers.  It's a free-for-all right now as laid off journalists, newly minted observers and bloggers, and major mainstream media players all try to figure out what will work.  And, in the end, I think that is really healthy.  Maybe it's time to storm the gates of all the exclusive clubs!

Boeing, Starbucks...

Yesterday's news brought even more layoffs: Boeing and Starbucks.  These are just the mega corporations we hear about, look around your neighborhood and notice all the small businesses going under (a local high-end consignment shop posted a sign in the window saying: Uncle! as it goes out of business).  Even the Stanford Business School laid off people last week!

While the economy is dominating my thoughts, I also wonder what is happening with employment in this country.  It used to be, post World War II, that corporations made a covenant with both white collar and blue collar workers: produce and you'll be employed for the rest of your life.  Pensions were given, health care benefits, raises, promotions.  Men primarily, but some women, routinely stayed at the same place of employment for 40 years!  Now days, the average American worker stays in one job for no more than 4 years.  That's right.  4 years.  

That is a lot of mobility in an employment structure that is not conducive to mobility.  When you leave a job you lose medical benefits.  You have myriad confusing forms to figure out what to do with your retirement, and chances are close to 100% if your employer controlled your pension (if you have a pension) it was invested in the employing company stock which is probably worthless (think United Airlines, Enron...).  And with the unemployment, despite the federal laws requiring continuation of medical benefits if the insured is willing to pay 102% of the premium, there is a huge huge strain on the medical system either from delayed and deferred treatment or people seeking treatment without the capability to pay.  

Then there are the actual jobs.  Aside from lawyers and doctors, does anyone actually work in professions they trained for?  Do any "blue collar" workers perform work that they enjoy?  What do 18 year olds want to be when they graduate from college?

Our whole work world has been re-structuring for the past 20 years, people not made sufficient wages or salaries to keep up with the costs of living, so they hocked their homes, their cars, their children's education savings in order to pay the mortgage, the electrical bills, buy groceries.  Instead of paying good wages, our economic geniuses relied on credit to keep workers working.  The covenant that was made: produce and we'll take care of you has been broken and now the economy is broken.

John Thain defended giving bonuses at Merrill Lynch after suffering huge losses by saying if he hadn't given the bonuses the "Bull" would have lost good people.  Who were those good people?  The company was losing money, lots and lots of money!  Yet good people who work hard, very hard, are being laid off because of the numerous mistakes, no, the greed of a lot of Merrill Lynch "good people."

So how do we begin discussions about employment in this country?  How do we talk about the burden and hardship we put on people, demanding they re-train, re-train, re-educate every four years?  How do we help maintain health insurance and retirement?  How do we make work important to our lives, not something we panic and worry about every morning, lose sleep over at night, and cringe at doing.

Maybe those questions are also part of economic stimulus.

Expecting a Different Result

It goes almost without saying that one of the roles of government (and some argue the only role of government) is to protect people.  Feudal kings justified taking large shares of peasant crops by providing protection from other warring tribes.  Not much has changed since then except the things we need protecting from are a lot more sophisticated than some club bearing Viking.  Ponzi-scheme investment firms, greed consumed mortgage lenders, nuclear bombs, you get the drift.  What is simply amazing to me are the myriad examples, recently, of how the government protections either have broken down or don't exist, endangering people's lives and welfare.

Today, there are two great examples in the news.  First, peanuts.  In the Washington Post there is an article about how this peanut processor in Georgia had salmonella in it's peanut products, knew about it, and got away with sending it all over the North American continent to be used in products from Little Debbies to dog biscuits.  The federal government, tasked with the job of ensuring food safety, relied upon self inspections done by the company and the state of Georgia to run tests.  And, why we expect a different result than the incidents of mad cow, the spinach, tomatoes, or...I don't know.  I am beginning to believe we are not any different than China when it comes to food safety (or any other safety issues for that matter).  In China, though, they met out penalties when the food issues finally become public.  It seems to me that our food processing system has become all about making more money on the margins than it is about providing a safe product.  In an issue close to my own home this was evident during the dog and cat food recalls during the summer of 2007.  When all of a sudden pet owners became aware that the food they were feeding their dogs, whether it was expensive or bought at Costco, contained gluten that was processed in China without any inspection mechanisms.  Not much has changed since those revelations, only that the same issues are now apparent in human foods.

In another sector, there was an interesting but not surprising article in the Seattle PI this morning that the FBI knew about mortgage fraud for a number of years, but because many of the agents devoted to white-collar crime had been reduced and put on terrorism cases, nothing was done about the problem.  I plan on writing about terrorism in a few days, but it seems to me that ignoring the financial sector is beyond short sighted.  As the federal government knows, one of the key elements to conducting terror is funding.  It pays, I think, to be attentive to what is going on with money.  Additionally, it seems to me that a tremendous amount of "terror" has been unleashed upon the world's economy by men and women in expensive suits, driving nice cars, and eating at swanky restaurants.  Families are losing their homes, tough choices are being made, retirees are wondering whether they can sell their houses, and today, Boeing announced it is laying of 10,000 people.  By any count, that is almost 100,000 jobs lost in less than 3 days.  Where was the government during all of this?

But this really isn't news, is it?  It's been happening for years and years (and yes, my Bush hating friends, it happened before Bush, too, and it happens with state and local governments).  Lax state supervision on mortgage brokers or in reality, no supervision, the state of Georgia never inspected the peanut processing plant, failure by local governments to repair roads and bridges yet building huge new city halls.  We expect a different result?

While we're all yelling for the heads of these huge corporations, I think we also need to look at the heads of governments and ask for the same accountability.  After all, it's our safety.

Can You Hear Me Now?

This has been a theme of mine for years but it bears repeating every time polling results come out like the ones above from the Pew Research folks.  This data indicates what we all know: the economy is the highest priority for everyone.  But of particular interest is the one on the bottom, yes, that's right, global warming.  It's at the bottom.  A mere year ago, in the glow of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and Academy Award (could that be any cooler, to receive both awards?), global warming was probably hovering close to the number one concern of Americans.  What changed?  

Certainly we didn't "solve" global warming.

At the risk of boring those of you who have heard this story way too many times, I will share what the environmental movement does all too well.  It says "no."  Years ago I had to attend an event at an National Audubon sanctuary in Southern California.  This place is gorgeous, right out of a western movie.  Dry vegetation, a draw, rolling hills, mountain lions, right on the Western flyway.  To get to the sanctuary you drive through Orange County gated communities with huge stucco houses.  Finally, you get to the entrance of the sanctuary only to be greeted with a large plywood sign that says: No pets, No smoking, Not a public entrance, No unauthorized personnel. No...

My rant on the negativity of environmentalists was finally picked up by two trend observers Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in their fabulous essay The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post Environmental World.   Environmentalists, they warned, could no longer rely on old scare strategies to energize diverse and complex communities of people to attend to global warming issues.  Rather, in a post environmental world, they asserted, collaborations of people would focus on positive actions rather than negative restrictions, in order to have impacts.  Of course, their essay was immediately derided by the environmental community, and unfortunately, largely ignored.

But yesterday's Pew polling results require us to re-examine what is wrong with the institutional environmentalist message.  Several days ago I was reading some newsletter that shows up in my email mailbox.  And one of the writers in the newsletter, James Kunstler who wrote The Geography to Nowhere (1993) which was a fabulous critique of suburbia, had an article which caught my eye.  Kunstler was gazing into a crystal ball, forecasting the end of the world as we know it.  The theme of his essay was unless we immediately form small communities relying solely on locally produced food and forgoing any means of transportation short of walking and bicycles, we are doomed.  Wal-Marts and large chain stores will be gone, no more mega-farms, and better find a wood burning stove, soon!

The "no" folks are absolutely delighted with this economic meltdown.  It gives them a chance to say all the politically correct things about the evils of consumption, suburbia, highways, and banks.  But they preach to the same people.  It's always interesting that the membership numbers of environmental organizations stay close to the same.  They are not engaging a diverse population, but rather, continue to talk to the same people.  Diversity, every environmentalist should know, is healthy.

But, as we can see from the polling data, saying "no" and publishing essays which demand that people hitch themselves to a plow because there is no way we're going to buy food at a grocery store anymore, is short sighted and to be frank, doesn't work.  It's what I have said for years, when our lives are just fine, we are willing to support environmental issues, especially if it involves really cool concerts and pretty string bags.  But when we are worried about buying food, concerns whether it is organic or local, or free range go out the window.  Whether it is cheap is what matters.  Spending money on expensive front loading washing machines or re-doing windows to save energy seems frivolous when you're worried about simply paying the mortgage.

We should take a lesson from the Obama campaign.  By simply using the word "hope," President Obama energized millions of people from diverse backgrounds and ages.  Environmental issues such as land use, energy consumption, and natural resource extraction are deeply entangled with economic health and sustainability in this country.  Decisions about what exactly is "green energy," how to use our national forests, are suburban and ex-urban land developments still relevant will increasingly become part of the national dialogue as we roll up our sleeves to bring the American economy back to work.  We need to talk in messages of hope, not sound bites of negativity as we seek to address these issues, especially if we want to engage a whole country, not just the choir.

Shovel Ready?

I frequently hear the following from my urban friends: Why can't we just be more like Europe?  Most often, the statement is a prelude or a conclusion to a discussion about transportation issues.  And usually the statement either implies or is stated explicitly that European transportation systems are vastly superior to ours.  The unstated is that Americans rely on cars and Europeans don't.

Of course, when I think about every time I have been to a major European city, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, Copenhagen, all I ever see are cars, cars, cars, but the fact the Europeans have a well developed and sophisticated rail, light rail, and street car system is the envy of every urbanite I know.

Here are some interesting facts: Europe is 3, 930,000 square miles.  The United States is three times that area, 9,161,923 square miles.  The European population, however, is 731,000,000 and the United States is 303,824,640.  Hmmm. So Europe has more people and less area.  Density.  Urban planners will drool, thinking all that density fits neatly into a city.  Wrong.  In fact, Europe has been suburbanizing at the same rate during the same time period as the United States.  And, as you can see by the graph above, many European countries have more cars per capita than the United States!  Heck even New Zealand has more cars per capita than the US.  In fact, just as we use our cars as the default method of transportation (we use them 88% for motorized transportation) Europeans also default to passenger cars (78% of the time).

Less than 100 years ago, many of our National Parks were opened for tourists because of trains.  Great Northern Railway opened up Glacier National Park, Northern Pacific helped build Old Faithful Lodge in Yellowstone, and the Santa Fe Railroad took  visitors to the steps of El Tovar in The Grand Canyon.  Trains rode up and down the eastern seaboard, taking snow bound residents to the sunshine of Florida.  But in those days, whole families could ride trains, meals were served, heck even dogs could accompany their owners.  In Europe this is still true.  

However, now days other than Glacier National Park, with it's three train stops, and parts of Vermont, there are very few wild lands accessible by mass transportation.  If we begin to limit that accessibility, making it too expensive for people to visit, we become a truly class-based society, where only the rich can get outside the urban areas.  Sounds like something out of a 19th century Dicken's novel.

Our inclination in this country to ascribe one size fits all solutions simply is not part of our culture.  If we want to increase our mass transit capacity we must also understand not everyone is urban, not every one commutes on a 9-5 schedule, many families have after school sports, youth activities, and child care duties.  Our communities have not been built to address those needs and the current in vogue "transit based" communites seem, well, uninviting.  The issues to make all this transit infrastructure work in the US are multi-layered, complex, and structural, requiring more time to work on than simply shoving money into an economic stimulus package.

But really, if we want to use Europe as an example, we also need to realize we'll be laying train tracks inside National Parks, through old growth forests, wildlife habitat, and essentially opening up this country far more than we have agreed to in the past 30 years.  It is not a decision we can make quickly.  In some regards, ironically, it has been the automobile that has allowed us to conserve so much land and wildlife habitat, simply because we haven't had to develop it so everyone can get there.  Now, that's an interesting thought.

The other issue is, of course, that many of the same folks who advocate increasing our mass transportation infrastructure also rarely use the transit systems we now have.  The current mayor and all of the Seattle City Council members drive to work.  Their excuses are what everyone's excuse is: I need a car for meetings (or the mayor's is that he needs a car for security!).  So, I ask, how are the policy makers different from every one else?  In Europe, you actually see the policy makers in mass transit, not driving around in large black SUV motorcades!  I would suggest before we listen to our decision makers about transit decisions, we insist they use the current systems for a little longer than a photo op.

Remember, in terms of dollars, transportation systems, as in mass transit, are subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of .82¢ per mile.   Taxpayers subsidize passenger cars .20¢ per mile.  There has got to be a better way for us to get value out of mass transit and national transit systems.  But I think it requires some good thought, not knee jerk reaction because there may be money on the table.

In the meantime, maybe, then we should not be objecting to so many shovel ready projects.  Repairing a few bridges is not that high of a cost to pay.

 

Questioning Microsoft Layoffs

I am not a big fan of Microsoft.  I jettisoned their MSN service in early 2001 when they lied to users about a week long break in service.  And when my PC hard drive crashed and burned I didn't take much convincing to beat a path to the Apple store for an iMac.  Having said that, I think it is important to focus on the Microsoft layoffs not because I don't particularly like their products, but because I think how the company is handling the economic woes is indicative of our current reality.

The most interesting headline on the layoffs said that "analysts" are not happy with the number.  In other words, Wall Street wanted more people on the street, not less.  This draconian attitude comes a mere three days after the euphoria of President Obama's inauguration and a general belief among Americans that he can and will do something to get our economy back on track.  So, I wonder, are these Lords of Wall Street reading the same news that I am reading?  How can they demand more layoffs when the economy is already reeling?  And the irony is, Microsoft was making money, just not enough money to satisfy Wall Street.

But here is the deal.  Investors have managed to make a lot of money off of Microsoft.  In fact, a little over 4 years ago, Microsoft not only issued a dividend higher than the Wall Street norm, but they also sent out checks to shareholders to the tune of $3 a share!  Bill Gates hauled in (are you sitting down?) $3 BILLION.  Steve Ballmer, the man to emailed Microsoft employees the details about the layoffs, took home $1.2 billion.  Cash.  Wow.

Now, many of the large individual shareholders still live in the Puget Sound area, headquarters to Microsoft.  Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawk football team, Portland Trailblazers basketball team, and the world's largest yacht (he has several as well as mansions all over the world), still has significant Microsoft holdings in his portfolio.  And last week, Paul Allen's company, Vulcan, also laid off people.  The interesting conflict, then, is that individual shareholders who stand to gain when Microsoft does what Wall Street analysts want, are laying off their neighbors.  

Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft, contributed over $50,000 to the Obama inauguration celebration, as well as several other top executives of the company.  Think about it, $50,000 could pay someone's salary for a year!  But the $50,000 will gain him important access as he wheels and deals even more tax credits for the company.

And the institutional investors?  Well, guess what?  One of them is JP Morgan Chase, yep, the same bank that is taking bail-out money.  Another large investor is Goldman Sachs.  Same company that former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson came from.

Last, questions are beginning to surface about the status of laid off employees versus those that stay.  Microsoft, like many high-tech companies, hire significant numbers of foreign engineers who are employed under a special immigration status known as H1-B.  It will be interesting to see, if one is produced, an outline of how many H1-B employees were laid off.  

Bottom line, it seems to me, is the Microsoft layoffs open the door for discussions about corporate ethics, morality of employment, how much profit is enough, investor value, shareholder responsibility to the communities they live.  Of course, we know that those kinds of discussions will not happen, but, wait, can't we hope?  In the meantime, another headline today says Starbucks  is about to also announce layoffs.  Wanna' bet Wall Street is asking for those, too?

And Now, Even Microsoft

Today, Microsoft Corporation, the Redmond, Washington computer operating system behemoth, announced it was laying off 5,000 employees and instituting other cost saving measures.  Of those 5,000, 1,400 apparently were laid off today at the Redmond headquarters.    

This news comes when Microsoft reported that it's earnings were less than expected for the 4th quarter, 2008.  However, what is important to note, they still performed quite well.

But if it isn't clear by now it may never be.  Our economy is in deep, deep trouble.  And I am beginning to wonder whether the proposals made by the Obama Administration are sufficient to self arrest the avalanche of news like today's layoffs at Microsoft.

Several days ago I wrote about banking institutions that are "too big to fail."  And I cautioned that anything that is too big to fail, whose collapse would have, according to some, catastrophic impacts on the global economy, should not even be allowed to exist.  Indeed, within the past week, we have seen the outgoing Secretary of Treasury deliver more federal money to two such banks, Bank of America and CitiCorp.  And the word is that both are still, essentially, insolvent.  

It seems that a wiser, more prudent use of our money may be for the federal government to start several smaller, regional banks.  New, healthy banks.  But to continue dumping federal money into cesspools where we haven't a clue where the bottom is, what kinds of assets they have, how much they actually owe other lenders, seems, well, bad banking.  We are making loans, or investing, in exactly what we don't want banks to be doing anymore.  So, while I understand the panic in the Obama Administration, of not wanting Bank of America or CitiCorp to fail in the first few glorious days of this Administration, perhaps a wiser course would be to just stop giving them money and begin creating new, more stable banking institutions who will act like banks rather than money sponges.  Creating new institutions while we watch the old, lumbering, banks fail, could be a very healthy idea.  Short of this, Obama just need to nationalize the banks, kick out the management, and well, maybe hire some of the 5,000 bright young stars from Microsoft to run them.  They need jobs.

The other fundamental problem is a trade issue.  Again, at the risk of becoming the Cassandra of the blogging universe, we can not keep importing and buying their stuff.  We have got to be creating, manufacturing, and exporting our stuff.  The so-called "new economy" has failed.  Let's be real about that.  And what did we really export anyway, credit default swaps?  The Lords of Wall Street who got us into this mess?  Yep, sure, they are advising China, India, Singapore on how to look just like us?  Come on!  

We have so gutted our manufacturing capability that it will take years and years to get that back.  But I think part of the deal this Administration has to make with private industry is if they want bail-out or stimulus money, they have to be American.  No call centers in other countries, no imported steel, concrete, or solar panels.  And if, because of all the trade agreements we have made this requirement is considered a trade barrier, well, tough.  The world feasted on our stupidity for a long time, it's had more than it's share.  Sounds tough, I know.

But Obama has to explain to other countries that if they don't want bread riots in their streets, America has got to get it's own economy on a sustainable basis, and that means reducing our trade deficit, developing well paying jobs here.

Pundits are saying much the same thing.  Obama promised to listen to all of us.  Hopefully he does, and soon.

Meanwhile, I'll keep my accounts in one the of "too big to fail" banks, because I am not sure there are any other solvent alternatives.

Roll Up the Sleeves

Today is the first day of President Barack Obama.  And while we celebrated yesterday, today is a day to get to work.

There was a fascinating article in Politico today, seven reasons to be healthily skeptical of this new President.  I think it is a good read and especially highlight the concerns about the lack of media oversight.  

Here is my list of priorities for Obama's first few months:

• The economy:  It seems to me while the federal government can not get the "fix" in place and cranking, it can outline, as soon as possible, exactly how it views the various proposals creating a healthy economy.  Much of the talk in Washington, DC is about the stimulus package, which mostly consists of tax credits and some modest infrastructure funding (not as much as every Tom, Dick, and Harry governor and mayor had hoped).  But the stimulus package, alone, will not "fix" our economic ruins.  We should also be hearing about re-aligning the banking industry, new standards on securities markets and securities issues, some form of taxation on excessive compensation packages to deter corporate leadership from managing their institution for short term gain only, a road map for reigning in health care costs as well as providing affordable care for 100% of Americans, and a plan for housing, employment, and affordable higher education.  Without looking at the economy holistically, all the policy makers will be doing is treating symptoms not the illness.
• War: Personally, I think it is unrealistic to bring the troops home from Iraq immediately.  Apparently President Obama is now looking to withdraw troops over the next 16 months.  Just trying to get material and people back to Kuwait for shipping will require some savvy logistical thinking (good thing that is what the military is good at...think Normandy).  On the other hand, Afghanistan seems to be the focus of much attention after being neglected during Iraq.  My fear is that we will become Afghanistan's next USSR.  As I understood our mission, we entered Afghanistan looking for al Qaeda, particularly the leadership responsible for recruiting, training, financing, and plotting the attacks on September 11, 2001.  Hopefully we will become more focused on that mission.  The President has already made steps to bring the United States back in line with international conventions on torture, and I applaud him for those choices.
• The Middle East: It goes without saying that the wars and relations in the Middle East are linked.  While it appears the Israeli attacks on the Gaza have stopped for the time being, truly it seems that each Administration inherits an even greater mess with even more barriers erected to finding a peaceful solution to Israel's sovereignty, Palestinian homelands, and Israel's relations with other Arab nations.  It's a priority only because it affects our interactions with other countries in the Middle East, as well, these days, with other Muslim countries.  
• Global Climate Change: I put this here because if I said the environment eyes would glaze over.  Global warming and global climate change have become the current jargon for talking about the environment.  But in reality, another way of looking at this issue is through economics.  How do we provide for people without trashing the Earth?  Thinking about the economy is holistic terms also means thinking about how we treat our land, water, vegetation, wildlife.  Which isn't to say we stop logging or mining, but how can we do these things in ways that we are not exporting our problems, providing jobs, and sustaining the natural world?  It's probably, to be frank, one of the easier problems for President Obama.  On the other hand, we have some tricky international issues regarding ocean based fisheries, where massive industrial fishing fleets have contributed to depletions of whole fishing stocks.  Many of those fish are just offshore of our boundaries.  
• The pup:  Ok, you made a promise to your daughters, Mr. President.  Get the puppy.  Your goal here is to fulfill a promise to your children, not please various interest groups who expect you to do what is politically correct.  And if you thought dancing late at inaugural balls was tough, wait until the puppy needs to hit the Rose Garden at 2:30 AM!

Hope

Wow.  It has been an amazing day, poignant display of humility, power, history, the future.

I admit I have been rather cynical of the well polished messages of this past presidential campaign.  But this morning I got to thinking about hope.  Hope maybe, I thought, the most powerful weapon against those who seek to oppress.  I thought about Nelson Mandela, who used hope to endure 27 years in a South African prison.  Or someone like Joan Benoit (Samuelson) who was told for years and years she could not beat the best women runners, and a mere 3 months after knee surgery, entered the Olympic Stadium in Los Angeles as the winner of the first Olympic Games woman's marathon in 1984.  

A number of years ago I had a conversation with a friend who had been through horrific problems in her life.  I asked her if she felt hope and she said she still did.  She had not let all the crushing defeats in her life take her hope away.  Hope, she told me, was her defense to people who wanted her to "just go away."

And so it is that today, our new President, asked us to feel hope, to speak hope to those who want greed and self interest to continue to control this country.  

We are in one of the most difficult moments in our generation's history.  We are in an island prison off of South Africa, coming out of knee surgery hoping to run in the Olympics, a woman suffering tremendous public humiliation and defeat. We are all of those and more.  To face the issues, the moments, we must have the audacity to feel hope.  Hope is, in many ways, speaking truth to power.  And we need a lot of that truth speaking right now.

The Day Before

It's a gorgeous day here.  The sun is out, it's sort of warm.  People are taking the day off for Martin Luther King Day.  It's the day before the quadrennial American event: inauguration of a president.  

Tomorrow, a candidate who based his campaign on hope and change is sworn in.  It is America's first African-American president (however, not our first from Harvard a fact we Yalie's are slightly grumpy about).  At noon eastern standard time we will witness history.

I have talked a lot about the unimaginably hard problems that need immediate attention.  In fact, it seems Obama and Bush sliced up some territory after the election, with Obama taking on the economy and Bush still trying to wrangle international issues such as the war in Gaza.  But tomorrow, it all falls upon President Obama's shoulders.

In Washington, D.C. and many cities across the nation, people will be indulging in celebrations.  Hollywood stars and "very important people" are in DC for the see-and-be-seen events beginning on Sunday.  

But the real work has already begun.  Aside from the carefully scripted trips to Arlington National Cemetery, Walter Reed Army Hospital, painting a children's homeless shelter, the work of a president in jawboning banks to open up credit from money they received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to cajoling Congressmen to forgo their pet projects and throw their support behind more long term economic stimulus, is difficult.  It is work that we will not see but hopefully will begin to understand the impacts.  Symbolic acts are great set-ups for a re-election that is essentially two years from now, but we really need more than symbolic acts.  

Tomorrow will be history.  Wednesday will  be work.

The Employment Dilemma

In today's news, Smurfit-Stone, one of the nation's largest supplier of cardboard boxes, has retained bankruptcy counsel.  Smurfit-Stone owns timberland, recycling centers, and paper mills through out the country.

Obviously their products are directly linked with consumer products.  Smurfit-Stone, like many American companies, borrowed heavily and is highly leveraged.  It borrowed money for, among other things, a merger and capital spending.  Yet, again, another manufacturing business in deep trouble and more than likely in it's last days.  Paper and cardboard, well, we can get 'em cheaper overseas.  No need to have it here.  I will say it again, I think this is wrong-headed.

So, here's the thing.  How are we going to create an economic recovery without being dependent upon consumer spending?  It seems to me that we may want to think all of this through before we go spending even more money.  Which isn't to say we shouldn't help people in foreclosures or unemployed, but we need some serious long term thinking here.

A wise woman friend started asking some questions the other day as we were walking.  She wondered what housing will look like as we re-adjust our economy.  Will people be building huge McMansions?  If so, who will live in them?  What will her daughter, in her late 20s, live in?  Will she ever be able to purchase a home?  What about people displaced because of the economy?  How are we going to provide basic services to them?

She also wondered whether people will study for jobs that may disappear?  Will young people go to college and bank on training when they begin to believe that the training may become obsolete?  Will there be such a thing as a career?

Last, she wondered whether our communities will pull together, demonstrating compassion or will we become a country of finger pointing and blame?

I thought, recently, about my parents generation.  Tom Brokaw's greatest generation  and how they rose out of the ashes of World War II, creating a nation of hope, a belief that if you worked hard and were committed, you had a career, a home, a neighborhood.  That the guy (or woman...eventually) next door could run for office, could find time to coach Little League, spend weekends with his family.  It all, in hindsight, seems to egalitarian.  Now you have to have been anointed by political elites to run for office,  you are glued to your Blackberry or laptop, too busy to even notice whether your child, who competes in everything in order to get into a "good school," scored a goal.  You're in the office on Saturday, working on Sunday, and maybe eat dinner one night a week with the family.  And chances are real good you'll be out of your job, laid off, within a year or two of starting.

It seems that the promises, the hopes of the greatest generation are dead.

But what if, what if, we began to think about those dreams again.  What if we demanded, from ourselves and policy makers, that we re-think the whole idea of work, community, family.  What if we begin conversations about finding long term employment, that is gratifying to the employees, produces quality goods, and mitigates harm to communities?  Why is that conversation so hard?

Saving Utah One Auction at a Time

Just before the holidays the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency within the Department of Interior, held a controversial oil and gas lease auction.  The lands where the leases are available are in southern Utah, and a number of the areas are adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, among other places in that neck of the woods.

Tim DeChristopher, a 27 year old graduate student in economics at the University of Utah showed up at the Salt Lake City Bureau of Land Management office anticipating that he would participate in the protest outside the doors while the auction proceeded inside.  Instead, apparently on a whim, he registered as a bidder, got his paddle with the number 70 on it, and began bidding on 13 lease parcels for a total of $1.8 million.  That is until the other bidders, all with oil and gas companies, realized DeChristopher was "not one of them," and called the cops.

Since this is America, he was detained, questioned, and the case was referred to a federal prosecutor.  There is, after all, laws against this sort of thing.

But DeChristopher has not gone down silently.  He began fund raising for the $45,000 necessary to hold his bids.  Within days, he raised the money.  A former director for the Bureau of Land Management, Pat Shea, has volunteered to represent the graduate student.  And DeChristopher is talking seriously about raising the rest of the $1.8 million to buy the leases outright (although there is some discussion whether the current mining law, written in 1872, yes, that's right, will require him to actually mine the lands).  

Of course, the oil and gas companies were ballistic.  One was quoted mentioning a lynching party when they realized DeChristopher was upping the ante on the bidding.  They are probably ballistic over the favorable media attention this auction monkey-wrencher has been receiving.  And thus, the oil and gas folks are encouraging criminal prosecution, alleging since he was not a oil "player" he came to the auction with fraudulent intent.

While DeChristopher's actions seem novel, it reminded me of environmental organizations bidding on grazing leases with the US Forest Service in New Mexico a number of years ago.  The US Forest Service debated the legality of Forest Guardians having grazing leases with no intention of grazing on them, but in the end, Forest Guardians won out.  But at this point, DeChristopher is a hero.  His bidding was noted in Huffington Post, Democracy Now, and Truthout.  He was belatedly written about in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Although I have to also note when he talks about being frustrated with the system and looking for ways to stop the auction, it is the same language the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) cell members used when describing the preludes to their becoming radical.  In other words, they became frustrated working with the system and decided to torch something instead.  To DeChristopher's credit, he worked within the system, and in all actuality probably did a better job stopping the drilling or at least bringing attention to the location of the potential leases, than if he resorted to committing property damage.  In fact, his actions were pretty darn radical in a wonderful way.

Of course, as is always the case when activism plays by the rules and wins, the rules will more than likely change.  Years ago it was all the vogue to buy shares of stock and show up at corporate shareholders' meetings, raise a ruckus, maybe even introduce a new by-law.  People with as disparate backgrounds as environmentalists to Calpers, the largest institutional investor in America (Calpers is the California Pension System) used this method to push for corporations to change.  But corporate executives, not enjoying this kind of brouhaha at their meetings, frequently changed the rules, so that now, most shareholder meetings are PowerPoint presentations on why shareholders should appreciate the fact the executives are acquiring tons of stock options and milking the company until they leave with huge severance packages.

I think if the federal government is going to sell rights to natural resources through this kind of bid process there should be no problem if someone shows up, bids, wins, and comes up with the money, regardless of their intent to log, drill, or graze.  In other words, the highest bidder should obtain the right, whether they intend to use it or not.  Isn't that capitalism?  In DeChristopher's case I imagine it will be fairly easy for him to find some angel who will donate $1.8 million to protect land near the Arches or Canyonlands from oil rigs.  However, if I was a fiscal watchdog for the federal government, I would wonder how it is they are conducting auctions without verifying the assets of bidders in the room?  Do they need someone from Christies or Sothebys to show them how to do it?

Of course, there are lots of land management issues with this particular auction.  It seems to me that many in the preservation community believe that the boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the actual boundaries on the map.  In this case, the Bureau of Land Management, also, like the National Parks under the Department of Interior, manages much of the land outside Arches and Canyonlands National Parks.  And indeed, one of the missions, if you will, of the BLM is to use the land for minerals and grazing.  On a larger policy level, we might want to think about addressing this boundary issue.  Should boundaries of National Parks extend beyond the designated boundary such that visitors to the Parks don't see logging or mining operations (much less ORV use)?  Do we re-configure boundaries, which are somewhat artificial to begin with, by looking at similar ecotopes?  It is, of course, a thorny question, but it seems to me all sides to this issue in Utah, Montana, Wyoming in particular have entrenched to the point resolution seems against each of their interests.  But trying to resolve it through bidding at auctions or protests or pursuing criminal action is, well, not exactly big picture.  

Sooner or later we are going to have to realize we need to find a middle ground...

In the meantime, DeChristopher's donation web site is: www.bidder70.org.

Retail Therapy

No surprise in today's numbers, although, apparently Wall Street felt they were worse than expected.  But, as much as my "research friends" like to disrespect anecdotal evidence, if you were out and about during the holiday shopping season you would have known the retail sales numbers were going to be bad.  

The most impressive, so to speak, number is that retail sales are down slightly over 9% from December last year.  So while the down 2.7% from November may not seem like a lot, 9% does.  It says the recession has been going on for over a year before anyone in "officialdom" declared that we were technically in one.  

There are two things that concern me.  The fact that while we all knew something was wrong with the economy, policy makers had to wait until, what, some archaic and ridiculous formula told them something was wrong?  Is there something about fiddling while we are standing in the unemployment line about this?

But more importantly is the consumption issue.  Imagine a hamster in one of those wheels, running and going nowhere.  It seems to me that is what we are in right now.  Many pundits say there is a lack of confidence in the economy.  They refer to this lack of confidence regarding banks lending, investors who still have money, investing, and consumers spending on stuff.  Well, no kidding there is a lack of confidence.  We are watching in real time what many of us read about in history books.  Doesn't exactly instill confidence in our economy.

But seriously, what the pundits mean is that if only, somehow, consumers feel they have more money and banks feel they are not bleeding in bad loans and investors feel they will get at least a reasonable return, the economy will magically become healthy.  Thus, the stimulus.  The idea behind the stimulus checks the summer of 2008 was a belief that if consumers feel they have more money they will begin to spend and the retail sector which accounts for over 80% of our national economy (yes, you read that right) will bounce back.  I don't know about you, but somehow $600 didn't instill a lot of confidence.  Instead, Americans apparently did what they should have done, pay down debt or save the money!  So now the stimulus idea is to try the same thing, but with tax credits, in other words no cash, and to create some "shovel ready" jobs.  

Perhaps the idea being that if we think something is being done, we will I suppose, go out and spend money.

But here is the rub.  I don't think Americans have that much money.  Credit cards are tapped out and no one is getting refinancing loans on their homes to pay off the credit cards so they can go at Costco one more time.  And what savings Americans have left is not being touched out of fear that we may need it.  In other words, I don't think the issue is blithely about confidence, I think the issue is that deep down inside we don't really think the economy is working.

Relying, again, on the retail sector to bring the economy back into health is like pouring feel good drugs into a really sick patient and hoping by just getting him out of bed he'll make it a few more years.  

Now, I am a huge consumer.  Books, outdoor equipment, fly fishing stuff, food, did I say books?  So I don't advocate some Luddite lifestyle.  I love my toys.  But I also think our addiction to consuming is responsible, in part, for what got us into this mess.  And I think as a society we really need to just say no to the policy makers who continue to urge us, in less direct ways than President Bush did on September, 12, 2001, to go to the mall.  When President-elect Barack Obama encourages us to support his economic stimulus package, we need to think about whether the idea is to instill confidence to get us to spend money on yet another flat screen TV made in Viet Nam, or to provide employment for people that nurtures and instills a sense of purpose and confidence in their lives throughout their lives.  Because at some point, the hamster needs to get off the wheel.  We have to stop making the same mistakes and a reliance on the retail sector to pull us out of this recession is the same mistake.

And, as if to show I'm right (insert smile) a recent poll indicates that Americans have a very low confidence level of our federal government.  And that low confidence extends  into the future.  In other words, we think the system of more broke than the "mechanics" who are fixing it.  Scary.

Too Big to Fail?

I heard an interesting commentary yesterday.  The analyst said that when there is a corporation that is "too big to fail," something is very wrong with the world economy.  I would also add, that if something is too big to fail, and we're even at the juncture of talking about failing, then the corporation is also too big to be successful, which isn't that what capitalism is all about, being creating profits?

So here we are: Citibank is spinning off divisions.  Smith Barney is the first with more than likely others to follow.  And Citibank, having twice come to us, taxpayers, for money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will probably ask as third time for more money.

And here is the irony.  Somewhere out there some guy is opening his front door and a process server is serving him with a lawsuit.  The plaintiff?  Citicorp.  Why is he being sued?  Oh, maybe he stopped paying on his credit card, you know, made some bad decisions about his finances.  And the lawyers for Citicorp will play hard ball with this guy, taking as much money to pay the debt as they can get.  Yet, where is the accountability for Citicorp in it's own financial mess, the bad decisions it made, the creditors that don't get paid, much less the shareholders who are losing value on their investment?

No, I think it is time, now, for us to examine what it means "too big to fail."  In fact, I think when some corporation has become that big, it really isn't good for the global economy.  I mean, here we are with dark and dire warnings about what will happen to the international economy if/when Citibank fails.  Doom and darkness shall descend.  If a corporation gets to be so big that it's demise will actually impact the global economy, then something is really very wrong.  

Perhaps we have our priorities wrong.  I think the little independent two man mechanic shop down the road is too big to fail.  Or the dry cleaner's around the corner.  Or my vet clinic.  Or the green grocer that is a nice walk away.  

But Citicorp?  They have a history of bad decisions (raise your hands if you remember the Latin American loans?) yet they keep on ticking.  Where is the accountability?

Since I have written this, in Wednesday's New York Times there is an article about the banks needing even more money.  And then this small piece by a local columnist on how the banks are not lending to a small business here in Washington state.

Sustainable Economies

There are many things I never expected to write in one sentence.  The following is one of them: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania may be an example of sustainable economies.  In a fascinating article from January 8, 2009 New York Times, Pittsburgh appears to have brought itself back from economic ruin when the steel mills closed and everyone ran from the city in the 1980s.

But the renewal of Pittsburgh's economy was not because of some instant "stimulus" but rather because of diligent efforts over years and years from dozens of sources to diversify the economy and to ensure that the region does not fall prey to boom and bust urges.

The down side to Pittsburgh's renewal has been a deindustrialization, which, I think, does a disservice to any economy.  Folks, we simply have to acknowledge that we need to make things.  It's one of the only ways for us to provide middle class jobs for skilled labor.

But much of the renewal of Pittsburgh came from retraining of steel workers.  And I think one of the most important elements of any "stimulus" plan has got to be a commitment to ensure we are providing employment, not just jobs, for people.  Hiring folks for construction jobs which may terminate when the bridge is built or for other infrastructure jobs is great as long as we are providing skills which can be translated into long term employment.  If we fail to do that, we are back at looming and chronic unemployment, which is, of course, not a good thing.

One  huge hurdle for any stimulus to work is the fact this economic melt down has crossed all sectors.  Journalists, mechanics from Boeing, aluminum workers, bankers, medical professionals, retailers, construction workers, real estate salespeople...and while education seems to so-far be insulated, we know that is not long.  Even the government, state, local, and federal agencies are at least in hiring freezes.  It is going to be very difficult to find areas where cash infusions are going to initiate long term employment.

In the meantime, maybe we need to really look at communities like Pittsburgh, long ago declared dead, rising from the ashes, and seemingly sustainable.

Media Closures, Layoffs and Democracy

Today's big news is local.  The Seattle PI, a Hearst owned newspaper, is going to either be sold or shut down.  We'll know more in 60 days.  However, as they say in the media business, sources say the likelihood of sale is nil, therefore the PI as we know it is essentially gone.

The PI is now in line with other venerable media outlets, such as the Detroit Free Press which recently announced it was scaling back it's home delivery of a physical newspaper, and media giants like CNN who laid off almost all of it's environmental reporting staff.   And of course, there were the huge layoffs from National Public Radio.  Just goes to show a huge endowment from Joan Kroc didn't insulate NPR from the economy!

Among media folks, there is a lot of speculation, blaming, and frustration over the demise of newspapers and news media in general.  Much of the finger pointing goes toward the Internet and the so-called democratization of "news."  Blogs such as Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Politico, which are essentially news aggregators, are believed to be the enemy of institutions such as The New York Times and yes, even the Seattle PI.  

Seattle has always thought of itself as a big city, and went through significant teeth-grinding when it thought the PI was going under in the early 1980s.  Backroom deals were hashed out by city fathers (think lots of cigar smoke and cognac at the Rainier Club) to keep both newspapers in business.  It was felt that having two newspapers reflected a sophistication, a sense that Seattle was a cosmopolitan city.  

While I have not been a big fan of either newspaper, and was ecstatic when I realized I could read both of them on-line for free, I do think this epidemic of layoffs, newspaper closures, and scale backs is, well, not a good sign for America or democracy.

Ok, here is my second qualification: I am also not a big fan of what has been termed "mainstream media."  Oh, I read a lot of it, listen to NPR, rarely watch TV news, but I do all of that with a large dose of cynicism.  I have not been a fan for a long time.  I suppose because having been involved in politics and being around reporters who, being frank here, are the best drinking buddies with politicians, the idea there is "objective" mainstream media is a crock.  And the so-called paper wall between income and reporting?  I can give you dozens, if not more, examples where that wall is a figment of someone's imagination.  

But, having said that, I am very concerned about the demise of these institutions.  I don't think  I need to go through the litany of great things much of the mainstream media has done: Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Arms for Hostages, current reporting on the economic melt down....think about this and add to this list yourself.  Quite frankly, Huffington Post  can not even begin to think about providing us those kinds of journalistic bomb-shells.  For whatever mainstream media has gotten wrong (the run-up to the Iraq war for instance) there have been hundreds of events they have gotten right, or close enough to right that we were able to peek into the abyss and see the muck.  

At a time when government is about to go through a huge expansion of it's role as well as it's power, even greater than with President Bush, when corporations are forced to consolidate, when financial chicanery impacts each of us, we need more watchdogs not less.  We need people who are not afraid to ask, probe, make nuisances of themselves, not accept a press release or former colleague who took a high paying job telling them what is up.  We need scientists, economists, psychologists, poets, willing to examine and write about the world around them.  And we need news not just from the glamourous capitals of the world, but from down the street, the next state, or a small town in the Midwest.  

There is a lot of fear right now.  No one knows if they are going to lose their job.  Boeing, the Seattle PI,  Aloca, Washington Mutual, the list goes on of layoffs, reductions, hiring freezes.  Now, more than ever, we need courage, a willingness to write, to report, to explain.  We need fearlessness, an ability to withstand the anger people share in the comment sections (have you ever noticed the vitriolic crap that gets written in the comment sections of these web sites?  Scary).  Most of all we need an understanding that abandoning news, or allowing media to write it's own obituary, is the worst thing for democracy.  Our information then becomes a battle between garbage fed by government, corporations, or some publicist versus someone like Ariana Huffington deciding whether she wants to argue with the press release or not.  It become superficial and all about ego and power.  And no one other than those well connected people participate.  That is not democracy.

So, if the PI goes down, I say we all take up pens and paper, make press credentials, and hit the streets.  It's our duty.

Tax Credits?

Several days ago, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he was including in his economic stimulus package tax credits.  An individual could get as much as $500 and a couple up to $1,000.  While I am no fan of paying taxes and believe that often our tax money is wasted (nope, I happen to think the DNA study on Northern Rocky Mountain Grizzlies was a good thing, but don't get me started on the things I think are a waste, like all the opulent offices for Members of Congress...)I am a little concerned about these tax credits.

As he was announcing the tax credits, President-elect Obama was also voicing his concern over the record deficits in our national budgets.  And of course, given the apparent need for Keynesian economics the national deficit will increase to levels unimaginable even a decade ago.  A brief econ 101 here: when the federal government has a budget with a deficit, they have to raise money to pay for things that are over and above the income (taxes) they bring in.  So, the government can either print money and cause inflation (think Zimbabwe with astounding inflation) or they can sell treasury bills, which is essentially borrowing money.  And the problem with borrowing money is that the federal government is, simplistically put, competing with us for a finite amount of lender's dollars.  If you're a lender, who would you rather lend to, the US government or a private business?  Deficit spending essentially inhibits private sector economic growth.  There is also that dicey moral issue of having our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren pay for our current services, since that is when the debt is paid off, many many years in the future.  Much less the issues surrounding who the government borrows money from: China, governments in the Middle East...

Ok, so giving tax credits will further increase the deficit.  

Many of my progressive friends object to the tax credit because it appears to be appeasing the Republicans, who they blame for this whole economic melt-down.  The reality is, in Washington, DC, policy is not made with out compromise.  And trust me, there are a lot of Democrats who also want a tax credit.

Obama justifies the tax credit as "putting money back into the pockets" of those who need it the most.  I disagree.  

Let me ask you, does the elderly woman who tries to get her prescriptions filled and is told the cost is over $600, she lives on Social Security and has to make a decision to eat or buy drugs, much less pay rent, transportation costs, utilities...you get the drift, does she even pay taxes?  Nope.  But could she use $500 cash to help pay some monthly bills?  Or more importantly, a whole revision of the so-called prescription drug benefit so our senior citizens are not put into embarrassing situations at the drug store.  Really, I believe the people who could use the tax credit the most are the people who don't pay taxes.  Poor people spend money (and hence stimulate the economy) because they have to.  Moderately well off people can take the tax credit and save it, thus not stimulating the economy, which is what we saw in the refund checks the summer of 2008.

As exhibited by the amount of time I spend on this issue, President-elect Obama has a huge nightmare on his hands.  Today I heard that for every available job in this country, 3.1 people are seeking it.  And that if, by the height of this economic melt-down, unemployment increases by 50%, it would make approximately 10 people seeking every job.  Those are scary numbers.  Clearly a whole range of policies must be implemented to prevent a national disaster, or at least mitigate the one we are in.

Without running the numbers, my guess is that legislating this proposed tax credit will not eventually cost the federal budget very much money, but it makes Obama sound reasonable, concerned about the middle class, and bi-partisan.  It is in a sense giving him money in the bank to perhaps ask Congress for subsequent measures which may be controversial, such as overhauling the health care insurance system.  

But the reality is it will not alone or even with his other proposals, be a significant stimulus to the economy.  It's just an example of how the games of politics are played.

Gas Tax

Recently, the New York Times editorial board encouraged Congress and the Obama Administration to increase the federal gas tax.  Their reasoning is, of course, that the more we pay at the pump the less we consume.  Which is traditional economic theory.

There is some good policy reasons behind this idea.  Oil, whether we are at peak oil or not, probably is a finite resource.  And clearly, as we witnessed during the summer of 2008, global consumption has vastly increased, causing prices here in the US to soar suddenly and with consequences to consumer's pocketbooks.  On the global security front, relying on international sources for oil obviously dictates our foreign policy in ways which probably cause diplomats to cringe.  We are held hostage to our consumption.

Decreasing that dependence as well as conserving a resource that no matter what, we will continue to use, is good public policy.

However, here we are teetering on a depression the breadth and depth is probably unknown to us.  The fact gas prices have declined is a good thing for most Americans, freeing up dollars to spend on food, clothing, education (and yes, a flat screen TV).  For those of us who heat with fuel oil, certainly the decline in oil prices is helping (I can actually feel comfortable turning on the heat!).

The reality is that our whole economy is wrapped up with oil.  Not just for cars driving in cities, but fertilizers for farming, resins for plastics, and jet fuel, to name a few.  While the proponents of an increased gas tax appear to only be leveling their tax at gasoline, whole economies will suffer having to pay more for gas.  For instance, not everyone lives in a city.  Rather, farmers and ranchers, from who we get our food, have to use lots of gasoline.  Increases in prices could severely hurt them.  Or what about the families that are trying to keep kids off the streets by participating in after school or Saturday programs, where a parent is required to shuttle their children across town?  

The one-size fits all policies attempting to solve environmental issues only backfires, causing resentment for taxing or regulation based solutions.

Rather, we need to look at our oil consumption issues much more holistically and broadly.  For instance, Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry have written about totally revising our farming policy.  

Their ideas are an example of how we need to seek solutions that have a much longer and larger view.  That are incentive based and help people live quality lives, not struggle trying to figure out how they can get by or around government policies.  Encouraging perennial crops in order to use less fertilizer and stabilize the soil (a natural resource if there ever was one) seems simple but will take lots of effort to overcome a century of farm policies intended to grow crops by pummeling the land.  But their suggestions are long sighted and can help reduce our dependence on oil.

Before we decide to attempt standard economic theory to change people's behavior, we really do need to understand all the consequences.  

In the meantime, walking is a good thing!

Since writing this, President-elect Barack Obama announced the appointment of Cass Sunstein as an advisor.  Sunstein, who taught at University of Chicago School of Law and is now at Harvard (also married to Obama's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Powers) is a proponent of behavioral economics, which, among other things, encourages, for lack of a better word, nudges, inducements, to get people to "behave" differently.  I suspect he would not support an increase in the gas tax.

Is There Objective Science?

Many of my ecologist colleagues are practically wearing out their computer keyboards emailing sign-on letters to President-elect Barack Obama encouraging him to stop the demeaning of science.  Implied in the contents of the letter is that the current Administration has somehow denigrated science.  Also implied in the letter is a belief that there is an ability to have objective science.  That somehow, science, this amorphous "discipline" consisting of everything from the study of nature to the examination of esoteric principles of physics, is neutral from the scientist performing the research.  

Whenever I hear a scientist say they are objective, I'm sorry, but I laugh.  It's as if they somehow perceive of their work outside of themselves.

And what, you wonder, started this train of thought?

Ever since I was in graduate school, I have been on a number of list servs.  One of them is related to all thing ecological.  It's managed by a professor of ecology in Maryland.  Most of the postings have to do with job announcements.  But occasionally, the group (and I don't know how many people are served by this list) engages in lively debates on topics such as the teaching of evolution (they are overwhelmingly for it), steady state economic theory (always interesting, trust me), research methodology, and abuse of graduate assistants (mostly led by abused graduate assistants).  Now, this list is of academic ecologists, wildlife biologists, oceanographers, fisheries people, foresters, zoologists, you get the picture.  They take offense at people who may refer to them as environmentalists, because they perceive of themselves as scientists not advocates.  

But today, someone innocently sent an email announcing the publication of Courting the Wild: Love Affairs With the Land.  And in response to this email, which also included a sound bite review by Paul Ehrlich, someone emailed back saying he thinks this kind of book, rhapsodizing about wondrous places, does a disservice to objective science.  His critique boils down to a sense that place based or charismatic mega-fauna oriented (think big bears, mountain lions, wolves) literature detracts from other, far less glamourous species that provide enormous "service" to ecosystems.  Now, I happen to think that the mychrorrizel  that attaches to the roots of Douglas fir (pseudotsuga menziesii) is pretty darn sexy, but apparently I am in a minority.  

What is more interesting about this critique is it stimulated an interesting debate about science.  The writer finished his rant about the book by saying he was a scientist and engages in objective based science.  There should be no love involved.

I smiled when I read his email.  I wondered what exactly he does every day to remove himself from his work.  In other words, how can he be objective?  Every single one of us bring our histories, our lives, our emotions with us when we begin our days.  Try as we might to subordinate feelings, we are human.   I thought about the wonderful idea that scientists bring poetry to what we see and poets bring science to what we read.

But really, what this debate is about is defining terms like "best available science," or "good science."  These are terms that are bandied about particularly among the environmental advocacy community.  Or the quasi-advocacy community.  Or even sometimes among the regulatory communities.  And I always wonder who is deciding what is "good science" or "the best available science."  Of course, as someone trained in research methodology, I understand things like peer review, hypothesis driven, replicable experiments.  But it seems to me when you use terms like "best available" or "good" objectivity is thrown out the window.  In other words, to get to that point, subjective decisions had to have been made.

Which leads me to two points.  First, in my opinion place or charismatic fauna based literature is not over looking all the flora and fauna that make a spot or animal tick.  While there may not be amazing pictures of worms or ugly slugs, I believe we are generally aware that there is more to the picture than meets the eye.  I think about my friend Dave.  He is a fly fisherman who has an amazing ability to fish places that are not the see and be seen rivers, but rather small, tiny streams probably not on any GPS systems.  Yet, for every moment Dave is on the stream, he is aware of the magic of the ecology, from large animals to the oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the water.  And while he may photograph the scenic, he is always thankful for the minute, the small, unseen magic that composes the picture.  Scientists must not think the rest of the world is dumb and does not appreciate what is not before them.

Second, when we talk about "good" or "best available" science, let's be real, as they say.  What we really mean is science that agrees with the conclusion we are looking for.  Whether it is showing pesticide risk to salmon, diminishing populations of Black footed ferrets, or impacts of global climate change on Polar bears, frequently what is considered good or best available is that science which demonstrates our own prejudices.  Remember, science is about variables.  What was "proven" in ecology as recently as a decade ago, has been challenged last week.  There were many decisions made by this current Administration that were based on science: the attempted de-listing of the Northern Rockies wolves off the endangered species list for example, which wildlife advocates derided as not "good" science.  While I may have disagreed with many decisions made by this Administration, I, frankly, did so based on policy reasons, not denigrating their science.  Who am I to say my science is better?

So while I join in encouraging the new President to emphasize science, particularly the ecological sciences, let's also encourage this Administration to enjoy sunsets over the Grand Tetons, howling wolves in the Lamar Valley, the deep blue water of Lake Tahoe, icicles hanging off of bare maples and oaks in the Shawangunks, a hulking Bison in the Badlands, and the full moon off the snow in Bosque del Apache.  Then they will hopefully understand the delightful mix of love and science.

Exhibit A

The Wall Street Journal printed an article on January 3, 2009 that is Exhibit A in what I have been discussing about the financial industry.  This house, or shack, was appraised at $132,000 and received a loan, a "no-doc" loan for $103,000.  It was unfit for human occupancy (or any other occupancy for that matter!).  Now, there could be an argument that the land was worth that amount, but the reality is someone had to pay that loan.  You have to read the story to understand that there is no way, no way, the lender should have made the loan.

Indeed, we can blame the borrower.  She was on a fixed income, a mix of disability, food stamps, welfare to work for a total of $3,000 a month.  She probably knew she could not afford an adjustable rate mortgage with an introductory rate of 9.5%.  But come on, isn't the lender, the mortgage broker, responsible for something here?  Turns out she was telemarketed.  Yep, someone called and told her to apply for the loan.  Then they paid for an appraisal.  They assured her she would qualify.  And the mortgage broker didn't just arrange for one loan, he made sure she got two, one his own firm lent her!

Of course, this is an extreme example.  But the bottom line is that we, as a community, will pay for this travesty, along with others that are more nuanced but as egregious.  Frankly, I regret not writing on the outside of the hundreds of direct mail pieces I received from Washington Mutual, Bank of America, Countrywide, and others: stop sending me these offers, it is immoral.  But I didn't.  

Now what?  Well, I think we begin by understanding everyone shoulders the blame.  Not just the greedy mortgage broker or the bottom-of-the-rung woman in this story.  We all went nuts during the past two decades.  We spent money we didn't have.

Second, I think we begin to realize our homes are not investments, but homes.  We live here.  We raise children here.  We sit by the fire and read.  We have holidays dinners at home.  We slam doors when we're angry and pop champagne corks when we celebrate.  We buy a house or condo as our home.  It's great that the house appreciates in value, and fantastic that we add value to it by restoring or remodeling.  But it is a home.  Using it as our credit card is not only unwise, but it changes the meaning of a place that shelters us.   It is not a home but similar to a piece of plastic with a name, number, and expiration date.  This change, from realizing our homes are not investments, is cultural.  It will be a huge shift in how the lending industry has led us to think during the past 8 or so years.  It will be hard, but a wise cultural shift to make.

Third, while this is hard for me to assert, we need some accountability.  I have yet to look at court dockets, but I can imagine there will be a lot of litigation over the predatory loans.  While I think litigation will be good, it more than likely will only name corporations as the defendants.  There are a lot of individuals in the mortgage industry that made a lot of money and who should also be held at least civilly accountable.  I would also think a few criminal prosecutions for fraud might be a good deterrent.

Our community took a hit.  We all let this happen.   Now it's up to us to fix it.  We need a habitat for humanity that fixes our culture.