March 26, 2006 at 7:44 pm
(Culture)
I got a couple of insights today into how a couple of significant groups here in Colorado think.
The first was a bloggy editorial titled why people are atheists. The writer basically comes to the conclusion that it’s because atheists are stupid. Can you find the fallacy in her argument?
The second is a billboard on a local mega-church advertising their next sermon, titled “Why Men Should Lead.” Perhaps there may be many reasonable opinions that may be put forth, but surely they could have found a better title if that were the case? My theory is that they are just Republicans who are scared of Hillary Clinton in ‘08.
Religious believers of all types are an uber-majority in the US (and the entire world I should think), and I know most are reasonable. Still, I think it’s frightening that ideas like these two should flourish.
2 Comments
March 26, 2006 at 11:06 am
(Uncategorized)
As the immigration policy battle heats up, the Denver Post has published
a story focusing on non-Mexican illegal immigration across the US-Mexico border that seems to back up a couple of things that I’ve been saying all along. Our resources might be better placed helping Mexico tighten its borders with Belize and Guatemala and less emphasis needs to be placed on preventing immigrants from getting jobs while more emphasis is placed on limiting the number of people who would need to cross the border illegally in the first place.
The statement I agree with the most is from immigration policy researcher Walter Ewing:
“The best way to enhance security would be to take labor migration out of the equation. If we were channeling workers from abroad through legal channels, border-control resources could be channeled towards catching potential terrorists as opposed to just tracking down job- seekers,” Ewing said.
The story also points to a large number of people coming in from Mexico who aren’t Mexican–this is what is troubling. I would guess that Mexico is less able or interested in devoting resources to fighting their own immigration problem, especially when the US is so quick to blame Mexico. We should be helping Mexico instead of fighting it. And that means allowing an open flow of registered workers instead of punishing employers.
In other words, President Bush’s Guest worker program is more reality-based than the punitive alternatives suggested by others in his party.
Comments
March 23, 2006 at 6:28 pm
(Uncategorized)
Via Alternet, an article on the rising burden of student loans.
a 30-year student loan is scary…frankly, I’m not thrilled with my 10-year repayment period (although it isn’t bank-breaking.) I think the solution of raising interest rates in unreasonable (We keep hearing this message that we need educated people to compete in the world market.) And increasing Federal grant money is an impractical solution, not because that money isn’t available (it isn’t–thanks Iraq war) but because you would be fighting the chorus of voices asking why education costs are rising so much.
And it’s a good question. This CNN story tries to break into it. It’s first suggestion, that tuition is rising because there are more low-income students and thus aid is increasing, is a red herring. It may be true, but not as true as during the middle of the 20th century. The second suggestion may be more reasonable–of course high-tech equipment costs a lot, and of course heavy research universities need high-tech equipment to be on the cutting edge. But the article points out sizable tuition increases at liberal arts schools as well. So what’s the deal? What if costs are increasing because schools realize that once a student is enrolled, they have a captive customer (at least for a few years?)
If the “market” were a little freer–if it were easier to transfer from one college to another, or if it were easier for colleges to make changes to faculty, perhaps costs would stay more in line with inflation.
Part of me wants to blame the students as well. Who on earth would take out a $55,000 loan for a career in a field where you could reasonably expect that you will only be making $33,000 at 28? (And if you did, how on earth would you get to the point where you have to take a second job to make the $250 monthly payment?) But I saw some of this at my alma mater as well–intelligent people would arrive with dreams of being an engineer and then quickly change to major instead in…-logies. Yet of all the dozens of people I knew who did this, only one transfered to the cheaper state school down the street. The rest paid through the nose for a decent education they’ll have a hard time applying…that’s like buying a performance car for your weekly grocery run. But it’s hard to blame them…student loans always had this aura of non-reality about them. We were supposed to be busy studying, not worrying about money.
So really, two things will help. First, a little liberalization of the education marketplace. Second, tools to provide incoming students better planning, from chosing a field of study to knowing how they’ll pay what debt they do amass. Now, can we do that without regulation?
Comments
March 10, 2006 at 11:39 am
(Uncategorized)
Do you know those ads that you sometimes see in the non-news sections of the newspaper…the ones that are made to look like actual news stories but that are in a different font face and have “Paid Advertisement” at the top of the page? I’d bet that the companies that pay for those ads would really like an “in” so that they could get their “news” printed as if it were an actual story.
As it happens, some companies have figured out how to do just that. The answer is Family Features Editorial Syndicate. Right off the bat you may be thinking, as I did, “wow, that’s one of those innocuous-sounding names that just has to be evil.” But hold your judgment for a second. Do a google search. You will find:
“Family Features provides marketing services for food and beverage companies, food and lifestyle editorial content for print and online media, …”
Marketing services? Editorial Content?
If you look a little deeper, you’ll find that in addition to straight-up advertising, they also do syndicated columns which are essentially written by their customers (the companies) to highlight certain products. They then offer these columns for free to print and internet publications. When the column is published, it looks more like your run-of-the-mill technology story than an ad. In reality, it’s virtually the same as Payola. Instead of paying for song plays, FFES simply doesn’t charge for its “syndicated” material. It either case, the song or product gets consumer attention based not on quality but rather on how much is paid to promote it.
It’s a frightening step–now people may base the purchase of a camera on an ad disguised as a review. But what happens if this spreads to the news sections? The Karen Ryan scandal is fairly well known example where that happened, but I suspect lower-profile versions could slip into publication or broadcast under the radar. And with stories of bloggers accepting press releases from Wal-Mart.
Worse, this model seems to have won at least some of the so-called pro-business set (take a look at the reaction from John McAdams). But I thought that pro-business was pro-competition, and this seems to indicate that competition should be undermined by the highest bidder. What’s up?
Comments
March 9, 2006 at 8:13 pm
(Uncategorized)
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson says a US policy of “energy independence” is unreasonable.
Why? Because current policy forbids us from using some of our resources (ANWR and other protected areas) and besides, we already get all this oil, see, from other countries.
Mr Tillerson clearly misses the point. Apparently he wasn’t watching the President (an oil-man himself!) as he went around the country touting alternative fules. The only thing energy independence plans for oil is a much-reduced role in energy production. The ExxonMobil leadership is playing ostrich to the energy situation–they are so thouroughly convinced that energy and oil are interchangable that they appear to place a much lower priority on alternative fuels. This is very clear when you read their Energy Outlook. For example, they dismiss renewable hydrogen generation techniques but claim “Our unique skills in catalysis and process technologies have enabled us to identify a new approach to hydrogen production from hydrocarbon fuels…” This technique apparently would limit the CO2 emissions that gasoline engines create, but it certainly doesn’t do much for “oil addiction.” They claim outright that “Oil, gas and coal remain the predominant energy sources, maintaining about an 80% share of total energy demand through 2030.” But then state that “Access to resources and timely investments are vital to developing adequate energy supplies.” Meanwhile they are quick to point out the high cost of every other energy source they can think of. In other words, they are claiming that as long as governments and political realities don’t inflate the cost of oil, oil will be cheaper than any alternative. This is two-dimensional thinking at best. Political upheaval in some parts of the world cannot be counted on diminishing over the next thirty years. And one would expect governments have some reason, for instance, to protect certain areas from development. In the case of the US, these reasons are, well, reasonable. We have decided that the long-term value of some places as completely undisturbed is much greater than the value of an extra 30 years of a fuel that we’ll have to abandon at some point anyway.
The Energy Outlook document is generally self-confirming, and such thinking will be harmful to the company if it continues to adhere to it. The gears are already shifting, and people are begining to welcome the possibility of more freedom from fossil-fuels even at higher costs (look at hybrid vehicle sales and wind-energy purchase programs.)
Compare ExxonMobil’s statements to those of BP, Chevron (which has helped set up a website for discussing the future of energy) and Shell, all of which, to some degree, indicate that planning for their future includes more significant investment in alternative fuels.
Comments
March 6, 2006 at 8:11 pm
(Uncategorized)
Have police officers pull people over for not wearing seatbelts? Brilliant!
Because, you know, they don’t have enough to do without making sure people take care of themselves.
Comments
March 6, 2006 at 8:07 pm
(Uncategorized)
Oh great, The Right caught another teacher Bush bashing in front of a classroom. I love Governor Owen’s solution: standardized testing.
Funny, I had more right-wing teachers when I was in high school. And they taught from their point of view (a little harder to do in Geography, I suppose). We weren’t necessarily immune from the occasional rant–but I’m certain they felt free to talk the way they did out of respect for our fledgling ability to think for ourselves. They were more than happy to engage in a lively debate with anyone who would challenge them. (While it’s not clear from this story, perhaps Mr Bennish would welcome debate as well?) Note that nobody’s liberal parents were on the phone to the media. Ahh, the good ol’ days, when we respected our youth.
Now we want to hold their hands through the “learning” process until…when? Maybe this is just part of the Republicrat indoctrination process.
3 Comments
