Meanwhile, liberty--lack of--elsewhere :(

The photos say a lot more than I could--in India, and in Thailand :(

Quote of the day, and more about the UK democratic experiment

We will be strong in the defence of freedom.  The Government believes the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused fundamental human rights and historic civil liberties

That is the preamble to the "civil liberties" section of the platform that the Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government. (ht) 
Simply awesome.  After the triangulating Tony Blair and the rather dull Gordon Brown, and their bizarre fetish to faithfully follow the Bush/Cheney approach to infringing on civil liberties, wow, what a refreshing set of sentences.  It simply gets better; here is a sampling:

• We will introduce a Freedom Bill.
• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.
• We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

Hey, can we get that government here, too?  Andrew Sullivan points out that the new "coalition" government is going exactly where President Obama with his huge majority wimped out:

A judge will investigate claims that British intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, William Hague, the foreign secretary, said tonight. ...
Hague's statement redeems a pledge that both he and his then Liberal Democrat opposite number, Ed Davey, made in opposition. Hague told the BBC: "We have said again in the coalition agreement that we want a judge-led inquiry. So will there be an inquiry of some form? Yes, both parties in the coalition said they wanted that. Now what we're working on is what form that should take."
The coalition agreement published today by the government does not explicitly call for a judicial inquiry; it simply states: "We will never condone the use of torture."

Glenn Greenwald, too, points out this contrast:

[Just] contrast all of this to what is taking place in the United States under Democratic Party rule.  We get -- from the current Government -- presidential assassination programs, detention with no charges, senseless demands for further reductions of core rights when arrested, ongoing secret prisons filled with abuse, military commissions, warrantless surveillance of emails, and presidential secrecy claims to block courts from reviewing claims of government crimes.  The Democratic-led Congress takes still new steps to block the closing of Guantanamo.  Democratic leaders push for biometric, national ID cards.  The most minimal surveillance safeguards are ignored.  Even the miniscule limits on eavesdropping powers are transgressed.  And from just this week:  "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday" (h/t Dan Gillmor). Can anyone even imagine for one second Barack Obama standing up and saying:  "My administration believes that the American state has become too authoritarian"?

It will be neat if a news person can get Dick Cheney's reaction to the coalition government's platform.  BTW, where is that war criminal man?  He has not been snarking in the news lately ...

Governing in the age of the Tea Party

Stat of the day

The two national teachers’ unions — the American Federation of Teachers and the larger National Education Association — together have more than 4.6 million members. That is roughly a quarter of all the union members in the country.

This is in a lengthy piece by Steven Brill on education reforms and The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand. ht

Of course, Brill is following up on his earlier piece on the battle over NY's worst teachers, which he discussed in the New Yorker essay on the Rubber Room. Of all places, it was in Tanzania that I discussed the Rubber Room essay--at a serendipitous Christmas Supper at the home of an American expat couple.  Despite all of us being liberals, we were all unanimous in our shock/unpleasantness over:

The Rubber Rooms house only a fraction of the 1.8 per cent who have been rated unsatisfactory. The rest still teach. There are fifty Rubber Roomers—a twentieth of one per cent of all New York City teachers*—awaiting removal proceedings because of alleged incompetence, as opposed to those who have been accused of misconduct.
“If you just focus on the people in the Rubber Rooms, you miss the real point, which is that, by making it so hard to get even the obvious freaks and crazies that are there off the payroll, you insure that the teachers who are simply incompetent or mediocre are never incented to improve and are never removable,” Anthony Lombardi says. In a system with eighty-nine thousand teachers, the untouchable six hundred Rubber Roomers and eleven hundred teachers on the reserve list are only emblematic of the larger challenge of evaluating, retraining, and, if necessary, weeding out the poor performers among the other 87,300.

Robots and war: new military technology forever?

As of May 3, American unmanned systems had carried out 131 known airstrikes into Pakistan, well over triple the number we did with manned bombers in the opening round of the Kosovo War just a decade ago. By the old standards, this would be viewed as a war.
But why do we not view it as such? Is it because it is being run by the CIA, not by the U.S. military?

 P.W. Singer raises a number of uncomfortable issues regarding the growing use of robots in warfare.  Well, not only in warfare, but also, for instance:

Does the Second Amendment cover my right to bear (robotic) arms? It sounds like a joke, but where does the line go, and why? A bar owner in Atlanta already started the push to test this, building "Bum Bot," a robot armed with an infrared camera, spotlight, loudspeaker, and aluminum water cannon that he used to scare away homeless people and drug dealers from a parking lot near his business.

Singer's essay is one of the three featured at Slate. 

The article is being published in conjunction with "Warring Futures: How Biotech and Robotics Are Transforming Today's Military—and How That Will Change the Rest of Us," a May 24 conference in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. You can sign up to attend the event here. Read an article by Fred Kaplan about how the nature of war limits the use of technology and by Brad Allenby about why it's futile to resist new military technology.

The American Dream ... is slipping away?

In his guest viewpoint, James Newton raises a number of debatable arguments regarding incomes in the private and public sectors, and in the teaching profession. 

To a large extent, the issues that Newton raises are a reflection of the rapidly changing economic structure, here in the United States and elsewhere.  Until perhaps the final two decades of the 20^th century, the American economic structure provided enough and more opportunities for the semi-skilled and the unskilled, also, to earn decent incomes, and this resulted in the much cherished “middle class.” 

However, as economic opportunities opened up initially to tens of millions in South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, and later on to hundreds of millions in China, India, and elsewhere, we have simultaneously witnessed a rapid decrease in the ability of semi-skilled and unskilled Americans to realize that middle class dream. 

It is no coincidence that the heyday of the American middle class correlated with a vast majority of humans on Earth living in horrible economic conditions.  It is not that the American society systematically kept the millions in Asia poor—it simply was the effects of the closed and tightly controlled economic structure and policies in most of the less developed countries that had gained independence from their colonial masters after the end of World War II. 

The world is now far less poorer because of phenomenal improvements elsewhere, which have also been triggered by countries opening up their societies to the outside world.  But, this also means that the American middle class is now under severe economic stress.  This is one of the side effects of hundreds of millions of Asians, and hopefully Africans too in the near future, rising above poverty. 

As a recent article in the Economist magazine notes, the result here in the US has been the loss of “manufacturing and number-crunching jobs that used to pay handsomely."  The article adds that the fading union power has been the effect of such occupational shifts. 

Newton argues that unionization in the public sector has been able to effectively counter this and, therefore, he contends that the public sector looks overpaid only because the “working class” in the private sector is underpaid.  But, unionization in the private sector will not prevent the occupational shifts that are bound to increase as economic growth and development further diffuse across the geographies of Asia and Africa.  Of course, the occupational shifts can be prevented by partially closing our economy from competition.  While such a strategy might deliver short-term results, it will cause long-term damages.

Finally, about the teaching profession itself, on which Newton builds his arguments.  Rare is the day that I do not think about the earnings that I have “lost” by giving up my education and training in electrical engineering, to be a professor in a highly resource-starved university system in a state where budget deficits seem to be permanent. 

But, in the history of humans, teaching has never been as lucrative a profession as it currently is.  While the teaching profession has always been highly respected practically anywhere on the planet, those positive sentiments did not always translate to comfortable lifestyles for teachers.  The economic fortunes of teachers—“gurus”—in the old India, for instance, depended on favors from kings and wealthy merchants.  And, it is doubtful whether teachers of yore could have freely expressed their opinions, particularly outside their “classroom,” without a fear of having their heads chopped off. 

Perhaps Newton might argue that this was all a result of unionization of teachers.  But, this is merely a result of the liberal democratic societies in which a good proportion of humans live.  After all, even now, how many Chinese or Saudi Arabian faculty members can freely write op-eds critiquing their government or leaders without worrying about getting thrown in jail, or worse?

At the end of it all, as concerned citizens, we have a responsibility to worry about the increasingly uncertain economic futures that lie ahead for the younger generations who also dream about leading successful American middle class lives.  We ought to worry that our elected leaders do not seem to care that unemployment continues to be high.  But, unionization in the private sector is not sufficient to ensure a continuation of the idea of the American Dream.

Cap and trade: environment or education? :(

More on Kagan

"Failure is not an option." well, it is.

We have reshaped the education system—largely through federal legislation—to an approach of "right answers, right answers, right answers." But life's not like that. We're putting a tremendous amount of value on being able to pick the right one out of four little bubbles. But this turns out not to be a very valuable skill. You can't take this skill out into the workplace and get paid for it.
My research assistant did a blog for the Washington Post about this mantra of "Failure Is Not an Option." Her point was, you can't learn anything unless you fail. Failure has to be an option. What does success mean if there's no failure? It just means that you've dropped the bar so low that everyone can walk over it.

That is Diane Ravitch speaking of her Damascene conversion of sorts on public education and No Child Left Behind.  I am reminded of Robert McNamara admitting much later in life about how wrong he was on the Vietnam War.
Finally, ...

If you could hear someone else interviewed about wrongness, who would it be?
That's a hard one. Donald Rumsfeld said he was wrong, but I don't even want to hear from him. [Former Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs Co-Chair, and former Citigroup Chair] Bob Rubin would be interesting, but he'll never admit he was wrong. Right now what's coming to mind are people who have never admitted that they're wrong about anything.
Like who?
Like basically everybody I've been associated with for the last 20 years.

Chart of the day: the failing war on drugs

The chart (ht) clearly shows that:

that even with increased crop eradication and constant “record seizures” of the drug by land and at sea are not accomplishing the stated goals of the policies and therefore calls into serious question whether they are worth the expenditures in question.  Indeed, it is quite clear that the ability of coca famers to produce enough coca leaf to overtake whatever successes that are accomplished in crop eradication and cocaine seizures is quite clear.  Such overproduction is simply the cost of doing business.  This is a lesson, by the way, that we need to keep in mind in Afghanistan, where the policy direction it towards crop eradication of opium poppies.  I predict now that even if thousands upon thousands of hectares or opium poppies are eradicated, that the poppy farmers will be able to out produce the eradicators.

Of course, libertarians like the folks at Reason have all along pointing out to the wasteful and costly attempt to keep the drugs out--and, of course, the infringement on the rights of American citizens ...  The war on drugs which is no longer confined to Colombia, and is now just short of a civil war in Mexico is, according to Jorge Castaneda all screwed up: "The Mexican drug war is costly, unwinnable, and predicated on dangerous myths." Going after the supply, without acting on policies that might address the demand in the US merely escalates violence, and Secretary Clinton echoed this as well  when she said:

"Clearly what we've been doing has not worked," Clinton told reporters on her plane at the start of her two-day trip, saying that U.S. policies on curbing drug use, narcotics shipments and the flow of guns have been ineffective.
"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she added. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians."

So, when are we going to end this war, that even pre-dates the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Plan B: Skip College

I have been harping on the idea that college degrees are hyped way more than they are worth, and is an ongoing topic in this blog.
Of course, expressing such an opinion while within academia means that I practically never hear anybody seconding my arguments.  (editor: does anybody even talk to you in the first place, for you to "hear" anything?!)
But, given the severe economic conditions in society, I would argue that this issue will not fade away, but will actually gather strength.  As this NY Times report indicates ... an excerpt:

College degrees are simply not necessary for many jobs. Of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate over the next decade in the United States, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Among the top 10 growing job categories, two require college degrees: accounting (a bachelor’s) and postsecondary teachers (a doctorate). But this growth is expected to be dwarfed by the need for registered nurses, home health aides, customer service representatives and store clerks. None of those jobs require a bachelor’s degree.
Professor Vedder likes to ask why 15 percent of mail carriers have bachelor’s degrees, according to a 1999 federal study.

It is not at all the case that I am against higher education--I love it.  But, I want counselors, faculty, administrators, .... to provide high school students with some kind of a full disclosure, a la:

Professor Rosenbaum said, high school counselors and teachers are not doing enough to alert students unlikely to earn a college degree to the perilous road ahead.

The lack of full disclosure means that it is nothing but a .... ponzi scheme :(

Noam Chomsky barred by Israelis

The Guardian reports:

Noam Chomsky, whose withering critiques of political establishments have earned him the wrath of regimes of all persuasions around the world, was todayforbidden by Israeli immigration officers from entering the Palestinian West Bank.
Chomsky said he was disappointed and surprised to have been turned back from the Allenby bridge across the Jordan river, which is understood to be the first time he has been refused entry by the Israelis. He had been due to give a series of lectures on domestic and foreign policy at Birzeit University and the Institute for Palestine Studies in Ramallah, in the West Bank.

The Onion has a different take:

"I just want to lie in a hammock and have a nice relaxing morning," said the outspoken anarcho-syndicalist academic, who first came to public attention with his breakthrough 1957 book Syntactic Structures. "The systems of control designed to manufacture consent among a largely ignorant public will still be there for me to worry about tomorrow. Today, I'm just going to kick back and enjoy some much-needed Noam Time."
"No fighting against institutional racism, no exposing the legacies of colonialist ideologies still persistent today, no standing up to the widespread dissemination of misinformation and state-sanctioned propaganda," Chomsky added. "Just a nice, cool breeze through an open window on a warm spring day."
Sources reported that the 81-year-old Chomsky, a vociferous, longtime critic of U.S. foreign policy and the political economy of the mass media, was planning to use Monday to tidy up around the house a bit, take a leisurely walk in the park, and possibly attend an afternoon showing of Date Night at the local megaplex.

But, apparently Chomsky could not quite relax as he had planned:

Sources said Chomsky took what was supposed to be a refreshing drive in the countryside, only to find himself obsessing over the role petroleum plays in the economic and military policies that collude with multinational corporate powers.
After stopping at a roadside McDonald's, Chomsky was unable to enjoy the Big Mac he purchased, due to the popular restaurant chain's participation in selling "a bill of goods" to the American people, who consume the unhealthy fast food and thereby bolster the capitalist system rather than buying from local farmers in order to equalize the distribution of wealth and eat more nutritiously.

ps: Just in case you didn't get it ... ahem, the Onion is a satirical publication and the Guardian is not :)

The politics of the libertarian mob

Democrats were day-trading, Republicans were divorcing. We were all individualists now.

A wonderful line from Mark Lilla's essay in the NYRB, which has a neat title: "The Tea Party Jacobins."  Lilla is a professor at Columbia, after quite some time at Chicago.  More than anything else, Lilla is a faculty who is comfortable in both academic and journalistic domains--a trait I admire and look up to.
What is Lilla writing about there?

A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets.
Welcome to the politics of the libertarian mob.

Instead of the old Jacobins, who were leftist radicals, Lilla says we have the new Jacobins.  How different are these from the old?

When the new Jacobins turn on their televisions they do not tune in to the PBS News Hour or C-Span to hear economists and congressmen debate the effectiveness of financial regulations or health care reform. They look for shows that laud their common sense, then recite to them the libertarian credo that Fox emblazons on its home page nearly every day: YOU DECIDE.

Lilla has a point when he notes that the new Jacobins prefer:

the company of anti-intellectuals who know how to exploit nonintellectuals, as Sarah Palin does so masterfully.¹⁶ The dumbing-down they have long lamented in our schools they are now bringing to our politics, and they will drag everyone and everything along with them. As David Frum, one of the remaining lucid conservatives, has written to his wayward comrades, “When you argue stupid, you campaign stupid. When you campaign stupid, you win stupid. And when you win stupid, you govern stupid.”

So, where is this heading towards?  Lilla thinks that the Tea Party itself might dissolve soon, as much as a float is taken down after the Homecoming party!  But:

Now an angry group of Americans wants to be freer still—free from government agencies that protect their health, wealth, and well-being; free from problems and policies too difficult to understand; free from parties and coalitions; free from experts who think they know better than they do; free from politicians who don’t talk or look like they do (and Barack Obama certainly doesn’t). They want to say what they have to say without fear of contradiction, and then hear someone on television tell them they’re right. They don’t want the rule of the people, though that’s what they say. They want to be people without rules—and, who knows, they may succeed. This is America, where wishes come true. And where no one remembers the adage “Beware what you wish for.”

I wish Lilla had phrased something else in place of "libertarian mob" because true libertarians like the intelligent folks at Cato or Reason are not quite thrilled with the Tea Party folks' anti-intellectual ranting.  And, to a Libertarian Democrat like me, well, this nutcase mob is not anything like our idea of why we like the libertarian streak in our politics .... But, that is my only quibble :)