Comedians and cartoonists have enough material already to work with until whenever :)
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Political theatre: never a dull moment :)
For those of us who can't get enough of the fantastic political theatre, which is the best entertainment that money can ever buy, the latest actor to step up to amuse us all is the Texan of all Texans, Governor Rick Perry.
Comedians and cartoonists have enough material already to work with until whenever :)
Comedians and cartoonists have enough material already to work with until whenever :)
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Are CFLs a dim bulb approach to saving nature?
In this blog, and in my classes, I refer to arguments and analysis that Bjorn Lomborg offers. With students, I typically present an environmental issue, and by discussing it they soon realize the tradeoffs that are needed. It is always a rewarding moment for me when I see that metaphorical light bulb click on in a few of them, at least.
Light bulbs are what Lomborg tackles this time around--the government mandate that bans the use of incandescent bulbs in favor of the compact fluorescent ones. Lomborg, who has often argued for R&D investments that could lead us towards less carbon in our consumptive behaviors, reminds us, yet again, that:
A mere mandate does no good. Well, other than to get people all worked up.
With the exception of a few crazies who question the very climate change (and Lomborg is not one of them) most of us recognize the urgency to change the way we live on this lonely planet.
Some do get carried away to extremes--like those who want to restore nature to its pristine conditions and, sometimes, even represent humans as the worst living creature ever. To these, Ron Bailey, while reviewing Emma Marris' new book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World
, reminds us that the pristine nature is a myth.
I am reminded of a graduate course I took years ago, in which we were required to read a book, whose author/title completely escapes me. The bottom line in that book was simple: everything will be great if only there were no humans. The professor seemed so committed to this idea as well that, and being a highly self-conscious guy during those years, I opted not to challenge him.
Bailey wraps up the book review:
Yes, a rambunctious gardening, with light from bulbs that we willingly purchase because they are wonderfully efficient and pleasing and do not trigger headaches.
Light bulbs are what Lomborg tackles this time around--the government mandate that bans the use of incandescent bulbs in favor of the compact fluorescent ones. Lomborg, who has often argued for R&D investments that could lead us towards less carbon in our consumptive behaviors, reminds us, yet again, that:
The solution should be to focus on improving the technology—making the lights safer, brighter, warm up faster, and save more energy, so that more people will replace more of their lights. ...
Governments talk far too much about setting a relatively high carbon tax on emissions while focusing far too little on ensuring a meaningful increase in research and development to bring about necessary breakthroughs.
Limiting access to the "wrong" light bulbs or patio heaters is, ultimately, not the right path. We will only solve global warming by ensuring that alternative technologies are better than our current options. Then people the world over will choose to use them.
A mere mandate does no good. Well, other than to get people all worked up.
With the exception of a few crazies who question the very climate change (and Lomborg is not one of them) most of us recognize the urgency to change the way we live on this lonely planet.
Some do get carried away to extremes--like those who want to restore nature to its pristine conditions and, sometimes, even represent humans as the worst living creature ever. To these, Ron Bailey, while reviewing Emma Marris' new book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World
, reminds us that the pristine nature is a myth. “Nature is almost everywhere. But wherever it is, there is one thing nature is not: pristine,” writes science journalist Emma Marris in her engaging new book Rambunctious Garden: Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World. She adds, “We must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness and find room next to it for the more nuanced notion of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden, tended by us.” Marris’ message will discomfort both environmental activists and most ecologists who are in thrall to the damaging cult of pristine wilderness and the false ideology of the balance of nature. But it should encourage and inspire the rest of us.
I am reminded of a graduate course I took years ago, in which we were required to read a book, whose author/title completely escapes me. The bottom line in that book was simple: everything will be great if only there were no humans. The professor seemed so committed to this idea as well that, and being a highly self-conscious guy during those years, I opted not to challenge him.
Bailey wraps up the book review:
One hopes that readers will take to heart Marris’ chief insight about conservation: “There is no one best goal.” She bravely and correctly concludes, “We’ve forever altered the Earth, and so now we cannot abandon it to a random fate. It is our duty to manage it. Luckily, it can be a pleasant, even joyful task if we embrace it in the right spirit. Let the rambunctious gardening begin.”
Yes, a rambunctious gardening, with light from bulbs that we willingly purchase because they are wonderfully efficient and pleasing and do not trigger headaches.
The Anna Hazare moment is not any "Arab Spring" in India
One of the neatest first experiences for me when I came to the US was at the Social Security office in Los Angeles. Right on the first day, I was advised by personnel at USC and by other students that I needed to get to the Soc. Sec. card at the earliest--the lack of which meant no paycheck.
At least now, the neighborhood around USC looks presentable, especially since the construction of the Staples Center and USC's basketball arena. Those days, it was a typical downtown in deterioration, A couple of us walked over to the Social Security office, all the while wondering whether this was really the richest country on the planet when the conditions around us were not pretty.
The organized system at the government office made it clear that this was no India. The ticket number I grabbed gave me an idea of how long I might have to wait for my turn. There were chairs to sit on. When my turn came, I presented my papers to the clerk, and we both had a little bit of problem with our respective pronunciations and accents. And that was it.
This was no where near any of my experiences at government, and private sector, offices in India.
In India, there is a formal way, which takes a very long time, and another way that cuts through the process as long as one paid the prevailing bribe rates. When I got my driver license in India, for instance, all I did was give a couple of portrait photos and money to the driving instructor, who took care of things for me--a week later I had my license!
Every visit to India, there are more experiences--direct or otherwise--that remind me about the strange inner workings of the Indian system characterized by bribes, corruption, and "black money."
Though most people complain about all these, they generally feel powerless to change anything by themselves. Further, bribes and corruption and black money do not become serious political issues primarily because getting elected even to the lowliest office is a sure way to start getting ahead in economic terms.
A few are now voicing that old movie line, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."
A small, quiet, 74-year old man has become the voice and symbol of this frustration.
As much as I am excited to follow the developments, I am equally confident that this too shall pass. After all, India is a country with a history of exciting events, which eventually die down without doing any serious damage to the status quo. Which is why I agree with this:
While the middle and upper classes might voice their support to the cause, particularly at the click of the computer mouse, as individuals they are trapped in a classic game theory situation: if they don't pay up for the service, then there is always somebody else who will, which makes a loser out of the one who wants to fight the system. Not wanting to lose out, everybody becomes a participant.
Ultimately, it is the economically disadvantaged who get screwed. Because, they cannot things the proper way, and nor do they have the resources to take the bribe route. To make things worse, they trust the politicians to deliver for them :(
As I noted here earlier, in another context,
At least now, the neighborhood around USC looks presentable, especially since the construction of the Staples Center and USC's basketball arena. Those days, it was a typical downtown in deterioration, A couple of us walked over to the Social Security office, all the while wondering whether this was really the richest country on the planet when the conditions around us were not pretty.
The organized system at the government office made it clear that this was no India. The ticket number I grabbed gave me an idea of how long I might have to wait for my turn. There were chairs to sit on. When my turn came, I presented my papers to the clerk, and we both had a little bit of problem with our respective pronunciations and accents. And that was it.
This was no where near any of my experiences at government, and private sector, offices in India.
In India, there is a formal way, which takes a very long time, and another way that cuts through the process as long as one paid the prevailing bribe rates. When I got my driver license in India, for instance, all I did was give a couple of portrait photos and money to the driving instructor, who took care of things for me--a week later I had my license!
Every visit to India, there are more experiences--direct or otherwise--that remind me about the strange inner workings of the Indian system characterized by bribes, corruption, and "black money."
Though most people complain about all these, they generally feel powerless to change anything by themselves. Further, bribes and corruption and black money do not become serious political issues primarily because getting elected even to the lowliest office is a sure way to start getting ahead in economic terms.
A few are now voicing that old movie line, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore."
A small, quiet, 74-year old man has become the voice and symbol of this frustration.
Anna Hazare has quickly become a 21st century Mahatma Gandhi inspiration for millions of Indians fed up with rampant corruption, red tape and inadequate services provided by the state despite the country posting near-double digit economic growth for almost a decade.
As much as I am excited to follow the developments, I am equally confident that this too shall pass. After all, India is a country with a history of exciting events, which eventually die down without doing any serious damage to the status quo. Which is why I agree with this:
The anti-corruption movement has the simplicity of a third-rate fable.
There are the good guys (the reformers and the average Indian citizen) and the bad guys (the politicians). But the real story is not a fable but art cinema.
Indians have a deep and complicated relationship with corruption. As in any long marriage, it is not clear whether they are happily or unhappily married. The country’s economic system is fused with many strands of corruption and organized systems of tax evasion. The middle class is very much a part of this.
Most Indians have paid a bribe. Most Indian businesses cannot survive or remain competitive without stashing away undeclared earnings.
Almost everybody who has sold a house has taken one part of the payment in cash and evaded tax on it.
Yet, the branding of corruption is so powerful that Indians moan the moment they hear the word. The comic hypocrisy of it all was best evident in the past few months as the anti-corruption movement gathered unprecedented middle-class support.
While the middle and upper classes might voice their support to the cause, particularly at the click of the computer mouse, as individuals they are trapped in a classic game theory situation: if they don't pay up for the service, then there is always somebody else who will, which makes a loser out of the one who wants to fight the system. Not wanting to lose out, everybody becomes a participant.
Ultimately, it is the economically disadvantaged who get screwed. Because, they cannot things the proper way, and nor do they have the resources to take the bribe route. To make things worse, they trust the politicians to deliver for them :(
As I noted here earlier, in another context,
When I was a kid, I remember elected politicians switching parties like crazy depending on who offered a better deal. And everybody knew that such deals were going on. One politician was referred to as "aaya ram, gaya ram" (aaya meaning to come, and gaya means to leave--characterizing how the politician, ram, entered and left parties. Hilarious it was to some extent, more so when we did not have television to entertain us ....
The Economist has a neat statistic about India:The country’s politicians are mostly an unsavoury lot. Of the 522 members of India’s current parliament, 120 are facing criminal charges; around 40 of these are accused of serious crimes, including murder and rape. Most Indian politicians are presumed to be corrupt, which is less surprising. In India’s poor and fractious society patronage politics is inevitable. But Indian politics has got much muckier in recent years because of two factors: the rise of regional and caste-based parties, nakedly dedicated to delivering patronage; and the mutinous coalitions this has led to.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Fox News revs up the anti-Muslim hysteria :(
I am so glad I don't get Faux News. Why this anti-Muslim propaganda? Awful! The "mosque-ing of America?" Seriously, how low will these guys go? One of the worst things that Murdoch could have ever done to America ... am so glad he is in trouble across the waters :)
Ron Paul is no Coriolanus. And, no media coverage even when he gets votes!
Coriolanus was one of the plays that I watched at Ashland, with freshmen--during my years as the Director of the Honors Program. I had no clue about the play. My colleague, the theatre faculty, said that it was an absolutely perfect play to watch and think about, given the war and election season at that time--seems like it is always war and elections, eh! :(
As always, the folks at Ashland did a great job. (When the play ended, I was thankful that they did not adapt it to any other time period, as they occasionally do with Shakespearean plays.) Once again, Shakespeare punched the lights out of me--how did that guy manage to do all that fantastic stuff? And such profound dramas!
Even as the play was progressing, it was difficult not to compare it with contemporary American social and political events. Politicians pretending to be one of the commoners so that they can get their approval--which Coriolanus resisted doing not because he was idealistic, but because he thought he was too good to seek approval from the masses.
Contemporary politicians know all too well that if they behaved like how Coriolanus did, well, they wouldn't get elected even as a dog catcher. So, they put on different roles. Last time around, it was Obama droppin' the "g" or not mentioning arugula after one mishap, in order to relate to the commoners. Similarly, the hilarious attempts by McCain to relate to Joe the Plumbers, and the "betcha" folksy Palin .... well, Shakespeare portrays these so well in Coriolanus.
Here is a neat essay on Coriolanus, from the New English Review (once again, thanks to AL Daily). The author notes that:
Has political life really changed very much since Shakespeare’s day, at least as portrayed in Coriolanus? If anything, it seems to have regressed towards it, having perhaps (but only perhaps) have moved away from it for an interlude of a century or two.
Demagogues and war heroes we have with us still, while discernable principles seem very few and far between. The crowds are still demanding that the candidates display their war wounds: when Mrs Clinton ‘mis-spoke’ she was trying to demonstrate that she, too, knew what it was to be under fire. The desire and willingness to present others in the worst possible light, as a sufficient argument in itself, is still with us.
Unfortunately, demagogues and demagoguery are alive and well.
Except with one guy--Ron Paul.
Paul doesn't seem to care about saying things that people might prefer to hear so that they will, in turn, approve of his candidacy. Though I don't agree with a few of what Paul says, I find it absolutely refreshing that he mostly says what he means, and means what he says. And he behaves that way not out of contempt for the public either.
But, the guy gets practically no media coverage. Why so? (ht)
Mostly because the mainstream media and the Republican establishment wish he would just go away.
One reason the bipartisan establishment finds Paul so obnoxious is how much the past four years have proven him correct -- on the housing bubble, on the economy, on our foreign misadventures, and on our national debt.
The Daily Show also correctly points out this systematic exclusion of Ran Paul--doesn't it remind us of how Ralph Nader used to complain that the two parties and the media have rigged the system?
Geography and the global income inequality divide
A few months ago, I noted here from Catherine Rampbell's review of Branko Milanovic's The Haves and Have Nots
As much as geographers hate any variation of the idea of geographic determinism, various factors, including border controls, do make it an irrefutable fact that income and wealth for most of us are determined by where we are born.
Joshua Keating offers another chart from Milanovic's book, looking at the gini coefficients (a reminder: smaller numbers mean less unequal distributions)
And this advice:
If only people had as much freedom to move as capital has, right!
Of course, the other side of the argument is whether we need to focus on the growing inequality, or whether the growing prosperity deserves greater attention. That calls for a serious debate, right?
For now, the lack of a freedom to move means that:
The ones who want tight controls over migration unnecessarily worry, out of heights of self-interest, a Camp of the Saints
scenario, as if that dystopia is all that is possible when people are allowed the freedom to move.
an astounding 60 percent of a person’s income is determined merely by where she was born (and an additional 20 percent is dictated by how rich her parents were)
As much as geographers hate any variation of the idea of geographic determinism, various factors, including border controls, do make it an irrefutable fact that income and wealth for most of us are determined by where we are born.
Joshua Keating offers another chart from Milanovic's book, looking at the gini coefficients (a reminder: smaller numbers mean less unequal distributions)
And this advice:
because "inequality is now determined more by where you live than the class you belong to." The best way to change your lot in life, it seems, is to move.
If only people had as much freedom to move as capital has, right!
Of course, the other side of the argument is whether we need to focus on the growing inequality, or whether the growing prosperity deserves greater attention. That calls for a serious debate, right?
For now, the lack of a freedom to move means that:
The typical person in the top 5 percent of the Indian population, for example, makes the same as or less than the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American population. That’s right: America’s poorest are, on average, richer than India’s richest — extravagant Mumbai mansions notwithstanding.
The ones who want tight controls over migration unnecessarily worry, out of heights of self-interest, a Camp of the Saints
scenario, as if that dystopia is all that is possible when people are allowed the freedom to move.Quote of the day: on stupids and geniuses
Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid
So said Einstein.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Dr. Doom asks if capitalism is doomed. Was Marx right, after all?
No, Nouriel Roubini doesn't imply that we will soon return to the bad old days of the Soviet bloc, even though he reminds us that:
So, Roubini's recommendations?
Didn't we have a wonderful series of opportunities, up until the recent debt deal, to do all these things? And we didn't! So, how high is the probability that we will come anywhere near this list? :(
Karl Marx, it seems, was partly right in arguing that globalization, financial intermediation run amok, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct (though his view that socialism would be better has proved wrong).
So, Roubini's recommendations?
To enable market-oriented economies to operate as they should and can, we need to return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of laissez-faire and voodoo economics and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states. Both are broken.
The right balance today requires creating jobs partly through additional fiscal stimulus aimed at productive infrastructure investment. It also requires more progressive taxation; more short-term fiscal stimulus with medium- and long-term fiscal discipline; lender-of-last-resort support by monetary authorities to prevent ruinous runs on banks; reduction of the debt burden for insolvent households and other distressed economic agents; and stricter supervision and regulation of a financial system run amok; breaking up too-big-to-fail banks and oligopolistic trusts.
Didn't we have a wonderful series of opportunities, up until the recent debt deal, to do all these things? And we didn't! So, how high is the probability that we will come anywhere near this list? :(
Catch-22 and war
I am only a few pages into the book and I am amazed at how much I missed when I read Catch-22 the previous time, when I was in high school back in Neyveli, in India.
Here is a sampler:
Here is a sampler:
... Outside the hospital the war was still going on. Men went mad and were rewarded with medals. All over the world, boys on very side of the bomb line were laying down their lives for what they had been told was their country, and no one seemed to mind, least of all he boys who were laying down their young lives. There was no end in sight. The only end in sight was Yossarian's own ...War is hell.
Humor in daily life ... another checkout beauty :)
One of the many favorites to read during my younger days was the "Humor in daily life" (I think that was the title) in the Readers Digest--funny and simple incidents from everyday living. I used to wonder why nothing like that ever happened to me, without realizing I was merely a kid yet to crawl out of the sheltered nest.
Now that I am older, I find humor everyday in my own interactions.
Like, for instance, at the grocery store the other day.
It was a slow morning, I suppose, and there was hardly any customer. When I reached the checkout, two clerks, female and about my age, were chatting.
As I started placing my groceries on the counter, one said "we are talking about makeup and mascara. Feel free to join in."
"No thanks. I am happy if my beard is trimmed" I replied.
"Me too" jumped in the other woman without missing a beat and while stroking her chin for the added effect!
It was ha ha ha all around.
What a boring and painful life it would be without humor, and without a sense of wit in people, eh!
Prior checkout posts: here, here, and here
Now that I am older, I find humor everyday in my own interactions.
Like, for instance, at the grocery store the other day.
It was a slow morning, I suppose, and there was hardly any customer. When I reached the checkout, two clerks, female and about my age, were chatting.
As I started placing my groceries on the counter, one said "we are talking about makeup and mascara. Feel free to join in."
"No thanks. I am happy if my beard is trimmed" I replied.
"Me too" jumped in the other woman without missing a beat and while stroking her chin for the added effect!
It was ha ha ha all around.
What a boring and painful life it would be without humor, and without a sense of wit in people, eh!
Prior checkout posts: here, here, and here
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Fox News invents a new physics to debunk climate change
The good news is that I get only limited cable, which means I do not get any of the 24x7 news channels, nor the cartoon channels like Fox News.
The bad news is that as a news junkie, I watch Jon Stewart and Colbert who watch, digest, and spit out the best moments from the (un)Fair and (un)Balanced network.
When even the folks at Scientific American begin to write about Faux News, well, we are in very deep shit thanks to Fox Noose:
Hey, if the "lamestream" physics doesn't work, then invent your own, Folks News:
Bastardi claimed that the idea of manmade global warming is incompatible with the laws of physics.
All in a day's work!
The bad news is that as a news junkie, I watch Jon Stewart and Colbert who watch, digest, and spit out the best moments from the (un)Fair and (un)Balanced network.
When even the folks at Scientific American begin to write about Faux News, well, we are in very deep shit thanks to Fox Noose:
On the August 6 edition of Fox and Friends Saturday, the hosts interviewed Joe Bastardi—whom they introduced as “chief meteorologist at WeatherBell”—on global warming.
Before introducing Bastardi the hosts said that the global warming debate was heating up “after a new NASA study seems to debunk whether it’s actually manmade.” No further details were provided. Instead, as evidence the hosts provided the results of a poll. But presumably the Fox presenters were referring to a study that has created a lot of controversy and media hype.
The most jarring part however came later, when Bastardi commented that he didn’t believe CO2 emissions could ever affect the climate. Unfortunately, Bastardi’s argument was based on what seemed to be poor understanding of basic physics, including thermodynamics and atmospheric physics.
Hey, if the "lamestream" physics doesn't work, then invent your own, Folks News:
Bastardi claimed that the idea of manmade global warming is incompatible with the laws of physics.
“[Saying that CO2 could affect the climate] contradicts what we call the first law of thermodynamics: energy can never be created nor destroyed,” Bastardi said. “So, to look for an input of energy into the atmosphere you have to come from a foreign source.” His prepared remarks were accompanied by screens that seemed to display an intent from the TV show to be pedagogical.
The first law of thermodynamics does indeed guarantee conservation of energy. And the CO2 injected into the atmosphere does not carry energy with it—or rather, it does, because matter always carries energy, but not in a way that would raise temperatures significantly, if at all. But no one has ever claimed that CO2 would raise temperature by itself. Putting it this way is a grotesque distortion of what climatologists say.
What climate science says is not that CO2 carries energy into the atmosphere or somehow magically generates it out of nowhere. Instead, it says that CO2 and other gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat from escaping into space. This, as Bastardi should know, is called the greenhouse effect.
All in a day's work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)