I picked this song for three reasons. First, I have never posted an Allman Brothers song, which is just wrong. Second, it has amazing guitar work by Duane Allman and Dickey Betts. Third, it is about a man who is about to get caught cheating.
About a year ago, I started writing education related essays in the hopes of compiling a book someday. When I told people that I was enjoying this new writing hobby, some suggested that I should start a blog. While recognizing that this would be an easy way to get my writing out there, I also thought that blogs were a strange concept. You write all of this stuff, and then you give it away for free. Why would people ever pay you to write what they can get for nothing, and what’s to stop people from just taking your words and/or ideas and publishing them as their own? In theory, of course, you could “monetize” your blog, and if you ever got a decent amount of traffic, it could turn into a little money. Also, in theory, people are not supposed to steal your work. Blogs are copyright protected, and there are tools to search the web in order to find out if someone is posting your words. Proving that someone took your ideas, however, could be a bit tricky. Still, I decided to plow forward about eight months ago. After all, how else could a person with no writing experience get himself so easily “published”? I could have kept my ideas “secret” until a book was put together. The odds, however, of an unknown essay writer like me finding a willing publisher and paying readers seemed pretty slim. And so here I am, having a great time sending my thoughts out into “the cloud.”
A couple of days ago, I joined “Hubpages,” a popular site where millions of users share articles with one another. After a couple of days of posting “hubs” and of doing a little browsing in order to see how the site works, I am thinking that it may be a better platform than this blog for sharing some of my stuff. (Here's a link to my profile.) There was a little problem, however. For three of the four hubs that I posted, I received a “duplicate” warning. This was not a big surprise or major issue. After all, everything that I posted had previously appeared on this blog, and posting duplicates is not against their rules. The only problem, apparently, is that it lowers something called your “hubscore.” So I decided to email the site and let them know what was happening. When I received their reply, however, I found out to my surprise that my posts were duplicates from two sites: first my blog, which I expected; and second, some mystery site with a business sounding name. Out of curiosity, I clicked on the link that they sent me, and there was one of my blog posts, copied word for word on to some site called “Finance / Go for Gold.” After doing a little browsing on this mystery site, two things became clear: there was no source or author listed for any of the works on the site, and this was not the only one of my posts copied. It turns out that this site had posted practically everything on this blog that was related to either politics or economics. (Here’s a link to the site and one of my copied posts.)
My reactions varied. On the one hand, I was a little bit flattered. No one, after all, had ever cared enough to plagiarize me. I also noticed that some of my posts had a fair number of clicks, so some people out there are unknowingly reading my words. (Of course, the site looks kind of crappy, so I’m not that flattered.) But on the other hand, this was a confirmation of my previously stated fears. I have been chasing this crazy dream that writing could become a second career of sorts, supplementing my inconsistent adjunct faculty income. Meanwhile, here is a site (from China apparently) trying to benefit in some way from my hard work. How am I supposed to get off of the ground if people can so easily steal my stuff? I guess that this is what people mean when they say that they “feel violated.” Luckily, I have not been the victim of any kind of significant theft in my life, so this is a little shock to the system. And I can’t help wondering if there are plenty of other characters out there doing this kind of thing to myself and to other hard-working bloggers in the world.
I have now been officially welcomed to the internet age. Like everything else, the World Wide Web can be a great tool for good or evil. It creates unlimited opportunities for people to communicate. Some use it to publish their thoughts, start legitimate businesses, and find others who share their interests. Others use it to break copyright laws, post disgusting videos, and plan terrorist attacks.
I’m still pondering my next course of action. My first priority is to get that duplicate warning removed from my “hubs.” From corresponding with the “Hubspace” people, it seems that they are probably willing to do it. Most likely, I will start focusing more of my attention on that site when posting in-depth, longer essays on history, politics, and more academic topics. Future would be plagiarizers might be more reluctant to copy material from such a well-visited site. “Hubspaces” has also been nice enough to give me some courses of action for dealing with copyright infringement. If there are any internet experts or lawyers out there, I am open to suggestions. And if you are a blogger who writes on political or economic topics, you might want to click on the link to “Finance / Go for Gold.” Who knows? Your words may be more “famous” than you are, and you may even be helping someone else earn a little money.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
The Future of Energy
This Billy Joel song from the 1970's speculates about what may be going on in the United States in 2017.
I do not envy President Obama or anyone else who has ever held or will someday hold his job. As presidents go, he has been particularly unlucky, inheriting one hell of a mess. He has been in continual crisis mode from the day of his election, with multiple problems forcing him to do some serious multitasking: health care, recession, budget deficit, financial reform, two wars, financial reform, immigration, climate change, oil spill, and the list goes on. Confronting one problem – health care - can make another problem – budget deficit - worse, and any policies he supports are bound to anger interest groups or political factions who feel that these actions might harm them. The complexity of the problems and his limited control over legislation will cause him, like all presidents, to be judged by circumstances largely beyond his control. If the economy picks up significantly by 2012, he might get reelected. If it does not, then he is probably toast. Presidents, like all politicians, are judged by short-term results.
But if President Obama asked me (for some reason) to pick the most important issue of our time, I would answer with one word: energy. Our industrial and technological society, with its mechanized and increasingly computerized systems of production, communication, and transportation, relies completely on a steady supply of affordable energy. If the energy distribution system breaks down, we are all screwed. And if you look at my list of problems in the first paragraph, the question of whether or not we are able to keep producing and distributing affordable energy is relevant to just about every issue. So the choices that are made in this area, in my mind, are the key to humanity’s future.
A few days ago, I was listening to a podcast of the June 30 episode of “Fresh Air” on NPR. The guess was Michael Klare, a correspondent with “The Nation,” who has written extensively on the economics and politics of oil production. ( Here's a link) His basic argument was that the age of “easy oil” has ended, and we are now in the age of “tough oil.” If we are to continue with an economic system reliant on petroleum production, then a country like the United States has two options. First, we can turn to locations that still have oil that is relatively easy to access. The problem is that the known locations of “easy oil” are in places ruled by governments that the United States has considered, to say the least, “undesirable”: Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. This has caused the U.S. to either tolerate lousy governments (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia) or take actions to either undermine or topple them (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc.). Many would argue, of course, that neither course of action has been particularly desirable.
A second course of action is politically more desirable in some ways but poses another significant problem. Large amounts of oil exist deep under the ocean, in the Arctic, or in rock known as shale. Some of this exists in the United States, in America-friendly places like Canada, or in ocean waters that are nearby or open. The problem is that the process of extracting this oil can be extremely expensive and/or dangerous due to geologic and/or geographic difficulties and hazards. The BP oil spill, of course, is the most publicized recent example of what can happen when operating in a difficult environment.
Now some would argue that as oil extraction technology improves, the costs and dangers of getting to this “tough oil” will gradually decrease. Who knows; they may be proven right. But others, including Michael Klare, would argue that it is time to begin a major push toward energy alternatives. In his mind, the dangers and potential environmental damage of getting to the tough oil are too high, and if the climate change people are right, then we need to start reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. But on what energy alternative(s) should we focus our investment: solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, lithium batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or all of the above? At the moment, the available “alternative” energy technologies are not going to meet our present demands. In addition, energy companies have invested massive amounts of money into the current infrastructure of fossil fuel extraction and distribution. The decision to shift significantly toward investment in other alternatives would make all of that previous investment seem like a waste. So instead, they assure us that technological advances will help them to keep producing plenty of fossil fuels, and the threat of climate change, of course, is either fabricated or exaggerated.
Everyone can agree on one thing. Science and technology got us into this situation, but they are also the only hope for the future prosperity of our species. The only question is whether we will come up with improved methods for maintaining the status quo or innovative new technologies that are cost efficient, sustainable over the long run, and hopefully, a whole lot cleaner. When in doubt, the natural human tendency is to maintain the status quo. The present setup, with all of its problems, is often less scary than an uncertain future. For the moment, fossil fuels still seem to be the cheapest way to go. A radical shift toward a new energy future would probably involve major sacrifices in terms of economic growth and standard of living over the short-term. But if environmentalists and some economists are right, then we have already reached a point where the long-term costs of the status quo outweigh its benefits. Unfortunately, since politicians tend to think about the next election, and voters tend to want what is best for them right now, short-term benefits seem more important than “theoretical” long-term consequences. Just ask President Obama or anyone else who has ever done his job.
I do not envy President Obama or anyone else who has ever held or will someday hold his job. As presidents go, he has been particularly unlucky, inheriting one hell of a mess. He has been in continual crisis mode from the day of his election, with multiple problems forcing him to do some serious multitasking: health care, recession, budget deficit, financial reform, two wars, financial reform, immigration, climate change, oil spill, and the list goes on. Confronting one problem – health care - can make another problem – budget deficit - worse, and any policies he supports are bound to anger interest groups or political factions who feel that these actions might harm them. The complexity of the problems and his limited control over legislation will cause him, like all presidents, to be judged by circumstances largely beyond his control. If the economy picks up significantly by 2012, he might get reelected. If it does not, then he is probably toast. Presidents, like all politicians, are judged by short-term results.
But if President Obama asked me (for some reason) to pick the most important issue of our time, I would answer with one word: energy. Our industrial and technological society, with its mechanized and increasingly computerized systems of production, communication, and transportation, relies completely on a steady supply of affordable energy. If the energy distribution system breaks down, we are all screwed. And if you look at my list of problems in the first paragraph, the question of whether or not we are able to keep producing and distributing affordable energy is relevant to just about every issue. So the choices that are made in this area, in my mind, are the key to humanity’s future.
A few days ago, I was listening to a podcast of the June 30 episode of “Fresh Air” on NPR. The guess was Michael Klare, a correspondent with “The Nation,” who has written extensively on the economics and politics of oil production. ( Here's a link) His basic argument was that the age of “easy oil” has ended, and we are now in the age of “tough oil.” If we are to continue with an economic system reliant on petroleum production, then a country like the United States has two options. First, we can turn to locations that still have oil that is relatively easy to access. The problem is that the known locations of “easy oil” are in places ruled by governments that the United States has considered, to say the least, “undesirable”: Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc. This has caused the U.S. to either tolerate lousy governments (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia) or take actions to either undermine or topple them (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc.). Many would argue, of course, that neither course of action has been particularly desirable.
A second course of action is politically more desirable in some ways but poses another significant problem. Large amounts of oil exist deep under the ocean, in the Arctic, or in rock known as shale. Some of this exists in the United States, in America-friendly places like Canada, or in ocean waters that are nearby or open. The problem is that the process of extracting this oil can be extremely expensive and/or dangerous due to geologic and/or geographic difficulties and hazards. The BP oil spill, of course, is the most publicized recent example of what can happen when operating in a difficult environment.
Now some would argue that as oil extraction technology improves, the costs and dangers of getting to this “tough oil” will gradually decrease. Who knows; they may be proven right. But others, including Michael Klare, would argue that it is time to begin a major push toward energy alternatives. In his mind, the dangers and potential environmental damage of getting to the tough oil are too high, and if the climate change people are right, then we need to start reducing our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. But on what energy alternative(s) should we focus our investment: solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, lithium batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or all of the above? At the moment, the available “alternative” energy technologies are not going to meet our present demands. In addition, energy companies have invested massive amounts of money into the current infrastructure of fossil fuel extraction and distribution. The decision to shift significantly toward investment in other alternatives would make all of that previous investment seem like a waste. So instead, they assure us that technological advances will help them to keep producing plenty of fossil fuels, and the threat of climate change, of course, is either fabricated or exaggerated.
Everyone can agree on one thing. Science and technology got us into this situation, but they are also the only hope for the future prosperity of our species. The only question is whether we will come up with improved methods for maintaining the status quo or innovative new technologies that are cost efficient, sustainable over the long run, and hopefully, a whole lot cleaner. When in doubt, the natural human tendency is to maintain the status quo. The present setup, with all of its problems, is often less scary than an uncertain future. For the moment, fossil fuels still seem to be the cheapest way to go. A radical shift toward a new energy future would probably involve major sacrifices in terms of economic growth and standard of living over the short-term. But if environmentalists and some economists are right, then we have already reached a point where the long-term costs of the status quo outweigh its benefits. Unfortunately, since politicians tend to think about the next election, and voters tend to want what is best for them right now, short-term benefits seem more important than “theoretical” long-term consequences. Just ask President Obama or anyone else who has ever done his job.
We Need Investment, not Speculation
This classic speaks for itself.
I recognize that the stock market and the real estate industry play vital roles in generating income, creating jobs, mobilizing capital, and improving our future prospects for retirement. It is unhealthy, however, to have an economy where too much investment goes into these potentially speculative activities. “Flipping” a house or selling stock transfers income; these actions do not produce wealth over the long haul. We need innovators who develop valuable goods and services and financial institutions that have the foresight to invest in them. Who will be the next Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, or Steve Jobs? God help us if minds like these innovators get too busy analyzing the market or creating the successor to the “Collateralized Debt Obligation.”
If you want to know someone’s political ideology, just ask him or her why we are in this economic mess. A conservative will be happy to complain about President Obama and his liberal, Democratic buddies. Because of these liberals, the economy is being held back by excessive taxes, regulations, and public debt. People are spooked both by the situation at the moment and by the future impact of health care reform, financial regulation, and a potential “cap and trade” energy policy. Consumers are afraid to spend, and private industry is nervous about investing in an unpredictable environment with a likely future of complicated, burdensome, government rules.
Those liberal Democrats, of course, tell a different story. They emphasize that President Obama inherited a mess left over by the previous administration that has no simple, quick fix. Years of lax regulation and shortsighted tax policies that favored the rich led to a financial implosion, massive public debt, and an average American consumer with limited purchasing power. Immediately upon entering office, the President was compelled to propose, create or inherit bank bailouts, a stimulus package, new financial regulations, and long overdue reforms of health care and energy policy. These drastic, necessary responses to a crisis have made it easy for Republicans to attack him as a promoter of big government. So for primarily political reasons, they say no to everything that he proposes. Clearly, it is unfair to blame a guy for not fixing an inherited problem when the opposition has done everything it can to block his proposed solutions.
There is something to be said for both of these perspectives. Personally, I am not very impressed by either party. Our nation clearly faces systemic political problems that cannot be blamed on any one party. Still, I also believe that we give either too much credit or blame to politicians for the economic health of the nation. To a large degree, the economy has a life of its own. Policies can matter, but political success is often a question of luck. You just hope that your political party is in charge when the economy is in an upswing and out of power during the bad times.
I am not an economist, but I am forced to discuss economic issues frequently during the course of my history classes. This has been particularly true during these last few, extraordinary years. I have tried as best I can to make sense out of this current situation, and from what I can gather, the recent financial crisis and lingering economic troubles are largely the result of the decisions of both private industry and of individual Americans. Banks and other financial institutions made a lot of bad loans, and many Americans were more than willing to take those loans to get into homes that they could in no way afford. Neither political party denies this obvious truth. Republicans, however, tend to blame the borrowers for being foolish enough to take on risky loans and the government for aggressively promoting home ownership. Democrats, on the other hand, blame financial institutions for “predatory lending” and the government for its poor regulation of banks and the real estate industry. Whatever the case, the behavior of the years preceding the crisis demonstrate a problem that runs deeper than some bad home loans.
For many years, some of the greatest minds – and many lesser ones - in America have been drawn to the financial sector. They have gone there to apply their considerable intelligence and technical expertise to two activities: speculation and financial engineering. Some have studied the stock market using complex mathematical and statistical models in an attempt to “buy low and sell high.” Others created complex financial products that they claimed could eliminate the risks from lending and investing. Pools of thousands of mortgages or other types of debt were compiled, and investors would theoretically get a consistent return from these “Mortgage Backed Securities” when borrowers made their payments. Since so many mortgages were lumped together, you could theoretically predict with some certainty how many borrowers were likely to default and therefore eliminate the risk. The problem was that the people originating the loans often did not care if the borrowers had any hope of paying. These brokers, after all, planned to quickly sell the loans to the institutions creating the pools. Home prices became inflated by all of the easy credit, housing speculation became increasingly common, the real estate industry became overgrown, and a false illusion of prosperity resulted from the “bubble,” leading people to spend beyond their actual means.
When many of these loans inevitably began to go bad, all sorts of banks and financial institutions were stuck with these financial instruments, and no one knew what they were worth because few understood them. This ultimately led to mass panic, the financial bailouts, a decline in home prices, and lingering economic hardship. Now I don’t know enough about trading in complex derivatives to give advice on what should be done in this area. My gut tells me that it should either be outlawed or heavily regulated, but what the hell do I know. I can say with some confidence, however, that there are probably more productive things that great minds can be doing than inventing complicated instruments or models for turning money into more money.
What if more money was invested into the creation of actual goods and services instead of pure speculation? What if great minds were focused on innovative products rather than revolutionary investment strategies? To my simplistic economic mind, it seems that our nation would be better off. We live in an increasingly competitive world, and the winning nations will not be the ones that have the best financial engineers who create short-term profits for their investors and themselves. Bankers play a vital role in our economy, but in the end, great innovators and entrepreneurs have played the most significant role in our nation’s prosperity. Americans either invented or played the dominant role in the development of the telephone, electric light, television, personal computer, internet, and countless other life-changing technologies that have produced massive wealth and job opportunities. So where will the next great innovations come from?
Right now, banks and many private companies are sitting on an enormous amount of money. Some of this is the result of improvements in efficiency, productivity, and efforts to scale back the quantity of goods and risky behavior from the inflated, “bubble” years. Consumers are also keeping their wallets shut somewhat due to fears about the uncertain future. In the end, productive investment from the private sector is the key to getting us out of the hole. The government is strapped, and it has historically shown little capacity to efficiently produce innovative goods and services that the public demands. If anything, politicians should be thinking of creative ideas for encouraging investment into the development of innovative products and ideas. When jobs in industries with long-term viability are created, then consumers will once again have money to spend. The trick is convincing banks and companies that it is time to start lending, investing, and expanding once again.
Vacation, pt.1: Wide Open Spaces
Here's a scene and song from one of the many great Disney/Pixar movies: "Cars."
I wrote this two nights ago, but I did not have any internet access until I arrived home today.
Our family typically goes on two types of vacations. First, there is the type where we travel to one location, stay there for several days, and mix rest and relaxation with some local attractions and activities. Then, there is the more ambitious undertaking that we are currently enjoying and will soon be ending. As I start writing this post, we are at the Grand Canyon Lodge right on the north rim of the canyon. (If it were not pitch black outside right now, I would be staring out the window at an amazing view of the canyon.) This stop was preceded by a couple of days in Las Vegas, a quick trip through Zion Canyon, and then a night and half day at Bryce Canyon.
After a day of hikes, sightseeing, and ranger presentations, I am hiding away at the lodge to get in a little late night writing. (I couldn’t sleep last night anyway.) It’s been a fun trip, but I have reached the point where I am about ready to get home. I’m missing some of my normal routine, particularly racquetball and my standard internet activities. Staying in motels is also getting me a little stir crazy. You don’t realize how dependent you have become on the world wide web and on physical space until you spend a few days “cut off” from civilization, living in a single room. The phrase “comforts of home” takes on a deeper meaning after days of travel.
Driving around through parts of four states in six days can get a bit exhausting and monotonous, particularly when exposed to a steady dose of Hannah Montana and The Jonas Brothers. One cool thing about this kind of a trip, however, is that you get a better feel for the layout of this amazing country in which I live. The American Southwest so often conjures up images of nothing but deserts and barren landscapes. And while we have seen plenty of shrubs and cacti, we have also gone through forests; seen some amazing canyons, mountains and cliffs - and I’m not just talking about the national parks; and driven through green plains and meadows.
The most distinctive quality of the land, however, and something that I always notice while taking these kinds of trips, is emptiness. The overwhelming majority of the landscapes we have seen are basically devoid of people. It’s amazing how quickly your idea of what constitutes a city can change when driving through mile after mile of nothingness. Suddenly, if you see a few houses and businesses, you feel like you have once again rejoined civilization. In Southern California, there is no way in hell that one of these little conglomerations of buildings would even register as being remotely urban. But when out on the open road, a town of 500 is a major population center. And if a town has a real supermarket, a Starbucks, or a Wal-Mart, then it is clearly a thriving metropolis.
Rural environments and general emptiness are still pretty common in the United States. Amazingly, even through our population has increased tremendously over the last one hundred years, there is almost as much empty space today as there was in the early twentieth century. This is because we Americans, like people in all industrialized societies, have a habit of packing into huge cities. As people have become increasingly dependent on commerce to survive, they have been compelled to live in cities. After all, if you rely on trade, then you are forced to live near other people with whom you need to trade.
When the United States was first developing in the nineteenth century, people saw the “empty” lands on the western frontier as a great blessing for our nation. If problems like overcrowding, unemployment, homelessness, or shortages of land and resources developed, then people could look to the west for new opportunities. This was why some Americans were nervous at the end of the 1800’s when it seemed that the frontier was gone. Without this “safety valve” to ease tensions in the more settled, urbanized areas, our country would lose its uniqueness. We would no longer truly be the land of opportunity, and we would develop the kinds of problems seen in the more developed parts of Europe.
Clearly, these fears were largely unfounded. The idea that struggling Americans living in urban areas needed the frontier is clearly a myth. People are not leaving the cities to flock to the frontier. If anything, the opposite has been happening for decades. Southern California, in spite of all of its problems, continues to snowball in population. Meanwhile, states like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming and several others are filled with cheap land and wide-open spaces. Some of this can be attributed to geography. Southern California has access to the ocean and nice weather. Montana, of course, is landlocked and gets freaking cold. But this is also part of a general American and global trend in which most human beings are compelled to cluster into urban areas.
So in a sense, the American frontier never actually disappeared. It is still out there. I’ve seen quite a bit of it in my travels over the years. But most Americans, from what I can gather, are not itching to move there. Maybe the increasing importance of the internet will play some role in reversing this trend. If people can sell goods and services on-line rather than in person, then they can theoretically live anywhere. A certain amount of human concentration, however, seems inevitable. Certain business transactions must still happen face-to-face, and goods and materials will continue to flow through urban centers that thrive due to their location. Plus, large cities are like a magnet, sucking people in to do business with those who are already there.
I always tell my students that they should get the heck out of California when they graduate from college and get some cheap land out in North Dakota. I then assure them that I will keep an eye on things for them out here in Orange County. The frontier is a nice place to visit from time to time, but I don’t know if I could live there. I’m spoiled by Southern California weather, and a teaching job in a “town” of 150 might not pay very well. So I better get off to bed. For tomorrow, we will leave this iconic symbol of the American frontier and head back toward Southern California, iconic symbol of the modern age.
I wrote this two nights ago, but I did not have any internet access until I arrived home today.
Our family typically goes on two types of vacations. First, there is the type where we travel to one location, stay there for several days, and mix rest and relaxation with some local attractions and activities. Then, there is the more ambitious undertaking that we are currently enjoying and will soon be ending. As I start writing this post, we are at the Grand Canyon Lodge right on the north rim of the canyon. (If it were not pitch black outside right now, I would be staring out the window at an amazing view of the canyon.) This stop was preceded by a couple of days in Las Vegas, a quick trip through Zion Canyon, and then a night and half day at Bryce Canyon.
After a day of hikes, sightseeing, and ranger presentations, I am hiding away at the lodge to get in a little late night writing. (I couldn’t sleep last night anyway.) It’s been a fun trip, but I have reached the point where I am about ready to get home. I’m missing some of my normal routine, particularly racquetball and my standard internet activities. Staying in motels is also getting me a little stir crazy. You don’t realize how dependent you have become on the world wide web and on physical space until you spend a few days “cut off” from civilization, living in a single room. The phrase “comforts of home” takes on a deeper meaning after days of travel.
Driving around through parts of four states in six days can get a bit exhausting and monotonous, particularly when exposed to a steady dose of Hannah Montana and The Jonas Brothers. One cool thing about this kind of a trip, however, is that you get a better feel for the layout of this amazing country in which I live. The American Southwest so often conjures up images of nothing but deserts and barren landscapes. And while we have seen plenty of shrubs and cacti, we have also gone through forests; seen some amazing canyons, mountains and cliffs - and I’m not just talking about the national parks; and driven through green plains and meadows.
The most distinctive quality of the land, however, and something that I always notice while taking these kinds of trips, is emptiness. The overwhelming majority of the landscapes we have seen are basically devoid of people. It’s amazing how quickly your idea of what constitutes a city can change when driving through mile after mile of nothingness. Suddenly, if you see a few houses and businesses, you feel like you have once again rejoined civilization. In Southern California, there is no way in hell that one of these little conglomerations of buildings would even register as being remotely urban. But when out on the open road, a town of 500 is a major population center. And if a town has a real supermarket, a Starbucks, or a Wal-Mart, then it is clearly a thriving metropolis.
Rural environments and general emptiness are still pretty common in the United States. Amazingly, even through our population has increased tremendously over the last one hundred years, there is almost as much empty space today as there was in the early twentieth century. This is because we Americans, like people in all industrialized societies, have a habit of packing into huge cities. As people have become increasingly dependent on commerce to survive, they have been compelled to live in cities. After all, if you rely on trade, then you are forced to live near other people with whom you need to trade.
When the United States was first developing in the nineteenth century, people saw the “empty” lands on the western frontier as a great blessing for our nation. If problems like overcrowding, unemployment, homelessness, or shortages of land and resources developed, then people could look to the west for new opportunities. This was why some Americans were nervous at the end of the 1800’s when it seemed that the frontier was gone. Without this “safety valve” to ease tensions in the more settled, urbanized areas, our country would lose its uniqueness. We would no longer truly be the land of opportunity, and we would develop the kinds of problems seen in the more developed parts of Europe.
Clearly, these fears were largely unfounded. The idea that struggling Americans living in urban areas needed the frontier is clearly a myth. People are not leaving the cities to flock to the frontier. If anything, the opposite has been happening for decades. Southern California, in spite of all of its problems, continues to snowball in population. Meanwhile, states like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming and several others are filled with cheap land and wide-open spaces. Some of this can be attributed to geography. Southern California has access to the ocean and nice weather. Montana, of course, is landlocked and gets freaking cold. But this is also part of a general American and global trend in which most human beings are compelled to cluster into urban areas.
So in a sense, the American frontier never actually disappeared. It is still out there. I’ve seen quite a bit of it in my travels over the years. But most Americans, from what I can gather, are not itching to move there. Maybe the increasing importance of the internet will play some role in reversing this trend. If people can sell goods and services on-line rather than in person, then they can theoretically live anywhere. A certain amount of human concentration, however, seems inevitable. Certain business transactions must still happen face-to-face, and goods and materials will continue to flow through urban centers that thrive due to their location. Plus, large cities are like a magnet, sucking people in to do business with those who are already there.
I always tell my students that they should get the heck out of California when they graduate from college and get some cheap land out in North Dakota. I then assure them that I will keep an eye on things for them out here in Orange County. The frontier is a nice place to visit from time to time, but I don’t know if I could live there. I’m spoiled by Southern California weather, and a teaching job in a “town” of 150 might not pay very well. So I better get off to bed. For tomorrow, we will leave this iconic symbol of the American frontier and head back toward Southern California, iconic symbol of the modern age.
Las Vegas: Shining Symbol of the U.S.A
Here's on old song by Ray Charles about a typical victim of Las Vegas.
I know all of this, and yet off we go. So how do I justify this behavior? Ultimately, I recognize that dark forces are out there no matter where you go. At least in Vegas, this reality is somewhat out in the open. Also, Las Vegas may be the ultimate symbol of my flawed, fascinating, frustrating, fun loving, “f_ _ _ ed up,” freedom loving country. The United States is a land of excess, and Las Vegas – not New York City, Hollywood, or Washington DC – may be the best place to find out what makes Americans tick. It’s educational, and hopefully, I can score a good buffet or two. Of course, in order to maintain my integrity, I will read my anti-Vegas book a little at the resort. I’ll have to keep an eye out, however, in order to make sure that “The Mafia” is not watching.
We have decided on the destinations for our summer vacation this year. We are going to spend a couple of days in Las Vegas, then go up to Bryce Canyon for a day, and last but not least, stay for a couple of nights at a lodge right on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. The kids are excited because it will be the first time that they will travel outside of the state of California. What they find most exciting, however, will be the chance to get free ice cream on the way to Vegas at the Dairy Queen owned by their uncle. One of the great things about kids is their ability to get excited about the little things.
I am ready to go out and hit the open road as well. The only problem, however, is that I am feeling a little guilty about the Vegas part of the trip. This is not because I am planning on indulging in all of the sins for which the city is well known. Gambling has never been my thing anyway, and this is a family trip, after all. The plan is to hang out at a fancy resort and show our kids a little bit of the ridiculous spectacle of the city with all of its bright lights and gigantic buildings. My guilt instead comes from knowing the historical origins, economic foundation, and environmental impact of this crazy place sitting out in the middle of nowhere.
At a used book sale a few weeks ago, I found some good history books, one of which was called, “The Money and the Power: The Making of Las Vegas and its Hold on America.” In honor of our upcoming trip, I decided that I should read this book first. I have read about 1/3 of it so far, and I already have a good understanding of the author’s basic thesis. Ever since Las Vegas started to build up in a significant way during the 1930’s and 1940’s, it has been financed, owned, and operated by organized crime networks. Nevada, a state that was going nowhere, turned to legalized vice in the early 1930’s as a means of developing its economy. Gambling was illegal in other states at the time, and the end of prohibition dried up bootlegging activities, so Nevada became a Mecca for people looking to make money from “sin.” In a sense, the state of Nevada sold its soul to the devil, and Las Vegas evolved into a national capital not only for gambling but also for laundering the money earned throughout the nation from selling drugs and conducting other illicit activities.
The connection of Las Vegas to organized crime is one of the best-known “secrets” in the United States. What this book seeks to emphasize, however, is the degree to which Las Vegas is the central place in organized crime networks that permeate life throughout the entire country (and world), with public officials being complicit in all of these activities. Meyer Lansky, the man who ran much of the national crime “syndicate” in the early 20th century and who helped finance the build up of Vegas, learned two things early in life: public officials can be bought, and the only people who make consistent money in gambling are the ones who control the game.
While many people are aware on some level of the “dark history” of this city, I get the feeling that few are really bothered by it. This may be partly because they either fail to realize or refuse to believe how powerful organized crime figures really are. I would also argue, however, that Vegas’ connection to organized crime is part of its appeal. The city sells itself, after all, as a fantasyland where anything goes: “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” It’s a place where you can be bad, and we all know that bad is fun. The fact that the “baddest” people in the land built it adds to the mystique.
Now while some may be able to ignore or deny the dark forces behind the city of Vegas, it is impossible to be unaware of its environmental impact. Here is a city in the middle of a desert wasteland that is filled with huge, air-conditioned casino hotels; giant water fountains; perfectly manicured golf courses; and the brightest glowing lights on planet earth. So where does all of this energy and water come from? How is the environment of the areas that supply Vegas impacted by this mass diversion of water and electric power? Is this an efficient use of resources, particularly in a God-forsaken environment like this?
Las Vegas, from what I can gather, makes no economic and environmental sense. Once again, however, this may be part of the appeal. It is the ultimate example of a magic oasis in the desert, a place where you can escape reality and indulge yourself a little (or a lot). This city produces no tangible commodity. It does little - if anything - to benefit the nation, and it probably does many things that harm us all. Las Vegas’ main commodity is an image of itself, and its primary goal is to suck us into that image and separate us from our money. It’s a business model that is all about taking and leaving nothing tangible in return. (It’s even worse than Wall Street.)
You Can't Put a Price on Free Time
Here's an old Louis Armstrong song that captures the sentiment in this post:
For some, retirement will be the time in life when they get to recapture the feeling of summer vacation. Personally, I don’t want to wait that long. The truth is that I may never get a shot at retirement. After all, I have a pension with the state of California, a fact that hardly gives teachers like me considerable comfort. This is why I imagine myself teaching when I am 90, reminiscing about the good old days way back in the 2020’s. And to be honest, if my body and brain are still in decent shape at that time, I wouldn’t mind teaching a few classes to stay both productive and sharp. But even if I were someone sitting around dreaming of retirement, I would have the nagging sense that both my life and the lives of my children were flying by while I was working nine-to-five (or more). So even if we have to do without some “necessities” due to lack of funds, or if I have to work until I resemble a fossil, I will be blessed by living this fantasy life in which almost every day provides a little taste of summer vacation.
For a person living in the United States, the word “summer” brings up many common images: sweat, barbeques, cold beer, baseball, surfing, bikinis. For a kid growing up in America, however, the dominant feeling associated with summer has to be “freedom.” Summer as a child is one of the few times in life when a person has an extended period of time when there is nothing that he or she is obligated to do. To a certain degree, I have spent my entire adult life trying to recapture that feeling as often as possible.
One of the blessings of being a teacher is that I get to experience that feeling of freedom, to a certain degree, every summer and winter break. It’s not quite the same as childhood. Even without work, there are always plenty of things that need to get done. But still, the moment when my final grades are turned in is similar to the last day of school as a kid or to the completion of that last final exam as a college student. A weight is lifted off of your chest, and the distant horizon seems filled with stress-free moments.
As a college teacher, I am particularly blessed with free time. Even during the school year, life is not a day-to-day grind of the same old routine. Part of the reason that I liked being a college student so much more than a high school prisoner was that the classes were scattered around, leaving much more room for flexibility in day-to-day life. So college teaching, for me, is a way to avoid growing up completely.
The downside, however, of my part-time, “freeway flying,” college professor life is the lack of a high, consistent income. We have gotten by OK for the last nine years, but we are nowhere near being rich, and I don’t anticipate a flood of cash coming our way any time soon. Truth be told, I have never been particularly motivated by a desire to get rich. It’s not that I am some kind of an ascetic or anti-materialistic hippy. If colleges decided to pay me more, I would happily take it. And if I won the lottery or hit the mega-jackpot in Vegas one day – both of which would be a challenge since I don’t gamble - then I would be dancing in the streets. My desire to have more money, however, is not rooted in dreams of accumulating all kinds of wasteful, luxurious crap. In my mind, the greatest thing about having lots of money would be the freedom from obligation that this wealth would provide. I could work almost entirely on my own terms, and I would have plenty of time to enjoy the many things that life has to offer.
I want to make enough money to provide my family with the basic necessities of life: nice house, good food, attractive enough clothing, quality education, high speed internet, DirecTV. Beyond the basics, however, the greatest thing that I can give my family is time. If you ask children whether they would rather have parents who had more money to buy them lots of stuff or parents who spent a lot of time with them, I could make a strong, educated guess about the answer that you will usually hear. I can also say with some confidence that few people are ever laying on their deathbed wishing that they had just worked a little more so that they could have more material possessions around them when they die.
Oil Spills and Greece's Ills
Here's a classic environmentalist song by Joni Mitchell. (She wrote it, not the Counting Crows.)
At times like these, I am reminded of why I am neither a devoted liberal nor a staunch conservative. Two of the biggest stories of the last few weeks have been the oil spill off of the Gulf Coast and the debt crisis in Greece. And while I do not pretend to be a person who fully understands the causes of these crises, I do recognize that each political faction, if it plays its cards right, can use one of these events as ammunition for pushing its views.
Liberal environmentalists would seem to have things easy these days. In order to demonstrate just how dangerous offshore oil drilling, weak business regulations, and an economy dependent on fossil fuels can be, all that they have to do is point people to the TV screen. The sobering fact is that the worst may be yet to come. Oil is still gushing in from under the ocean, British Petroleum’s various strategies for containing the spill keep failing, and we don’t know exactly what the impact will be when, where, or if the oil slick reaches the shore. Personally, I do not have a lot of faith in BP’s ability to “fix” this problem. They have had a string of recent disasters that many attribute to their tendency to cut costs whenever possible. I also question their willingness to pay reparations to those who will ultimately be harmed by this catastrophe. A disaster like this cannot simply be measured in financial terms anyway, and the environmental damage in some cases may be irreversible.
President Obama has said in the past that our economy needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels. Conveniently enough, when the spill occurred, Congress was revisiting once again the energy reform bill that has been languishing in Washington. If he is the liberal that many claim him to be, then he should be jumping all over this opportunity. Unfortunately for him, this spill has mostly created problems. Shortly before the spill, he officially supported for the first time the expansion of offshore oil drilling. Needless to say, this was not the greatest timing in the world. It is also in his interest to minimize the extent of the disaster. He does not, after all, want this to be his version of Hurricane Katrina. The fact that this oil spill was the result of oil industry incompetence while the Katrina fiasco was a combination of natural disaster and government incompetence will not stop Obama’s opponents from trying to pin this thing on him. It’s an effective way for the “drill, baby, drill” people to divert attention away from their own culpability.
Finally, President Obama has some big political battles ahead in dealing with financial regulation, immigration reform, and the budget deficit. And as anyone not blinded by political ideology has realized, President Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist. He wants to get things done, and he is willing to make compromises with powerful interests to do so. (See his proposal for expanded oil drilling and the health care bill, among other things.) In this partisan political climate, does he want to take on the oil sector with all of its economic and political clout? Ultimately, it may be public opinion that is the most important factor. And if public reactions to past oil spills can be used as a guide, then we are unlikely to see major changes to prevent future environmental catastrophes and to lessen our continuing dependence on fossil fuels. We tend to have a short memory, and many Americans have accepted occasional environmental disasters as an inevitable part of producing and distributing a resource that makes our lifestyle possible.
Conservatives would be wise to divert public attention to Greece, a country that has become the poster child for inefficient, bloated, overstretched government. As Greece teetered toward bankruptcy, there was a fear that a financial panic could result that would be reminiscent of Lehman Brothers’ collapse a couple of years ago. Only in this case, the problem was public debt instead of stupid private banks. If Greece defaulted, investors would take a hit, and people might wonder which country would be the next to go: Portugal? Spain? Italy? Investors would then be afraid to loan money to these countries, which would drive interest rates up and might precipitate their collapse.
Greece, as part of the eurozone, could not attempt to solve its problems by cranking out more currency. Also, as part of the eurozone, Greece’s problem became Europe’s problem. If eurozone countries could no longer make good on debts valued in euros, what might the impact be on this multinational currency? Apparently, the European Union decided not to find out, so they put together a one trillion dollar package to bail out Greece and other debt-ridden nations. But will this be enough, and will countries with big deficits be able to implement painful budget cuts and tax increases without causing massive public unrest? Street protests in Greece indicate that citizens used to public sector jobs, benefits, and services might not take this lying down.
The lessons for the United States seem obvious. Our ratio of debt to GDP is not much better than that of Greece, and it is only going to get worse if we continue on the current track. Will the United States be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in a few years? Are Americans ready to make the painful sacrifices necessary to get the budget mess in order? In the United States, the Federal Reserve has dealt with our recent financial crisis by pumping currency into the economy, but at some point, this type of policy will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. In my home state of California, the parallels to Greece seem particularly clear. As a state without its own currency, California is obligated to pay its bills. But as everyone in this country knows, California is an annual budgetary basket case. Conservatives would point to this bastion of liberalism as the ultimate example of what happens when you have a bloated, inefficient government that scares businesses away with high taxes and excessive regulations. The public sector, particularly when it is filled with employees receiving excessive salaries and benefits, cannot indefinitely be propped up by the private sector. Real economic growth comes from the private sector, not government handouts.
Of course, in California, as in Greece, some will argue that the problem is not a system of government provided services. Instead, we are in trouble because of the corrupt, incompetent people who currently run the system. If we could just get better politicians, then things would improve. Of course, you could also make the same type of argument for the recent oil spill. The problem is not our fossil fuel based economy. In any industry, there are going to be people who occasionally mess up. Banning all oil drilling, like gutting the public sector, would be going too far. Unfortunately, this type of thinking can divert attention away from systemic problems and keep people focused on defending their ideology and trying to win elections.
Ultimately, politics is all about spin. Both sides want to make sure that their version of events becomes the more widely accepted “truth.” And the most important part of this game is making sure that the majority focuses on the event or issue that most naturally supports your ideology. Environmentalists want us talking about oil spills, and conservatives want us focused on budget messes in Greece and California. If you want to get a good sense of the political pulse of Americans these days, listen closely to see which stories people choose to notice.
At times like these, I am reminded of why I am neither a devoted liberal nor a staunch conservative. Two of the biggest stories of the last few weeks have been the oil spill off of the Gulf Coast and the debt crisis in Greece. And while I do not pretend to be a person who fully understands the causes of these crises, I do recognize that each political faction, if it plays its cards right, can use one of these events as ammunition for pushing its views.
Liberal environmentalists would seem to have things easy these days. In order to demonstrate just how dangerous offshore oil drilling, weak business regulations, and an economy dependent on fossil fuels can be, all that they have to do is point people to the TV screen. The sobering fact is that the worst may be yet to come. Oil is still gushing in from under the ocean, British Petroleum’s various strategies for containing the spill keep failing, and we don’t know exactly what the impact will be when, where, or if the oil slick reaches the shore. Personally, I do not have a lot of faith in BP’s ability to “fix” this problem. They have had a string of recent disasters that many attribute to their tendency to cut costs whenever possible. I also question their willingness to pay reparations to those who will ultimately be harmed by this catastrophe. A disaster like this cannot simply be measured in financial terms anyway, and the environmental damage in some cases may be irreversible.
President Obama has said in the past that our economy needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels. Conveniently enough, when the spill occurred, Congress was revisiting once again the energy reform bill that has been languishing in Washington. If he is the liberal that many claim him to be, then he should be jumping all over this opportunity. Unfortunately for him, this spill has mostly created problems. Shortly before the spill, he officially supported for the first time the expansion of offshore oil drilling. Needless to say, this was not the greatest timing in the world. It is also in his interest to minimize the extent of the disaster. He does not, after all, want this to be his version of Hurricane Katrina. The fact that this oil spill was the result of oil industry incompetence while the Katrina fiasco was a combination of natural disaster and government incompetence will not stop Obama’s opponents from trying to pin this thing on him. It’s an effective way for the “drill, baby, drill” people to divert attention away from their own culpability.
Finally, President Obama has some big political battles ahead in dealing with financial regulation, immigration reform, and the budget deficit. And as anyone not blinded by political ideology has realized, President Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist. He wants to get things done, and he is willing to make compromises with powerful interests to do so. (See his proposal for expanded oil drilling and the health care bill, among other things.) In this partisan political climate, does he want to take on the oil sector with all of its economic and political clout? Ultimately, it may be public opinion that is the most important factor. And if public reactions to past oil spills can be used as a guide, then we are unlikely to see major changes to prevent future environmental catastrophes and to lessen our continuing dependence on fossil fuels. We tend to have a short memory, and many Americans have accepted occasional environmental disasters as an inevitable part of producing and distributing a resource that makes our lifestyle possible.
Conservatives would be wise to divert public attention to Greece, a country that has become the poster child for inefficient, bloated, overstretched government. As Greece teetered toward bankruptcy, there was a fear that a financial panic could result that would be reminiscent of Lehman Brothers’ collapse a couple of years ago. Only in this case, the problem was public debt instead of stupid private banks. If Greece defaulted, investors would take a hit, and people might wonder which country would be the next to go: Portugal? Spain? Italy? Investors would then be afraid to loan money to these countries, which would drive interest rates up and might precipitate their collapse.
Greece, as part of the eurozone, could not attempt to solve its problems by cranking out more currency. Also, as part of the eurozone, Greece’s problem became Europe’s problem. If eurozone countries could no longer make good on debts valued in euros, what might the impact be on this multinational currency? Apparently, the European Union decided not to find out, so they put together a one trillion dollar package to bail out Greece and other debt-ridden nations. But will this be enough, and will countries with big deficits be able to implement painful budget cuts and tax increases without causing massive public unrest? Street protests in Greece indicate that citizens used to public sector jobs, benefits, and services might not take this lying down.
The lessons for the United States seem obvious. Our ratio of debt to GDP is not much better than that of Greece, and it is only going to get worse if we continue on the current track. Will the United States be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in a few years? Are Americans ready to make the painful sacrifices necessary to get the budget mess in order? In the United States, the Federal Reserve has dealt with our recent financial crisis by pumping currency into the economy, but at some point, this type of policy will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. In my home state of California, the parallels to Greece seem particularly clear. As a state without its own currency, California is obligated to pay its bills. But as everyone in this country knows, California is an annual budgetary basket case. Conservatives would point to this bastion of liberalism as the ultimate example of what happens when you have a bloated, inefficient government that scares businesses away with high taxes and excessive regulations. The public sector, particularly when it is filled with employees receiving excessive salaries and benefits, cannot indefinitely be propped up by the private sector. Real economic growth comes from the private sector, not government handouts.
Of course, in California, as in Greece, some will argue that the problem is not a system of government provided services. Instead, we are in trouble because of the corrupt, incompetent people who currently run the system. If we could just get better politicians, then things would improve. Of course, you could also make the same type of argument for the recent oil spill. The problem is not our fossil fuel based economy. In any industry, there are going to be people who occasionally mess up. Banning all oil drilling, like gutting the public sector, would be going too far. Unfortunately, this type of thinking can divert attention away from systemic problems and keep people focused on defending their ideology and trying to win elections.
Ultimately, politics is all about spin. Both sides want to make sure that their version of events becomes the more widely accepted “truth.” And the most important part of this game is making sure that the majority focuses on the event or issue that most naturally supports your ideology. Environmentalists want us talking about oil spills, and conservatives want us focused on budget messes in Greece and California. If you want to get a good sense of the political pulse of Americans these days, listen closely to see which stories people choose to notice.
Our Trip to the Huntington Library
Here's an oldie from one of the greatest voices in rock history: Roy Orbison. It's called "Working for the Man."
The Huntington Library is one of the many great monuments to wealthy and powerful individuals that have been built throughout the history of the civilized world: the pyramids, the Taj Mahal, Versailles, The Forbidden City, etc. One of the greatest mysteries of life for me is how certain elite individuals are able to amass so much wealth and power. Why do the masses feel compelled to devote so much labor, resources, and devotion to an individual who, in a purely physical sense, is basically the same as they are? Why do people tolerate this degree of inequality? Many answers to these questions have been developed over the years, but I have yet to hear a completely adequate explanation. It may be just another piece of evidence proving that our species is not particularly rational. In the end, monuments to the powerful may be the ultimate paradox. In a place like the Huntington Library, beauty and incredible human achievement are wrapped together with human vanity, waste, and injustice.
Yesterday, as part of my wife’s birthday weekend, we went with the kids to Huntington Library & Gardens up near Pasadena. It is definitely worth checking out if you have never had the opportunity. The place is part historical research library, part museum, and part arboretum. If you do nothing but wander through the various botanical gardens, you will easily get your money’s worth. The kids had a great time sniffing and photographing the various plants and flowers. Just the Rose Garden took about an hour. I’ve included some pictures below (most of which were taken by my older daughter, a budding photographer.)
As we wandered through this amazing place, my wife and I had the same recurring thought: “man, Henry Huntington must have been freaking rich!” The main art gallery is located in a small part of what used to be his ridiculously huge mansion, and the various botanical gardens are essentially his former front and backyard. Much of what you see has been collected and planted since the Huntington exhibit was established after his death in 1927, but still, what he and his wife managed to compile and create is astounding.
So how did he get all of this money? I did a little research, and it turns out that he got some of his fortune the old-fashioned way: he inherited it. Collis Huntington, Henry’s Uncle, made an enormous fortune in the railroad business. Henry started working for his uncle as a young man and worked his way up in the company. When his uncle died, Henry inherited one-third of the family fortune. Henry would then proceed to become quite a businessman in his own right, making much of his money building electric public transportation systems in California. This was how he ended up buying his “little estate” in Southern California. He married his uncle’s widow – who was close to Henry’s age, so it wasn’t too gross – a woman who turned out to be quite the art collector herself. And the rest, you might say, is history.
Some would therefore describe Henry Huntington as a great businessman, collector, and, ultimately, philanthropist. This is not the only valid point of view, however. After all, how did Henry’s uncle accumulate the massive fortune that became the basis for his nephew’s success? Who did the hard labor of building those railroads, and how well were these workers paid? Some, myself included, would argue that Henry, like his uncle, was also a great exploiter of the working class, and money which could have gone toward providing these workers with a decent standard of living instead went into a fancy house; a hell of a collection of art, furniture, and historical documents; and some damn impressive landscaping. It’s a beautiful place, but was the cost truly justified? I better discontinue this line of questioning. People might start labeling me as one of those Obama-supporting socialists.
Would Legalizing Marijuana be Bad for the Marijuana Business?
Here's a scene and song from "Woodstock" that I show to my Modern American History class.
I can predict with some confidence what Californians will soon decide on this issue. We are, after all, a bunch of liberal freaks out here on the west coast. It will then be interesting to see what both people living in normal states and the federal government have to say about our latest adventure into freakiness.
A couple of weeks ago, I heard a story on “Marketplace,” one of my favorite NPR shows, that I instantly knew would inspire a blog post someday. (Click here for link. Scroll ahead to 19:45 to hear the story.) The story talked about the potential impact of a proposed ballot measure that may soon make marijuana fully legal here in California. As almost all Californians and many people throughout our nation know, my home state voted a few years ago to legalize the use of “medical marijuana.” If this new measure passes, a medical referral will no longer be necessary to “light up.” Soon, “Dead Heads” throughout our west coast “Hippyland” may be breaking out into pot-induced songs of celebration and triumph.
So why would a story about marijuana be on a radio show that focuses on economics? It turns out that the legalization of marijuana may actually be bad for the marijuana business. This is particularly true up in Humboldt County, an area that prides itself as the “Napa Valley” of marijuana production. Because marijuana has been “illegal” for so many decades, this has kept marijuana prices artificially high. Its illegality has also added to its novelty status. As the pot-growing center of the ultimate rebel, hippy state, Humboldt County has drawn curious, sometimes weed-loving tourists for decades. If marijuana goes completely legal, its increased availability should reduce prices, and Humboldt will no longer be so unique. Marijuana’s new mainstream status may also lead to increasing regulations, a concept particularly offensive to people accustomed to underground operations. The “freedom” that comes with illegality will be gone. Medical marijuana use has already led to some of these trends, and full legality could be even more “devastating.”
There are so many possible angles for this story that it’s hard to know where to start. So instead of writing a long treatise about one or two key ideas, I am going to mention briefly several topics that could all be the subject of long, in-depth discussions:
1) Who has the power to regulate drugs, individual states or the federal government? It has been a while since I have read the entire Constitution, but I can say with some confidence that drug regulation is not expressly mentioned in the list of Congressional legal powers. Therefore, according to the tenth amendment, this power should be reserved to the states. Of course, the federal government has a long history going beyond the specific powers listed in the Constitution. (The federal government is a big fan, after all, of the “necessary and proper” clause.) So whatever California law may say in the present or future, marijuana is still illegal according to the federal government. At the moment, the President says that he is not going to pursue in an aggressive fashion those who use medical marijuana. In the future, of course, this could change.
2) Drug laws in our country are very arbitrary. Why should alcohol be legal while marijuana is not? You could make a good scientific case that alcohol is more damaging and addictive. (After all, when was the last time that you heard of a fight caused by weed? Bar fights, on the other hand, have a long and rich tradition.) This seems to be more a product of social convention than of science. If Jesus had turned a shrub into a marijuana plant instead of water into wine, would our drug laws be different?
3) The fact that Humboldt County can pride itself as the “Napa Valley” of marijuana shows that marijuana prohibition is both a joke and a fantasy. If this region’s pot-related fame draws tourists from all over the world, how can that marijuana business be even remotely described as underground? As the experiment of banning alcohol during the 1920’s and early 1930’s demonstrated, people will ignore laws that they do not like (and that interfere with their fun). My grandfather grew up in Chicago in the 1920’s. He says that all kinds of people had stills in their basements. In some neighborhoods, the streets reeked of alcohol, and basement explosions were fairly common. He also said that it was fairly common to see the dead bodies that resulted from the gang warfare between competing bootleggers. Eventually, the country realized that the negative byproducts of enforcement outweighed any positive effects of (limited) reductions in alcohol use. As any economist knows, if there is demand, suppliers will arise to meet it. And if the product demanded is illegal, it’s often the consumers and general public who suffer.
4) For the “Marketplace” story mentioned earlier, the host of the program interviewed a woman who had long been an advocate for the legalization of marijuana. But instead of lobbying for the passage of this upcoming ballot measure, she spent the whole time talking about the previously mentioned economic concerns of Northern California pot producers. Perhaps the marijuana producers, in spite of their fundamental belief that pot should be legal, should hire her to fight against this ballot measure. After all, they can make more money if the business stays “underground.” If they do this, they will have truly joined the American political system. For decades, special interest groups have been fighting for policies that only benefit themselves. These favors from the government often come in the form of various types of subsidies or of tariffs that protect their businesses from foreign competition. In the mean time, the general public ends up paying higher prices as a result of these policies that few of us even know about. As the host of “Marketplace” astutely realized, the government has been subsidizing marijuana producers for years by keeping their product illegal. If the woman interviewed does not want this job, I’m sure that there are plenty of lobbyists who would be happy to oblige. I wonder if the cigarette companies, pharmaceutical industry, or corn-based ethanol producers can loan a few.
Truth be told, the marijuana issue is not important to me personally. I have never been a pot smoker, heavy drinker, or consumer of any kind of mind-altering drug. I have enough trouble getting my brain to function when it is sober, so the last thing that I need is to pump a bunch of chemicals and crap in there. There are a lot of other Americans out there who also avoid drug use because they think it is stupid. This is why legalizing drugs is unlikely to turn us all into addicts. After all, most Americans today are not cigarette smokers and alcoholics. Others, however, are going to find a way to get high no matter what the government does. I have heard several times over the years that the biggest growth area in drug use involves the use of legal substances. So does this mean that I think that people should be able to buy PCP, LSD, and heroin at the CVS pharmacy? I have some reservations about that idea, although the advertisements would definitely be interesting. It definitely seems illogical, however, for marijuana to be lumped together with these much more dangerous and/or addictive hallucinogens and narcotics.
All of the Things That Worked Today.
I tried to think of a happy song for this post. I settled on this song by Creedence Clearwater Revival, one of my all-time favorite bands.
It was a good day today. I woke up a little before 6 AM. I know this because the digital alarm clock next to my bed was apparently working, indicating that my home still had electrical power. I also noticed that the house seemed to be at the normal wake-up temperature, indicating that my furnace and our neighborhood natural gas network were also functioning properly. I wanted it slightly warmer, however, so I performed my manly duty of bringing heat to the homestead. In other words, I pushed a button on the thermostat. Sure enough, it powered up quickly.
Speaking of natural gas, it was now time to perform my morning bathroom “ritual.” To my pleasure, water came out of the tap as usual, and it seemed as clean and clear as it ever is. After the toilet was filled with the former contents of my bladder, it flushed properly. The human refuse had now magically disappeared. (Please don’t tell me where it goes.) Now it was time for food gathering. I found the milk in the refrigerator, and it was cold, so the fridge was apparently working fine. After locating the traditional cereal and oatmeal, it was time to catch up on the news. (It was “ESPN news” of course.) The TV came on. Thank you, once again, electrical power company. And since the channels all seemed to be available, I knew that the satellites flying around in space were also functioning. It was now time for my version of work.
I hopped in the car to head off to college number one for the day. As it has loyally done for twelve years, the car started properly. (You’ve gotta love those Hondas!) As I drove to work, I noticed that the roads were still paved and generally smooth and all of the traffic lights were also working. Apparently, the electric grid was functioning all over the place. Because other drivers were competent enough to avoid crashing into me, I made it to work on time, and as I drove, I gained more information about the world because the NPR station in town was broadcasting successfully. God bless good old- fashioned radio. In the large forum classroom where I have my 8 AM Modern American History course, the lights came on as usual. Now it was time to fire up other wonders of the modern age: the classroom computer and LCD projector. Within minutes my lesson plans were on the screen arranged in a beautiful little outline – if I do say so myself – and for the next hour and a half I simply pushed my little wireless remote to scroll through the “slides.” (No more chalk and annoying overhead projector transparencies for me.) “Power Point” is a beautiful thing. As an added bonus, most of the students seemed engaged for much of the class. Talking about prostitution, gambling, and alcohol, among other things, may have helped them stay awake.
Now, it was back in the car to head off to racquetball at LA Fitness. The car starts. The roads and traffic lights still function. The radio provides more information. It’s mostly bad news. Nobody mentions the fact that things are working properly in Southern California. I guess that normal is not, by its very nature, news. Because the air conditioning and lighting at the gym were functioning properly, I was able to get in some games – I started off playing badly but ended better – in relative comfort. When I finished, I was my normal sweaty mess. Now it was time for another joy of the modern age: the hot shower. Their water heaters, as usual, worked perfectly, and I could now fully enjoy the after workout high. Next it’s back in the car, and the drive home once again went as it should.
It was time for food gathering again, so I quickly performed the hard labor of making P, B, & J and slicing an orange, completing my feast by getting water and ice magically produced by the refrigerator. Finally, it’s back to my good friend the computer. Only this time, because I am not at work, I get to mess around online. Thankfully, the internet – a technological concept I can still not fully wrap my mind around – was functioning perfectly. Due to another magical device called a router, I could sit on my couch and get some brief “facebooking” and blogging done. Then, it was off to school number two. It’s the same routine all over again: the car starts; the radio comes on; the lights and the computer in the classroom work properly; the students stay mostly conscious. I was even able to pull in a couple of short videos about Pocahontas and Martin Luther (not in the same video, of course), both of which work perfectly. After that, it’s back to the computer, which works again, to kill a little time while traffic dies down. After the familiar trip home, it is time for one last joy of the modern age. Since Thursday is trash day, the cans need to be moved to the curb on Wednesday night. Then, a magical device called a trash truck can make all of the garbage disappear. (Once again, please do not tell me where it goes.)
If you have gotten this far, you may be wondering why I am sharing the mundane details of my average day. It is to make a simple point. The modern world, on so many levels, is a miraculous feat of modern engineering. My average day was made possible by complex networks involving energy, water, food, communication, and transportation. Because we are born into a world blessed by these remarkable achievements, we typically take them for granted. We only seem to notice them when they are not working. When the power goes out, it is akin to the sun not coming up. Our infrastructure, after all, is as much a part of our natural environment as the air, sky, clouds, and wind. And because of all of these things, many of us are not required to do an ounce of physical labor. If you look at my tough three-hour workday, the closest I came to actual physical labor was on the racquetball court. The food that I ate came from a store. I receive energy and heat by plugging things in and pushing a button on a thermostat. A car takes me where I need to go. Water magically comes out of a tap at the temperature of my choice. Trash and human refuse just seem to disappear. I basically talk for a living, and the state gives me money so that I can have access to these technological wonders.
In a world of tremendous problems, it is important to recognize all of the things that work remarkably well almost every day. Of course, there is a cost to these modern conveniences. Our systems for producing food and energy, distributing water, and disposing of waste can have devastating effects on the environment. They may become inadequate and unsustainable in the future. Some people in my country and many in the world do not have access to many of the benefits of modern infrastructure. For today, however, I choose to think about the things that do work. There will be plenty of opportunities to depress myself on another day.
Tiger Woods: What His "Fall" Can Teach Us.
This song by Jimi Hendrix kept coming to mind when writing this. Hero worship is a great example of building "Castles Made of Sand."
Tiger Woods is one of a handful of people who has been able to dominate his sport through sheer talent and/or force of personality, a list that includes larger-than-life sports figures such as Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, and Roger Federer. Recently, however, his name has been added to a longer, less distinguished list of celebrities tarnished by scandal: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, and the list goes on and on.
This story has offended people on multiple levels. Some are obviously offended by his infidelity. (Many men, I suspect, are actually kind of jealous.) Others are more sympathetic toward Tiger and argue that his private life should remain private. Golfing skill earned him fame and respect, not the quality of his personal life. We should continue to focus on those skills that make him great and leave the rest alone. Still others ask the question that I find to be the most interesting and important: Why do we care? There are so many things happening in the world that merit more attention than Tiger Woods’ sex life. I sympathize with this complaint, but I also think that Tiger’s story demonstrates some very important truths. Tiger’s behavior, after all, is not the story. The story is the public reaction to his behavior.
The United States may be the most celebrity-obsessed nation of all time (although this is a trait that is not exclusively American in the modern world). Because people are trained from birth to constantly need some external source of entertainment, they end up worshiping entertainers. Now worship, some might say, is too strong of a word, but I find it very appropriate. Americans on average spend far more time, energy, and money on entertainment than they do on religious activities and institutions. They can often tell you more about sports statistics and contestants on American Idol than they can tell you about the Bible, and in my mind, actions speak louder than words.
The problem, however, goes far beyond spending huge amounts of time and money on entertainment. Many Americans, from what I can tell, show as much interest in celebrities’ personal lives as they do in the entertainment that these famous people provide. And in some cases, due to our modern obsession with “reality” TV, an individual’s personal life is the entire basis of his or her fame. Personally, I try to avoid celebrity “news,” and yet I often know which famous people are currently facing marital problems, struggling with weight issues, choosing the wrong fashion designer, or struggling to get pregnant. All that I have to do is go through the checkout stand at the supermarket to get a quick update. Just the other day, I was able to find out who had the best and worst beach bodies, and while I recognize the vital importance of this issue, those were some images that I (in some cases) really did not need to see.
So where does all of this interest in the personal lives of celebrities come from? One source may be the boredom and dissatisfaction that Americans feel with their own lives. By obsessing about celebrities, they get a chance to live vicariously through someone more beautiful and talented. In other cases, the problems celebrities face may actually cause average Americans to feel better about their lives. We may face marital problems, but at least we are not Tiger Woods. Of course, we may also be a society that is always on the lookout for idols and heroes. In an entertainment-crazed culture, this search naturally draws us to people with musical, acting, or athletic skills. But we want more. We want a human being that we can admire, so we are then unable to resist the desire to find out who this person is that entertains us so well. Unfortunately, idol worship directed toward entertainers will often lead to disappointment, and when it does, we make those celebrities pay in the tabloid press.
In addition to the tabloids and the public, certain companies have also decided to punish Tiger Woods. I remember seeing a chart in a newspaper once that showed the highest paid athletes in the world, and Tiger Woods topped the list to the tune of approximately $100 million in a single year. He made a lot of money winning golf tournaments, but it mostly came from advertising dollars. So why do advertisers dish out that kind of money to a guy who is not necessarily an authority on many of the products – watches, razors, cars, etc. – that he endorses? Part of the answer goes back to the celebrity worship mentioned earlier. I also believe, however, that famous people endorsing products, and advertising in general, is clear proof that the human race is not particularly rational. Because Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan is paid to tell us to buy something, does this improve the quality of the product? I hope that we will all answer no, and yet companies keep shelling out the big bucks. Are they that stupid? I doubt it. The truth is that we are apparently that stupid. Advertising does not appeal to human reason. It appeals to subconscious desires. So apparently, on some subconscious level, we believe that buying a Buick or wearing Hanes Underwear will improve our golf game or make us dunk like Michael Jordan. Celebrities project an image which appeals to our subconscious desire to be successful “like Mike.” This is why Tiger has been losing some endorsement deals. Tiger Woods’ appeal to consumers was not simply his golf game; it was also the positive, “family values” image that he projected. Kobe Bryant ran into the same problem a few years ago when he had his own sex scandal. Kobe has shown, however, that you can eventually earn some of that reputation back. Will Tiger someday do the same?
Finally, in fairness to Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, Jonathan Edwards, and countless other famous, powerful men who have been unable to resist “temptation” at some point in their lives, it is important to note that these celebrities have opportunities that few men (or women) can ever fully comprehend. It is easy to be faithful when opportunities to cheat are not falling into your lap (pun intended). But if you are famous in a world of people who find fame irresistible, it can be difficult to keep “fighting them off.” To paraphrase Henry Kissinger – a guy who claimed to get a lot of sex – “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Ultimately, we humans are the same as all other animals, who are driven by the primal desire to get basic things like food and sex. The desire for lots of sex, in the end (no pun intended), may be one of the biggest reasons why people want to be famous in the first place. One of the biggest costs of this fame, however, is the privacy that Tiger Woods keeps requesting from the public. Privacy, however, is one thing that he gave up a long time ago and will never fully get back.
Why do Many People Hate Speed Cameras?
Here is a song called "905" by The Who. It is reminiscent of "A Brave New World" and is about a man living in a futuristic police state.
About a week ago, I was listening to a story on NPR about cameras that were being used by the state of Arizona to catch people who were driving too fast. This is a practice similar to the use of red light cameras here in California and in several other states. The focus of the story was on the anger that these cameras have generated in Arizona and on the many ways that people are expressing this frustration. One man drove around in a monkey mask to avoid being recognized in his car. A large percentage of the people who had received in the mail the more than $300 fine for speeding had not yet sent in their payments. There was even a case where a worker for the private company that maintains the cameras was shot and killed by a disgruntled motorist. Due to many complaints from citizens and from some government officials in Arizona, there is a good chance that these cameras may soon go away. Where does all of this anger come from?
I can think of several legitimate reasons why many people hate the concept of speed cameras. First of all, they feed in to the already common fear regarding the possible emergence of a “police state.” If traffic enforcement cameras become increasingly common and accepted, it may set the precedent for other types of law enforcement cameras in the future. At some point, there could theoretically be cameras watching our every move.
Second, there is good reason to worry that enforcement may not be fair. Will people who pass a camera on the freeway going 68 miles per hour receive the same fine as someone doing 90? On residential streets, enforcement could be even less fair because it is often difficult to even know the speed limit. Also, even if you assume that the driver is aware of the speed limit, it is so easy to lose focus for a few seconds and allow yourself to go a little too fast. Will law enforcement officials reviewing the camera footage show a little understanding toward drivers who were inadvertently slightly speeding? Living, breathing traffic cops probably won’t stop you when you are going 45 MPH in a 40 zone. But what will the cameras be programmed to do? After all, you are technically speeding when you drive one mile per hour beyond the speed limit.
Others might question the motives behind these speed cameras. State and local governments are strapped for cash these days. In the name of law enforcement, have these cameras mainly been set up to raise some revenue? If the motivation is primarily economic, there will be a built-in incentive to catch as many people as possible. Very strict enforcement, therefore, could be the norm. The people mentioned in the previous paragraph who may have been slightly speeding could someday find a big traffic fine in the mail, and in many cases, these “speeders” may have actually put no one at risk.
I understand all of these fears, but I can’t help thinking that some of this anger is not so legitimate. All of us, in theory, recognize the need for a wide variety of traffic laws. People cannot be trusted to drive safely simply because they know that it is the right thing to do. We also recognize that the number of police officers is limited, so the highway patrol cannot catch most of the people who routinely break traffic laws. Cameras, of course, could change this equation. Now, in certain areas, there will always be “someone” watching. The roads should then be safer. Indeed, NPR reported in that story that traffic accidents had gone down in Arizona, and yet the people keep complaining.
This anger is one of many symptoms of a deep-seated ambivalence toward government in our country. We want the government to do its job, with public safety, according to many people, being its most important responsibility. Most Americans when asked would also agree that law enforcement officials should receive the resources that they need. Then, if government either asks for these resources or takes action to actually enforce laws that we all agree are necessary, we bitch about it. Deep down, we want the government to let us drive the way we want. They should enforce laws, but only when it is other people breaking them. After all, government should only go out and punish the truly dangerous drivers, something few Americans would ever admit to being. And of course, the government should never take away our God-given “right” to drive.
In many ways, the government cannot win. If they take strong measures to maintain public security or to deal with any other problems, we complain, particularly if their actions affect us personally. Then, if there are lots of traffic accidents, or if, “theoretically,” something crazy like a financial meltdown almost happens because of foolish borrowers and lenders involving themselves in ridiculous home mortgages - and strange financial instruments that were built on a foundation of these bad mortgages - we blame the government and tell them to fix things. When financial institutions, real estate speculators, and unworthy borrowers were profiting from their risk-taking, they wanted government to both encourage this behavior and to not burden them with annoying regulations. Then, when the risk-taking stopped paying off, they often blamed the government and demanded a bailout.
Of course, it is difficult to find the right balance between too much and too little government. We want the government to provide many services but do not want to pay a lot of taxes. We want the government too keep us safe without infringing on our privacy and other personal freedoms. We want a government that prevents corporate abuses but does not regulate too much. Then, when things go wrong, we blame the government that we never wanted to do too much in the first place.
If the post-9/11 era has taught us anything, it is that we should be wary of a government that takes drastic measures in the name of keeping us safe. Personal freedom without responsibility, however, can also be a dangerous thing. There are lots of drivers on our roads who should not be out there. We all see them every day. Cars are too dangerous to allow just anyone to drive them. However, it is an unfortunate truth that strictly enforcing traffic laws and taking away the driver’s licenses of those who consistently break them will not earn politicians a lot of votes. Also, telling certain people that they may not be able to afford a home or requiring powerful financial institutions to follow certain rules can be politically risky. Unfortunately, many Americans, and possibly the human race in general, are shortsighted, self-centered individuals who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. I guess it is easier to blame the other political party or the government in general for everything and to keep making unreasonable demands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
