Friday, January 30, 2009

The Cult of Management?

I have been thinking a lot about the economic meltdown recently, especially since it has affected the overwhelming majority of my Midwestern-dwelling extended family, and the doom-and-gloom (seemingly weekly) meetings at work. At the same time, I find myself thinking about the colossal failure of the Bush administration, which is like a Matryoshka doll of monumental disasters. There is a similar thread running through a lot of this, in that people in charge of large entities seem to know very little about the entities that they run.

The biggest, most public domestic blunder was Katrina. In this case, we had Michael Brown, a Bush crony with little prior knowledge of or experience in disaster relief, emergency management, etc. Nothing in his allegedly padded resume rendered him even remotely an expert.

Remember Bush’s first EPA appointee? The woefully unqualified career politician Christine Todd-Whitman, whose environmental and scientific experience was non-existent. The list goes on and on; I needn’t belabor the point.

This happens in the business world as well, with equally disastrous results. What do you think the CEO’s of Chrysler and GM really know about making cars? An M.B.A. isn’t an industry-specific degree, yet many people flit from company to company and industry to industry in positions of considerable power. 7-11 to Blockbuster? Sure. A city prosecutor running a hospital? Why not (a quick Google search yields a great deal more). If you haven’t noticed it, the “promote-from-within” model is long dead in this country, because we have privileged this idea of strong executives. A business degree from Harvard means you are qualified to run anything from a cracker factory to the United States of America, and a large segment of the population considers any degree of “executive experience” to be superior to any kind of collaborative or deliberative work.

The bottom line is this: I think many of our businesses are failing because the wrong people are in power. How many times during the auto bailout discussion did the issue of how horribly the Big Three are managed come up? The flashy risk-takers, the schemers, the guys looking for the big bonuses, those that manipulate numbers and people—they know how to operate this fake game, but substantively know very little. I have no faith that they actually know how to run successful companies in their specific industries. There are, of course, many exceptions, but my concern remains—I have no faith in a business leadership that recycles the same greedy hacks that destroy American companies and imperil the financial stability of the working class. There is a huge CEO revolving-door policy. All the corporate-speak and flashy buzzwords in the worlds really don’t mean much when your company is imploding around you-- especially when you know that the game ensures you a multi-million dollar golden parachute as your worst case scenario.

Drive-by religious marketing


After several weeks of striking a more concillatory (or at least, apolitcal) tone on their readerboard, the little wingnut church that is on my way to work has this gem (in an earlier post, I talked about the same church posting 'An ounce of faith is worth a bushel of knowledge' and 'Rapture: the separation of church and state'). This time I have pictures!

Especially funny is the '5' substituted for the 's' in "newsflash". At least they didn't have to do "Je$u$".

Several onlookers seemed a little puzzled why I was standing on the sidewalk taking pictures of this.

The best monument in the world

A giant shoe built by Iraqi orphans to commemorate the journalist who threw his shoe at Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki. If they let this journalist out of jail, maybe he can run for office?

Bolivia and Brazil Joining Forces in Combatting Drug Trade

This is a few weeks old (I apologize for the light blogging - I currently have two grant proposals, a conference paper, a dissertation chapter, and a part-time job on my plate, and things have actually calmed a bit from the first 4 weeks of the year), but I wanted to point out that Bolivia and Brazil have joined forces in combatting the cocaine trade along their border in the wake of the expulsion of the DEA. It's a fascinating agreement that serves both wonderfully - Brazil is making an effort to implement some national drug policy efforts rather than letting police blaze their way into favelas, and Bolivia is making a strong effort to make clear that while coca leaf production is non-offensive and important to its economy, it has little tolerance for the cocaine trade. Additionally, Bolivia gets more infrastructural agreement as part of the deal, and Brazil strengthens its role as a regional leader in lending and development projects for its neighbors. Boz reminds us also that combatting the drug trade behooves more nations than the U.S., and that fighting it doesn't always have to involve the U.S.

But there is another major aspect worth mentioning here, too. Although the U.S. under Bush constantly chastized Morales for Bolivia's coca production (leading to occasionally humorous interactions between the two countries), Morales has always made it clear that the coca leaf itself is not a drug, and that he's against the proliferation of cocaine production. The distinction is important and relatively easy to understand, but one that the United States has never bothered to grasp. This request to Brazil just further evidence both of that fact, and of fact that U.S. really has gone about in the "war on drugs" in the Andes in the totally wrong way.

Historical Image of the Day


The USS Cole after its bombing off the coast of Yemen, 2000

Claire McCaskill is my new favorite senator.



Claire McCaskill is awesome. I knew I liked her, but this is beyond amazing.

Post-Partisan Strategy: Doing it Right

I was just sitting downstairs in my campus building idly watching CNN while gulping down lunch, and this bit of news floated across the ticker:

"[Judd] Gregg considered for Commerce secretary"

I nearly choked. Because it's BRILLIANT.

It shows Obama once again willing to be nonpartisan and appoint Republicans to his cabinet, giving him the moral high ground against obstructionists.

It takes another Republican out of the Senate, and though he's one who could probably be pulled into a Democratic majority on some bills, having a Democrat appointed by New Hampshire's Democratic governor would be the magic 60--if they ever get around to seating Al Franken.

And Gregg should jump at it, since New Hampshire's trending Democratic and he's unlikely to be reelected. Plus, he's actually, y'know, qualified for the job.

My only question is: How quickly can we make this happen?

Gregg has confirmed, as well, that he is under consideration.

Once again:

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Intro to Socioeconomics in Mexico

The other day, we went to the market for an activity in small groups.  We were supposed to buy certain items and price some others.  Then we did some calculations to figure out how many hours a person earning the Morelos minimum wage would have to work in order to be able to buy them.  Then we figured out the price U.S. consumers would have to pay if they had to work the same numbers of hours as a Mexican worker in order to purchase the same thing.  Here are the calculations from my group:

1 kilo of avocados = 25 pesos = $1.92 = 4 hours of work = $26.20
1/2 kilo of green chiles = 8 pesos = $0.62 = 1.3 hours of work = $8.52
Magazine "Uno más uno" = 10 pesos = $0.77 = 1.6 hours of work = $10.48
Kids school shoes = 120 pesos = $9.23 = 19.3 hours of work = $126.42
Shampoo = 50 pesos = $3.85 = 8 hours of work = $52.40
People think that the cost of living in Mexico is really low, but that is only because things are really cheap compared to what we earn in U.S. dollars.  In actually the cost of living here is really high if you are living off the wages paid here.  It is also estimated that 50% of Mexicans work in the informal sector, which means that they don't receive a paycheck or benefits.
The minimum wage in the state of Morelos is 49.5 pesos per day ($3.80/day), which is the highest minimum wage in Mexico.  So even if Mexican immigrants in the U.S. don't earn minimum wage (which many don't because they can't complain if they are undocumented), they can earn more money in an hour of work in the U.S. than for an entire day of work in Mexico.  And people wonder why they try to work in the states....

Population Control

Gregory Lamb's article on world population asks some very important questions.

Do we need a concerted effort to control the world's population? Should this be a government goal? Related to that, do we need to cut consumption of the world's resources?

I feel the answer to these questions is a definitive yes. While I'm not usually comfortable with the government in the bedroom, the planet simply has too many people. 9 billion by 2050 is just too many. Access to birth control helps. But it's not enough.

I believe it is simply an immoral choice to have more than 2 children. As Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1968 environmental classic The Population Bomb says, “You’ve got to get a president who’s got the guts to say, ‘Patriotic Americans stop at two. That if you care about your children and grandchildren, we should have a smaller population in the future, not larger.”

Yes. I am willing to go as far as saying that it is unpatrotic to have a lot of children. You are hurting the future of our society by doing so.

This is one reason why we need to support abortion rights. Too often, pro-choice people apologize for their position, saying that it is regrettable that we have to abortion and we should reduce the number, but... I don't actually agree with this. I don't see that abortion should be considered a bad thing at all. Certainly, birth control is a better thing but people should not be ashamed of having an abortion. And society should make it safe, cheap, and accessible.

Note that this previous paragraph has just killed any political career I might have wanted to have someday.

The economists will be in an uproar too. Because our capitalist economy is designed for constant growth rather than sustainability, business interests and economic planners will freak out, like they are doing right for Japan. But while a smaller population would be an economic adjustment, wouldn't it also be better for the world and humanity in the long run.

I actually admire China's one child policy. Certainly I don't quite approve of some of the harshest enforcement tactics they use, but I do think our government could give tax credits or some kind of benefits to families with 0-2 children. Or even punish with higher taxes families with too many children, though you'd want to ensure that the children didn't suffer as a result.

Of course, related to this issue is consumption. Since Americans consume like there is no tomorrow and the rest of the world wants to live like Americans, we have a real problem on our hand. There's no way around it--9 billion people can't live on the planet and consume like early 21st century Americans. It's a Malthusian crisis.

Given the pie in the sky ideas I have about this, you can imagine my pessimism that any of this will actually happen. Nonetheless, it's an issue that we need to talk about much more seriously than we do now.

Loomis 2012!

Today I turn 35. I am constitutionally eligible for the presidency. Thus, I am declaring my candidacy for the highest office in 2012. I have copied Sarah Palin, my political hero, and started ErikPAC. So give me money.

I have a great platform.

1. A taco stand in each neighborhood.
2. Torvald as official National Pet
3. Banning the Wave at all sporting events.
4. Forcing HBO to put Deadwood back on the air.
5. Banning reality TV.
6. Contracting the NFL to get rid of the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders.
7. Giving Texas back to Mexico.
8. Giving Alaska back to Russia.
9. Requiring all schools to offer mandatory courses on cheese appreciation.
10. Celebrating January 29 as a national holiday.

Moreover, since January 29 has been scientifically proven (by the same scientists who gave you phrenology and eugenics) to be the most awesome day ever, we will have a January 29-centric administration.

My Vice-President? Oprah of course, who was born on this day in 1954.

Rahm Emanuel will stay on as chief of staff, being born on this day in 1959.

The music before my inauguration is going to be awesome. Everyone involved will be January 29 birthdays. On bass, we will have Eddie Jackson from Queensryche. Vocals will be Irlene Mandrell from the 70s pop-country act the Mandrell Sisters. Bill Kirchen from Commander Cody will be on guitar. Tommy Ramone will be on drums. Dick Manitoba will pop in for a couple of songs. I think you all can agree that this will be the greatest super-group of all time.

Heather Graham, born on this day in 1970, will be the new Secretary of Movies with a speciality in extreme hotness.

Tom Selleck, born on this day in 1945 will fill the new cabinet position of Secretary of Facial Hair.

Ed Burns, born on this day in 1968, will direct the inauguration festivities. I expect something akin to what Zhang Yimou did for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Vin Scully, born on this day in 1927 will be the announcer for the festivities.

In the Oval Office, I'll have paintings of such illustrious January 29 political figures as President William McKinley and former New York congressman and African-American leader Adam Clayton Powell.

There will be a performance of The Cherry Orchard at my inauguration in honor of January 29 playwright Anton Chekhov.

We will be moving the nation's capital to beautiful Topeka, as we celebrate Kansas, brought into this nation on this date in 1861.

Finally, I will be naming renaming some cabinet positions in honor of American heroes born on this great day. Thus Secretary of Defense will be the Harry "Lighthorse Lee" Secretary of Defense, named after the Revolutionary War officer born on this day in 1756. And we will now see the Albert Gallatin Secretary of the Treasury. Jefferson's and Madison's choice for the office was born on this day in 1761.

Loomis/Winfrey '12! A vote for Kansas, tacos, and Heather Graham!

Historical Image of the Day


U.S. Army recruiting advertisement directed at women, early 1970s

"Balance"

Not that I think that providing a representative from each side of a false binary is any way to measure news objectivity, but this is pretty screwed up:



H/t matttbastard.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Why Compromise?

I'm just going to lift Stephen Suh's post.

The economic stimulus bill passed the US House today. Not one Republican voted for it.

They got what they wanted, from tax cuts to reduced infrastructure investment to the removal of the American One Child Act of 2009 to - and this is especially important - uncounted hours on TV and endless inches in newspapers and magazines decrying the Democrats' hedonistic, tax-and-spend ways.

And then they voted against it anyway.

Yes, indeed. So why even compromise with the Republicans? Why not say, we have the votes so fuck off and die. If none of them are going to vote for it anyway, why even consult them? It might be different in the Senate since pulling a vote or two is going to make a big difference but given the soon to be 59 Democratic senators only need 1 and Judd Gregg is running for his life for reelection in New Hampshire, he's going to be voting with the Democrats a lot.

So seriously, fuck the Republicans. There's no need to compromise with them on anything if they aren't going to vote for it regardless.

In a related issue, why do congressional Republicans understand politics so much better than congressional Democrats?

If Emperor Penguins Go Extinct, Will Evangelicals Think God Has Abandoned Them?

One of the most annoying events in film during this decade was how evangelicals interpreted the documentary March of the Penguins to say that evolution could never have created such monogamous and self-sacrificing creatures as emperor penguins. I like the documentary pretty well, even though it went way over the top in manipulating your emotions. But they wanted to make big money on a nature film, so I can forgive that to a certain extent. Less forgivable is taking a movie about penguins and distorting for political ends that have nothing to do with penguins.

Alas we find out that climate change could send emperor penguins to extinction. They rely on the ice at the edge of Antarctica. Without those ice shelves, they may not survive.

So if evangelicals see emperor penguins as clear evidence of intelligent design, how will they interpret their impending demise? That God has determined the penguins are too pure for the Earth? That God has abandoned them? That they are wrong?

Note that I'm not making fun of religion here, but simply how religious groups made a political point out of a penguin documentary.

Some (Very Premature) Pre-Spring Training Analysis (and a Prediction or Two)

Tim Kurkjian outlines why the AL Central will most likely be the most interesting and brutal division this year. Nobody's absolutely amazing, but at least right now, no other division in baseball looks like it has four extremely serious competitors for the division title, and even the Royals are poised to play much better and be a season-long spoiler in the Central (and if they win the title, well, stranger things have happened....the 2008 Rays, I'm looking in your direction).

Still, I have to say that I'm really excited at the Indians' prospects right now. Picking up a full-time, 100% legit closer who relies on his actual pitches, rather than will or a sketchy location (a la Wickman and Borowski) is hugely important. I don't see Lee being as good as he was in 2008, but I don't see Carmona being as bad, either, and they have an extremely deep bench and farm system both in terms of pitching and fielding. Pavano could be the dark-horse signing of the year ($1.5 million guaranteed, with incentives adding up to $5.3 million). Hafner and Martinez are looking and (at least saying they're) feeling healthier than they have in a couple of years. Sizemore is still stupid-good. And Shin-Soo Choo was an absolute beast once he became a full-time player last year (thanks Seattle!). It's going to be an absolute brawl for the division title, but I have to say, I'm actually as excited this year as I was at the beginning of last year (when, if Sabathia could have simply won one playoff game in Cleveland, the Indians most likely would have been World Champions for the first time in 60 years). And no matter who wins the division, I wouldn't be surprised if A) they had the "worst" record of any of the AL division champs, and B) if they made it to the World Series. Yes, the Yankees and Red Sox are still there, as are the Rays, and the Angels are filthy good, but given the competition they'll have with their intra-division rivals, it wouldn't shock me in the slightest to see the AL Central finish with an 87-91 win team and go far in the playoffs.

Now we just have to wait another couple of weeks for pitchers and catchers to report, and our annual 4-month national nightmare will be over...

Historical Image of the Day


Image from William Bartram's Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida, the Cherokee Country, etc., 1791. This is arguably the most influential naturalist book of late 18th century America. Bartram truly is a forgotten American, though the Library of America put out some volumes of his several years ago, and is deserving of a post in that series of mine.

Another Reason to Bag on Slumdog

I am enjoying the backlash against the wildly overrated Slumdog Millionaire. This is a really good (if overly political reason) to feel even better about it.

Despite all the money the movie has made, the small children in it are still living in abject poverty.

Both children were found places in a local school and receive £20 a month for books and food. However, they continue to live in grinding poverty and their families say they have received no details of the trust funds set up in their names. Their parents said that they had hoped the film would be their ticket out of the slums, and that its success had made them realise how little their children had been paid.

Ismail is in fact “worse off” now, as his “family’s illegal hut was demolished by the local authorities and he now sleeps under a sheet of plastic tarpaulin.” Ali lives nearby — in a “hut.” A Fox Searchlight spokesperson said he is “proud” of their treatment and boasted, “For 30 days work, the children were paid three times the average local annual adult salary.”

Classy.

Action, please, nao.

So on the "What Now" subject: The economic stimulus bill is up before Congress this week and it's going to have a rough time in the Senate. The House has the votes along party lines, but the Senate, well, you know the score.

If you're like me and you live in a state with a rational Republican senator, email/call/picket his or her office (I'm thinking Specter--my Senator--the two from Maine, Voinovich...you know what I mean.) Harass the hell out of 'em. Flood their offices. We need this passed and we need it now.

I'd prefer if we could get this back in, but Obama had to at least look like he was willing to compromise. If the Republicans keep stonewalling, we need to remind 'em who won this election.

We all do a lot of talking and writing, some of it can certainly go in the direction of elected officials. If one of those people isn't your Senator, fake some sort of a connection and go for it. State you were born in? State where your grandma lives? State you slept in once on an all-night booty call? Whatever.

Let's do this.

http://www.senate.gov/

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Blago Interview

I had to watch Blago try to dig himself out of his hole on Rachel Maddow tonight.

This guy is slick. Really slick. Either that or he really believes his bullshit.

He came in with his talking points, for sure--"The fix is in..." "Saints and Mother Teresa," "I was just trying to help people!"

But Maddow sits back and lets him hang himself. (Metaphorically!) She even offers him a way out--though it's not really, because we've all heard the tapes, so he can't really deny it. Instead, he raided an Obama speech for his talking points, but he ends up tripping over his words.

Also, one more reference to breast and cervical cancer and I'm filing a sexual harassment suit.

The Future of Brazilian Race Relations: A Barack Obama Effect?

I stayed out of the original comments thread from Karthika's post because I had plenty to say, and I think between the comments there and Erik's post, a lot has already been said. Erik gets Brazil right for the most part, as do Randy and Venha Futuro; there, race is incredibly coded in terms of money, clothing, education, and capital-c "Culture." Thus, Sao Paulo residents call idiot drivers or the poor or anybody who pisses them off "baiano" (in Rio, it's "Paraiba," another poor northeastern state with a large number of Afro-descendants), and I've had conversations with my "whiter" Brazilian counterparts where they have point-blank said that there is no racism in Brazil, all while sitting and eating in a pricey restaurant where all of the poorly-paid staff is brown-to-black, or heard somebody explain to me how the funk of the favelas is not "culture," that "culture" means Beethoven and Monet. This is in no way to enter into a "whose racism is worse" debate by claiming Brazil's racism is worse than the U.S.'s- such a debate over things like racism or slavery is less than useful, and tends to obscure the fact that those institutions are appalling regardless of where they are or their particular structures. Each country has its own historically formed racist expressions and structures, and it should go without saying that they are both troubling.

I think a lot of what Erik is saying about the U.S. is fascinating (and frightening). I am a bit curious as to what role he, Karthika, or anybody else thinks identity politics might play in combatting or reifying racism in the U.S. And I am a bit bothered (though it's no fault of his own) that this talk of America being a post-racial society is a particularly white issue (at least it's seemed as such to me). As Erik alludes, it's easier for whites, and maybe even others, to say America is "post-racial" now, but given the implication that racism therefore is no problem seems risible, and I'm fairly certain if I were to walk into Harlem, Washington Heights, the California fields, etc., and suggested that racism was dead, I would be met with a justified amount of derision.

However, what I really want to address here is the flip-side of Erik's discussion; specifically, the effect Barack Obama has had on Brazil. In short, Obama has given hope to more people than just U.S. residents. For generations, Brazilian and American scholars have debated whose racism and/or slavery was worse, and it's not uncommon to hear from most Brazilians the statement that American racism is worse (and again, I don't endorse this view or its opposite; I think neither view is particularly helpful). However, Obama's victory has forced a bit of a re-evaluation and introspection in Brazilian society, especially among Afro-descendants. For example, declaring oneself to be "black" has become far more popular than it had been prior to the election, and while a majority of Afro-descendants still categorize themselves as "brown" (and certainly some politically active Afro-descendants called themselves "black" before the election), I think it's safe to say that self-identifying as "black" has become a much stronger claim to personal pride and ability than it had before Obama was even campaigning. In some ways, it's almost the opposite of what's happening in America: where we are now seeing a major discursive effort to hide race under the rug by pointing to Obama's victory, some in Brazil are forcing the issue of race into public discourse by radicalizing their identity within Brazil's social structure, drawing inspiration from Obama's victory.

What is more, Obama's victory has forced some more uncomfortable self-evalutaions in Brazilian society. If America was supposed to have a worse racism than Brazil, and we've now elected an Afro-descendant to the office of the presidency, why hasn't Brazil done so? And not just to the presidency; the number of "brown" to "black" people in office at the national, state, and even local level is miniscule, and may be poorer than in the U.S. Certainly, Rio has never had a David Dinkins or a Ray Nagin. In short, the fact that we've been able to not only nominate but an elect an Obama has forced some Brazilians to quietly ask why they haven't been able to do so yet. Some progressives in Brazil have countered Obama has a Brazilian counterpart in Lula, who rose up from being a metal worker with no college education to become president of Brazil. While this is true (who's the last labor union leader we've elected? Oh, right....), the class-based nature of this argument in Brazil in some ways just reifies the racist structures of Brazil; by suggesting that Obama is to Lula what race is to class again denies the race-components of class in Brazil (as well as the class-components of race in the U.S.). In other words, they claim that Brazil only has class issues to overcome, and made great strides by electing Lula, thereby ignoring the racial problems still present in Brazil.

I think that Obama's victory and this self-imposed introspection in Brazil may actually lead to some small but important shifts, though. Just this past election year, international news agencies ran stories on 10 candidates who ran for public office in Brazil as "Barack Obama" (in Brazil, you can have virtually any name you want appear for your candidacy on the ballots). Just recently, Frontline ran an excellent report on one of the first of Brazil's "Baracks," as it followed Claudio Henrique's campaign to become the first black mayor of Belford Roxo, one of Rio's poor suburbs (and, in a great epilogue, his journey to the U.S. to attend the inauguration). The 10-minute story (which I highly encourage you to take time to watch) really gets at the key issues of how Obama has affected racial identities, society, and the political landscape in Brazil. Henrique didn't run as "Barack Obama" as some sort of gimmick; he ran because he had genuine hope and admiration for the man he felt had made his own candidacy possible. As one of the people interviewed put it, Obama has become a symbol for uniting, for overcoming society's racial obstacles, and this symbology has taken on major importance in Brazil.

This isn't to say that Obama's candidacy and now victory will lead to a "post-racial" society in Brazil anymore than it will lead to a "post-racial" society here, and many people in Brazil are dismayed and fearful that Obama's victory will lead to Brazil's own racially marginalized only getting "uppity" and making demands that rock the boat of denying racism. Nonetheless, the importance of Obama's victory to racial politics in Brazil cannot be denied, and it seems, at least right now, that there could be some subtle but important shifts in how Brazil deals with its own racial problems and legacies in the next several years.