Follow this link to NPR's Planet Money website and listen to Friday's podcast:
The Friday Podcast: Economists On Federal Funding For NPR. Seriously. Go listen to it, and then come back here.
Interesting stuff, right?
There is no way that the House bill to prevent federal funding to NPR will get past the Senate, let alone the president's veto, but it is still an interesting discussion. We should be able to question, and have the chance to justify, the funding of anything with our tax dollars.
In case you didn't listen to the podcast (
GO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST!) they start by defining public radio as a "public good". There are two criteria for something to be considered a public good:
- It must be non-excludable - there is no way to stop people from using it.
- It must be non-rivalrous - its use by one person does not prevent its simultaneous use by another person.
Other common goods include roads, national defense, police, and so many other things that we take for granted. Not all public goods, however, are actually "good". One of their guests uses the facetious example of a stink bomb as a public good. There's no way you can prevent someone from enjoying the odor, and any number of people can enjoy the odor at the same time. The decision to use tax dollars to fund public goods has to be based on what we value as a community.
Their conclusion is, well, inconclusive. On the one hand NPR could probably get along without federal funding. I know that if NPR lost funding and couldn't find it elsewhere I would do my part by increasing my monetary support of my local station, and I think there are many other listeners and underwriters who would do the same thing. Local stations in areas with smaller populations might suffer, however, and that would be a shame.
On the other hand, if federal funding remains, or, dare I say it, increases, there's no doubt that they will continue to report interesting, objective stories that you can't hear anywhere else. Like this recent report by NPR and ProPublica about the military's diagnosis, treatment, and tracking of traumatic brain injuries (or lack thereof), which has resulted in the Army reevaluating its policy and practices regarding Purple Hearts for victims of concussion injuries.
I certainly hope that NPR stays on the air. I don't know how I would get through my commute without it.
People are not going to like this, but something has to be done.
- The price of gas has to increase. We can wait for the supply to diminish to the point that the market raises the price, or the government can levy higher taxes to manipulate the price at the pump. Gas should be at least $5 per gallon. The money raised by taxes can go to support R&D for alternative energy sources, and the higher cost of travel will encourage people to conserve by buying fuel efficient cars, car pooling, taking public transportation, walking/cycling more, or by simply traveling less.
- Encourage the production of more nuclear power plants now that the moratorium is over. Nuclear energy is not the long term solution, but it is a major step in achieving oil/coal independence. There are so many reasons to build new nuclear plants:
- The moratorium didn’t shut down old plants, so now we have 104 nuclear power plants operating in this country that are at least 30 years old.
- New nuclear technologies have been developed that are more efficient than old technology. This means that the energy they produce is cheaper.
- Safety is the biggest concern of opponents of nuclear power. New nuclear technologies are safer than the ones currently in use.
- The storage of spent nuclear fuel is not as dangerous as people make it out to be. Read Richard Muller’s book “Physics for Future Presidents” for more information.
- In America, more people have died working in the coal industry this year than have ever died working in the nuclear power industry.
Three Mile Island was a success, not a failure. Of course things might go wrong; people make mistakes and equipment malfunctions. That’s why there are so many backup systems and safety measures in place. The events at Three Mile Island showed us that those systems work.
- Public and private sectors both need to invest in wind and solar energy. My money is on solar energy, but current technology is very expensive and minimally efficient. Over the next 50-100 years, solar cells will get cheaper and more efficient, and we will either incorporate them into structure we already have (solar shingles for instance) or build large solar farms, or both. After the initial investment this energy is essentially free, requiring fees only to maintain equipment and eventually replace it. No burning of fossil fuels, no storing or nuclear waste, just cheap, clean electricity.
All of these steps need to be taken in order for us to have the energy we need. If we choose to start now, the process will be less painful. If we wait, times are going to be tough. Some countries are already on step two, so if we want America to be an important player in the energy market a hundred years from now we have to start playing catch up. I think we can do it if we stop letting politics get in the way of things that really need to get done. I fear this might be too much to ask for.
We have been hearing about this oil spill in the Gulf for almost two months now, and I just realized that I am furious about it. Up until now I have been reacting like I normally do to the news. I shake my head and scoff at the failure of our politicians, the corruption of government regulations, and the greed of CEOs and shareholders.
When I first heard about the spill I thought, “Wow! That sucks. They better get that taken care of soon. I’m sure they will.” I was fucking wrong. Seriously, how are we not outraged? People should be rioting outside BP’s US headquarters in Houston. I mean fucking rioting! Would rioting make the oil spill stop? No, but it might make us feel a little better.
I still see people buying gas at BP stations. WTF?!?!? Have they not been listening to the fucking news? How could you voluntarily give your money to a corporation that is single-handedly destroying the ecosystem in the Gulf? AAAAHHHHH!!!!!
What can we do about this?
</rant>
A lot of people have heard about the 2008 murder of Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero in Patchogue, NY, my home town. It was on CNN, the NY Times, lots of places. The event shined a light on the anti-Hispanic sentiment that is common on Long Island. Recently the ring leader of the Patchogue-Medford High School students who went out looking to beat up "Mexicans" was sentenced to 25 years for 1st degree manslaughter.
But that's not what this post is about. In this week's issue of
The Long Island Advance there was an article about the Mayor of Lucero's home town, Gualaceo, coming to Patchogue. Marco Tapia Jara met with the mayor of Patchogue Village, Paul Pontieri, and Deputy Mayor Steve McGiff. Mr. Jara also traveled around the village and had a chance to meet with some of the many immigrants from Ecuador.
Mr. Jara said, "The people here are very grateful. We can say our villages are alike. This gives us the idea that Patchogue welcomes harmony." I am not quite sure about that, myself, but it is nice to hear this sentiment from a visitor. Mr. Jara was also able to reunite with his brother and sister who left Ecuador for Long Island when he was young.
Mr. Pontieri is planning on visiting Gualaceo soon to visit Lucero's home town.
I think this is a great way to share culture and ideas, and hopefully to promote tolerance. Although, the mayors of the towns are obviously already tolerant. Perhaps there should be an exchange program for young people in Patchogue and Gualaceo to see learn about each other's lives.
Mr. Jara continued, "The politicians from the village of Patchogue support the families of Ecuador. We have confidence in Patchogue. From my heart I have a feeling of happiness."
Kyoto Now
Bad Religion
The Process of Belief
It's a matter of prescience
No, not the science fiction kind
It's all about ignorance,
and greed, and miracles for the blind
the media parading, disjointed politics
founded on petrochemical plunder
and we're its hostages
If you stand to reason
you're in the game
the rules might be elusive
but our pieces are the same
and you know if one goes down we all go down as well
the balance is precarious as anyone can tell
this world's going to hell
Don't allow
this mythologic hopeful monster to exact its price
Kyoto now!
We can't do nothing and I think someone else will make it right
You might not think it matters now
But what if you are wrong
You might not think there's any wisdom in a fucked up punk rock song
But the way it is
cannot persist for long
a brutal sun is rising on a sick horizon
It's in the way
we live our lives
exactly like the double-edge of a cold familiar knife
and supremacy weighs heavy on the day
it's never really what you own but what you threw away
and how much did you pay?
In your dreams
You saw a steady state a bounty for eternity
Silent screams
but now the wisdom that sustains us is in full retreat
Don't allow
this mythologic hopeful monster isn't worth the risk
Kyoto now!
We can't have vision for the future if it can't be fixed
Alien
We need a fresh and new religion to run our lives
Hand in hand
the arid torpor of inaction will be our demise
Oh, Kyoto now
People don't understand, or don't want to understand, or don't want you to understand humans' effects on the environment. The oil industry has our elected officials in their pockets, and there's nothing we can do about it.
"We can't do nothing and think someone else will make it right." This is true in so many contexts. In terms of the environment it is even more important because the "we" is all human beings. If we won't change ourselves who will change us?
People don't understand that the problems we face with the environment are not immediate. It is not like a volcanic eruption or coal mine collapse. We need to look look at trends in the environment over periods of decades, or centuries, or millenia in order to understand it and our impact on it. Most people don't understand such abstract ideas, and they don't care either.
In the past we thought nothing of exploiting the environment. Few would have used the word "exploit." Now we are learning about our misdeeds, and hopefully we will look into the future and decide that we cannot go on in our current relationship with the environment. If we don't then "hand in hand the arid torpor of inaction will be our demise."
Becker stayed at my house until after 4:00am. Somehow we resisted the Xbox 360 with Burnout Paradise in the tray and just talked about stuff. Somehow we got on the subject of human evolution.
Will humans continue to evolve? Could human evolution possibly continue in the same way that got us to where we are now? Is it possible to prevent evolution?
Yes. No. No.
I envision a very distant future in which the evolution of technology has paralleled the evolution of man.
Imagine:
We develop technology such that most things have been automated (i.e. agriculture, manufacturing, cooking, etc.) and humans manipulate these automated systems via computers. Eventually we are no longer required to type commands because computers understand voice commands. Later we no longer have to voice our commands because the computers can read our brain waves.
Computer input does not evolve on it's own. Output evolves as well. Computers do not present information through peripherals anymore. The computer does not display an image of something on a screen which we view with our eyes; the computer sends the same signal our eyes would send to our brain directly
to the brain. The same with the other senses.
Physically humans are diminished. We no longer need eyes, ears, taste buds, nerve endings to experience the world. Our technology can see and hear and taste and feel things for us, and send the signals to our brains.
This is not worse! It is better. Our current senses are limited to the area around our bodies because our sensory organs are attached, essentially, to our brains. In the future our "eyes" can be probes light years away; our "ears" can be speakers at the bottom of the ocean.
Our sensory organs are limited anyway. The human eye can only experience the electromagnetic spectrum between wavelengths of 400 and 700 nanometers. The human ear cannot sense sounds below 20 hertz or above 20 000 hertz. We currently have instruments that are more sensitive or are sensitive to a different range than human senses. If we could experience these aspects of the universe that we are missing in a more intuitive way, imagine how our understanding of the universe might progress.
By using technology as our senses, we would be able to visit distance galaxies and witness events such as the creation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs. What could be more exciting or more beautiful than this?
