Americans Want Stricter Regulation of Business: An L.A. Times/Bloomberg survey finds that nearly 70% of Americans in each of a wide range of demographic categories say the lack of controls is responsible for the nation's economic problems.

An Update on the McCain and Obama Stimulus Plans: TPC's Katherine Lim has crunched some numbers on John McCain's proposal to temporarily cut capital gains tax rates from 15 percent 7.5 percent.

Washington Isn't Alone with its Budget Problems: As one might expect, looking at the housing bubble burst, the stock market plunge and all the talk of recession, every state is worried about its own economy. When the National Conference of State Legislatures published its report in mid-December, we'll see just how much company Washington has.

Tax Collections Drop Again: Washington state tax collections for the month from Sept. 11 through Oct. 10, 2008 were $48.3 million lower than expected, according to the state Department of Revenue.

Pension Fund is Down [Again]: Events of the past few weeks have rocked the financial world, including retirement funds, which have sustained more than $2 trillion in losses nationwide over 15 months, according to a congressional estimate.

State Ranks 35th in Taxes, Not Fifth: In the Monday article about I-985, Tim Eyman repeats his misleading claim that Washington is the fifth-highest taxed state in the nation.

Schools Seek Funding Fix: Candidates gunning for the White House won’t stop saying it: “Washington is broken.” But how about this, substituting Washington state for the nation’s capital: “Washington’s school funding system is broken.”

Spend the Bailout Money on the Middle Class: It is sad to see both major parties agree to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out huge financial institutions that are notable for two characteristics: incompetence and greed. There is a much better solution to the financial crisis. But it would require discarding what has been conventional wisdom for too long.

McCain, Obama Address Voters' Economic Fears: Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain battled long-distance over the economy Monday as Obama offered new proposals to aid middle-class voters, including a moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, while McCain presented himself as a fighter with a plan to restore the nation's finances to good health.

McCain Would Guarantee All Savings for 6 Months: Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Tuesday proposed a $52.5 billion economic plan that would eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax while warning voters about taking a chance on Democratic rival Barack Obama.

(October is domestic violence awareness month. My blog will focus on domestic violence from the often ignored and silent perspective - the male victim - and how organizations, politicians, and society deny men and their children the same awareness, compassion, and resources offered to women.)

Lady Madonna: Part 1

by Tim Goldich

The dark picture we have of men would lead us to believe that most child abuse is male-inflicted. In fact, the opposite is true, and by a wide margin. Women commit the vast majority of child abuse and infanticide. Of course that’s only because women perform the vast majority of childcare, nevertheless, our assumption that men are the primary perpetrators against children is emblematic of our attachment to the MB/WG paradigm.

We would hate to think that there was anything less than a Madonna in the nursery, but the facts paint a less-than-“angelic” picture. In fact, if we dare delve deep enough, in the shadows there lurks a picture of motherhood darker than any we care to know.

Before embarking down this road it is important to remind ourselves why. Why do we delve deep to reveal the darkest corners of the maternal psyche? I can answer that question with another: “Why do dads kill?,” asks the front-page headline of the Chicago Sun Times (06/25/07). In answer to that question, also from the front page, in “family-murder cases, a clear pattern emerges, experts say. The father wipes out his family simply because he’s tired of dealing with them.” Really, as simple as that? Also on the cover in a narrow-cropped photo of Christopher Vaughn, who allegedly killed his wife and three kids, eyes staring out and looking a lot like Satan. So, here on the front page of a major metropolitan newspaper we are told that dads kill their families simply because they grow weary of them. Message sent: men are evil violent scum; don’t marry a man, he’ll kill you and your children the moment he grows tired of dealing with you.

So, again, why do we delve deep to reveal the darkest corners of the maternal psyche? Because, in failing to do so, we are left with only a demonizing of men and an anglicizing of women—we are left with ManBad/WomanGood.

When Andrea Yates drowned her children in the bathtub, all five of them, one at a time, it made the cover of Newsweek (07/02/01). The headline? “‘I Killed My Children’: What Made Andrea Yates Snap?” Note how this Newsweek cover treats both Andrea Yates and what she did as unique. By contrast, in dealing with Christopher Vaughn and what he allegedly did, the Chicago Sun Times cover asks why dads kill as if to implicate all dads. It may not literally implicate all dads, but oftentimes it is the blunt message that sticks in the brain and the blunt message reads “dads kill.” Not some dads kill, or this particular dad killed, but just: “Why do dads kill?”. A headline that asked “Why do moms kill?,” would be protested accordingly.

The Newsweek cover quotes Andrea’s reply when a police officer asked, “Do you realize what you have done?” Her reply, “I killed my children,” could either be taken as cold-blooded or it could be taken as an expression of horror and remorse. What follows may nudge us toward the latter interpretation: “What made Andrea Yates snap?” Isn’t that really asking: What was Andrea Yates’ excuse? Also on the cover: “Understanding Postpartum Depression” and “Anna Quindlen on Every Mother’s Secret.” Yes, Anna “It’s not that I don’t like men; women are just better” Quindlen is asked to give her unbiased opinion on the subject [Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, CBS, 04/15/93]. So now we know what made Yates “snap” and we are given a further nudge toward an empathy interpretation of her actions.

Many will merely glance at the covers. The verdict will be obvious. Look for it and you’ll find the ManBad/WomanGood paradigm insinuating itself into our media/cultural products with a pervasiveness comparable to the way food additives are included in the products we buy at the grocery store. Comparing the two covers, the greater empathy shown a woman could not be more self-evident. Now let’s take a look inside each article starting with The Chicago Sun Times.

According to Minneapolis criminal profiler Pat Brown, men who commit “familicide” fall into one of two categories. “Some men decide to commit suicide because they are heavily in debt, have failed in their jobs or are otherwise falling apart. In a supremely selfish act, they decide to take their families with them. Those who don’t kill themselves are more likely to just want to be free, Brown said.” (Sun Times, p. 4). When a father kills we don’t ask what made him “snap.” We don’t care to know what his excuse was. He may well have been provoked in the worst way imaginable, but we’re too intent upon vilifying him to seek out that which might mitigate his guilt in some way. We are not invited to consider either his “depression” or his “stress.” In fact what we’re told explicitly precludes any possibility of redemption: “They are manipulators. They’re narcissistic, filled with grandiose thoughts. And they’re pathologic liars who blame everyone but themselves for their problems.” And there’s no end to it. “But they’re usually not insane . . . they know right from wrong” (Sun Times, p. 4). So, when it comes to fathers who kill, there can be absolutely no possibility of an “excuse.”

When the article shifts its attention to their female equivalents, however, the tone shifts dramatically. According to John Philipin, psychologist, crime profiler and author of true-crime books, “By contrast, many mothers who kill their families suffer from depression, depressive psychosis, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses” (Sun Times, Jim Ritter, “Why do dads kill? To be ‘free,’ experts say,” p. 4). Women who kill are said to suffer from these illnesses implying that even women who kill remain the victims.

The Newsweek article begins: “Andrea Yates was the ultimate caregiver—until depression and the strains of raising five children drove her to an unspeakable crime.” (p. 20). Note the air of incredulity that accompanies a heinous act when committed by a woman. “How could a mother commit such an act against nature and all morality, ending the lives she had so recently borne and nurtured. And kill them so methodically, one by one, holding them under the bath water (imagine eyes staring back) and laying them out on the bed wrapped in sheets like little Christian martyrs” (Newsweek, p. 20).

“About 200 children are killed by their mothers every year, according to Justice statistics. Sometimes moms blame the Devil. Or they think they are saving their children from a hellish life by sending them to heaven. The psychologists call these ‘altruistic killings.’ Andrea Yates was apparently suffering from a specific, diagnosable—and treatable—condition called postpartum psychosis.” (Newsweek, p. 20). It was on the basis of that diagnosis that Yates was eventually judged not guilty by reason of insanity. “Yates’ attorneys never disputed that she drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.” (“Andrea Yates Found Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity; Will Be Committed To State Mental Hospital,” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/national/main1837248.shtml, 07/26/06). So, I guess it was five of those “altruistic killings” that Yates committed?

Patricia Pearson:
By contrast, when a sample of men convicted of infanticide were surveyed in Brixton Prison in Great Britain, those who offered altruistic motivations were scoffed at. Wrote their interviewer: “The statement ‘that it was best for the children’ . . . is an expression of the fact that the perpetrator himself thought that the infanticide was the best way out—that is to say, the act was egosyntonic.” [When She Was, p. 88]

No matter what the circumstances, a father who drowned his five children one at a time couldn’t possibly be received so empathically as to have his actions labeled “altruistic.”

Newsweek quotes Andrea’s mother, the one person we would expect to love Andrea most unconditionally. “She was the most compassionate of my children. Always thinking of other people, never herself. She was always trying to care for everybody.” (Newsweek, p. 20). And follows that with a pitiful image of Andrea Yates caring for her Alzheimer’s stricken father while pregnant. “Between caring for her father and her children, it is hard to think that Andrea ever had time for herself.” (Newsweek, p. 21). True enough, however, between working/commuting 70 hours a week plus domestic and other chores expected of him, many a husband/father has no time for himself.

According to the Newsweek article, most multicide killers (i.e., men?) are coldly psychopathic. “Andrea was the opposite; if anything, she apparently cared too much. She may have felt she could never do enough for her demanding husband. In a horribly twisted way, she may have tried to be too good a mother.” (Newsweek, p. 20). Even as we’re canonizing the female killer note how we begin blaming the nearest male, her “demanding” husband. But no one blames Andrea, not even the devastated father of those five murdered children. ‘“One side of me blames her because, you know, she did it. But the other side of me says, ‘Well, she didn’t, because that wasn’t her.”’ (Newsweek, p. 20). Spoken like a typically chivalrous and infinitely magnanimous male. What wife would express such forgiveness toward a husband who did what she did?

Houston police officer Frank Stumpo: ‘“Do you realize what you have done?’ he asked her. She looked right at him and said, ‘Yes, I do.’ She told the police, ‘I killed my children.’ Stumpo looked around. The house was a mess, he thought, dirty and unkempt.” (Newsweek, p. 25). At this point Rusty had returned home but was kept out of the house presumably to protect Andrea. Asked if he wanted a glass of water, “he doubted anyone would find a clean glass in the house. Stumpo looked anyway, and couldn’t find one—until Andrea calmly pointed him to the china cabinet.” (Newsweek, p. 25).

Rusty Yates was earlier described as “demanding.” Maybe so, but if he didn’t demand housekeeping, and he didn’t demand help with the financial burdens, then perhaps he wasn’t all that demanding. Many a wife is “demanding”: demanding toughness, strength, and courage of her husband; demanding of competence, demanding of domestic chores, demanding of career success and demanding financially. Even so, if a husband/father did what Andrea Yates did, who would ever think to pin the blame on his “demanding” wife? Yet the media made every effort to vilify Rusty Yates and hold him responsible for the murder of his children.

In a follow-up article, Newsweek (04/01/02) describes Rusty’s tireless campaign on behalf of Andrea. He defended her on every show from the “Today” show, to Larry King, to Oprah. For his chivalrous efforts he faces contempt of court charges for violating a gag order. But that’s only the beginning; “as he crisscrossed the nation, simmering questions about his own accountability have boiled over.” (Newsweek, 04/01/02, p. 6).

Andrea’s mother and siblings told reporters that Rusty, a controlling husband who often downplayed his wife’s mental illness and shut them out, bears some responsibility for the tragedy. Andrea’s best friend, Deborah Holmes, did the same. On radio call-in shows, Internet chat rooms and newspaper editorial pages, the questions continue. . . . Rusty is “innocent of any criminal offense,” says his lawyer, Ed Mallet. Some legal experts, however, think that even if Yates escapes criminal charges (including contempt of court) he may have a tough time defending himself in civil court where a jury could find him partly responsible. (Newsweek, 04/01/02, p.6)

(Tim Goldich is in the process of publishing a series of books on the subject of gender issues as seen from both the female and the male perspectives. His first book, Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics, Love and Respect in the Past, Love and Respect in the Present, and Love and Respect in the Future will be released in the near future.)

Contact:

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

$latex x*a + (1-a)*y \geq x^a*y^{1-a} &s=2 $

I'm pretty sure I've seen this in analysis, or something, years ago, but I certainly couldn't recall the proof straight off and had to re-derive it.

First, note this interesting rearrangement.

$latex (\frac{x}{y}*a + (1-a))*y \geq {(\frac{x}{y})}^a*y &s=2 $

Since we know that y is strictly greater than 0, we can divide by it, factor it from each side, do with it as we please. The inequality reduces,

$latex \frac{x}{y}*a + 1-a \geq {(\frac{x}{y})}^a &s=2 $

Notice that, given the conditions on x and y, x/y will be strictly greater than 0. So we introduce a new letter, r (for ratio), such that $latex r > 0 $. Substituting, and moving the right hand side to the left,

$latex r*a + 1-a - r^a \geq 0 &s=2 $

This is very interesting to me. Now, I know I said that we were restricting r to be greater than 0, but if it happened that the inequality were true for r = 0, as well as for r greater than 0, are we any worse off? Not at all. So consider what happens when r = 0.

$latex 0 + 1-a -0 \geq 0 &s=2 $

$latex 1 \geq a &s=2 $

Which is clearly true! Now, suppose that the left side of the inequality, $latex r*a + 1-a - r^a $ were increasing with r. That would mean that since the expression is equal to 0 at r = 0, and it increased as r increased, the expression is greater than or equal to 0 for all positive r. Which is what we want.

So we want to take derivatives. If the derivative of a function is positive, it is increasing.

$latex \frac{d}{dr}(r*a + 1-a - r^a) = a - a*r^{a - 1} &s=2 $

Since the factor of a is positive, it can't change the sign of the derivative. So we just drop it right out, and consider $latex 1 - r^{a - 1} $, when is that positive, for $latex r \geq 0$? Doing some manipulations,

$latex 1 - r^{a - 1} > 0 &s=2 $

$latex 1 > r^{a - 1} &s=2 $

$latex r > r^a &s=2 $

Looking at the above, we can take the ln of each side, and the relation doesn't change, since ln is an increasing function.

$latex ln(r) > a*ln(r) &s=2 $

The above, since a is positive, less than 1, is always true - the coefficient just scales ln(r) down a bit. And this is true for all r greater than 0. Which means, stepping backwards, the derivative of our function is positive for all r greater than 0. That means our function is increasing for all r greater than 0. Since the function starts out at 0, at r = 0, this verifies the inequality

$latex r*a + 1-a - r^a \geq 0 &s=2 $

Which we can then step backwards to verify

$latex x*a + (1-a)*y \geq x^a*y^{1-a} &s=2 $

Which is neat!

There is probably a step I'm missing, were I to be rigorous, about continuity of functions around r = 0, but, let it be said that this was for thermodynamics, not analysis.

How would you all have done it?

Many American mothers cannot afford to take unpaid family leave. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have been fighting hard for women's votes in these US presidential elections. McCain even selected Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for his ticket. And Obama has made a point of addressing issues that are crucial to women voters. Click here to watch a video from We the People detailing state efforts to pass paid family leave legislation and the delicate balance between work and family.

Another Frightening Show About the Economy

10.03.2008 | NPR | Learn more about the economic downturn, deregulation, what what lies ahead.

The Giant Pool of Money

05.09.2008 | NPR | A discussion of the housing crisis from early May 2008--including how mortgage-backed financial instruments have wreaked havoc on the global economic system.

It is real difficult for me not to throw personal experiences into this picture, especially because I am still a youth, which is quite the contrary to what my birth country, Jamaica, will recognize, as our youth age ends at 24 years. The National Youth Services (NYS), National Centre for Youth Development (NCYD), and other state agencies and ministries do not recognize me as youth, although I am at the regional level. This means that young people in the 25- 30 age cohort in Jamaica have been left out on a limb. We are not morally accepted as adults, and we are not legally recognized as youth. What a conundrum?

In Jamaica the overwhelming majority of those who are unemployed are youth, with employment trending upwards as you move from the youngest, 14 years, to the oldest youth age, 30 years. I must say that in my almost 11 years as a working youth I have not seen or experienced much changes.

Youth work often times limits and predisposes employees to: entry level positions and assistants posts; low remuneration compared to the actual responsibilities of youth and what they generally qualify for; reluctance of agency and organizational leaders to hire youth in leadership positions that they are qualified and experienced for; use of stigmatizing terms to refer to youth in employment, e.g. young Tom come and carry out the coffee; unequal pay and benefits compared to an adult in the same position with the same responsibilities and qualification; disproportional representation of youth in all levels of work and national leadership; and exploitation of youth time in promise for sustainability.

I attended the Commonwealth Youth Lecture (Jamaica) 2008 at the Courtleigh Auditorium on Thursday, October 9. The theme for the event was: "Youth Mainstreaming: The Key to National Development." It was at this lecture that I encountered the term youth work in Dr. Fatiha Serour's presentation. Its usage immediately struck a chord in my brain, and it was like giving voice to something that was once mute. On hearing the term, I reached to my friend next to me and said, "Youth work, I never knew that youth do a different kinda work from adults? " It really woke me up!

I immediately turned my eyes to the agenda in hand and the presenters who were sitting immediately before me--the most significant role was being played by an adult. While I respect Dr. Serour and found several valuable lessons from her lecture, I believe that she too has contributed to the marginalization of the youth--a key issue which she articulates in her presentation. Looking at the agenda from a youth work perspective, all roles, except that of the Lecture, were entry level and assistants posts--they were all played by youth: welcome, prayer, greetings, cultural item, introduction of speaker, and the vote of thanks. The young man who introduced Dr. Serour even introduced her as a youth--what a calamity?

When will young people wake up and see that they are marginalized in work because the adults refuse to make employment standardized and equally accessible and available despite age, creed, race, religion, etc. Can you imagine that in this day and age, Jamaica a western country, roughly 200 miles outside of the United States of America, does not have an equal employment opportunity Act? Further more, there is absolutely no nondiscriminatory clause to address issues of youth and religion in the Equal Work for Equal Pay Act. What an archaic state of affairs?

We, the youth, need to envision the day when we will be delivering the Commonwealth Youth Lecture, when we have eliminated the concept of youth work, and are able to stand in equality with adults in employment. If we fail to do this, we will fail to exist, as Dr. Serour said in her presentation, the face of poverty was once a woman's, now it is the face of a Youth. Young people, get up and stand up for your rights!

If there's one thing the masses dislike more than Depression-era inequality, it's a Depression-era depression.  The income disparity factoids have been replaced with constant reminders (see, e.g., Obama's stump speech) that the current downturn is the worst since the Depression.

What's the connection between extreme inequality and economic instability?  Is there a causal relationship, or is the whole thing a coincidence?  I have yet to hear about or read a theory linking these trends.

Clark County Businesses Experience Decline: Clark County’s retail businesses saw sales drop 5.56 percent, to $500.2 million, in the three months ending June 30, according to figures released this week by the Washington state Department of Revenue.

How Long, Deep for Economic Recovery? No One Knows: The bear market that is ravaging investor portfolios is now one of the worst in modern U.S. history and has wiped out more than $7 trillion in shareholder value, with no bottom clearly in sight.

One of Biggest Casualties of Financial Crisis: Fueled by Wall Street greed deregulation fever, today’s crashing economy, tumbling home prices and stock market nosedive has cost American workers as much as $2 trillion in retirement security savings during the past 15 months.

key takeaways:

balanced growth (diversification) driven by strong agricultural growth. p (see below) should grow, people should be absorbed.

dutch disease - in foreign aid donor countries want to give aid, recipients are eager to receive. money flows fast. little reason for change.

dutch disease is an economic concept that tries to explain the apparent relationship between the exploitation of natural resources and a decline in the manufacturing sector combined with moral fallout.

protection of infant industries is addictive. botswana and diamonds is interesting case study. can they move upstream? not many cases of success

you can eat the cake and keep it two- growth with labor intensive jobs eliminates poverty and keeps income distributions fair

poverty lines are poor measurements - they are set low. can mis-align focus on crossing the line.

remittances, especially domestic ones are under researched

see also:

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~granis/papers/Causal-Chain-between-HD-and-EG.pdf - "Causal Chain between Human Development and Economic Growth," HD Insights, March 2007, Issue 6.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~granis/papers/human-develop-poverty-2006.pdf - Human Development: Beyond the HDI," with Frances Stewart and Emma Samman in Poverty in Focus, Dec 2006, pp.12-14.

Composition of Human development index and related indices explained: http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/hdi/

Key terms:

MEG - modern economic growth

classical theory, new growth theory. new classical school (chicago school)

there should be an agricultural revolution prior to an industrial revolution

urban informal sector - agriculture surplus of labor moving into urban area, not finding a job. provide low level services (watch your car for a cigarette) and are income sharing - bring some money back home for people to eat - not real income earners - often supported by family back in rural area

see works of simon kuznets 1971 economics noble on economic development

if you are not familiar with HDI, please take a look

human development index (HDI)

growth is necessary but not sufficient. GDP

rather than measuring income, measure what income can buy:

education

health

infant mortality rate (IMR)

inequality and income distribution

some countires who have done well, do it post tax, not pre-tax (scandinavian)

inequality as measured by gini coefficient:

who gets the benefits of growth? gini coefficient.

why is gini (ineqaulity increasing)

taiwan is an exception. chimneys in the countryside. labor intensive non-agriculture.

labor intensive agriculture means lower gini.

industrialization is less equally distributed. higher gini

strong natural resources. elite gets a hold. uses is as they like. higher gini

education is a key role, primary, secondary and tertiary.

see also Kuznets curve is the graphical representation of Simon Kuznets's theory ('Kuznets hypothesis') that economic inequality increases over time while a country is developing, then after a critical average income is attained, begins to decrease.

__________________________

agricultural Surplus and its uses

L= V+B

Labor= V people still in agriculture + B people out of agriculture

p=Qa/V

p (population increase)

c=Qa/L

consumption (assumed average)

O= B/L

theta is amount of people out of agriculture.

1-O= V/L

p=Lc/L(1-O)= c/(1-O)

so if there is growth, how is it distributed. consuption adjustment and allocation adjustment

RIP: family leave, family tax credit, property tax deferral: Three programs are just about meeting their end in Gov. Gregoire's new savings plan, all of them projects of the Senate Democrats that never quite got off the ground.

State budget: Governor wants $240 million in savings: Gov. Chris Gregoire on Tuesday detailed $240 million in cuts and savings in state spending in the next nine months, a move aimed at reducing the scale of a projected deficit and blunting criticism from her political challenger.

Joining Forces for Economic Recovery: The bailout is done. Now comes the digging out. Although so-called "rescue" efforts were legislated last week in Congress, in Kitsap and elsewhere, all of us will have a role in the recovery efforts.

This is an email that was sent out. The response from Mr Alfers is the exact kind of panic we are aiming to achieve with the 'Out of Order' campaign.

CMP media campaign causes havoc in AMM. See below …(Rod Amner)

"Someone has pasted 'Out of Order' notices on all the devices in the men's toilets in AMM.We have investigated and can find no malfunctioning equipment.

Does anyone have any details about what exactly is out of order?Or is this
a yet another experiment for news dissemination, now that the internet is
passé?"

Joe Alfers
Technology Manager
School of Journalism & Media Studies

his wife ellen schuman, in endowment business. best performing last year:

'never pay fees' (unless managers money is in and in a big way [dependent on net-worth]). you want the pilot on the plane.

key takeaways:

demography matters. great challanges for phase 4,5 countries. (but better than phase 1). huge policy consequences.

human development can be viewed as increase of available talent pool

current trend: destruction of historical cultures. languages: very rapid urbanization.

2 forms of religion. chronic and acute. acute we kill each other over

__________________________

angus madison premiere quantifying economist

first volcano in western countries in 1870. countires where christianty took over indigneous people?

hans roslings - the best stats you ever saw. 2 ted talks

www.gapminder.org

must see - a moving graph of gdp/capita development vs longevity thru time

________________________

world economic transition

1. upto 1800 - many children, many death, short lifespan. enough children to keep enough survivors. nearly uniform life lived in material misery. number of people who are able to learn (1%). recruitment of world talent was infeasible from biological point of view.

2. death rates fall. different times at different places. in europe, 1800. rapid change in death rate and same birth rate. infant mortality. infant mortality rate drop: clean water and public sewage, food, infectious disease is under-control. cities.prenatal nutrition a crucial predictor.

so clean water (in,out) available to mass populations in urban centers. huge growth in popluation

3. birth rates fall

4. equilibrium again at another point. long lives and human development

5. japan and east asian rich countries and western european ones (italy, germany poland russia). US (except for immigration [black br down, hispanic still high]). huge consequences.

china and ireland in sweet spot right now, but will age fast in 20 years. ireland (laps of faith in irish catholic church - all of a sudden use of birth rates). dependency ratio - people of working age vs total population. officially 15-65/total. can argue about increasing top end.

Urbanism

america:

1850-1920. trains, immigration, industrialization, large labor pools.

in new haven, take a look at grand ave, fair haven and hispanic revitalization of ex italian neighborhoods.

equador has a consulate in new haven.

catholic churc is vey succesful because of great mangement. note its supra-state structure and ability to make exceptions to territorial parishism. e.g. italian church vs irish church in new haven.

lorcio italian restaurant best italianin new haven, ct

2 forms of religion. chronic and acute. acute we kill each other over. tony blair thinks differently. he is acute.

see william james, wrote influential books on the young science of psychology, educational psychology, psychology of religious experience and mysticism, and the philosophy of pragmatism

______________

principle agency theory or agent dilemma.

sweetheartning. company in ct, builds sw systems to detect it

30% of cashiers do it. hard to detect it. giving benefits to shoppers. e.g. not scanning (non-)purchased items.

principle agency theory. ownership (principle) vs employees (agent). interests are different. problem when not performance based. employee has more information than 'shop'. asymmetrical information. e.g. extremely unlucky dealers in casinos.

current economic crisis can be attributed to PAT or accountability problem. mis-alignment of incentives.

sub prime morgages vs redlining post homeowners act of 1934.

mortgage loan officers were incentivized by volume. no evaluation or measurements. fee basis on volume leads to problems.

simplicity - complicated structures create measurement problems

____________________

US elections:

US has no significant left-wing party. populism is getting out of hand and will be difficult to manage.

Palin winking at the camera during a debate

disconnect about much of the country and the elite institutions.

Two Weeks of Talks

The crisis prompted the resignations of chief executive officers at Merrill Lynch & Co., Citigroup Inc. and UBS AG and the government takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants, and American International Group Inc., the world's biggest insurer. It forced the sale of Bear Stearns, New York-based Merrill and Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia Corp. and the bankruptcy of New York-based Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. President George W. Bush has record low approval ratings, and lawmakers are calling for new regulation of Wall Street.

The Oct. 3 bailout vote culminated two weeks of backroom negotiations, arm-twisting and begging in Washington as the Bush administration tried to convince reluctant members of Congress that they should use taxpayer money to buy toxic assets. The 450- page bill, laden with tax breaks and other measures unrelated to the crisis, grew out of a two-and-a-half page proposal that Paulson sent to Capitol Hill early on Saturday, Sept. 20.

Two days earlier, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had warned congressional leaders in a closed-door meeting that numerous banks and other companies might fail if Congress didn't approve a bailout.

Many Members Opposed

To counter the threat, Paulson was seeking unprecedented power to buy and hold as much as $700 billion in mortgage-related assets without judicial review. On Sunday, Sept. 21, Paulson went on morning talk shows including NBC's Meet the Press to sell the proposal to the public.

As 'Biggest Crisis' Hit, Congress Held Nose and Backed Bailout

By Alison Fitzgerald
More Photos/Details

Oct. 6 (Bloomberg)

To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at Aiftzgerald2@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 6, 2008 00:01 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2PslgpVvrCI&refer=home
Poverty

Overview

* In 2007, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 9.8 percent and 7.6 million, respectively, both statistically unchanged from 2006. Furthermore, the poverty rate and the number in poverty showed no statistical change between 2006 and 2007 for the different types of families. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.8 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.6 percent (696,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present.

# Public Information Office
# 301-763-3030/763-3691

# 301-763-3762 (fax)
# 301-457-1037 (TDD)
# e-mail: < pio@census.gov >

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUG. 26, 2008, 10:10 A.M. EDT

Overview

* In 2007, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 9.8 percent and 7.6 million, respectively, both statistically unchanged from 2006. Furthermore, the poverty rate and the number in poverty showed no statistical change between 2006 and 2007 for the different types of families. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.8 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.6 percent (696,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present.

Earnings

* In 2007, the ratio of earnings of women who worked full time, year-round was 78 percent of that for corresponding men. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. These increases in earnings follow three years of annual decline in real earnings for both men and women.

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 [PDF]. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).

Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.

NOTE - This is not accurate according to other sources.

# Public Information Office
# 301-763-3030/763-3691

# 301-763-3762 (fax)
# 301-457-1037 (TDD)
# e-mail: < pio@census.gov >

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUG. 26, 2008, 10:10 A.M. EDT

Thresholds

* As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2007 was $21,203; for a family of three, $16,530; for a family of two, $13,540; and for unrelated individuals, $10,590.

Age

* For people 65 and older and those 18 to 64, the poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 9.7 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively. For children younger than 18, the poverty rate increased from 17.4 percent in 2006 to 18.0 percent in 2007.
* The number of people in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older — from 3.4 million in 2006 to 3.6 million in 2007. For children younger than 18, the number in poverty climbed as well, from 12.8 million in 2006 to 13.3 million in 2007. For those 18 to 64, however, the number in poverty remained statistically unchanged, at 20.4 million in 2007.

Regions

* The number in poverty in the South increased to 15.5 million in 2007, up from 14.9 million in 2006, while the poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 14.2 percent in 2007. In 2007, the poverty rates for the Northeast (11.4 percent), the Midwest (11.1 percent) and the West (12.0 percent) were all statistically unchanged from 2006. The poverty rate for the Northeast was not statistically different from that of the Midwest or West.

Overview

* The number of uninsured children declined from 8.7 million (11.7 percent) in 2006 to 8.1 million (11.0 percent) in 2007.

Income

* In the 2007 ACS, median household income ranged from $68,080 for Maryland to $36,338 for Mississippi. (The median income for Mississippi was not significantly different from that for West Virginia.)
* Median household incomes for 18 states and the District of Columbia were above the U.S. median in 2007, while 29 states were below it. Three states had 2007 median household incomes that were not statistically different from the U.S. median.

Earnings

* Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Alaska had median earnings above $50,000 for men who worked full time, year-round in the 2007 ACS. No state had median earnings for women above $50,000, but the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut had median earnings for women who worked full time, year-round above $40,000.
* For each of the 50 states, women had lower median earnings than men in the 2007 ACS. The District of Columbia had the highest ratio of women’s-to-men’s earnings (93.4 percent). In fact, there was no statistically significant difference between women’s and men’s median earnings in Washington, D.C.

# In the 2007 ACS, among large cities (250,000 or more population), Detroit had the highest poverty rate (33.8 percent). Plano, Texas (5.9 percent), Virginia Beach, Va. (6.4 percent) and Anchorage, Alaska (7.3 percent), while not statistically different from each other, had lower poverty rates than other cities of the same size.
# Among the smaller cities (65,000 to 249,999 population), Bloomington, Ind. (41.6 percent) had a higher poverty rate point estimate than other places, although its rate was not statistically different from that of Camden, N.J.; Brownsville, Texas; and Gainesville, Fla. The poverty rate for Highlands Ranch, Colo., which was among the lowest (0.8 percent), was not statistically different from Chino, Calif.; Yorba Linda, Calif.; Folsom, Calif.; Flower Mound, Texas; Pleasanton, Calif.; and Weston, Fla.

Note that estimates from the CPS ASEC may not match the estimates from the ACS because of differences in the questionnaires, data collection methodology, reference period, processing procedures, etc. Both surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the reports have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the estimates for the CPS, visit <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_235sa.pdf>.
For additional information on the ACS data, visit <http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Accuracy/Accuracy1.htm>.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/012528.html

Earnings

* In 2007, the ratio of earnings of women who worked full time, year-round was 78 percent of that for corresponding men. The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round climbed between 2006 and 2007, from $43,460 to $45,113. For women, the corresponding increase was from $33,437 to $35,102. These increases in earnings follow three years of annual decline in real earnings for both men and women.

Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 [PDF]. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).

***

(source)

Income inequality within a country is usually measured using the so-called Gini-index (see also here). When we look at the Gini indices for the U.S. at various times, we see an increase in inequality (a higher value means more inequality):

• 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
• 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
• 1970: 39.4
• 1980: 40.3
• 1990: 42.8
• 2000: 46.2
• 2005: 46.9
• 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
• 2007: 46.3

These data show an increasing gap between rich and poor over the period between 1970 and 2000 (no significant evolution since 2000). As a result, inequality in the U.S. is now higher than in other developed countries:

(source)

Before the 1960s, the U.S. became progressively more egalitarian. From the 1970s onward, average income continued to increase, but mainly thanks to large increases in the top incomes, which caused a change in the trend and an increase in inequality.

(source)

(source)

This trend of rising inequality since the 1970s in the U.S. and some other advanced industrial societies (especially the U.K.) goes against traditional wisdom.

Simon Kuznets argued that levels of economic inequality are in large part the result of stages of development. Kuznets saw a curve-like relationship between level of income and inequality, now known as Kuznets curve. According to Kuznets, countries with low levels of development have relatively equal distributions of wealth. As a country develops, it acquires more capital, which leads to the owners of this capital having more wealth and income and introducing inequality. Eventually, through various possible redistribution mechanisms such as social welfare programs, more developed countries move back to lower levels of inequality. Kuznets demonstrated this relationship using cross-sectional data. However, more recent testing of this theory with superior panel data has shown it to be very weak. (source)

The trend of rising inequality has been called "The Great U-Turn", a phrase coined by Harrison and Bluestone. When we focus on the U.S., we can identify the following causes of this u-turn:

• Globalization and trade liberalization depressing the wages of the less skilled or threatening their jobs.
• Rising number of single parent families.
• Influx of women and immigrants in the low-end job-market has also depressed wages.
• Lower taxes for high incomes by the Reagan administration.
• The weakness of the labor movement in the U.S.
• A relatively large wage premium for a college education in the U.S.
• The work ethic in the U.S. typically favors large rewards for success.
• Increasing reliance on technology causing increased demand (and higher returns) for education and cognitive skills.
• Etc.

What can be done about it?

• Offer better education.
• Renewed public support for the right of unorganized workers to be represented by unions.
• Strengthen the social safety net, including universal coverage for health care.
• Vote for Obama. A study by the independent Tax Policy Centre found that the tax policies proposed McCain would widen the gap in after-tax income of rich and poor even more, and that the policies proposed by Obama would reverse the trend:

(source)

More on income inequality.

Writing gets strung out when one is tired and has to be awake in the morning. Fast story: today I walked 6-7 miles stepping over geese shit on the bike paths at Fairmount Park, today I bought my first weekly trans-pass for $20 bucks, today I chilled with Campbell and ate a couple slices of pizza at Eddie's at Temple University, watched Jena Osman display and talk about her periodic table of elements hypertext project, heard Roald Hoffman recite his chemistry poetry (most of which I liked), and later I talked with Campbell about . . . (economy, buildings, Dubai, literature, architects, pizza, education, antisocialism, college comparisons, Philadelphia), and then later today I spent a couple hours talking to a long lost love, or rather she should be such but isn't, and today I cleaned the upstairs bathroom for the first time and remembered working at Hannaford, back when I was in high school, and cleaned bathrooms on a regular basis, and then when I was in college, and when Hannaford had a maintenance department which was a new thing, but it gave me hours, and so I cleaned bathrooms again, and today I finally looked up information on La Salle University and yes they teach German but the soonest I would be able to take it is in the Spring, boo.

After the walk, today's feet burned like coal-walkers. Had they been uncovered, the green goose shit, everywhere and nowhere just like a minefield, probably would have furthered the burning.

I didn't feel unsafe on my walk home from the subway even though it was dark out and some people, like me yesterday and the day before, might get a little afraid, sometimes.

Chicken noodle soup, home made, should be made, more often too, with the best kinds of vegetables (mushrooms particularly, especially) too.

This morning, I almost forgot, at the post office, which is called Logan Station (even though the Logan Station subway stop is way down near Center City almost) all the black people that were waiting in line with me because I was part of the line too and the line was so big because there was only one clerk working behind the bullet proof glass walls that separate the line from the clerks when there are usually clerks (today there was just one the other two had called out because they weren't feeling so good) they were all complaining about the line being so big and how this never happened in the white people neighborhood just the black people neighborhood and that's there terminology not mine I am just quoting right now and so I'm standing there uncomfortable when the climax hits when the supervisor who just so happens to be white comes out front but she is still behind the bulletproof glass and you can tell that even though she's a pretty defiant woman she's feeling pretty good back there, she talks with the line about how she can't possibly put in a few minutes to help clear up the line and so that's when all the trouble happens and she goes back into the recesses of the building and I just stand there staring out of the big window and saying to myself "that's great, that's great," in my head and looking at the gas down to $3.40/gallon (would be better at $2.40/gallon, but you know) and after the supervisor hit the deck the people start giving the black clerk all these compliments and he's a cool guy he balances his job with the sentiments of the line and just goes on doing his work and not really voicing any opinion just listening to the line and smiling and nodding at their support because he really is all alone and then it's my turn and I feel like I'm at the head of this big disaster of a situation and I really really don't want people to think that I am part of the white people even though I am and I just want to be accepted that's not so much to ask but nobody says anything and nobody cares anymore about the situation (maybe when I'm gone they'll talk about me, too, how I didn't help out somehow) (but maybe not, you know, maybe I am accepted to some degree and I'm just another part of the line anyway so I shouldn't even be thinking such things) and so I do my business and then I leave Logan Station and I start walking down Broad Street and just get really, really sad all of a sudden, but it's a cloudy day and I think that had something to do with the whole situation.

A few thoughts (by Nicola) from conversation on development:

Definitions of development: Human Development concept focuses on enlarging people's choices.
3 essential capabilities:

- to lead long and healthy lives;

- to be knowledgeable;

- to have a decent standard of living.

If these basic capabilities are not achieved, many choices are simply not available and many opportunities remain inaccessible.

Human development goes further to emphasize choice - from political economic and social opportunities for being creative and productive to
enjoying self-respect, empowerment and a sense of belonging to a community. Cultural liberty a vital part:  being able to choose one's identity is
important in leading a full life.

Goal of human development = human freedom - freedom  to exercise choice and participate in decision-making.

Aristotle: "Wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful for the sake of something else."

Has progress been made?

YES ... Looked at over a 25-30 year span, remarkable progress: The number of
people living in extreme poverty on less than $1 a day fell by about 400
million. Many more children, particularly girls, complete primary school.
Illiteracy rates fell by half. Life expectancy rose by nearly 15 years, on
average, over a 40 year period. Some diseases such as polio were almost
eliminated.

BUT not enough ...
PROGRESS and                                                          DOWNSIDE

130 million people lifted out of extreme poverty  2.5 billion still live on less than $2 a day;

3 million fewer child deaths a year                              10 million preventable child deaths every year

30 million more children in school                              115 million children still out of school

1.2 billion people gained access to clean water          More than one billion people still have no access to safe water

*       Most recent projections anticipate the proportion of people living
in extreme poverty will fall from 29% 1990 to 10% 2015. However, that masks
significant regional variations - huge progress in large Asian countries
lifts the global numbers but masks the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
lags behind.  I.e. There has been strong- but regionally uneven-progress
toward reducing overall poverty.

*       Education: Global target - all boys and girls complete primary
schooling by 2015.  Significant progress in literacy since 1990. In East
Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and Latin America, primary
school completion and literacy rates are close to 100%.  Significant
progress in the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia. SSA Africa is
off track for primary school completion for both boys and girls; South East
Asia is on track for girls' completion of schooling but not for boys. I.e.
There is good progress, but again it is uneven: crises such as the 2005
earthquake in Pakistan opened up new opportunities for schooling of girls in
affected regions.

*       Access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation: key to
environmental sustainability and a key indicator for human development.
Over 1 billion individuals lack access to safe drinking water and 2.5
billion individuals lack access to basic sanitation.  Improvements in these
two areas could help to reduce dramatically the burden of disease,
particularly diarrhea, which contributes to approximately 1.8 million deaths
annually. The growing urbanization exacerbates the problem.

*       Climate change: already starting to affect some of the poorest and
most vulnerable communities around the world - > natural disasters, -
already undermining poverty reduction efforts.

*       Important gaps remain in delivering on global commitments undertaken
as part of the Millennium Development Goals, in the areas of aid, trade,
debt relief, and access to new technologies and to affordable essential
medicines. See the UN MDG Gap Task Force report
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/mdggap/mdg8report_engw.pdf

For those interested in measurement issues,

the World Bank just revised its measurement of poverty. Its new estimates indicate 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than US$1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981:

poverty has been more widespread than previously estimated, but also there has been strong-if regionally uneven-progress toward reducing overall poverty. Note most dramatically East Asia (drop from 80 to < 20% in poverty rate).

click here fro UN report

]]> http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/?p=1601 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:33:50 +0000 Mr. Roach http://mansizedtarget.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/the-blind-self-absorption-of-the-coasts/ While the financial crisis has affected many ordinary Americans, the failure of Lehman Brothers has not.  It's just a rich company that moved other people's money around in circles for a while until the music stopped. But you would think from CNN and Fox News that what's happening among the mega-rich is the only thing going on. 

I'm struck by the odd coincidence of timing between the housing crisis's latest iteration and Hurricane Gustav in Houston.  The disparity in news coverage considering the scale of events is fairly amazing.  Over 200 people are still missing, likely washed out to sea.  Galveston looks like a war zone.  Our refineries and energy industry is thankfully still intact, but folks in Atlanta apparently are still dealing with gas shortages. Thankfully Houstonians, a civilized and generally hard-working bunch, have not devolved into the kind of lunatic self-destruction we saw three years ago after Katrina.  Nonetheless, it was a serious storm with continuing ramifications in America's fourth largest city.

You wouldn't know it in NY.  The media elites care about Katrina, of course, as a way to rag on George Bush; comeuppance and not compassion is their chief motive.  But they also care about their peers on Wall Street, the folks who fund the balets and art gatherings, and bullshit steak tartare restaurants and colonic therapy nonsense in TriBeCa.  Our elites are little different than those of other times and places, and their indifference to their countrymen, their sense of superiority and entitlement, their inward-looking obsessions with celebrity and power, and their general lack of any sense of noblesse oblige--that great source of justice and social peace rooted in the Christian concept of servant-leaders--is striking. 

Tsar Nicholas was a fine human being, as was Emperor Karl, but they couldn't resist the leveling tide of their age.  What makes the castle-collecting schmucks on Wall Street think their excesses will go on forever?

Essentially, for whites, the purpose of human relations programming is to minimize the possibility that people of colour would file a racial discrimination complaint against the company, or on the societal level, its purpose is to prevent a racial revolt or "race war". Sometimes, a white person who feels guilty about racism attempts to be antiracist by being extra-nice to people of colour. In other cases, a white person who realizes that she did something racist to a person of colour will try to ameliorate the transgression by, again, being extra-nice. If the white person and the person of colour become on friendly terms, the white person may perceive that her racial transgression has been forgiven. If the white person believes that her racial transgression has been forgiven, it usually relieves her of her guilt and restores her self-identity as a "good person".

However, the problem with this model is that racism is more than cultural misunderstandings between whites and non-whites; racism is more than just acts that offend people of colour. Racism is inequality, inequity, and injustice that are built into our society which values whites over non-whites. Racism is not "subjective"; it is "objective". That is, racism is not perception; it is reality. There are real inconsistencies between how society treats whites and non-whites, and these inconsistencies are due to conscious and unconscious in-group/out-group categorization.

Racism is not just about personal relationship problems between white and non-white individuals due to racial differences. Racism is systemic. The problem is not difference; it is inequality. The solution to the problem is not to accept differences; the solution to the problem is to eliminate inequality.

White people use human relations programming to protect themselves from racial anger.

White people's focus on and preoccupation with human relations programming appears to indicate a deep-seated, subconscious fear of an oncoming "race war", in which people of colour will eventually revolt violently in response to centuries of white oppression. For white people who conflate antiracism with human relations programming, the worst outcome of systemic racial oppression is racial violence. In other words, white people who focus on human relations programming are concerned (subconsciously) with their own safety as a racial group, and their goal is to maintain social order. The current social order, of course, is the status quo that upholds white supremacy. Thus, to focus on human relations programming is to protect the white supremacist system from being overthrown, to placate people of colour with kind words and prevent them from rebelling.

White people's conflation of antiracism with human relations programming explains why liberal/left-wing white people admire white people who speak about racism against people of colour, yet disapprove of people of colour who speak about racism against people of colour. A white person who speaks out against racism is seen by whites as placating people of colour and telling people of colour what they want to hear. If the goal is to prevent the "race war" scenario, then human relations programming works towards that goal, and a white antiracist symbolizes peace. However, a person of colour who speaks out against racism is seen by whites as antithetical to the human-relations-programming interpretation of antiracism, since this person of colour may incite other people of colour to riot and ignite the "race war" itself. Hence, white people generally perceive the person of colour who brings up racism as being "racist" and as a symbol of disharmony.

Here are two examples of whites who think that antiracism is human relations programming.

KellyDiane, a white person, made this comment about racial activism:

[R]acial activists preach unity, right? The unity of all people, hopefully.

Already, KellyDiane's use of the word 'unity' indicates her misunderstanding of antiracism. Racial unity is not sufficient for racial equity. A social system can be unified and functioning well, but this does not indicate anything about equality. For example, a patriarchal family system with strict gender roles may be unified, and the men and women may be happy with their assigned roles (insofar as the women do not collectively revolt), but this does not mean that the women are not being undervalued and abused. Again, if white people focus on racial unity over racial justice, it suggests that they are more concerned with preventing racial violence (which would cause whites to suffer) than eliminating racism. Justice, not unity, is the real goal of antiracism.

Macon D, a white person who identifies as an antiracist, and the author of the blog Stuff White People Do, made this comment:

Learning about race seems to require some generalization. I think this is especially true if a white person wants to stop saying things to POC, or doing things to them, that are racist.

And yet, if I’m reading your post right, you offer no guidelines for proper forms of generalization by whites about the racial experiences of people of color. If, for instance, one POC does not like it when a white person says this or that to them (e.g., “My, you’re so articulate!”), and then another member of that non-white racial group also doesn’t like that, and then another also doesn’t like it, shouldn’t the white person realize, at some point, that members of that non-white racial group don’t like it when white people say that thing to them? If so, that realization seems to require generalization, doesn’t it?

So I’m wondering, where and how do you think a white person CAN effectively generalize about POC, based on what POC say or write? (And of course, the goal of such learning, via informed generalization, is anti-racist: the cessation of racist behavior.)

Macon D's absurd idea that that the racial experiences of people of colour can be generalized is highly problematic, and is discussed elsewhere. However, another serious problem with his comment is that he believes that 'racism' is defined as white behaviour that non-whites do not like. Macon D believes that racism can be explained in terms of the supposed collective social preferences of non-white people, whereas in actuality, racism is racial inequity. If a white person tries to 'compliment' a non-white person by calling her 'articulate', the problem is not that the white person is insensitive towards the non-white person's cultural preferences. The problem is that the white person assumes that the non-white person is less intelligent and less educated because of her race. This is called 'racism'.

This white person thinks that white antiracism is positive, and that black antiracism is negative.

A very interesting incident occurred recently on the blog Stuff White People Say, which I contribute to along with jwbe (white) and Nquest (black). A white reader and fan of Macon D's Stuff White People Do—named gypsy rose—left comments on our blog, accusing us of being "clueless", of having "a problem with macon d himself, for whatever reason, rather than with what he writes", and telling us that we need to "get over it" and "get positive". Along with calling us "trolls", gypsy rose complained that we did not acknowledge in writing that Macon D's post (forget the whiteness of the bomb) was "good". After Nquest asked gypsy rose if she/he wanted a cookie from us to give to Macon D, Nquest posted a link to his comment on the forget the whiteness of the bomb post which acknowledged that Macon D's post was good. Gypsy rose replied:

You call that a positive comment? You are such a troll.

This was the actual comment by Nquest that gypsy rose found negative, or at least non-positive and trollish (Macon D's words in italics):

Because the Japanese were "non-white," dropping The Bomb on them wasn't as morally troubling as it could've been.

I guess that explains the unparalleled sympathy and affection for (the apparent ruling class of Jews in Israel and) the "150 nukes" state of Israel.

Logically, there is nothing about Nquest's comment that is negative towards Macon D as a person or trollish in the context of the Stuff White People Do blog. However, I laughed at gypsy rose's suggestion that Nquest's comment was negative, and I replied:

Let me guess, you think that it was a “negative” comment because Nquest, who is black, is saying something negative about whites. If Macon D made the same point about whites, you would make sure we saw it so that we could acknowledge what a good (white) antiracist he is.

In other words, gypsy rose perceives Nquest's comment about white racism as trollish and negative simply because Nquest is black. For gypsy rose, a black person that adds to and builds upon a white person's thoughts on white racism is a "troll" and needs to "get positive". If we accept the hypothesis that white people generally perceive people of colour speaking about racism as hindering the white-perceived goal of antiracism, i.e., racial unity and maintaining social order, then we have a framework for understanding gypsy rose's double standards. Gypsy rose perceives Macon D and his blog as "good", and she/he perceives Nquest as a "troll", because she/he believes implicitly that a white person who speaks about racism is productive, and that a black person who speaks about racism is destructive.

Conclusion

When white people implement antiracism as human relations programming, it is self-serving and seeks to protect white people from the real or perceived anger of people of colour. White people need to learn that antiracism is not about "them"; it is not about white safety and protecting current society. However, very few white people who perceive themselves as 'antiracists' would be willing to risk a revolution that destroys the social hierarchy that is in place today, the social hierarchy which confers safety and privilege upon white bodies, and which whites want, subconsciously, to protect.

• So You Think You're an Anti-Racist? 6 Critical Paradigm Shifts for Well-Intentioned White Folks compiled by Paul Gorski for EdChange and the Multicultural Pavilion
• If no one’s offended… by The Laughing Linden Branch

Last year, 2007, I was first taught the widespread view (misbelief?) that economic growth benefits everyone through "Trickle Down" dynamics and "the Rising Tide that Lifts All Boats," cited by Fields (2001). I was skeptical, actually more of a total disbeliever. But it was taught by someone whose credentials were much greater than mine, and I was tested on the "Knowledge" I had learned. Recently I've heard Barack Obama say the "Trickle Down" method hasn't worked. My feelings have been validated that the theory is used, knowingly by some, perhaps unknowingly by others (though I doubt it), as a political trick.

In some countries, those with strong safety nets like Europe and Australia, a few rich get richer, but then are taxed to provide resources to help the poor. Yet there is no sure case like this in the United States where there is no national health-care system, minimum wages are so low, unemployment insurance is minimal, ...  Even in Europe, the argument is wearing thin as some countries run out of resources and begin taking apart the welfare state by such things a moving up the retirement ages. What's more, many developing countries are required by international lending organizations such as World Bank to dismantle those safety nets. World Bank's strictures against subsidies for water supply is one example. Unbelievable! Water - the most basic necessity to support life after air.

There is no global welfare state, and the countries of the global North are not even living up to their very modest pledges of assistance to developing countries. There are even those in the U.S. who demand why this country is obligated to foreign aid at all. They speak of 'Us' vs. 'They'. As if 'Us' had never been guilty of any atrocities upon 'They' and might need to compensate for it. And what assistance is provided, is filtered through the same elites who benefit from open market policies.

Science and Technology Policy consists of four sub-areas:

1. Research policies
2. Innovation policies
3. Human Resource policies
4. Regulatory policies

Globally - different countries make different choices from Science & Technology policy instruments.

There are four traditions in the political philosophy in Principles of Distributive Justice:

1. Libertarian engine: In libertarian thought, collecting taxes to pay for any other function is an unjust violation of rights and liberties, so tax-supported funding for research and development is out, and with it, most of what contemporary science and technology policies involve.
2. Utilitarian accelerator: As social cohesion declines, the re-distributive mechanisms that utilitarians think are operating 'over there somewhere' can no longer be counted on: S&T policy must consider its own intrinsic contributions to distributive dynamics.
3. Contractarian distributor: John Rawls in his "Theory of Justice (1971) states under contract theory, a fair system of distribution is one that rational individuals would agree to after deliberation. However if your starting point at negotiation is affluent - one set of rules will look good, and if you are poor, another set will look good. So he adds to the hypothetical moment of negotiating: the moral system is one that individuals would agree to behind a "veil of ignorance," - they would not know what their starting position is. On this basis, nobody would agree to utilitarian moral principles because it's possible that while total well-being increases, someone's well-being might decrease. But behind the veil of ignorance, the rational individual would also not know whether he or she was male or female, black or white, Tutsi or Hutu, Chinese or Thai. So they would never agree to a set of distributive principles that distributed rewards unequally based on ascriptive characteristics that are outside individual control. So justice as fairness holds no tolerance for 'culture'-based patterns of unequal distribution. This is in complete contrast with utilitarianism which is quiet on such differences. The empirical evidence showing growth pays off for the poor, does not demonstrate that growth pays off for all ethnic groups, nor that it pays off equally for women and men, girls and boys. Income inequality is growing in most U.S. states, and this is fairness under this justice principle. These first three approaches do nothing to improve a world with growing inequality. Neither Libertarian, Utilitarian, or Contractarian principles of Distributive Justice expect it to do otherwise. Does this matter to you? Example: China. In the past decade, they have raised hundreds of millions above the U.S. $1/day poverty level, but is not straining with fast-growing gaps between rich and poor, urban and rural. Paul Farmer's work on health in poor communities demonstrates inequality makes poverty more dangerous. Like the polarized world Marx predicted, such a society does not appear to be sustainable. (Reminds me of a scary movie I saw as a young girl painting a situation like this where women were considered to be "furniture" because of the huge inequality gap.) (James Galbraith 1999: ... A high degree of inequality causes the comfortable to disavow the needy. It increases the social and the psychological distance separating the have from the have-nots, transforming the U.S. from a middle-class democracy ... into something that more closely resembles an authoritarian quasi-democracy with an over-class, and an under-class, and a hidden politics driven by money." He describes our current nation perfectly - bailout and all.

For those who use religion to sanction their motives:

Asian societies have combined economic growth, technological innovation and broadly-shared prosperity under strongly communitarian political philosophies (Bell 2000). European commitment to 'social cohesion' is seen in its social policies and also its innovation strategies.

Some Americans are injudicious about re-distributive mechanisms. But the safety they value is threatened by growing inequality. Communitarians find fault with the welfare state for bureaucratizes distribution of benefits, shifts power away from communities and loosens family social ties. They are also critical of the political right under which Unregulated Free-Market Capitalism undermines families, local communities and the political process. Look at what just happened in the U.S. There could not be much more extreme example of this than the current bailout (Paulson Plunder). There was a higher sense of civil obligations among university scientists before the emergence of market-oriented policies - before "the valorization of greed in the Thatcher/Reagan era..." The example given is the shock the biomedical research community expressed that parts of the human genome could be patented. The previous value was that scientific knowledge was public. The new value was that it could be made private. Are you shocked? I am.

Through out the mainstream media we have become saturated by images of womens bodies, so much so that we often fail to recognize the negative impact that these images have on society. Music Videos especially splatter nameless faces and bodies of girls also known as videohos to appeal to mass culture. You can't watch a video it seems without barely clad women nor can you express your creativity outside this form. So this is my appeal to unplug! Unplug your MTV, Unplug your BET, or better yet contact your favorite artist and demand better standards and encourage creativity outsides the confines of sexism, misogyny, hypersexualization, domination, typecasting to name a few.

Related Posts
This Isn't Me
Woman
Hot and Sexy Misogyny
Sex Object
Performing Blackness