Category: Politics


I noticed that the deadline for Doodle 4 Google, the drawing contest where schoolchildren redesign Google’s logo, was today. I’m far too old to compete in the contest, but it got me thinking of doodles I might have drawn if I could.

Then I came home from work and this happened:

Yeah, I’m going to hell. But with all the news lately of Google moving Google.cn to Hong Kong and withdrawing from China’s censorship rules, it was inevitable. If something along these lines hasn’t already been put together, by someone who sucks less at Photoshop than me, I would be very surprised…

Edit: Hm, there’s this graphic from a Wired article about Google’s withdrawal that’s sort of similar. More colorful, less simple.

An article ran in the Star Tribune today about the Kelsey Smith Act, a bill being presented in the MN legislature that would require phone companies to triangulate and disclose the location of a cell phone whenever the police ask for it. No court order or subpoena needed.

It’s being billed as a way to find kidnapping victims. And indeed, triangulating cell signals is an important tool for finding lost people—that’s how James Kim’s family was found. But no court oversight whatsoever? Making it possible for the police to get the whereabouts of any cell phone owner, regardless of whether or not there is a real emergency? Creepy!

What’s so bizarre isn’t that people are willing to hand over that kind of authority to the cops, or don’t think through the privacy implications of their proposals. It’s that discussion of the privacy implications of this bill is nowhere to be found in the article. There’s just no mention. It’s presented as this common-sense bill that will save children. Are privacy advocates so few and far between that the writer completely failed to think of the civil liberties angle of the story? Or was it edited out?

I attended a liberal arts college. They taught us to analyze social institutions and their interactions as complexes, systems of power. Well, here goes.

College expenses in the US are absolutely insane. When my parents went to school, you could realistically work your way through college. Today nearly all of the better-ranked liberal arts colleges charge more than $40,000 a year–the entire income of an average American household. How did we get here? Liberal arts colleges across the country have raised their tuition faster than inflation every year, year after year, for decades. When times are bad, they claim their endowments are hurting. When times are good, they claim they need to charge more to improve the academics or athletics or build a shiny new dorm to stay competitive. No matter what, like clockwork, colleges are draining generations of students and their families faster than their incomes improve. It’s been long enough to say that these excuses are bullshit.

For extra infuriating context, consider that in most civilized countries, university is *free* to those who are admitted. No needing to save for kids’ college from zygote to age 18 instead of funding your 401k. No crippling student loan bills that beggar graduates, force young workers to stick with jobs they hate instead of taking risks, and have brought about the boomerang generation and the endless delay of adulthood that social conservatives bemoan. Think of all of the possibilities that are squelched by this ever-increasing drain on our populace’s resources, productivity, and well-being. (The parallels with our lack of universal health care are dire.)

So why hasn’t the market intervened? Why haven’t tuitions leveled off? A major cause is the normalization of student loan debt. Student loans, both federal and private, are guaranteed by the government–even if you declare bankruptcy, you have to give the banks their due. So banks have been giving student loans away like candy–they know young people are good for it, even if they end up living in their parents’ basements to pay them off. College financial aid offices count on this; by default they include student loans as part of their packages, as if deferred penury is the same thing as actual aid! And since the FAFSA punishes savers and completely f***s middle-class families–defined as families whose money comes solely from income, as opposed to the rich whose money comes from wealth–expected family contributions are usually unreasonably high. Thus, even those few schools that claim that their financial aid packages include zero loans are lying through their teeth. For their part, institutional lies and mischaracterizations aside, high school students have zero grounding in basic personal finance–it’s not part of nearly any high school curriculum. Even if they knew, up front, what debt level attending a given school would entail, they don’t have the skills to evaluate whether or not that level is sustainable. (Look how many young people have gotten screwed by credit card debt–which by law is far better documented!)

At the same time, elite schools have convinced generations of parents and students that through their hallowed halls lies the path to financial security. Without a solid education, they say, kids today have no chance of making it. And, indeed, if at the end of racking up all this student debt, graduates were quite likely to find plum jobs that could easily pay that debt back, perhaps it’d be justified.

HA.

The sad thing is that they’re mostly right about their schools being the gatekeepers to the middle class. With the exception of a few trades, statistically it’s basically impossible to “make it” without a bachelor’s, and pretty darn hard without one in the liberal arts or sciences. But although it’s a necessary condition, it’s no longer a sufficient one. There are basically no jobs for new grads anymore. Scripps’ career center does one-year-out surveys of each of its graduating classes. Even in 2002, there are comments about how it’s been hard finding a decent job because of the economy. It was hard in 2007. It was hard in 2008, when I was first looking–even before the banks collapsed in the fall. It’s been nigh-impossible for the grads of 2009. The jokes about liberal arts majors working at Starbucks were funny jabs from the engineering kids in 2004. Only now have we realized it’s the reality.

A couple months ago I interviewed for a job barely paying enough to live on that mostly consisted of testing and shipping widgets, with a nominal bit of web marketing and design associated. I told a friend about it and his response: “Oh. Shipping?” I said, “What?”. He said, “Nothing,” but thirty seconds later proceeded to tweet, “This recession is beating the enthusiasm and ambition out of my generation.”

(I didn’t get the job.)

Now, a year and a half out of school with a variety of new media production, research and writing, and startup development experience under my belt, I’m living with my parents and applying for part-time internships and retail positions at big-box clothing stores. I hate to think what he’d say now. Yes, I know I’m capable of so much more than this. So are most of us. But the creative, white-collar jobs aren’t there for us, and I just can’t afford to try and do cool things on my own anymore.

I still hold out some hope that someday when I’m older I’ll develop a career that will enable me to achieve my parents’ standard of living, even if the statistics don’t bear that out: people who graduate college during a recession are basically screwed for the rest of their working lives. I must admit that between offshoring, business oligarchy, American economic incompetence and cowardice, ridiculous debt levels across the board, and the lack of spending on US education and R&D, I have some doubt as to whether or not there’s going to be a middle class in America when I’m 40. I’m not the only one. But right now? Yeah, I guess the recession, and being unemployed, and everything else that’s been going on have beaten the crap out of me.

So, no. Don’t even try to justify your ballooning costs based on lucrative employment upon graduating. Our income isn’t rising alongside your tuition increases; liberal arts majors are f***ed more than ever right now.

This situation is completely inexcusable. If university presidents are congenitally incapable of capping or trimming costs, they should resign. Immediately. Cutting college costs–yes, including the “sticker price” that they lie and say no one actually pays–is their job and their responsibility. Hang the market forces that have enabled them to shirk it for so long! If they can’t bring themselves to give a damn about financial sense, boards of regents should find people who can. If liberal arts colleges do not even try to keep education affordable enough to be within range of all Americans, without heavy debt, they are NOT fulfilling their mission. They’re just diploma farms with an over-inflated sense of superiority and no head for business.

Because, truly I tell you, the day of reckoning is coming. How many articles this year have focused on parents and college seniors’ new wariness of excessive tuition bills and student debt? Perhaps the prospective engineering, science, economics, and CS majors will still be able to justify elite colleges’ insane bills–studies have found that they still stand a good chance of making money when they graduate (at least, so long as they don’t become teachers). But the rest?

My sister, a high school senior, is very smart and works way too hard. She’s a first chair violin, captain of the debate team, a karate instructor, and fluent in Spanish–among other extra-curriculars and accomplishments. With her grades and resume, there’s a decent chance she could gain admission to any school in the country. BUT…she wants to become a math teacher, potentially in low-income/Spanish-speaking schools. She’s seen my financial difficulties, even with my marketable webcrap skills and the (sadly) relatively low amount of student debt I have. Thus, she has completely ruled out any college that would require her to take on student loan debt: teachers hardly make a living wage, let alone with loans on top! Short of a miracle, this will eliminate her top choice school, whose yearly bill has increased about $10,000 since when I applied, yet caps its merit scholarships at half tuition. It already eliminated any number of top schools that she refused to even consider.

St. Olaf, I can tell you right now that you’re going to lose out big. And, if you don’t get your shit in shape, so will the rest of you liberal arts hypocrites over the next decade or so. Yes, you’re already hypocrites and have been for years. But now you’re running out of families rich enough or foolish enough to pay you for the privilege.

I support quite a few of Obama’s policies and decisions thus far in his administration. However, when it comes to the future of civil liberties in America, Obama’s tenure makes me MORE worried than I was under Bush.

Yes, you read that right.

I didn’t look at immigration websites during the last eight years. I figured sooner or later the madness had to end. But now I find myself semi-seriously considering attending school in Canada and/or positioning myself for a career that could potentially take me to continental Europe. (NOT the UK; that island has been positively hurdling toward fascism over the last eight years. Frickin’ “New Labour.”)

Why? Obama’s DOJ is making the same–if not worse–arguments for expansive executive power. We’re still being wiretapped–and Obama voted for immunity. Sure, Obama may use these powers more responsibly. And stopping torturing people and giving the folks in Gitmo trials are good things to do. But if the powers to wiretap and deny judicial scrutiny over any rights violation with the scantest of national security claims aren’t dismantled, it doesn’t MATTER if Obama never uses them. They’ll still be there when future, potentially crazy/intolerant/power-hungry presidents come in.

If we can’t get rid of the big red authoritarianism button now, with this administration, it will never go away. And that scares the shit out of me.

November 4

I was completely unable to focus on work yesterday. All the time, refreshing blogs, reading voting stories, worrying that, somehow, this was gonna get screwed up.

When they called Pennsylvania for Obama, a McCain win was nearly impossible. When they called Ohio for Obama, it was done. At that point, Obama could lose Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, AND Nevada–and, short of all the Democratic ballots in Iowa, Minnesota, or the West Coast spontaneously combusting, still get to 270.

Of course, at that point all the news networks just talked about how a Republican has never won without Ohio, it’s looking rather bad for McCain, blah blah blah. Only the friggin’ mathematician was willing to actually call it. Of course, the media has an interest in making a race close, or appear to be close-it keeps people watching longer. Or maybe the news networks were charitably trying to encourage voting on the West Coast, so all the Californian Obama folks wouldn’t go home and let Proposition 8 pass. (Unfortunately, it looks like it did anyway. California! What the hell is wrong with you?)

In any case, at that point I walked to the grocery store to buy a box of chocolates, a bottle of wine, and some broccoli (don’t ask) and updated the cashier on the results. As a young black dude, I figured he had about a 93% chance of being an Obama supporter. Yep. He was.

DC went nuts at the news, as you’ve probably heard. My roommate went downtown to join in and asked me and Nelson to join him. I almost wished I was still unemployed, so that I could have spent the night screaming and dancing and hugging random people in a fully historic fashion. But we didn’t. Instead we sat in the exercise room of the condo building (we don’t have a TV, and I was having a hard time getting the news outlets’ online streams to work) and watched McCain’s concession and Obama’s acceptance over a glass of wine.

Last night in part of his speech, Obama reprised New Hampshire, and I was reminded of when I first saw him speak. I was at a hole-in-the-wall Mexican place with Elaine, getting food before attending an acapella concert at USC. They had a tiny TV on the wall, tuned to Obama’s speech after losing New Hampshire. When I say I “saw” Obama speak, I mean it literally. The TV’s sound was off, so I didn’t actually hear what he said that evening until later when I ran across the ‘Yes We Can’ video. But I just looked at him, addressing the crowd, and I knew–this is the next president of the United States of America.

Obama’s right, that the struggle has just begun. The two most recent movies I’ve seen are An Inconvenient Truth (finally) and the short version of I.O.U.S.A. They’re kind of frightening. This country has hella problems. They’re gonna be challenging to fix. Right now there is no goddamn way the government can afford to support all the programs I wish it would, even if Obama supported all of them (he’s significantly closer to the center than I am–still mad about FISA) and could get them passed (Democratic congress, yes, but many close victories and centrists there too). Our country is neither solvent nor sustainable at this juncture. But I think that Obama’s the guy to tackle these things. He won’t be able to fix things right away, or ever without grassroots commitment and support. But I trust him to talk to experts instead of industry hacks, to cross party lines, and to present some very interesting ideas. I can’t wait to see what’s to come.

Crossing my fingers: Bruce Schneier for Homeland Security chief and Lawrence Lessig for FCC head/IP czar, anyone?

One more day…

On the one hand, to be fair, as someone who tends to cheer for the Democrats, the party is exceptional at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. I can’t help but feel like Charlie Brown waiting for Lucy to pull the football away again. You never know how many percentage points to subtract for incompetent and/or fraudulent election administration. You never know when a candidate’s gonna die in a plane crash. I’ve been doing a lot of knocking on wood.

On the other hand, the small dose of CNN I have seen recently makes me want to set the exercise room television on fire. With C4. And plutonium. For mostly the same reasons as this comic.

Is Obama a noncitizen Muslim terrorist who never graduated from Columbia? No! Is he the anti-Christ? No! Does McCain have a chance of winning Pennsylvania? No, unless Obama devours a live puppy on live TV today–and even then, like a third of voters have already voted! Yet the mere utterance of these things is apparently enough to obligate the media to dignify and amplify them with coverage…

Required reading for everyone ever: “REQUEST FOR URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP”

I don’t know enough about the US financial system (either what it is currently or what it should be) to say what should be done about the current crisis, if anything. I did happen to take one class on the intersection of the Fed, Wall Street, and the corporate elect. Doesn’t really help much. I’m not an econ major–and even the vast majority of econ majors don’t understand the nitty-gritty of finance any more than I do.

But:

1.) Do you really think most of Congress has any more expertise in this area than you or I do? Hell no! Congresspeople tend to be buddies with investment bankers, but they usually weren’t ones themselves. (Not that I would necessarily trust their judgment any more if they were.) Yet Bush and Paulson are quite forcefully shoving this bill down their throats–they’re trying to pass it this week. Do you trust your congresspeople to actually understand this crap and make an intelligent decision about it within days? Then I’ve got a mortgage to sell you.

Congress is very good at passing stupid, short-sighted bills even under ordinary circumstances, don’t get me wrong. But it’s even better at it when those bills come with 1.) such short development times that no one really knows what they’re voting on and 2.) vague but exceedingly dire threats. Hey, it’s the financial PATRIOT Act, sans sunset clause! Woo hoo!

None of this gives me even a shred of confidence that passing this thing is a good idea.

2.) If I just accept my minimal level of background knowledge, if I had to make a decision about what to do about the current crisis, you know what my instinct is? It’s “Let the buggering chimps hang.” It’s “Moral hazard ends here, you whiny, depraved pseudocapitalists!”

It is most definitely not “You want us to print ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in play money and bury Wall Street in it? Okay!!” Well…maybe. If it meant they’d suffocate underneath.

And the Democrats’ response is so sad. I know, I say that about…virtually anything the Democratic Party does. Just a long, voter-turnout-deflating series of spineless, half-hearted, pathetic reactions. But in this case it’s like they’re on a vaudeville stage, playing the role of Liberal Stereotype:

White House: “Gimme money. Lots and lots and lots of money. Or else the financial system will explode and EVERYONE WILL DIE and the TERRORISTS will WIN. …Wait.”

Democrats: “Uhh… Let it be said for the record that this is stupid and we don’t like it. But fine. You can have all the money you like. So long as we get to regulate.”

White House: “Regulate what?”

Democrats: “Regulate…you know…stuff. Stuff so this won’t happen again. Yeah.”

White House: “Wait, so you’re making kneejerk demands for regulatory power…even though you don’t even know what in the hell you should do with it? Jesus Christ, is this the Rush Limbaugh minstrel show?”

Yes. Yes it is.

I mean, my heart might be spotted with the dark taint of liberalism and all, but generally I’m still not in favor of regulation for the hell of it. I prefer the establishment and use of government power when it has a point, at the very least. Yet because Congress doesn’t know shit about the financial system, that’s pretty much what they’re asking for. A blank check for regulation in exchange for a literal blank check.

I could be convinced, by well-evidenced argument, that the financial system needs some more or different regulation. As a liberal, I believe it is possible, theoretically, for Congress to pass halfway decent financial regulation laws. But, again, not in a frickin’ week.

After all this, if I meet anyone who voted for Bush and whines about tax-and-spend liberals or how social programs cost too much, I will punch them in the mouth.* Seriously. “My” (ha ha, no) party might be a bunch of two-faced pansies, who will inevitably come around to voting for this dangling piece of dog dung, but they didn’t come up with it. They didn’t ask for–nay, demand–the power to dump one *trillion* dollars into the economy to bail out the supposed captains of capitalism. Or start an unnecessary war. Or to make (given all of the above) the most irresponsible tax cut ever. Or the many other neocon projects that have created a runaway deficit that will at this point probably sink this damn country.

At which point, yes, like the millions of un- or under-employed college grads out there who are up to their neck in student loans, there really won’t be any room in the budget for silly luxuries like health care or education. Just interest payments. Thanks.

* Those of you who actually voted for the Libertarian presidential candidates: please feel free to continue doing so.

Right now I’m listening to the witness testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act.” This bill would reverse last year’s open access mandate for works funded by the NIH by amending US Copyright Law to say that government agencies can’t ask in the funding contract for a nonexclusive license to works that they fund. It’s pretty much ridiculous.

The only reason this has even made it to public comment (I think) is a bunch of representatives feeling slighted because a bill passed Congress without going through their committee (the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and IP–the measure was part of an Appropriations bill, so it went through that committee). The grumbling at the opening of the session about how important their committee is, prestige of the Appropriations committee be damned, rah rah rah, I think bears this out. So the representatives have been receptive to the patently ridiculous argument that the NIH mandate *changed* copyright law and, thus, should have fallen under their purview.

Lots (probably millions) of nonexclusive license copyright agreements are agreed upon every day. Every time you upload a video to YouTube, you’re giving YouTube a nonexclusive license to that video–the license allows YouTube to display the video without violating your copyright. Professionals everywhere provide or exercise nonexclusive licenses to works. The less assholish scholarly journals only demand a nonexclusive license to an author’s article (more commonly, journals force authors to transfer their copyright entirely to the journal).

The terms of a nonexclusive license are not set in copyright law–they are determined in a contract. Like any contract, the terms vary from license to license, depending on what it’s for. My understanding of contract law is that two parties can write a contract requiring virtually any condition of either party (other than illegal activities or selling yourself into slavery or something). If I’m a research funder, I can stipulate in a funding contract that the researcher wear a big red clown nose at any and all conferences when presenting the research I’m offering to fund. The researcher is free to take my money, and accept the conditions attached, or go elsewhere for funds. That’s how contracts work.

It has always been a standard part of NIH funding contracts that the federal government gets a nonexclusive license to the work being funded. (What’s the point of funding research that you can’t even read?) The new condition with the mandate is that the author deposit the research in PubMed so the public (the people ultimately paying for it) can read it, not just NIH employees.

Bottom line: it’s a contract. It’s not a copyright law! The only way the NIH OA mandate conflicts with copyright law is if you change copyright law, which is what the publishers are trying to do now. After all, if it really conflicted, why haven’t the publishers just sued the NIH (as they have also rattled sabres about)?

Maybe because they’d lose.

The overlap is not with copyright law as it is, but copyright law as publishers wish it was: a hypothetical legal regime where if a contractual agreement theoretically threatens a revenue stream created by a copyrighted work–even a contractual agreement made long before the author transferred the rights to the publisher–that contractual agreement retroactively violates the publisher’s copyright. It’s a case of “if value, then right.” The law doesn’t work that way. The publisher is “buying” (read: getting for free–or even being paid to take in some cases) the rights *as is* when they take the article from the author. If the author’s previous funding agreement with the NIH makes those rights look less valuable to the publisher, then don’t “buy” them–just publish research that uses funding sources that don’t make this stipulation. But if this is all bullshit, as publishers’ record profit margins and the legion of financially-secure journals that put their stuff online for free before the mandate suggest, then there is no conflict *even* in the publisher’s la-la land version of copyright law.

Then the only thing publishers are losing is a certain degree of autonomy; they no longer decide whether or when to put their material online. Just satiating publishers’ neurotic control needs is not worth the cost to scientific advancement and public access.

The bill is being considered because the committee members have ego problems. It’s being advanced because big publishers are control freaks. Why do important policies have to be threatened with the chopping block for the sake of various interest groups’ psychological tics?

***

Wow… The NIH witness compared eliminating the NIH mandate for the sake of publishers’ whining about theoretically going out of business to banning Google for the sake of artificially propping up Altavista–holding back innovation for the sake of a deprecated special interest. A relevant comparison, I think–lots of commentators compare industry copyright maximalists and other rent-seekers to buggy whip manufacturers all the time. To which Rep. Berman growled, “You’re saying that this is like Google, like YouTube, where people can violate copyrights, grumble grumble grumble…” and the NIH guy apologized! I didn’t know ‘Google’ was a dirty word in Congress!

Another Berman quote: “I’m disturbed by going from open access to health and biomedical research to talking about technological progress… The NIH is not Napster.

And now he’s embarrassing himself with his misunderstanding of Google.
Berman: “Doesn’t Google have it [all the biomedical research out there already]?”
NIH guy: “No, they link to us.”

Jeez, it’s not like you HAVE to be technologically illiterate when you’re old. Plenty of old people get technology–after all, they’re the ones who first built this stuff! And, on the other side of the coin, it’s not necessarily bad to be technologically illiterate. Lots of people get by without using high technology much (see: one of the two major party presidential candidates); that’s fine for them.

The problem is when old techno-illiterate people are US Representatives serving on the Subcommittee of Courts, the Internet, and IP. It’s a problem when they are responsible for making intelligent technology and information management laws. But it does make for hilarious Congressional transcripts.

SCREW YOU OBAMA

OH MY GOD

HE ACTUALLY VOTED FOR WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING

I KNEW HE WASN’T GONNA FILIBUSTER IT ANYMORE BUT

WTF

SCREW YOU OBAMA

Who will I vote for now?

Bob Barr is a nativist dick, the Green Party misspelled the word “democracy” in one of the Ten Values on the front page of their website, McCain voted for torture, and now Obama is just another authoritarian sonuvabitch.

…write-in Lawrence Lessig? :(

I mean, seriously, I don’t think my litmus tests are that demanding. There are only a couple things that I simply will not vote for someone over. One is condoning torture. Another is letting the government to spy at will on its citizens. Basically, I like my civil liberties unshredded.

Apparently that’s too much to ask.

Perhaps eight years of Bush have warped my standards for presidential speeches. But, my God, this man is smart! First Obama gives a ridiculously insightful speech on race in America, now a speech on religion and politics at the Call to Renewal Conference. Really, go read. Obama is more eloquent and clear on the separation–and confluence–of church and state than any summary I could make.

I am just astounded at Obama’s ability to make ideas I believe are true–even hard truths, ideas that aren’t supposed to be acceptable arguments outside a college classroom–pronounceable in the political sphere. Normally these sorts of ideas would be cut to pieces in the soundbite news cycle. To some extent, they still are, but the parts the media picks out are usually representative enough that right-wing attacks come off as petty. Obama makes the speech of the decade on race: commentators rant about him “throwing his grandmother under the bus.” Now, Obama talks about the separation of church and state: Dobson whines (with no apparent sense of irony) that Obama is distorting the Bible for political purposes and that by mentioning Dobson in the same sentence as Al Sharpton, Obama is calling him racist. Really? Is that the best you can do?

To those who argue that Obama is nothing but pretty speeches, I would argue that there is more meaningful content in these than in any of Bush’s State of the Union addresses. Blabbering about “freedom” and “turrists” in order to excite neocon “clash of civilisations” fantasies does not qualify as an interesting or productive idea for the country.

Obama’s speeches are elevating the political discourse in this country, especially at those times that the media airs the whole thing, not just snippets. Mud-slinging will always be a presence in politics, but I do think the era of its postmodern, simulated dominance is coming to an end. However much I tend to agree with them, Obama’s arguments are not infallible–there are well-reasoned, well-phrased debates to be had. I’m just waiting for conservatives to rise to his standard and make them.

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Powered by WordPress.
Theme NewRiver by Karen Rustad, based on Motion by 85ideas.