Dr. DRL's "View from Here"

Breaking news from Iowa: Fall 2012 movie release scheduled!

2011-08-13T15:12:00.000-05:00

Coming soon to a struggling republic near you!

Texas Fratboy II: The Saga Continues

Because what America really needs is another C/D student from Texas who thinks Jesus told him to run for president.

Funny becuse it's true...

2011-08-08T11:43:00.000-05:00

But no less painful.

Larger image here.

The 20 most dangerous conservative organizations

2011-08-06T09:33:00.000-05:00

The Christian Left has published a list of the 20 most dangerous conservative organizations in America. These groups stand united in a broad attempt to forever alter the face of our country: they favor various flavors of rich white men running things for their own profit behind a veneer of repressive Christianity.

None of this will be news to those who carefully follow the insidious web of money and influence the right has developed to manipulate elections, public policy, and fear in our country. For those who haven't had time to ferret out the links, however, this serves as a fair introduction.

Wash hands carefully after reading.

-Dr.DRL

My latest column: the value of public lands

2011-08-03T09:07:00.000-05:00

Here's my latest column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:

Public land evidence of government's good

If one spends enough time listening to anti-government ideologues like Rep. Michele Bachmann, it’s possible to conclude that “the government” does very little that’s worthwhile.

That position is easily proven wrong by a simple visit to any of our nation’s public lands. The federal public lands represent the legacy of 19th century American expansion and the wisdom of the 20th century conservation movement.

Today a handful of agencies manage about 575 million acres anyone can access for recreation or other pursuits — an area more than 10 times the size of the state of Minnesota. These lands stand as a symbol of democracy: they are open to all, often at no charge, to use on your own terms, on your own schedule, as often as you wish. There is no private equivalent because they fulfill a role that simply would not exist without government action.

The agencies

Our public lands are primarily managed by four federal agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

The Forest Service is familiar to many Minnesotans, who know of the Superior National Forest, rightly famous for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, or the Chippewa National Forest, home to two of the state’s largest lakes, Leech and Winnibigoshish. But do they know the service manages 192 million acres of forest and grasslands in other states that absorb more than 200 million recreational visits each year? The local economic impact of sustainable timber harvests from these publicly owned forests should not be overlooked either.

The National Park Service is also well known, primarily for the “crown jewels” of the system: Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon national parks. But the NPS is responsible for 391 other sites nationwide, including not only natural wonders such as Glacier National Park but also historical structures, battlefields, ancient cliff dwellings, wild-and-scenic rivers, national trails and recreation areas. The agency’s 84 million acres are found in 49 states and served 281 million recreational visitors in 2010.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary steward of public lands dedicated to wildlife habitat, especially for waterfowl. It is responsible for 96 million acres of wildlife refuges, including the 14 refuges in our state, including the nearby Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. These lands provide not only habitat, but hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching and other recreational opportunities to nearly 40 million visitors per year.

The Bureau of Land Management is the largest of all the federal land agencies. Its 245 million acres are confined to the Western states and include vast tracts of range land, desert and mountains. It serves about 55 million recreational visitors annually while providing grazing, mineral development, timber and other natural resources for economic development.

Foresight

The key is that all of these lands are, by definition, public. We all own them collectively. We benefit from the recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and other ecosystem services they provide.

A simple glance at history will tell us that had these lands not been protected by the federal government they would have been destroyed or fenced off long ago. Private interests would have cluttered the Grand Canyon with tourist developments. They would have logged Yellowstone and Yosemite. They would have mined, grazed and drilled every scrap of valuable resources long ago for private profit, then developed the remains into expensive condos for the wealthy, leaving little, if anything, behind for the rest of us to enjoy.

Some bright Americans more than a century ago realized that the private sector wasn’t always perfect and that government action was sometimes a much better option. Their leaders — including Republican heroes such as Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot — helped establish the policies that maintain the federal public lands as part of our national heritage.

Pinchot coined the term “conservation” to describe these policies, defining it as action that produced “the greatest good, for the largest number of people, over the longest period of time.”

Unfortunately many of our current leaders are so blinded by their own anti-government ideology that they can’t even recognize the value in what was considered common sense back when horses still pulled streetcars in Washington, DC.

-Dr.DRL

It's the Conservatism, Stupid!

2011-07-21T10:44:00.000-05:00

I ran across this column from 2006 and felt the core argument deserved repeating: conservatism represents everything that is wrong with America-- and has for at least 200 years! You name the issue (slavery, women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, Civil Rights, McCarthyism, sexual liberation, environmental regulation, and on ad nauseum) and the conservative position was always wrong, always backward, always looking to the past to divide us instead of toward the future to unite us.

The original column by Paul Waldman ran at TomPaine.com in 2006. It's worth a read yet today.

Ever wonder where all that conservative legislation comes from?

2011-07-13T20:39:00.000-05:00

Isn't it puzzling how one state legislature after another can suddenly produce very similar bills? And that they are almost always quite conservative, pro-business, anti-labor, and anti-regulation?

For those who didn't already know, the answer to that puzzle is ALEC: The American Legislative Exchange Council. For years they've operated as a sort of conservative back-bench, churning out "model legislation" which they hand to (mostly GOP) legislators on high-priced junkets. Then-- amazingly --this model legislation gets introduced around the country. What better law making process could ALEC's corporate funders hope to buy?

This year, due in part to the conservative overreach in Wisconsin, the media is finally paying attention to ALEC. Today a new site called ALEC Exposed was launched, literally exposing over 800 model bills funded by this conservative operation.

Take a look. It's certainly an example of the best government money can buy. Just keep in mind whose money is buying it-- and what they think of workers, kids, or the environment.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column: class warfare is real- and we're loosing!

2011-07-06T13:09:00.000-05:00

Class warfare is real; we're losing

St. Cloud (MN) Times
July 6, 2011

Americans don’t like to talk about class. If pressed, the vast majority of us will identify as “middle class” and simply label those who are visibly more wealthy as “rich” and those who struggle to meet basic needs as “poor.”

Certainly very few Americans would accept the notion that we are somehow involved in class warfare. But in truth we are deeply engaged in an ongoing struggle between classes that pits the very wealthy against essentially everyone else.

The social contract that binds our common interests has, sadly, fallen apart. That is evident to some members of the upper class, including investment guru Warren Buffett, who in 2006 admitted “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

In the wake of the Great Recession, it’s actually surprising that more people aren’t talking about it. The impacts of the recession fell hardest upon working families. About 30 million people remain unemployed or underemployed despite the official declaration that the recession ended in 2010.

But in 2008, the year the Dow fell 38 percent, the richest 400 American taxpayers reported an average of $153 million in capital gains. Due to the lower tax rate on capital gains, these wealthy Americans paid a 15 percent rate on their millions while members of the “middle class,” who reported most of their income as wages, typically paid effective tax rates of 20 percent or more. During the Great Recession, the median wealth of American families dropped by 36 percent, while the wealth of the top 1 percent fell just 11 percent.

Teddy Roosevelt
A century ago, the 1912 presidential election was marked by open class conflict. Conservative Republican incumbent William Howard Taft was challenged not only by Democrat Woodrow Wilson, but by socialist Eugene Debs to his left. Theodore Roosevelt, unhappy with Taft’s abandonment of the progressive reforms that marked TR’s presidency, formed a fourth party. Roosevelt’s Progressive or “Bull Moose” Party platform included calls to establish a national health service, a program of social insurance to support the elderly and disabled, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage for women, workers’ compensation, new estate and income taxes, and the eight-hour workday.

In this case the middle class voted its interests; the Republican incumbent won only eight electoral votes that year and as we know most of the Progressive reforms were eventually adopted under Wilson’s Democratic administration.

Representing “us”?
The fact that power flows from wealth should be of no surprise. The cost of running today’s political campaigns — and the access to influential people that comes with money — means very few members of the “middle class” are elected to federal office any longer.

In 2009, when the unemployment rate exceeded 10 percent, one study found there were 261 millionaires in Congress. That these millionaires and the people they associate with favor policies that enhance their fortunes is not that shocking. One might expect a millionaires’ club to promote policies that focus on limiting inflation rather than job creation, prioritize debt reduction over providing public services, or favor tax cuts for themselves instead of investments in education, infrastructure, or the environment. What is surprising that the lack of outrage in response.

The puzzle today is not that the wealthy are organized to protect their own interests, or even that they have largely succeeded. Is is that the rest of us — the 99 percent who are not hedge fund managers, CEOs, or bank presidents — are not outraged. Both major parties are complicit. Our political debates have come down to not what can be done to help the middle class, but how we can best protect tax cuts for the very rich. The government of our state was shut down over that very issue. The Republican majority in Congress is pushing the country toward default on its debts for the same reason.

Why do we accept accusations of “class warfare” when someone suggests raising taxes on the wealthy, but are silent when policies punish the majority of Americans who make up the middle class as a matter of routine business?

Certainly Teddy Roosevelt would want to know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the crazy comments at the SC Times for more fun!

My latest newspaper column: class warfare is back!

2011-03-02T14:00:00.000-06:00

My regular column ran again today, March 2nd, under the header "Class warfare is nothing new." I've linked to the St. Cloud Times but their archive is only free for seven days after publication, so I've pasted the text in below as well.

-Dr.DRL
--------------------------------------------------
Class warfare is nothing new
St. Cloud (MN) Times March 2, 2011

Recent events in Wisconsin eerily echo those of a century ago, when progressive reformers in both political parties sought to constrain the power of corporations and the influence of money in politics for the good of the nation. They saw a healthy working class and a growing middle class as bulwarks of democracy and central to a strong economy. The consolidation of economic and political power by corporations representing a wealthy minority was seen as a threat to the very character of America. Fears of class warfare were not unfounded, as radical representatives of socialist and anarchist groups marched to protest the growing power of corporations while those who ran the corporations sought to cement their power over the working class.

Early 20th century
In his 1905 State of the Union message Republican President Theodore Roosevelt noted “The fortunes amassed through corporate organization are so large, and vest such power in those that wield them, as to make it a matter of necessity to give ... the government, which represents the people as a whole ... some effective power of supervision over their corporate use.” Antitrust laws and other regulations were enacted to constrain the power of corporations and to weigh their political and economic interests against those of the working and middle classes they employed.

Though widespread in the tumultuous years of the Great Depression, accusations of class warfare fell to the margins of American politics in the 1950s, reflecting an amicable truce made possible by a rapidly expanding economy, new opportunities for education and increasing geographical mobility that began to erode some of the historical barriers that separated the working class from the wealthy. The corresponding growth of the middle class — buoyed by rising wages, access to education, widespread home ownership and relative political stability — yielded a period of social and economic progress unmatched in our history.

Income disparity

Unfortunately we’ve lost much of the ground gained during the past half-century as political power and wealth have again become increasingly concentrated at the very top of pyramid, while the wages and rights of workers have been curtailed. Income disparity has risen to levels unseen since the 1920s. Today the top 1 percent own 38 percent of all wealth in the United States and the top 10 percent control 71 percent, leaving a relatively small piece of pie to be split among the 270 million Americans who don’t fit in either group.

Union membership was at its highest in the late 1950s; today only 15 percent of all workers are unionized and the collective voice of labor has become muted as a result. Nonunion workers have taking to questioning why unions receive “unfair” wages and benefits, instead of demanding more from their own employers.

In a shocking rebuke to Roosevelt, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United last year effectively ended limits to political spending by corporations, handing them a massive cudgel to use against unions, politicians and even government agencies that might question their interests or motives.

It seems Roosevelt’s opinion that “in order to insure a healthy social and industrial life, every big corporation should be held responsible by, and be accountable to, some sovereign strong enough to control its conduct” has been forgotten. One result is the growing influence of corporations on elections, clearly evident in the financial support the anti-labor Koch Industries provided for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign in 2010.

Ongoing class warfare

Today we are seeing the results of this long process played out on the streets of Madison and other state capitals. Despite limited coverage by the mainstream media, hundreds of thousands of Americans have stood up to protest Wisconsin’s attempt to eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, knowing that once the public sector unions are gone the private sector comes next. Once the unions are gone, there is nothing to stand between the interests of working people and the power of corporations and the plutocrats who control them.

As protesters in Madison have been pointing out in recent days, “It’s only class warfare when the workers fight back.” The truth is that class warfare has been going on in America for decades, but we’ve all been too polite to talk about it.

###

On wealth, income, and power in America

2011-02-03T12:55:00.001-06:00

I highly recommend William Domhoff's article below. First written in 2005, he's just updated the data and charts. It's the best single presentation I've seen on this critical issue.

-Dr.DRL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005 (updated January 2011)

My latest column: Income inequality needs attention

2011-02-02T07:55:00.002-06:00

This will make my congressperson (Michele Bachmann, Nutcase-MN) even more crazy. I hope.
--------------------------------

Income inequality needs attention
St. Cloud (MN) Times
Feb.2, 2011

Last week’s State of the Union address and the two Republican responses overlooked the problem at the very foundation of our economy: rising income inequality.

One of the complaints heard from crowds of protesters rocking Egypt in recent days is about income inequality, which has reached record levels in recent years. The fact is income distribution is far more balanced in Egypt than in the United States.

Economists and demographers use a measure called the “Gini index” to calculate income inequality. Though easy to understand it is perhaps too complicated to explain in detail here. Suffice it to say that the calculation reflects the proportional distribution of income, with an index of zero indicating total equality (i.e. every individual has an equal share) and a score of 100 indicating total inequality (i.e. one person receives all income.)

Using this method, the CIA has calculated Gini indexes for 134 nations, producing a list in which higher ranking indicates greater inequality. The worst inequality is found in Namibia (No. 1) while the most positive conditions are in Sweden (No. 134). Within this negative ranking the United States appears in 42nd place for most inequality, while Egypt is 90th.

Americans have historically been complacent about income inequality. After all, a central part of our national mythology is the “up from the bootstraps” belief that with hard work anyone can become wealthy.

But that’s simply no longer true.

Real wages — average weekly earnings corrected for inflation — peaked in 1973 and remained 8 percent below that peak in December 2010. Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index increased 490 percent that period.

Even before the housing crisis and recession rocked our economy, families were struggling to pay their bills, save for college and plan for retirement. The number of Americans living in poverty is higher now than at any time since the Census Bureau started keeping track during the Eisenhower administration. Today the deck is stacked against even the middle class, most of whom can only hope for a winning lottery ticket if they aspire to break into the top 10 percent of income distribution.
Extreme income inequality threatens our economic future. Given our consumer-based economy, if the middle and working classes do not have the means to consume the goods they help produce, demand will decline.

The corresponding concentration of income at the top does not help either; even the idle rich can only own so many cars or vacation homes.

The results of steeply declining demand for everything from new homes and cars to clothing and luxury items has had an all-too-real impact on our economy the past two years. Some observers, including former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, believe underlying income inequality was in fact the root cause of the recession and Wall Street’s gambling simply a symptom.

In any case, income inequality has grown rapidly the past two decades and is at a level last seen in the 1920s, before the Depression, when the richest 1 percent of the population received 23.9 percent of all income.

The income tax is a good place to start a reform program. In the era of “no new taxes” and budget austerity, this is a hard subject to broach. But public investment, funded by higher tax rates on top earners, could dramatically improve the economy and the standard of living for the bottom 99 percent of the income curve. The top marginal income tax rate has been locked at 35 percent since 2003; couples who earn tens of millions annually pay the same tax rate as those who earn $336,550.

Historically the top rates were 50 percent when Ronald Reagan was president, 70 percent under Jimmy Carter, 91 percent under Kennedy and Ike, and 92 percent under Truman. Revenues from those taxes built the interstate highways, paid for the GI Bill, funded the Cold War, landed men on the moon, expanded public education, and subsidized the information infrastructure and engineering innovations that made the modern economy possible.

It’s not that anyone is suggesting our economy should be like Egypt’s. Nor that we should necessarily look to the countries with the highest income equality (Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg) for inspiration. But the company we keep in these rankings — Nigeria, Iran, Uruguay, Uganda and Argentina are near us — should at least give us pause.

If we were to address some of the core causes of income inequality by improving our trade balance, creating disincentives for companies to outsource jobs overseas, increasing wages, investing in education and most importantly returning to a more progressive tax structure, the economy would improve along with our Gini index. But first we need the leaders of both political parties to recognize the inherent problem.

-Dr.DRL

My January newspaper column: what's wrong with Facebook (and America?)

2011-01-05T07:50:00.003-06:00

Here's my January newspaper column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:

What do we do now? Facebook

Jan. 5, 2011

Monday’s financial headlines were dominated by Goldman Sachs’ $500 million investment in Facebook, raising the value of the privately owned Internet social media company to an estimated $50 billion.

All those connections between high school classmates, former colleagues and people who share an interest in online farm simulations are apparently worth more than anyone could have imagined when Facebook began as an undergraduate’s side project at Harvard in 2003.

With more than 500 million users worldwide, Facebook’s value now exceeds that of US Bank, Ford, Target, Monsanto or Visa. When Facebook goes public, as many assume it will in the next year, its market capitalization could exceed that of Boeing, Home Depot, Kraft or 3M, placing it within striking distance of Disney and McDonald’s among America’s largest corporations.

And Facebook doesn’t make a thing.

Fifty years ago, the largest corporations all made stuff. In 1961, the top 20 slots in the Fortune 500 were held by oil/chemical companies, automobile manufacturers, defense contractors, steel producers and food processors. Only one media company — CBS — was even in the top 100.

In 1961, 38 percent of American workers were producing something tangible: cars, steel, appliances, houses, oil, airplanes, bombs, etc. Today that number has fallen to 21 percent; about one in five of us actually makes something for a living now. The rest of us? Apparently we’re on Facebook.

This raises some basic questions about the future of our economy and the middle class.

The post-war American economic boom was based on the production of goods consumed domestically, relatively high wages in the manufacturing sector and public investment in education and infrastructure. The GI Bill, expansion of public universities and increased spending on K-12 education helped lift veterans and their children into the middle class, while those who did not pursue higher education could still get there by holding a union job. Still more families climbed into the middle class by sending mom into the work force, a shift that conveyed great advantages for the first generation to do so — but much less on subsequent generations when dual incomes became the status quo.

Today a $50 billion company makes no products at all, but rather supplies a virtual space in which people chatter, share pictures and play games. Facebook employs a few thousand people, has no factories, no warehouses, no distribution centers, no retail arm and no maintenance shops. Its founder did not graduate from college but was a billionaire before the age of 25.

Of course, this is all legal and proper; Facebook would not have 500 million users if people didn’t want its services.

What is wrong with the bigger picture is lack of counterbalancing stories for Facebook. When was the last time you read about a hugely profitable new product — an actual manufactured good — invented by, developed in, produced by and sold to Americans that wasn’t a drug? What was the last new industry that employed thousands of Americans at wages that would ensure a place in the middle class? When was the last massive public investment in our collective future, or that of our children?

America has long been in a state of slow decline. We have become a nation of consumers, rather than producers. Incomes have stagnated, and income inequality is growing. The middle class is eroding under a mountain of debt and fears that unemployment or illness could end their American dream.

We have stopped investing in schools, instead choosing to “train” children and young adults in skills that aren’t needed for careers that may not exist when they enter the job market. Few, if any, of our elected leaders appear to think beyond the next election cycle, and horizons beyond the next quarter don’t matter to Wall Street. Today’s children may well be the first generation in American history to collectively end up worse off than their parents when they reach middle age.

That, more than the $50 billion valuation of Facebook, should be dominating the headlines as we enter 2011.

Why Things Are The Way They Are

2010-12-14T18:58:00.003-06:00

This was posted on a DailyKos discussion thread today and nicely sums up the state of the economy and politics in these United States. Worth sharing, I think-- credit to MFTALBOT:

Let's get clear on something: (5+ / 0-)

Thomas Frank has said that, for a purportedly rightist party, the Republicans talk an awful lot about class resentment, but in a strangely inverted way: they define the elites in terms of cultural preferences rather than economics - "elitist, Volvo-driving, Latte-sipping, gay-loving liberal snobs in their big cities, sipping lattes and looking down their noses at the humble, hard-working common folk out in 'flyover country.'"

Thomas rightly points out that the one thing never mentioned by Republicans is the role of economics in the class structure.

The reason Republicans get away with this is the Democrats changed from having their policies grounded in economic fairness, and instead increasingly defined themselves by cultural issues. As the Republicans started defining themselves as champions of working people (a definition that, if you look at their economic policies, is ludicrous) the Democrats stopped talking about economic fairness and went along with defining themselves more along cultural lines.

One of the most disheartening things about the Democratic Party's haplessness is that it has allowed the Republicans to incrementally dismantle the hated New Deal, which they want to do because the New Deal costs Our Reptilian Corporate Masters power.

Our Reptilian Corporate Masters hate New Deal style policies because what they desire is a frightened, submissive, and most of all low-wage workforce, because that will allow them to Make More Money, And Thus Have More Power. The New Deal was absolutely hated by the oligarchy because it took away a lot of means of asserting absolute dominance over working people.

This is why single-payer health care represents such a threat to the Republicans' real constituency (the Oligarchy): fear of losing medical benefits keeps people from daring to step out of line and demanding better wages or working conditions.

This is why Our Reptilian Corporate Masters absolutely love crippling student loan debt: it is a potent tool to hold over folks to keep them from threatening the system. They want a population that is "educated" along the lines of vocational training (the knowledge that one is incurring a large debt tends to focus one's mind on the income potential of one's major...) rather than what used to be considered an "education" before the rise of Our Reptilian Corporate Masters in the late 19th century.

This is why raising taxes, and especially making our tax system more progressive (i.e., raising the tax rates as one goes up the income scale) is spoken of as That Which Must Not Be Done, if you listen to Republican rhetoric.

The thing is, actions have consequences, and the tiger the Republicans rode to success in the 2010 mid-terms will eventually start asking awkward economic questions of the Republicans, and then their venal fraud will be made plain. I pity them when that day comes.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -Bertrand Russell

by mftalbot on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:15:53 PM PST

My latest column: American religious knowledge falls short of ideal

2010-10-06T07:18:00.005-05:00

How well do you know religions?
St.Cloud (MN) Times
Wednesday, 6 October, 2010

A groundbreaking new study on the religious
knowledge of Americans was released last week, and
the results will be surprising to some.

The U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, conducted by
the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, asked
about 3,400 people to answer 32 basic questions
about Christianity, world religions and the role of
religion in American life.

The average respondent got about half right, and
while the folks at Pew refused to issue a grade we all
know that scoring 50 percent on most tests does
not earn you an A.

Other studies, including Pew’s own 2008 American
Religious Landscape survey, have shown Americans
are much more likely to identify themselves as
religious than residents of other industrialized
nations. Almost 84 percent of us claim an affiliation
with one religion or another. But the new survey
uncovered a striking gap in knowledge not just
about “other” religions but in many of the
respondents’ own traditions.

Little knowledge

Americans may be very religious, but many of us
still don’t know much about the Bible or the history
of Christianity. More than a third could not identify
Genesis as the first book of the Bible. Only 39
percent could identify Job as the biblical figure who
remained true to his faith in God despite terrible
suffering. Less than half could name the four
Gospels that open the New Testament. And Martin
Luther? Just 46 percent could identify him as a
leading figure of the Reformation.

Our knowledge of other religions is even less
impressive. Less than half of the survey respondents
knew the Jewish sabbath begins on Friday. Only 46
percent could identify the Quran as the holy book of
Islam. Just 47 percent correctly associated the Dalai
Lama with Buddhism. And a scant 27 percent
recognized Islam as the dominant religion of
Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country.

Our understanding of the role of religion in public
life was also found lacking. Though a solid 68
percent could identify what the Constitution says
about religion in general terms, their understanding
of the application of that tradition was poor.

While 89 percent knew that a public school teacher
cannot legally lead a class in prayer, only 36
percent knew that public schools may offer courses
in comparative religion. And a bare 23 percent
realized that it is also legal to teach the Bible as
literature in public schools.

Atheists, agnostics

More than a few Americans will be surprised to learn
that the group scoring the highest were self-
identified atheists and agnostics, who averaged
20.9 correct answers out of 32. Close behind were
Jews and Mormons, at 20.5 and 20.3 respectively.
Well back in the pack were white Catholics (16) and
Protestants (15.8), followed by “nothing in
particular.” At the bottom of the list were black
Protestants (13.4) and Hispanic Catholics (11.6),
who scored only slightly better than half as well as
the atheists/agnostics.

In an era marked by increasingly divisive religious
debates, de facto religious litmus tests for political
candidates and growing hostility toward those
whose beliefs fall outside perceived norms, the fact
that many Americans cannot even answer simple
questions about their own traditions reliably should
give us pause.

Who are we to condemn members of other faiths
when we know almost nothing about them? Why
should we demand an elected official profess a
particular set of beliefs when many of us don’t even
understand the implications of those beliefs? And if
we are such a religious nation, why are so many of
us unable to answer even basic questions about
such mainstream texts as the Bible?

One way to address this shocking deficit in
knowledge might be to assign an atheist to lead a
study group in every religious congregation in the
country. Or people might just open their minds, talk
to their neighbors, and read a book or two about
some belief system outside their own.

But foremost, all of us might try to remember the
Golden Rule. Although 45 percent in the Pew survey
incorrectly identified it as one of the Ten
Commandments, it’s really a decent philosophy for
anyone to follow, no matter what their faith.

-Dr. DRL

My latest newspaper column: year-round school?

2010-09-02T14:51:00.002-05:00

Let's hit the books year-round

St. Cloud (MN) Times• September 1, 2010

In the early stages of Minnesota’s gubernatorial race, the three major candidates have been quick to link education and economy, noting that without a well-educated work force our state has little hope for economic growth. But none has suggested any major reforms to K-12 education, and the debate has largely centered on funding mechanisms and levels.

A more ambitious reform agenda might start with the school calendar.

Our common nine-month schedule is a 19th-century relic reflecting the need for young family members to serve as farm labor in the summers and the outdated belief that young minds can be easily overexerted by too much learning. It was also based on the assumption that mothers generally don’t work outside the home and are available to provide child care. Through the 20th century, this status quo was reinforced by economic interests that came to rely on cheap summer labor from teens, though the largest of those sectors (agriculture) eventually eliminated many of its summer jobs.

‘Balanced calendar’

Twentieth-century educators repeatedly told us of the loss of skills, knowledge and positive habits that occurs over the long summer break. Some schools adopted the “balanced calendar” as a solution. It does not add instructional days to the school year, but simply redistributes them more evenly so that students are out of the classroom for no more than four weeks at any one time. This alternative addresses the summer slump, but shows little evidence of increasing overall educational results. It also leaves families needing to find child care in four-week blocks every few months.

A more radical reform would actually increase the number of instructional days in the school year by invading part of the sacrosanct summer vacation. Simply adding a summer session of 50 days — extending the typical school year from 175 instructional days to 225 – would be the equivalent of adding 3.7 years worth of instructional time under the current K-12 system before graduation.

What student would not benefit from three years of additional education before the age of 18? And what employer or college would fail to recognize the value of this extended preparation?

Many advantages

A longer and more rigorous school year offers myriad benefits. Curricula can be refocused. An entire quarter could be dedicated to innovative teaching techniques or developing skills and knowledge in areas underrepresented in the curriculum. Experiential learning programs could be developed to shift students from theory to application.

Resources could be pooled to establish short-term magnet schools to foster deeper exploration in the arts, sciences, trades, or other areas.

Students could take on projects that can’t be done under a traditional schedule, or that required intense focus for several weeks at a time. Perhaps most importantly, academic rigor and expectations could be raised for all grades — making Minnesota’s children the best educated in the nation.

The biggest benefits would likely accrue to the youngest children, who would gain most from an engaging summer program and avoiding the summer slump. But older students would benefit as well.

At the extreme, the three-plus years of additional contact time provides could be used to eliminate the final year of high school. In its place, 17-year-old students could be required to complete an internship, apprenticeship, service project, technical college course of study, or on-the-job training program that would better prepare them for college or a career. It also could prove invaluable to better understanding their own interests, skills and vocation, as opposed to following default paths into work or college under the current system.

Of course, such reforms would come with costs. Teacher salaries would have to increase, and certainly some would prefer not to work summers. Operating expenses for schools would go up, as would demand for air conditioning, busing and other services.

Seasonal employers might find it harder to get cheap summer labor. And families would have to adapt to a new summer rhythm. But if education is as important as the gubernatorial candidates claim, good leadership should help us find ways to overcome barriers.

It would be great to hear some ideas for real educational reform between now and November. Year-round school should be part of that debate.

-Dr.DRL

Dr. DRL on video-- MyMN.org

2010-08-16T14:14:00.003-05:00

The new public advocacy group My Minnesota has just issued its first "people's report" on the state of the state. They basically made their film by taking a camera to summer events (parades, festivals, etc.) and asking people in the crowd to talk about the future of the state.

You can view it online at www.mymn.org and look for Dr. DRL to spout Words of Wisdom (tm) at about 1:50 into the roll.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column: corporate spending in politics

2010-08-05T09:27:00.002-05:00

Here's my latest column. The online forum will be up a the paper for a week and the comments there are fairly amusing.

-Dr.DRL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Times Writers Group: Can businesses afford politics?

St. Cloud (MN) Times • August 4, 2010

Heads were scratched nationwide last week when public records revealed both Target and Best Buy had made $100,000 donations to a political organization called MN Forward. Its major activity to date has been funding ads in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a staunch social conservative who has been endorsed by Sarah Palin.

This was perfectly legal since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case eliminated most restrictions on corporate donations to political organizations. With legal rights to free speech akin to individuals, corporations can use their resources to support any candidate or cause they see fit — but that doesn’t mean doing so is always good for business.

Target in particular has come under fire for its donation because Emmer’s conservative social positions are not shared by all of its customers. The company has a reputation as being pro-GLBT, in part because it offers health benefits to domestic partners. But Emmer has spoken strongly against marriage equality and even embraced a controversial Christian singer widely criticized for stating that Muslim countries that put homosexuals to death are “more moral than even the American Christians.”

A backlash against the donation to MN Forward started on social networks and blogs. In less than a week, a new Facebook group called “Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-gay Politics” gained more than 27,000 members, and virtually every story related to Target now refers to the flap.

This raises two basic questions: Is the political value of supporting a controversial candidate or organization worth negative publicity? And will consumers care enough to change their shopping habits if they disagree with a corporation’s choice of causes?

A Target representative explained that “our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives” while CEO Greg Steinhafel told critics “Target’s support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company.”

Consumers may not be as willing to separate economic policy from social positions.

In this case, consumers did take notice when Target engaged in political spending perceived as contrary to their values. Small-scale boycotts and storefront protests of Target have been organized. Target’s official Facebook page has been flooded with protests, and complaints have poured in to the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-GLBT organization that had given Target good marks.

Time will tell if this is simply short-term outrage or if consumers will really change their shopping habits.

But what if all our shopping choices became politicized? Will we carry a list of stores that share our political values? Will consumers pledge loyalty to a single store not due to “low, low prices” but for political, cultural or religious reasons?

Among the first department stores in the United States was the Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution, formed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1868. The “ZCMI” department stores didn’t sell exclusively to Mormon customers, but for many Mormons the ZCMI was the only proper place to shop for more than 130 years, until it became part of Macy’s in 1999. Was Brigham Young ahead of his time in believing consumers should spend their money at stores that shared their values?

While surveys show most Americans base their retail choices on pocketbook issues, our polarized political climate may challenge that. In the future, we may shop at liberal or conservative stores, eat at progressive or conservative restaurants, and hire plumbers or mechanics who are affiliated with our own political parties.

Until that happens, any business directly or indirectly taking a political position on a divisive issue runs the risk of alienating customers. Meanwhile, boards and shareholders may want to ask if the potential political gain of exercising this “free speech” is indeed worth the cost.

-Dr.DRL

Target under fire for donation to conservative MN candidate

2010-08-02T12:41:00.003-05:00

Target Corporation's $150K donation to a conservative PAC called "MN Forward" has been all over the news in Minnesota the last week; I'll have a column in the local paper on the topic this Wednesday. Today Minnesota Public Radio focused on the basic question of whether or not consumers will pay attention to corporate donations and make their shopping choices accordingly. Audio of the entire program is available from their web page.

Would you refuse to shop at a store owned by a corporation that espouses values that conflict with your own?

-Dr.DRL

A little history: how a letter in 1971 set the stage for today's broken politics

2010-08-02T03:10:00.004-05:00

A quick trip to the (virtual) archives uncovered this secret letter written by Supreme Court Justice-to-be Louis Powell in 1971. Headed "attack on American free enterprise system" it outlines the world we live in today-- where the working class and ordinary citizens are rendered nearly voiceless while corporations control not only the means of production (wink wink!) but the flow of information and indeed much of the government itself. All this was a conscious strategic move, launched in the 1970s, advanced mightily during the Reagan years, and fully matured during the George W. Bush era.

Read it and weep. This is as much a founding document of modern American conservativism as Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. It is a blueprint of how things came to be, and as such explains a great deal of why our world is a worse place than it might have been if other values had prevailed.

-Dr.DRL (one of the "liberal faculty" that had Powell terrified 40 years ago)

2010-06-27T09:56:00.003-05:00

Here's an inescapable reality according to a new study from The Center for American Progress "By the 2016 election the United States will have ceased to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population by 2040." The full demographic analysis in the report is facinating. Our country will be a very different-- and likely much more progressive --place in another decade.

Another major shift will be the rising importance of Millennials in the mix; they will account for 35-40% of all voters by 2020 and currently favor Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin.

To have any hope of maintaining relevance, the authors argue that the GOP has a few options:

Move to the center on social issues.
Pay attention to whites with some college education and to young white working-class voters in general.
Another demographic target should be white college graduates, especially those with a four-year degree only.
In the long run the GOP has to have serious solutions of its own that go beyond cutting taxes. These solutions should use government to address problems but in ways that reflect conservative values and principles.

Read the full report for many more fascinating details. Perhaps there's hope for the future after all.

-Dr. DRL

My latest newsper column: How Far Do You Think Ahead?

2010-05-05T07:01:00.003-05:00

How far do you think ahead?
St. Cloud (MN) Times• May 5, 2010

How much time do you spend thinking about the
future? Not next week or next year, but "the future"
as in decades from now, say 2050, 2100 or beyond?

The odds are good the answer is "very little,"
because American culture is oriented toward the
short term — the coming paycheck, the next
quarterly report, the annual profit/loss statement,
the biennial election cycle.

The most distant events people commonly plan for
today are utterly predictable, like saving for college
or retirement. Monday's announcement from the
Pentagon that the U.S. nuclear arsenal has decreased
by 84 percent from its 1967 peak is a reminder that
it wasn't always this way.

The generations that came of age during the Cold
War did think about the future — and often
despaired for it. That threat has been muted for a
generation, replaced by other fears that can't
compare to the bleakness of nuclear winter and
Mutual Assured Destruction.

One result is that young people have stopped
despairing for the future — and perhaps thinking
about it much at all. Ask a teenager what he or she
imagines the world will be like at mid-century and if
you get anything in response it may be some vague
prediction about technology (smaller, faster
computers) or social change (people will be nicer to
one another.)

This isn't their fault. It's simply a reflection of our
cultural preoccupation with the short term and the
small scale.

Despite this lack of attention, futurists — people
who professionally study the future — are making
bold predictions for mid-century and beyond.

Some of their projections are obvious, logical
extrapolations of current trends. For example, most
agree that by 2050 the U.S. will be a majority-
minority nation (i.e. non-Hispanic, single-race
whites will be in the minority.) And few would argue
access to information and communication technologies
will improve in quality and speed,
perhaps beyond what we can imagine having a use for today.

These are examples of what former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once famously called
"known knowns." The more interesting projections
fit Rumsfeld's "known unknown" category, things
that might happen but will require significant but
conceivable leaps in technology, major social
changes or some other driving factor we are less
able to predict.

This category could include disruptive innovations
like new energy sources (i.e. nuclear fusion), m
edical breakthroughs (genetically modified
humans?) or even the looming consequences of
global climate change.

But the most intriguing category corresponds to
Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns," i.e. things we
can't adequately conceive of now because our
capacity to imagine them is bounded by our present
reality. This category commonly includes
speculation about what futurist Ray Kurzweil calls
the "singularity," the idea humans could one day
create a machine or a human-machine hybrid that
exceeds the cognitive capacity of the human brain.
Should that occur, the resulting intellect could
logically produce innovations beyond the capacity
of purely biological humans to even imagine, much
less create.

Such "transhuman" entities could represent an
evolutionary leap from our present state and bring
about change of a nature and scale we simply
cannot fathom today. This is, of course, all the stuff
of science fiction, and that's partly the point.

There's a long tradition of imagining the future in
speculative fiction. Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were
fairly accurate in many of their predictions. Aldus
Huxley and George Orwell came closer to the truth
than is sometimes comfortable.

Legions of Cold War writers imagined the aftermath
of nuclear war, to varied ends, and thankfully all
were wrong. But young people today are not reading
speculative fiction. They are not burdened with the
constant threat of global annihilation, so they have
the luxury of not thinking far into the future at all.

The unfortunate result is that instead of musing
about the economics of commercial travel to Mars,
the efficiency of organic computers implanted into
our brains, or the ethics of genetically modifying
human embryos, many are simply wondering what
they'll do next summer or where they'll be living in
five years. So the next time you speak with a young
person ask them about the future. Find out how far
their imagination stretches. Then give them a little
push and see what happens.
###

Dr.DRL

Local school receives LEED Gold rating for sustainability

2010-04-27T09:55:00.003-05:00

A press release today announced that Kennedy Community School in St. Joseph, MN has earned a LEED Gold rating from the US Green Building Council. I was involved in the project from the early stages in 2006, largely as a "green building gadfly" who threw out crazy ideas and researched alternatives with the design team. The school was designed to meet the LEED Silver standard but exceeded that in its first two years of operation.

Kudos to GLT Architects and the St. Cloud School District #742 team!

-Dr.DRL
---------------------

Kennedy School Receives USGBC® Gold Certification

St. Joseph, MN (April 26, 2010) – The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has awarded St.Cloud Area School District 742’s Kennedy Community School in St. Joseph, Minnesota, with a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Schools (LEED®) certification at the GOLD level.

The LEED Green Building Rating System is a nationally accepted benchmark for evaluating sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere efficiency, material and resource selection and indoor environmental quality. Points can also be achieved for innovation in design.

“GLTArchitects (GLTA) and their design team partnered with the school district and members of the community in 2006 to design a school that would save energy and be sensitive to the environment, and which would be designed to create opportunities to teach the students and the community about sustainable practices,” said GLTArchitects’ Principal Architect, David Leapaldt.

Kennedy Community School earned this special recognition for numerous key design accomplishments. The building minimizes environmental impacts through several site-related measures, such as an infiltration basin which manages 100% of all on-site storm water. A partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service installed 40 acres of native wildlife habitat on the site that is maintained with the help of
the students. Parking was situated so that one impervious surface meets the needs of school and outdoor athletics activities. Wells were installed for the athletic fields to avoid using potable city water to maintain them. Water efficiencies were incorporated into the design of the building to reduce water use by over 30%.

Reduced operating costs are achieved through a geothermal heat pump system using the natural cycles of the earth for heating and cooling, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels. “In two winters, we have not burned one ounce of fossil fuel on site,” said Principal, Diane Moeller. Electrical energy usage is also minimized. Classroom windows are designed to maximize daylight, with sensors reducing light levels or
even turning off the lights when sufficient natural light is available. Tubular skylights are installed in interior corridors, reducing or eliminating the need for artificial lighting of the corridors during the day. Overall, the building uses 39% less energy than the benchmark standards.During construction, 78% or 563 tons, of all construction waste was diverted from a landfill, and over 20% of all materials used in the project were manufactured regionally.

Indoor environmental quality is carefully controlled to provide an atmosphere that is both healthy and comfortable. A “displacement ventilation” system was installed that allows more fresh air to be provided and supplies it at a lower velocity to greatly reduce the sound of the ventilation system. Materials selected throughout the school are environmentally sensitive in their make-up and manufacture and require far lower levels of ongoing maintenance. The team also received recognition for the school as a teaching tool. “Our sustainability curriculum spans all grade levels and is embedded in most curricular areas. We are fortunate to be able to teach
sustainability through the use of a green building as the base,” said Moeller.

“A lot of detail goes into the design and the submittal for LEED certification of a facility,” said GLTA Project Architect and LEED Project Team Administrator, Steve Paasch. “The school district and our project partners were critical to ensure the information was accurate and timely. This USGBC Gold Certification is proof that the Kennedy Community School performs to the environmental levels established by the school district and the community.” Grooters Leapaldt Tideman Architects (GLTArchitects) is a full-service architectural firm based in St. Cloud, Minnesota, providing quality, sustainable architectural services and design for clients throughout the Upper Midwest. Learn more about GLTArchitects and the project at www.gltarchitects.com.

###

My latest newspaper column: religious diversity at home

2010-04-08T10:17:00.002-05:00

Our local paper has been filled with hateful attacks on our Muslim neighbors in recent weeks, often backed by very inaccurate assumptions about the beliefs of the local, majority-Catholic population. This is exacerbated by the fact that almost 10% of our community are refugees from Somalia who have arrived in the last five years or so, a very visible symbol of the changing demographics of central Minnesota. I wrote this column in part to provoke a discussion about the assumptions the presumed majority are making about themselves and the people they seem to believe are all like them.

Times Writers Group: Many
know little of others' faiths

St. Cloud (MN) Times• April 7, 2010

by Derek Larson

Religion plays a large and important role in
American society, as the news and opinion pages of
this newspaper have demonstrated in recent weeks.
That role is changing though, and trends suggest
the assumptions many make about their neighbors'
religious beliefs are increasingly inaccurate.

The best information available on American
religious practices today comes from the Pew Forum
on Religion and Public Life. Among its most recent
surveys, one can find many fascinating statistics:

26 percent of Americans are identified as
evangelical protestants, 23 percent Catholic, and 18
percent mainline protestants.

16 percent – the next largest group – are the
"unaffiliated" which includes atheists and agnostics.

Jews (1.7 percent), Buddhists (0.7 percent), Muslims
(0.6 percent) and Hindus (0.4 percent) are among
the largest of the non-Christian groups.

44 percent of adults have left the religion in which
they were raised, either for another or none at all.

Fully 25 percent of young adults (ages 18-29) are
unaffiliated with any religion.

71 percent of all unaffiliated Americans are under
age 50.

While 31 percent of Americans today were raised
Catholic, only 24 percent remain so.

37 percent of married couples are of different
religious faiths.

There are also major variations between states:

At the extremes of the poll, 91 percent of
Mississippians believe in God while only 54 percent
of those in Vermont/New Hampshire report the
same.

Arkansas is only 5 percent Catholic; New Jersey is
42 percent Catholic.

Alaska and Oregon are among the least religious
states, each with 27 percent unaffiliated with any
religion.

Alabama and Mississippi are among the most
religious, with only 8 percent unaffiliated.

Minnesota ranks 29th for "belief in God" and 35th
for frequency of prayer, well below national
averages.

Political and social views also vary within and
across denominations:

33 percent of all Catholics reported they were
Republican or "lean Republican."

48 percent of all Catholics reported they were
Democratic or "lean Democratic."

Mormons reported the highest incidence of
Republican affinity at 65 percent.

Members of "historically Black churches" reported

the highest incidence of Democratic affinity at 78
percent.

Catholics were the most likely of the major groups
to believe that "homosexuality should be accepted
by society" at 58 percent; Mormons were least likely
to accept this statement at 24 percent.

62 percent of members of mainline protestant
churches felt that "abortion should be legal in all or
most cases;" among Catholics 42 percent felt the
same as did 27 percent of Mormons.

It is overwhelmingly clear from the data that the
religious lives of Americans are more complex than
many assume, and the traditional stereotypes about
beliefs, practices and their consequences are often
not supported by the data.

We know comparatively little about the specific
religious beliefs of Americans before the late 20th
century when private polling organizations began to
ask personal questions of individuals, in part
because the federal government only formally
collected data from religious groups between about
1850-1946.

What is obvious from any glance at the existing
data, however, is that the American religious
landscape has always been much more diverse than
many assume today. A total of 186 different
denominations were counted in the 1906 Census of
Religious Bodies, for example, and even then they
ranged from Adventists to the Vedanta Society,
Baha'i to the Society for Ethical Culture.

Taken as a whole, these data suggest that those who
react to growing religious diversity with fear are
missing the fact that the United States has always
been diverse. The lack of a state religion and the
religious freedoms enshrined in our founding
documents and legal culture ensure it will remain
so. Rather than fear those who are different, it might
be more sensible to talk with them and seek out
common ground.

If that's too much to ask, then those who rely so
often on handy stereotypes might at least take the
time to learn how much diversity there is within the
ranks of their own faiths.

-Dr. DRL

My latest newspaper column: on governors and taxes

2010-02-03T09:44:00.001-06:00

From the St. Cloud (MN) Times:

February 3, 2010

Times Writers Group: Pick a governor, not an extremist

Tuesday's caucuses were the first step in bringing real leadership back to the governor's office in St. Paul. Regardless of who wins either party's endorsement, there's hope that the eventual victor will not have drunk Tim Pawlenty's particular brand of anti-tax Kool-Aid along the way.

If that's the case, Minnesota may yet recover some of the ground lost to the governor's refusal to even consider raising taxes as part of the response to budget crises in recent years.

Monday's news brought a stark example of the end result of this sort of unwavering anti-tax ideology in the case of Colorado Springs. In that city of almost 400,000 people, thousands of street lights will soon be shut off, police officers and firefighters will be sent packing, and citizens will be asked to BYOM (bring-your-own-mower) to city parks. The city's police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. Other "non-essential" city services will cease later this spring, including things like evening and weekend bus service.

How did "The Springs," home to the U.S. Air Force Academy and the second largest city in Colorado, get to this point? Has the "Evangelical Vatican," known for its high concentration of conservation Christian organizations, somehow fallen from divine favor? Did the Department of Defense suddenly decide to shutter Fort Carson, NORAD, and Peterson Air Force Base? Did the US Olympic Training Center move to Mexico in search of warmer winters?

Sadly, the people of Colorado Springs did this to themselves via a so-called "taxpayers bill of rights" or TABOR law that placed strict limits on taxes and left local government unable to respond to the recession by doing anything other than slashing services.

The Colorado Springs TABOR law is particularly shortsighted because it restricts public spending to the level of the previous year's budget, plus a small allowance for population growth and inflation. That may be sufficient in good times, but when times are tough — say in a recession — budgets constrict as tax revenues fall. The worst comes afterward, of course, when the law prevents tax increases to restore budgets to their prerecession levels without a vote.

In a notoriously anti-tax community like Colorado Springs the net result is decaying infrastructure, declining public services and ultimately failed government. It's obviously a terrible way to manage the community's future, but residents brought this upon themselves, in part by buying what that anti-tax peddlers were selling ("we'll run the city like a business!") without much thought to the consequences.

By contrast, voters in Oregon endorsed two ballot measures last month that raised taxes on individuals earning more than $150,000, boosted corporate tax rates and increased the minimum tax on business for the first time since 1931. While there's a certain populist appeal to a tax increase that only hits 3 percent of the population, everyone will bear the weight of the increased business and corporate taxes as they are passed on to consumers.

Certainly some would question the wisdom of pushing a $750 million tax increase during a recession, but the voters of Oregon were faced with what they considered unacceptable cuts to public safety, education, and health and human services. It didn't even come down to street lights for them.

We in Minnesota are lucky that anti-tax zealots haven't yet gained much power beyond the governor's office. The damage has been constrained as a result.

Sure, the Minnesota Miracle is well behind us. Yes, our roads are decaying. Social services have been cut. Education is in decline. Oversight and regulation are hampered by lack of resources. We know. But at least the street lights are still on, right?

As the long list of gubernatorial candidates is winnowed to a final few, Minnesotans would do well to keep Colorado Springs and Oregon in mind. We need a governor who will consider every option rather than basing critical decisions on the dictates of a narrow ideology.

A mix of tax increases and spending cuts will be necessary to balance future budgets and maintain the quality of life that makes living here worthwhile, so let's make that the first issue to put before the candidates between now and November.

May the least narrow-minded win.

###

Dr.DRL

Help for Haiti-- please consider donating

2010-01-13T14:58:00.002-06:00

Everyone's heard about the disaster in Haiti. Medical Teams International (formerly Northwest Medical Teams) is an international aid group based in Portland, Oregon. I've long admired their work and supported them through donations when trying to respond to a crisis. They are an explicitly Christian organization but they represent the "good" side of that faith perspective, i.e. providing services to anyone and not using their aid as a tool for evangelizing.

If you are looking for a way to respond to the Haitian tragedy please consider Medical Teams International as a possible place to donate. They are sending their first response team on January 14th and more aid will follow. Their main web page includes a link to donate specifically to this operation.

-Dr.DRL

Wall Street Journal lists best jobs of 2010-- guess who's at #5?

2010-01-12T10:30:00.001-06:00

The Wall Street Journal has published a list of the "best' jobs for 2010. Shockingly, "historian" comes in at #5! The rest of the list is packed with surprises as well.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column: looking back at 1910

2010-01-06T07:51:00.003-06:00

My latest column ran today in the St. Cloud Times. Nothing remotely controversial in this one, so probably much less fun from the online chat at the paper in response. Happy reading anyway though, and happy New Year!

-Dr.DRL
------------------------------------------

January 6, 2010
Saint Cloud (MN) Times

Times Writers Group: Times do change, but do we?

By Derek Larson

Years ending in zero often prompt optimistic predictions as people turn their backs on the past and look to the coming decade with hope. In practice, short-term predictions of anything but the status quo are almost always wrong, if only because change that comes quickly is inherently unpredictable.

Time, as it happens, moves much more slowly than most of us realize. Step back from the perspective of a decade to that of a century and the slow pace of change is even more obvious.

Americans enjoying the first week of January in 1910 were really more like us than not. Their media — which basically meant newspapers — included some predictions for the looming teens but were mostly filled with the same sorts of stories we see today: crime, accidents, politics, weather, human interest and random curiosities.

The dominant paper of the day — The New York Times — offers typical examples. On Jan. 1, 1910, the Times featured the scientific insights of astronomer Percival Lowell, who announced that Martians were hard at work digging canals on their planet.

On Jan. 2, sporting news was fixated on the defeat of the Tulane football team in Havana, the first time a Cuban team had beaten an American one.

January 3 was crime day, with the largest headline decrying the shooting of a young woman at the Fashion Ball on Sixth Avenue, an apparently innocent victim of a “gang feud.” The requisite maudlin human interest story was about a man who had disappeared on Christmas Day while “going for a pail of beer.” He was found frozen to death in a snow drift eight days later, dead of exposure, his pail in one hand and money in the other.

The front page on Jan. 4 told the sad tale of a wealthy woman whose car was stolen when her chauffeur stopped for a cup of coffee, forcing her to miss a theater party. Of slightly greater interest was a story about the acquisition of two more trust companies by financier J.P. Morgan in a stock deal bringing the value of his corporation to more than $170 million (close to $4 billion today) making it “by far the largest in the United States.”

The next edition reflected a slow news day, marked by a piece about four people who died from eating tainted home-canned pears in Massachusetts and a longer article about a Harvard geologist who had determined the Earth was exactly 60,000,000 years old.

An emerald lost but later found at the Waldorf Hotel led the news on Jan. 6, paired with headlines about an ice storm and a 10-year-old boy genius who the paper claimed would “revolutionize geometry.”

On Jan. 7 it was revealed that Mrs. Charles W. Morse, whose husband had been convicted of breaking federal banking laws and sentenced to 15 years in prison, was starting a petition to President Taft to have her husband released from prison. Taft may have been preoccupied though, as the Times also reported that he had just received a new horse from Montana, “one of the strongest animals that could be found in the West ... and able to carry the weight of the president.”

As we look forward from 2010, things haven’t changed that much. Newspapers — and all other media — will cover the same sorts of stories The New York Times did in 1910 because our lives are basically the same.

The few pieces that may accurately predict the future will be almost impossible to identify now; only with decades of hindsight will we know which were important and which were more like the feature about President Taft’s horse.

Meanwhile, we’ll go through life just as people always have, one day at a time, blithely ignorant of what the future may bring but always hoping for bigger and better things.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column: Cash for Appliances Up Next

2009-12-02T14:20:00.003-06:00

Hot off the virtual (and real) presses. The linked version goes to the paper, which includes a chat feature that usually brings out the local nutcases if you're into that sort of thing.

St. Cloud (MN) Times
December 2, 2009

Cash for appliances can pay off

As this summer's Cash for Clunkers program fades into memory the results are still being debated. According to federal data, the program paid out nearly $3 billion in subsidies on more than 675,000 car and truck purchases in July and removed more than 550,000 trucks, vans and SUVs from our highways.

Some argue the influx of sales saved the auto industry; others argue that it simply prompted people who would have bought cars in the fall to do it sooner. In either case, the program was clearly flawed in several ways, not the least of which was subsidizing the purchase of terribly inefficient new vehicles that undermined the potential for the program to increase the overall economy of the vehicle fleet.

Now, lurking just around the corner, comes another federal subsidy program aimed at boosting retail sales and supporting conservation efforts: cash-for-appliances.

Unnoticed by most of the public, last winter's massive stimulus bill — the nearly $800 billion American Recovery and Investment Act — included $300 million to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient appliances.

The funds were to be distributed to the states by the U.S. Department of Energy upon the approval of a state plan to offer rebates to residents purchasing Energy Star-rated major appliances. Minnesota's plan was approved last month and the state will soon receive $5 million to distribute through the state Department of Commerce's Office of Energy Security. Rebates of $100 to $200 on energy-efficient refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers and washing machines should be available in Minnesota by next March.

The program raises a host of questions. Will it increase sales? Will it improve our energy efficiency? Is it worth the cost?

Like cash-for-clunkers, some of these questions can't be answered until the final numbers are in. Others may depend on your ideological or political views about government intrusion in the marketplace or the efficacy of deficit spending as an economic stimulus. But from a purely family-economics standpoint it may make sense for some to participate.

If you have large appliances that are 10 or more years old and plan on staying in your house at least another five years, it's worth giving some thought to upgrading at least your refrigerator to a more efficient model and taking advantage of the $100 rebate from the state.

Here's an example: Imagine you bought a new refrigerator in 2000 and moved your even older 1985 model to the basement rec room. According to EPA averages, running both in our area will cost you about $245 annually for electricity. But if you bought a new Energy Star-rated model — $850 retail will get you a nice one — to replace the main unit, moved the 2000 fridge to the basement, and recycled the antique, you'd save about $137 per year on electricity.

After the $100 rebate that new fridge would pay for itself in energy savings in a little more than five years. If you were wiser you'd decide to recycle both of the old units, resolving to climb the stairs when you wanted a cold beer, and save about $200 annually running just the new fridge. In that case the payback period drops to less than four years.

Not a bad deal, especially if you're concerned about the environmental impact of all that wasted electricity — or you just want to get rid of that avocado or harvest gold monstrosity in the basement.

The cash-for-appliances program is unlikely to spur a rush on appliance stores like cash-for-clunkers did for cars. Because it's funded at just 10 percent the level of the auto program it clearly can't have the same economic impact either. But for many families that extra $100 or $200 in savings may be just enough to push the payback on a new appliance into the realm of consideration.

If so, it could provide a modest boost to local retailers and because only highly efficient models will qualify for the rebates, it will undoubtedly have some positive effect on household energy bills.

-Dr. DRL

My lastest newspaper column: what to put on that Christmas list

2009-11-04T21:48:00.003-06:00

Here's my latest newspaper column- no hard-hitting commentary this time around, but some advice for folks shopping for kids this holiday season.

-Dr. DRL
--------------------------------

Times Writers Group: Put classics at top of wish list

St. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • November 4, 2009

The holiday shopping season unofficially began last weekend as department stores demoted leftover Halloween merchandise to clearance racks and Christmas displays took center stage.

Though most department stores no longer publish the giant "wish book" toy catalogs that children poured over a generation ago, their advertisements in newspapers and television are busy telling kids what should be on the lists they send Santa: products linked to media campaigns, toys that work mostly on their own, and games that train them to be good consumers.

There's Dora for toddlers, Diego for preschoolers, pretend McDonald's food — and even cash registers — for grade school kids, and, of course, an endless supply of video-games-inspired-by-movies (or vice-versa) for older children.

So what's a parent to do? How can we chose gifts for our kids they will love to receive, that will provide lasting enjoyment, that counter the commercial hype of advertisements, and that might even offer some educational benefit in the long run?

Happily the answer is simple: look for the toys you, your parents and probably even your grandparents played with. Most of them didn't require batteries but did require imagination. Most weren't made of plastic, didn't come from China, and weren't even advertised much.

Instead they were made of wood and metal in American factories and were bought by generations of parents because they knew they worked. Kids loved these simple toys because playing with them was what play was intended to be: unscripted, imaginative and endlessly fun.

Parents need only think back to the things they cherished as children to be inspired. Board games really were better than today's meager fare, many of which are just repackaged movie scripts or are baldly intended to teach kids to shop.

Instead, why not revive the original Candyland, Sorry!, Chinese checkers, Monopoly, Scrabble, Life or Clue? None of them require batteries, none involve a simulated credit card, and most (with the possible exception of Candyland) are fun for adults as well.

Or how about the classic toys of the 1960s and 1970s that are still part of our popular culture, like Play-Doh, Mr. Potato Head, Battleship, Hot Wheel and Matchbox cars, Raggedy Ann dolls and even the Easy-Bake Oven?

They all require active play and imagination from children, as did virtually every product from Fisher-Price, Playskool, Mattel and Hasbro in the days before video games and fast-food marketing campaigns lowered our standards.

Anyone older than age 25 can easily make a shopping list of guaranteed hits. It would include basic items like blocks, doll houses and dress-up clothes for toddlers. Or musical toys, especially simple percussion instruments, for teaching rhythm and for group play. Trains, planes and automobiles or paints and craft materials for grade schoolers. Building sets, including Lego and Erector, for preteens. Age-appropriate board games (and adults to play them with) for all ages. And outdoor items from sports equipment to BB guns, bows & arrows, and even pocket knives for mature kids.

Remember when getting a kid version of a grown-up tool was a rite of passage and how good it made you feel? Despite our safety-obsessed culture, these "dangerous" toys still have a place too.

As you make your holiday shopping list skip the latest Bakugan movie/toy/video game tie-in and the Bratz movie/doll/video game empire. Why buy your kids things that only teach them to want more things, not-so-subtly training them to be better consumers?

Instead, remember what you played with as a kid. It's probably still on the market, if not in the holiday ads. If you're lucky, you can recapture a bit of the magic of your own childhood to share with the children in your life this year.

-Dr. DRL

Make. Them. Filibuster.

2009-10-12T23:05:00.002-05:00

Seriously. If the knuckle-draggers want to threaten a filibuster on health care, MAKE THEM DO IT! How many hours/days/weeks/months will the public stand for the spectacle of the Party of No and their Blue Dog conservative Democrat allies blocking all work in the Senate? How long before their whole house of ideological cards crashes down around them?

Harry Reid needs to borrow some balls (try the House, there seem to be some extras over there) and take a stand on the public option. Get a bill on the floor and force a vote. Let's see how long the opposition lasts when it is exposed to the light of day, rather than making backroom deals.

No more threats. No more "compromise." The D's hold a position of strength and the public wants action.

Make. Them. Filibuster.

-Dr.DRL

Wingnuts fear flu shots may sterilize them

2009-10-09T16:31:00.002-05:00

It's getting funnier by the day: now the right wingers are trying to drum up fear over the H1N1 vaccine, warning people that it may in fact be a government plot to sterilize them. One could only hope...

MN near top of state-by-state healthcare rankings-- guess who's at the bottom?

2009-10-09T16:23:00.002-05:00

The Commonwealth Fund has produced a great interactive map ranking the states on healthcare access. Not surprisingly the states with more progressive government ranked highly (Vermont is #1, my state of Minnesota #4). The states represented by Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are at the bottom. Indeed, the map looks a lot like the 2008 electoral map...people in the deep south have poor healthcare AND bad government. Coincidence? I think not.

My monthly newspaper column: health care reform

2009-10-07T11:13:00.002-05:00

Times Writers Group: Masses ignored in health debate

St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 7, 2009

Here is a simple fact: The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other nation, and we get sadly lackluster results.

Among Germany, France, Japan, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the U.K., we rank last in life expectancy and highest in infant mortality, despite spending 58 percent more on health care per capita than Germany and 220 percent more than Canada, according to a 2007 analysis by The Commonwealth Fund.

The comparatively poor state of American health care is widely known. But the state of our politics has made it almost impossible to have a rational debate about fixing it. As a result, many solutions that make sense to a dispassionate observer are not even open for discussion.

For example, no bill proposing a European-style, single payer, universal system has even made it out of committee, much less to a floor vote in Congress. The debate began by taking what many think is the obvious solution off the table, despite the fact that a single-payer system has substantial public support (49 percent in a Time magazine poll in July) and even rates highly among American physicians, 42 percent of whom approve of the idea, according to a report in the Journal of General Internal Medicine last winter.

The political process has been constrained by powerful minorities that either want to protect the status quo or impose their ideological requirements. This is evident in the controversy about a “public option” for uninsured.

This political reality was illustrated last week when House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner told Politico “I’m still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration.”

Because a Sept. 16 Quinnipiac poll found 57 percent of Ohio residents — the state Boehner represents — support a public option, this seemed a bit odd. The only logical conclusion is Boehner is so insulated within his right-wing bubble that he has literally never spoken to one of the about 6 million residents of his state who doesn’t share his predetermined conclusions.

Other political leaders have conveniently ignored the millions who favor a government plan, be they the 76 percent who felt offering a public option was “important” in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in June or the 50 percent who supported a “national health care plan for all” in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in July.

Instead we have been subjected to misinformation and hyperbole calculated to turn people against decent reform.

The 1 percent of Americans who watch Glenn Beck’s television broadcasts have somehow come to represent us all.

Our own 6th District U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s antics exemplify the situation well. In speaking about to a conservative audience in Colorado in August, she proclaimed “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.” Last week she took to the House floor to warn that government “sex clinics” in the schools could be used to funnel teenagers to Planned Parenthood clinics for abortions without their parents’ knowledge.

As crazy as it sounds, her strategy is working. There is no debate about a single-payer national health care plan.

The voices of millions who favor a public option are being ignored and talk of reining in abuses by insurers has faded.

Hopefully the next time we have a shot at health care reform we will get to discuss a cure, rather than allowing a few ersatz tea parties, some insincere calls for bipartisanship, and a handful of talk-media divas to limit the debate to a choice between putting a bandage on an open wound or doing nothing at all.

An eloquent comment from a NY Times reader

2009-09-17T09:37:00.002-05:00

This comment-- submitted at the NYT on a Tim Eagan story --really deserves to be published widely. It captures the essence of our current politics, which are really not that much different from those of the 20th century (just a bit louder).

23. September 17, 2009 3:43 am Link

Neither of my parents graduated from high school. My father went to work at 12 to support help support his mothers and sisters after his father died — he worked on a milk truck and sold chewing gum at the subway stations in East Harlem — and, during the depression, my teenage mother was for a short time the sole support of her parents and three younger siblings. All four of my grandparents had been immigrants, and all four died before age 60.

In the nineteen fifties, my uncles became union members. My mother, an office worker, benefited from ILGWU contracts at the department store at which she was employed. All had good hourly wages, benefits and retirement pensions and, as a result, my sister, cousins and I grew up in decent surroundings and attended college, and our parents had comfortable, if not affluent retirements. I have graduate and professional degrees from an ivy league college. We all became middle class.

Despite their lack of education, my parents and their siblings never engaged in the ignorant, delusional and hate-filled behavior that I have witnessed among right-wing working class protestors over the past few months. They were not civil rights activists — theirs was the wrong generation for that — but they were not racists, either. African-Americans worked side by side with them in the transit, sanitation, police, carpenters, longshoremen’s and other unions, and my family respected that work and those fellow Americans by whom it was performed. Nor were my parents, aunts and uncles deluded as to their best interests. They also knew, as my mother often told me, that “The Republicans were for the rich people; we’re poor, and we vote Democrat.” They knew those who were on their side, and those who were not.

I have witnessed the economic decline of people like my parents with horror and dismay. Even more troubling has been the descent of such working Americans into an ignorance that my parents never knew — a decline abetted and encouraged by the Republican Party. There appear to be no progressive organizations in our era that can harness the anger and despair of the working class so as to help rather than harm these good people. Instead, we have crazy talk show hosts, corrupt politician, and the cynical corporate interests that finance them.

Were it not for unions and other progressive movements, my parents’ generation would have never climbed out of the numbing poverty that killed my grandparents, and my own generation would not be enjoying those middle-class benefits that we now have. Who will rescue the working-class this time around? President Obama is trying, but the forces of reaction and greed bar his way, and there is no organizational structure — no working class movement — to help the poor save themselves.

It is a heart-breaking, frustrating situation. Last Saturday, I watched working-class America march itself into perdition.
— Mary Romeo

I said it today, The Onion said it better

2009-09-02T20:11:00.001-05:00

So while I was composing my polite little op-ed about helicopter parents The Onion was producing a cute little TV satire on the same topic. Good stuff.

-Dr.DRL

My latest newspaper column, for your enjoyment

2009-09-02T12:27:00.006-05:00

Parents, let students go, grow

St. Cloud (MN) Times

September 2, 2009

As new college students settle into residence halls and begin their first classes, many faculty and staff who work with them are wondering “how long before the first parent calls?”

For some academics the most striking change between this generation of students and the one before is not their ability to navigate the digital world, their growing diversity or their politics, but the extent to which their parents are involved in their daily lives.

Much has been written about “helicopter parents” in recent years. Few would argue that having parents involved in their adult offspring’s lives is a bad thing. But it can go too far. Everyone in higher education has heard stories about parents calling the dean to demand a new roommate at the first sign of conflict, calling the department chair to complain about an “unfair” exam when a grade is lower than expected, or even calling their student directly each morning as a sort of wake-up service.

At the extremes these parental behaviors prevent students from taking responsibility for their actions, slow their progress into adulthood, and waste time and resources better spent on education.

In a world where grocery carts come with sanitizing wipes, “tween” sleepovers are viewed as risky, and many children never go outside without a parent this level of engagement may not be surprising. But how far is too far?

One study found 31 percent of students had a parent call a professor to complain about a grade and 38 percent had parents attend meetings with their academic advisers. While students generally value their parents’ advice — 65 percent in this poll — fully 25 percent reported their parents’ behavior “was either annoying or embarrassing.”

Annoying parents are a universal reality among teens, but at least it used to stop by the time they left for college. No longer though. Even graduate schools are reporting unforeseen levels of parental “involvement” and are having to develop policies to manage them.

A parent’s responsibility to a child changes with time. Surely everyone recognizes that the close monitoring appropriate to a toddler is unnecessary for a tween and likely detrimental to a teenager. Children need the freedom to make choices, experience life, and learn from their own successes and failures.

College used to be the line of demarcation between childhood and adulthood, to one side of which parents rarely strayed, coming to campus for move-in, graduation and perhaps a concert or sporting event in between. But today’s parents are not only physically on campus much more, they are connected with their students by cell phone and e-mail at any whim. A Boston Globe report last spring noted one parent admitting to 144 phone calls with her daughter in a single month!

Rather than giving in to overinvolved parents, some colleges are trying to educate families on how best to negotiate the transition to adulthood. Orientation sessions for new students and their parents may specifically address the issue.

Parents are asked to let their students make their own choices and accept (and learn from) the consequences. Faculty and staff are encouraged to ask parents to send their students to meetings rather than call in their place. More information than ever is being provided to families, who can now keep track of their students’ grades, charge accounts, class schedule, and disciplinary records — sometimes even online.

The hope is to inform parents and to foster communication within families, so minor problems on campus don’t escalate to major ones in a flood of texts, voice messages and e-mails that culminate in a frantic call to the dean by a parent who may have only heard one side of the story.

The solution to this problem is not to silence or exclude parents. Instead, we as a society should encourage young adults to accept greater responsibility. College students should chose their own majors, pick their own classes, settle conflicts with their roommates, and question their professors directly.

If we collectively decide to extend childhood into the 20s, where do we stop? Will parents start attending job interviews with their college graduates? Negotiating prenups for their 30-somethings?

There is no doubt that having parents involved in their adult children’s lives is a good thing. But both parties need to make wise decisions about where and when to draw the line.

-Dr. DRL

Why Fox News lacks all credibility on, well, everything

2009-08-27T08:16:00.002-05:00

And it's not even a political story this time. Does a bear scat in the woods? Thanks to WJW Fox 8 in Cleveland for confirming my belief that Fox and its affiliates are run by (and for) utter idiots.

-Dr.DRL

Ideological orientation: why we still have problems

2009-08-15T08:45:00.002-05:00

In contrast to the party affiliation map posted below, this recent survey of ideological orientation shows why we can't seem to get anything done. Though the country has repudiated George W. Bush's brand of neo-con insanity it remains are heart very conservative.

This map also explains why people like me much prefer to live in the Pacific Northwest or New England-- and it ain't just the weather.

-Dr. DRL

Reality in a map: national party affiliation

2009-08-15T08:38:00.002-05:00

Here's a recent map produced by Gallup from their polling data:

It's hard not to notice the very small bit of red there. The problem is, even the deep blue states are electing Democrats that aren't at all progressive, so the majorities in congress are meaningless. A 60 seat Senate majority isn't going to accomplish much at all if ten of them are conservatives who will vote with the minority on every important bill.

But still, one would hope this map reflects a long-term change that will lead to the marginalization of the neo-cons and their remaining few cultural conservative allies who actually hold power (vs. the blubberheads on TV and radio who exploit the rank-and-file dunderheads for profit).

-Dr.DRL

Healthcare post-mortem: how the bastards won

2009-08-12T00:13:00.002-05:00

It doesn't get much clearer than this statement from Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), one of the Blue Dog leadership and a pawn of the insurance industry:

"We ensured that if there is a government option, it will be just that -- an option -- and it won't be mandated on anybody. If it had been based on Medicare rates, I can assure you that it would have eventually ended up resulting in a single payer-type system, because Medicare has really good rates, because they're negotiating for every senior in America. Private insurance companies could not have competed with that."

So the problem with a single-payer system is that it would be cheaper, perhaps as cheap as Medicare, so that's off the table because private for-profit companies couldn't compete. Instead of controlling costs by negotiating prices and encouraging economies of scale, my personal funds AND my tax dollars will continue to line the pockets of insurance industry execs and their stockholders who bring literally nothing to health care except their parasitic drain on the system.

All because people like Mike Ross think it's more important to keep the parasites afloat than to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans.

Bastards.

-Dr. DRL

Time to euthanize health care reform

2009-08-10T21:03:00.002-05:00

It's time to pack it in folks. The Democrats have proven they don't have the political will to actually produce a reasonable bill this year, so I'd rather see health care reform defeated entirely. There's little value to passing a "reform" that fails in include a public option, fails to control prescription costs, and basically gives the store away to the insurance industry.

Blame Harry Reid for this; the Senate blew it from day one. If the Democrats had any balls (that goes for the few women in the Senate as well) they would have told the Republicans to screw themselves and simply passed a good bill for the president to sign. Instead, they have blown a once-in-a-generation chance at meaningful reform in favor of "bipartisanship" and pandering.

Obama hasn't helped. His willingness to cave on every important aspect of reform shows he was never really a progressive-- he's a Clinton centrist at heart --who wants a political victory more than a meaningful solution.

The really sad thing about this is that we had only one chance. The Democrats have pissed it away by pandering to the right, to the Blue Dogs, and to the Republicans because they are afraid of them. What we really need is another LBJ in the Senate, rather than candy-ass Harry Reid, and a president who is willing to expend some political capital to achieve what no others could do.

As people said last fall "elections have consequences." If nothing else, George Bush realized that and acted on it. But in this case, the major consequence for America is that we've lost what was probably the best chance we've ever had at joining the rest of the industrialized world in having a 20th century health care system (there was never any chance of having a 21st century system). It won't come again for a generation. Hopefully by then Reid will have been sent out to pasture and we'll have a president who really means what he says when he's talking to progressives.

-Dr.DRL

August column: Expanding the "Clunkers" Program

2009-08-05T00:51:00.003-05:00

My latest newspaper column is now up at the St. Cloud Times website. Oddly enough, the editorial board chose to write on the same topic today (even more surprisingly our positions aren't really contradictory).

The full text of my column is below; the online archive at the paper is only free for seven days but thanks to the generous support of an anonymous donor this blog is always free.

-Dr. DRL

PS: I'm kidding about the donor, natch.
-------------------------------------------

August 5, 2009

Times Writers Group: Raise standards, renew clunkers

By Derek Larson

The “cash for clunkers” program was intended to jump-start the sagging auto industry and provide consumers with an incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

A victim of its own success, the program’s $1 billion was exhausted in about a week. Congress is debating whether to fund an extension, which it should, but with changes to make it more effective and fair.

As consumers rushed last week to take advantage of the deal, auto dealers struggled with a massive backlog in the federal system for reimbursement.

Though no complete results have been published, The Associated Press reported the Obama administration claiming that of the first 80,000 transactions, the average efficiency of the clunker was 15.8 mpg and the new vehicle 25.4 mpg. So on its face the program clearly succeeded in stimulating sales and boosting average fuel efficiency of the replacement vehicles.

But before Congress appropriates additional funding, the law should be tweaked to favor more efficient vehicles and to open it up to more consumers. Under the program a car or truck must have an EPA efficiency rating of 18 mpg or less to qualify, and the replacement vehicle must exceed that rating by a minimum of 2 mpg for light trucks or 4 mpg for cars.

That threshold is ridiculously low. A person could trade a 1994 Suburban in on a 2010 Hummer H3 and receive a $3,500 subsidy for achieving a 2 mpg increase — all the way to 14 mpg! A more sensible approach would be to base the incentive on the percentage increase in fuel efficiency achieved, with a minimum increase of 30 percent to qualify for $2,000 and the subsidy increasing proportionally to 70 percent, above which all trades would qualify for $4,500.

This would prevent the public funding more gas hogs while still allowing those who needed trucks or SUVs to use the program. Those who chose more efficient upgrade paths, however, would be rewarded with proportionally larger subsidies.

The second change should be to eliminate the 18 mpg cap for clunkers. If a consumer wants to trade a car that gets 22 mpg for one that gets 28.6 mpg (receiving $2,000 for meeting the 30 percent minimum) the goals of the program would still be met. To receive the maximum benefit ($4,500 paid at 70 percent or more) the replacement car would have to reach 37.4 mpg.

Third, the program should be opened to late-model used cars under similar terms. While such sales would not address the problem of stalled domestic production, they would still have a positive ripple effect in the local economy. Moreover, they would open the program to participation from those who simply cannot afford the payments on a new car, the cheapest of which are still running about $8,000 after the clunker deal. Moving less affluent families into safer, more efficient cars is also a worthy goal, even if those cars are used.

Once these changes are made Congress should consider appropriating several billion dollars to fund the clunkers program through the end of the year. It’s obviously working. Demand for new cars — and the desire for a deal — is strong. We can track and easily identify the impacts of the program, which will yield not only economic benefits but an automobile fleet that is more efficient and safer than the one it replaces.

The program empowers consumers, is market-based and benefits business — solid conservative principles. But it’s also transparent, good for the environment and, with the changes noted above, could be accessible for the working class — things liberals demand.

Of all the billions spent on bailouts and stimulus schemes since last fall, the clunkers program is the one that has actually worked as designed, quickly, and had a direct impact on Main Street. Keep it going and the echoes might make it to Wall Street as well.

This is the opinion of Derek Larson, who teaches history and environmental studies at The College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University. He welcomes comments at dereklarson@charter.net. His column is published the first Wednesday of the month.

My June newspaper column: ending the same-sex marriage debate

2009-06-03T22:14:00.002-05:00

My apologies for the stupid headline; the copy editors didn't like the one I submitted so cooked up something so vague it doesn't even convey the topic of the article, much less my position. it's generated 111 comments so far though, so I guess some people read it. If you're interested in the online discussion it can be found on the Times web page for seven days after publication before it goes away.

-Derek
---------------------------------------------------------

There's a solution to this problem
St. Cloud (MN) Times
June 3, 2009

When the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling throwing out that state’s ban on same-sex marriage in April folks from Maine to Oregon suddenly took notice of our sister state.

The California state Supreme Court’s decision not to overturn a similar ban last week only served to fan the flames over this divisive issue. Nearly fifty bills or constitutional amendments involving same-sex marriage are being debated around the country this year.

But, the solution to the entire problem is actually fairly simple: get government out of the marriage business and bar churches from any role in determining people’s status outside their faith communities.

There is no compelling reason for government to be involved with the institution of marriage. It should not be regulated, taxed, recorded, or in any other way intertwined with any public agency. Faith communities must be allowed to define marriage in keeping with their own traditions and the needs of their congregants. If a particular church proclaims it will only sanctify marriages between a woman and a man, so be it. Whatever standards are set by a particular group of believers will apply only to them and have no bearing on anyone who is not a member of their church. Thus faith and marriage remain personal choices, “the sanctity of marriage” can be protected by and for those who feel it is somehow threatened, and the rights of one group to define marriage as they see fit will not impede the rights of others who view the institution differently.

Rather than playing a role in marriage, local, state, and federal governments should simply be in the business of recording domestic partnerships. Registered domestic partners would hold a common tax status, own property jointly, enjoy shared custody of their children, be covered under one another’s health insurance policies, have hospital visitation rights, be liable under alimony laws if the partnership is dissolved, and generally be treated as legally married couples are today. Everyone in a registered partnership would be treated equally under the law and domestic partnership would apply to everyone; currently married couples would have to register their partnerships just as the newly “partnered” would in the future. There would be no restrictions on who could enter into a domestic partnership other than basic standards for a minimum age and a reasonable degree of familial separation. The gender, race, religion, and even state of residence of the partners would be Social change is hard to predict and harder to legislate.

By separating marriage — a religious issue — from domestic partnership — a civil issue — we would short-circuit much of the heated rhetoric in the debates over same-sex marriage. Most importantly though, we would ensure equal treatment to all our citizens because the outcomes of the religious debates would no longer dictate whose relationships held legal status, whose rights ended at the hospital door, which couples were able to adopt, or who in the household was eligible for medical coverage. Religious marriage would continue to be an option for those who wanted it and whose faith communities offered it, but everyone who wanted to join their lives together could engage in a domestic partnership.

Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are likely to fall in the coming years regardless of what we do today, quite possibly in one fell swoop at the hand of the U.S. Supreme Court. Citing the equal protection clause in striking down existing bans on interracial marriage in 1967, the court noted that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” It is not much of a leap to see the same logic applied to gender. The question is really how long it will take. Rather than draw the issue out over many years, creating a confusing and uneven patchwork of discriminatory state laws, wouldn’t it be wiser to simply settle it now in a way that reflects our country’s highest traditions of freedom of choice, individual responsibility, and equality for all?

And after all, as any Californian can tell you, once something’s been decided in Iowa it’s probably well past time we moved on to the next big concern anyway.

###

Dr.DRL

Right wing markdown in progress

2009-05-12T21:22:00.002-05:00

This was on DailyKos today and I couldn't resist posting it here. From a Target store somewhere in the midwest...

Monthly newspaper column: Why worry about the flu?

2009-05-07T17:35:00.002-05:00

Times Writers Group: Why worry about flu? See 1918

By Derek Larson • May 6, 2009

St. Cloud (MN) Times

How worried should we be about "novel H1N1 influenza" or swine flu?

The World Health Organization has issued a "phase five pandemic alert," indicating a pandemic is imminent. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended schools with proven cases be closed for two weeks and shipped stockpiled antiviral medications to every state. On the fringes of the Internet, survivalists are chatting excitedly about which guns are best for home defense if civil order collapses during a pandemic.

So what's all the fuss? It's clearly not about the numbers because swine flu has so far been confirmed in less than 1,100 people worldwide and only 26 deaths have been documented. Compared to typical seasonal influenza, which kills about 36,000 in the United States alone each year, the swine flu is a joke. Globally, malaria kills in excess of 1 million people annually and rotavirus another 400,000. Most of these victims are children, and both diseases are preventable.

So why the panic over a rare outbreak of swine flu? History.

In the spring of 1918, cases of an especially virulent influenza appeared among soldiers in Europe and the United States, though not enough to spark great concern. Indeed, in April of 1918, The New York Times reported that despite some cases of the flu "the health of the Army in the United States continues good." Two months later, amid reports of widespread infection among the German troops, the paper patriotically reported "no influenza in our Army."

But in August, passengers on a Norwegian liner arriving in New York had taken ill, leading to discussions about quarantine. By September, officials were warning people to be on the lookout for symptoms and urging them to practice the now familiar steps of avoiding crowds, covering coughs and frequently washing hands. (They also recommended loose-fitting clothes and chewing your food well.)

The state of medicine in 1918 was primitive by today's standards, as was the ability of the media to raise public awareness and that of the common citizen to understand the threat of an emerging pandemic. That fall the first confirmed case of flu in Minnesota was announced Sept. 25. Within a week there were more than 1,000 cases in Minneapolis alone. On Oct. 10, public meetings were banned, and the following day schools, churches and theaters were ordered closed. By Oct. 17 nearly 3,000 people had died in Minneapolis, part of a pandemic that sickened some 75,000 Minnesotans and killed almost 12,000.

As frightening as the Minnesota numbers might be, the death toll here was much lower than in many other states. While accurate figures are hard to come by — cause of death was often listed as pneumonia, rather than influenza — conservative estimates suggest about 675,000 Americans died in the 1918 pandemic. Worldwide, the total was 50 million to 100 million dead.

It is the 1918 pandemic that scares public health officials today. While later outbreaks took far fewer lives in the United States (70,000 in 1957 and 33,000 in 1968), scientists have warned for decades that a natural mutation could once again produce a virus as deadly as the 1918 strain. With modern travel, it would be nearly impossible to prevent its rapid spread. Models of a 21st century pandemic predict in excess of 100 million dead worldwide, with 1.9 million dead in the United States and 32,000 in Minnesota. In sum, about 50 years' worth of typical seasonal flu deaths could come in the space of 18 months.

Before we dismiss the concerns of the doctors, researchers and public health professionals charged with warning us about possible disease outbreaks, we should understand the magnitude of the threat. The difference between 1918 and today, of course, is that now we have modern medicine and communications on our side. Antiviral medications have been stockpiled, and the odds of developing a vaccine before the virus becomes widespread are promising. And there's always the chance that this strain won't turn out to be as bad as the 1918 version.

But until we're sure, taking reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of influenza seems like a minor inconvenience.

-Dr. DRL

Earth Week Goes Mainstream

2009-04-24T10:52:00.003-05:00

Did you notice Earth Week this year? Back in 1990 lots of people turned out for the 20th anniversary of Earth Day to volunteer on cleanups but there was little commercial impact and almost nothing done in the days before or after April 22nd. By 2000 some college campuses (including ours) had built a week of activities around Earth Day in an attempt to expand the engagement over a longer period and make it about more than just picking up trash.

This year the green really hit the fan. Sure, the same old groups were out picking up trash and the predictable speakers were talking about environmental issues on campuses across the country. But in this post-Bush world "green" is no longer something to sneer at and as a result Earth Week went mainstream. While a Google search turns up mostly campus events the most telling sign of change to me came from our local newspaper-- or rather, the ad inserts in our local paper. Companies from Target to Home Depot to Macy's were running Earth Week promotions and many of the ads actually had green color schemes in place us the usual corporate red/orange/blue.

This isn't to say that Target's display of cheap Chinese gardening tools makes them green. But it is a sign that green has gone mainstream. It may be a fad, it may be a sign of the state of the economy, or it may be a shallow attempt to market to people's general fears that things aren't going well environmentally.

But wouldn't it be cool if it was really a signal that change has come, conspicuous consumption is falling out of favor, and that consumers may actually be choosing stores and products based on factors besides price? Here's hoping that ten years down the road we can look back and say 2009 marked the beginning of a trend that really did lead to some positive changes for the planet and the entire community of life on Earth.

-Dr. DRL

Court slams door shut on Norm Coleman's fingers

2009-04-14T17:37:00.003-05:00

In case you out-of-state readers missed it, the ruling on Norm Coleman's election challenge came down today and his claims were dismissed with prejudice. He's done, even if he tried to push this to the MN Supremes for a final appeal. Gov. Pawlenty should issue a certificate of election tomorrow but it sounds like he's going to wait for the court to refuse to hear Norm's case first.

A great rundown of the decision has been posted on DailyKos, with lots of juicy legal detail at Campaign Silo.

Franken is no Paul Wellstone but he's a damn sight closer than Coleman and could grow into the role. Hopefully he'll be seated soon so we Minnesotans will actually have two senators again.

-Dr. DRL

Conservative "tea party" protest another astroturf project

2009-04-14T16:19:00.004-05:00

This may come as no surprise, but a bit of digging by progressive bloggers has turned up the dope on the "tea party" protests conservatives planned for April 15th. Lauded by conservative blowhards like Glen Beck as a grassroots response to Obama's economic plan, they are in fact a carefully orchestrated effort by conservative foundations to spread anti-tax propaganda. Just like virtually every other conservative "grassroots" project in recent decades, the teabaggers' party is also turning out to be just another example of astroturf, fake grass that costs a lot more than the real thing and isn't nearly as good.

Details at Think Progress and Firedog Lake. For an up-to-the-minute summary of all the teabagging you can handle, check out Save The Rich for more.

The best part? The tea parties are backed by Freedomworks.org which is run by our old friend, former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. That's some real grassroots man!

-Dr. DRL

April newspaper column: paying taxes is patriotic?

2009-04-01T07:58:00.002-05:00

Here's my April newspaper column. Since it ran on April 1 the local right wingers pretended it was a joke-- but I'm serious. Before condemning taxes in general we really should recognize the benefits they bring. Minnesota is fortunate to have had good leaders in the past but we've been coasting on their investments for a decade now.

-Dr. DRL
----------------------------------------------------------

Times Writers Group: 'Taxes are bad' is disingenuous

By Derek Larson • April 1, 2009

St. Cloud (MN) Times

Tax Day is just two weeks away. While most of us paid our taxes for 2008 long ago, anti-tax complaints are rising in the media and likely around kitchen tables as well. A bit of historical perspective, though, shows that Americans haven't always felt so bitter about paying their taxes. In fact, at times it seemed like the patriotic thing to do — even when the top rate climbed above 90 percent.

During World War II, cartoon celebrity Donald Duck appeared in short features calling on all Americans to pay "taxes to beat the Axis."

"Taxes," the narrator proclaimed, "will keep democracy on the march!" Not a very subtle piece of propaganda but likely an effective one during that time of global crisis.

Today we face another global crisis — an economic one this time — and our country is engaged in not one but two wars. But instead of silly cartoon ducks reminding us to pay our income tax on time, we face a regular media barrage from conservatives claiming taxation is destroying the economy and that government is really something we'd be better off without.

Of course, some of them also have directly stated the goal of destroying government by starving it of operating funds, so that sentiment is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is that so few people speak out in support of the opposite view — that taxes are the price we pay for everything from abstract goods like "freedom" to literally concrete things like highways. Not paying your fair share, as Donald Duck knew, is fundamentally unpatriotic.

Minnesotans know that folks elsewhere envy us. Our state and many of our cities rank highly in "most livable" surveys every year. Thousands of newcomers move here annually, despite the sometimes challenging climate. Corporations invest here. Students come here for college.

We are national leaders in many things and rank near the bottom in very few. Minnesota enjoys frequent top five rankings among "best states to live in." Top 10 rankings for most statistics that matter to children, including quality of education, children who are read to daily, and bottom 10 rankings for children living in poverty. The highest voting rates in the country. A No. 1 ranking for adults with high school diplomas. The list is almost endless.

But all this comes at a price. Our state tax burden falls somewhere between No. 10 and No. 17, depending on how it is calculated and which year's figures you use. While the anti-tax zealots are quick to point out our relatively high tax burden, they always ignore the benefits those taxes bring: quality of life unmatched in other states and a society that does better than most at making sure those toward the bottom have what they need to get by.

There is an alternative of course: We could slash taxes and government programs, as many conservatives suggest. But the economic renaissance and subsequent golden age they predict is at best a fantasy and at worst an intentional deception.

The Census Bureau's list of the 10 states with the lowest per capita tax rates includes Oregon, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Colorado, New Hampshire, Texas and South Dakota. Of these only South Dakota and Colorado even break into the top 25 places to live, much less the top 10. Many on the low-tax list are used as object lessons about how not to run a state or as places you'd never want your job transferred, essentially the opposite status that Minnesota enjoys.

As our leaders face tough budget decisions in St. Paul and Washington, they would all do well to remember Donald Duck's lesson. Thankfully we're no longer fighting a war against global fascism, but we are fighting real wars on multiple fronts, at home and abroad.

Taxes are the primary source of revenue for the public goods and services that make Minnesota and the country as a whole places people want to live. Citizens will always have complaints about government priorities but claiming taxes are the root of all evil is the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that Minnesotans can live without.

-----------------

This column will be available on the St. Cloud Times web site until it moved to the pay archive on April 8th.

AIG, Madoff, and populist resentment of the moneyed class

2009-03-18T08:03:00.002-05:00

As public outrage grows over the multi-million dollar bonuses paid to AIG employees in the wake of the multi-billion dollar bailout, it's useful to recognize this fact: the very rich live in a different world from the rest of us. While giving someone a seven-million-dollar bonus for destroying a company seems insane to most, it's business as usual on Wall Street. "This is how we do things" says AIG, and it's important to note that AIG does not exist in a vacuum. It's entirely common for people in the financial industry to "earn" annual bonuses that exceed the expected lifetime earnings of a working-class family.

But is it right?

NPR just reported this morning that Bernie Madoff's wife will be forced to surrender $2.5 million worth of jewelry given to her by her husband. These baubles are worth the equivalent of 40 years income for the typical American family of four. Is there any rational reason for anyone to have that kind of disposable weath?

In the late 19th century populists turned against the excesses of "robber barons," ultimately giving rise to a political movement that led to massive regulation of business, new social programs, and perhaps most importantly of all, the federal income tax. The examples of AIG and Madoff, though obviously extremes, demonstrate a reality that most Americans simply ignore: the very rich exist in a world of their own, where the rules that apply to the rest of us are scoffed at daily, and rewards come from being part of the club, not for doing good or even for doing well.

It's time for another populist revolt. At the very least the top income tax bracket should be moved back to 75% (it was over 90% for much of the 20th century). There is no defensible reason for anyone to receive more income in a year than an average family of four can expect over a working lifetime. If that makes me a socialist, so be it. Let them keep, say, ten times the median annual income (that would be $500,000) then raise the marginal tax rate to 90% beyond that.

We've been trying 1920s-style trickle down economics since 1981 and it has failed utterly. It's time to try something else. The tax system of the 1930s/1940s couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now, and it would certainly be more fair. "Soak the rich" they called it in 1935. I prefer to call it "screw the irresponsible, unworthy, and immoral" because anyone who's not would most likely be quite happy with $500K per year plus 10% of everything after that-- just like they got in the 1940s.

-Dr. DRL

My latest newspaper column: class warfare?

2009-03-04T09:07:00.003-06:00

This is my March column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times.

---------------------------

Times Writers Group: Class warfare? Know who wins

March 4, 2009

On Thursday the Fox News Forum responded to President Obama's address to Congress with a column titled "Will Taxes Become Obama's Weapon of Class Destruction?"In his rambling address to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, Rush Limbaugh accused Obama of "fueling the emotions of class envy." On Sunday Bob Erlich, the former Republican governor of Maryland, told Chris Matthews on Hardball that Obama's budget was "all about class warfare."

If buzzwords were stocks "class warfare" would be the hottest investment in the market now, which is strange for a country that treats class like a taboo subject.

A majority of Americans self-identify as "middle class" and the social barriers that once prevented those who worked for a living from rubbing elbows with inherited wealth have substantially disappeared. The patterns of speech, habits of dress, in some cases even the neighborhoods that once divided people according to their wealth have been suppressed, co-opted, or driven behind closed doors as everyone in America aspires to appear middle class.

But the truth is we're not all middle class.

For the sake of argument let's imagine there are five classes in the United States, each with equal populations. For convenience we'll call them the working poor, working class, middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy.

From the end of World War II until 1980, the real incomes of all five groups increased dramatically, more than doubling for all but the wealthy, who realized a 94 percent increase.

But between 1980-2000 things were starkly different. Incomes for the bottom 40 percent — the working poor and working class -increased by only single digits. The middle class saw an 11 percent increase and the upper middle class a 19 percent increase. But the wealthy enjoyed a 42 percent increase during the same period.

Good for them, some will say. But was it good for anyone else?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau the median household income today is just a hair more than $50,000. Half of all families earn less, half earn more. Conveniently, the per capita GDP for the United States is also close to $50,000, so if the GDP were divided equally among all Americans a family of four would earn about $200,000 annually. But in reality almost half of all income goes to the top 20 percent, the "wealthy" class. The wealthiest among them — the top 5 percent overall — actually receive about 22 percent of all income each year.

The Associated Press reports the Obama tax plan that conservatives are decrying would result in a median family — four people living on an income of $50,000 — owing no federal income tax at all. Tax cuts would continue for families earning up to $150,000.

This sounds like a policy that favors the interest of at least the 80 percent of Americans who fall below our arbitrary definition of wealthy. The tax increase being touted as "class warfare" by some is actually just a proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, restoring a top rate of 39.6 percent for couples earning more than $250,000 per year.

In past times of crisis the wealthy were asked to contribute more because they had to means to do so. The top tax rate World War I was 77 percent. In 1933, at the start of the New Deal, it was 63 percent. At the end of World War II it was 94 percent and remained above 80 percent until 1963. In 1982 it dropped to 50 percent and since 2003 has been just 35 percent.

According to many economists and most pundits, we are in an economic crisis rivaled only by the Great Depression. If that's the case, how can asking the wealthy to contribute on the same level they did during the booming 1990s be a case of class warfare?

The next time Rush, someone on Fox or any politician complains about class warfare ask yourself this: Whose interests are they really representing?

The answer will help you sort the wheat from the chaff and to realize that what's best for the top 5 percent maybe isn't always best for those of us in the 95 percent below them.

-Dr.DRL

Yucca Mountain is Dead. Long Live Yucca Mountain!

2009-02-27T15:23:00.002-06:00

Bloomberg reports that the Obama administration plans to pound the budgetary stake through Yucca Mountain's not-quite-yet radioactive heart. Assuming no resurrection, this brings the $9 billion project to an end, leaving the country with no nuclear waste respository. That's probably less of a worry that the idea of trucking waste across the country and sticking it in tunnels under an earthquake prone mountain an hour from Las Vegas.

-Dr. DRL

Happy 150th Oregon!

2009-02-14T10:03:00.003-06:00

Today-- February 14th --is Oregon's 150th birthday. In my desk at work I have a commemorative coin minted for the centennial in 1959, back when Mark Hatfield was a young governor. I wish I could be in Oregon today to celebrate but will pass on my good wishes to all Oregonians virtually.

Happy Birthday Oregon!

Here's a gift for everyone: a link to an audio podcast of the entire 1959 Stan Freberg musical production Oregon! Oregon! Listen and enjoy!

February newspaper column: fixing the stimulus bill

2009-02-05T03:04:00.002-06:00

Here's my monthly newspaper column, this one a followup to October's (available in the archive at right) condemning the bailout bill.

Learn from last stimulus error

Sr. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • February 4, 2009

Congress is debating an $800 billion stimulus bill that's bogged down in partisan and ideological infighting about a few million dollars targeted for things like contraception and anti-smoking programs while ignoring the opportunity to actually deliver on the "change" promised in the 2008 election.

What's really needed to fix the economy is not more tax cuts or slapdash spending, but smart investment in the future that moves past the business-as-usual orientation of Congress.

If we're going to spend close to a trillion dollars again we should get something substantial for the money. Universal health care, 21st century infrastructure and a stronger education system should top the list.

Federal spending on these three priorities will have a direct impact on Main Street that will last decades, rather than the short-term benefits of direct refunds to individuals or tax cuts for businesses that will disappear just as quickly as rebate checks did last spring, with nary a ripple. Actual investment in the public good makes much more sense than short-lived solutions for the private few.

Everyone knows our health care system is broken. Millions lack insurance and cannot afford even basic health care. The system of employer-funded health care is an accident of history that is crippling our economy and hurting our citizens.

Surely several hundred billion dollars could help shift us away from this anachronism and toward a 21st century system that provides health care for all Americans. Think of it as an investment in our future health, as well as a major boon to businesses as the cost of employer-provided insurance declines over time.

Similarly, in a country where a bridge falls into a river and some counties are contemplating reverting from asphalt to gravel roads to save on maintenance costs, we could stand to invest in our infrastructure.

Several hundred billion would go a long way toward rebuilding highways, dams and bridges. It would also have a massive impact on local economies, as construction contracts employed local workers, used locally produced materials, and pumped payroll dollars into local economies. And once again, business would benefit from reduced transportation costs as the modern system was completed.

Smart investment in education offers short- and long-term benefits as well. Like our roads, the nation's schools are crumbling. Replacing outdated schools and updating serviceable ones with energy-efficient mechanical systems and modern instructional equipment offers the same short-term employment boost as road projects, but carries the added bonus of future savings for school districts and improved learning outcomes for students.

Packaged with funds for improving access to higher education, educational funding on this scale could have the same long-term impact at the GI Bill of the 1950s, producing a generation of workers ready for 21st century jobs.

In October, I wrote a column marking the "collapse" of the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, which then appeared to be going down in flames due to massive public opposition. I criticized the plan because it rewarded risky behavior by socializing the resulting losses and included almost nothing to address the foreclosure crisis itself.

When Congress regrouped and passed a slightly revised bill a few days later many warned it did too little to prop up the economy and too much to prop up private investors. Ultimately, $700 billion was added to the national debt and it didn't appear to fix much of anything.

No wonder the American people shouted "NO!" They know it wasn't fair and they knew it wouldn't work.

Now the time has come to shout "YES!" to a plan for economic recovery, but the problem is we're stuck with the status quo in Washington. We probably won't get the stimulus bill we need out of this Congress because too many members remain stuck in the ideologically rigid, partisan past.

And until voters send those members packing, we'll likely get the bill we deserve.

Single-payer may see the light of day

2009-01-30T13:19:00.001-06:00

Now that the Obama Administration is a reality there's hope for progress on many fronts, including health care. While Obama has made statements placating the insurance lobby nothing has yet been determined that closes the door on a single-payer solution to our healthcare crisis. Indeed, spending some of the economic recovery funds to expand health care makes sense in many ways-- just as long as it's not simply in the shape of handing public funds to private for-profit industry.

CQ offers this update on the prospects for single-payer in the new congress.

-Dr.DRL

Change you can see already...

2009-01-20T13:14:00.000-06:00

Take a look at the White House web page. Notice anything different?

[I don't mean the photo-- I mean the fact that it suddenly has content, is interactive, and isn't full of neocon propaganda.]

That's change you can believe in.

-Dr.DRL

Time to change those bumperstickers!

2009-01-20T10:35:00.000-06:00

Don't forget-- today is the day to scrape off all those bumperstickers you put on your car over the past eight years.

"A Village Somewhere is Missing Its Idiot"
"What WMDs?"
"F*** the President"

Get the razor blades going!

Watching movies with George W. Bush...

2009-01-15T14:56:00.003-06:00

Vanity Fair ran a column recently that I quite enjoyed. It's from a college friend of Barbara's who got invited to the White House frequently in 2001-2002, then ended up regretting saying "yes." Worth a read.

January newspaper column: DC is born again

2009-01-13T16:35:00.004-06:00

We spent a week in DC around New Years, the first long period I've spent in the District since living there in 1988 (but one of many trips back since then). The place feels different-- there's an air of excitement, anticipation, and relief evident pretty much everywhere you go.

D.C. has new air of excitement

St. Cloud (MN) Times

By Derek Larson • January 7, 2009

As my return flight from Washington, D.C., approached the Twin Cities late Sunday night, I thought about how dramatically the nation's capital has changed since I first visited 30 years ago.

Then the Metro subway system and I.M. Pei's striking East Wing of the National Gallery of Art were new and exciting. Away from the Capitol mall vacant lots still stood as reminders of the April 1968 riots that destroyed much of inner-city Washington, but downtown looked fresh and vibrant. The mood seemed light even though the times were tough, the nation mired deep in a cycle of inflation and skyrocketing energy prices. Though Watergate was fresh in people's memories, tourists still flocked to see the icons of American government, to visit the Capitol and tour the White House.

When I moved to Washington 10 years later, the bloom had fallen off the rose. During the Reagan years, poverty, homelessness, crack cocaine and AIDS had torn into the fabric of the rebuilding city. Homeless people clustered on steam grates outside federal buildings and drug deals were commonplace. The local news ran a regular segment called "DC: Streets of Shame" that featured my neighborhood, warning people to avoid it at night. Aggressive panhandlers and mentally ill homeless people made walking downtown interesting even in the daytime.

I left Washington a few weeks before the 1989 inauguration of George H.W. Bush but have returned many times since. The most striking changes I noticed came in the wake of 9/11.

Streets were closed, security multiplied, and the federal core took on the feeling of a place under siege. Security bollards — those steel and concrete posts that protect building entrances — were planted everywhere, traffic was rerouted and metal detectors became common.

Snipers could occasionally be seen atop the White House. The city that had once been among the most open capitals took on a grim air of crisis, forever on orange alert.

Last week's trip felt different though. Many new attractions have opened in recent years, including the National World War II Memorial, the National Museum of the American Indian, the privately owned Newseum, and the $620 million U.S. Capitol Visitors Center, which was dedicated just last month.

But what had really changed since I'd visited last January was the mood of the people we met. Everyone seemed happy — cheerful even — and not just the tourists. Police officers, museum employees, hotel desk clerks and even people riding the Metro late at night were chatty, smiling and overtly friendly. The city feels like something exciting is about to happen.

Everywhere we went people were preparing for the anticipated record crowds coming to witness the historic swearing-in of the next president. Fences and scaffolding ring the Capitol. Giant posts for speakers and jumbo TV screens dot the mall. Reviewing stands have been constructed on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

Barack Obama souvenirs are being hawked not only by street vendors, but in the Smithsonian gift shops alongside copies of the inaugural addresses of Lincoln and FDR. Even the Metro system got in on the game; the fare cards we purchased Sunday afternoon were marked by an image of the president-elect.

Change is coming to Washington and the excitement is palpable. Whatever the result, early 2009 will likely be a good time to visit the nation's capital, if only because everyone will be smiling for a while longer. Here's hoping we all have reason to smile long after the bunting is taken down, the streets swept clean and the city returned to its more languid self.

Green Stimulus: Not Roads, But Schools & Jobs

2008-12-17T14:51:00.001-06:00

As President-elect Obama considers the nature of the next stimulus package, many ideas are being floated around. While an infrastructure spending spree (like the first New Deal) has some merits, we'd see a much better long-term return from a green stimulus package that emphasized green schools and green jobs for a sustainable future. The best outline I've seen for such a package was released by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy (.pdf) and deserves broad attention during this debate.

-Dr. DRL

Harry Reid Must Go!

2008-12-15T20:35:00.001-06:00

Now that we're looking forward to "change" one that's near the top of my list is the Senate Majority Leader. We've seen almost nothing of substance from Harry Reid over the past several years, which has included a record of almost total capitulation to the Republican minority this year and a complete failure to substantively challenge the most unpopular president in historic memory on almost anything.

Reid must go. He may in fact lose his seat in 2010, but I'd rather see him step down as majority leader long before that. The folks over at Daily Kos have taken up the torch, or at least are complaining about him more than they used to.

Good luck progressives! Let's start mailing old boots to Reid, so he'll at least know how we feel.

Interior Update: Looks Like Salazar

2008-12-15T20:07:00.003-06:00

Good news from the Obama transition team Official Leak Channel: it looks like Colorado Senator Ken Salazar will be moving on to the Interior Department. Salazar is a much better pick than many of the others rumored to be on the list, and one that proponents of stewardship on western public lands can work with. Despite a history that includes being on the wrong side of some key environmental decisions, Salazar scored 100% on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard for the 110th Congress and was endorsed as an "environmental hero" by the LCV in 2005.

Though a moderate (and social conservative) Democrat, Salazar is the kind of guy who should be able to work with both sides on critical issues such as water, grazing, timber, mining, and recreational access on the public lands without being beholden to single industry's like some other names that have been bandied about.

As I noted earlier, we desperately need a Stuart Udall or Cecil Andrus at Interior, not only to promote sensible policies but to revive the hopes of the many Interior employees who have been fighting against a rigged, politicized system for the past eight years in vain hope of protecting some part of our natural legacy. Salazar isn't Udall, but he's much closer than I'd feared. We'll have to reach out to him quickly and hold his (and his boss's) feet to the fire to make sure he listens to voices outside the boardrooms and faux-ranches that have dominated the public land debates in the West for far too long.

Time Has Come for Universal Health Care

2008-12-11T08:34:00.002-06:00

It's past time for the US to join the rest of the civilized world in providing medical care to all of our citizens. With the political energy built up by the Obama victory 2009 may be the best chance at health care reform since the 1950s. The best solution is clearly a single-payer model that would strip away the inefficiencies and injustices created by the byzantine private insurance industry-- why should we spend billions each year to fund an industry that skims profits from health care without providing any health care services? --and increases efficiency by putting all consumers into a buying pool for services, medications, and all other expenses.

The best solution proposed so far is H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, which would cover all medically-necessary procedures, medication, and devices for all Americans. People can still choose their doctors and there would be no copays or deductibles. It will be paid for, in part, by a 3% increase in the payroll tax-- much less per person than most of us currently pay for private insurance and the benefits will be greater.

Please contact your elected officials and urge them to support H.R. 676 in the next Congress.

-Dr. DRL

Obama's decision for Interior-- disappointment?

2008-12-10T19:00:00.002-06:00

Much concern has been raised within the environmental community over the rumor that Mike Thompson (D-CA) may be Obama's pick for Interior (see Grist's piece).

This is deeply disturbing to those of us who gave time and money to Obama on the assumption that he recognized the critical importance of conservation on our public lands. Thompson is a Blue Dog who supported many of Bush's inane environmental policies (including the "Healthy Forests Initiative") who simply does not have the credentials to fix the mess at Interior.

What America needs today is a Stuart Udall or a Cecil Andrus at Interior-- a westerner that understands conservation and believes in a sustainable, multiple-use mission for the public lands. Mike Thompson is not that person and Obama needs to hear that from everyone who support his campaign as a means to improving our environmental record on public lands.

You can join me in emailing the Obama transition team to share your thoughts on this critical position.

-Dr.DRL

My November Newspaper Column: A Brighter Future

2008-11-05T08:37:00.004-06:00

From the St. Cloud (MN) Times, 11/5/08:

An open letter to my children:

Girls, I’m saving copies of today’s newspaper for each of you, knowing that whatever the outcome of the presidential election it will be historic. They will go into the box with the papers from your birthdays and other important events to be passed to you when you’re old enough to want them.

Though several more elections will pass before you can vote yourselves, I trust you’ll someday be interested in these mementos of either the first African-American elected to the presidency or the first woman elected to the vice presidency. And who knows? It’s always possible that our country may be entering a new era of peace and prosperity and someday you can show the headlines to your friends and say “I remember 2008 …”

In some ways, though, I’m glad you’re not old enough to have paid serious attention to the campaigns that ended Monday. Though inspiring words were sometimes voiced and grand visions occasionally advanced, much of the rhetoric has been vapid and shallow. The politics have been mean spirited and the media coverage sadly juvenile.

Even as Election Day approached voters likely knew more about the female candidates’ clothes than their positions on major issues, and certainly more about the male candidates’ distant acquaintances and “youthful indiscretions” than their concrete plans for the future. In a polarized environment both campaigns ran for the middle and for the ever-elusive “low information voters” who couldn’t be bothered to make up their minds until the last minute. It was not an inspiring process.

My hope is that by the time you are of voting age we will have moved on. Moved on from the partisan rancor — and outright meanness — that has marked our politics for the past several decades. Moved on from the politics of division, an approach that relies as much on suppressing votes as turning them out, and toward an era in which candidates are judged by their platforms and positions, rather than by their opponent’s efforts to define them through innuendo and third-party slanders.

Moreover, I hope we will have moved on into an era of new possibilities, where the tired old epithets of “communist” and “socialist” have finally withered as they’ve long deserved, and where progressive ideas and ideals are more than simply things we remember from history lessons or admire longingly overseas.

Pendulums swing. Ours has been so far to the right for so long that many have despaired its return to a vibrant center. Perhaps the return swing picked up some new momentum Tuesday.

I hope the time has indeed arrived and that you will come of age in a world different from that in which you were born. One in which the United States is respected as a world leader. One in which the basic needs of all Americans are met before the whims of the wealthy and powerful are indulged. One that is led by elected officials you can trust to consider the nation’s interest before their own. And one in which anyone can run for office and have a fair shot at winning based on their ideas and accomplishments, not one where political power is reserved for those with personal fortunes, the right connections, or the greatest skill at appealing to voters’ fear and ignorance.

I’ll look forward to hearing what you think about this, looking back from the days you cast your first votes.

It’s entirely possible that by the time you open the box to flip through this yellowed souvenir, newspapers will have themselves become a curiosity. But I trust politics and elections will not. There are signs that 2008 may be the start of a political renaissance, with voters turning out in record numbers to move the country in a new, positive direction. Here’s hoping we’ve started a trend that continues with your generation and moves toward a future filled with all the hard work and opportunities that are your birthrights as Americans.

I already know you to be smart, caring and thoughtful individuals. There are almost unlimited numbers of other people like you out there, waiting to make a difference. I trust you’ll always remember that the most important steps in that direction are to educate yourselves on the issues of the day, become informed on the candidates’ positions, get involved as volunteers, and to exercise your right to vote just as you watched your mom and I do once again Tuesday.

A Better Future for My Kids: PRICELESS

2008-11-04T22:05:00.001-06:00

It's hard to explain to children how long we've waited for this moment. I'm sitting here watching the crowd go wild in Grant Park, just moments after the networks have called it for Obama. Here's hoping we can all live up to the promise.

Happiness Is: Watching Good Election Results With Your Kids

2008-11-04T19:13:00.002-06:00

I remember watching the returns with my dad in 1976. I had a Ford bumper sticker on my homemade gocart, but my parents were (of course) Carter voters. I thought Ford was great because I knew who he was, and had really never heard of Carter until that fall. Happily Carter won and I took the Ford sticker off my gocart.

Tonight I'm watching the returns with my oldest daughter, who is within a few months of the age I was in1976. But this time father and daughter are rooting for the same candidate: there's a hand-drawn Obama sign in our front window, another on the lawn, and everyone in the family has been proudly wearing "I Voted" stickers since we went to the polls this morning.

It's going to be a great night.

Let's Do It Folks! Vote like it's 1932!

2008-11-03T18:27:00.003-06:00

In just under 12 hours voting will start on the East coast. This is our chance to take America back from the right wing extremists who have driven the country into a ditch, quite literally over the past eight years but metaphorically at least since 1981. There has been no greater opportunity for positive change since 1932-- the pendulum is swinging back, we are on the right (or in this case, left) side of history, and the whole world is indeed watching once again.

For those who will be playing the home version of our game Tuesday evening, there's a handy score card available from DailyKos. Download it and follow along with me-- I'll be up all night, waiting for the icing on the cake as the Alaska returns come in for the senate race.

Get out and vote everyone-- now is the time to act for our childrens' future!

-Dr. DRL

Sarah Palin's Anti-American Allies

2008-10-11T12:57:00.002-05:00

While the McCain-Palin campaign makes hay over Obama's tenuous association with William Ayers-- with the full cooperation of the mainstream media --one wonders why the Palin family's past association with the anti-American Alaska Independence Party (AIP) has received so little attention. David Talbot's recent article at Salon.com lays out the AIPs history in some detail, including founder Joe Vogler's pronouncement that “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”

Why is this important? Todd Palin was an active member of the AUP until 2002, and Sarah Palin has attended their conventions and made a video-linked appearance in 2008. If Ayers' past is grounds for criticizing Obama, the virulent anti-Americanism of Palin's AIP friends-- whom she has openly supported as recently as this spring --at least deserves our attention.

-DRL

Media Lapdogs Still Serve as McCain's "Base"

2008-10-11T10:17:00.003-05:00

Many critics have been appalled by the mainstream media's enchantment with John McCain for years, but that hasn't prevented his putative "base" from continuing to apply a strict double standard to coverage of McCain over Obama. Even the recent (and mild) criticsms of the McCain campaigns lies and distortions have not changed the fact that his history remains largely off limits and even his currently erratic behavior draws little comment.

Media Matter's Jamison Foser's insightful piece "The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard" (posted 10/10/08) lays the issue out quite clearly. While the mainstream media may not really be McCain's base they have certainly treated him with undue deference and given him a pass on a range of issues that really should have been front-and-center for years.

-DRL

An Open Letter on Iraq: Six Years Later

2008-10-09T10:03:00.002-05:00

The letter below was published in our campus newspaper on October 8, 2002. Written by my colleague Michael Livingston, it was signed by 125 other faculty including myself. While there was significant debate among the faculty over signing at the time (less than 50% chose to do so) I hope that today most of my colleagues would recognize the fact that Dr. Livingston's worst fears were proven accurate. The letter's conclusion still stands and is certainly applicable to other issues our country faces today: We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

----------------------

An Open Letter to Students

By Michael G. Livingston

September 26, 2002

Published in The Record on October 8, 2002

We, the undersigned faculty at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, oppose an invasion of Iraq by the United States.

A war is not a videogame or a Hollywood fantasy. Real people kill other real people. As citizens of a democracy we should not let our leaders decide this issue for us. We, the people, should collectively decide. We believe that the Bush administration’s reasons offered to date for going to war do not justify such a serious course of action. Our reasons for opposing an invasion include:

An invasion would lead to the loss of many innocent Iraqi lives. The first Persian Gulf War resulted in over 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Many more people have died, according to the United Nations and other sources, due to the 11-year-long embargo that was put in place immediately after the war. A new war will lead to even more people being killed. In the event of a ground war, the deaths will include Americans sent to fight for the wrong reasons.

The Iraqi threat is not real. The administration has presented little beyond repeated assertions to show that Iraq is indeed a threat to the United States. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) has stated that the CIA has “absolutely no evidence” that Iraq has or will soon have nuclear weapons. Further, Iraq has no delivery system capable of hitting the U.S. Finally, many nations such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and the United States itself have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. No nation should be attacked merely for possessing such weapons.

An invasion to replace the Iraqi government would destabilize the region. An invasion will produce prolonged instability in Iraq, increase anti-American feelings in the region, and heighten the appeal of terrorist groups. An invasion will exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, compounding the enormous suffering of both groups. An invasion of Iraq “could turn the whole region into a cauldron” as former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has written.

An invasion would not address the root causes of terror. Most of the participants in the September 11^th attacks came from American allies such as Saudi Arabia. In such undemocratic regimes, idealistic young people do not have the option of expressing their grievances through the political process. They are thus vulnerable to manipulative, authoritarian groups such as al-Qaeda. A better response to terrorism would be to help our allies become more democratic and thus empower their own citizens to pursue social change constructively and peacefully.

An invasion would harm the U.S. economy. Wars are expensive and divert money, time, and people from the economy. An invasion could disrupt oil supplies, increase the deficit, and take much needed money away from domestic problems that we must face.

For these and other reasons we oppose going to war on moral and realistic grounds. We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

[signed by 126 CSB/SJU faculty]

John McCain is not my friend

2008-10-07T21:34:00.002-05:00

All the logical reasons for opposing McCain aside, I have become nearly ill from hearing him say "my friends" at every public appearance. He is not my friend and never will be. The fake familiarity is simply either condescending or a plain old dose of Elmer Gantry style snake oil.

PS: He bombed debate number two badly.

October Times Column: Recovery Plan is Needed-- Just Not for Banks

2008-10-07T21:32:00.002-05:00

Economic recovery plan is needed

St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 1, 2008

[posted here a week late, so less relevant than it was on 10/10/08 before the bailout passed]

The spectacular collapse of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan Monday afternoon apparently took a lot of people by surprise. After all, we were told that the economy depended on it and that it was “too important” for partisan politics to derail.

By many accounts a major factor in the plan’s defeat was public opinion — the fact that “Main Street” just didn’t care to pay for the excesses of Wall Street and made that very clear to their representatives in Washington. Never mind that nobody really lives on Main Street; people outside the media know that’s for banks, jewelry stores and lawyers. Those of us who live on Maple Lane, Mulberry Road, or Minnesota Street still knew they were talking about us, just as we knew we had nothing to do with the toxic brew of lax regulation, shaky investments and unmitigated greed that got us into this mess.

We didn’t invent hedge funds or exotic securities. We didn’t push banks to issue ever-more-risky loans. We didn’t promote the idea of home “ownership” as the only legitimate form of the American dream. And we certainly didn’t expect the regulatory system our grandparents established to end the Great Depression to be twisted into an excuse to pass on what amounts to someone else’s gambling losses to our grandkids.

Here in Central Minnesota people didn’t gamble quite so willingly. Our local banks and credit unions made mostly good loans, and, unlike other places, we aren’t faced with entire neighborhoods of foreclosed homes. Housing prices never grew to insane heights, so had less distance to fall. Fiscally responsible families didn’t cash out their equity to pay for toys or vacations, but continued to save for college and retirement. People cut back in response to rising energy prices and made due with less while working more.

Some folks seem to have forgotten that element of the American dream — that hard work pays off, but sometimes hard times follow good. Most Americans share these same core values. So rather than worry about how we’ll find a way to bail out wealthy hedge fund investors our top priority should be a plan for a much broader economic recovery.

The Fed or Congress must certainly develop a way to stabilize credit markets and keep capital flowing to companies that employ American workers and produce things of value. But what we really want are leaders who will condemn the politics of greed and recognize that what Main Street needs is not a banker’s bailout, but an economic recovery plan that will create jobs for our friends and neighbors, stabilize housing markets, shore up our tax bases, and put families back in the position of planning for the future rather than worrying about today.

We’ve seen what Wall Street wants and luckily on Monday they didn’t get it outright. Before they regroup and try again we should demand candidates for public office address the bedrock issues of economic recovery first and foremost. From John McCain and Barack Obama down to local candidates for school board and city council, everyone who takes office in January will face the challenges of an economy in recession, declining tax revenues, and the continuing burden of the mortgage fiasco.

How will they address these problems next year? When the cuts come what will go first? When things turn around, how will we set priorities to ease the pain of the next recession? Main Street was heard loud and clear in Washington on Monday. Let’s be sure those same voices are heard on the campaign trails across Central Minnesota between now and Election Day as well.

Chinese melamine now killing children...

2008-09-18T09:44:00.003-05:00

Way back in April, 2007, I wrote a piece ("Pet Food Scare Serves as Warning") about the contamination of pet food with melamine from China. Several readers accused me of being anti-Chinese or claimed it was a fluke. Sadly, they were wrong: investigation of the baby formula poisonings in China this week have found exactly the same compound (tripolycyanimide) was intentionally added to low-quality baby formula in order to fool lab tests for nutrient content. Six babies have died and many others have been stricken with the same sort of kidney ailments that killed thousands of north American pets in 2007.

This time the problem was not a failure of the US FDA, but it does point to the vulnerability of any food supply dependent on Chinese ingredients-- and virtually all US-produced processed foods include ingredients sourced at Chinese plants. This is a terrible tragedy for the families of the Chinese victims, and yet another alarm call for the United States. How much longer can we continue to play Russian roulette with our food supply? FDA reform and strict inspection/regulation of all food imports from China is the only way we will avoid a similar tragedy here.

CNN's report on the investigation includes more details.

Help me help Obama-- support progressive candidates

2008-09-16T16:57:00.003-05:00

I've established a personal fundraising site I'm calling Central Minnesotans for Progress at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/kiwanda. If, like me, you are concerned about critical issues like education, health care, energy, and the environment and want to see a departure from the politics of the past please join me in supporting the Obama/Biden ticket in 2008.

Just click on Central Minnesotans for Progress to make a donation directly to the campaign-- credit will go to progressive causes and help advance a rational agenda while electing the only candidates who are speaking for the sort of progressive, positive change our country so badly needs.

-Derek

The Long Reach of 1968

2008-09-06T08:54:00.001-05:00

Here's my September column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times:

Times Writers Group: We’ve yet to move beyond 1968

By Derek Larson • September 3, 2008

Some years have a longer reach in history than others. 1901, 1929 and 1941 were all turning points for the United States. But this fall, nothing from the past seems more relevant than 1968, the year everything seemed to go wrong and our politics crumbled into something almost unrecognizable.

As Americans consider their choices for president and other elected offices this fall, the shadow of 1968 looms just outside the frame, impacting our options, shaping the process and reminding us of just how important these decisions really can be.

1968 began badly. January brought the battle of Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, marking the end of widespread public support for the war. The USS Pueblo was seized by North Korea, and a U.S. B-52 bomber carrying four nuclear bombs crashed and burned in Greenland. National security — and Vietnam in particular — dominated the presidential primaries that spring.

Eroding public support for the war was echoed in campus protests around the nation. In March, Robert Kennedy entered the campaign on an anti-war platform, and by the end of the month President Lyndon Johnson had withdrawn from the race. In April, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, triggering riots in major cities. A week later, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, banning discrimination in housing, but the civil rights movement continued to fragment, increasingly divided between King’s nonviolent civil disobedience and the emerging black power movement.

In June, Robert Kennedy was assassinated on the eve of his victory in the California primary, throwing the Democratic Party into chaos. A quiet Republican convention in Miami Beach nominated Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew as law-and-order candidates, a stark contrast to the Chicago Democratic convention, which devolved into riots three weeks later.

That fall, women protested the Miss America pageant, the Mexico City Olympic Games were marked by the silent display of two American medal winners raising their fists in a black power salute from the podium, and Lyndon Johnson announced the United States would cease bombing Vietnam.

Election Day in November brought a Nixon victory, laying the groundwork for Watergate and seven more years of war in Southeast Asia. The lasting legacy of 1968 was the rightward shift in our politics and the polarization of the electorate that has lasted to this day.

This was particularly evident in the 2004 presidential election, which featured two major candidates who took opposite lessons from the war. Indeed, the issue of Vietnam was front-and-center through the final weeks of the campaign, thanks to attacks on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and a poorly researched story about Bush’s service records that ultimately led to Dan Rather’s retirement from CBS.

This election cycle makes it even more obvious we have yet to move beyond 1968.

While Republican candidate John McCain spent that year in a North Vietnamese prison and Barack Obama was just 7 years old, the long reach of 1968 is evident in everything they do. The cultural divides of the 1960s are echoed in the candidates’ positions on issues ranging from abortion to Iraq, the budget deficit to gay rights. Both conventions were scripted to be the anti-Chicago, with Obama given the daunting secondary task of mirroring the 1963 March on Washington.

Even the backlash against the events of 1968 — the rise of Nixon’s Silent Majority — is evident in McCain’s choice of a running mate as a concession to the socially conservative right.

Four decades of divisive debates, line-in-the-sand rhetoric, and confrontation about social issues failed to live up to either the promises of 1968 or the fears of those who saw the year as a sign of the apocalypse. If nothing else, perhaps the relative youth of candidates Obama and Sarah Palin (herself just 4 years old in 1968) will help us move past those contentious times.

The 21st century presents its own challenges, and one would hope that folks looking back from 2048 will be able to mark this year as a turning point in its own right.

Free '08 Bumper Sticker Idea...

2008-08-29T11:05:00.002-05:00

Print as many as you like...there are a lot of bumpers out there.

McCain Turns the Clock Back to 1988 With Brilliant VP Pick

2008-08-29T10:25:00.008-05:00

The McCain Argument: "Celebrity" is Bad, Experience is Critical

The GHW Bush Argument: "I Need a Handsome Young Running Mate Who Knows What a Checkout Scanner Does"

Whatever will Alaska do without a "hot" governor during the campaign?

Possible Obama assassination attempt already?

2008-08-25T22:32:00.002-05:00

Back in February I wrote of many progressives' fear for Obama. Tonight, on the first day of the convention, it appears that a substantial plot has unraveled. These guys may turn out to be simply racist addicts, but nobody worried much about the right wing militias before OK City. Here's hoping the Secret Service and FBI have already infiltrated the rest of the nuts.
The wire story:

(CBS4) ― CBS4 has now learned at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges. [...]

The story began emerging Sunday morning when Aurora police arrested 28-year-old Tharin Gartrell. He was driving a rented pickup truck in an erratic manner according to sources.

Sources told CBS4 police found two high-powered, scoped rifles in the car along with camouflage clothing, walkie-talkies, a bulletproof vest, a spotting scope, licenses in the names of other people and methamphetamine. One of the rifles is listed as stolen from Kansas.

Subsequently authorities went to the Cherry Creek Hotel to contact an associate of Gartrell's. But that man, who was wanted on numerous warrants, jumped out of a sixth floor hotel window. Law enforcement sources say the man broke an ankle in the fall and was captured moments later. Sources say he was wearing a ring with a swastika, and is thought to have ties to white supremacist organizations.

A third man -- an associate of Gartrell and the hotel jumper was also arrested. He told authorities that the two men "planned to kill Barack Obama at his acceptance speech."

That man, along with a woman, are also under arrest.

The Secret Service, FBI, ATF and the joint terrorism task force are all investigating the alleged plot.

My June newspaper column: Price effects of gasoline

2008-06-09T12:29:00.002-05:00

What price will change driving?

St. Cloud (MN) Times

June 4, 2008

It’s hard to have a conversation these days without someone bringing up the price of gas.

Monday’s national average of $3.97 for a gallon of regular is up 25 percent from a year ago. AAA is reporting a 15 percent increase in “out-of-gas” service calls as drivers try to avoid another costly fill-up by running on fumes. Car rental companies can’t keep compacts in stock and are pushing free SUV upgrades on travelers who don’t want them. New auto sales have declined 10 percent the past year, and market prices for used trucks and SUVs have dropped 15 percent across the board.

As $4 gas becomes the new norm, Americans are suddenly paying attention to the cost of driving as never before. Since 1998 the early June pump price for regular gas in St. Cloud has risen from $1.10 to $3.83. Corrected for inflation that’s a hefty 275 percent bump.

Anyone paying attention during that time would have easily noted that the price of gas was rising fairly steadily, and certainly should have noted the large jumps in 2000, 2004 and 2006, each of which saw June-June increases of 30 percent or greater.

But how many conversations about carpooling, buying smaller cars or switching to ethanol do you remember from the early summers of those years?

What we saw

When local gas prices increased 42 percent between June 2005 and June 2006 there were few car ads in the paper touting “HIGH MPG!” or recent model crew cab diesel pickups parked along the highway with “make offer” signs on the windows. But we’re seeing both now.

Some analysts have suggested the $4 threshold represents a psychological barrier that consumers just weren’t prepared to deal with, particularly those of us who remember $1 gas not that long ago.

But if we go back to the energy crisis of 1979, similar behavioral patterns appear. As prices skyrocketed and stations literally ran out of gas people bought more efficient cars, drove less, carpooled more and complained a lot.

The big psychological threshold for gas prices then was $2 rather than $4. In a Gallup Poll that spring only 26 percent said they would continue to drive to work if gas hit that mark.

Twenty-eight percent of respondents in another pool had to “drive around to find a station that had gasoline available” while another 18 percent drove less because they simply could not find gas to buy.

Conservation

The pain may not have been that bad though, as other surveys found 38 percent felt it would be “not at all difficult” to reduce their miles traveled by one quarter and fully 40 percent supported a law requiring people to reduce their driving by that much as a way to conserve gas.

But when the supply of oil increased and the price of gas dropped 47 percent between 1981 and the low point in 1988 such concerns were largely forgotten.

What’s different today is that there’s much less flexibility in the world supply to create another oil glut and push prices down in the United States.

We now import more than twice as much oil as we did in 1985, but the oil reserves of many exporting nations are producing far less than they did just a decade ago.

The big gains in automotive fuel efficiency realized in the wake of the energy crises of the 1970s tapered off in the 1990s as prices stabilized, Congress failed to follow through on conservation commitments, and consumers flocked to SUVs and minivans.

More people, more cars, more driving, less crude oil — the basic economics of supply and demand should tell us that $4 gas is not a fluke, but the first step toward a more expensive future.

We often hear anecdotes about $10 per gallon gas in Europe these days, usually presented as cautionary tales or “you think things are bad here” human interest stories. But at the same rate of increase we experienced in St. Cloud the past five years — when gas rose from $1.39 to $3.83 at the pump — we can reasonably expect to see $10 gas here by 2011.

When that happens will we be shocked and pretend it came without warning? Or is it finally time we take a serious look at our driving habits and begin planning for a future without cheap gas?

May column: conservation is possible

2008-05-09T10:40:00.001-05:00

Here's my May column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times. Props my friends in Juneau, AK for showing us all how conservation works!

---------------------

May 7, 2008

Forget shopping, conserve

By Derek Larson

Americans rank among the world’s worst energy hogs, consuming roughly double the amount per capita of residents of other nations enjoying a similar standard of living.

This is due in part to the size of our country and a relatively low population density. But it also reflects an apparent inability to invest in efficiency, control waste, or respond to shortages with anything other than demands for increased production.

However, as oil hit $120 per barrel this week, signs that Americans are changing their habits have begun to emerge. Sales of large trucks are down, while smaller, more fuel-efficient cars are hot again. People are driving less and looking to save energy at home. Polls reflect growing anxiety about energy security and household budgets.

Gas prices alone are helping Americans attempt something they haven’t done since the 1970s: seriously try to use less energy. During the 1973 oil crisis Americans responded to exploding energy costs with imagination. Gas prices high? Join a car pool and reduce the speed limit to save fuel. Electricity skyrocketing? Shut down commercial lights at night. Fuel oil too dear? Turn down the thermostats in public buildings. Many of these changes became permanent.

When a second oil crisis hit in the wake of the Iranian revolution in 1979, the price of crude oil shot to a record that was not matched until March. The easy changes had already been made, so when Jimmy Carter spoke about energy conservation he wore a sweater, sat in front of a fireplace, and told us “There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.” But few made the sacrifices he called for and some believe that speech cost him reelection.

Not long after Ronald Reagan was elected oil prices plummeted and remained low for 20 years. We became accustomed once again to cheap energy, gorged ourselves on SUVs and McMansions, and turned our backs on those who warned it could not last. When the price of gas shot up on Sept. 12, 2001, President Bush did not tell us there was no way to avoid sacrifice; he told us to go shopping. Detroit offered interest-free loans on SUVs and soon we were rolling again. But it could not last.

Today gas prices are pushing $4 a gallon on the West Coast and may hit $5 this summer. Public faith in the Bush administration’s energy strategy, which emphasizes production increases, is low; 66.5 percent rated his performance on energy “poor” in a March Gallup Poll. The same poll found 82 percent of Americans worried about the cost of energy, and a solid majority — 61 percent — thought that conservation by consumers was the best way to address the problem.

What remains to be seen is not whether we can learn to conserve energy again, but whether we are willing to try. Recent evidence from Alaska suggests we are.

An avalanche tore out the transmission lines connecting the capitol city of Juneau to its hydroelectric energy source last month, creating an instant energy crisis as the city shifted to diesel backup generators. The cost of fuel has driven the electric rate to 54 cents per kilowatt hour, or almost seven times what most Minnesotans pay. Local stores quickly sold out of compact florescent light bulbs, clothes pins, and even lamp oil. Almost immediately consumption dropped by 35 percent and has stayed low since largely through voluntary conservation measures.

Though the lines will eventually be restored, many residents are saying their new habits are here to stay — and will save them money even after the rates return to normal.

The reality is that we are nearing the end of the era of cheap energy. Whether it’s due to growing demand, shortages in supply, or some sort of carbon tax, prices are trending upward. We can respond by wringing our hands and cursing the oil companies, or we can chose to take action by wasting less.

The residents of Juneau have shown us it can be done without major sacrifices. Those of us who remember the 1970s also know it’s possible to cut back when you have to. As the price of gas approaches $5 this summer and electric rates continue to climb, here is hoping Americans respond by doing something other than going shopping this time.

Latest Column: Environmentalists Say "NO" to Corn-based Ethanol

2008-04-02T16:45:00.001-05:00

Ethanol, not the greenest option
By Derek Larson

St. Cloud (MN) Times

Published: April 02. 2008 12:30AM

If you listen to talk radio or read the letters to the editor for a few weeks you're bound to come across someone castigating environmentalists for embracing ethanol. "It takes more energy to make than it produces!" "It's driving up food prices!" "It's government meddling in the market!" "Those crazy environmentalists want to force us all to buy ethanol!"

The fact is, they're pretty close to the truth on all but the last point: Environmentalists have been warning us about the folly of corn-based ethanol for years.

The problem is that lawmakers didn't listen. If they had, they would know that:

Corn-based ethanol is inefficient. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the fuel produced has only 30 percent more energy value than that required to produce it.

Ethanol production demands immense amounts of water, about 4 gallons for each gallon produced.

Corn monoculture involves the heavy use of petroleum products, including fertilizers, pesticides and fuel for machinery.

Ethanol production requires electricity, which is produced from dirty coal in most of the Corn Belt.

Corn's potential is limited. Converting the country's entire corn output to ethanol would only satisfy 12 percent of our demand for gasoline.

If the direct flaws in corn-based ethanol weren't enough to frighten lawmakers off, they might have listened to the environmentalists who warned of the potential impact a "corn rush" would have on food prices. We're seeing it now.

Fallout

The price of corn has doubled since 2006, which is great for struggling farmers. But that's also driven up the cost of animal feed and any food products with substantial corn inputs. Combine that with the spike in wheat prices — due largely to rising global demand — and you get the highest rate of inflation in food prices since the 1980s. Coming at a time when energy costs also have skyrocketed, it's no wonder families are struggling to make ends meet.

And yes, Virginia, this is indeed a case of the government meddling in the market.

Due primarily to the influence of the agriculture lobby the 2007 energy bill extended the subsidies that have kept the ethanol industry alive since the 1970s and established mandates that will keep it growing into the future. Tens of billions of dollars of tax money have been spent subsidizing corn production in the past decade, and now even more will go to support ethanol production directly.

Thanks, but no thanks

If corn-based ethanol was really the solution, why can't it compete without subsidies, especially in the era of $100-a-barrel oil? Possibly because consumers just aren't interested.

E85 fuel is available at less than 1 percent of all U.S. filling stations.

Ethanol contains about 15 percent less energy by volume than gas, so despite the slightly lower pump price it costs more per mile to burn than gas.

A 2007 GM study found that 70 percent of those who own ethanol burning flex-fuel vehicles didn't know it; only 10 percent of those who did actually bought E85.

Most environmentalists will agree that some government subsidies are desirable. But knowing that corn-based ethanol reduces net greenhouse gas emissions by only 13 percent over petroleum, they'd probably argue that this isn't one of them.

Other alternatives

The reality is that greens aren't gaga over ethanol. Turning a commodity food crop into an inefficient fuel crop is foolish. Instead the government should be investing in a comprehensive alternative fuels program that drives innovation across the board and lets the market settle on the most efficient technology with the greatest environmental benefits.

It may be cellulosic ethanol, as President Bush has suggested; some studies have shown it might yield as much as 35 times the energy required to produce it, a 100-fold improvement over corn. Or perhaps it's biodiesel, which is only about seven times as efficient as corn-based ethanol but can reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 68 percent. Or maybe it's not a biofuel at all but rather electricity produced by wind or solar power that will prove to be the most efficient way to move things around.

One thing is clear: We can't grow our way to energy independence with corn. In fact, if we simply increased the average fuel efficiency of all our vehicles by 12 percent we'd save as much gas as all the corn in the country could replace. As any environmentalist can tell you, the cheapest gallon of fuel you'll ever find is the one you didn't have to buy in the first place.

Fear For (Not Of) Obama

2008-02-26T21:33:00.002-06:00

When Jesse Jackson came to my college campus on a campaign stop in the spring of 1988, my classmates and I were awed by his speech. We cheered wildly. We sang classic protest songs, mocked Ronald Reagan, and looked toward a future closer to MLK's vision than we saw in the world around us.

I also remember the Secret Service agents that swarmed our campus that day, and later sitting a few feet away from one of them, a man wearing a suit and mirrored aviator sunglasses in a gym that had to be 90 degrees. Sweat ran down his face but he did not blink or wipe it off. Armed agents surrounded the stage and even sat among us, "undercover," posing as students. (We knew they weren't students because their clothes were all wrong-- this was Portland when grunge was simply the way we dressed and not yet a marketing tool. The female agents wore skirts without combat boots!)

But one of my most lasting impressions from Jackson's visit was fear for him-- fear that he would win the nomination and be killed before the election. A decade later, in 1998, I stood on the balcony of the Lorainne Hotel in Memphis, in the very spot where Dr. King was shot and fell into the arms of his friends, including Jesse Jackson. I thought back to that 1988 campaign stop and for a moment was glad that Jackson hadn't won, despite my voting for him; once again I feared the violent, racist past was really still with us.

Today, twenty years after that campaign rally that fear has once again raised its head. Few will talk about it, fewer still will write about it in the US. But if you read the papers from outside the country it's all over the place: people are worried that the grisly American tradition of killing our youngest, brightest leaders may not be dead. Barack Obama, they warn, will be a target.

Here's an example from an Australian newspaper that captured this concern today:

Listing the scores of assassinations and attempts that have haunted the US presidency, I suggested that now any number of racist maniacs, enraged by the prospect of a black president, must be plotting to kill the Democratic front-runner. As past assassinations (and numerous close calls) remind us, no president can be totally protected.

No country since ancient Rome has experienced the killing of so many leaders. The subject came up when I was preparing to interview the author of The New Rome?, a fine piece of political writing by Cullen Murphy, managing editor of The Atlantic Monthly for more than 20 years. He was concerned that I'd raise the issue of Obama being assassinated because every Australian interviewer had done so. In contrast, he said, no one in the US media has raised the possibility.

I copped the blame, knowing of no other Australian commentator who had raised the issue. And I knew I would have self-censored if my column appeared in a US paper rather than The Australian. As many US journalists must be doing. To discuss even the possibility of an Obama assassination in the US would be asking for trouble. Throwing accelerant on the flames of insanity in a nation with a blood-soaked history, with far more than its share of home-grown terrorists and far too many guns. [Philip Adams, The Australian, 2/26/08]

So the old fear is back. One would hope we've moved beyond this. Even though we're afraid to talk about it, I'm sure many of us are also hoping the Secret Service is doing an extra good job these days, perhaps trading in the mirrored aviators for something a bit less 80s looking but still on the job, refusing to blink. Hopefully the college students who flock to see Obama aren't thinking about MLK, RFK, or even John Hinkley or Squeeky Fromme. But it's hard for me to forget, and hard not to worry.

It's going to be a long election season. For many reasons.

My latest newspaper column: Push Candidates on Climate

2008-02-06T09:49:00.000-06:00

Times Writers Group: Push candidates on climate
By Derek Larson
Saint Cloud (MN) Times

Published: February 06. 2008 12:30AM

As we rush toward the November elections, voters would do well to reflect on three developments in January, all of which underscore the need for voters to press presidential candidates on issues related to climate change.

Only through a considered change of leadership and a well-reasoned approach to the global climate crisis will we reclaim our traditional position as a nation that, at its best, unites people to solve common problems for the good of all the world's citizens.

In the first story, the League of Conservation Voters released an analysis of the major Sunday-morning network political talk shows that tracked questions asked of the presidential candidates during 2007. Of 2,938 questions only six were on global warming. This despite polls showing large majorities of Americans are concerned about the issue and significant time spent by many candidates discussing their climate and energy strategies on the stump.

Second, a range of speakers at the annual Washington conference sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment made it clear that the climate situation is much worse than most people think. Indeed, the debate has shifted significantly from "is it happening" to "just how bad will it be?"

Danger zone

Conference participants were dominated by discussion of how close we are to the dividing line between "dangerous" and "catastrophic" disruption of the global climate system. With this shift in emphasis comes a new way of categorizing responses, captured handily in three terms: mitigation, adaptation and suffering.

Mitigation incorporates all the things we might do to avoid making things worse than what's already bound to happen based on past emissions: reducing carbon, becoming more energy efficient, addressing the global imbalance in energy use, and other familiar responses.

Adaptation reflects how we will deal with unavoidable climate disruptions. The amount of human-induced change in the atmosphere already guarantees significant changes to weather patterns, sea levels and precipitation regimes worldwide. Many of these will be serious enough to require major changes in patterns of human life, economics, settlement and agriculture.

Suffering is a dependent variable: The more we invest in mitigation and adaptation, the less people will suffer.

The third development was the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where politicians and capitalist heavyweights talked about the global economy.

One of the more interesting events at Davos was a discussion about the confluence of poverty and climate change during which rock musician and anti-poverty activist Bono observed that the growing global climate disruption may be the first calamity in human history to be predicted in advance. He noted that many significant global reforms in 20th century came in the wake of major calamities: the League of Nations after World War I, the United Nations after World War II and the plodding but steady trend toward globalization after the Cold War.

What to expect

The challenges of global climate change exceed all of these in scope and impact, but we have the distinct advantage of knowing, at least to some extent, what to expect in advance. As Bono rightly pointed out, this offers the opportunity to reduce the scale of suffering for many millions if we plan now to avoid changes that will otherwise produce the critical famines, refugee crises and possibly even wars of the 21st century.

Near the end of Bono's discussion moderator Thomas Friedman of The New York Times noted wryly that "It is far more important to change leaders than light bulbs." That is where we come in. Most of the remaining presidential candidates — including McCain, Obama and Clinton — have taken responsible positions on climate change and would likely reverse the foot-dragging that has characterized the Bush administration's approach if elected.

It is our responsibility as Americans and members of the world community to push the candidates on this issue, to demand a Marshall Plan or Apollo project on climate. We should do the same with candidates at all levels of government.

While we cannot recapture the years lost to the denial of overwhelming scientific evidence, we can help our country regain its moral authority and do what it does best: rally the world to develop solutions for a problem far beyond the ability of any single nation to solve on its own.

Super Turnout Tuesday in Minnesota, Obama Wins

2008-02-05T22:29:00.001-06:00

Turnout far exceeded any predictions for Minnesota's caucuses. Many precincts are reporting 10-20 times the turnout as 2004. At my caucus site in St. Cloud party officials sent out for more ballots-- twice. In my precinct the vast majority of voters had not attended a caucus before; those of us who had were listed on pre-printed rosters while newcomers signed in on blank sheets at a 3-to-1 rate. They had to send out for more blank sheets as well. It was great to see so many people from our neighborhood turn out, including many college students and other young people who were first time participants.

The turnout news was great. So was the fact that Obama won by a very large margin. At least Minnesota Democrats recognize Hillary Clinton as a moderate, corporate Democrat with negatives so high she stands no chance of winning the general election. Hopefully exit polling will tell us if Obama won because he's been successful at reaching voters, or because people were voting against Hillary.

As I type Fox News is reporting a 68-32 Obama victory with 55% of precincts reporting.

Consumed? See "The Story of Stuff"

2008-01-28T09:04:00.000-06:00

Here's a great 20 min video about the impact of our high consumption American lifestyle. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're nuts.

The Story of Stuff http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Ask Congress for a Green Stimulus Package

2008-01-23T15:58:00.001-06:00

The folks over at the 1Sky Blog have a good post up on the stimulus package: Tell Congress: we want a green economic stimulus bill! It includes an online petition demanding a green stimulus package, certainly a better idea than a simple rebate check as I've noted below.

Note to Congress: Don't Blow Stimulus Funds on Rebates

2008-01-23T13:16:00.000-06:00

The heady talk in Washington about a $150 billion stimulus package has everyone from the President on down salivating over the political benefits such a gift would generate. But they'd be wise to consider how those funds could be put to real use-- not as a one-time gift to taxpayers that is quickly thrown away on Chinese imports, but as a real stimulus package that not only boosts economic activity but creates jobs, improves national security, and helps the environment. What could do all that? It's simple: design a package of incentives/rebates that support alternative energy investment and rollout, reward homeowners who invest in efficiency upgrades, and solidifies the basis for existing alternative technologies like solar and wind energy.

Rather than blow the funds on a one-shot deal that is unlikely to have any impact beyond the resulting spending ripple in the economy, let's invest the funds in policies that will make us stronger going forward. Energy incentives targeted at consumers will steer spending toward new and growing industries (like wind and solar) that could use the boost-- and will create jobs that last well beyond this recession.

New Hampshire: Clinton Embraces "Change" and Wins

2008-01-08T21:41:00.001-06:00

"READY FOR CHANGE" signs were everywhere at the Clinton rally in New Hampshire Tuesday night-- if nothing else, the Clinton machine is adept at reading the polls and staying on message. It looks like Hillary will win New Hampshire by a significant margin, though several college towns are not yet in and we know from Iowa that younger voters are going for Obama by a large margin. Iowa also showed us that while women favor Hillary, her margin among female voters was only about 10%-- certainly not enough to offset Obama's appeal to the young.

I maintain the position that Hillary Clinton is no progressive-- not even really a liberal --and that she represents not only a return to the failed policies of the 1990s but a major threat to the hope of a Democratic victory due to her astoundingly high negatives. McCain would trounce her among independents.

The real disappointment of New Hampshire has to be for Edwards, who was looking to move up closer to #2 but ended a distant third. He'll have to rally by Super Tuesday or he'll be done. Hopefully his progressive message will take hold and the eventual nominee will be pulled at least a bit to the left.

Iowa Results: Young Voters Turn Out for Change and Clinton Falls Hard

2008-01-04T04:03:00.001-06:00

Heavy Democratic turnout in Iowa, especially among younger voters, has sent a clear message: the media's proclamation of a Clinton victory was not well received. In fact, she came in third. Turnout among voters under 45 is typically low in the Iowa caucuses; this time around turnout for that age group was several times higher than in 2004 and these younger voters generally picked Obama or Edwards over Clinton. Moreover, participation by really young voters (i.e. 18-29) in the Democratic caucuses more than doubled between 2000 and 2008; their demographic made up 1/5th of all caucus goers in 2008. That's 20% folks.

Why is the youth vote news? Because it's usually ignored by the media ("young people don't vote") or portrayed as a block concerned only about tuition costs and what type of underwear the candidates favor. But realize this: young voters may well decide the next election. In aggregate more votes were cast by the 18-29 demographic in 2004 than by the over-65 group...and guess which group is growing more rapidly? An excellent outline of why the youth vote matters from Future Majority provides the details. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy the fact that young voters participated in the Democratic caucuses last night at twice the level of their Republican peers-- a good sign for November to be sure.

All eyes on New Hampshire now, though we'll be heading out to caucus here in Minnesota in less than a month. I'll be looking forward to seeing how the campaigns address young voters-- and wondering if they will recognize that less than a quarter of them are actually college students.

My latest newspaper column: The more things change...

2008-01-02T08:28:00.000-06:00

Here's my latest column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times. Happy new year!

-Dr. DRL
--------------------------------------

Parties, then and now, are at odds

Published: January 02. 2008 12:30AM

The eyes of the nation's pundits and political analysts will be on our neighbors in Iowa on Thursday as the first real contest of the 2008 presidential election plays out, likely reducing a crowded field of candidates to a mere handful before many of us have even replaced our 2007 wall calendars.

The early start of the 2008 campaigns certainly would have surprised Americans a century ago. Indeed, in 1908 The New York Times ran its first significant stories on the election to replace Theodore Roosevelt in March, when it gave a straw poll of the members of the Harvard undergraduate political club as much space as the Ohio state Democratic convention. When the paper turned more directly to national politics in the spring of 1908, the coverage emphasized issues and parties over personalities, revealing a culture that had much less interest in the intimate details of candidate's private lives than we do today and a political landscape that was defined more by partisan political machines than the media itself.

While the political process has changed dramatically during the past century, many of the central issues of 1908 would resonate with voters today. Indeed, the platforms of the 1908 presidential campaigns reflect positions we could well expect to see coming out of this year's conventions in Denver and the Twin Cities, sounding familiar themes on immigration, national security, campaign finance reform, foreign policy, government spending and trade.

The more things change

The Democrats of 1908 criticized the Republicans for ballooning federal budgets (and deficits), for protectionist trade policies that hurt the working class while bolstering corporate profits and for politicizing the judicial system by pushing courts to intervene in strikes.

But their harshest rhetoric was reserved for Republican foreign policy, specifically toward the Philippine Islands, which the United States had occupied since the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War. The occupation had not gone well and was marked by atrocities on both sides, including water torture and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. On the continuing conflict, the Democratic platform simply stated that "We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government."

The Republican Party entered the 1908 election divided between its progressive and conservative wings. Both sought to capitalize on the popularity of outgoing President Roosevelt, but the eventual platform approved in Chicago underscored a victory by the conservatives. Its key passages spoke of economic opportunity, the revival of business growth and the need to protect American businesses through trade policies that guaranteed a "reasonable profit" and "security against foreign competition," while relegating Roosevelt's anticorporate "trust busting" rhetoric to the sidelines.

On the Philippine issue, it was noted that "the insurrection has been suppressed, law is established and life and property made secure." The Republican platform also included a specific plank on civil rights, calling for "equal justice for all men, without regard to race or color." By contrast, the Democratic platform mentioned race only in its opposition to immigration from Asia.

Remaining the same

The United States in 1908 was a divided nation, much as it is today. But the lines then were defined more by geography and class than by single issues such as abortion, immigration, or support for military intervention abroad. The November election results reflected those divisions, with the Northern states solidly voting Republican and the Southern states solidly Democratic. William Howard Taft, Roosevelt's chosen successor, won 51 percent of the vote but went on to be a one-term president.

We can take some comfort in knowing that while our political processes may change, many of the core issues that animate American politics remain constant. It would be interesting to share the 1908 party platforms with the candidates in Iowa today and ask where they would stand on the issues of a century ago.

There's a month to go before the Minnesota caucuses in February, and the answers to those questions would probably tell us more about the candidates than anything else we'll hear from the media during the next four weeks. Unless, of course, it's another story about John Edwards' hairstyle or Mitt Romney's favorite novel.

###

Progressive Democrats Don't Support Clinton

2007-12-05T10:53:00.001-06:00

The latest poll of progressive Democrats, sponsored by Progressive Democrats of America, again echoed what progressives have been saying for years: the Clintons are not progressives, and to many are not even liberals. This latest poll drew over 15,000 votes from registered PDA members. Hillary drew a lackluster 9%, which Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards topped the list at 41% and 23% respectively.

What does this mean? The media has all but anointed Hillary as the "likely nominee" but their polls do not reflect the potential impact of progressive, activist Democrats-- a big part of the base that will turn out in large numbers for primaries and caucuses. While Kucinich obviously can't win the nomination, the strong support for his agenda (and Edward's neo-populism) suggests the eventual nominee will have to pay attention to progressive issues and likely will not be able to win with a records on Iraq (and now Iran) as poor as Clinton's.

So look out Hilary. I'd love to vote for a female candidate (and in fact supported one in 1984) but you're not it. The centrist DLC strategy that elected Bill is certainly politically viable, but it's morally bankrupt. I'm saving my caucus vote for a candidate that actually reflects my values-- not one that once sat on the board of WalMart.

We're all to blame for toxic toys

2007-12-05T10:49:00.000-06:00

Here's my latest column from the St. Cloud Times.
---------

Don’t blame China for recalls
By Derek Larson

Published: December 05. 2007 12:30AM

H.A. and Margret Rey likely never anticipated writing a book called “Curious George Gets Recalled,” but that’s what happened Nov. 8. About 175,000 stuffed Curious George figures were pulled from the market when excessive levels of lead were found in one version of the popular toy.

The inquisitive monkey was just the latest in an unprecedented spate of toy recalls — more than 25 million units this year — that are disrupting holiday sales and creating headaches for parents and retailers alike. The vast majority of the items recalled for lead or other chemical contamination were made in China, provoking a backlash against Chinese toys in general.

But the real source of the problem is not an evil Chinese plot to poison our kids. It’s the American companies’ desire for ever greater profit, the consumers’ demand for ever cheaper products, and the corresponding unwillingness by either to pay for quality or the services needed to ensure product safety regulations are enforced.

Low cost

China is capable of manufacturing just about anything and at virtually every level of quality. State-of-the-art, high-tech factories in China can engineer and produce goods that are certainly equal to their Western counterparts when asked to do so.

But a big part of the attraction to Chinese products for retailers is their very low cost, which unfortunately does not come without a price.

That price may simply be lower quality, a reasonable trade-off with certain items. Who doesn’t need a disposable paintbrush or spare screwdriver now and then? But as we’ve seen in recent months, sometimes that cost is less apparent and can take dangerous forms, such as toys contaminated with lead, or as we saw last spring, pet food additives tainted with toxic chemicals.

Tough laws

The toy industry is quick to point out that the United States has some of the world’s strongest regulations when it comes to toy safety, which is true. What the industry does not mention is that those regulations are poorly enforced.

Indeed, recent congressional hearings have disclosed that just one employee of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for all toy safety monitoring and the agency has seen its staff cut by almost 60 percent since it was founded more than 30 years ago.

Without U.S. inspectors in the Chinese plants, the odds are good that we will continue to see recalls.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, along with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, has called for new regulations and increased inspections, which should be part of the solution. But the problem will likely not be solved until American consumers recognize that safety comes at a cost, as does quality. We can’t have both cheap products and cheap government if we want to avoid future recalls and threats to our children’s safety.

There are some signs that the marketplace is developing a solution in advance of the politicians. Since this summer, dozens of Web sites have sprung up offering American-made toys guaranteed to be free of lead or other toxins. Some of these have clearly anti-Chinese marketing plans, including “The Not Made In China Store” and Maple Landmark Woodcraft, a Vermont-based manufacturer of wood toys.

Business is good. Maple Landmark says it has been overwhelmed by orders despite doubling its staff and will not be able to deliver orders before Christmas. Meanwhile, toymaker Hasbro will launch a national ad campaign reminding consumers that none of their toys have been recalled for lead or other toxic contaminants, unlike those of competitor Mattel.

This may all be sorted out by Christmas 2008, mostly likely with a combination of new regulations and a significant federal investment in enforcement in China and product testing here in the United States.

Meanwhile, here’s a simple metric you can use when selecting toys for kids this holiday season. Make a list of the following three adjectives: cheap, safe and Chinese. When it comes to toys you should be able to find items with any two of those qualities.

If it seems like you’re getting all three in one package, ask yourself if it’s true.

Perhaps those blocks from Vermont might be a better buy after all.

Earn free rice for the hungry-- and improve your vocabulary!

2007-10-26T12:12:00.000-05:00

I stumbled upon a new web site today that is just plain addictive: FreeRice
It offers a simple but addictive vocabulary exercise that's pretty much like the old Reader's Digest "It Pays to Enrich Your Word Power" feature, but with a catch: each time you select the correct definition, ten grains of rice are donated. It's funded by advertising and implemented by the UN's World Food Program; since its launch on October 7th over 263 million grains of rice have been donated-- almost 16,000 pounds!

A Space Race for Energy?

2007-10-03T09:36:00.000-05:00

Here's my October column from the St. Cloud Times

There needs to be an energy race

By Derek Larson
St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 3, 2007

Fifty years ago Thursday, on Oct. 4, 1957, the Soviet Union stunned the world by announcing the launch of the first artificial satellite. Beating the American Vanguard program into orbit by five months, the object known worldwide as Sputnik launched the space race and a technological revolution.

In recent interviews with The Associated Press, Boris Chertok, a 95-year-old veteran scientist who worked closely with Sputnik project director Sergei Korolyov, noted the frantic pace of the effort was also marked by poetic moments. Though a more complex, conically shaped scientific satellite was already being planned by another team, Korolyov had a specific vision for the symbolic first mission. "The Earth is a sphere, and its first satellite also must have a spherical shape," Chertok remembers him insisting.

Even the launch team failed to grasp the importance of its accomplishment when the initial beep was received from space. "At that moment we couldn't fully understand what we had done," Chertok recalled. "We felt ecstatic about it only later, when the entire world ran amok. Only four or five days later did we realize that it was a turning point in the history of civilization."

Though the space race was a product of the Cold War, deeply rooted in militarism and ideological conflict, the technologies and educational advances it produced were instrumental in shaping the second half of the 20th century.

Greater crisis

Today we find ourselves in the midst of another, greater crisis than even the Cold War: Our immense appetite for energy and dependence on fossil fuels are changing the Earth in ways we do not yet fully understand.

What is certain is that our use of fossil fuels is unsustainable. Now that the scientific consensus on climate change has finally been presented as such by the media, the public has begun to realize that addressing the problem need not mean the end of modern civilization, but simply requires us to be smarter about our energy habits. Changing how much energy we use and where we get it are the two keys to a sustainable future.

What America — and consequently the world — needs today is a new space race focused on alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency. As the world's largest consumer of energy we have a responsibility to lead others toward a sustainable future.

But the levels of commitment, investment and expertise directed toward this critical task has been inadequate. Patchwork quilts of state incentives and inconsistent federal support have left alternative energy projects in a perpetual boom/bust cycle that has stalled research and development. Cheap energy, made possible by misguided government subsidies and a reliance on dirty coal-fired power plants, has made our citizens oblivious to the real costs of their actions.

Urgent matter

If our children are to enjoy a lifestyle anything like ours we must act now, demanding more from our political leaders and taking the lead ourselves when they fail to do so.

By launching an energy initiative on the scale of the space program, the United States could become the world leader in energy innovation. Within a decade we could expand our economy, dramatically cut our carbon emissions, eliminate all oil imports from the Middle East, and begin to swing the balance of trade with Asia back in our favor by selling our new technologies to countries like China.

The space race demonstrated some of the things Americans do best: We can rally behind our leaders, mobilize the world's largest economy toward a common goal, develop innovative technologies and change the future for the better. The opportunity is here again today. What we lack is the vision and leadership to make it happen on the necessary scale.

As Boris Chertok noted, Sputnik marked a turning point for human civilization. We could make another, if only we had the will to face the challenge instead of pretending it didn't exist.

Mixed feelings about Sen. Larry Craig

2007-10-03T09:28:00.000-05:00

Here's my September column from the St. Cloud (MN) Times

Senator's story is a shame, for many reasons

When he leaves office September 30th, Idaho Senator Larry Craig will become a footnote in history. "Who was Larry Craig?" people will ask, and the reply everywhere outside his home state will be simply "the senator caught playing footsie in the men's room." The sad thing is that its not clear that he actually did anything wrong at MSP last June. It's the suspicion that he's gay that cost him his seat. In the die-by-the-sword world of Republican politics theres little room for a family values conservative with a secret in the closet even if that secret is simply a wish to hide an embarrassing misunderstanding with an undercover cop.

There are few enough reasons to leap to Craig's defense. He is among the most conservative members of the Senate, a man who has spent a career working against the interests of average Americans and in support of extremist positions that benefited the few at the expense of the many. His long voting record provides ample fodder for analysis, which progressive interest groups have scored as follows:

0% from the Alliance for Retired Americans for opposition on senior issues

0% from the League of Conservation Voters for his votes against the environment

0% from the American Public Health Association for his votes against health care

0% by SANE for his votes against peace policies

0% from the Human Rights Campaign for his votes on GLBT issues

15% from the AFL-CIO for supporting workers

20% from the National Education Association for supporting public schools

25% from the ACLU for supporting civil rights

In contrast, Craigs ratings from the American Conservative Union, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Coalition, the CATO Institute, the NRA, and the anti-tax National Taxpayers Union are all above 75%. He has been an outspoken supporter of school prayer, privatizing Social Security, an expanded death penalty, school vouchers, gun rights, and President Bush's policies in Iraq.

Despite his history of opposition to progressive policies across the board, many liberals find themselves uncomfortable with the situation Craig is in. Seeing his political positions rejected in an electoral defeat would have been cause for jubilation. Watching him dragged down in a sleazy media frenzy has been far less satisfying, especially because its just not clear what he did wrong. Granted, there may be a problem with men having sex in the restrooms at MSP. But is setting up a sting, using undercover cops to lure lonely men into confessions, a wise use of public resources? Are we really at a point where foot tapping is grounds for arrest? Where even the intimation of homosexual behavior can be criminalized? Should we be destroying people's careers by making private behaviors so public?

People will soon forget the details of this affair, just as they've long forgotten Craig's role in the 1983 House page sex scandal, where two other members admitted to having sex with seventeen- year-old male pages. Dogged by rumors of homosexuality through much of his political career, Craig has been an ardent proponent of family values and backed a successful anti-gay marriage amendment in his home state in 2006. But there's much more to Craig than his sexual orientation, whatever it might be. In an ideal world it just wouldn't matter and voters would judge him on his political positions rather than rumors about his private life. Of course, our political world is far from ideal.

Pleading guilty to misdemeanor lewd conduct is hardly the worst crime ever committed by a sitting US senator. One need only listen to the posturing of Craig's Republican colleagues in the Senate, racing to outdo one another in condemning him, to understand that the issue is not the crime but the implication that he may be a closeted gay man. In his political world there are few worse crimes, and that's the true shame in this story. That, and that possibility that he is indeed a gay man who spent his career vilifying people like him for political reasons, and then threw that career away because he was unable to openly admit his true identity.

August column: Farm Bill matters to all of us

2007-08-02T22:22:00.000-05:00

Farm bill matters to all of us
By Derek Larson

Published: August 01. 2007 12:30AM

If there's one thing liberals and conservatives should agree on, it's that we all need to eat.

The politics of compromise were on display last week as the House passed a farm bill that drew few headlines outside the agricultural press despite its almost $300 billion price tag.

But all Minnesotans should be paying careful attention to this legislation. The final bill will shape our agriculture and food policies for the next five years and offers a chance to reform outdated subsidy programs that give away tax money to agribusiness millionaires.

Unfortunately the House bill is a collection of half-steps that represents more missed opportunities than it does reform, and regular Minnesotans will end up paying for it.

If your first response is "I'm not a farmer so why should I care?" remember this: American farms are the safest, cheapest and most reliable source of food we have. Recent news about tainted food imports from China underscore that reality.

But federal farm programs also have tremendous economic impacts on Minnesota, pouring money into local (especially outstate) communities that ultimately pays wages, buys equipment and supplies, and helps keep small towns afloat.

Minnesota's cut

With about 80,000 farms in Minnesota, more than $1 billion in federal subsidies were paid in 2003-04, going primarily to corn, soybean and wheat producers.

The payments and policies established by the farm bill also affect food costs. One need only look to the rising cost of milk as an example, attributed by most to the skyrocketing price of corn due to ethanol production spurred by the federal energy bill.

Prices for beef, chicken, sweetened and processed foods, and anything else that uses corn as a significant input will likely increase as a result of this attempt to bolster energy production from farmland.

Critics of current farm policy are quick to point out that commodity subsidies distort markets and often end up in the pockets of wealthy agribusiness operators rather than helping small farmers.

Subsidies make it possible to profitably grow corn in amounts far in excess of market demand, at least until last fall's energy bill created incentives for ethanol that doubled corn prices.

Without those subsidies other crops — or perhaps no crops at all — would be planted and we'd have less high-fructose corn syrup to fatten our children on.

And who gets the lion's share of the subsidies? Three-quarters of farms in Minnesota report less than $100,000 in annual sales and 48 percent are less than $10,000.

But half of Minnesota farmers receiving the largest subsidies have sales in excess of $500,000 a year, and most of the subsidy payments go to the top 10 percent of farms, with an average payment of $46,000.

The bottom 80 percent averages just $3,630. Our tax dollars are going primarily to subsidize the largest producers of the least-needed commodity crops, corn and soybeans, rather than helping the small farmers who produce food for local consumption and employ thousands of our neighbors.

House bill

The House bill includes some limited attempts at reform, but the agribusiness lobby succeeded in reducing most of them to tokens.

Modest cuts were made to the overall commodity support system from the 2002 bill, but loopholes allowing nonfarmer investors to reap massive subsidy payments were left intact.

An income cap of $1 million was established for subsidy eligibility, though the Bush administration and a bipartisan group of reformers called for a more reasonable $200,000 limit.

Our tax dollars will still keep the price of commodities artificially high, still encourage production of unnecessary crops by unsustainable methods, and the bulk of subsidy payments will still end up primarily in the hands of wealthy agribusinesses rather than supporting the small farmers who support our local communities.

The process isn't over yet.

The Senate will take up the farm bill in September, offering another chance for reform. Hopefully they will seize the opportunity to fix the broken subsidy system while maintaining the good things that the farm bill includes — nutrition programs, school lunches, support for conservation and wildlife habitat, energy security investments, and yes, a helping hand to Minnesota farmers when (and if) they need it.

Chinese source of poison pet food suddenly closed

2007-05-15T09:34:00.000-05:00

A Seattle Times news article reports that the Chinese factory implicated in the melamine contamination of north American pet food supplies has been closed by its owner without warning. Years of complains from citizens in Xuzhou who suffered from its pollution were ignored by the Chinese government, but when American FDA inspectors were dispatched to investigate the contamination incident the factory was shuttered and bulldozed almost overnight.

The investigation suggests that spiking protein products with melamine is a common practice in China, intended to boost the value of exports by misleading buyers (melamine give false readings in protein content tests). Thousands of pets died from this single incident. How long will it be before the USDA realizes that we cannot trust food imported from China? And how are American consumers to trust the FDA when it cannot even reliably inspect the domestic food supply?

My latest newspaper column: carbon offsets

2007-05-02T13:30:00.000-05:00

Count your carbon, then offset it

By Derek Larson, Times Writers Group
St. Cloud (MN) Times

Published: May 02. 2007 12:30AM

In recent months media coverage of climate change has been so widespread that it's begun to make up for the decade of silence that helped make the United States one of the few industrialized nations not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. While the rest of the world wonders how Americans can abide the willful ignorance of their national leaders, meaningful responses to the threat of climate change are emerging on the state, municipal, corporate and even individual levels. As the old saying goes "when the people lead, the leaders will follow."

So where are the people leading? To state programs that regulate carbon and establish markets to trade emission permits. To cities that have committed to reducing their emissions and are investing in public transportation and alternative energy. To corporate plans to develop cleaner technologies and venture capitalists backing alternative energy startups. And certainly not least, to regular citizens who are doing their part to address climate change by learning about their carbon impacts and taking action to reduce them.

Individual efforts

The basic steps for individuals concerned about reducing carbon emissions are well known and essentially boil down to "use less gas and less electricity," because transport fuels and household energy use account for the lion's share of our individual impacts.

The next step is to learn about the carbon impact of your regular purchases and shop accordingly: Buy locally grown foods rather than produce from California, U.S.-made goods rather than imports from China, and products from companies with sustainability practices instead of those from environmental black hats.

If you've taken these essential measures and are still frustrated by the lack of action from Washington, there are two more things you can do: Call your senator and representative to demand federal action on climate change, and consider buying carbon offsets.

Offsets

So what's a carbon offset? Quite simply, it is a way to negate the impact of carbon emissions you can't avoid.

We all need electricity for light and fuel for heat, most of us need transportation, and it's hard to get through a Minnesota winter without buying some food from other regions. All of these activities produce carbon that helps make the United States the world's largest contributor to climate change.

Carbon offsets are essentially a way to purchase "negative carbon" by supporting activities that reduce carbon which would have been generated by others. They are marketed by dozens of companies, both for- and nonprofit, and support an array of solutions from wind farms to methane digesters, reforestation projects to solar installations.

Determining your carbon footprint is easy. Sites such as www.carboncounter.org and www.carbonfund.org will help calculate emissions.

For example, Carbonfund's calculator estimates a family of four living in St. Cloud, with gas heat and driving 15,000 miles per year in two vehicles averaging 25 mpg, would generate about 22 tons of CO2 from those activities in year. The cost of offsetting those emissions would be about $110, less than $10 a month, and the money would be invested in activities that permanently prevent the same amount of carbon from being emitted elsewhere.

It's simple, cheap, and — for now — the best way to reduce the impact of activities we can't avoid, such as lighting and heating homes and driving to work or school.

Congress and industry both favor establishing a market that will set carbon prices through a national cap-and-trade system, so the cost of carbon offsets will be reflected in the prices of everything we buy. But until that day arrives, individuals can explore carbon offsetting themselves simply by Googling "carbon offsets" or though such resources as "The Consumer's Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers."

Before long our leaders will wake up, pull their heads from the sand and pat themselves on the backs for solving the climate crisis. The least we can do then is say "I told you so."

"I told you so" is getting easier to say to FDA

2007-05-02T13:25:00.000-05:00

Today the FDA reported that millions of people have likely consumed chickens that were fed melamine-tainted pet food after the recall. How can anyone trust the FDA if they allow poison pet food to be recalled and then sold to chicken farmers as feed? Apparently the unregulated Chinese producers have intentionally added melamine to their protein products because it gives falsely high readings of protein content, which means higher prices. Heads should roll at FDA and consumers should treat any food imported from China as suspect...but there's no way to know where tainted Chinese ingredients might end up without the FDA doing its job.

See CNN's report Feds: Millions have eaten chickens fed tainted pet food

Reluctant "I Told You So" on Poison Food

2007-04-29T11:41:00.000-05:00

Back on April 4th my newspaper column on the pet food scare warned that the tainted melamine could end up in the human food supply, and suggested the FDA has been lax in its oversight. Today's news wire reports say it's happened...though not as directly as I'd imagined. Through an even more ridiculous route, the tainted pet food was recalled, then apparently sold to hog farmers to fed it to their stock. Those hogs were eventually slaughtered and the pork that went to market is tainted with-- you guessed it --melamine from China.

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary. How long will it be before low-cost, unregulated, and uninspected food imports from China end up killing someone's child? It's time to overhaul the FDA and get it off the corporate agenda and back into the role of protecting our citizens.