GQMartinez

Science Schmience: Back to the 17th Century

gqmartinez — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:06:30 EDT

Grover Norquist and Stephen Moore want to take us back to 1920s economics. Some Republicans want to take education back to the days before the Scopes trial in the 1920s. Zell Miller wanted us to get back to the days of duels in the 18th century, but GOP congressman Joe Barton (TX) wants us to go even futher back in time.

The Washington Post writes about Barton's attempt to "investigate" scientists who have presented results that differ from the GOP pro-business view that global warming does not exist. It seems as though we can investigate scientists who present evidence differing from the world view of those in power. Have we not learned anything from the days of Galileo?

This is a dangerous precedent. I guess as we are seeing in the Wilson-Plame case, there is nothing too low that you can do if you are trying to push your world view on others.

Winning Iraq: Make Reconstruction Work

gqmartinez — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:36:28 EDT

I often feel as though I'm one of the few left of center people who actually believe we can--and must--be successful in Iraq. The can part comes from my belief that Iraq is capable and that they really want a safe, secure and prosperous nation. But we have to show the Iraqis we are truly on their side.

Of course I realize we need a specific plan. One of the things I focus on specifically is the need for a concise reconstruction plan. An interview with Dahr Jamail on Democracy Now this morning described why:

The most common quote that I heard from doctors when I was working on this report is that ‘Our situation now is worse than it was even during the sanctions.’ In sum, disastrous levels of medicine shortages, equipment shortages, supply shortages, and almost no reconstruction happening

And then there is this from today's Progress Report:

Why I'm Routing for Bush

gqmartinez — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:51:00 EDT

Gasp! Am I really routing for Bush? Yup.

Up until this point there are only a handful of things the Bush Administration has done that I can say I agree with--if that much. When he was first elected, I figured there wasn't too much bad he could do with a Democratic Senate. Now I almost hate reading the news when I wake up in the morning for fear of what else is going to happen. Despite that, I still think there are a few things Bush is in a position to do that will have a positive impact.

I don't want a Supreme Court War

gqmartinez — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:35:35 EDT

I mentioned last time that I would like Bush to stop dividing the country. Everyone is talking about how both sides are gearing up for a long, bitter war and prepared to spend $100 million on this "war". Isn't there so much more that we can do with that money, like fighting poverty? Imagine business leaders dishing out $100 million on anti-poverty advertising?

Dreams aside, talk about a war seems like a self fulfilling prophecy. If anything Bush seems to like to do things just to tick off progressives. I don't think we will get a progressive judge and I'm fine with that, that's how our democracy works. Bush campaigned on nominating a conservative judge, sure, but he also campaigned on uniting the country instead of dividing it as today's Progress Report mentions.

To George W. Bush: Please Don't Divide Our Nation Anymore

gqmartinez — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:05:39 EDT

Dear President Bush,

I believe that you are sincere and earnest in your faith and beliefs. I may disagree with nearly every one of your positions and policies, but I do not doubt your convictions (or intelligence). Except, perhaps, your commitment to be a uniter not a divider.

Support Our Troups, Give Them a Plan

gqmartinez — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:29:24 EDT

Supporting the troops means more than saying "support the troops". It means adequately equipping and training them, giving them a plan to win when in a war, and taking care of them when they return. Bush is failing in all of these. But I'll only focus on the second and leave the others for later.

I've read that some applaud not setting a timeline. (Peter mentions the timeline issue here.) That is an irresponisble and losing strategy. If we want to win, we should plan to win and make damn sure that it happens on time. Here are a few things I would have liked Bush to address and some of my naive comments.

The Gaza Pullout

gqmartinez — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:35:26 EDT

I always get annoyed when I hear American blowhards speak violently either way in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Yet here I am about to mention it.

For me, a more informative discussion than that of the American Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine groups are the Israelis or Palestinians themselves. Haim Watzman provides an interesting discussion:

One only has to open a page of Talmud or a Jewish legal treatise to see how sages and rabbis have always balanced belief and precept against the practicalities of specific times, places, and concepts. Judaism is a legal religion, and the Jewish legal literature is in large part case law—rabbis addressing specific cases and problems rather than conducting rarefied philosophical discussions.

That’s why I can believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people, and at the same time argue that that general principle does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the current state of Israel must control and settle Jews in all parts of that land. God gave us the land but he also gave us minds and powers of judgment.

Judging from the comments by readers, I am still sadly skeptical that a peaceful solution will come anytime soon.

Help Shape the Labor Movement

gqmartinez — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:06:08 EDT

A Labor history course I once took gave me a deep respect for organized Labor and it's crucial importance. Reading through Bruce Catton's The Civil War I came across something that reinforced the importance of Labor:

[E]ven when the cotton shortage threw tousands of textile workers out of employment, the British working class remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy. (p. 104)

Howard Zinn also documents how racial differences were often overcome by the working class. There is something that workers share that brings them together--and often in support of the progressive cause.

I mention this to highlight a new effort by the SEIU called Purple Ocean. They have an online poll to shape the goals of the group. Labor needs progressives and progressives need Labor.

Reinventing Government...Again

gqmartinez — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:15:49 EDT

Over at Beliefnet you can receive daily emails containing scripture readings and words of wisdom (WoW) for the day. I was struck by yesterday's Jewish WoW: "False ideals cannot be shattered by criticism. Right ideals must take up the battle against them."

I never voted for Clinton, but I was always struck by his "reinventing government" campaign. Unfortunately, his extracurricular activities hindered the progress he had made and disrupted the trajectory of this idea. I believe this is the key front in the progressive cause. Government should be a source of good, not bad or even burdensome. Responsible government doesn't have to be the solution to everything, but it should be the champion of our values as a society. And in many instances it does champion my values.

Howard Dean my want to "take back the country", but I don't want a war. I just want to be able to believe in my country again. I want to be able to believe that my government is a source of good in the world and in people's lives. But this begins by giving people reason to support government, or reminding them why it's good. In other words, we need to reinvent government again...for OUR future.

The Big Picture

gqmartinez — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:04:22 EDT

As a scientist, it's easy to lose track of the big picture when you are fussing over the mundane daily tasks. I often find it worthwhile to take a step back from the important little tasks that are needed to solve the larger problems. (Ask and I may tell you.) The same is true in politics, at least for me.

Browsing through some recent posts, I see us all discussing the tasks that will make the world a better place. All are great discussions and related to different topics. Yet they are all related in a crucial aspect. Namely, that Government can be a force for positive progress. We talk about making the environment more livable, preventing lynching, getting health care to those who desparately need it or trying to end poverty in the United States or in the world. Each of these is an admirable goal that we care deeply about. And each of these relies on a responsible government seeking to do what's right.

When I stay up late trying to organize events, knock on thousands of doors or make thousands of phone calls it's because I believe we are all a little better off when we work together and when we have a responsible government that pursues the promise of our nation. Conservatives make government out to be evil. I'm a progressive because I believe the exact opposite. If any conservative wants to debate this, I'm happy to engage. All our specific battles deal with conservative objection to responsible government. It's time we are all more vocal in our support for responsible government.

What's your responsible government story?

Diagnosing Frist

gqmartinez — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:51:22 EDT

When politics dictates science and medical practice, only bad things can happen. We've seen how Philip Cooney change science to fit his politics--or was it to fit his future pocket book? (Head on over to Union of Concerned Scientists to find more info on damages to science by the Administration.)

As the Lexington Herald-Leader points out, people should be weary of trusting Bill Frist's medical diagnoses. Personally, I think he would be a fine doctor if he didn't let politics get in the way. But this is a dangerous trajectory for scientists/doctors turned politicians to be on. Frist should apologize and come clean. What he did was irresponsible and bad for medicine. No one should make a diagnosis based on video footage.

As Judge Snider says in episode 5F05 in "Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times." I think politics should stay 500 yards from both science and religion, too.

Go to Hell

gqmartinez — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 20:56:54 EDT

Over at the HHS website, you can find out that Medicaid

is health insurance that helps many people who can't afford medical care pay for some or all of their medical bills.

Good health is important to everyone. If you can't afford to pay for medical care right now, Medicaid can make it possible for you to get the care that you need so that you can get healthy – and stay healthy.

The proposed $10 billion cut to Medicaid from the federal government has many governor's desparate for solutions. As Jay Rockefeller points out in the article, a simple solution to this problem--along with Social Security and Medicare--would be to get rid of Bush's tax cuts for the super-rich and hyper-rich. (Why don't we at least ask if they are willing?)

I could go on about Medicaid, but there is something interesting about the congressional GOP attitude which can be summed up by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR): "I don't think just jacking up taxes is the answer here." Well, then what is? No matter how your views on big government/small government, you have to concede that increased taxes on people who can afford it would "fix" Medicaid and allow the impoverished to receive medical care.

I don't like taking the specks out of other peoples' eyes, but since they seem so fond of trying to take the specks/logs out of mine, I feel somewhat inclined to comment. If you take a look at chapter 25 of Matthew in the Christian Bible you'll notice something pretty unprecedented for Jesus to say. Beggining in verse 31 he starts a story that essentially tells those who do not help the poor and look after the sick to go to hell. That's a pretty bold statement, even for me. I don't believe in fire and brimstone, but when people put personal wealth above the greater good and basic humanity, well it's hard not to route for such a place. Imagine if we has such strong advocates for those in need today?

There are many in need that we can help--and you don't need Bill Frist's bogus and reprehensible "diagnosis" to know they can be helped. We're going to have to ask ourselves if we care enough to do something about it. Otherwise, we can all go to...

Yes, I know there's poverty in America too

gqmartinez — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:24:39 EDT

Last week I talked a lot about global poverty and mentioned how debt relief should be part of a solution. Since it looks like debt relief might actually happen now, I figured I'd talk about poverty in the United States and hope something gets done about it.

I'm sure it's not likely to come as a surprise that under Bush's watch more people have gone into poverty. But the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has a nice summary on U.S. poverty data that I'd like to highlight.

- From 2000 to 2003, 4,280,000 people have fallen into poverty of which 1,279,000 are children under 18.
- During this time, 1,126,000 Black Americans have gone into poverty (296,000 under 18).
- 1,304,000 Hispanic Americans have gone into poverty (555,000 under 18).

Another issue is the amount of people who lack health insurance. While 244,000 less children under 18 lacked health insurance by 2003, 5 million more Americans now lack health insurance compared to 2000. But things seem to be getting worse.

For a while, I've been ranting and raving about Medicaid becoming less accessible. (Applauding here.) There are two troubling trajectories: More people in poverty and less state AND federal money for Medicaid. Since people in poverty often rely on Medicaid, well, you get the idea.

The economics of this is a little complicated so I'll just lament that Kerry didn't get a chance to implement his health care idea and hope we all make sure that we don't let the GOP permanently install the estate tax breaks.

Honor thy teacher

gqmartinez — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:39:13 EDT

I enjoyed Thomas Friedman's way to honor teachers by having a once a year recognition of our teachers:

And the best way to ensure that we have teachers who inspire their students is if we recognize and reward those who clearly have done so.

Imagine if every college in America had a program like Williams's, and every spring, across the land, thousands of great teachers were acknowledged by the students they inspired? "No Great Teachers Left Behind." How about it?

While I think that honoring teachers in this manner is important--I wouldn't be where I am today without the encouragement of a couple of high school teachers--I also think that we need to do more than just honoring them once a year. Matt Miller suggests making them millionaires by the time they retire. I like that idea. Perhaps then we could recruit and keep the best teachers.

Of course not all people feel this way. One of my local papers argues that a reason to vote against a parcel tax is because "$70,000/year average salaries are high enough for teachers." Priorities! (In Palo Alto, $70,000/year is not a huge sum.)

If you have a teacher who inspired you, make sure to let them know before it's too late. The most influential teacher in my life, Stephen Burchfield, passed away as I began graduate school a few years ago. I talked to him and visited him whenever I was back in town. I never tired of talking to him.

"Liberal Bias" in the Classroom: The real agenda?

gqmartinez — Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:46:40 EDT

In my daily news rummaging, I came across an article discussing the movement to end "liberal bias" in pre-college public schools. The last two paragraphs frightened me:

Some observers envision liberal and conservative families lining up in pursuit of separate educations. Because ideological policing of the classroom may prove impossible, support could grow for vouchers for values-driven education, says Michelle Easton, president of the conservative Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute in Herndon, Va.

"Our primary approach is to promote school choice, because then parents can pick little right-wing schools, little left-wing schools, little traditional schools — whatever they want for their children," Mrs. Easton says. "Then you get the government out the business of, 'You can't do this, you can't do that.' "

Is it me or is the thought of such segmentation and segregation eerie?

If anything, my high school history classes were biased conservatively in their glaring omissions.

Foreign Aid Facts

gqmartinez — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:15:49 EDT

After complaining the last week or so about global poverty and U.S. foreign aid, I was distressed to see a CNN online poll--presumably people who are somewhat informed--showing that 50% of respondents think the United States is doing enough to help Africa--with millions dying each year, can we EVER do enough?

As the New York Times points out in their "Crumbs for Africa" editorial, most Americans believe that our country spends less than a quarter of our budget on aid to poor countries. But that's far from the truth:

The United States currently gives just 0.16 percent of its national income to help poor countries, despite signing a United Nations declaration three years ago in which rich countries agreed to increase their aid to 0.7 percent by 2015. Since then, Britain, France and Germany have all announced plans for how to get to 0.7 percent; America has not. The piddling amount Mr. Bush announced yesterday is not even 0.007 percent.

What is 0.7 percent of the American economy? About $80 billion. That is about the amount the Senate just approved for additional military spending, mostly in Iraq. It's not remotely close to the $140 billion corporate tax cut last year. (My emphasis)

I highlighted that last sentence to show that there are clearly ways we can do more if this was a priority.

If budgets are moral documents, what does our budget say about our nation's moral values: $500 billion "defense" budget; $140 billion dollar corporate tax cut that isn't helping American workers; cuts to Medicaid and Head Start; billions in tax cuts; $300 billion for two ill-planned wars.

It's time that we hold the Party who claims to be the party of "moral values" accountable. Of course this assumes that progressives are willing to take on this easily winnable battle and champion a very worthwhile cause.

Debt relief can help...and it's good for the soul

gqmartinez — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:14:11 EDT

Last week I mentioned how I was excited about the Live 8 concerts to promote debt relief and foreign aid to reduce global poverty and senseless deaths-- ~30,000 children die each day to preventable causes. Since some may not care about moral implications of these deaths, I decided to take a look at Ethiopia and see if we can do anything by cancelling debt and checking if that has any effect on our economy. (Oi, two poorly constructed sentences. Sue me.)

Ethiopia has seen some decent economic growth over the last decade or so. However, as this 2002 IMF report states, debt is a big problem:

Notwithstanding the success noted, the dependence on external financing needs closer attention (see Alemayehu and Befekadu 1999). One implication of this is the debt problem (10). In Ethiopia, this problem is acute because it has been coupled with military based debt accumulated during the Derg period. Due to the growing resource gap both the debt stock and the debt to GNP ratios have increased steadily since the 1980s. This has resulted in accumulation of arrears during the 1980s. Prior to this period, there had been almost no interest arrears and principal arrears were negligible (see Alemayehu and Daniel 1999). The rising level of arrears relates to the resources constraint that hindered timely debt-service payments. This has worsened the situation as it resulted in an even larger arrea s accumulation. (p. 21)

OK, so a poor leader builds up a lot military debt and the country has to perpetually pay for that. WWII reconstruction helped rebuild Europe and Japan into economic powers. What if we forced these people to shoulder the entire burden alone? We now have global partners that push innovation and competition (at least in principle).

Bush likes to champion strong democracies and robust economies as important to freedom and security. I'll give him that because I feel the same way. (Though I'm hesitent to install U.S. definitions of "democracies" vis a vis Central and South America and Afghanistan and Iraq during the 80s.) So how is debt effecting Ethiopia's economy?

The magnitude and burden of external resource leakage in the form of deteriorating TOT, debt servicing and other international payment obligations is reaching beyond the country's capacity. Particularly, in the face of widespread poverty and resource-constrained capital stock, the issue of making globalization work for Ethiopia is a real concern. In 1999/00, total leakage through declined commodity price, debt services and amortization amounted to about Birr 3992 million. Seen relative to public expenditure on social and economic services, the magnitude of this leakage amounts to about 142 and 139 per cent, respectively. Excluding amortization, the external leakage in 1999/00 amounts to about 138 and 445 per cent of public expenditure on education and health. Under these adverse external conditions, the challenge to reducing poverty significantly is believed to be huge. (p. 35, my emphasis)

So Ethiopia is spending more money on debt services, etc. than on economic development or education and health. If investing in economic development and education are key to Ethiopia's progress (as indicated in the report), shouldn't we allow them to invest in development and education to help themselves?

If you convert the 4 billion Birr to U.S. dollars it comes out to roughly $460 millionUSD. Divide that amongst the richest 10 countries and you have $46 million a year per country. Even multiplying this amount by say 100 countries who may need help only amounts to $4.6 billion per year per country. That's less than two tenths of one percent of a $2.5 trillion dollar budget. Our defense budget is $500 billion this year and the Bush tax cuts for the hyper-wealthy are way more than the amount needed to help some of these countries. It's about priorities. Granted, there are some other structural policies that need to be in place, but we can have a huge impact through debt relief and even more with foreign aid.

Let's spread some freedom, Mr. President. And it costs less then your botched wars and tax cuts that aren't helping the average American worker.

Making College LESS Affordable

gqmartinez — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:15:12 EDT

I've noticed a lot of people in the blogosphere and in the major media have been talking a lot about class mobility. The New York Times has published a series on this, with David Cay Johnston writing the latest installment.

What I think is even more troubling than this is the changes to financial aid eligibility:

The New York Times did an analysis of the formula on middle-class incomes in more than a dozen states to see whether families would have to spend a greater part of their income and assets before qualifying for financial aid than they did five years ago. Though the effects of the formula changes vary from state to state, The Times found that families with the same earnings and assets as in 2000 would typically have to pay an extra $1,749 before clearing the eligibility bar for financial aid in 2005, after adjusting for inflation.

Call me stupid, but I always thought that if you want to make class mobility easier, you need to make obtaining a college education easier. Of course, I think this is also poor economic policy since we need to have more educated workers, not less. (I'll leave that for another day.)

There are economic solutions if we made education a priority. As Nathaniel Loewentheil pointed out on Campus Progress last week, repeal of the estate tax--which doesn't really apply to many people--will be costing the country tens of billions of dollars by the end of the decade. Not to mention putting the top marginal rate back to what it was during the Clinton Presidency.

It's a matter of priorities. Clearly, the White House and GOP congress don't put education high on the priority list. I think it's time for a change.

Progressive Morality

gqmartinez — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:43:38 EDT

What better way to make my introduction to a progressive blog then mentioning "morality". I had the experiencing of growing up going to an evangelical church--Pentacostal if you want to be specific--about three times a week. What this imparted on me, along with a couple years studying moral philosophy as an undergraduate, was a deep sense of social justice. I am largely drawn to progressive politics precisely because of their emphasis on social justice and commitment to each other.

Now that that's out of the way, I can say I was pretty excited to read about the Live 8 concerts being planned to generate momentum for debt relief"

The extravaganza, which will feature many of the biggest names in pop music, will not be intended to raise funds. Rather, it is aimed at spotlighting the problem of poverty in developing African countries just days before President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin and leaders of five other industrial nations gather for the G8 Summit in Scotland. Accordingly, Geldof has named his event Live 8.

Many developing countries have to spend more money paying their debt back (plus interest) to wealthy countries than they do for nutrition and basic medical care and vaccinations. An end result is that almost 30,000 children die every day due to easily preventable illness and malnutrition.

Debt reduction/cancellation (and global poverty) is a cause that progressives should embrace whole heartedly. It is an important fight--10,000,000 children a year is pretty darn important if you value a "culture of life"--that we can win. Rather then letting conservative groups define the language of morality, it's time for progressives to use the language of morality in some of their causes. Preventing the death of thousands of children every day is a moral cause even if you are not religious.