politics

This week, David Brooks describes how innovation may transform the economy over the next few decades.

[…] what if we gradually created a world with clean cheap energy, driverless cars and more energetic productive years in our lives?

He says, "Government investment has spurred a lot of this progress." But remember: the Republicans have crushed the ability of the government to invest in anything. The austerity imposed on government spending since Reagan has left Universities on their knees and a whole generation — maybe two — of promising young scientists have given up on academia, unable to make a living.

Basic research is fundamental to creating the opportunities for innovation. But that's precisely what's gotten choked off. I'm not saying that the reason you don't have a flying car is because of the Republicans, but we'll never know how many additional avenues for innovation have been missed because people weren't looking.

Four years ago, like the majority of people, I was horror struck by the election of Donald Trump. But I was not surprised. I had recognized the strong anti-establishment fervor in the country and realized that, in spite of her eminent qualifications, Hillary Clinton was the wrong choice for the moment. In large part, the dissatisfaction was the Democrats' failure to successfully deliver on many of the needs of ordinary Americans. There were many reasons for this.

Barack Obama was extremely cautious as President. I believe he recognized the historic nature of the first Black presidency and wanted to make sure his administration was free of scandal and avoidable failures. But this resulted in choosing safer, less risky alternatives when choosing among options. For all the Republicans tried to find even a whiff of scandal in his administration, the greatest problem they ever found was that he wore a tan suit one time.

Obama expended a huge amount of his political capital trying to reach out to Republicans. He genuinely believed he could be a transformative figure in American politics and tried to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans. They ruthlessly exploited his overtures and unified against him to minimize his accomplishments. But he wasted a lot of time and made a lot of concessions and got nothing in return.

There was a point where a lot of people were disappointed with Obama's lack of accomplishments and some joked, "Where are my rainbows and unicorns?" But this was always projection with Obama. He was always a center-right technocrat. He was never a populist or leftist. We got Obamacare which, for all its flaws, was a huge accomplishment and which the Republicans have spent 10 years fruitlessly trying to overturn. But we also got a huge increase in the drone wars and deportations. The post recession stimulus was nowhere near large enough and in his second term, he was paralyzed by Congress and limited to what he could accomplish by executive order. All of which could be quickly undone when Trump took over.

Now that the long national nightmare of Trump is over, I'm looking at Biden and trying to make sense of what he's likely to do. On the one hand, he's also presenting himself as the unity candidate, seeking to unify both parties. But, at the same time, he has several things Obama did not. For one thing, he has 36 years of experience in the Senate. This is undoubtedly going to give him a leg up. He's also been inside the White House before, which will help him hit the ground running. Finally — to be blunt — he's white. As we've all learned, this might make a significant difference — especially with the racist Republican scumbags he has to work with.

On July 26, Carlos E. Santiago, the Commissioner of Higher Education spoke about new proposed regulations to respond to college closures in Massachusetts. These regulations are aimed at giving the Department of Higher Education more information and tools to deal with colleges at risk of closing, primarily to mitigate the impacts on students. Many of the comments were about preventing closures or recognizing the the broader impacts on the community.

There's a good showing for the #collegeclosures presentation: a full room, three college presidents, and good representation from town leadership. pic.twitter.com/H1ghUcdplS

— Steven D. BREWER (@limako) July 26, 2019

I offered the following comments.

Hi. My name is Steve Brewer. I'm a faculty member at UMass Amherst. I also wanted to thank the Department because the Department of Higher Ed is funding the "Bridges" program that I'm teaching in this summer which is taking students from community colleges that are transitioning to the university and providing them with a summer opportunity to be on the University first hand, learn about it, and then transition to begin as students in the fall.

I'm reminded in the conversation today of the parable, that I'm sure most of you have heard, that you see babies floating down the river. We've seen 18 babies floating down the river, and so we're trying to figure out, how can we rescue these babies? Can we pull them out of the water with nets and resuscitate them and do all the things to see if the babies are going to die or not. And, of course, the question we really ought to be asking is why don't we go upriver and see what's throwing the babies into the water. I  mean, that's, THAT'S the real problem.

We're looking here at how to rescue institutions rather than thinking about what's causing the institutions to become unstable in the first place. And saying "demographics" is, of course, one part of it.   But there are a lot of other pieces that fit into that as well: the fact that we've systematically disinvested in higher education and that inequality is causing people to postpone or not engage in child-rearing at all. There are a whole bunch of factors that are resulting in the decline of higher ed.

And we recognize that your part is to sit there with a net and pull babies out of the water and that's what these regulations are about. But I think all of us need to think about the political advocacy we need to engage in. And, of course, we have the right people here (pointing at Mindy Domb and Jo Comerford) that are fighting that fight on the front lines. But to try to save higher education altogether.

You can also watch the full video.

I drafted comments to be presented at the Cherish Act hearing tomorrow at the State House.

Biology is a discipline where modern facilities and equipment are critical to providing an effective education to our students: to prepare them to move seamlessly into the growing life-science industry. Unfortunately, after years of declining funding, our introductory biology facilities had suffered.

We have been successful at attracting large grants from Howard Hughes Medical Institute and others to make improvements over the years, but those organizations are rarely interested in funding the basic infrastructure.

Recently, the University re-introduced "lab fees" to raise money from our students and their families to fund these needed renovations. This purchased new lab benches and facilities for more modern labs. But it's yet another example of the state shirking its responsibility to provide for the basic needs of the curriculum and requiring students to shoulder a larger burden, through debt, that many will still be paying for years to come. It's disgraceful and makes me ashamed to be a part of the institution.

Exactly the same is true regarding the new "technology fee." The University should be funded sufficiently to provide the basic infrastructure needed for a 21st century education. Students should not be going into debt for our necessary facilities and infrastructure.

Please fund our future and pass the Cherish Act.

I am hopeful that, after years of declining state funding for public higher education (we're still below 2001 funding levels) there is enough momentum to pass this act which would bring funding up to 2001 levels over 5 years during which time we could freeze tuition and fees. We can always hope.

It's painful watching reactionaries and morons impede progress on important long-term projects (e.g. the Paris Agreement or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.) And, while it is cold comfort, it's worth recalling the victories we've won in the past.

I remember as a kid when unleaded gasoline was introduced. Previously, tetraethyl-lead was used, almost universally, to allow higher compression ratios in gasoline engines. Scientists fought a battle for years against powerful corporate interests to discontinue the use of lead which is a neurotoxin that causes profound damage during human growth and development. Eventually, they won. We won! Lead was phased out over a twenty-year period. During this time, when you went to the gas station both were available as "regular" or "unleaded". Finally, it was discontinued entirely and unleaded had become "regular". Since then, it's been proposed that leaded gasoline was a cause of a huge spike in violent crime. And soil near busy roadways is still heavily contaminated by lead. But we won! Science won! Trump and his corporate cronies won't be bringing back leaded gasoline.

I also remember ozone depletion. Scientists discovered that chemicals used in refrigeration and aerosols were causing ozone to break down in the upper atmosphere. Again, the corporate interests fought tooth-and-nail to obfuscate and undermine the science. But in the face of growing evidence about the seriousness of the threat, an international consensus lead to the banning of the ozone depleting substances. Trump isn't going to reverse that either.

These are both examples of victories won during a time when science wasn't under threat the way it is today. Now, the enemies of progress are trying to make it impossible to collect evidence about the effects of climate change. And to undermine education and defund basic science altogether. While it's painful to watch their moronic antics, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

David Brooks says the GOP is rotting and he's right. Since the election, we've seen a race to the bottom as the GOP indulges in greater and greater excesses of their abuse of raw power to enrich themselves and punish their enemies—or just anyone they can rob. And traditional limits no longer seem to apply. Each day brings a new series of outrageous statements and behavior that, in the past, nobody would have tolerated. Now there seems to be no limit to what the GOP will tolerate: even embrace. Who knew the evangelicals would accept pedophilia as long as, by doing so, they could pass favorable appointments and legislation. It leads me to wonder what is too far.

When Germany invaded Poland, they had constructed a list, the Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen or Special Prosecution Book that had the names of 61,000 people on it: activists, intelligentsia, scholars, actors, former officers, and prominent others who were identified to be rounded up and shot. There isn't anyone named "Brewer" on the list, but there are two named "Breuer". Are such lists being drawn up by Republicans? If there were, would that be too far?

It may seem like hyperbole, but when political leaders seem willing to tolerate blatant lies and persistent corruption without blinking an eye, you have to wonder whether there is any limit at all.

On November 19, the President of the United States indicated that China, to curry favor with him, had released US citizens that its totalitarian regime might otherwise have incarcerated. But the father of one of those released was insufficently grateful to satisfy the enormous ego of Donald Trump, so he said this:

A statement by the President: pic.twitter.com/tFUh0E7YS5

— Real Press Sec. (@RealPressSecBot) November 19, 2017

And then five hours later, said this:

A statement by the President: pic.twitter.com/iczsDpiqvb

— Real Press Sec. (@RealPressSecBot) November 19, 2017

What kind of human being acts like this? What kind of person doesn't understand flattery enough to recognize (1) that a foreign power was appealing to his narcissistic ego by releasing the US citizens that way and (2) that expecting people to kow-tow, or show fealty, for something that he, personally, had little or nothing to do with is asking people to lie to your face. I suppose that's what power means to Donald Trump: the power to hold people down, rather than to lift them up; the power to divide them, rather than unite them.

The words that come to my mind are "mean-spirited". But as Rush Limbaugh said:

The Democrats, the left has this 30-year playbook of how to destroy conservatives by simply exposing the horrible, the mean-spirited, insensitive things they say, but that isn't going to work on Trump the way it works on conservatives, for a whole host of reasons.

As I said yesterday, the Democrats have some work to do if they want to articulate a vision that isn't just pointing out what a horrible person Donald Trump is, because Americans don't seem to care anymore. They seem motivated more by revenge: looking for enemies to punish for their decline in fortunes. Why they choose to punish the powerless, rather than the ones who actually caused their misery is anyone's guess.

Phil shared an article with me today about two towns in Colorado where there's a cultural conflict: the hardscrabble mining town of Nucla with the wealthy, cosmopolitan Telluride right next door. There's a lot of fascinating history (the town of Nucla was built by socialists), but the central point of the article is the cultural differences that form the flashpoint for conflict.

Residents in Nucla want to re-open a uranium mill which the people in Telluride oppose. A Nucla resident says, “They’re the most wasteful people, yet they tell us that, you know, we can’t have our uranium […]." Which made me think of other ways to complete that sentence “They’re the most wasteful people, yet they tell us that, you know, we can’t have our ebola factory" or “They’re the most wasteful people, yet they tell us that, you know, we can’t have our africanized bee colonies." (Or "sarin gas storage tanks." Or "rabid raccoon breeding facility.")

One woman says, of her grandfather who died of cancer (from smoking and working in a uranium mine) “If you had told my grandpa that he was going to die when he was 70 a horrible, painful death, he would have continued to mine. That’s how he supported his family."

It reminded me of miners in West Virginia during the presidential election. I remember that Hillary told people, pretty frankly, "Look. The coal jobs ain't coming back, so we need to do retraining and get people into other jobs and careers." And they said "Fuck you, bitch!" and voted for Donald Trump. Yet when you ask them today they say, "Yeah, he said he's bringing the coal jobs back, but we know it's not going to happen." Hillary actually understood the problem and had the right answer, but people didn't want to hear an actual solution to their problem: they would rather have someone lie to them and tell them the fairy story they want to hear.

The summer after third grade, my family moved from a suburban neighborhood to a house in the woods. My father, fascinated by the writings of Thoreau and Aldo Leopold, wanted to live closer to nature. The woods were beautiful and fascinating for my father. But they were surrounded by rural farm fields. And rural families. For me, it was a huge cultural shock when I was bused out of the woods and into to a rural elementary school.

There were some kids who were accepting of me: who came up to me and made friends. But they were the exception. Many people (both kids and teachers) were immediately alienated by my educated diction and non-religious perspective. I lived under a constant threat of violence from that point forward until I went to college.

I was assaulted dozens of times. One kid knocked me off my bike because he had heard I was saying stuff about him. (I wasn't). One kid threw a rock and hit me in the head. I was pushed down, punched, and brutalized. Recess required constant vigilance to avoid bullies. And when I went to middle school—and there were locker rooms—it only got worse.

So when I read an account like Digging in the Trash it evokes an almost PTSD-like response from me. I've been there. I've known those people. He says:

I’m tired of standing by silently while privileged people in privileged places strip those less fortunate of their humanity. I’m tired of living in a place where men like my grandfather and Paco are shipped off to front lines to die for profit margins. I’m tired of an America where all the folks I’ve ever loved are dismissed as trash, where people are reduced to something subhuman simply because of where they live. I’m tired of having to explain it. I’m just goddamn tired.

One of my favorite writers, Larry Brown, was once called the "King of White Trash," and he had enough of a sense of humor to joke about it, to laugh and tell his daughter that if he was the king that effectively crowned her princess. Ultimately, I think the reason Larry was able to shake it off and laugh is because he’d grown used to it, just as we all have. We know we’re something that outsiders will never understand, that it’s noteworthy to see a landscape dotted with trailers and churches. We know we’re something perplexing to those who have never been here. We know that they’ll never be able to see that there is a tremendous beauty in day-to-day survival, that there is sufficient grace in refusing to buckle beneath the weight of this world.

A friend of mine sent me an article recently from The New Yorker titled, "Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich." It was basically an essay about how some of the richest people in America have been preparing for some sort of societal breakdown. I guffawed at the thought when I read it, not at the idea of America collapsing, but at the idea they think they’ll be the ones to survive. I laughed at the boldness, at the arrogance.

I’ve never been a betting man and the truth is I don’t have much money to lay down, but what I’ll leave you with is this. While all the privileged have been coasting through life so often on the backs of my people, we’ve been surviving.

You may not be a betting man, but this attitude only helps the predators. To say that outsiders will never understand is to doom yourself to tribalism. And sell yourself down the river. There are outsiders who do understand: the predators. They understand that you've cut yourselves off and you're ripe for exploitation.

You say the privileged have been coasting through life. Some are, but most are not: they're working hard. It is capitalism that oppresses the poor. It oppresses almost everyone.

The only way we get out of this is to organize. We break through the tribalism and work together. But as long as poor people use markers like speech and religion (and race) as placeholders for ideas and actions, they'll be willing to line up behind predators like Donald Trump. How's that workin' out for ya?

Many years ago, I subscribed to an early internet group called comp.risks. It was a group of smart people who were always thinking about subtle risks of technology. I learned a lot reading posts in the group, especially about how poor humans are at assessing risks. A classic example was people trying to make infants safer on planes by requiring infant seats. The upshot was that you could make infants safer that way — in the extremely unlikely event of a plane crash — but requiring people to purchase a plane ticket for an infant would result in many more people traveling by car, which is much less safe that air travel, which meant that infants were at a substantially greater actual risk.

Recently, the Trump administration, decided to ban Muslim refugees claiming that they posed an increased risk to Americans for terrorist attacks. Congressman Lieu from California pointed out that your chances of being killed by a refugee committing a terrorist act is 1 in 3.6 billion. Politifact finds that statement mostly true and points out other unlikely events (like being struck by lightning twice) as being significant *more* likely than this.

Unfortunately, the media doesn't get it and I've hear journalists asking what could be done to reduce the risk of terrorist attack. This is the wrong question. What they should be asking is "what are the actual risks that people face and how can we reduce those?" The actual risks that Americans face are mostly due to disease and accidents. We could reduce risks of disease by ensuring that everyone had good health care. And we could reduce a lot of accidents by having better gun control. Those are obvious things that could reduce premature deaths by thousands every year.

But what if we *really* want to reduce those 1 in 3.6 billion odds… How about these:

• When you walk by someone smoking on the sidewalk, walk one extra foot away.
  
• Wash your hands for one extra second once a day.
• Wear a bicycle helmet while driving your car.

These probably still make you safer than Donald Trump's muslim ban, but at least we're getting close in terms of absolute reduction in risk. But unfortunately these all fail the key test that Republicans want, which is to demonize and punish The Other.