"I'm Doing God's Work"

"I'm doing God's work." 

Those are the words of Mr. Lloyd Blankfein, captain of the ship at America's (and possibly the World's) most powerful financial institution, Goldman Sachs, as recorded by John Arlidge of The Sunday Times, a British publication.  I know I don't usually talk finance here, but this is fascinating stuff, all about over the top financial and political power.  Arlidge takes us deep into the throat of the firm, speaking with its highest level executives, laying down an excellent (and witty!) expose of its culture and influence.  If you caught Michael Moore's latest documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story," you may or may not have realized that Goldman Sachs was the building Moore approached in an armored car, complete with empty money bags, demanding America's money back! 

Do make the time.  You'll be fascinated and appalled at once by the influence and implications of Goldman Sachs' participation in the financial and political worlds.  Here is possibly the most boring paragraph from the paper, but it lays out the Goldman Sachs political reach so explicitely:

"Taking type-A people, making them feel like type-B people and moulding them into kick-ass teams that work every hour God — sorry, Goldman — sends, is important, no doubt. But it’s not Goldman’s killer app. That is its extraordinary networking ability. The firm is the greatest talent network in the world. Unlike at other banks, top performers are encouraged to get on, make all the money they will ever need in their thirties, then get out to "do good". The average tenure of a partner is eight years. "You don’t join for the retirement programme," says one staffer. "You have your phase of the moon to make money and then f*** off." But doing good does not mean running an HIV clinic in Kinshasa, it means getting top jobs in treasuries, central banks and stock exchanges around the world. The list of former Goldman executives who have held key posts in the US administration and vital global institutions in New York and Washington alone is mind-boggling. It includes: the treasury secretary under Bill Clinton (Robert Rubin); the treasury secretary under George Bush (Hank Paulson); the current president and former chairman of the New York Federal Reserve (William Dudley and Stephen Friedman); the chief of staff to the treasury secretary Timothy Geithner (Mark Patterson); the chief of staff under President Bush (Joshua Bolten); the economic adviser to the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton (Robert Hormats); the chairman of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Gary Gensler); the under-secretary of state for economic, business, and agricultural affairs under President Bush (Reuben Jeffery); the past and current heads of the New York Stock Exchange (John Thain and Duncan Niederauer); the chief operating officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division (Adam Storch). Moreover, Goldman’s new top lobbyist in Washington, Michael Paese, used to work for Barney Frank, the congressman who chairs the House Financial Services Committee. To put this in perspective, imagine that Alistair Darling, the chancellor, and his key advisers, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, Xavier Rolet, the boss of the London Stock Exchange, and Hector Sants, head of the Financial Services Authority, all used to work at the same City firm before moving into government. Small wonder that another of Goldman’s nicknames is 'Government Sachs'."  

Hold onto your hats, all.  This is, figuratively speaking, a frightening ride!  Here's the link to the entire article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Less is More in Gifting

The following story, on environmentally thoughtful gifting, is lifted in its entirety from the Environmental Defense Fund site without their permission.  I hope they don't mind.  I believe copywrite law requires me either to get their permission, or use only a portion of their article, in context of a larger article I wrote.  But I am laying here sick in bed, feeling lazy, and hoping that EDF will be happy for the exposure.  I am in a hurry to nap.  EDF, if you have a service that scouts the web for mentions, do me a favor and leave a comment letting me know you're ok with my little transgression.  I'll rest easier.

By the way, please don't forget to think about the environment while you're wrapping too.  Less can be more. 

Precycling: Shopping for Future Generations 

Posted: 01-Jan-1994; Updated: 07-Mar-2007; http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=2194

Everybody shops. But not everybody realizes how environmentally important it is to shop consciously. To precycle is to make buying choices that support responsible products and packaging, make recycling easier and reduce the amount of garbage you throw away.

Precycling is a good way to start squaring your personal behavior with your principles. But don't forget it also sends a signal to manufacturers that responsible products and packaging are good business. The idea is that our behavior can change their behavior.

The following recycling tips focus on supermarket shopping because that's the kind we do most frequently. But the ideas apply to other forms of shopping, too:

•Avoid the paper vs. plastic dilemma. Durable canvas or string bags are light and convenient to carry and can be used thousands of times. Reusable bags can easily become a habit and save an astonishing amount of paper and plastic over time. This not only uses less total packaging, it also saves you money.

•Buy large single containers. For any item with a long or unlimited shelf life (e.g., laundry detergent) or non- perishable foods you use regularly (such as cereals and grains) buy the biggest container you can. Put manageable amounts in reusable, smaller containers for everyday use. For somewhat perishable foods (e.g. peanut butter) buy the biggest container feasible for your rate of use.

•Pass on styrofoam. Choose cardboard egg cartons, which are made from recycled newsprint. For paper boxes (such as cereal boxes) the rule of thumb is: If the unprinted side is gray and not white, it's made from recycled.

•Avoid single- or limited-use items. Don't buy plastic razors, throwaway cleansing pads and cigarette lighters, non-refillable pens and foil baking pans. Reduce or eliminate your use of disposable plastic diapers, which account for a startling two percent of total U.S. landfill volume.

•Compare the size of the package to the size of the product. If the package is designed to take up as much shelf space as possible, choose a competing product. Do without products that are sold inside more than one layer ("bric pac" juice boxes for children - with layers of cardboard, plastic and aluminum and a plastic straw attached - are a particularly wasteful example). Avoid miniaturized "single-helping" packages. Buy fruit and vegetables loose. Be wary of convenience gimmickry (e.g., pre-measured ground coffee in individually sealed filter packs, "soup starter" kits, melons and grapefruits pre-halved and vacuum- packed). Choose products that are not in plastic trays and do not have attached "promotional" materials.

•Choose the container that can be easily recycled. In states that have bottle bills, choosing among aluminum, plastic and glass may be a secondary issue, as long as you return the container. In states without a law, aluminum and glass are generally more recyclable. Avoid products that are difficult to recycle (e.g., many "squeezable" plastics, made of numerous layers of different plastics).

•Beware "recyclable". Advertisers have worked overtime to translate consumers' environmental sympathies into increased sales for their product - even if their product is not particularly good for the environment. Beware of the word "recyclable," which is not the same as "recycled," the word it so closely resembles. Many materials are technically recyclable, but what matters is what you can recycle in existing local programs. A "recycled" product or container is actually made from materials that have been used before.

•Beware "biodegradable". Particularly misleading are claims that certain plastic products are "biodegradable". The truth is that "degradable" plastics don't degrade in modern landfills and, at best, merely break up into smaller pieces that can release toxic substances. They interfere with plastics recycling and end up creating more problems than they solve. (Environmental Defense and other environmental groups have called for a boycott of all so-called "degradable" plastics. Don't buy them!)

•Spread the word. Tell grocers, store owners, restaurant managers and others that you are making your buying decisions based on the environmental impact of products. Let the manufacturers know, too (many companies carry addresses or phone numbers on their packaging).

By careful precycling each of us makes the vital connection between today's consumerism and tomorrow's environment. Small changes in everyday behavior can have positive consequences for generations to come.

Happy Hanukkah!

Season of miracles. Our planet could use a few.

ClimateGate - Accused Scientists Take Questions from the Press

If you've been listening to the news lately, you've heard that a group of scientists' email archives were exposed for alleged attempts to suppress articles the group believed were unsound science that tended to disprove or counteract the notion of global warming as a trend.  In a more limited way, the emails suggest that some of the group may have manipulated data themselves.

While I don't think "ClimateGate," as it's been dubbed, in any way undermines the real science out there on global warming, it does bring into question the ethics of the scientific community (along with the ethics of those who hacked into the University of Anglia's historical email files).  The implicated scientists are claiming that verbiage from the emails has been taken out of context, but as you can see from the photo above, it is not difficult to imagine that one might infer unscrupulous behavior.  On the other hand, hacking into University archives is, in itself, unscrupulous behavior, and also leads one to doubt the accuracy and fairness of the hackers' excerpting and interpretation.  One of the scientists at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones, director of the University of Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, has actually stepped down from his position for the duration of the investigation, and the heat is up on the others.

Because of that, Center for American Progress hosted an open press conference with Michael Mann (photo at left), another of the implicated scientists and Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center and author of over 100 peer reviewed studies, and two other climate scientists, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a Climate Modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Professor Michael Oppenheimer, Director of the Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy of Princeton. I am lucky enough to belong to an environmental ethics list-serve, to which a transcript and the audio recording of the press conference was forwarded by Andrew Light, Director, Center for Global Ethics, Department of Philosophy, George Mason University.

The press asked some tough questions - as they should have.  Drs. Mann, Schmidt and Oppenheimer field the questions openly and honestly, and do not try to white wash the obvious "bads."  Overall, I felt they mostly acquitted themselves and their community.  Below are the opening quote from an audio discussion, links to the audio discussion and its transcript, and a video clip of John Stewart on ClimateGate.  The question of honest science is an important question. I strongly recommend you listen.

From Michael Mann, Director of Penn State Earth System Science Center and author of over 100 peer reviewed studies:

 "Unfortunately, despite this very strong consensus that exists, there are a handful of people and organizations that have tried to clout the debate, and they've frankly - they've not contributed to an honest scientific discourse but have engaged in this 11th hour smear campaign where they've stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context and misrepresent what scientists are actually saying. And I think this is rather telling, the scientific evidence for the reality of the problem and the need to do something about it is overwhelming. Those advocating inaction don't have the science on their side, so they've turned to this last minute to smear campaign."

Listen here, http://images2.americanprogress.org/Press/12-4-09_press_call_scientists.mp3

Or read here: http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2009/12/av/scientistscalltranscript.pdf

Link to the Phil Jones email and a story on how the hacking happened, http://tinyurl.com/yel7b48.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data>
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Op-Ed - Cancer From the Kitchen? - NYTimes.com

I've been traveling since my daughter's car accident, and haven't been as diligent here as I'd like.  But today I ran across this Op-Ed piece by Nicholas Kristof, in the New York Times.  He asks,

"What if breast cancer in the United States has less to do with insurance or mammograms and more to do with contaminants in our water or air -- or in certain plastic containers in our kitchens? What if the surge in asthma and childhood leukemia reflect, in part, the poisons we impose upon ourselves?"

Link: Op-Ed Columnist - Cancer From the Kitchen? - NYTimes.com

I know I'm pretty much preaching to the choir on this blog.  But it's so difficult to make the hard choices - avoidance, behavior change - in the face of the instant gratification offered by convenience and the pleasures associated with eating certain foods - two I find nearly impossible to turn down are french fries and onion rings.  This article reminds us just how much lifestyle impacts our health and quality of life. Please, please take a few moments to read it.  And in the spirit of holiday giving, pass it on...

Implement, Evaluate, Adapt!

Today's email brought an article by Star Parker, entitled "Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation."   Although I don't personally know anything about Parker, she writes that she is a Horatio Alger type success story who lifted herself from poverty through personal perserverence.  From this perspective, she addresses the context of social entitlement programs and the way they tend to induce people to stay on the dole instead of working their way out of poverty.  Although the article was originally written early in 2009 and directed at Obama's stimulus package, the person who sent me the article was asking that I think about it in light of health care reform package.  As I have to get on the road today, I don't have time to summarize Parker's article, so I've provided a link to the whole thing, here: http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation.

I want to make a few comments on the political realities of implementing social programs to fix social ills.  I would ask that you consider this:  despite Parker's take, the social programs of the late 60s, early 70s did not cause African American poverty.   The problems of poverty - blight, unemployment, poor education, hunger, etc. in (primarily) the minority communities of America - obviously pre-existed the implementation of welfare programs.  And, even though we radically reconstructed the welfare system under President Clinton to reduce benefits and the dependence that such programs were thought to foster, poverty hasn't disappeared. 

Please note:  the 60s/70s welfare programs were not fully a success, but neither were they fully a failure. They solved some problems (e.g. more children had more meals) and complicated others ("should i take this job and become ineligible for AFDC?").

And though scholars suggest the programs did to some extent induce dependency, this does not prove that they caused or even purpetuated the welfare state. A study (here: http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/ps/pdf/s01/PS234/moffitt(1992).pdf) demonstrates that  employment rates were undifferentiated across beneficiaries (recipients) and non-beneficiaries of both foodstamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. In both types of households,eligible heads of household were working about 17 to 21 hours a week, regardless of whether they received benefits. Those who received benefits did not stop working. So the benefits weren't directly responsible for the part-time work situation. More likely, it is the fact that recipients families were most frequently one-parent female heads of household who split their time between work and family care. Since the labor statistics don't vary, but the enrollment does suddenly blossom, we have to ask why the welfare rolls saw such an enormous increase. It turns out that enrollment shot up not because people were suddenly working less, but based on shifting eligibility requirements. When congress loosened the requirements, more people signed up. Period.

chart:  http://pragmatos.net/2008/12/19/child-poverty-in-america/

Unfortunately, every social program gets its start as an expensive social experiment.  Each social program begins as an idea or collection of ideas about how to fix something that's broken enough to attract the attention of our legislative bodies - untested ideas that have been shaped by committee - politically negotiated.  They've been pushed and shoved through the political system, where often they are reshaped to conform to the wishes and whims of the voting members of the legislating body. There is an Aesop-type fable elsewhere in this blog explaining this phenomenon.  http://ecocuriosity.blogspot.com/2009/07/off-topic-how-legislators-do-it.html. 

There are also plenty of examples of the way ideology and politics impact the creation of social programs in today's Health Care bill.  Here are two:

The current bill negotiated by Congress makes illegals ineligible for federally funded insurance. Why? Because it is politically and ideologically unpopular among some voters to use taxpayer dollars to support the existence of illegals in our country. By insisting that the insurance reform eligibility rolls do not include illegals, a Congressperson can tell his or her constituency that s/he did not support the use of taxpayer dollars to help illegals. HOWEVER, those Congresspersons are being disingenuous at best.  They are neglecting to tell their constituents that health care for illegals is already taxpayer supported, and will continue to be - because emergency room services for the indigent is mandated and subsidized by the government, aka the taxpayers.  Uninsured illegals will continue to use hospital emergency health care services, which costs many times more than health care would cost if uninsureds had insurance, guaranteeing that taxpayers will actually pay far more to support illegals' health care than if they were simply made eligible for the new health insurance plan.  Refusing to allow coverage for illegals in the current health care bills not only ensures that taxpayers will continue to pay for illegals' health care, but it insures we will pay MORE for illegals' health care.

A second example: The first concession made by Obama's negotiating crew was made to shut up a formidable opponent of the health care bill - the pharmaceutical industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1 The agreement ensures that any government health insurance program will not use its negotiating power to negotiate pharmaceutical prices. This is a great deal for pharma and a lousy deal for the American people, who often pay more for drugs than citizens of other countries. (See this study, showing that only the Japanese pay more for prescriptions, while other countries pay between 6 and 33 percent less http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1210.pdf).

In sum, social welfare programs are not the cause of poverty, single-family African American households, hunger and blight - even if the way these problems are handled is not always the whole solution.  A health care reform program won't be the cause of the current problems with our health care system.  And it won't be the whole solution either.   Whatever health care reform passes will undoubtedly have parts that work, and parts that don't.

My point is this - you cannot blame the original problem on the proposed solution. You can, however, have some programmatic goals and stop every so often and say, "is this program working well?" Is this program getting us to our intended goals? If not, let's re-evaluate and monkey with it some more. This is called Adaptive Management.

What we cannot do is to say, simply, "social programs are bad and we will avoid them." We have a huge problem both with the number of Americans receiving inadequate health care, and with the skyrocketed costs of health care service provision. Something must be done. By saying, "social programs cause problems," we are avoiding the reality - the problems are already here and with us, and we cannot stick our heads in the sand. Experiments though they be, we have to try SOMETHING.
 
Try, evaluate, adapt.  Adaptive Management.

By the way, here is an interesting chapter exploring some of the complex reasons for poverty in the United States:  http://www.havenscenter.org/files/2006_PTraps_Morenoff_0.pdf

Back to the Land - And the Pursuit of Happiness Blog - NYTimes.com

Happy Day-After-Thanksgiving.  You'll be pleased to know I am not going to engage in one of those, "what I have to be thankful for" monologues.  Instead, I want to redirect your attention to an article I ran across in the New York Times, by author Maira Kalman.  The visual is the opening from the article.  It's evocative, and there's nothing I can or want to say about it other than you won't regret reading it!   Back to the Land - And the Pursuit of Happiness Blog - NYTimes.com