Excerpt from Thomas Geohegan's article in this month's Harpers: Come on: Is the West really in such decline? Yes, we can sit here on our island continent and gloom about the rise of China, as our elite now like to do. Or we can go out into the world and start competing like the Europeans. For here’s a strange fact: since 2003, it’s not China but Germany, that colossus of European socialism, that has either led the world in export sales or at least been tied for first. Even as we in the United States fall more deeply into the clutches of our foreign creditors—China foremost among them—Germany has somehow managed to create a high-wage, unionized economy without shipping all its jobs abroad or creating a massive trade deficit, or any trade deficit at all. Sure, China just pulled slightly ahead of Germany, but that’s mostly because the euro has soared, making German goods even more expensive, and world trade has slumped. Meanwhile, the dollar is dropping, and we still can’t compete with either nation. And even as the Germans outsell the United States, they manage to take six weeks of vacation every year. They’re beating us with one hand tied behind their back.

Interesting article. Wish it was ethical to post the whole thing. Maybe I'll post some of the more substantive excerpts soon.

Where's Philadelphia?

Philadelphia is virtually nowhere in sight on the Natural Resource Defense Council's Smarter Cities project that ranks American cities based on a number of criteria relating to sustainability; not even the tallest "green" building in the world, the Comcast Center, could save it. Well, actually, it is number eight in the transportation criterea thanks to the Philly Car Share program that removed 330 municipal vehicles and approximately 1300 private vehicles from the city's roads, resulting in a supposed 40% reduction in vehicle use. While it does save the city money, does it really drastically reduce the environmental impact of automobiles? I'm not sure about the numbers, but from what I've seen, not every Philly Car share vehicle is a hybrid.

Anyway, take a look at the cities far smarter than Philadelphia and ponder what can be done to improve its record.
The Comcast Center - A bright star in a sea of filth

Two Poems

What my relatives believe

All they do is hate and destroy.
They invest in
guns and bombs
and discipline
focused on all that,
thinking it will
bring you salvation.
But they fail to
recognize the
power of our cooperative
peaceful efforts.
How you can convince
with a smile
and friendly technologies
and ideas
rather than
sheer brutality.


Abandon the City

I want to
abandon the city
now.
Ditch it and split.
Leave the murderers,
the violence,
and crime
behind.
Disappear, maybe,
into the woods or the mountains
or cross the river to New Jersey
where I was born,
where I should've remained.
There, the grass is still greener.
Here, there's no hope
among the blocks and blocks of shuttered warehouses and empty factories.
What did we do when we sent our manufacturing to China?
What can we do
to give these people hope
and something real to feed on?
Credit is only that,
credit,
and now the chickens have come home to roost.

It's been a while: New life, bottled-up thoughts

They want us, me, to look better, to look more "put together" because "put together" makes one appear successful, trustworthy, caring, serious, an individual with promise, dreams, and aspirations. These are all social constructs, but social constructs I have to abide by if I wish to lessen the teachers' discomfort and make some progress in this City Year endeavor. Some might call this "growing up". I call it fitting-in and/or stepping-in-line. Or is it simply being polite or, even, socially responsible? It's a challenging debate, especially in the field of education. Are we "educating" these children, meaning, are we improving them, leading them towards a higher state of earthly existence, or, when we "educate" do we encourage them to mold into an image according to a cultural preference unaccustomed to them, which, theoretically, will lead them towards future success, peace, harmony, potential wealth? What do they lose and what do they gain? In doing this, do we condemn habits and practices that are not blatantly negative, but practices which we do not prefer, practices that they will not prefer (they being the organizations of power, the agents with money, people who can push and pull bodies of energy with relative ease)? Where is the line between social responsibility and oppression?

I've struggled with this question the past few weeks. This is the conflict many African-Americans and Latinos face; how can we reject what is ours and accept what is theirs without destroying our selves? Jesus Christ, white people face it too of course, i.e. myself as I noted above. But I do believe "molding" these children into amalgamations of ourselves and themselves does have its benefits and is good work. There is no changing our culture immediately. We are (or have the potential to) providing them with the tools to live comfortably, to increase their power. Education, in some ways I suppose, is a cooperative process, it is not necessarily dictation or slavery. Individuals accept some ideas, some practices, but reject others (or they just never understand them at all). There are some strictly defined negatives and positives, but how does the "educator" balance them when what is not physically or grossly negative can be detrimental in the "market"? If you can't beat them, join them, right?

Fit in and oppress
join the ranks;
stop no tanks
when they come to crush the revolution.

A return to the Issue of Resources

This has been long overdue. So I'm finally going to follow-up a short post I made about a month ago concerning off shore drilling and the ineptitude of the Democratic defense (which, as I watched the coverage of Obama's acceptance speech last night seemed to be the case across most issues except from Obama himself. Many of the democratic politicians used as cannon fodder for Shaun Hannity came across as horribly inarticulate. Perhaps it's the nature of the "liberal" message.)
About a week following my post Obama folded to the political pressure and decided, since a large majority of Americans apparently believe off shore drilling will immediately cheapen gas and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, to side with many congressional republicans and support the elimination of the national off shore drilling moratorium. In his speech at the time, Obama made a number of excellent points, which he reiterated last night. Here is one I pulled from the following article.

- "We can't drill our way out of the problem," he said. But, he continued, "I also recognize that in the House and the Senate, there are Republicans who have very clear ideas about what they want, and at some point people are going to have to make some decisions. Do we want to keep on arguing, or are we going to get some things done?"

It is this sort of tactfulness that we should ask for in a president. A tactfulness that will very likely go beyond energy policy and cross over to foreign policy. In the comments to this article, a respondent wrote the following:

To put it simply
The Renewable Energy Tax Credit (RETC) runs out in January.
Thats over 60,000 jobs, and over 6,000MW of renewable energy development down the tubes if that happens. (Not to mention a brain-drain of the key professionals in this area overseas)
Republicans have blocked the 2009 renewal of the RETC 8 times so far this year.
Republicans have previously blocked it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. (It also lapsed 3 months into 2008) During those years, the market completely crashed.
There are ONLY 3 weeks left in September of this congress session before they close for the rest of the year.
Democrats got 51 votes in the Senate.
Democrats NEED 67+ votes to pass the renewal of the RETC.
So the only way that Democrats are going to get the RETC passed is if they give Republicans something they want.
And while that may not be "ideal", thats what we have to deal with.
-David Ahlport

But even if congress lifts the moratorium, the majortiy of governors in coastal states oppose lifting their own state bans.

I meet your straight with my flush

Obama's choice of Joe Biden is a blatant attempt to level the playing field on foreign policy, particularly since Joe Biden seems to be as equally enthusiastic about Georgia's "territorial integrity" as John Mccain. As much as the United States and other NATO member-states wish to uphold the ideal of territorial integrity, we seem to have contradicted ourselves by supporting Kosovo, a region with another oppressed minority-ethnic group. Russia is guilty of these same contradictions, by siding with Serbia in that matter and by ruthlessly crushing the Chechen rebellion. So why respond the same way our competitors respond? Georgia's territory should only reach as far as those who live there wish to remain a part of it.

McCain't

Besides his senility, John MCcain's ardent, religious support for the Republic of Georgia further proves to me that he is not fit to be president. Although he claims to be an expert on the country, having visited it multiple times over the past few years and buddying-up with president Saakashvili, he seems to barely understand, or he purposely ignores, the whole situation, the potential contradictories that arise from our one-sided support of this tiny, helpless republic and the political ramifications that may arise. Of course, Russia is taking advantage of Saakashvili's error by aggressively displaying their military might as a warning to Georgia and other former Soviet Republics, but the Georgians are not without blame (as I stated, by trying to "recapture" South Ossettia Saakashvili made a critical, tactical error). South Ossettia is to Georgia as Kosovo is to Serbia, a region that is generally ethnically separate and has no desire to remain a part of its more dominant neighbor (although now it's more of a part of its even more dominant neighbor). The Georgians have been accused of committing various atrocities against Ossettians, and many of these claims may very well be true. McCain has ignored these contradictions (Obama on the otherhand has been relatively quiet about the situation). Supporting Georgia is an effective tool for McCain's campaign; we sympathize with Georgia because they appear to be the underdog, they are being invaded by a paranoid, aggressive Russia that is attempting to regain its power on the international level by bullying its neighbors with its resource wealth and physical force. Georgia is a democracy and Russia, with Medvedev as the puppet President and Putin as the puppeteer, is totalitarian. McCain is strong, he is patriotic, he believes in heaven-ordained ideals of freedom and liberty just like Georgia and Saakashvili. By trying to violently retake a region whose populace wishes to remain autonomous shows us Saakashvili really believes in "freedom". Of course, we can't predict what McCain's true policy will be when he takes office, whether he will continue to support this hardlined, one-sided approach towards Russia, or whether he will attempt something more well-rounded and diplomatic. But this is a warning.