Thoughts about my career (and how the Sequester may mess it up)

So a lot of my friends and family ask me about my job, more specifically my career path, all the time. I explain it a lot, often to the same people over and over again, not because they don't get it or because they aren't listening, but because its really confusing.

Essentially, there is no steady career path for me. I am a scientist, I study the way that neurotransmitters affect the innate immune system, and focus specifically on how dopamine affects the development of HIV associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND). I hope to have my own lab someday, to mentor students and develop my own research program. I hope I can do it in New York.

I am deeply committed to public sector research. I strongly believe that scientists should work to understand the basics of biology, of health and disease, of the nature of things ... and should do so without chasing an endpoint, a cure, a marketable product. There is nothing wrong with that, but there should be a sector of the research community that looks at everything, otherwise the research is skewed towards some things and away from others by incentives  ... who would study a disease that only 200 people have if the only funding was from those people ... yet that disease might provide important insight into human biology.

Anyway, I am getting sidetracked here.

My career in public research, or more specifically the success of it, will be determined by funding I get, mostly from the NIH but also partially from private foundations. It is hard to get these grants, and it recent years it has gotten much, much harder - the average age for a first grant is now late 30's early 40's, it used to be much younger.

This is what brings me to the sequester ... and I guess the general state of government research funding.

That state is bad. The funding is decreasing, the funding lines (the percentage of people getting grants) are getting lower and it is getting more and more competitive and more and more difficult to carve out a career in science. The amount of money allocated to grants is decreasing, and the amount of publications, data and other demonstrations of scientific merit required to be awarded a grant is getting higher - and with less funding, it is getting harder and harder to get these things.

The sequester, if it actually happens, will make this much worse. It reduce already low funding, and force more young scientists like me to look elsewhere for jobs which have understandable (and achievable) career paths, jobs which allow them to provide for their families before they enter their 40's. We need to fix the state of government research - and the sequester is not helping.

Sorry to be gloomy and doomy (is that even a word) here, but with all the talk about the sequester recently, I thought I would give you a window into my current thoughts (and fears?) about it ....

If you want more facts about this, there are two articles, here and here, which give a lot of the details I am alluding to here.

A story to be read

So this week, Stephen Brill posted a story in Time magazine about the health care system and the costs involved.

It is a super long article, more than 25,000 words ... checking in at over 10 pages. It is apparently the longest story Time has ever published. There are a number of different articles, on Slate, on Wonkblog, etc ... that discuss the story in short form.

But the article is fabulous, and should be required reading for every person in the country not on Medicare ...

Politics sucks right now

There is a lot of chatter on the internet right now about Paul Ryans speech at the convention last night.

I personally did not see it, but I did read the text - I find that when listening to wonderful speakers like Obama, or Ryan, or even Palin, reading the test gives a much better sense of what they are actually saying because they are able to inspire such strong feelings with their oratory - and the text was depressing. Ryan didn't talk about policy, not his health-care policy, his theory about the size of government, his staunchly right wing social positions which are incredibly popular with the Republican base. Instead he told a very good story about his background, and then lied, a lot, about Obama's record. 

It was colossally depressing. 

I am admittedly lefty, and although I have taken reading Red State as much as the Maddow Blog, I still tend lean left in my interpretations of the news. 

- As a side note, about 2/3 of the time when I read Red State I think that the bloggers there are nuts, but about 1/3 of the time I think, is that true? That is a lot more often than I thought it would happen ... I then look up the fact and it is true, and then I get really pissed at the left for obscuring or lying about some fact so often that I believed their spin. Its not that I don't think idealogues lie and spin to support their positions, its just that I don't want "my side" to do something so distasteful. It feels like I have been duped. And I wish there was somewhere to run to so that I could avoid being duped again, but alas, all politics is like this these days, so I end up still leaning left, supporting people who lie in support of more positions I like ... very much a lesser of two evils scenario - 

Anyway, I have seen a lot of  thoughts about the speech last night - most of the media, barring the explicit right blogs like Red State and Drudge think that Ryan spoke well, fired up the base but was full of shit, etc … it is just the extent to which they report on him being full of this that varies. 

Ezra Klein captured my thoughts well here 

"Quite simply, the Romney campaign isn’t adhering to the minimum standards required for a real policy conversation. Even if you bend over backward to be generous to them — as the Tax Policy Center did when they granted the Romney campaign a slew of essentially impossible premises in order to evaluate their tax plan — you often find yourself forced into the same conclusion: This doesn’t add up, this doesn’t have enough details to be evaluated, or this isn’t true."

On the "Redstate, they have whole articles about how the left is going crazy because Ryan is telling the truth :) 

Its like we will in two different countries. 

In talking to a friend of mine, he stated that he now thinks Romney will lose, because his campaign is basically slinging bullshit and not backing it up with anything ... I agree with that but he is currently gaining in a number of polls and I often feel like most of the US does not pay enough attention to realize how inaccurate he is, how little he actually says and how dumb he must think people are to buy all the shit he is pedaling. 

The worst part it, the Obama campaign is also full of shit, although most of their falsehoods are by implication or spin, rather than outright falsehoods like Romneys claims about Obamas welfare policy. The major difference is that Obama has already been president for 4 years, and so you kind of know what you are going to get, while Romney has disavowed and reavowed, papered over and exalted almost every part of his past, making it basically impossible to believe anything he says. 

The state of our politics is super depressing right now, because Obama and his machine are often only half (or less) honest, spiteful and focused on minutia that do not do anything to solve our problems … and Romney is like a twisted, awful caricature of Obama, who is already bad … Ultimately I think that Obama will win, not because he does or does not deserve it (we would have to get into a coversation about the state of government and what politicians truly want for our country), but because I don't think America will support such a dishonest, substanceless campaign as Romneys. But this election cycle, and the type of politics both campaigns think are necessary to win the White House, has really soured me on politics and the state of our country in general, leaving me little hope that it will get fixed anytime soon. 

Why Income Inequality is Bad

TED talks, by the way, are awesome.

This particular talk, by Dr. Richard Wilkinson, is a fairly devastating indictment of the negative impacts of social inequality. One might argue that the presentation is biased, it would depend on the data set you looked at, data can be made to say anything, etc ... but if you watch this talk with an open mind and no predispositions, I struggle to see how anyone could see social inequality as a force for evil in our modern society.

Also, it was weird to watch something where the USA is consistently worse than almost everyone else ... I am used to the US being number one, at least in my own head (although around the world I think we are beginning to realize this is just not the case anymore for so many things). But as a scientist, to see it laid out so plainly and effectively was actually pretty tough.

Anyway, watch the talk, the video is below - it is definitely worth 17 minutes of your lives. In case you cannot see the video, the link is here http://www.hulu.com/watch/292664/tedtalks-richard-wilkinson-how-economic-inequality-harms-societies.

About the economy

So recently, a friend an I got into an email debate about the effect of the stimulus and the efficacy of government in helping the economy recover from the recession. We are very close, have similar upbringings and have very similar views on the world overall, but I think our views on government have been changing over the past few years - in particular because his disappointment with Obama has been more acute than mine. As it turns out, we had our debate over email and looking over it as I was writing my final message I thought that it very interestingly demonstrated two well-reasoned, relatively centrist views about the current situation in this country, so I thought I would share.

I know, not as exciting as mermaids or waterfalls or the blueberry picking we hope to do this weekend, but still, I humor myself in thinking that some of you might be interested.

My friend -

"White house released their stimulus report on Friday. $772 billion 'created or saved' between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs. That's between $210k and $320k per job. I'm actually generally in favor of the stimulus, not because I think the government is effective or more intervention is a good thing, but just because doing nothing seemed like a really bad idea in 2008 and 2009. My guess is that it smoothed the trough of the recession but didn't make it end faster (it's not solving the structural economic problems or healing the economy, it just helped staunch the bleeding at the time) or put the recovery on a better footing. And I think now the debt worries that are partially exacerbated by the spending are creating a hangover that is affecting economic prospects also. But I do think that it's a good example of how bad government is at effectively allocating resources. They literally could have cut a $50k check to each of the 14 million unemployed and would have been better off financially. Plus, kind of disingenuous to release a report on a Friday before a long weekend ...."

Me (I know, I have logorrhoea ... even in email) -

"So I am also in favor of stimulus (I guess that makes me a Keynesian - I just think that the majority of the evidence that I can see suggests that stimulus is the key to ending recessions, and I think the stimulus should have been bigger) but putting that aside, since we are both agreeing on it for now, I think that your overall comment is mostly right, although I think I disagree some of the things you said. Where we agree is that I think that you are right about the inefficient allocation of resources, and I would continue to say that despite why one thinks the resources are allocated inefficiently - I for instance would likely argue that because of Republicans 1/3 of the stimulus devoted to tax cuts was wasted and would have been better off as more aid to states to prevent teacher/fire fighter lay offs, but that is only my perspective and I think a credible argument can be made for many (not all) different ways to allocate resources - anyway, whyever the money was spent badly, I think that our government, run by people who are pandering to special interests and to the mob and massively undereducated about the majority of the things they decide on, is inherently inefficient.

I suspect that the founding fathers had no concept that government would become so large and complicated (this is either an argument for smaller government or an argument for the government to become larger by necessity of a more complicated world) and that the structure they would have set-up today would look vastly different. However, I would ask, given today's government and world, is there a better way that we could have done it.

We disagree is the efficacy of the stimulus (although I think this might actually be a semantic argument) - I think that it worked (in that it not only stopped the bleeding but started healing the economy) and not only smoothed but prevented the trough of the recession from being much deeper, it seems like you think that it was basically a band-aid. If you take the report at face value, then what it suggests is that the stimulus did in fact heal the economy, that economic growth from January to March 2011 was anemic, at 1.9%, but without the stimulus there would not have been growth at all. One could argue that we would have come out of recession eventually and that if the stimulus just hastened that it was only patching something that would otherwise have healed on its own, but that is like saying that using anti-biotics does not cure bacterial infections, it just holds them back and eventually the healing happens on its own. I totally agree with you that the debt worries that are partially exacerbated by the spending are creating a hangover that is affecting the economy.

However, I think that your argument about how the government could have simply cut a check to 14 million people is wrong (it is also straight out of the Weekly Standard and is the popular right-wing talking point of the week p://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html). I think it is wrong because the stimulus did a lot more than just create jobs, it funded infrastructure projects, gave a lot of aid to states, went to education investments, and a lot went to tax cuts. I could go on here, but I sound like a left-wing talking point - in fact I sound like the White House (here is a quote from them).

"The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families. Thanks to the Recovery Act, 110 million working families received a tax cut through the Making Work Pay tax credit, over 110,000 small businesses received critical access to capital through $27 billion in small business loans and more than 75,000 projects were started nationwide to improve our infrastructure, jump-start emerging industries and spur local economic development."

While this quote is quite a bit of propaganda, it also makes the point that the stimulus did a lot more than just create jobs. So overall I absolutely agree that we could have spent the money a lot more efficiently, although I am not sure if it would be possible in the reality of the US today. But the idea that it was just 250K per job is not really accurate.

And in regards to releasing the report just before the long weekend - I think that the report shows that the stimulus worked, that it actually produced jobs (something that Republicans have been denying for years now), so you would kind of think that the administration would trumpet this news, rather than to hide it on Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend ... it makes it seem not disengenuous but rather truthful, as if they published the report when it came out. However, if one is inclined to see the administration in a negative light, I can understand how it would be seen as hiding something ... similarly, if one is inclined toward the administration in a positive way, one could look at things the way I do. "

My friend -

"Wow - long reply. A couple of questions / observations:

1. Do you think the stimulus accelerated the recovery or just prevented a lower nadir? I.e. do you think the economy is better off today because of the stimulus or that it was just less painful than it could have been Mar 08 - present? I'm not sure if we're where we would be anyway, if we're actually very slightly worse off now, or if we're a little better. I do agree that either way a $770b intervention in a $14t economy over a couple years (so, what, 2.5% intervention per year?) is pretty minor.

2. Totally agree that sending a check to participants doesn't have the same indirect impacts as hiring construction workers to repave roads which then helps smooth transportation of goods and services and cuts down wear and tear on personal automobiles. But they would spend some of the money also. At the end of the day, government waste is economic stimulus also - money is neither created or destroyed, it's just spread differently through a relatively closed system. Mostly where my problem is is when the government puts up silly roadblocks to business that restricts economic activity. Please note that I do think some regulation (level playing fields, antitrust, stringent environmental protections, etc...) are totally reasonable and long term supportive. So the difference between me and Rush Limbaugh is our relative, totally subjective definitions of "silly" here.

I'm totally prejudiced against this administration and I fully acknowledge it. I was an ardent supporter of the president from early in the primaries (and had been listening to his weekly podcasts and other media stuff since shortly after his breakout for the democratic convention in 06 or whatever). He has more than not lived up to my expectations - the reasons I supported him seem to have been largely thrown by the wayside either because of base politics, ineptitude, or lack of leadership. I'm just really disappointed that we don't have Kennedy 2 in office right now, and actually it seems to me to be more Carter 2 than even a George Bush Sr. or some middling version. I'm voting for Jon Huntsman (who has no shot in hell at making it through the religious base-pandering comically terrible republican primaries).

4. I still think the reason they quietly released the report on Friday and they haven't been trumpeting it so far this week (unless I've just missed it) is that they see it as either being unfavorable/below expectations, or politically risky in some other way."

Me -

"I do think the stimulus accelerated the recovery, but the difference between a lower nadir and an accelerated recovery is tough to quantify. Also, all of this is tough because its not like we have actually evidence of 'what would have happened'. But I look at things like Japans lost decade and I think without the stimulus we would have kept losing jobs and had much longer negative growth - I mean we started losing less jobs pretty quickly after the stimulus was passed in Feb/Mar of '09, so that suggests the stimulus accelerated the re-growth of jobs (see chart). Also, if you look at the chart, the recovery from the relatively small recession in 2001 took about 2 years without stimulus, while the recovery from the 2008 recession (in terms of re-starting positive job growth) took about as long despite the much larger recession, also suggesting the stimulus did something. And I think that some good evidence for the stimulus accelerating the recovery is what is happening to the economy right now. It is slowing down and doing worse, just when the last dregs of the stimulus left the economy. However, I do think that it is possible to logically argue the stimulus was just fortuitously timed and that while it maybe arrested downward growth, we were already close to nadir and would have been growing anyway - and I acknowledge that I am totally oversimplifying the picture, because surely many of the things the government did were essentially 'waste'.

You are totally right about money functioning no matter how it is spent, although I would say that 1) if the money is saved and not spent it is very ineffective stimulus (this has been a lot of my problem with the bank bailout, that there was not some requirement for the banks to reinvest the bailout into the economy) and 2) while all money that is spent comes back into the economy, there are studies that show that things like food stamps (provide 1.61 of stimulus per dollar spent) are much more effective means of stimulus than many of the things we spent money, meaning (back to your original point) that government spending is highly inefficient and that the government could have gotten us a lot more bang for our buck, so to speak.

I have to say, not working in the private sector (per se) I am a bit out of my depth with my perspective on regulation (still think Rush is nuts though). I probably think more of regulation than you do, precisely for that reason, but I agree that much of what government does restricts free economic growth. But there are instances where the public good and policies good for economic growth conflict. i.e. regulations for much of the energy sector - oil spills and coal mine collapses are bad for the public, but requiring massive safety regulations, inspections, retrofits not only costs those companies money, it also slows down our energy supplies, messes with the energy futures markets - particularly when the government is dithering about whether or not to have new regulations .... I think you are right when you say that uncertainty is very bad for growth, in fact I think the impact has been marginalized because people like me generally consider it only a republican talking point and not a real thing. So I think the major place that reasonable people (i.e. not Rush, Bachmann, Nader or Kucinich) differ about this is which regulations are important enough to the public good to enact despite their effect on economic growth.

As a side note, I also think the need for regulation is a case where a small number of private corporations who are not good corporate citizens give the corporations which are a bad name. I think a lot of private companies self-police, have good environmental practices, and are adequately controlled by market forces. But when companies get so big they can weather local, or even regional market forces, they necessitate the need for regulations which have a much more negative effect on all companies.

It is sad to me that you feel the way you do about Obama, not because you feel that way but because it is a feeling that is echoed by most people our age that I know. I am incredibly sad to have been mostly lost by Obama, I very much believed in him - and you never know, his resolution to this debt issue or his second term might redeem him and in 6 years we might be looking back on the most transformative president of our lifetimes. But, I don't know if I believe that any more and I have said to a number of people (probably including you), that I hope that the Republicans nominate some crazy person (Bachman) who has no chance of winning so that I can feel safe voting against Obama in an effort to support a 3rd party, because he has been tremendously disappointing to me as well.

I wish he was Jimmy Carter 2.0 (at least that guy had the guts to tell us to wear sweaters), he is more like Reagan 2.0, minus the communication skills - which is shocking, because one of the things I thought would be most amazing about Obama would be his communication skills as a former professor and such a great speaker - its not that he can't communicate, I seem to get him fine. Its just that somehow he does not seem to get his point across and inspire the energy he did during the campaign. If Huntsman was nominated and I truly thought that he is simply lying right now to get through the Republican primary (not sure that I do), I would vote for him in a second - but that to might be false hope, because I think he has was Obama had, the sense of newness, difference and professionalism we originally all wanted in Obama. What we really need right now is Eisenhower 2.0."

What struck me the most about this conversation - other than the fact that a) I ended up wishing for the reincarnation of a dead, republican WWII hero and b) I am really blessed to have such thoughtful friends with whom I can interact on such a high level - was how positive our interaction was in terms of respecting and learning from each points of view. I don't think I won him over, nor he me, but I do think we now have a better understanding of each others opinions, and through that, a (a least slightly) broader perspective on our national situation. I wish our politics was more like this and less like reality ...

For all its dysfunction, the government is getting a lot done

Lately, the meme going around a lot of the political blogosphere, and I imagine a lot of TV as well (although I get all my news from the internet so I am not really sure), is that the government is broken, that the senate is a hopeless mess beyond repair and that drastic changes need to be made before the the calcified remains of Congress become fixed in hopeless gridlock for all time. I have to admit, the government has seemed to operate with a lot of sturm and drang over the last 18 months.

There has been a lot of shouting about health care and finance and the deficit ... and depending on your political views either a lot of stonewalling and needless obstructionism by Republicans or crazy spending and the enactment of all sorts of "liberal", misguided programs by the democrats and Obama.

Having said all of this, the government has been remarkably effective at getting big stuff passed recently. The stimulus. The lily Ledbetter Fair pay act. The Hate Crimes act. Health Care Reform. Financial Reform. Two Supreme Court justices confirmed. And even more stuff was done in the house (climate change, for instance). For all the complaints that the government is broken, it seems to be getting a reasonable amount done.

Now I don't actually think the government is fine. I think that the largest Congressional majorities in a generation should have been able to pass bills that were more in-line with the actual left's desires .. think public option, real Volcker rule, 1 trillion + stimulus, transportation reform ... rather than bills that the right thinks are too liberal but are really recycled, centrist ideas from the 80's. and 90's. But that is because I am fairly left, and I think that if I were fairly right, I would have a different opinion. Perhaps I would think the new laws had gone too far and would be at least a little pleased that the government was passing these bills rather than the aforementioned more-left versions.

And maybe that means the government is working alright after all ... if neither side is satisfied, maybe that means we have found the right medium. Personally I don't think so, because passing centrist bills that do not (in my opinion) really address the problems they are supposed to be addressing does not seem to be a good solution ... but maybe thats just my left ideology getting in the way ...

Obama's the Man

So the State of the Union was great, and it reminded a lot of us why we like Obama, that he is a powerful and persuasive speaker and has a distinctly post-partisan viewpoint ... at least that is what his ideal viewpoint is. And I know a speech is just a speech, and actions really need to be taken to either restore faith in Obama or to show people who don't believe in his vision that he is the real thing. Still, it was an impressive speech and well worth watching ... its below.



However, what is even more impressive is Obama's time at the House GOP meeting this afternoon. It was awesome to watch Obama interact with the house GOP members and to see him articulately and frankly address both the political and policy aspects of Republican questions in a brilliant way. Sometimes we forget that our president is a really smart guy ... If you have the time, the video of this meeting is well worth watching, particularly the Q & A, which starts about halfway in. You can find the video here if you want to watch it ... do take a look, its awesome.

I LOVE Jon Stewart

I love Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. He is relevant, topical, commonsense-ful and hilarious. If you do not regularly watch the Daily Show, or have not begun to watch the clips which are now more and more often appearing on political commentaries all over the web, you should.

Stewart also depresses me because I am not sure how it is that the Daily show, half-hour program on comedy central, it the best critical news on television. I know the Daily show has a liberal slant, and that they play to a specific demographic which allows them to do what they do without worrying about losing audience. But, at the same time, they are entertainment. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and the networks, these are actual news programs, but their fact-checkers and reporters and talking heads do basically no confrontation or follow, they just allow their guests to talk and just agree. It is depressing ... we really need a stronger, independent and principled 4th estate to protect democracy, and todays news organizations are more concerned with ratings and profits than news.

A great example of this was the controversy over ACORN, in which two 20-something amateur "journalists" exposed that ACORN was giving advice to pimps and prostitutes on how to set up a brothel. How is it that all the professional news organizations with all their resources and reporters missed this story ... I mean, if the news were constantly full of other stories of equal import, and not flooded with information about Jon & Kate plus 8, I might understand. As usual, Stewarts comments on this are better than mine.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Stewart has been particularly good addressing the effects of the declining quality of our news organizations this issue this week, here addressing CNN's lack of fact-checking ...



And here addressing selective news coverage ... as an added bonus, this clip contains my favorite recent Stewart quote

"Gay people aren't vampires, the show up on camera".

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Queer and Loathing in D.C.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

I am sure that you few people who read my blog watch the daily show, but if you don't, check it out.

Partisanship?

Since the 2008 election (which really began in 2007), I have been a rapid consumer of politics, reading many blogs and listening to many podcasts. I will talk your ear off about politics if you let me, even more than I would on many other topics. But lately I have kind of become sick of the whole thing. I am still fairly liberal, still supportive of the president and democrats in general, but just sick of the whole system. It does not seem to work and no matter what I read or which angle it is being reported from, all of it generally smacks of incompetence, will-full ignorance or implicit corruption.

Is our system really the best democracy has to offer? How depressing. I feel like the political process has gotten so out of control that the people running the country are really just kids in a sandbox, calling each other names in regards to whose sand castle plan is worse. We constantly hear about bi-partisanship, as if this is a magic bullet which will solve all our problems. That's bullshit. The positions from both sides of the partisan divide are severely lacking, and neither would really solve our problems. Yes, by counteracting each others desires the parties might balance and get something in the middle, but much of the compromise which is often discussed is simply hollow policy.

How about some non-partisanship? Some doing what needs to be done regardless of the political outcome? I know this is unrealistic, as politicians like their jobs, but I would like to think that the American electorate is mature and intelligent enough to reward people who actually work to do right by them ... I know this is a fever dream, but right now it's one of the only things I can find to hold on to.

The new republicans

This Bill Maher clip, which I actually watched live last Friday night (unusual for me to watch anything on TV but we were in a hotel room in a remote town on the Jersey shore so there was not so much else to be doing) was hilarious, but it would have a lot more funny if it weren't so true.

Why is it that only edgy political comedians can get away with saying the things that need to be said these days?

Skyscraper Farms and Rooftop Hydroponics

Moving from California to the Bronx has really increased my awareness of food, a sense that has been recently been heightened as I just finished Micheal Pollans Ominvores Dilemma. At this point I may think that the industrial food system is the Devil, but I am also not particularly enamored with organic food, because for all its benefits, it still does enough wrong that I wonder at the extra price I am paying. Polyculture, small, integrated farms that use the animals, manure and features of their farms as part of their agriculture, looks pretty good, but this is way too limited to feed big cities like New York. So what should be done?

Well, there is a great article in Mother Jones magazine this month about this very topic,

"Jettisoned, too, will be the postcard image of the small farm with its neat rows of crops, vegetables, and livestock as constraints on space and resources necessitate new and quite unfamiliar designs. Proponents of vertical farms, for example, envision enormous glass-walled skyscrapers filled with vegetables, fruits, poultry, and aquaculture. Towering as high as 30 stories, and based on soilless farming, these space-age facilities would epitomize efficiency and sustainability: Water would be recycled, as would nutrients. The closed environment would eliminate the need for pesticides. Better still, the year-round, 24-hour growing season would boost yields anywhere from 6 to 30 times those of conventional dirt farms. Dickson Despommier, a Columbia University public health and microbiology professor who has championed vertical farming, claims that a single city block could feed 50,000 people."

I am not sure about the politics or practicalities of this idea, but I think it would be awesome if every few blocks of manhattan there was a giant, 30 story agriculture supercenter where you could go and get fresh meat and fruit that was harvested right there. This article provides a great introduction to a lot of the new ideas about the future of food and how we are going to change food production in this century, and is well worth reading.

Our society is almost totally integrated at this point; Obama is working on healthcare and energy during an economic crisis because the three issues are heavily interconnected. Similarly, food production, through by-products, agricultural subsidies, land issues and a host of other factors, is connected to almost every aspect of our lives. We should all be thinking about it.

I love the Jon Stewart

Seriously fantastic takedown of CNBC ...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

As my nephew would say, want more Choo-Choo

The newly passed stimulus plan does an awful lot of things, but most of them are not done particularly well, not through lack of desire but more through lack of funds ... for instance, the package includes 8$ billion for high-speed rail. This is great, except that it is important to keep in mind that it will apparently cost a ton more than that to actually have high-speed rail service that actually works .. I mean last year California passed a high speed rail bond last year appropriating 9$ billion (looking at that now it does not seem like such a smart thing to have done) for high speed rail in just California. So the upshot is, more money for trains!!! We need more choo-choo!!!!

Still, this is a good start and I am thrilled to have something going in terms of high-speed rail. Hopefully we will see political agitating for more money in this direction. Creating a new rail system is a massive and expensive project true, but it would also provide a lot of jobs, do a lot for cleaning up the environment and could massively stimulate interstate commerce. Huh, its funny how all of those things are things we need to do to get out of this economic downturn.

Plus, it is ridiculous and embarrassing that such a technologically advanced country with so many problems stemming from fossil fuel use doesn't have a good rail system. Maybe, with the massive crisis and forced reorienting of priorities we can change that ... And maybe, if Obama continues to get his way, this package will be just the down payment on a new era and within our lives this map may be jsut the beginning of a new way to get around our country.

Wow .. Bush really sucked

So we all know by now that Bush has been horrible for the country and horrible for the world. But its often kind of an abstraction, for must of us Bush is terrible is like saying the ocean is full of water. For a simple reminder and a clear understanding of the ineptitude with which our country has been governed the last eight years, it helps to see some numbers (courtesy of Washington Monthly)

"UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)

DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001) - in 2007 the DOW was above 14,000
Now: 9,015 (close of Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE (1985=100)
Then: 115.7 (Conference Board, January 2001) - in 2000 CCI was above 130
Now: 38.0, which is an all-time low (Conference Board, December 2008)

FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY
Then: 6.4 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 7.6 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent numbers available)

AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
Then: 39.8 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 45.7 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent available)

U.S. BUDGET
Then: +236.2 billion (2000, Congressional Budget Office)
Now: -$1.2 trillion (projected figure for 2009, Congressional Budget Office)"

Bailing out porn

Using their industry to make a sharp, political comment ... or a big joke, Hustlers' Larry Flynt and "Girls Gone Wild" CEO Joe Francis requested a bailout for the porn industry yesterday, saying that they too have been hit by the economic downturn.



Although some people may see this as poking fun at a tragic situation in Detroit, I think it is more about highlighting the absurdity that has been the federal bailout process - how we were happy to give 350$ billion in unregulated money to the financial industry which really triggered the crisis but balked at giving 25$ billion to american car companies. I am not a fan of the car industry, I think it should be made more efficient and refocused onto greener cars and mass transit (like subway cars and buses) before we give them a ton of our money. But I also think there is something sinister about how easy it was for the massive financial houses to get "strings-free" money and while we really put the screws to an industry that peripherally employs millions. I know the arguments and I understand that bailing out wall street was essential to avoid a full economic collapse, but I feel like asking for the same types of changes in the financial sector, like regulation requiring bank loans and cuts in executive compensation and the creation of working oversight boards would not have been too much to ask ... and I would like to think that Larry Flynt and Joe Francis might feel the same way.

Maybe the conservatives want financial armageddon?

The conservatives in Congress, these days exclusively Republicans, are trying to destroy the American economy. I don't know why, and I would love to be wrong, but I think that the dogged opposition to bailing out the auto industry is tantamount to wanting to remove the US from the big recession we are in and drop us into a huge depression. Now it is not enough to prevent Congress from bailing out the carmakers, the conservative republicans have recently sent two letters urging the president (the old one) against using TARP funds for any bailout.

Its not that I want to bail out the auto industry. Its not that I liked the plan proposed in Congress last week, which, in my opinion, did not go far enough to force restructuring that would emphasize greener, more efficient cars and potentially other vehicles, among other things. In fact, I think the House/Senate Dems, particularly the leadership, are doing a remarkably ineffective and weak job pushing the democratic agenda, particularly seeing the giant mandate the country gave them on November 4th. But right now, with the economy the way it is, I don't see how it is a good idea to put 3 million more people out of work. The direct costs to welfare, unemployment and emergency room/other emergency health care measures would be immense, plus it would completely tank a number of related businesses. And that is not even taking into account what would happen to the industries, primarily retail, that depend on those folks to buy things are this time of year.

It is worth noting that other countries all over the world are bailing out their key industries, from the French bailing out their auto industry to the Taiwanese, Germans and South Koreans bailing out their DRAM producers (although apparently this problem is not just because of the financial crisis but also because of the spectacular failure of Windows Vista .. the Mac lover in me is smiling). Its not that we should necessarily follow the world trend, but the path we are on now has not treated us very well and even the white house (that bastion of logical and non-partisan solutions) is saying that we need to bailout Detroit.

Now pundits have proposed lots of reasons why these senators and congressmen and women oppose the bailout, from obeisance to the desires of foreign automakers to union-busting to actual ideological beliefs (although no one really seems to buy that last one). But whatever the reason, it has become clear that the one thing these congresspeople are not doing is actually acting in the best interests of our country. Now maybe its because I am relatively new to the whole paying attention to politics thing, so I am not used to the cynical, ridiculous-ness that goes on in Washington, but from where I sit, this is one of the more heinous displays of self-serving political idiocy that I can remember. And frankly, to think that these are the people that we elected to protect and serve our interests ... it terrifies me.

When these are small crimes, something is very wrong

In case you did not see it, and one would surprised if you did since it was not even front page news, yesterday,

"Bernard L. Madoff, the founder of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, a registered investment adviser, and former Chairman of the NASDAQ Stock Market, was arrested today and charged with one count of securities fraud."

Honestly, this does not seem like a big deal these days. One more corporate Wall Street guy arrested for monkeying with securities in an illegal way. Its almost commonplace and boring ... which in and of itself is not good because we should not be so blaise about this type of crime. But these days it is common and not even that exciting, what with all the Blagojovich talk.

But there is something worth noting about this that is unique, namely that,

"On Dec. 10, 2008, Madoff informed the Senior Employees, in substance, that his investment advisory business was a fraud. Madoff stated that he was "finished," that he had "absolutely nothing," that "it's all just one big lie," and that it was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme. Madoff stated that the business was insolvent, and that it had been for years. Madoff also stated that he estimated the losses from this fraud to be at least approximately $50 billion. Madoff further informed the Senior Employees that, in approximately one week, he planned to surrender to authorities, but before he did that, he had approximately $200-300 million left, and he planned to use that money to make payments to certain selected employees, family and friends. Madoff, 70, currently resides in New York City."

Whoa.

That is an AIG like number. That is like the GDP of Croatia or a quarter of Africa ... not that these places are economic powerhouses, but these are country sized numbers. I know, I know. Over the last few weeks we keep hearing about 700$ billion, 150$ billion, 300$ billion, so a paltry 50$ billion seems like not so much. And the major banks and insurance companies in the country have all lost sums like that recently, so the number is not so unusual.

But you have to remember, these are exceptional times. Not seven years ago WorldCom went bankrupt and caused stockholder losses of .... 11$ billion. And at the time, that was the largest bankruptcy filing in US history. It is one thing for giant companies like AIG or Lehman Brothers to lose 50$ or 100$ billion, these are some of the largest, most widely connected companies in the world. The losses they incurred in the last two years are horrible, and the regulations that allowed it were a terrible mistake, but you would like to think that losses of this magnitude were restricted to the giant companies that deal with these huge sums of money.

So when a private investment firm (a big player, but still not one of the big investment houses) loses such a vast sum of money, in such a ridiculous way, and there is only a minor amount of reporting on the subject you have to wonder a) what the hell is wrong with our countries financial regulations and regulators that this sort of thing could even happen, b) how are we so out of whack that this type of thing does not get way more play in the press and c) how can people still argue that deregulation and removal of financial oversight is a good thing?

Update (Monday Dec 15th) - This story is now gaining a lot of steam and being reported more widely. In particular, an article in Saturday's WSJ noted that there were a number of "red flags" and other signs that the Madoffs' investment firm was delivering false results, yet government regulators, particularly the SEC, chose to do nothing about it. Several other stories are now circulating about the fallout from Madoffs' fraud, how many of Madoffs' wealthy, elderly investors are now in serious financial trouble. On Morning Joe this morning, I saw them describe a report that a pawn shop in Palm Beach was offered a lamboghini, a yacht and a tiffany watch by some of Madoffs' Florida based clientele.

Health Care

How much more do we all need to see before it becomes obvious to everyone that in todays world, with the medicine and technology we have at our disposal, health care should be a basic, human right? As the current economic crisis is revealing, linking health care to employment not only allows businesses a unmoral amount of control over their employees, but also results in actions that should rightly be considered insane.

From today's New York Times,

"The crisis is on display here. Starla D. Darling, 27, was pregnant when she learned that her insurance coverage was about to end. She rushed to the hospital, took a medication to induce labor and then had an emergency Caesarean section, in the hope that her Blue Cross and Blue Shield plan would pay for the delivery.

Wendy R. Carter, 41, who recently lost her job and her health benefits, is struggling to pay $12,942 in bills for a partial hysterectomy at a local hospital. Her daughter, Betsy A. Carter, 19, has pain in her lower right jaw, where a wisdom tooth is growing in. But she has not seen a dentist because she has no health insurance.

Ms. Darling and Wendy Carter are among 275 people who worked at an Archway cookie factory here in north central Ohio. The company provided excellent health benefits. But the plant shut down abruptly this fall, leaving workers without coverage, like millions of people battered by the worst economic crisis since the Depression."

Proposition 8 in song

So, even though I no longer reside in California, I like most people I know, was horrified that Californians decided to codify sexual discrimination by passing prop 8. It is an awful, insensitive law, that forces a particular religious notion based one a pick-and-choose interpretation of the bible on all of us. It is blatant bigotry and intolerance, and goes against many of the principles this country was founded to protect. I could go on, but instead I I will let hollywood hammer the point home better than I ever could

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Filling the void

Its no secret that the US is currently suffering from a leadership vacuum, and no joke to suggest that this particular vacuum has been expanding for years. Bush has never been the dynamic leader we all feel that we needed over the last few years, and now that Obama has been elected, many of us have a strong desire for Bush to simply move on.

I have seen articles suggesting that both Bush and Cheney resign so Pelosi can reject the presidency and Obama can be appointed, as well as other hairbrained schemes to give Obama control early. Wisely, I believe, Obama has been ignoring these sorts of calls and has been stressing the concept that we only have one president at a time. This idea extremely important to holding together the fabric of our democracy, and it is also important so that when Obama takes office he does so with all possible respect ... if he were to act as a president before he official took office, there would be all kinds of snide or negative commentary about him overstepping his authority, and it would cause a lot of partisan bickering.

So instead, Obama is wisely using the only influence he rightly has, media interest in all things 'Obama transition', to gently and carefully work to improve our economy. And over the last few days, with the leaks of the treasury secretary and the economic team, as well as ,a full court press on the Sunday talkshows, Obama seems to be doing just that. As usual, Rachel Maddow describes it better than I can here ...