Marcus' World

Bring on $5.00 a Gallon

Today's report that many people are now taking public transportation to work, in response to high gas prices, is very welcome news indeed. There will be fewer pollutants in the air and more opportunity to show that public transit is (or should be) a very viable option for getting around. 

In Tokyo this year--and in Hong Kong, Paris, and London before that--I was once again struck by how far behind US public transit is from much of the rest of the world.  Buenos Aires and Sao Paolo also have decent train systems, and Argentina and Brazil are much poorer than us.

Gas at $3.25/gallon was merely a nuisance, while gas at $3.50-$4.00/gallon seems to be the tipping point in changing behavior.

Come on $5.00! Let's have a revolution.

Clinton Should Keep Running if She Wants To

The last few weeks have shown Hillary Clinton at her worst: peddling sham gas tax relief and beating the drums of war against Iran. A month or so ago I was wondering if perhaps I'd misjudged her.  Today I'm very happy to support Barack Obama.

That said, why should she bow out now?  Although the chattering class has declared her candidacy over, it's not.

Next week she's likely to prevail in West Virginia (a state with similar demographics to Pennsylvania, where she did very well).  Success is also waiting in Kentucky; if she's able to get the votes in Michigan and Florida counted (whatever you might think of that maneuver), Clinton is right back in the race.

This interminable campaign has had many inflection points when either Clinton or Obama were supposedly finished.  But it's not over yet.   

Bloggers vs. Journalists (Sigh)

A few weeks ago the New Yorker published a probing article by Eric Alterman about the fate of American newspapers. These days I can't seem to read three straight paragraphs in the New Yorker, due to juggling multiple books and various other periodicals in my absurdly ambitious collection of reading materials.  So I was rather too proud of myself for reading Alterman's entire piece.

The sentence that sticks with me is: "But Huffington (as in Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post) fails to address the parasitical relationship that virtually all Internet news sites and blog commentators enjoy with newspapers." Alterman argues that--for all the talk of "citizen media" and "grass-roots journalism" at HuffPost and elsewhere--bloggers would be nowhere without easy access to the reports that traditional journalists post online.

Alterman makes a strong point. Score one for the mainstream media.

And so things  stood, to my mind at least, until I read Ezra Klein's blog post today.  Klein points out that being a full-time writer is a privileged position, and that traditional journalists who criticize political bloggers never acknowledge that most bloggers have day jobs (and thus are not able to do original reporting.)

The sentence that strikes me is: "If you've got the gig (as a full time writer), then pat yourself on the back, shut up, outcompete your competition, and be generous to those who steal time out of their workday in order to carve out a small space in the national conversation." (Emphasis mine).

Klein is a bit punchy here, but the point holds: Blogging can never replace full-time journalism (whatever some blog proponents might proclaim), but it does open space for more voices to be heard. Sure--many blogs are uninteresting or absurd; and many good blogs aren't updated often enough to be worthwhile.  But there is cream in this crop, just like in anything else.

So score one for the bloggers.  Fortunately this isn't a zero sum game.

Good Causes, Quick Rewards, Partial Solutions

Yesterday was World Malaria Day, and sadly I didn't realize this until today. So now it appears too late to play the "Deliver the Net" game, an interactive online game in which your success results in the delivery of free bednets to fight malaria in places where it is endemic.

One game that's always available is Free Rice, a vocabulary quiz in which each successful result yields 20 grains of rice for the UN World Food Program.  That's especially important right now, when the prices of many staples like rice are shooting up.

Let's not forget the Hunger Site, where one simple click yields 1.1 cups of food a day.

These are all quick and easy ways to make a difference. It's easy to forget that this is only part of the solution, though; tackling the systemic reasons for world hunger is  much harder and can quickly seem daunting.  But as we all play Free Rice, let's keep in mind the larger issues at stake.

The Campaign Rolls On

Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in Pennsylvania today. She won by 10 percentage points, and raised $1 million online in the two hours immediately after declaring victory.  My inaccurate guess beforehand was that Clinton would win by 5 points--enough to keep going for a while, but not enough to stop the Obama juggernaut. 

It's anyone's ballgame, once again. Obama's bid to shift the focus to John McCain tonight will fail, because the Democratic campaign is far from over.

As the campaign rolls on, McCain will be the prime beneficiary of the foul mood. The 6 week  long Pennsylvania slog brought out the nastiness in both Clinton and Obama--especially Clinton, who peddled images of Osama bin Laden right before the Pennsylvania primary to show that she would be tougher on national security than Obama. 

In tonight's concession speech, Obama hopefully spoke about moving beyond the "silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics."  But he never should have gone to this level in the first place, and I don't see a way out of the muck now. I don't mean to be harsh; the turn of events only goes to show that interminable campaigns wear away at anyone's sense of civility.

On a practical level, therefore, Democrats have every reason to be concerned about how things are shaping up in what should be a landslide Democratic year. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with an epic campaign like this one.  Both Clinton and Obama are brilliant; both care about everyday Americans; and both would be good Presidents.  If our politics were less shallow, their jousting would be invigorating and informative. As it is, though, their skirmishes are only helping to ensure four more years of a Republican White House.

Of Stale Debates and Strange Memories

I'll fall in line with the complaints of Obama supporters that last night's ABC debate focused on shallow issues and was much tougher on Obama than Clinton.  But Clinton also had a point in her criticism that earlier NBC debates were biased against her.

Perhaps we are witnessing a titanic TV network split in preference between the two Democrats.  We all know that Fox supports McCain, and CBS News seems fairly marginal these days.

I don't really care, to be honest. This thing is taking way too long.

My favorite part of the debate was the question from a woman in Latrobe, PA about why Obama doesn't regularly wear a flag pin on his lapel.  Sure, it's a loaded question--but I thought she was sincere.

All Pennsylvania towns that begin with "L" are the same to me, it seems--her Latrobe location reminded me of Ligonier.  Way back in 1995 (deep in the pre-blog era) Bill and I dined in Ligonier one evening, as part of his visit to Carnegie Mellon.  Dinner was served right on the town square, and during the course of the meal we learned that our waitress liked pornography (or, at least, she didn't look away upon discovering certain videos that her son left in the VCR.)

What a thing to reveal to your guests during dinner!

In light of this confession--and from my gilded perch here in the elite Bay Area--I would like to amend Senator Obama's recent remarks on small town America.  Small towners don't  always bitterly cling to guns and religion. Sometimes they cling to skin.

Food and Fuel (or, Everything is Complex)

Over the last few days the question of whether government subsidies for ethanol are raising food prices--thereby causing poor people around the globe to starve--has arisen frequently.  First I heard discussion of this on the radio this weekend. Now the Times has published a good overview of the issues. 

Recently this was much less of a visible issue. Michael Pollan spoke about the ethical conundrums of ethanol when Helen and I heard him speak a few months ago. I had no idea what he was talking about at the time, but his argument that SUV drivers keep food from poor people by using corn-based gasoline stuck with me.  Not because I agreed with Pollan--to the contrary, his formulation struck me as trite and judgmental.

In essence, Pollan proclaimed the liberal orthodoxy on this issue. Allow me to paraphrase and read between the lines: those gas-guzzling SUV owners are so callous that they're willing to kill poor babies to enjoy more off-road thrills. 

As he spoke, I thought of an SUV owner at Helen's business school who is among the most socially conscientious members of the class. Her Facebook profile is ablaze with causes to support, and she participated in a socially conscious case competition earlier this year.  Given this counterexample I concluded that Pollan prefers the shortcuts of political activism: boiling complex interconnections down to ire-producing nuggets devoid of any context or substance. 

The Times story validates my viewpoint, if I do say so myself.  Yes, ethanol subsidies are a partial culprit for rising global food prices (and yes, SUVs are bad for the environment.) But so is a much higher global demand for meat (a sign of rapid incomes gains in some developing countries), as well as various droughts. Furthermore, wheat and rice prices--neither of which can be used as gasoline--have also risen rapidly. 

So it's not just corn snatched from the mouths of babes.

All this said, the rapid rise in food prices around the world is very worrisome. Thankfully the US just authorized $200 million in additional food aid--a pittance compared to the costs of the Iraq war, but $200 million more than used to be available. 

Of course this is a band-aid; more sophisticated adjustments to global food dynamics are necessary. Don't ask me what those adjustments should be.  All I know is that ethanol isn't the only culprit, and that SUV owners are too easy a punching bag.

Darfur and the Olympics

I used to write a lot about Darfur on this blog, before the  stark nature of the genocide taking place there--and the firm knowledge that my words were making absolutely no difference--made me stop.

China is one of the biggest business partners of Sudan, due to the great quantities of oil available there. Sudan's government in Khartoum has supported the janjaweed militias that have sown destruction in Darfur, sometimes actively and sometimes by looking the other way.

Now that China will host the Olympics in a few months, the Darfur issue is on the world's agenda like never before.  (Although, it must be said, there is not as much concern about Darfur as there is about less atrocious activities in Tibet.) Activists think that China should use its leverage over Sudan to push for an end to the Darfur tragedy. I agree, but believe the US would not be above seeking Sudanese oil if we were in a similar economic position as China (i.e., still a developing country, but striving to be a world power.)

The Olympics provides an unrivaled platform for raising consciousness about Darfur.  But how do the athletes fee  about it?  According to the Times, many competitors just want to concentrate on the games and not worry about "politics."  And besides that, it's against Olympic protocol to criticize the host country.

Maybe I'd feel differently if I were an elite athlete, but what's happening in Darfur goes beyond "politics."  And beyond worries about losing endorsement deals--some athletes seem concerned that speaking out will cost them cash.

It's easy to be judgmental about such attitudes. But the reality is more subtle: athletes have their blinders on about Darfur, just as most people do about most injustices. It's easier to get through the day that way. 

Hopefully some US athletes will remove those blinders and take a stand on Darfur this year, even if it embarrasses their hosts and causes chagrin among officials of the US Olympic Committee.  And hopefully more athletes from other countries will do the same thing despite the same risks. Time will tell, but I am optimistic.

The Wright Stuff

I lost some respect for Barack Obama this week.  It's not because his preacher is a firebrand, but because Obama wants us to believe that he hasn't known this for years.

Some incendiary clips of Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, burst on the scene a few days ago.  Among other things, the Reverend Wright has called America the "US-KKK-A" and claimed "God Damn" America (revising the Good Lord's blessings, which are more customary.)  According to Wright, we still live in a downtrodden country ruled by rich white people.

If you watch extended clips of Wright's sermons, these sound bites come into focus.  The sermons are a little bit theater; a little bit Bible; and a little bit sociology.  All in all, they are compelling speeches meant to anger or soothe (depending on who is listening) and to provoke.  It's a free country, so let the Reverend speak.

Two days ago, on the Huffington Post, Senator Obama sought to distance himself from some of  Wright's comments. He "vehemently disagrees"; "strongly condemn[s]"; and "categorically denounces" the good Reverend's words. Yesterday Wright left his post as honorary spiritual adviser to Obama.

OK. Fine. Obama is good at using contrite language and playing damage control.  But his argument that he never knew the Reverend Wright said such things--"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."--is both laughable and insulting.

After a while we all develop reputations.  Some people are shy; others like to launch practical jokes; and so on.  Reverend Wright aims to push the envelope and to cause controversy.  Even if Senator Obama didn't hear the Reverend's exact words "that are the cause of this controversy" (note the parsing in that clause), he surely knew who he was dealing with. There's a reason that Obama rescinded his invitation to Reverend Wright to issue the convocation when he announced his candidacy last year.

Reverend Wright is not interested in the post-racial "politics of hope" that Obama purportedly supports.  He's interested in fighting what he perceives to be continuing systemic injustice against African-Americans.   Whether this is playing the racial card or fighting the good fight, it is where the Reverend stands. 

If Obama stands with him, then that "politics of hope" routine has been a sham.  And if Obama stands against him, then the Reverend should have had no role in his campaign in the first place. 

Let Michigan and Florida Re-Vote

The Democrats of Michigan and Florida have just as much right to have their votes for a Presidential candidate counted as anyone else.  Both state Democratic parties ran their elections earlier than authorized by the Democratic National Committee; Michigan willfully, and Florida because Statehouse Republicans commanded that the vote for both parties be on the same day.

So I suppose more sympathy is due to Florida's Democrats. But it would be a travesty if the will of voters in both states is denied or distorted (one plan floating about is to split the potential delegates evenly between Obama and Clinton, but that seems too pat). 

Both states should re-run their primaries, even if finding the money to do so is a challenge.  I propose April 8 as an appropriate day, because otherwise the entire country will get sick of six straight weeks of reporting from Pennsylvania (which holds its authorized primary on April 22).

Let the re-voting begin!