Monthly Archives: August 2011

Stoves and Service

Two bits of Bucknell News intersect with some of my interests.

First, the “Service” movement for lack of a better term continues with BU showing up at an interfaith call to service the white house.  I like how food is being incorporated thematically.  We live in an agricultural area.  Plus, wasting less is just good old fashioned American thriftiness.

In contrast, students in a spring 2011 waste audit found that about 850 pounds of food per day were being discarded in Bucknell’s main dining venue, Bostwick Marketplace. Bucknell Dining has addressed the waste issue in part through a composting program and the removal of trays, but, Fujita said, there are more opportunities to help students learn about consumption and waste.

I am not sure how no trays cuts down on waste.  People take less?

I wish there were some legal/organizational way to share unused food.  People usually say they can’t give it away due to safety regulations.  Well, then, is it possible to shield more food from being un-givable?  DO we need to shift attitudes about abundant food spreads?  Or, is it possible to have a way for recipients to agree to take on the risk of food problems in exchange for access to mostly fine food?  A way to have a middleman broker of unused food?
Second, in the general theme of experiential education that links service and this story,  we have BU students working with a local manufacturer to see a super-light-weight stove come to market.  What if this was the norm instead of the exception for our students? I don’t mean they all design objects, but that they all do a project with real world potential value before they graduate.  What would that look like?  Would it produce a generation of hackers, entrepreneurs, and “makers.”

4 Comments

Filed under Hacker ethic, higher education

Grab-Bag

Here are a bunch of interesting links I have not had time to fully digest.

“Countdown to a Meltdown” an article from 2005 in which James Fallows of The Atlantic lays out how a third party candidate will win the presidency in 2016 after 8 years of ineffective Democratic presidency.  Interesting use of creativity and focusing on larger political and economic trends.

“Revenge of the Ratings Agencies” a NYT op-ed frames the Stnadard & Por’s downgrade as a political act not in terms of a D-R blame game, but as a threatened industry playing hardball.

The law called for exposing rating agencies to civil liability in securities lawsuits if their ratings were inaccurate. It also challenged the oligopoly’s dominance by calling for the Securities and Exchange Commission to explore the feasibility of having an independent organization select rating agencies for asset-backed securities, instead of having the bond issuers select and pay the agencies, as they now do.

“Serving Shareholders and Democracy” is a NYT editorial about how the SEC should force public firms to disclose to shareholders how and how much money they spend on politics.

Last week, a group of legal scholars sent a petition to the S.E.C. urging it to craft rules requiring companies to disclose to shareholders how they use corporate resources for political activities.

Here, the NYT reports on what seems like a very common-sense idea: have natural gas drillers post funds to a special emergency response fund to cover clean up in case of inevitable accidents.  I man need this for class.

Finally, London and riots.  I saw a link somewhere mentioning this academic paper by Ponticelli and Voth, from a research center (the CEPR) that looks at Europe 1919-2009 and finds that in general, cuts in government expenditures lead to more unrest like riots, strikes, and assassinations.  A free copy can be found here.  While this may seem self-evident, it is useful to have it confirmed empirically.  The results also suggest it is not due to cultural factors, demographics, or lots of “bad people.”  What I also noted is that more media coverage did not seem to matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Political Economy, Politics, Power, Activism, Protest

Political Typology Quizzes Annoy Me

I put this on Facebook.  Then, 40 minutes later, I had this stab at an explanation…

According to this: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz I’m a a “liberal.” And in this one I am “solid liberal” or “post-modern” depending on how I answer. http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/. Why do I find myself arguing with lots of liberals then?

I find myself able to take either side in almost all of these forced choice pars in these things.  They are designed to squeeze people into set categories.  Neither one of them even has “progressive” as a political ideology.  I am not sure it is one, but it is worth thinking about. Off the top of my head, an embrace of pragmatism as an approach to knowledge and action is part of being progressive.  Let’s talk about what can work for this problem and not look to “ideology” to decide how we should approach an issue.

Three examples come to mind.

One, schools and religion.  I don’t think banning any whisper of religion from public schools is the best reading of the establishment clause.  As  I get it, even the supreme court recognizes religious expression as a form of culture.  The bright line is coercion or proselytizing.  However, for many schools or other public entities, it is simpler to ban than to handle the nuance of deciding if a menorah, cross, or whatever is clearly cultural as opposed to endorsement of a religion.  To pull it off, you need to trust officials to use judgement.  So, a pragmatic response is to figure out how to balance trusting judgement with means to redress clear violations of religious freedom and the establishment clause.

Second, educational funding.  I had an interesting discussion the other day with a friend and I mentioned that I would rather have MORE diversity among schools, and if a school choice- voucher system accomplishes that, fine.  Basically, focus public education policy on some broad outcomes and free up schools to differentiate and yes, compete, for families and their students.  Among his concerns was what happens if school officials are given too much autonomy and they enact discrimination or other harms.  He is invoking racial segregation under Jim Crow.  I get it; we don’t want to re-create that, but a system where each family and each school can be distinctive is not the same as forcing some to go to inferior schools.  Smaller schools that can create a sense of difference and cohesion will work better and hence a liberal approach of equalizing inputs through enforced sameness is a mistake.

Third, the tax code.  I believe in progressive taxes.  There are two reasons.  One, the wealthiest should pay more proportionally because their wealth is created and supported by more of government spending- courts, police, military, transportation, disaster relief, education (yes, we pay to educate the workers who create value in firms the wealthiest own).  Two, apart from economic fairness, we believe in social fairness.  Capitalism always exacerbates inequality and therefore it is good to tax progressively to create avenues to reduce inequality.  The periods of the greatest amount of activity to reduce inequality in the US, roughly the 1930s to the 1980s, saw the lowest rates of inequality.  Since the onset of neo-liberal economics in the a980s, roughly, economic growth increased along with gross measures of inequality.   Anyway, this is my case for progressive taxation.

However, that does not mean defending the current status quo tax code (at the federal level).  I’ve not done the math or seen anyone else do it, but I can imagine getting behind a simplified, progressive, LOWER set of tax rates.  The complexity of the tax code sucks up a lot of human capital.  Is it necessary?  Well, yes, for me.  I can’t stand doing income taxes.  What would happen if we had federal marginal rates at 0% (for people at living wage or less), 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25%  No other exemptions or deductions.  This would decouple a dynamic national economy, as well as personal financial decisions like getting a mortgage, from the tax code.

It would also obsolesce a chunk of the accounting profession.  But maybe their human capital could be redirected to tasks that they may like more and may create other economic or social value…

But, as to typology and ideology, I’ve never seen a “liberal” politician discuss anything like this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Political theory, Politics, Power, Activism

Nugget #4 on Clockwork Muse- Finding a Rhythm

Nugget #4

I am still in the chapter on scheduling.  I just read a few pages today.

Point 1.  Eviatar claims a steady schedule is essential.  This includes times of the week you always write, as well as times of the day.  So far so good.  He also writes that you need to honor your own needs.  Writing is not like turning on a switch and some amount of warm up is a good idea.  He suggests looking at email, making coffee, or whatever else “sets the mood.”
Point 2.  You need to find your own best time which will involve some experimenting.  This can take “weeks or months” he says.
Point 3.  TO find your schedule it might also be good to start constraints; this means making a weekly schedule and marking through times you can not write and then starting there.

My thoughts.  Again this seems so obvious, I chafe at the thought of applying it.  I realize this is my own arrogance since even knowing it I don’t do it enough.

Having that set of warm up activities can bleed VERY quickly into full out procrastination.

I like the idea of finding one’s “natural” rhythm.  But I am so used to beating myself up that my first thought was I have had years and years of self-experimentation.  Fat lot of good it has done.  On the other hand, to be positive, I started thinking about what I do know.
A) I can be very flexible.  I have several ways to jot down tasks, for example.  Instead of trying to pick the “one best” I just switch back and forth as mood suits.
B) I think short writing exercises- baby steps- do help me get momentum.  These nuggets are part of that.
C) Early afternoon is the devil’s time.  I never feel energized.  That is the best time to get exercise, check email, clean up office.  From 1-3.
D) I often seem to be productive late afternoon, from 3-5 or 6.  This can produce conflict though with parenting and housework.

I think further experimentation is in order.  And as a good empiricist, I’ll need to record observations to have enough data.

Leave a comment

Filed under writing

“Oportunistic Ethnography”

Fun new Social Science jargon: “opportunistic ethnography.”  Translation: you never know when you, reader, are going to be my next data point.

 

Hat tip to Tracey, Jarvis and Phillips who mentionted this in “Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the
Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model” in Organization Science Vol. 22, No. 1, January–February 2011, pp. 60–80

Leave a comment

Filed under pithy expressions, sociology, words, writing

Third Nugget from Clockwork Muse- Mountains and Stairs

Nugget #3…
Now Eviatar shifts to chunking tasks.  He calls this, quite nicely, “a mountain with stairs.”

Two points resonated for me.  First, about outlines, he suggests only outlining or changing outlines _between_ final drafts.  This may be part of my problem with “code rules” as it has been restructured five times, at least I think. Not all of these were after a final draft was done.

Second, he advocates writing and then revising in stages.  This more useful for my students than for me, perhaps, as I am already a committed reviser.  They still think, most of them, that writing is getting your ideas on paper instead of realizing that writing is another form of thinking.  They think it is a mistake to rewrite, instead of normal.

Now, to complicate matters, the idea of the mountain with steps is appealing; common-sensical too.  Break down the seemingly distant and difficult task into smaller, feasible steps.  I have climbed mountains.  I absorbed *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*.  I have told hiking groups I led that to climb a mountain you have to have the disposition of a cow.  The difference is that in those cases, I usually know which way is _up_.  In writing, I find myself wondering if these steps are really the right steps to take.  I especially wonder if I am going up at a good rate, or, even worse, going down.  Efficiency and failure trouble me more directly than self-doubt that I will finish.  In mountain terms- I worry now about going sideways or downhill more than about whether I will ever get to the top.

1 Comment

Filed under Research, writing