Kevin's American Studies Blog

BP's Calculation

2010-05-24T07:04:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of finger pointing lately about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, from BP to government regulators to Halliburton. There is no doubt that BP was incredibly irresponsible, but they were given incentive to act that way. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that caps damages payments from BP at $75 million was a huge factor in creating the spill. Considering that BP averages $93 million in profits each day, that liability cap makes damages a virtual non-factor in BP's safety decisions. The number of safety precautions that BP forwent is staggering. They decided against using a safer cement design and addressing leaks and other problems with the blowout preventer.

BP decided to use a cheaper and faster cement method that led to the spill. The safer and more common cement method costs only $7 million more and reduced the likelihood of a disaster by 10 times. It is pretty clear that if BP was held accountable for damages, they would be willing to spend more on safety precautions.

In another attempt to maximize profits, BP pressured workers on the rig to work faster and ignore safety problems that they noticed with the blowout preventer.

Economically, BP had incentives not to invest in safety measures. I am confident that this disaster will lead to more regulation of the oil industry. But, it shows that government regulation is needed so businesses are held accountable for more than their profits.

What aren't Ethnic Studies?

2010-05-22T21:49:00.000-05:00

As you may know, Arizona put into law last week a ban on ethnic studies. When I heard the story in the news, I thought "What are ethnic studies?" To most people, they think of things like African-American studies, Asian-American studies, Mexican-American studies, and Native American studies. Most people probably wouldn't identify an ordinary U.S. History class as ethnic studies, but maybe it is.

Let's make a list of what makes a class ethnic studies. Perhaps the curriculum would include authors from that ethnic group. Maybe it would focus more on that group's contributions to America. These are pretty standard criteria, but feel free to comment with other ideas. Now, if we compare most U.S. History and English classes to that list, they are also ethnic studies. When we learned about the Constitution in seventh grade, did we focus mostly on the contributions of white Europeans? Of course. Were most of the books you read that year written by white authors? Unless your experience was very different than mine, the answer is yes.

With that in mind, were you in an ethnic studies curriculum?

This seems to me like an example of white privileges numbers 6 and 7 from the Invisible Knapsack. Ethnic studies of the racial majority is just called History. Until all ethnic groups are integrated into the curriculum, is Arizona just choosing a different ethnic studies?

Law Abiding Undocumented Immigrants

2010-05-08T09:45:00.001-05:00

This is going to be my last post about my junior theme topic, undocumented immigration. Some polls have been coming out showing that most Americans agree with Arizona's new immigration law. One of the reasons for the support is the myth that undocumented immigrants raise the crime rate.

To Arizonans who claim that they are being overrun by criminals, I ask you to look at the facts. Decades of research have shown that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives. In fact, the incarcerated percentage of foreign-born people is 2.5 times less than that of natives. But you may ask, if immigrants commit less crimes than the native population, why doesn't Arizona have a lower crime rate?

Although you would not know it by how Arizona has framed the debate, their crime rate decreased 13% from 1999 to 2006 and continues to drop faster than the national average. This doesn't surprise social scientists at all because states almost always see their crime rate decrease as immigration increases.

If we are a nation of laws, why are natives worse at following the law than immigrants. Simply put, immigrants have a lot more to lose by breaking a law. Especially undocumented immigrant fear deportation if they commit even the smallest crime.

Arizona should focus on catching real criminals, natives and immigrants, instead of people whose only crime is their status.

How We Don't Enforce Immigration Law

2010-04-30T11:59:00.002-05:00

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) takes the least efficient action in enforcing immigration law. Whether you believe they should catch more undocumented individuals or waste less money, immigration enforcement is a colossal failure.

Let's start with the allocation of resources. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the ICE uses only 4% of their man hours on worksite enforcement and makes only 1% of apprehensions at worksites. While it is hard to spot an undocumented worker on the street, enforcement should conduct raids on employers that recruit these workers if they want to do their job. However, they may not want to do their job. In Wayne A. Cornelius's book, Controlling immigration: a global perspective, he cites that unlawful employers pressure the ICE to look the other way and put more personnel at the border.

At least the border enforcement is working, right? Actually, current border enforcement is increasing the number of undocumented people in the U.S. The Border Patrol only covers parts of the Mexico-U.S. border. Mostly, they focus on closing old ports of entry. Simply diverting immigrants from San Diego and El Paso to the Arizona desert. They make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to enter the U.S., but this turns out to be counterproductive.

While the number of undocumented immigrants entering the U.S. has remained steady for the last few decades, the number of those staying has increased because it is harder to return. Douglas Massey, a Princeton University sociologist, says that "the undocumented population would be half what it is now."

I have to believe that the government knows how ineffective the current immigration enforcement is. What purpose does the system actually serve?

What Does an Undocumented Immigrant Look Like?

2010-04-25T10:42:00.007-05:00

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill that makes it a crime not to carry proof of legal status. Anyone who cannot produce documentation can be fined $2,500 and sentenced to 6 months in prison. Well, not quite anyone. Law enforcement must have "reasonable suspicion" that someone is an illegal alien to stop them and ask for papers. That is the problem, what does an illegal immigrant look like?

Governor Brewer has said that "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." So the question for you readers is: what should law enforcement look for? This is going to be a short post because I have absolutely no idea what police can do. The law also requires training to help officers spot undocumented immigrants. What do you think will be the content of that training?

A Pathway to Citizenship (Part 2)

2010-04-15T20:48:00.002-05:00

One of the most profound consequences of illegal immigration that I have found is the creation of a permanent underclass. The possibility of self-improvement is a fundamental American ideal and it is an ideal that undocumented workers are denied. An illegal immigrant to the United States does make significantly more than they could in Mexico or Central America, yet they are permanently relegated to the lowest class in the US. I find this troubling because it is seems reminiscent of a caste system and oppression that we like to believe doesn't exist in America.

Lack of opportunity has an impact on many aspects of an undocumented worker's life. Perhaps the most apparent example is the lack of incentive to learn English. While many Americans believe that all immigrants should exhibit some proficiency of English, learning the language provides almost no benefit for undocumented workers. Their undocumented status already excludes illegal immigrants from getting most jobs that require English. Learning English does not significantly help undocumented workers. The same is true for education of undocumented workers as a whole. Higher education is not worth the expense if you could be deported at any time.

According to a University of Michigan study, 38.8% of Mexican men legalized by the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 moved into a higher paying occupation within 6 years. I wonder if some businesses, especially agricultural, want to stop immigration reform because illegal immigration gives them a captive workforce. Do you think that this is the case? Which groups do you think benefit and suffer because of illegal immigration?

A Pathway to Citizenship (Part 1)

2010-04-10T16:20:00.003-05:00

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune reported on the push by Chicagoland businesses for immigration reform. Former Governor Jim Edgar says, "I can't think of any better way to move this economy than to finally deal with comprehensive immigration reform." Edgar and 200 businesses argue that legalization of undocumented workers would spur new economic activity. The article did not go into detail about the benefits, but the Immigration Policy Center has a great report on the economics of immigration reform.

According to the Department of Labor, legalized workers see their wages rise by 15%. Not only do legalized workers pay more income tax, they buy more goods and services that fuel the economy. This not only creates jobs, but it increases sales tax revenue. Immigration reform improves the economy by providing a larger market for all businesses.

The Tribune article ends with a quote from a retired businessman: "The trouble is, there are a lot of noneconomic arguments, along the lines of ‘Oh, my God, we've got to keep them out.'" If you have ideas about why immigration reform is so feared by some, please write a comment. All comments are greatly appreciated.

It's All About Wages

2010-04-10T16:20:00.002-05:00

In doing a little research on why people illegally immigrate to the US, I found this article. There is sometimes a perception that undocumented workers come to the US because they are in search of a job. However, the majority come because of the improvement of wages. An average undocumented immigrant would earn twice as much in the US as they would in Mexico doing the same job.

Another interesting statistic is that the average income of Mexican immigrant to the US is 5 times the average income of Mexicans, according to the Mexican census. This shows that the higher wages in the US is drawing away the more skilled workers from Mexico.

Even though Mexican immigrants can earn more in the US, there is no guarantee that they will have a job. In fact, 38% of illegal immigrants were unemployed for one month in the last year. It is an interesting dynamic for skilled Mexicans to earn so much more in the US that they will accept being unemployed for a time.

Illegal immigration is a result of market forces. Low-skilled workers move from where they are prevalent (Mexico and Central America) to where they are scarce (the US). Immigration is moving workers to where they are most valuable. As the Council on Foreign Relations says, "Impeding illegal immigration, without creating other avenues for legal entry, would conflict with market forces that push for moving labor from low-productivity, low-wage countries to the high-productivity, high-wage U.S. labor market.

New Faces on Currency?

2010-03-21T20:12:00.000-05:00

There has been a bit of a stir in the opinion pages of the Chicago Tribune this week about a bill that would replace Ulysses S. Grant with Ronald Reagan on the 50-dollar bill. To me, replacing Grant doesn't seem like a terrible idea. The U.S. Treasury FAQs say, "the portraits on our currency notes are of deceased persons whose places in history the American people know well." I wonder if the contributions of Grant, Andrew Jackson ($20), William McKinley ($500), Salmon P. Chase ($10,000) etc. are well-known by Americans today. Probably not. There is a real case for some bills to be updated to portray a more recognizable figure.

If we are going to change the faces on our currency, we should make them more representative of America today. Virtually all bills printed and coins minted are of white men, (the Sacagawea dollar hasn't been minted on a large scale since 2000). Minorities make up about 25% of the population but are on 0% of paper money. This seems like it is a white privilege that belongs in the "Invisible Knapsack".

The opportunity cost to putting Reagan on the $50 bill is that we are missing the chance to diversify our currency. The opportunity to remake our money so that it is more representative of all Americans. I'll let you comment with ideas of minority leaders and women that had a profound influence on our country.

Redistricting Revisited

2010-03-14T11:56:00.003-05:00

Today in the Chicago Tribune, there was an editorial, Take Away the Pen, which addressed the merits of the Fair Map amendment. I wrote a post on this subject a couple weeks ago that was mostly based on the need for reform, not the actual plans. I am writing again about this because I think that this is one of the most reasonable and impactful attempts at reform.

I would recommend going to the Illinois Fair Map Amendment website for the most complete information about the proposed amendment, but here are some reasons that it could be a positive force in Illinois politics.

The Fair Map plan would have a 9-member bipartisan commission draw maps instead of the legislature. This commission would not be allowed to include public officials, political officials, or lobbyists. They would have public hearings and have to draw maps according to geographical and municipal boundaries. Why is this important? It would stop the game where a Democrat trades a conservative neighborhood to a Republican in return for a liberal neighborhood. If elected officials had to appeal to both liberals and conservatives, there would be less extremism in government.

Another beneficial element of the amendment would be a fail-safe provision that excludes the legislature completely. I was skeptical in my original post that a proposed map would ever get approved by a two-thirds majority like the amendment proposed. However, if the legislature can't agree to approve one of the maps drawn by the commission, the commission gets to decide. I love the idea that legislators only have the power to choose a plan if they can come to a consensus. I think that it would avert the ideological stalemates in the legislature.

What do you think about this plan? Do you see any flaws that I may have overlooked?

Uncertainty of Statistics

2010-03-07T21:12:00.002-06:00

In case you didn't hear, earlier this week the Supreme Court started hearing McDonald v. City of Chicago. The case is about the constitutionality of Chicago's gun ban, so I thought that it might be a good idea to decide for myself whether guns should be allowed.

I went into this debate with an open mind. I had heard the statistic that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder (Protection or Peril? Kellerman). But, I had also heard many pro-gun advocates saying gun control laws increase crime. What frustrated me was that both sides were saying that studies unanimously supported their argument, yet they often did not cite specific studies. Finally, in an essay by Shaun Connell, I found that "The most famous study on the issue [that guns stop crime] is undeniably that by Gary Kleck". The "most famous" being equated with reliable instantly made me skeptical, but let's investigate.

The Kleck study states that there are approximately 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) per year. The data was derived from a telephone survey of 4,977 individuals across the nation. The respondents were asked first whether they had a DGU in the last 5 years. If they responded "yes", they were asked whether it was in the last 12 months and about twenty other questions about the event. Just over 1% of respondents said that they had a DGU in the last 12 months. The problem with doing a survey for such a rare event is that the false positives can vastly outweigh the false negatives. In other words, it is much more likely that one of the 4,921 people that didn't actually have a DGU would report that they did; whereas, it is less likely that one of the 56 people who did have a DGU would say that they didn't. If even half a percent of people falsely reported a DGU, their number would go from 2.5 million DGU's to 1.2 million. This is not at all unreasonable considering that statistically 1% of respondents would be in the NRA, thus have an interest in promoting gun rights. Also, the nature of the survey does not protect against people reporting a DGU that actually happened 13 months ago because they thought that was what the researchers wanted. Finally, there is the possibility of people thinking that their gun prevented a crime, even though the crime was never going to happen. Based on the study's data, there were 322,000 DGU's against a would-be rapist. However, that number is higher than the total attempted rapes in a year. It is inconsistencies like this one that show why even the "most famous" study should not determine policy, yet the 2.5 millions DGU's is a statistic that appears everywhere in pro-gun arguments.

The statistic turned fact about a gun in the home being 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal is somewhat easier to disprove. First of all, the sample set was just 44 gun related deaths in Seattle homes in 1986. Of the 43 family member deaths, 37 were suicides and 94% of those were caused by a mental illness. This statistic says, if anything, that guns should not be sold to people with a mental illness.

Just because a certain statistic appears in a lot of places doesn't mean that came from a legitimate study.

What is your favorite statistic? Would you dare look into where it originated? Please comment if you do.

"I Want You" in My District

2010-02-28T14:04:00.001-06:00

In class last week, we talked about whether every voice matters in our democracy. Someone brought up the point that a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic district or visa versa has almost no voice. This happens very often in Illinois, and it is partially due to partisan redistricting, or gerrymandering. For example, the 4th congressional district in Illinois is represented by Luis Gutierrez, a Democrat. It was shaped to connect two predominantly Democratic parts of Chicago by a tiny piece of land down the middle of I-294. 85% of this district voted Democratic in the 2008 presidential election. Essentially, representatives are choosing their voters instead of the other way around. This is a reason for partisan gridlock in Washington because representatives don't have to worry about pleasing voters from the other party.

The current system for drawing the districts in Illinois is a Legislative Redistricting Commission. This is a nine person partisan commission with a lottery to decide if the majority is Democratic or Republican. This system, however, is under attack from a Democratic and Republican reform plans.

The Democrat's plan is to have the state legislature draw the map and get 60% approval in the State House of Representatives and State Senate. The problem with this plan is that legislators care more about getting themselves reelected than preventing the other party. Under this plan, it would be easy two legislators of different parties to swap towns based on demographics and make all the incumbents happy. If this is hard to understand, there is a redistricting game that lets you play the role of mapmaker. The Democrat's plan is like the "Bipartisan Gerrymander" level.

The Republican plan calls for a bipartisan commission to draw a map that would have to be approved by two-thirds of the legislature. This commission could produce a good map, but I doubt that it would be approved by so many legislators, many of which are content with their gerrymandered districts. If you play the "Reform" level of the game, you will see how hard it is to get approval for nonpartisan districts.

My suggestion would be that a bipartisan commission creates a plan that must be voted down by two-thirds of legislators. What reform, if any, do you think we need? Do you think that every voice matters?

No Subject

2010-02-21T21:46:00.000-06:00

I couldn't think of a subject for this post. I looked all the usual places: newspapers, TED, and NPR. But with all the tabs up in my browser, nothing was right for a post. I didn't want to write about something that was already in the news every day. Didn't want to rant about the people who use "common sense" to justify complex ideas. Finally, I thought of something Mr. Bolos talked about in class last week.

He talked about it is hard to come up with ideas for your essay by just staring at it. Sleeping is when your brain is actually making the connections. I looked this up and found an interesting study on how distraction can aid in problem-solving. Three professors did a study (the raw data requires a subscription) in which 130 people were given a Remote-Association Test. This test was for the person to determine what 3 different words all had in common. An example are the words: cheese, sky, and ocean. The answer would be "blue" because it is commonly used with each of the other words. Half of the sample set, the "conscious" set, were told to study the questions for five minutes; whereas, the other half, "unconscious", looked at the questions and then did something completely different for five minutes.

The results were that the conscious set did better on easy questions, but the unconscious set actually was faster at answering the difficult ones. The conclusion was that conscious thought produces linear results. It is very analytical because every new idea comes directly from the idea before it. Unconscious thought, the kind of thought that happens even when you are doing something else, is better at solving complex problems. This is because different parts of the brain are activated and actually help to manipulate the problem.

I think it raises an interesting question about teaching in school. For the most part, each day is broken into discrete parts that focus intensely on one subject. With the double period American Studies, we have time to come back to an idea from earlier in the class, but that isn't the case with other subjects. Maybe this validates the IGSS style in which they change between subjects more fluidly. Do you think that school is arranged in the optimal way, or do you think there should be changes?

Another American Studies

2010-02-13T21:48:00.002-06:00

This weekend, I visited Pomona College in Claremont California. While there, I attended a seminar called "Inequalities in America" which was frighteningly relevant to what we have been studying recently in American Studies. We analyzed the Black Panther Party's "Ten Point Platform and Program" in an attempt to understand the goals of those revolutionaries.

The type of discussion and analysis was very similar to what we do in class. We were divided into groups and I was chosen to look at the third point which was about reparations. The Black Panthers demand the monetary equivalent of "forty acres and two mules" that was promised to freed slaves in 1865 but revoked by an order from President Andrew Johnson. Interestingly, the Black Panthers make this demand as a way to end the robbery of blacks by the capitalist system. They feel that slavery gave whites an unfair head start that led to the perpetual exploitation of the black community. The only way for blacks to catch up would be reparations.

When we discussed reparations in class, there were some people who said that it was too late and that the playing field was being leveled. However, the professor told us about a statistic from the Brookings Institution that showed the income gap between blacks and whites increase. In 1974, the median black family earned only 63% what the median white family earned. In 2004, the typical black family's income was only 58% of a white family's. While this does not inherently call for reparations, it does show that there is some inequalities that, in thirty years, Americans have not made any progress in righting.

In an economics class, the professor made an interesting side comment about racial factors in economics. Another professor of economics did an experiment in which he had many people to bid on the very same baseball card. The only difference was that some people were told that the seller was a white man, a woman, or a black man. His results were that the black man and the woman were consistently given lower bids on the very same card. He thought the reason was that buyers felt the black man or woman would be less knowledgeable about baseball cards and therefore more likely to sell a card for under its value.

I thought that was a great, concrete example of the "invisible privilege" we talked about in class. What do you think about this example? Are you aware of others?

Does a Census Ad Make Sense?

2010-02-06T16:40:00.000-06:00

It has been widely reported that the U.S. Census Bureau spent $2.5 million on a package of ads and mentions during the Super Bowl broadcast meant to convince Americans to complete the census. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that almost 20% of respondents may not complete the census. Do you think that the U.S. Census Bureau should advertise during the Super Bowl?

Sen. John McCain doesn't think they should. He tweeted that "While the census is very important to AZ, we shouldn’t be wasting $2.5 million taxpayer dollars to compete with ads for Doritos!" We all know that John McCain hates pork, but is the $2.5M being wasted.

See if you can follow this math:
The ads cost $2.5 million total
About 100 million Americans watch the Super Bowl
For every 1% of the population that doesn't return the census it costs $85 million to get their information
There are about 305 million people in the US

Cost per person who doesn't return the census:
$85M / (305M people * .01) ≈ $28
Cost to reach each viewer of the Super Bowl:
$2.5M / 100M people ≈ 2.5¢
Fraction of viewers needed to be convinced for the ad to pay off:
2.5¢ / $28 ≈ 1 / 1,115

The numbers show that if at least 1 in 1,115 people is convinced to complete the census, the ad is cost-effective.

It is important to think critically about assertions made in 140 characters. I would like to hear your evidence and opinions regarding the effectiveness of the ad.

For High-Speed Rail, It Doesn't Make Sense to Go Half Way

2010-01-31T11:28:00.000-06:00

High-Speed Rail (HSR) has been in the news a lot lately; President Obama mentioned it during his State of the Union speech and went to Tampa, Florida to announce $8 billion in grants for HSR. Of that money, the Midwest got $1.1 billion for improving rail service from Chicago to St. Louis. The proposal would use the current tracks from Chicago to St. Louis but upgrade the trains from a maximum speed of 79 mph to 110 mph. This plan isn't enough to attract new passengers to trains. The Midwest should go for 220 mph super HSR or not do anything at all.

While 110 mph sounds like a huge improvement, the average speed would be only 62 mph. That is only a 9 mph gain from the current average. The problem is that the passenger rail shares tracks with the 500 freight trains that come through Chicago every day. The congestion is so bad that freight trains average on 9 mph through the Chicago area. Additionally, freight trains have priority over passenger trains because the freight companies own the tracks. A common complaint by Amtrak users is that trains are often delayed, and HSR on the same tracks would not alleviate this problem. Even the Midwest High Speed Rail Association admits that "Trains are frequently delayed because they share congested tracks with slow, heavy freight trains." HSR will not increase ridership if it uses the same old freight tracks.

Rick Harnish of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Association said Friday that “[The 110 mph plan] is a huge first step in the right direction”. However, if the objective is 220 mph routes, this plan does nothing. The super HSR that would cut Chicago to St. Louis travel time from 5:30 to 1:52 needs dedicated tracks. Super HSR would make the 110 mph trains instantly obsolete.

There is still the question whether Americans will ever use trains enough HSR to make sense. Do you think suburbanization has doomed trains? Should America make investments in HSR?

Could a Bottle Bill Help Illinois?

2010-01-24T11:36:00.002-06:00

You know how cans and bottles have "MI 10¢ Refund" and "ME, CT, IA, MA, VT, OR, NY, HI, DE 5¢ Refund". Why isn't Illinois one of those states? The answer is that the only ones who seem to really care and make their voices heard in the debate are beverage industry lobbyists. They oppose the deposit system because they fear consumers being deterred from buying beverages; although, this has not been the case in states with bottle deposits and refunds. Should we care about passing a bottle bill?

Even a slight monetary incentive leads to increased recycling rates of cans and bottles. The 11 states that have a law in place see an average of 490 containers recycles per capita per year as opposed to 191 containers in other states. Michigan, the only state with a 10¢ deposit-refund, has a recycling rate of almost 100% for beverage containers. The reason for increased recycling is two-fold. The consumers are more likely to return bottles and collect their refund, and litter is more likely to be collected for cash. There is an anti-poverty aspect because poor and homeless people can pick up litter as a source of income. It allows people who are too lazy to recycle and opportunity to essentially pay someone else.

Recycling cans and bottles is important because it cuts solid waste that goes to landfills and it saves on energy needed to create new containers. Michigan has reported that its solid waste has been cut by 6-8% because of the bottle bill. Additionally, it takes 96% less energy to create an aluminum can out of recycled material than it does to make one out of raw materials.

When Gov. Quinn was Lieutenant Governor, he proposed a bottle bill (I-CAN), but it was stopped by pressure from special interests. If he is elected governor, would you support another attempt at bottle recycling legislation?

Personalized Campaigns

2010-01-18T20:59:00.001-06:00

There was a recent article in the Chicago Tribune about the use of personalized ads by the David Hoffman for US Senate campaign. The idea is that supporters of Hoffman ask for a video with their name to be created and then agree to forward a link to their contacts. The personalization happens in the first fifteen seconds. Here is an example:

Friends of Kevin, Meet David Hoffman! from Hoffman for Illinois

This is a benign example of campaign networking, but the 2008 Obama Campaign took "community building" to a much creepier level. The Obama Campaign gathered hundreds of millions of pieces of data on voters that they added to the Democratic Party's information database (Republicans do this too). The data includes everything from answers to phone surveys, to public or private events that you attended, to magazine subscriptions. Scarier than politicians knowing so much about our habits, campaigns have figured out how to use the information to specifically target certain messages. For example, the Obama Campaign found the people in their database that were Sierra Club members and had volunteers call them with a pro-environment message. Hypothetically, a campaign volunteer who is a doctor could be put in contact with undecided voters who are part of the American Medical Association.

It is a strange thought that a public figure could know more about you than you know about them. Is it fair that certain voters can be getting a different message from the candidate than others? Do you think it will turn elections into competitive pandering?

"The Narrative" Revisited

2010-01-09T21:04:00.001-06:00

On January 3, 2010, the Obama administration announced that citizens of 14 mostly Muslim countries would be subject to extra screening in airports. I thought back to Mr. Bolos's post, "Competing Narratives?", that analyzed "The Narrative" that America hates Muslims. If, as Thomas Friedman argues, that the narrative is concocted by Jihadists, then does the Obama administration's policy give the narrative credibility?

Do you think that the profiling will help recruitment for terrorists or will it prevent attacks? Overall, what impact will it have on our national security?

Should we Still do Manned Space Missions?

2010-01-03T12:13:00.000-06:00

Where should NASA spends its money? Currently, NASA spends over 4.5 times more on operating the International Space Station (ISS) and Space Shuttle than is spends on planetary science like the Mars rovers and lander. This is because of all the extra design (oxygen, temperature, re-entry) and safety tests required to enable astronauts to travel to space. To justify this cost differential, the manned ISS should be doing something much more important than the Mars robots.

Let's first explore what the 2003 Mars Exploration Rover mission has achieved for science. The discoveries of Spirit and Opportunity include finding remnants of hot springs, steam vents, the edge of old salt water seas, and riverbeds. They also documented many varieties of minerals. Originally intended to last 90 days, they have survived 6 years and sent back over 250,000 images of Mars, all for under a billion dollars. The Mars Phoenix Lander, launched in 2007, has discovered ice and snow at the Martian pole, as well as determined that the soil pH is very similar to that of Earth's oceans. The entire Phoenix program cost $480 million or the equivalent of one Space Shuttle mission. Scheduled for 2011 is a portable Mars Science Laboratory that has 10 times the research capabilities of the previous rovers and will search for microbial life and try to determine planet habitability.

The ISS and Space Shuttle have also made some discoveries. There are some that inherently required humans like testing bone density and muscle atrophy in microgravity. However, there is no reason that the experiments on flames, aerosols, superconductors, ozone and cosmic dust could not have been done by robots. In fact, the vibrations caused by humans is detrimental to many experiments. The total cost of using humans on the ISS for this research was about $100 billion, not even including the astronomical costs of the Space Shuttle. The program has cost $170 billion and 14 lives as of 2008. If the research and development is taken into account, each of the 129 launches cost about $1.3 billion. That is crazy considering that ten of the missions were taking satellites to orbit, something that doesn't require humans at all.

The Space Shuttle and ISS will be retired by 2015, so NASA needs to decide on their new direction. I feel that manned missions should be kept to a minimum, only used for experiments on human suitability in space and possibly very complex repair missions. The money saved should be directed towards more science by robots. What is your opinion? Comment, vote or both.

The Net Cost of Climate Change Legislation

2009-12-13T13:31:00.000-06:00

What is the main reason for opposing the "cap-and-trade" laws that have been proposed in Congress? Cost. Estimates for the yearly costs of this legislation range from $93.6 billion (John Reilly, MIT) to $366 billion (Rep. John Boehner [R]). Choose whichever estimate you prefer, it doesn't really matter when you compare it to the cost of doing nothing.

In August 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists compiled huge amounts of climate data and predicted the additional annual costs of higher sea level, stronger storms, flooding, desertification, heat waves, and poor air quality. Rising sea levels, using lower estimates, would threaten $4.7 trillion of coastal property by 2100. These numbers don't even take into account the cost to relocate people because that is too difficult to predict, but one can imagine the cost to move everyone in Miami due to year-round flooding. Stronger hurricanes would likely cost Florida an average of $111 billion per year. Florida would probably be hit the hardest by climate change, but many western states would suffer from water shortages, expanding deserts, and frequent wildfires. As for Chicago, an average of estimates points to 19 days over 100°F every year. Also, the Great Lakes water level would drop to a point where it is no longer viable for shipping.

We can't ignore that rising water temperatures made Hurricane Katrina as strong as it was. To give some perspective, Katrina cost $81.2 billion and relocated 374,000 people.

Maybe Rep. John Boehner should follow his own advice: "It is unconscionable for us to deal with the challenges we face today by mortgaging the future of the next generation."

Stop the Litterers

2009-12-07T07:52:00.001-06:00

During Monday's Frisbee Club practice, I observed that some disturbing vandalism took place at New Trier over the weekend. There was obviously a party on the fields to the north of the school, and nobody bothered to clean up after him/herself. The janitors had gotten to the mess before us as there was a large gray garbage bin filled with beer bottles, but they missed a fair amount. Left on the field was broken glass and bottle caps not to mention the open corkscrew, knife, and saw.

Are these the same people who left plastic water bottles on the soccer field as kids? The same ones who eat their lunch outside and then stick their garbage in other students' bicycle spokes? I'm sure that you have seen countless other examples.

I don't want this to be just a rant, so I want to come up with some possible solutions. I think that to understand how to solve the problem, we must know why they litter. They obviously were never taught courtesy for others, see no direct value to themselves for cleaning up, and are too lazy to do something that doesn't benefit themselves. To combat these causes, I think we should first make courtesy taught to young kids in school. Also, we should put value in picking up after oneself in the form of fines. I want to hear your suggestions, but I am thinking of small and frequently enforced fines, possibly using the existing video cameras. The school most likely has video of the litterers.

Any other ideas?

Why we don't Care About Climate Change

2009-11-27T12:20:00.001-06:00

Back in 2007, there was an article in the Atlantic Monthly, Global Warming: Who Loses—and Who Wins?, that argued how countries would be affected differently by global warming depending on geography. The fact that some countries have more to lose than others is a huge problem facing the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

The title of this article is somewhat misleading; there aren't real winners from climate change. Russia, Canada, Scandinavia, Greenland, and the United States (because of Alaska) stand to lose the least. This is because the negative impacts like stronger storms, floods, and droughts can be tempered by longer growing seasons and more livable area in northern latitudes. The southwestern states and Florida might become uninhabitable, but there would be new land available in Alaska where there was once permafrost. According to Farm Industry News, the Northern Corn Belt's (Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin) agriculture would benefit from warmer temperatures. However, the corn crop in Brazil would suffer because of global warming.

Has climate change directly affected your life yet? In the US, the answer would most likely be "no", but people from Africa, Australia, and small island nations have a different perspective. Copenhagen has a different urgency when your island is drowning.

Whenever debating climate change, Americans should remember that we are just lucky to be one of the countries most sheltered from the crisis.

Yellow Lights Earn Chicago Some Green

2009-11-22T15:07:00.003-06:00

The Chicago Tribune printed an article today that showed red light cameras in Chicago increase the number of accidents at 43% of intersections and decrease accidents at only 38%. The article assumes that the problem lies in the cameras because they ignore an important action that coincided with the cameras: shortened yellow lights.

Essentially, the cash-strapped Chicago politicians couldn't make enough money off of distracted or rushing drivers, so they decided to trap people with yellow lights.

Yellow light duration in Chicago is 3 seconds which is at the bare minimum according to the Federal Highway Administration. In contrast, most suburbs have 4 to 5 second yellow lights. What is the result of an extra second or two? There was a case study done in Chillicothe, Ohio on the change in red lights tickets when they lengthened yellow lights.

As you can see, there were 8 times fewer tickets when the yellow light duration was increased by only .73 seconds. The study goes on to recommend that with a 30 mph speed limit, the safest yellow light time is 5.5 seconds.

Politicians had to choose between $50 million in annual revenue or the safety of motorists and pedestrians. What do you think of their choice?

Is Guantanamo Bay a Mirror of The Crucible?

2009-11-15T10:17:00.001-06:00

If you haven't heard, there is a prison in northwest Illinois that may be used to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay. With all the opposition to allowing trials of the terrorism suspects, I think that there are some parallels to the witch-trials we read about in Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

Probably the most obvious similarity is the torture of Giles Corey in the play and water-boarding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. If we were horrified by Corey being crushed under stones to coerce a confession, then we should not subject alleged terrorists to torture in search of incriminating evidence.

Another similarity is how the detainees are being held without trial as "unlawful enemy combatants". When people can be put away like that, it gives all the power to the accuser. We see the same dangerous dynamic play out in The Crucible when witches are essentially convicted solely based on Abigail's word. It is obvious what a dangerous and unjust situation resulted in Salem, so why don't we see what is happening nowadays.

I would welcome discussion about other parallels and contrasts that you can find. It is easy to say that all the witches in Salem were innocent so there is no comparison, but we shouldn't underestimate the similarities in sentiment felt then and now.

Is Climate Change Urgent?

2009-11-07T17:48:00.005-06:00

I don't usually read the Guardian newspaper, but an interesting article came up on Google News about civil disobedience and climate change¹. Two weeks ago in England, fossil fuel protesters climbed the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant and caused it to stop burning coal for the protesters' safety. In an interview with the Guardian, Al Gore said that "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable". This quote begs the question: "Since we are seeing non-violent law breaking, is climate change urgent?"

Earlier this year, the Global Humanitarian Forum came out with a report of the humanitarian issues that are due to climate change. Their research shows that 325 million people worldwide are seriously affected by climate change and 300,000 people die. These figures come from droughts, floods, and natural disasters that are directly attributable to global warming. A perfect example of these issues is Maldives, and nation of small islands in the Indian Ocean. They are currently looking for land in India, Sri Lanka, or Australia to relocate their 325,000 people because the islands will be under water within the century. Their President Mohamed Nasheed is pleading the international community to cut back carbon emissions in order to save their country.

The threat of climate change is real and we should have high expectations for our leaders at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

¹Ever wonder about the whether to use "global warming" or "climate change"? NASA has a definitive answer. "Global warming" refers to specifically surface temperature; whereas, "climate change" covers global warming and its effects like flooding, drought, and natural disasters.

How Do You Pass "No Child Left Behind"? Leave 40% Behind

2009-11-01T18:55:00.003-06:00

In today's Chicago Tribune, there was a front page article titled "Case of the Missing Juniors". No, this is not a scary Halloween story about the systematic abduction of juniors in high school; it is about a widespread practice that classifies third year high school students as sophomores so they do not have to take the PSAE test.

The way this works in close to 20% of Illinois public high schools is that administrators make a strict credits requirement for junior year. In the case of Rich East High School, 40% of the lowest achieving sophomores did not go on to be juniors next year. With only their top 60% taking the PSAE, scores went up 37% and made the school a model of success.

The aim of the No Child Left Behind Act was to close the gap in achievement between schools. However, the result has been an increased gap within schools. As seen in the article, there are two groups in Rich East High School, those who show the potential to pass the PSAE and those who probably cannot. The incentive for the school is to teach specifically for the students who are on the bubble of passing the PSAE. The segment of students who can already pass the test don't need to be taught, and there is an active attempt to hold low achievers back such that they can't even take the test.

The whole idea of school standardized testing needs to be rethought. Not only is a a two day test not enough to evaluate a student's knowledge, it has severe, even if unintended, consequences on the education system.

More Data Mining in Grocery Stores

2009-10-30T21:11:00.002-05:00

Tracking your purchases at the grocery store has been taken to the next level with the new Modiv Shopper gadget. This machine is a portable self-service scanner, that shows the customer advertisements and sales based on their purchasing history. This might just sound like the old store loyalty cards, but it does much more.

In their sales pitch to grocery stores, Modiv says that the hand held device uses the wireless network and recently scanned items to track customers and show them offers for products within their arm's reach. It tracks the path that a customer walked through the store and saves it for future analysis. In addition, it shows offers based on the item that was just scanned and your entire history at the store. Say you scanned a package of cookies into your cart, the Modiv Shopper may then show an advertisement and coupon for milk. But this coupon wouldn't be for just any milk. Lucerne wants their coupons to show up specifically for people who usually buy Prairie Farms so they can convert customers to their brand.

This new technology provides many benefits for customers and stores. The company's own studies show that the patron redeems more coupons and can shop faster. For the stores, their overall sales raise an average of $7 per person and the store doesn't have to spend as much on cashiers.

However, there is a danger in the power that is given to advertisers by using the device. The software works based on buying history, location in the store, recent purchases, and even age and gender demographics to show you the most persuasive ads. A shopper can't help but be influenced because they are only shown what the gadget thinks pertains to them.

Do you think the sacrifices in privacy and anonymity are worth the convenience?

Quantity vs. Credibility

2009-10-25T21:01:00.002-05:00

Where do we find information? When my Dad was in high school, he would "actually go to the library" to get books, read encyclopedias, and newspaper back issues. Nowadays, more and more people are going online to get their news, instead of using traditional media. Among the reasons for this migration is the enormous quantity of information on the web and the ease to search it. A problem that arises is how simple it is for anyone to put their opinion on the web, and how accessible it is. Google eliminates sites with very few links, but it still often puts less credible sites first.

For example, my blog clearly isn't as reliable as a published book edited by a Professor, yet it shows up first in google.

I don't think that Google has bad motives; it is just that they are too good at giving people what they want. For example, if someone searches "vaccines are unsafe" into Google, the top two results are CBS news and the Baltimore Chronicle articles with anti-vaccination claims. Google goes even further by showing exactly what the reader wants to see in the page snippet.

I wonder what would happen if we searched "vaccines are safe". Again, we get professional looking articles, except these ones assert that we have nothing to worry about.

The problem with the multitudes of "information" and opinion on the web is that for every argument, no matter how insane, there are people who share your point of view. I don't think that is a stretch to say that people crave confirmation.

Google's mission statement is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Do you think this access to information makes us better informed?

Do We Live in a Dangerous World?

2009-10-18T09:55:00.004-05:00

In our news media today, it seems that we hear a lot about the threat of a nuclear Iran, increased fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban in entering Pakistan, global terrorism, and the ongoing conflict in Israel. Facing this every day, it is no wonder that many Americans think the world is becoming very dangerous. The Media and Society Research Group at Cornell University made a poll to analyze people's fear of terrorism. They also asked the participants about their attention to TV news.

The results clearly show that the watching the news scares people.

There is nothing wrong with more "informed" people being more aware of the danger around them, except the media should not be reporting the global rise in terrorism improperly concluded from the statistics. In 2007, the Human Security Report compiled three major data sets regarding terrorism fatalities.

The steep increase from 2003 to 2006 can be used to garner the attention of fearful viewers, but it is a misleading statistic.

This graph paints a different picture than the previous one. The reason is that all deaths by insurgents in Iraq are labeled as terrorism by the US government.

This final graph shows that global terrorism would stay relatively stable if we did not count deaths from Iraq. In fact, it shows a slight decrease in actual terrorism in 2007.

Why is the story our nation tells so different than reality? Is it the media's fault? Do we rely to heavily on statistics that we don't understand? Or is there some other reason?

Columbus Day as a Construction

2009-10-12T10:58:00.005-05:00

Today in the Chicago Tribune, I read an article about the changing perception of Christopher Columbus. It showed how the once heroic Columbus was now portrayed as clueless and ruthless conquerer. I thought it would be interesting to analyze how Columbus Day has evolved over time.

The very first Columbus Day was celebrated by the Columbian Order, or Tammany Society, on October 12, 1792. This was only meant to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Columbus's discovery, not to become an annual event. It was not until 1892 that Columbus Day was celebrated again. President Benjamin Harrison wanted to wanted to make the country more patriotic, so he told teachers to celebrate the ideals of Columbus in school. Interestingly, this was the first time that the Pledge of Allegiance was used, another construction that we discussed in class.

Columbus Day as a yearly holiday was the result of Italian-Americans lobbying politicians. One Italian immigrant was enough to convince Colorado to become the first state to celebrate Columbus Day in 1905. Twenty-nine years later, the Knights of Columbus successfully lobbied FDR to make Columbus Day a national holiday. It is interesting to think that Catholic Service Organization could make Columbus Day a national holiday 442 years after his discovery.

Opposition to Columbus Day is itself a construction. Most people are familiar with the recent protests that argue Columbus started a genocide, but the first opposition was for a very different reason. In the 1800s, there were protests of celebrating Columbus because he was Catholic.

The observance of Columbus Day is still evolving. Why do you think that we get a day off from school whereas Los Angeles, Dallas, and Miami do not?

Green Roof for New Trier?

2009-10-03T11:28:00.004-05:00

As part of an excursion last week, I visited the Smart Home at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. One of the ways this house saves energy is through the use of a green roof. In learning about vegetation covered roofing, I couldn't help but notice how the New Trier Winnetka Campus seems to be a perfect candidate for a green roof. It is a flat roof, which makes a rooftop garden easier to build. Also, there is easy access to the roof and no other buildings block its sunlight.

The most significant benefits of green roofing are the reduction in heating and cooling costs. Various sources put the savings at 25-50% on both heating and cooling. This is because the plants do not turn sunlight into heat like traditional roofing does, and it acts as extra insulation in the winter so less heat is lost through the roof. Aside from lowering energy costs for the school, plants on the roof reduce run off and flooding, plus they filter carbon dioxide out of the air.

I see two main obstacles to building a green roof on the school: cost and the structural integrity of the school. A structural architect is needed to determine if the building can support the extra weight of soil and plants. Green roofs cost between $10-24 per square foot to install, but they last twice as long as a traditional roof. Both of these restrictions depend on the type of roofing installed. An "extensive" roof is only about three inches of soil, so it is not as heavy or costly as a twelve inch thick "intensive" roof.

It takes a specially trained architect to do a complete cost-benefit analysis, but I am interested in your initial reaction. Would there be an elective class to maintain the rooftop garden, or should it be a yearly advisory activity?

Connections of the Brain

2009-09-27T10:43:00.001-05:00

I was visiting TED.com (not the airline) on the recommendation of a friend and saw a lecture by V.S. Ramachandran on the home page. He presents three different delusions and his very scientific explanations of them. The one I think really relates to what we were talking about in class is synesthesia.

Synesthesia is the predominantly human phenomenon in which we relate senses automatically in our brain. Why do the absurd phrases like "loud colors" or "dark sounds" have any meaning to us? Ramachandran gives a very good description of the mental reflex in his lecture at the TED Conference.

The Plick that we viewed last week expertly used this natural sensation to create a more vivid experience for the audience. The most striking example in the piece was when the visual of a roller coaster represented the crescendo in a piece of music. The image triggers a connection, in most people, to a certain sound effect, so it can be a powerful device for communication. Synesthesia is especially important and useful with all the multimedia projects that we do in class. I would greatly appreciate comments about the synesthesia that you experience every day.

Bicycles Are Now Pork

2009-09-18T20:53:00.005-05:00

I ride my bike to school 3.5 miles up the Green Bay Trail every day. The bike path is almost a straight line to school so I can get there in 15 minutes; that is faster than the bus or train. Commuter bike trails are such great ways to help people reduce carbon emissions that I was shocked to hear them referred to as pork in recent amendments by Senators Coburn and McCain.

Senator Coburn (R-OK) proposed an amendment to the Transportation-Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill that would eliminate the Transportation Enhancements (TE) demands. The current form of the bill requires states to spend 10% of their transportation budget on TE. "Enhancements" makes it sound somewhat like pork, but what exactly does that include? (TE List) First on the list are sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and bridges over dangerous intersections.

Senator McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to the same bill focuses on redirecting earmark funds for everything from bike trails to museums. He proposes that we use the money from this "pork" to revamp the air-traffic control system. In Sen. McCain's floor statement, he says, "Most Americans will never benefit from these earmarked projects, except for those who happen to ride bikes in Spokane, Washington.... Alternatively, all Americans are impacted daily by our nation’s air traffic control system." There can be a debate about how air traffic control influences everyone's lives, but I think that $42 billion for digital communication and an integrated weather system is more pork than a couple million for a bike path.

Do bike paths and lanes make people pedal to work or school? In Portland, Oregon, investment in infrastructure has made the percentage of bicycle commuters over eight times the national average. If every city made the same kind of effort, America would be healthier, less dependent on oil, and have less carbon emissions.

On September 16, 2009, Sen. Coburn's amendment was rejected, only getting 39 votes. At least most of our senators can identify what is necessary spending, but Americans need to do the same thing next time a candidate says that they cut pork.

Party Over Country

2009-09-13T09:23:00.192-05:00

News reports everywhere have shown that Joe Wilson's "You lie." comment on Wednesday was factually incorrect. There is a clear provision that states “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” (Section 246 of H.R. 3200) From the draft of the bill, it seems that illegal immigrants will not get taxpayer assistance for buying healthcare. So why do many Republicans still worry?

The most common sentiment among the GOP, according to mainstream media, is that illegal immigrants will find loopholes in the infrastructure. Although there is bipartisan concern over enforcement loopholes, there are already examples to show that it is a null point. Congressmen should remember the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 which required Medicaid applicants to prove citizenship before getting coverage. The results were not very effective at reducing the deficit. For every $100 the federal government spent on extra administrative costs, they only found $0.14 in savings. Additionally, there were tens of thousands of American citizens denied coverage because they didn't have enough documentation. (House of Representatives Oversight Committee)

In the face of such a failure, it is hard to believe that Republicans would want to add a very similar system into the new bill. Precedent conclusively shows that their solution is worse than the problem.

I doubt that Republican congressmen were unaware of the DRA results, and further doubt that nobody has brought it to their attention. Why then do they still oppose that part of the bill? I believe that for most politicians, helping their party is more important than improving the country. They would rather the country do badly when the opposition is in power. I know that I am not the first to believe this, but I think it is important to consider what can be done about this problem. Both parties nominate and give funding to the politicians who will return the favor by only taking the side of their party. I think that the best way to stop party driven politics is to replace some guilty congressmen with independents; if not just to send the message "The other party losing doesn't mean you win." I would like to hear your solution as well as comments about mine.

The American Story

2009-09-06T11:45:00.008-05:00

Long, Too Long America

LONG, too long America,
Traveling roads all even and peaceful you learn'd from joys and
prosperity only,
But now, ah now, to learn from crises of anguish, advancing,
grappling with direst fate and recoiling not,
And now to conceive and show to the world what your children
en-masse really are,
(For who except myself has yet conceiv'd what your children en-masse
really are?)

Walt Whitman

Leaves of Grass 1891

I think this poem speaks to our nations shared narrative that we talked about last week. It is just as relevant now as it was in the 19th century. You can make the connections on your own, but I am interested to hear what you think about the last line. What does it means?

Why All the Myths?

2009-09-04T21:45:00.005-05:00

Our discussion about inaccuracy in the Life of Mr. Bolos essay got me thinking about why so many people are misinformed about the health care reform bill. I can see why some people initially believe in myths like "death panels" because they listen to extreme right wing media, but why wouldn't everyone change their mind when they hear all the evidence to the contrary.

With just a little googling, I found a recent study that attempts to answer this question. A group of seven professors did surveys and experiments on people who believed the link between Saddam Hussein and September 11th to determine why these people maintain their belief. To determine if the people were simply misinformed, they showed each subject parts of the 9/11 commission and a quote from President Bush that both denied any link. If the subject did not change his/her mind, they were asked why they maintained the misconception. The results of this study show that only two percent changed their mind after the evidence was shown. This clearly shows that the wrong beliefs were not because of ignorance; there was some lapse in rationality happening. The majority of people tried to avoid actually answering the question by saying "we can all have our opinions" or that we should have invaded Iraq anyway. More interesting was the rationale of people who maintained that there was a link.

They used a strategy called inferred justification, in which someone choosing a certain action means that there must be reason. One subject said that the very fact we are still in Iraq means that there must have been reason to go in the first place. Now, when we think about this argument it sounds silly, but it is a very common thought process. Back to the death panels example, many Americans against health-care reform believe that there must be reasons for Republicans to stop the new bills so they accept unfounded claims without question.

It is a dangerous position when Americans only search for justifications to their own ideas instead of thinking critically and challenging the issues. Also, the more people do this, the harder it is to be unprejudiced. I think the best way to keep ourselves from descending into that type of reasoning is to be open to all sides of an issue, including the opposition's. Irrational arguments can be very damaging for our country.

Inferred justification is definitely not limited to conservatives (although those seemed like the most obvious examples). Everyone is guilty of inferred justification sometimes, and I would like to hear some examples that come to your mind. Maybe we can avoid repeating them in the future.

*Sociological Inquiry, Vol. xx, No. x, xxx 2009, 000–000

Clean Coal, Really?

2009-08-29T12:02:00.010-05:00

I'm writing my first post on a topic that, even though it is not in the media's spotlight at the moment, I have some strong feelings about. In the search for energy independence, one of the best-known and most widely supported options is "clean" coal. The Bush administration spent billions to fund coal technologies and President Obama always includes clean coal as part of his solution. Maybe it is the images of hardworking coal miners supplying American industry that makes the majority of Americans believe clean coal will renew our country's growth. In the midst of all this bipartisanship, no one in politics cares to observe that even clean coal energy is not clean and does not create jobs.

First off, "clean" coal technology only involves how coal is burned. The new technology can capture much of the carbon released by burning coal, but that is a small part of the bigger problem. Modern coal mining does not involve men with pick axes, it is all about gigantic machines and explosions. The process is called mountain top removal mining (MTR) and it uses heavy machinery to push mountain tops into adjacent valleys in order to expose the coal. As a result, one million acres of wildlife habitat, mountains, and rivers have been destroyed in the past twenty years (Washington Post). That is approximately the area of Delaware. Another problem is that the explosives used send particulates of mercury and other pollutants into the air which poisons nearby communities. It also happens that clean coal will not even save miners' jobs because it is more cost-effective to use machines instead of men. Clean coal technology has cleaned only one aspect of the otherwise dirty process.

Why is clean coal mining such a popular idea? Does it sound so good that the media does not care to research it? As a country, how are we influenced by word choice and ads?

Watch the coal industry at work.