Want A Break From The US Election? Why Not Brush Up On China's President Xi?

 This LA Times article offers a Cliff Notes review of President Xi Jinping and China's role in the world.  Since Trump has sucked all the oxygen out of the media, we haven't paid enough attention.  This article shouldn't take more than ten minutes.  

Unlike reading more tweets about Tuesday, you'll finish this feeling like you've learned something important to know.

In China's Shadow:  The Rise of Emperor Xi, Prosperity, power and political devotion merge.

There's biography:

"When Xi speaks about his coming of age, he points to Liangjiahe. “Northern Shaanxi gave me a belief. You could say it set the path for the rest of my life,” Xi said in a 2004 interview with the People’s Daily.

He started out lazy and weak in the village, but by the end of seven years, he had experienced hard labor and developed a taste for the pickled vegetables of peasants. It is a folklore reminiscent of Mao’s claims of seeking liberation for the oppressed underclass. But whereas Mao incited grass-roots movements and armed struggle, Xi’s approach to power eschews mass mobilization.

Policy: 

“ Xi’s ambitions abroad have been just as grand. He has expanded China’s global power through multibillion-dollar development projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative and by gaining more influence in institutions like the United Nations. He has capitalized on a United States that has turned isolationist under President Trump, dispatching China’s corporations, diplomats and spies everywhere from Nairobi, Kenya, to Brussels in what is becoming a new world order.

Xi often says that this era is one of “great change unseen in a hundred years,” namely that the world’s top superpower is in decline, and that this is China’s moment to rise. “Systemic advantages are a nation’s greatest advantages, and systemic competition is the most fundamental competition between nations,” Xi was recently quoted saying in the People’s Daily.

That determination to prove the Chinese system superior has driven impressive moves toward combating poverty and pollution, making this nation of 1.4 billion people a dominant force in high-tech industries and allowing it to contain the coronavirus outbreak — even as much of the world blames China for allowing the disease to spread.”

And criticism:

"Xi’s militant nationalism has also provoked backlash. The Chinese military has carried out aggressive maneuvers in the South China Sea and rattled Taiwan by sending fighter planes into its airspace. Chinese troops have had deadly clashes in recent months with Indian soldiers along a disputed border. Xi’s reorganized security forces have increased arbitrary detention of foreigners including citizens of the U.S., Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, Belize, Turkey and Kazakhstan.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that unfavorable views of China have reached historical highs in 14 advanced world economies, with a median of 78% of respondents saying they have “no confidence” in Xi’s handling of world affairs — though the ratings on Trump are even worse.

Ironically, a popular nickname for Xi on the Chinese internet is the “ accelerator in chief ,” meaning that his aggressive approach to “stability” has caused more domestic and international conflict and is speeding his government toward self-demise. Criticism has risen even from fellow princelings: Cai Xia, the granddaughter of a revolutionary leader who taught at the central party school for four decades, was recorded calling Xi a “mafia boss” this year.

“He has turned 90 million party members into slaves, tools to be used for his personal advantage,” Cai said."

The Inability Of People To Master The Complexity Of The World - Trying To Start A Conversation About Evil Geniuses

 I want to post about Kurt Anderson's Evil Geniuses, which I got from my local library the other day, at the recommendation of Kathy in Kentucky in response to a post I did about how Sheldon Whitehouse used part of his confirmation hearing time to step back and offer some of the forces that are the context of this most recent Supreme Court nominee hearings.  (Thanks Kathy.)

I'm not far into the book.  I'm not even out of the Roman numeral numbered pages yet.  But it's clear that this is one of those books that attempts to explain the bigger economic and political forces at work in the world today.  

We shouldn't feel too bad if this is all new, because only a few people in any society are focused on seeing path the stories and myths that shape a culture while it is actually happening.  And it's not always easy to have access to forces that are working in the shadows.  

But as I thought about what I meant newly understand as I embark on reading this book, I realized that relatively few people actually carefully read long non-fiction work that explains how society really works.  

I think about the simplistic soundbite slogans that are being thrown around in lieu of serious debate. People aren't seeking knowledge and enlightenment, they are seeking only to cement their power, or their perceived power.  But, of course, 'they' lumps everyone together and hides the variety of levels of expertise, knowledge, and understanding of different phenomena that affect our lives.  Even the most educated, who know some area in spectacular detail, can be ignorant of most of the rest of the world.  

So I don't know how our society can best reestablish any sense of good will and trust.  But I do think, based on what I've read so far, that this book offers a much broader view of how the United States has shifted over the last 60 years or so.

I'm not sure how much of this book I can engage here on this blog, but let's at least start with the Table of Contents.  

I used to ask my beginning graduate students in public administration, what they thought we were going to study.  I'd warn them that most of the articles and books we'd read would only be interesting if they were asking the questions that the book answers.  That these works weren't like fiction or even newspaper articles.  In those genres you generally know all the concepts the words represent.  You generally know the basic narratives.  It's just that the specific characters and specific actions and locations change.  But you know all the words.  You know "a man"  "murders" and such words.  But in more academic work, you come up against words and concepts you may not already know.  Or, even more dangerous, you know them in a popular sense, but not in a specifically defined academic sense. 

So one exercise I'd run the students through on the first night was this:

Step 1:  If you were writing a textbook on public administration, what would be your main chapters?

Step 2:  I'd give them time to write out chapter titles, 

Step 3:  We'd share some on the board.  

Step 4:  I'd then read the chapter titles.  

And I'd tease them.  "If your friend had told you before class that the professor would read you the chapter titles and you would all be listening carefully, you would have thought your friend crazy.  If I give you the answers to a crossword puzzle you haven't worked on, it has no meaning.  But after you've struggled with the puzzle, the answers suddenly are very meaningful.  And that's what we've just done.  And I recommend you do similar exercises with everything you read this semester."

So, readers, get out a pen and paper or an empty file and keyboard and write down the chapters you'd write about if you were writing a book called Evil Geniuses:  The Unmaking of America, A Recent History.

I know most of you want to skip the exercise.  Life's too busy.  But if you actually got this far, let me urge you to look away from here and take five minutes to think about the topic and what chapters you might write.  The point is not to see if you can get close to Kurt Anderson's actual titles, but to tap into your own thoughts before you compare them to his. He has 22 chapters

via GIPHY

[The GIF is only ten seconds.  I couldn't quickly find one that goes for five minutes.  Sorry.]

OK, now that you have your chapter titles go through Anderson's table of contents.  For some of you this will make a lot of sense - and you'll have a good idea of where he's going with this book.  Others will also think it makes sense, but their sense will take them in a very different direction from Anderson.  For others it will be mystifying.  But you know other things.  

I hope to post more from this book because:

• I'm hoping it's as good as it looks it will be
• Writing about what I'm reading helps me understand and and remember it
• Relatively few people actually read books like this so I can help others who won't get to read it learn what's in it
• And some of you might be moved to get your own copy to actually read
• If it's as good as I hope  (good here meaning helping to explain the forces that have gotten us to October 2020 in the US and the world)
• Because knowing how something works gives you a chance to be able to fix it in a more nuanced way than just bashing it

Kurt Anderson:  Evil Geniuses:  The Unmaking of America, A Recent History (2020)

PART ONE:  A BRIEF HISTORY OF AMERICA

1.  Land of the New:  America from 1600 to 1865

2.  Land of the New:  An Economic History, from the 1770’s to the 1970s

3.  Approaching Peak New:  The 1960s

PART TWO:  TURNING POINT

4    The 1970s:  An Equal and Opposite Reaction

5.  The 1970s:  Liberalism Peaks and the Counterrevolution Begins

6.  The 1970s:  Building the Counter-Establishment

7.  The 1970s:  From a Bicentennial Pageant to a Presidency

8.  The 1970s:  Neoliberal Useful Idiots

PART THREE:  WRONG TURN

9.  The Reagan Revolution

10. Raw Deal:  What happened in the 1980s Didn’t Stay in the 1980s

11. The Rule of Law

12.  The Deregulation Generation

13.  The Culture of Greed Is Good

14.  How Wall Sweet Ate America 

15. Workers of the New World, You Lose

16.  Insecurity Is a Feature, Not a Bug

17.  Socially Liberal, Fisally Conservative, Generally Complacent

18.  The Permanent Reagan Revolution

19.  The 1990s:  Restrained and Reckless

PART FOUR:  SAME OLD SAME OLD

20.  Rewind, Pause, Stop:  The End of the New

21.  The Politics of Nostalgia and Stagnation Since the 1990s

22.  Ruthless Beats Reasonable

23.  Winners and Losers in the Class War

24.  American Exceptionalism

PART FIVE:  MAKE AMERICA NEW AGAIN

25.  Winners and Losers (So Far) in the Digital Revolution

26.  How the Future Will Work

27.  This Strategic Inflection Point

28.  What Is to Be Done?

29.  The Plague Year and Beyond

Hope to share more of this in the coming weeks.

This Story Encapsulates A Lot Of What's Wrong With The United States

 From an LA Times article:

McDonald’s has sued former Chief Executive Steve Easterbrook, alleging that he fraudulently hid details of three sexual relationships with employees when the board fired him in November over a separate relationship with a subordinate.

In a securities filing and a document lodged with the Delaware Chancery Court, the fast-food chain said it was seeking to recover the compensation and severance payments it allowed Easterbrook to leave with. Equilar, the executive-pay consultancy, reported at the time that his severance deal was worth about $40 million .

McDonald’s would not have approved the separation agreement had it known the extent of his “inappropriate personal behavior,” the company said, but would instead have terminated him for cause.

" the board fired him in November over a separate relationship with a subordinate."

1. He was fired for cause, yet got to take home $40 million!!
2. Severance pay of $40 million (for just one employee!) for a company (McDonald's) that pays so little that its workers qualify for food stamps.

My theory incorporates two key components:  

1. How corporate boards, made up of other corporate executives, all benefit when an executive gets the highest possible compensation package, because that sets the standards for their own boards to set their own compensation.  
2. "Temporary" tax cuts on the wealthy, gave boards more incentive to raise compensation to make as much money as possible while the taxes were lower.  

Steve Clifford outlines the argument for point 1 in The Atlantic article:

How Companies Actually Decide What to Pay CEOs:     

I know—for over 20 years, I helped craft some extremely generous executive-compensation packages.

He talks about the shift from using internal equity as the model (keeping the ratio between the highest paid and the average worker pay reasonable) to the external equity model where the compensation of the top executives in a corporation should be competitive with other top executives.  This meant, he writes, internal equity went from 20:1 or 30:1 in the 70s, to the situation in 2014 where 

500 of the highest-paid senior executives at U.S. companies made nearly 1,000 times as much money as the average American worker, after taking into account salary, bonuses, and stock-based compensation.

The article explains exactly how compensation committees on Boards of Directors actually set executive pay and why it spirals higher and higher.  

The second point is harder to definitively prove, but Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 along with cuts to inheritance taxes means that the wealthy get wealthier much faster and the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider.  Here are a couple of articles that go into more detail:

• The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts
• Wikipedia entry on Bush Tax Cuts

I believe that a large inequality gap has lots of harmful consequences to democracy:

• The wealthy have an outsized influence on elections through unlimited campaign contributions and ability to lobby federal, state, and local, legislators
• Employers have far more power over employee wages and working conditions through their ability to get Congress to weaken union power
• More people are living from pay-check to pay-check and thus their employers have more leverage over them for a variety of issues - forced overtime, less time with their families, forced arbitration for disputes, etc. 

But proving these things is complicated. 

As you might imagine, Heritage Foundation scholars argue that there is no evidence the inequality endangers democracy.  

But all this hinges on a number of assumption about morality.  While the Christian bible talks endlessly about charity and helping the poor, our basic philosophy about work - The Protestant [Work] Ethic - assumes that those who are poor have themselves to blame.   It ignores the elaborate rules and procedures that are devised to justify a $40 million severance package for someone who had an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate in a company where most of the employees are for working minimum wage.  

And in our increasingly technological work places, where machines are rapidly replacing workers, we need a different mechanism than work for the basic distribution of wealth.  And in a world where the imperative of the market ignores the environmental and human damage of corporate externalities, we need to find an sustainable economic system more in balance with the natural world.

Mask Murderers? And Another Misleading Headline On Race Relations

1.  Virus Notes

Yes, it's a paradox - the more you shut things down, the more it hurts the economy, but then the less you shut things down, the higher the cases go, and that hurts the economy too.  So, accept the economy is going to take a big hit.  If most people wear masks in public, we could open sooner.  Now, will that be with a few deaths or with lots of deaths?  That's the decision.  It's not the economy this time, it's the virus, stupid!

Since I wrote that note here a few days ago I ran across an article  From University of California San Francisco:

"The latest forecast from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation suggests that 33,000 deaths could be avoided by October 1 if 95 percent of people wore masks in public."

 

 30,000 deaths!!??  Dare I call those not wearing masks in public - Mask Murderers?  It almost works, though unmasked murderers would probably be more accurate.  

And if you think there are hardcore folks who won't wear masks, because they won't give up their constitutional rights, wait until you tell parents they have to send their kids to schools that aren't COVID-19 safe.  But DeVos is all about destroying public schools and transferring public school funds to private schools.  This move by the president bleeds money from public schools, and gives Republicans new ways to point at how bad public schools are.  But I think the president's dementia is so obvious to so many people now that it will backfire.


2.  Misleading Headlines  - in March 2019 I put up a post that is still getting regular hits today on Misleading Headlines.  That article goes into the history of misleading headlines.

Well I was struck yesterday by  a very misleading printed LA Times headline, which had a much better headline in the online version.  I've seen that before.  I guess editors have more room online.  I'm not sure how many people actually buy hard copy papers because of headlines any more, but if they do, there is the pressure to make them more compelling still I guess.


The paper headline and first paragraph was:

"Outlooks on race turn gloomier

"Californians’ perceptions of race relations in the state have shifted dramatically since the spring, with views statewide having grown significantly gloomier than they were five months ago, according to a new statewide poll."

Here's screenshot of the paper version:

I read the article, and actually, it's a hopeful article.  Basically, it said that since COVID and George Floyd, people's beliefs about race relations in the US are less positive.  That's not gloomier, which suggests things are getting worse.  But what I took from that was that white people's attitudes got more realistic.  And you have to stop denying before you start changing.  So it's all good.  

When I looked for the link to the online version to put on this post, I found a very different headline - one that mirrored my take on the article:

"Views on race relations in state alter dramatically as more white people see reality of discrimination, survey shows"

NOTE:  I've put up screenshots of the headlines, but I've also repeated them with text.  I do this when I can and it seems important, because seeing-impaired readers can't 'read' images.  the programs that turn text to sound can't read images.

University Of Alaska President Resigns - Good Time For Board of Regents To Eliminate Statewide

The Anchorage Daily News just announced that UA President Johnson is resigning as of July 6.

 Johnson was making $325,000 in salary so I'm guessing with his 12 years of previous employment at UA plus his five years as president he'll get an annual retirement of somewhere between $70,000 and $110,000.  (It says he's retiring on July 1 and his appointment was announced July 28, 2015, which is just short of five years. I'm not sure if his pay is based on highest 3 years or highest 5 years.  He first worked at UA in 1996 and July 1, 1996 appears to be the cutoff for counting 3 years of 5 years.  But I'm sure the Regents could give him credit for the missing month if they chose to.) And I'm not even considering bonus pay which he appears to have received.  While he says he donated that back to the University, it would still count (at least it used to) toward his highest salaries.   (Calculating pensions is relatively straight forward, but there are some variables you have to know and I haven't been involved for 14 years now.)

Note: COVID tab above for daily updates on state case counts

Why Not Leave Position Unfilled?
 It had occurred to me when he was the finalist for the University of Wisconsin statewide presidency that it would be a good time to rethink whether we even need a statewide president.


Better Yet, Why Not Cut Out Statewide Altogether?
I also wondered why we couldn't just cut back on most of the positions in Statewide and use that money for faculty who actually teach students and do research and service?

The 2020 Alaska State Budget says , if I'm reading it right, that Statewide had 142 employees making a total of $16,385,300 in salary and benefits.  (That's an average of $115,389 per person).

Instead of having a backup bureaucracy in Fairbanks for every administrative function, they could cut back to just do the things that need to be done to coordinate the three campuses as a whole?  Oregon has already done this.  

"Established in 2011 and vested with its current authorities in 2013, the Higher Education Coordinating Commission is a 14-member volunteer commission appointed by the Oregon Governor, with nine voting members confirmed by the State Senate. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission is supported by the state agency by the same name, comprised of eight distinct offices led by Executive Director Ben Cannon.
The HECC develops and implements policies and programs to ensure that Oregon’s network of colleges, universities, workforce development initiatives and pre-college outreach programs are well-coordinated to foster student success. It also advises the Oregon Legislature, the Governor, and the Chief Education Office on policy and funding to meet state postsecondary goals.
Agency Mission and Values
Agency Mission Statement
By promoting collaboration and coordination between Oregon’s education and workforce partners, as well as through our own programs and policy leadership, HECC staff ensure that Oregonians experience increased access, equity, and success in completing their higher education, training, and career goals.
Agency Values
Transparency, Equity, Integrity, Trust, Collaboration, Accountability, Lifelong Learning"

So there's a volunteer commission and a state agency with 8 offices, each of which presumably has a few staff members.


Growth in higher education administration and administrative salaries is a key factor that many people point to as the reason for the increase in college tuition.  Here are just a few references:

The Reason Behind Colleges' Ballooning Bureaucracies
Universities’ executive, administrative, and managerial offices grew 15 percent during the recession, even as budgets were cut and tuition was increased.

​​​Colleges Must Cut Administrative Costs to Survive This Crisis

There are other articles that say the cost has gone up because of student loan programs or  that for public universities the biggest factor is legislatures cutting budgets.  I'd note that Johnson's here - the UA president he wrote his doctoral dissertation on - was known for going down to Juneau and convincing Republican legislators that money spent on the University was an investment rather than an expenditure, and he reversed cuts.  Johnson was never able to do that.

However, it would appear among the costs universities have direct control over, the biggest factor is administrative costs.  The $16 million figure is just salaries, not any other expenses like upkeep for the buildings they occupy or travel to see what's happening on the various campuses.

If the Board decides to keep the president position, I hope they make fund raising the primary job and let the campuses run themselves with minimum interference.

Social Media And Trump's Attempts To Shut Down All Unflattering Information

Here are some links you might find worth following up on.

Substack is a group trying to counter the growing power of Facebook and Google by starting their own subscription based site that journalists can join:

Substack -

"This is one of the key reasons we started Substack. We’re attempting to build an alternative media economy that gives journalists autonomy. If you don’t rely on ads for your revenue, you don’t have to be a pawn in the attention economy – which means you don’t have to compete with Facebook and Google. If you’re not playing the ads game, you can stop chasing clicks and instead focus on quality. If you control the relationship with your audience, you don’t have to rely on outside parties to favor you with traffic. And if you own a mailing list, no-one can cut you off from your readers."

Meanwhile we find out (officially anyway) that Facebook has been lying to us:

Bombshell report reveals Facebook knew for years about its dangerous potential — but rejected the warnings

"Despite internal research that Facebook’s platform was exploiting and exacerbating divisiveness among its users, top executives ignored the findings that the algorithms were doing the exact opposite of the company’s stated public mission to bring people together.
That’s according to new reporting Tuesday from the Wall Street Journal which in a comprehensive dive into the company’s treatment of its platform’s capabilities to divide users found that executives knew in 2018 what the site was doing to users but declined to take action.
“The most persistent myth about Facebook is that it naively bumbles its way into trouble,” tweeted New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose. 'It has always known what it is, and what it’s doing to society.'”

Trump Admin Doesn't Want To Tell Us Who They Gave The CARES Money

If you put money down on March 27 on a bet that the Trump administration would do its best to block oversight of the $2-trillion coronavirus rescue program, congratulations: You’ve won the bet.
Since President Trump signed the CARES Act 81 days ago, he has fired government inspectors general who had been assigned the task of monitoring the disbursements of this cash to businesses big and small.
The day after he signed the act, Trump signaled his intention to restrict the information his appointees can submit to Congress about rescue program spending.
Trump’s Treasury secretary, Steve T. Mnuchin, flatly declared this month that he wouldn’t disclose the names of small businesses receiving loans through the act’s $600-billion Paycheck Protection Program.
 

Meanwhile Trump's trying to keep us from reading John Bolton's book.

“I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified. So that would mean if he wrote a book and if the book gets out, he’s broken the law and I would think he would have criminal problems,” Trump added, later claiming he hadn’t viewed the book’s contents. 

Even if he had any legal chance to stop the book's distribution to the public, there's no practical possibility.  CNBC says the book is #1 best seller based on pre-sale orders, and Trump's niece's tell-all book is #5. And the Washington Post writes (in an article republished in the ADN) that the book is

"due to go on sale June 23 and has already been shipped across the country."

If the book has been sent to bookstores, there is absolutely no way that someone isn't going to leak a copy, even if Trump's law suit succeeds.  Bootleg copies will get out.

But all this raises the complicity of the Republicans in the US Senate who refused to call Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial.  And refused to take any step to oppose Trump's stonewalling Congress and the people of the USA.

So, in your weekly email to your members of Congress (all my US based readers do this of course, right?) you  request they make public where the CARES Act money has gone, prohibiting government agencies from requiring Non-Disclosure Agreements (Bolton's cleared the book with NCS to be sure there's no classified information), and generally putting pressure on Trump to rehire the various Inspectors General and other watchdogs he's fired, and to comply with subpoenas for various officials.

George Washington: "Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest."

Screenshot of FB Live Coverage of Michigan Protest

I watched the Michigan protests live last Wednesday and heard people complaining about losing their income and losing their businesses.

I understand those folks whose businesses are going under, whose jobs are gone and whose bills threaten to ruin them financially.  I understand those people who don't know how they'll pay for food. I understand their frustration with the closing off of much of the economy.  (No, I'm lucky that I don't feel it, but I understand it.)  It's rational to want your life to continue on normally, and even not care if some people die because of it.  After all, we allow people to drive cars knowing that some 30,000 or so people will die in car crashes every year.

But we've had 39,000 deaths in the last seven weeks or so and without the self-isolation that's been imposed, that number would be a lot higher.  And the people out protesting without social distancing and without masks are going to make the numbers higher than they should be.

But they have a point - there's a balance between individual freedom and the good of all.  As I believe

Screenshot of FB Live Coverage of Michigan Protest

that there is great deal of difference among Americans in how well they understand how much we all affected - for good and bad - by what others do.

For those who are loudly and self-righteously declaring their personal rights to do whatever they want, I'd like to direct them to the letter of transmittal of the draft US Constitution to the Congress, signed by George Washington, in which he wrote:

"Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved;"

There are options available that include helping out those with small businesses and those who have lost their jobs without jeopardizing the health and lives of other Americans.  Congress has already passed legislation to give out cash to people below a certain level of income.  To help out small businesses.  To postpone the payment of rent and other debts.  If the protestors are concerned that so much of that went to friends and donors of members of Congress and the President, their protests are directed at the wrong targets.

The Bible tells us about Jubilee years where all debts are forgiven and people begin again.  This might be a good time for that.

If that's too extreme for some, we could simply freeze the economy for several months.  Turn it off and then start it up when it's safer.  No new debts would be accrued.  We'd start over again as if April through July (or whenever it's safe) never happened.

Scarcity On A Windy Day

wind strewn eucalyptus bark

The wind was howling during the night and flags were straining at their harnesses, today.  We went to an event in Golden Gate Park.  The almost three year old was allowed to take her scooter.  This irked the five year old no end.  Things that others have seem to become an overwhelming obsession and it lasted pretty much the whole day.  Well, there was a period when the scooter wasn't at the top of his mind.  When the little one was on the swing.  There were two swings and the second one was occupied too.  Suddenly he needed to swing.  She needed to give up her swing for him.

But grandpa was there to remind him how angry he got when she took the toys he was playing with.  His response:  "Grandpa, you're annoying."

The wind had toppled this dead tree in the park and there were lots and lots of branches all over the ground.  (I'm making an assumption here about how this tree landed on its side.  But it looked fairly newly down.)

The five year old appropriated one - about seven feet long - that was a hazard to anyone walking near him.  We pointed this out and sometimes he would drag it off the path on the ground.  When a young lady walked by and got scratched by the branch, I asked him what he had to say.  Nothing.  You need to apologize.  Glare.  "It was her fault.  She walked into it."  Glare.  When you chose to carry the stick where other people were, you took on a responsibility.  Luckily she wasn't hurt much. But you still have a responsibility to apologize.  Glare.

Fortunately at age five, grudges don't last long and he was giggling soon.

redwood bark in Golden Gate Park

We got back home for the three year old's nap and the older brother went with his dad to a friend's birthday party while the scooter owner napped.  

Later I enjoyed this San Francisco sunset.  

Mystery Spots, Floating Bear, Changing Neighborhoods

The two year old mirror in the back bathroom at my mom's house had developed dark round spots here and there.  A mystery.  And a project.  I loosened the brackets that were holding it up, only to discover there was glue involved too.  Youtube showed me how to remove a mirror with glue.  Fortunately I followed the advice and taped it well because it did break into pieces.  Someone else gave me advice to wear long sleeves.

When I got the mirror off, I found out the source of the mystery spots.  All the spots were where the glue was on the back of the mirror.

Another youtube showed me how to glue a new mirror up.  I needed mirror adhesive.

On the way to the hardware store, I passed this new (to me) mural.  It's much easier to stop and take a picture when you're on your bike.

@TJN3FF did this great bear mural - though it looks more like an otter pose than a bear pose.  If you go to his instagram page you'll see at least one more that I've posted in the past.

While I was at the hardware store, some clouds came over and there were even scattered raindrops. We have drizzle (it wasn't), shower, rain, downpour (none of them), but we don't have a word I know of for 10-15 raindrops per square meter per minute.

I'd notice this boxy modern new house going up on the way.  I was particularly struck by the steps to the roof.  I thought they looked very cool, but I know they're going to get a railing before long, and that's probably a good idea.





But on the way back I was thinking about the way this neighborhood is changing.  Up on this small hill, the houses tend to be bigger than the bungalows in the flatter area, but this one is still bigger and a stark contrast in style.  Here are a couple of the neighboring houses:

This is within a mile of my mom's house, but a totally different neighborhood

Back in 2007 I posted some pictures of some of the original subdivision houses in my mom's neighborhood along with some of the newer, much larger ones that have replaced the originals.

In the 12 years or so since I did the 2007 post, Google and other high tech companies have moved in between these neighborhoods and the beach.  So there are lots of affluent young tech folks buying up old houses, demolishing them, and building much bigger ones.  And there are also developers doing the same and then putting them up for sale.  

I grew up in a three bedroom, one and a half bath house - a family of four.  It seemed plenty big at the time, but it's only about 1200 square feet.  And not cleverly designed to use the space to its fullest.  

And I'd note there was a tent encampment along the sidewalk by the post office near the hardware store.  That hadn't been there last time.  

Thoughts On Pebble Mine After 6 Classes

I've been to six of the planned eight OLÉ classes on Pebble Mine. Here's my sense of this mega project to extract copper, gold, molybdenum, and other metals in a remote area adjacent to the world's largest salmon fishery.


1.  Obsession:   Anyone who wants to undertake a project of this scope in the United States has to be an obsessive gambler. The amount of time and effort it takes to get all the permits, to get to the site, to put in infrastructure, to put in all the safety procedures, to woo the local communities, and to so raw mining and then to clean up everything is enormous.   I suspect that for some people this is a challenge, like climbing the peaks of the world's highest mountains.  I imagine for all who undertake such projects, the promise of great riches is a key factor.  And apparently, getting a project along a certain part of the way, means the project can then be sold to someone else.  And I'm not exactly sure who's money is at risk and what sort of tax benefits some may get out of losses in a project like this.
For example here are some of the Pebble Mine presentation slides that show a sense of the enormous scope of the project without getting into minutiae:

They have to process such enormous amounts of ore because the amount of valuable minerals is a tiny fraction.

This is just the site for the current 20 year planned mine.  There's a much richer ore deposit to the east of this, but it's buried under bedrock and harder to get at.  No one seems to believe that this project is going to end after 20 years.  That's just the point where they will begin this process over again to then go after the rest of the ore.

2. Complexity.  There is no one person who has the knowledge and experience to be able to assimilate all the data in order to make a yes or no decision on a project like this.  There's way too much technical data from too many different areas.  We've been told about tests of chemical reactions, groundwater studies, surface water studies, acidity, toxicity, bulk tailings and pyritic tailings,  porphyry intrusions, how copper affects salmon's ability to smell, the many federal and state regulations, and  growing demand for copper in green economy,

Here's an overview of the Baseline Study - an attempt to document the existing conditions.  Who is really going to read 30,000 pages?

3.  Many Decisions.   There isn't just one decision.  There are many permits and approvals to get - some of which can stop the project.

On the left are the US Army Corps of Engineers authorities.  On the right are other federal laws. (clicking on any of the images will enlarge and focus them)

And there are approvals and permits needed from Alaska.

And here are all the groups involved in the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Impact.

Although we got charts showing the decision making process, no one ever said who exactly makes the final decision.  Is it just one person?  Or several people?  We still have two more sessions so I can ask next week.  (I'll miss the last session, unfortunately.)

4. Risk.   In fact, this is NOT a technical decision. Ultimately it's a decision about risk.  How much risk is there and is that risk worth the possible consequences?  It's about the level of comfort with risk the decision maker has.  There isn't just one risk, but many.  At the extreme is the potentially catastrophic consequence of destroying the salmon in Bristol Bay.  McNeil River bears are also nearby.  Then there are the possibilities of lesser impacts on the salmon and other parts of the environment around the mine site.  On the other side are the benefits, which the Pebble folks identified as employment for local people and the importance of copper in the new green environment.  And, of course, the hundreds of millions of potential profit.

Here are some slides from the presentation of Bristol Bay Native Corporation which opposes the mine:

And this slide from the Pebble Mine folks:

5.  Ultimately It's A Values Based Decision.  Aside from the decision maker(s) comfort with and exposure to risk in this situation, this all boils down to two opposing world views:

1. The United States is based on individual freedom and capitalism which allow, even encourage, individuals and corporations to go out and exploit the world's God given natural resources to become rich and make the general economy better
2. Human beings are part of nature, not APART from nature.  Humans have been exploiting the planet and now it has reached the point that human caused climate change will make life and survival for humans and most other species of life much harder.

6.  The Decision.   The decision on Pebble will probably be determined not so much by all the technical details that are being presented, but by where on the spectrum between World Views #1 and #2  the decision maker(s) sit.


7.  Money.  As I review all this, I realize that one important aspect* of the Pebble Mine project has not been discussed in the class - how the project is being financed.  I made the assumption in #1 above that this was a gamble.  But bits of conversation after class with presenters makes me question that.  At one point I made a comment about Northern Dynasty (the company that has been at the lead in this project) and someone said, they won't be the ones who actually carry all this out.  They will be sold out.  So I have questions about how a deal like this is put together.    Who actually has money at risk?  Who is investing in this?  What are their motives?  How much of the expenses of doing all the preparation costs are only paper losses?

These all boil down to who is actually risking how much money and what do they stand to gain?  To what extent do tax payers end up underwriting this because of tax deductions for business expenses or tax offsets for losses?

*Of course there are other important aspects that haven't been discussed that I haven't yet thought of, I'm sure.

A Chilean Student's View Of Chile's Current Upheaval

This a follow up to yesterday's post on Chile's protests and government response.  It's based on a Skype chat with Sebastían, my college student friend in Santiago.  He was the catalyst for yesterday's post.  I'll use some images of the Skype chat to give a sense of this 'interview' but I've abbreviated it somewhat to cut out repetition and side conversations. I've made the images as big as I think I can fit them here.  You may have to work a bit to read them, but the visual of the chat seemed to capture our chat better than just the words.

I began by letting him know I'd posted about our previous chat (he'd said it was ok),  about the protests, whether he had any comments, (he did) and  by asking how he got to school today if the subway stations were damaged.

[Note:  OCDE - mentioned below- is Spanish initials for OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ]

Let's look at that picture of crowd for a subway train in Santiago at peak time a little larger.  

Also, some clarification - "minimum salary is 300,000 clp (Chilean pesos).  300,000 clp would be (today) $413. That's per month.  Here's a chart from wage indicator.org that shows 300,000 clp is below what a single person needs to live.  

Data for Chile Sept. 2019 - From wage indicator.org

Let's catch up a bit. First he sent me to an instagram that shows Chile's current president Pinera saying "Estamos en guerra" or "We are at war." Then it shows president Pinochet saying almost the exact same words 30 years ago. [I couldn't figure out how to get the GIF from Instagram to here (this is just a screenshot, but if you click on the image below, it will take you to the GIF.]




And an Instagram response:

(We are not at war)

Then he sent me to this video on Twitter, shot from a window above, of police or military, who could be snorting coke.  Or not.  You can judge for yourself.

PACOS JALANDO! pic.twitter.com/lByZsJcXo8

— gonzalosoyyo 👑 (@gonzalosoyyo) October 20, 2019

And this video Esto pasa en Chile - This is happening in Chile.  It begins with the president saying we are in war.  Then it has shots of the police attacking citizens.  Some particularly troubling ones include police cars intentionally running over people fleeing.

 

There is so much conflict around the world now:

• Hong Kong 
• Kurds in Syria
• The British are in knots over Brexit
• Venezuela 
• Yeman 
• Refugees in camps around the world
• US president facing impeachment

It's easy to not pay attention to what's happening in Chile.  But one of the Instagram sites Sebastían sent me to had this message:

"Friends of the world TV is not going to show this, help us to make visible. THE POLICE AND THE MILITARY ARE KILLING PEOPLE!"

Which included this:

"KNOW THAT IN CHILE TODAY, OCTOBER 2019 THE PEOPLE TIRED AND THE PIÑERA GOVERNMENT IS REPRESSING IT WITH DEATH, THE SAME AS IN THE PINOCHET DICTATORSHIP.."
[Translations from Google Translate.  Overall it's a messy translation so that's all I'll offer.]

Here's the Spanish from the Instagram, but I can't seem to get the link right on my Mac - it works on my phone.

que nosotrxs no lo vivimos, nosotrxs lo estamos viviendo. Amigxs del mundo la tv no va a mostrar esto, ayudenos a visibilizar. LA POLICÍA Y LOS MILITARES ESTÁN MATANDO GENTE! DESPUÉS DE UNA SEMANA DE MANIFESTACIONES DETONADAS POR EL ALZA EN EL TRANSPORTE PÚBLICO, QUE INVOLUCRARON LA EVASIÓN EN EL PAGO DEL MISMO, INFILTRADOS EN LAS MANIFESTACIONES COMIENZAN A REALIZAR MONTAJES TANTO DE INCENDIOS, BARRICADAS COMO DE SAQUEOS, PARA ASÍ EL INCOMPETENTE QUE TENEMOS POR PRESIDENTE, TENER EXCUSAS PARA DECLARAR UN TOQUE DE QUEDA Y SACAR A LOS MILITARES A LA CALLE VELANDO POR "EL ORDEN PÚBLICO" QUE SUS MISMOS PERKINES HAN DESTRUIDO EN BASE A MONTAJES. HOY ES EL 3ER DÍA Y YA HAY FALLECIDOS Y GENTE DESAPARECIDA. QUE SE SEPA QUE EN CHILE HOY, OCTUBRE DE 2019 EL PUEBLO SE CANSÓ Y EL GOBIERNO DE PIÑERA ESTÁ REPRIMIENDOLO CON MUERTE, IGUAL QUE EN LA DICTADURA DE PINOCHET. .HERMANX QUE ESTÁS AQUÍ SI TE TOMAN #DITUNOMBRE GRITALO! Y QUE APAREZCAN TODXS LXS QUE HOY NO ESTÁN! ..NO QUEREMOS MÁS MUERTES NI MÁS DESAPARECIDXS. NO QUEREMOS TU MIERDA DE DOCTRINA DE SHOCK!!! FOTO: CONCEPCIÓN @afpphoto

Chile Subway Fare Hike Protests And 7pm Curfew

My Chilean friend had said he could not get to his university classes Friday because the subways were jammed and not moving because of protests.  Today I sent the picture from the Anchorage Daily News, showing students throwing wood onto a bonfire.   His reaction was,

"But it doesn't show the military occupation, civil population hurt by police forces, tear gas thrown to people with kids."

And he sent me some Instagram videos.

And I found this AFC (Agence France-Presse) news footage (among others) on Youtube.





A while later, I asked if he was having his weekly big family dinner tonight.  No, he said.

"Curfew is at 19:00."

Coverage of events like this - particularly to the rest of the world that knows little about the context in a far off country, especially one that isn't in the news that much - is difficult.  Video likes action - fires, fighting, visually compelling conflict in general.  The students look like vandals in some of the video I saw, but the coverage doesn't talk about the high unemployment, high prices, etc. that the people of Chile have been enduring.

And when the US press says things like, "protesting a 2 cent increase in fares" it sounds a little ridiculous.  But when you convert $1 US to Chilean pesos - you get Chilean 710 pesos. (When we were there in early July this year, it was about 680 pesos.)

So what we see is translated as a 2 cent increase, is really a 14 peso increase.


It's easy to find economic analyses that emphasize economic measures that investors might want.   It's harder to find analyses that look at how the economy affects the people.  Here's the end of a World Bank analysis which I'm including because it was updated just a week ago.

"Encouraging innovation, improving the linkage between education and the labor market and promoting the participation of women in the labor market are also essential for improving long-term prospects. On the social front, enhancing the quality of health and education services and reducing constraints to access to well-targeted social policies will be key for reducing the remaining poverty and strengthening the middle class."
Last Updated: Oct 14, 2019"

Wikipedia's entry on Economy of Chile begins this way:

"Chile is ranked as a high-income economy by the World Bank,[17] and is considered as South America's most stable and prosperous nation,[18] leading Latin American nations in competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[19] Although Chile has high economic inequality, as measured by the Gini index,[20] it is close to the regional mean.[21]"

So, even though it has the highest GDP in South America, its income inequality is the same as its neighbors.  For Alaskans, I'd note that salmon and tourism (after copper) are among the largest experts.  They also have Alaskan sized earthquakes and mountains.

[UPDATE Oct 22, 2019:  Follow up post here.]

If economists think the economy is doing well, then they are tracking the wrong numbers

When I hear newscasters tell us the economic indicators are up and the economy is doing well, my reaction is, "Whose economy are they talking about?"  The economy may be working well for banks, but for many people it's a disaster and getting worse.

Here are some things I think are missing from what the official economists track:

• unrecovered negative externalities - pollution, environmental degradation, carbon footprint, etc.
• income distribution - measures such as
• gap between highest and lowest paid employees in organizations;  
• various stats on the amount and percentage of wealth held by people in various points across the scale from lowest to highest wealth;  
• number of homeless per billionaire; 
• other miscellaneous numbers (here are some examples of the kinds of things I mean, though once a good list is drawn up, it can be determined which metrics most consistently reflect economic health:
• number of personal bankruptcies and their causes
• indicators of mental health of the population (if the economy is working right, then people should be reasonably content and not subject to mental health problems)
• collective cost of health care/health indicators

You get the idea.  But since this basically my intuitive sense of things (with unconscious influences from various sources).  So I looked to see what others have done on this.  Here are some examples from an untitled document at McGregor Consultants with some alternatives to the GDP:

First, the document looks at what's missing in the GDP (Gross Domestic Product).  Then it offers some alternative systems.  Here are a couple of examples.

"A. Fordham Index of Social Health (FISH)
Measures 16 socio-economic indicators: 1. infant mortality
2. child abuse
3. child poverty
4. teen suicide
5. drug abuse
6. high school drop-outs
7. average weekly earnings
8. unemployment
9. health insurance coverage
10. poverty among elderly
11. health insurance for elderly 12. highway deaths due to alcohol 13. homicides
14. food stamp distribution
15. housing
16. income inequality
Since 1973, the FISH index has declined as the GDP increased in the US.
In Canada, the FISH index has stayed constant since 1985 as the GDP increased."

Rather than go through each index (the link above does that) I'll just offer you the list at the bottom  the linked document.  [When I checked out the links they were all squirrelly.  I'm guessing the original document I found on the McGregor site was pretty old and the links are either wrong or out of date.  But you get the general idea.  I've added new links where I could find something that looked worthwhile.)

"ALTERNATIVES TO THE GDP WEB SITESFORDHAM INDEX OF SOCIAL HEALTH FISH (This one seems to have migrated to Vassar and lost the F)GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR GPIUNITED NATIONS HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX UNHDI
GROSS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT GSDP  (this link is all about sustainability measures, but not exactly an index called GSDP) GROSS ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDEX GESDI"

Will Dunleavy’s Budget Lower Alaska’s Carbon Footprint?

Alaskans use more energy per capita than residents of any other US state.*  Much of the total energy use comes from the development of oil and gas, which is part of the total divided by the population to get average/person.  However, Alaskans are also dependent on most food and goods being shipped in from Outside.  So the transportation costs for those goods mean we use more energy than others in the US.

So, with Dunleavy’s massive cuts, there is surely going to be an equally massive out-migration from the state.  For people losing their jobs, an extra $1000 in PFD isn’t going to pay the mortgage, rent, or other expenses.  Most will not find equivalent jobs in Alaska and will find much better opportunities Outside.

So Alaska’s carbon footprint is likely to go down.  

That’s the silver lining, thin as it might be.

While the blog has focused on Argentina lately, I have been paying attention to Alaska’s summer of heat, fire, and dire budgetary actions.

I watch with dismay [unlike a number of politicians and social media agitators, I tend to understate things] as Alaskans throw logic on the Dunleavy fire, thinking that will make a difference to him.  Logic has already turned those Republicans in the legislature who are not immune to it, and the same for everyday Alaskans.


But it’s my sense of all this that logic has no effect on Dunleavy.  Well, not the logic that starts with assumptions that Alaska matters.   He’s solely listening to his Outside financiers whose agenda is to exploit the resources of Alaska (and anywhere else with exploitable resources) with no concern for the impacts on the state, the climate, or people.  Their Ayn Randian beliefs are that their personal self-interest is all that matters.  They assume their wealth can shield them from the worst of the remnants of a once civilized society.

So, destroying the university is a good thing for them.  It means that there is no independent intellectual, scientific base in Alaska that is capable of raising questions about resource extraction policies, or to question industry reports saying that ‘no harm will be done.’

Cutting government watchdog agencies is good too.  The fewer government employees watching over corporate compliance, the more corporations can get away with.  The cruise ship on-board inspector program, which cost the state nothing, was vetoed out of existence.  So cruise lines can illegally pollute all they want without anyone watching.

Today’s Anchorage Daily News says the department that oversees the  development of the natural gas pipeline is cutting half its staff.  Let’s see how well they’ll be able to spot problems down the line.  Remember when Shell included stuff on manatees in their Chukchi Sea environmental impact statements?  They’d just lifted the language from EIS from Florida.  And it got through the first round of regulators as I recall.

The Koch brothers are making a hostile takeover of Alaska.  This is about power.  The ability to get done what they want.  Logic plays no role.  Well, that’s not quite true.  Their logic is about what they can get away with.  It has completely different assumptions than the logic of most Alaskans.  Their logic is about making as much money as they can, with no concerns about Alaska.  The appeals of all the Alaskans hurt by the cuts are irrelevant to them.  They’re reveling in their power a)  to destroy Alaska as we know it and b) to then exploit it freely.  

And as for Alaska’s carbon footprint?  With increased oil, gas, and other mineral extraction, there may well be an increase despite the people who leave the state.


*The assertion that Alaskans have a larger carbon footprint first came to me in an article by a close relative that looked at the alliance of some environmental groups with anti-immigration groups based on the logic that when poor immigrants come from Central American use more carbon in the US than they did at home, and thus they shouldn’t be let into the country.  That, of course, begs the question about US residents’ moral entitlement to use more carbon than their southern neighbors.  The article also raised the issue of Alaskans using even more carbon  than average US residents.   The link unfortunately only goes to an abstract - I haven’t found free access to the whole article.  People with UAA or Loussac library cards should be able to get access to the article.