The BP Oil Spill Opportunity
Image from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/04/gulf-oil-spill-noaa-map-shows-landfall-projections.html
I’m really mad. I’m mad that this happened and even more angry that BP was not ready for a crisis like this. Anything that can break will, and in BP’s case they were more prepared to displace the blame than fix the damages. Now, 82.8-102.6 million gallons of oil are in the Gulf of Mexico (compare that to the 10.8 million gallons from the Exxon Valdez spill). YUCK!
I’m also unimpressed with BP’s solutions to clean up the spill. It seems like the best minds are at work trying to retrieve the lost oil while everyone else is scrambling for a way to discuss the environmental concerns. Now 31% of the Gulf is off-limits to fishing and we haven’t seen any plans that scientists can get behind. Even Bill Nye the Science Guy is speaking out against BP!
Image from Slate.com
We need to seize the oil-covered opportunity here and make a serious move towards clean energy. New York Times Columnist, Bob Herbert, wrote on May 31st:
However and whenever the well gets capped, what we really need is leadership that calls on the American public to begin coping in a serious and sustained way with an energy crisis that we’ve been warned about for decades. If the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history is not enough to bring about a reversal of our epic foolishness on the energy front, then nothing will.
Herbert’s right, if this isn’t enough to bring about change, what will? How much of our enviroment do we have to destroy before people wake up? This is President Obama’s chance to fulfil his campaign promises of moving the U.S. away from its oil dependency, create green jobs, and move us towards cleaner more sustainable types of energy. It would be incredibly difficult to rally our exhausted Congress to regulate carbon as needed, so I suggest that the President rally the people. On May 28th, New York Times Columnist, Thomas Friedman described this best when he wrote:
This oil leak is not President Obama’s fault. Stopping the spill is BP’s responsibility; it both caused it and it has the best access to the best technology to plug it. Of course, as the nation’s C.E.O., Mr. Obama has to oversee the cleanup, and he has been on top of that. His most important job, though, is one he has yet to take on: shaping the long-term public reaction to the spill so that we can use it to generate the political will to break our addiction to oil. In that job, the most important thing Mr. Obama can do is react to this spill as a child would — because it is precisely that simple gut reaction, repeated over and over, speech after speech, that could change our national conversation on energy.
Friedman asks some good questions too:
Why would we want to stay dependent on an energy source that could destroy so many birds, fish, beaches and ecosystems before the next generation has a chance to enjoy them? Why aren’t we doing more to create clean power and energy efficiency when so many others, even China, are doing so? And why can’t you even mention the words “carbon tax,” when the carbon we spill into the atmosphere every day is just as dangerous to our future as the crude oil that has been spilling into the gulf?
Right now, people are angry at BP, but a majority of the American people don’t trust the government. President Obama needs to reconnect with candidate Obama and inspire us once again. He needs to lead the American people and help us put the burden on Congress to make real change and not just reform.
Image from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-rig-20100423-pictures,0,5444277.photogallery
Oh we’re mad, but are we ready for action? I’ve already written my legislators about the BP spill, but I’m ready to do more. It’s estimated that oil will continue to pump into the Gulf through August, this gives Americans enough time to organize and demand that our Congressmen end their dependency on the oil lobby’s money so the US can end its dependency on oil. If we don’t demand clean energy now, then our anger and attention will be forgotten until something even worse happens.
We can’t waste this opportunity, enough is enough.
Image from http://www.politicolnews.com/health-reform-fda-power/
After watching Michael Specter’s TED talk from February, I’m motived to change public opinion in America on science more than ever. Specter, the writer for New Yorker and author of Denialism, talked about how public perception is slowing progress on genetically engineered food and vaccinations. Here’s the description:
“Vaccine-autism claims, ‘Frankenfood’ bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public’s growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.”
Biotechnology will be the path to a better tomorrow if the science behind genetically engineered and modified food continues to improve. One of the largest international economic and political issues of today is food shortages. They effect the world’s poorest people and are costly to for foreign nations and companies to aid. The most beneficial use of genetically engineered foods is feeding the one-two million people who go to bed hungry every day. Scientists are able to increase the amount of vitamins and even add other nutrients to food that is already accessible in third world countries, preventing diseases and increasing the life expectancy. (See GlobalIssues.Org for more information of GE and GM.)
Sounds great right? While the science is great, the wholesale-politics side of the practice has room to improve. As Specter puts it, patent issues aren’t science. Science denailism is running rampant in America, and unfortunately, our distrust for big government has allowed science to become a polarizing topic of debate. Michael Specter describes the status quo in Denialism:
“For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad-that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn’t always in our best interest. We live in a world where the leaders of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather than import genetically modified grains. Childhood vaccines have proven to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people march on Washington to protest their use. In the United States a growing series of studies show that dietary supplements and “natural” cures have almost no value, and often cause harm.”
It is not our best interest to treat science as a political issue. There are not facts that are better than other facts. Also, genetically engineered foods are not the antithesis to organic foods, we can have both and it is not our place to roadblock the development of a technological advancement that can supply healthy food to billions of people. Today there is anxiety over food and displaced fear. Why are politicians addressing the chemicals in our salad bowls before improving those in our KFC bowl? American politicians are making the wrong decisions because the populous is largely and oddly anti-science. As Michael Specter said at TED, you can have your own beliefs but you can’t have your own facts.
Get on board people.
Private Industry Driven Public Diplomacy?
Image from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28landler.html?fta=y
The multi-party dispute between Google Inc., China, and now the U.S.A. has evolved into a Cold War-esque controversy. Neither Google nor China is willing to collaborate with the other, leaving all eyes on the United States, whose eyes are on Iran. Google Inc. is calling for the U.S. to bring a case against China over International trade laws and make sweeping changes in their diplomatic stance towards all the other countries that use censorship, despite the U.S.’s own censorship practices. The United States’ reliance on China as a political ally on the World Stage and International Market is being challenged by a resistance to support their “Asian interests.” Diplomacy may prevent the U.S. to take any action against China because of how crucial they are in bringing sanctions against Iran. And furthermore, the U.S. has been incredibly quiet on all allegations of Chinese human rights violations. China is pressuring the U.S. to ignore the technological power house completely.
True to form, the U.S. is preaching a moral solution to an ideological battle without addressing its own behavior. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party has shown that it is unwilling to compromise on domestic issues through their relentless commitment to the total governmental control that is symptomatic of a Communist state. Google Inc., who may only be the short-term victor of rounds I and II against China, has proven the scope of their moral compass and will have to chart unknown territory in the Asian market.
Both Google and China entered the conflict with a win-win goal in mind, where Google could function in a Chinese world. In 2006, Google Inc.’s CEO Eric Schmidt claimed that
“China has 5,000 years of history. Google has 5,000 years of patience in China,” promising that “before 7006 Google would become the most popular, successful, useful service in China” (Seatle 2/8/07).
The Google-China relationship, however, was not as healthy behind closed doors as it seemed publicly, which allowed little room for a collaborative solution to their disagreement. China increased its censorship demands, and eventually pushed Google too far. Five years proved to be Google’s patience thresh hold and the company chose to set a bold precedent in the cyber world by publicly accusing China of violating freedoms and obstructing trade on both national and international levels.
The conflict is now at a lose-lose draw, where China may be the only man left standing when the smoke clears. The United States could still join the fight with Google, but for the moment they fight alone. Google may have put a few holes in the Great Firewall of China, but they’ve given up for now.
The fight is returning home.
Google on my Wayward Son
Cartoon by Tony Auth from Slate.com
The Google vs. China dispute is being played out in the media like a geo-political chess game. When a representative from either side makes a public statement or announces a course of action, the other is faced with the immediate burden of reacting, analyzing, and projecting within a reasonable time frame to fit their message into the half-life of a story in the 24/7 media. The conflict between Google Inc. and China over censorship issues has now spanned three months and consists of three main issues: alleged privacy rights violations, international trade challenges caused by governmental censorship, and the imminence of several lawsuits coming from all directions.
The conflict reached a new pinnacle of escalation when Google officially announced that it would withdraw from the Chinese market. Chinese visitors to Google.cn were redirected to Google.com.hk, the Hong Kong version, which offers unfiltered search results (Al Jazeera 3/24/10). This aggressive tactic was responded to with serious force from the Chinese Communist party who wrote in the People’s Daily,
“For Chinese people, Google is not god, and even if it puts on a full-on show about politics and values, it is still not god. In fact, Google is not a virgin when it comes to values. Its cooperation and collusion with the U.S. intelligence and security agencies is well-known.” (NY Times 3/23/10)
Cofounder, Sergey Brin, admitted that he had a change of heart about the deal with Google that started around the Beijing Olympics. Brin told the Wall Street Journal,
“China has made great strides against poverty and whatnot, but nevertheless, in some aspects of their policy, particularly with respect to censorship, with respect to surveillance of dissidents, I see the same earmarks of totalitarianism, and I find that personally quite troubling” (Wall Street Journal 3/24/10).
Google’s stock dropped after the announcement and now run the gamut of losing ad revenue from Chinese companies, mobile users, and the success of their android phones on the Chinese market. Their commitment to stand up against China’s domestic censorship policy has led them to bring the battle home to the states.
After announcing it will be pulling out of China, Google Inc. came back to the joint Congressional hearings with a new, more ideological message. Top Google Executives, including Sergey Brin, expanded their position by calling for the United States to consider withholding foreign aid to any country that censors its internet services. Alan Davidson, director of public policy for Google, explained that over 40 countries restrict their Internet and 25 have blocked Google entirely. He said
“the growing problem for Internet censorship is not isolated to one country or one region…No single company and no single industry can tackle Internet censorship on its own” (NY Times 3/24/10).
Google Inc.’s policy suggestion to the U.S. builds upon its request for a WTO case by calling on countries to pledge to provide unfiltered Internet access, which would open the United States up to criticism of hypocrisy for its own online strategic censorship. An opinion piece in the China Daily reported that
Google wants its Chinese website to include harmful pornographic, anti-China separatists and subversive information so that this information is spread to 1.3 billion Chinese citizens, something that Chinese government intentionally and consciously wants to limit. The US government will in no way allow anti-US such as Al-Qaida and domestic and international Muslim extremist websites to be searchable by US citizens (China Daily 3/22/10).
The joint Congressional session failed to mediate the Google-China conflict, garnering praise for the company from many Congressmen and Obama Administration Officials. Senator Bryon Dorgan said,
“Information is not to be feared, and ideas are not enemies to be crushed. The truth is China too often wants a one-way relationship with the world” (NY Times 3/24/10).
Davidson announced that Google will attempt to reenter the Chinese market once domestic censorship laws are adapted to allow online freedom and violations of Chinese privacy rights are regulated.
The Chinese May Never Google Again
Image from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/03/google-china-update/
This morning, Google Inc. announced that it’s 99.9% sure it shut down Google in China. Google Inc. and China have met for the past two months to decide whether Google can release a legal unfiltered search engine in China. The battle between China has put cyber-security against censorship and is raising some serious questions about whether Google’s profit in China is worth sacrificing their values for.
“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer and senior vice president for corporate development, wrote on the company blog. “We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”
Read More at Wired.com.
The conflict started in January of 2010, when Google Inc. announced that they were the victims of “highly sophisticated and targeted attack,” along with 20 other companies. The attacks on Google’s intellectual property occurred in mid-December and were to gain access to the email accounts of Chinese Human Rights. The attack also brought to their attention that the accounts of several American, European, and Chinese human rights activists in China were regularly opened by a third-party (Google’s Official Blog). Google Inc. said the attacks were not successful; however they are no longer willing to follow China’s censorship laws and is considering leaving its site and Chinese offices.
Google’s Official Blog post on January 10th, 2010 offers the company’s state on the conflict as well as advice to people on how to prevent further attacks through increasing anti-spyware and anti-trust software. They have also made their report to Congress through the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission public. Google says:
“It has made its security measures available and is handling this conflict in the open because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.”
Google.cn is used by tens of millions of people each day, and will leave the Chinese people “who will have questions for their government if the company is driven out” (Washington Post). Many Google executives are describing the move as financial, since Google is the only the second largest search engine in China and has dropped from $1 billion in worth to $600 million in 2010. There’s also been a drop in Chinese who are online from 10 million a decade ago to only 340 million. David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer for Google told CNN Tech that,
“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the Web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China.”
Google Inc. has had private meetings with the Chinese Communist Party to figure out a way, if any, to run an unfiltered search engine in China.
Thus far the Chinese Government has denied any involvement in the cyber attacks, calling them “groundless” and describing “China’s policy on internet safety [as] transparent and consistent” (BBC News). They have also claimed through various state-run newspapers that American companies are attempting to export their political values and reap financial privileges by operating in China. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has asked China to look into Google’s allegations without success. The Chinese Government has now brought the United States into the conflict by accusing the U.S. government of illegally checking a massive amount of American email accounts. Clinton responded to these charges with a speech urging Beijing to conduct investigations and referred to China as “walling themselves off from the progress of the next century” (BBC News).
The Ideological Battle in the Classroom
Texas, the largest consumer of textbooks, is now working to bring conservatism to the classroom. A New York Times article published on MAy 12th, 2010 said:
The Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economicstextbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
As a Texan, this isn’t shocking. I received a fantastic education in San Antonio, TX and was exposed to multitude of beliefs but graduated with a lot of liberal angst. I worry that my state may be setting a precedent that will allow science denialism a place in the classroom. The Texas Board of Education didn’t consult any scientists, sociologist, or historians before making sweeping changes to Texas history and the history of the United States of America.
Here’s a preview from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?ref=us (click to zoom in):
The changes will reach a final in May after 30 days of open comment from the public. I truly hope that moderates and liberal come out to speak against the changes made. Texas is conservative enough and the lessons they’re looking to add don’t belong in the classroom. It’s also troubling that a state with a high school drop out rate nearing 30% is more concerned with political bias than the quality of education they’re providing.
Google Maps Introduces Bike Paths
Today, Google Inc. announced that its Google Maps services will include safe bike paths in 150 American cities. The new service is in response to the overwhelming demand from bike enthusiasts calling for paths on Google Maps forums, including group called GoogleMapsBikeThereNow.org collected more than 51,000 signatures asking for bike paths. The new and improved Google Maps will be available for the first time at the National Bike Summit in Washington and then used at a group bike at SXSW in Austin, TX.
Information from: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/google-maps-adds-directions-for-cylists/
Google Inc. has been a strong advocate for clean technology and has offered services that give consumers more power to make ethical and environmentally conscious decisions. Hopefully this new service will inspire more people to bike rather drive. As the article above suggests, more people would probably consider biking if they new of safer routes. I also would like to add that this service could put pressure on cities to increase their number of bike lanes.
A world with less cars on the road is a world I want to know, so let’s hope Google Maps’ new bike path plan is a hit!
A win for the little guy!
Finally, Bank of America has announced that it will discontinue issuing over draft fees on debit cards. The decision is a result of new the new federal regulations that will force banks to request permission from cardholders before allowing overdraft services. As a result, Bank of American debt users will experience declined transactions when they spend money they don’t have. It’s about time too, because accidental charges in the grocery store or at Starbucks can procure overdraft fees that take a few business days to straighten out.
The down side is that overdraft charges on debit cards make up 60% of Bank of America’s overdraft revenue. Does this regulatory victory mean that banks who end their overdraft fee program, like Bank of America, will be seeking new sources of revenue? Will we see more fees in our future? Bank of America’s overdraft protection service will live on, but where will the new fees be found?
It’s too soon to tell if the new federal banking regulations will be effective. The end of overdraft fees on debit card transactions is small victory in the war between consumers and the banking industry. Hopefully measures like this will help us get back to the basic rule of spending: if you don’t have enough money, don’t buy it.
Information from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10overdraft.html
Hello World!
Hello Blogosphere,
This my attempt to curb the amount of political debates I start with friends and release frustrations over media misconduct and political dilemas in the Government. The ramblings will be humorous and I will wax poetic about progressive political action. I welcome feedback on all blog posts.
Thank you for taking interest in my opinions!
