Conflict and Opportunities for Facebook in India

Political hate speech has become a persistent issue for Facebook in several countries. One Facebook India executive recently resigned under controversy involving an MP's posts, but the scope of the problem exposes conflicts between politics and policy beyond one company or country…

In a country like India where something newsworthy is always happening, I can understand why an article about one employee resigning from one company wouldn’t be headline news for long, but when the company is Facebook and the employee in question was its South Asian public policy head, then it’s worth remembering. Ankhi Das resigned late last month after testifying before an Indian parliamentary committee on issues including the platform’s decision earlier this year to not flag or delete inflammatory posts from Telangana MP T Raja Singh. The intersection of how politicians behave with how social media platforms function: worth knowing about, right?

Events Like Brexit Happen When We Check Out

With the way our political discourse has declined post-9/11, I'm not surprised about Brexit. People in the West are more analytical and more hardened with the political discussions we do and don't have. Analytical as in data-driven, but also as in more calculating and selfish. We've had a post-World War II consensus - more pluralism, more multilateralism, more inclusion, more mobility - but that consensus has been fraying for years. We didn't really see that (or didn't care) until the Great Recession and Brexit was the unfortunate moment where the resentments and frustrations of the British public could be leveled against global institutions and norms that they're alienated from.

The idea (or hope) that we're all in this together has been undermined by knowledge of issues like the makeup of our armed forces during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the burdens of that war have been more visceral for certain families and certain communities. The idea that there's always an opportunity to move up has been undermined by what Americans think of income inequality and the reality. When less than 70 people have as much wealth as over 3 billion people, what can empowerment or equality of opportunity even look like? And even if you didn't know that, you can feel that it's harder just to maintain your quality of life, let alone increase it. And no, hustling just a little more - resume edits, coffee chats, and mock interviews included - doesn’t lead to work that you like, work that you're good at, and work that pays well. How many people can claim all three? How many people even hope for all three anymore? With advice like this, not many.

The Limits & Signals of Male Sexuality #1: A Black Man Under Seige in the NFL?

I stumbled upon news today that NFL player Odell Beckham, Jr. is planning to room with Drake while Drake completes his “Views from the 6” album. My first thought was Why does Google care that I know this? but after looking up Beckham, I saw why this would be reported on. It seems that people think Beckham is some kind of fugitive from the norms of how black men should behave and The Internet is intent on catching him in the act. To what end - A confession? A fight? A breakdown? - I don’t know, but I guess the only thing that matters is that Beckham do it publicly.

This isn't the first time accusations like these have been leveled against a man of color in the public eye, but this instance stands out because of the timing and tone of the accusations and the behavior that prompted them.

Timing: Now that we have several examples of professional athletes identifying as LGBT, there should be no reason to assume that anyone is straight or gay based on how they present themselves (or how we perceive them). The signals of straightness are as varied and misleading as the signals of queerness, so the subtext of the accusations against Beckham - "Real men don't do that" or "Athletes shouldn’t do that" - is unfounded. Is someone like Ray Rice a better or "realer" man than Beckham because the spouse he abused is female? Is Caitlyn Jenner more of a man than most men because she was married several times and fathered six children from three different women? Or is it that Jenner is less of man because she was was married as Bruce for over twenty years but didn't cheat? The rules for proper behavior as a man are not consistent, so violating those rules are too easy. And when so many men are accused of any number of "suspect" behaviors, maybe it's time to moderate what we consider suspicious.

Let's Move On From This Trump Joke

First Reaction to Trump: Really? Who cares?

Second Reaction: He’s polling high, but he won’t win.

Third Reaction: It's almost 2016. This is still a thing?

On deeper thought…I’ve only made one comment referencing Donald Trump on social media and it wasn’t really about him. I just haven’t been able to take him seriously as a presidential contender. Whether he’s really a bigot or “just” a showman cynically using the disaffections of low-information voters for political gain, he can’t (and shouldn’t) be taken seriously.

According to Nicolle Wallace on today’s edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Trump has “talents” because he stayed on the show after a commercial break to take questions from her and her co-hosts on his campaign and his comments. Joe Scarborough concurred, stating that no politician would have even called into the show after said show blasted him for his comments. Let’s not fool ourselves; just because Donald Trump has “talents” doesn’t mean he has the skills, the vision, or the moral imagination to be President of the United States, someone who people in some countries know more about than their own elected representatives. It’s highly irresponsible for MSNBC and its employees to entertain this man, likely for the hope of continued access. If this is what change at NBC News looks like under Andy Lack - sycophantic and superficially inquisitive - then I should just read the news.

Witnessing the reaction to Trump’s recent comments about Muslims (and Latinos and African Americans), I’ve realized that he’s like the student in a college seminar who hasn’t done the reading and has nothing to contribute to the discussion. To detract from his poor preparation while making an impact on the discussion, the student will make provocative and incendiary comments that will derail the class. Trump is that guy, someone who must say something (he thinks is) important even when he has nothing important to contribute to the conversation. And let’s be clear: proposing a ban, or even discussing it as more than a political science thought experiment, is absurd.

Why India should accept Syrian refugees ASAP

The Syrian refugee crisis continues; everyday more Syrians are displaced by circumstances beyond their control. Western leaders know this and have intelligence on the matter that is more comprehensive than even the best newspaper articles. However, the attacks in Paris, like the 9/11 attacks, have compelled policymakers and elected leaders alike to shift focus from “What can we do for the refugees?” to “How can we protect ourselves?”. The two questions aren’t mutually exclusive, but try telling that to a security or foreign policy analyst in Paris, Brussels, London, or New York who has to answer for why they didn’t know what was going to happen and what they know now.

ISIS attacked a Western city, so there could be reluctance on the part of leaders in Asia and other regions to wait for what their counterparts decide before making specific policy statements. It seems to be such a given that peace and security in the Middle East, an Asian region, is a Western responsibility that even leaders in China and India, eager for more opportunities to increase international prestige, are less demanding about participation in processes like the Iran nuclear or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I can’t blame them, but the Syrian refugee crisis, and how it’s been exacerbated by the response to the Paris attacks, should be a reason for India to be more engaged. India shouldn't even consider taking cues on this issue from Western countries. Sadly, the West is still addressing basic and fundamental questions around immigration and integration that countries like India, with its staggering cultural and religious diversity, have dealt with.  

This humanitarian and security crisis presents an opportunity for India - country with the second largest Muslim population, top 10 largest economy, world's largest democracy - to take the lead and secure its position as a preeminent dispenser of “smart power”. While Western cities are debating whether and how many armed guards to post at malls and movie theaters, India can address more enlightened issues like how many cities should be enlisted for settlement of Syrian refugees.  

India has many challenges, but integration isn’t one of them. Somehow, in contrast to the theories of social science, people’s duty to family, caste, or state supplements rather than supplants an Indian identity. Free and fair elections are held, the central government still sets the economic and foreign policy agenda, and there are no separatist/secessionist movements that seriously undermine the Centre’s control of security and the borders. For all the fascinating stories about dynamic state politicians and battles between states, the concept of state’s rights doesn’t manifest itself as dramatically as in the United States.

Indian policymakers and citizens will have many questions about the refugees - Where will they live? Where will they work? Will they take jobs from Indians? How can we verify their claims for asylum? Policymakers in the West are thinking the same thing (or trying to avoid thinking about it), but India has socioeconomic structures that support people who have fallen beneath the cracks. Besides the strong family ties that ensure most people have stable housing and consistent access to food, employers already accept resumes from jobseekers at colleges and companies they don’t recognize; homeowners hire maids and cooks without a background check; and we all ride autos and cabs driven by people who may or not have a license. People in this country are predisposed to give people a chance and make changes with little difficulty if things don’t work out: the employee will be fired if she falsifies her resume, the cook will be arrested if he steals, and you can refuse to pay a driver if he doesn't know where he’s going.

Sadly, many Indians don’t see India as a destination, somewhere you can aspire to be, so it might be hard to imagine that refugees might choose to come here. To the people who think that, including people who ask me why I’d want to work here, I’ll ask this: What about the Tibetans in Dharamsala? What about Auroville? This country is already a haven, so why not burnish that reputation and offer a home to these refugees?

Since when is a CBS show handling tough issues better than TWO HBO shows combined?

It’s notable that “The Good Wife” was able to deal with buzzwords like “race” and “Ferguson” with more seriousness AND levity this past Sunday than TWO shows on HBO featuring young urban professionals…"The Good Wife", which is know for having many guest stars, always used its limited time to portray three dimensional characters, most notably Lemond Bishop. Bishop, played by Mike Colter, is a black drug kingpin on the show. While his interactions with the lawyers play with the line between legal and illegal businesses, his presence is not defined by his job. Emotionally charged scenes where viewers aren't sure what Bishop wants or what he'll do (see every scene with Kalinda this scene) are underscored by how normal - and dare I say, well-rounded - his life is. He fights with his girlfriend! His son plays soccer! His son plays piano! 

In contrast, the few people of color featured on shows such as "Girls" and "Looking" are not assumed to have rich lives. Disagree? Fine. Name the people of color featured on “Girls”. Now name the characters they played. I’ll wait.

The Delusion of the Knowledge Worker

This line jumped at me during some late-night reading of The Washington Post: "For nearly half a century, since the hippies first flocked to Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco has been associated more with cultural and lifestyle liberalism than with such New Dealish concerns as advancing workers rights."

So it is with every American city with a young and educated professional workforce. This should be called "à la carte liberalism". Young professionals can discuss freedom, maybe even dignity, but can they advocate for equity outside of a dinner conversation? Do they want to?

Your answers to those questions depend on how you define labor and laborers. Many young professionals acknowledge that domestic workers and retail workers do hard work, but we don't really respect their work. "Home health aide" and "cashier" are not positions to aspire to, so it's not surprising that any opposition to increasing their wages and benefits has an undertone of "Why are we focusing on them as opposed to ___?". Our society is more proud of an unpaid intern at a literary journal or a tech startup than a cashier at McDonald's. We still believe that the positions of these "knowledge workers" implies greater professional traction than they will ever get and if the reality was different, intern lawsuits wouldn't make so much news.

Wired published a piece last April on the "Internet-enabled intimacy" that the sharing economy has catalyzed, but I find that anything Internet-enabled is by definition less substantive and less immersive, whether it's communication or shopping. The magazine called this new intimacy an economic and cultural breakthrough, but not every breakthrough is positive in the way that not every talented person is kind. Here's the relevant quote:

If teachers lose tenure, give them ownership

From http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/teacher-tenure-ruling-in-california-is-expected-to-intensify-debate.html:

“Teachers feel under siege by this,” said Susan Moore Johnson, a Harvard education professor who testified for the defendants in the case. “But it’s all in the context of a lack of general support for unions and the caricature that the union has been protecting incompetent teachers. That notion is now more accepted than it ever has been, even though it is not deserved.”

While the image of a union protecting incompetent (or abusive) teachers from being fired may be a caricature, we, union supporters included, can't try to put even one story of an abusive teacher in a statistical context. One is too many and the public's disproportionate focus on those stories can't be criticized. The idea of teachers as in loco parentis is so deeply ingrained that teachers as a whole will always bear more of the blame and none of the credit...just like parents, which means we will always take their best effort for granted and be ready to harshly judge any missteps.

But like parents, teachers should have a larger say in how their environments are structured if they're responsible for what those environments produce. If teachers shouldn't get lifetime employment after a few years, then make them more invested in the outcome by giving them the power of binding no-confidence votes against administrators.

- Why shouldn't parents have more than anecdotal evidence of whether a principal has the confidence of her staff?

- Why not let the public know if a school system really likes a chancellor who may be more good press than substance?

Education reform is needed - higher standards, more accountability, blah blah blah - but more power should be invested in those on the front lines. And we need to look at systemic change, but that's a whole other matter...

Trayvon, George, and the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof can be seen in two ways: the burden the prosecutors bear as they try their case AND the burden of the plaintiff (or victim or survivor) to prove the case was worth bringing.

Any talk of the merits of the jury system in this trial is moot. At the end of the day, a number of civilians heard arguments, received instructions about the law, and made a decision using what they had. Our jury system is not perfect, but there are few democratic alternatives.

But we know justice is seen with human eyes, and I know this to be true: Trayvon Martin, even in death, had a higher burden of proving that he did not bring his death on himself than a white male teenager would have.

Benefit of the doubt is a powerful concept in human relations because it creates a space where you can excuse someone even if you don't believe them. It is essential to the functioning of a democracy, where we can't even consider everyone, let alone know them, but we must live together.

But Trayvon had less space to move in. Why else would a toxicology test be conducted on his corpse and not George? Why else would it matter whether he smoked pot or was suspended from school?

At the time of his encounter with George and during his trial, Trayvon was both expected to explain himself but was not able to speak. He was under examination at times others wouldn't be. And because he failed this "examination" he's dead and a sense of injustice hangs over his death.

Many people have used random facts about the lives of Trayvon and George to justify what has happened to them. For Trayvon, the facts include his purchase of Skittles, his wearing of a hoodie, and his status as a student. For George, they include his feeding a homeless person and his mentoring two black youth.

These facts are irrelevant to the case: while they may try to paint a fuller portrait of George, they do so at the expense of Trayvon. Why must one person be humanized at the expense of the other? If you're compelled to lighten the burden of the suspect, why can't the victim's burden be lightened too?

If George can be given the benefit of the doubt - "A person who mentors black youth wouldn't purposefully kill one" - then why can't the same courtesy be extended to Trayvon - "Trayvon wearing a hoodie makes him a thug as much it makes Mark Zuckerberg a thug".

If you can't do that, consider your biases and your values. But first read this:

"Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded."
- RFK

And then ask yourself this:
- Was the death of Trayvon Martin necessary?
- Would the death of George Zimmerman have been necessary if the roles had been reversed?

Let us all think about this so that we may move forward better people. Amen.

A Word of Caution

I never truly felt deprived until I grew up. Suddenly, the goals I had became unreasonable and the path from potential to achievement became murky.

There are one of two unhealthy ways you could respond to recent events. One way would be to burst onto the world, ready to be confronted, ready to fight. Another way would be to hide, to be wary of unfamiliar places and people, to shrink from that which makes you uncomfortable. One way could lead to an early death, the other will lead to a deformed life...a series of bad options, but the only ones we get.

I can't imagine what a healthy response to a toxic environment is. Do you pretend the poison isn't there or do you try to prevail over it with "the power of positive thinking"? How much ignorance can the body take? When does positive thinking without action become idiotic?

I feel deprived in the most essential way. I am deprived of the freedom of confident action, the ability to move and think freely, to have full agency. I can't do something well without my achievement being qualified and when I do wrong I can never redeem myself.

I can never quite be right, but I have no clear idea of what the wrong is.

So, what do I do? How do I thrive in a world I have no say in shaping, a world that moves too fast in the wrong direction? Who will stand with me when I ask for help? Who will vouch for me?

The problem isn't that I don't have clear answers to these questions, but that I care less about asking. I wasn't made for this world, but I'm trapped in it. Heaven help me!

The Cream Rises to the Top

I'm not really into fandom, but Susan Rice is my type of public figure. She maintains a balance between the practical and the academic that I find is being lost on aspiring thought leaders today and she seems like someone who is put together, even in the face of controversy.

Whatever you thought of her role in communicating what happened in Benghazi last fall, she handled herself really well. I only saw one interview where she addressed being passed over for Secretary of State, but her comments lacked the faux vulnerability that too many interviewees feel the need to communicate. She may have been mad, she may have even gone home and punched a wall, but you wouldn't know it from her demeanor. She's a trooper and I like that.

Rice was an early supporter of then-Senator Obama, so I'm glad to see her vision has paid off. Not that she's been slumming the past four years as our UN Ambassador, but this is a great opportunity. "National Security Advisor" may not sound as prestigious as "United States Secretary of State", but it is more impactful.

As the White House has become more active in foreign policy in recent decades, the National Security Council (NSC) has become a power center. The Secretary of State may have more cameras following him/her, but the National Security Advisor coordinates a national security apparatus that has become larger as national security has become tied to more domestic and international issues.

While I have misgivings about how bloated our national security architecture has become, I am in favor of a more expansive conception of national security. Our security is connected to the security of others and the best ways to improve security are to provide more people globally with opportunities for social mobility. This means increased innovation, improved education, and access to legitimacy, access, and capital - the successful deployment of smart power and social impact. One example of this is American embassies abroad providing grants to local youth for social projects.

While Rice's name may not be explicitly attached to big foreign policy initiatives like that, I hope she'll be a forceful advocate for them in the Oval Office. National security is about more than drones after all.

Now, what about Samantha Power for UN Ambassador? 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111353/susan-rice-isnt-going-quietly

The Wrong "View" of Education

I don't watch "The View" regularly, but I found a YouTube clip from the show titled "Should Mediocre Students Skip College?". The hosts were responding to comments Mayor Michael Bloomberg made suggesting that not all students are meant to go to college. I found myself disappointed in the discussion and I wanted to I forget it, but I can't, so I'm going to write about it.

First of all, a major political figure, college graduate, and leader of arguably the nation's most influential public school system making any statements about choice, achievement, and mobility is going to be noteworthy, which is why I found Bloomberg's comments incredibly irresponsible.

"Mediocre" may bring to mind images of a student who refuses to reciprocate the kindness and hard work of his teachers, but what we consider a "mediocre", "failing", or "successful" student is actually a source of great debate right now. While it may seem heartening in theory to think that an unmotivated student should do something outside of school, we know that's not as easy as it should be, especially when so many college graduates are unemployed or underemployed.

Different people learn in different ways, but the response to that shouldn't be "Leave school and learn a trade". There are some passionate advocates of Career and Technical Education (CTE) in high schools, but I take issue with how CTE is suggested and to whom. The fact is, in an education system that can vary widely in quality from neighborhood to neighborhood, there are different responses to the same issues. Where one school might offer tutoring to a student failing math, another might suggest the student drop out and pursue a GED.

Mayor Bloomberg didn't make his comments because our country needs more plumbers and electricians than we have. He couldn't have, because we also need engineers and doctors, which requires people go to college. While it would be cheaper to set up six-month training programs that offer a certificate at the end, it would be more desirable to develop rigorous college preparatory curriculums and robust extracurricular cultures...just ask the students. And if a student is underperforming, you can't just assume it's because they don't care; you have to ask. But maybe that's too radical for some...

Brooke Shields, a guest co-host, made the point that college is expensive and students are graduating with a lot of debt. True, but the argument "students are graduating with too much debt" does not lead to the conclusion "less students should attend college". Instead, it should beg the question "What should we do to reduce the student debt burden?".

Barbara Walters tried to defend the intention behind Bloomberg's comments, suggesting that he was trying to decrease the stigma attached to people pursuing careers in the trades. I might have been convinced IF Bloomberg had addressed his comments to any student who doesn't find our traditional educational structures appealing, but he said nothing like that.

According to the show, he said "mediocre" students, implying that high-achieving students shouldn't deign to pursue a trade. The idea that a trade is a good option only if every educational option falls through actually reinforces the stigma, and I worry about how educational professionals- teachers, counselors, social workers- will apply this thinking to their interactions with students who have been failed by our system and may not know how to advocate for themselves.

Mayor Bloomberg sets the tone for education reform in New York City and to some extent nationally, and this was an awful message to send to students who need more.

Watch "Should Mediocre Students Skip College? - The View" on YouTube

Guns and Rights

On the most recent episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher", there was a discussion about guns. As would be expected in the wake of recent events, the discussion turned to the issue of a gun registry.

S.E. Cupp and Michael Moore were on this episode's panel. If I was going to be writing about anyone's comments, I thought it would be Mr. Moore's, but Ms. Cupp and Mr. Maher surprised me for different reasons.

I've never thought of Bill Maher as reactionary, but his statement, "I'm going to own a gun as long as we live in gun country" struck me as such. He mentioned that there had been several home invasions in his neighborhood in the past year, but he didn't make the domestic security argument many gun rights advocates make. In fact, he didn't come off as a gun rights advocate at all, just someone who wanted something that other people had or someone who was justifying a curiosity by connecting it to something substantial. I felt this even more as Moore asked Maher how many times he practiced his shooting and Maher responded dismissively.

Whatever issues one may have with guns or even gun owners, I've never heard a gun owner, on television or personally, be dismissive about being properly trained. In fact, my understanding of the arguments of gun rights advocates in this gun control debate has been that the vast majority of gun owners are well-trained and take other precautions to make sure their weapon is not misused. Maher's idea about gun ownership seemed to be more "if you can have it, I can have it" than it was "I will use my gun responsibly to hunt and/or protect my home".

Cupp, this week's lone conservative on the panel, brought what I thought was some depth to the debate. In spite of the audience's feelings she made the point that gun owners are offended by the registry idea because it presumes that they are innocent until proven guilty. She stated that when someone goes to a store to buy a gun and is told they have to wait five days, that makes them feel that they can't be trusted.

I have to admit she has a legal point. We don't add sex offenders to the sex offender registry before they've committed a crime, but only after they've been tried and convicted of sex crimes. We don't use the commission of other crimes such as robbery or murder as a reason to assume "if X committed these crimes, then he could commit a sex crimes" and then add X to that registry. The mere accusation of sexual abuse, even if it's baseless, can ruin a person's life. And in light of the awful gun crimes we're seeing, the presumption that someone could commit gun crimes because they're purchasing a gun (or even ten) could be offensive to the purchaser and damage their reputation.

If the presumption that someone walking in a high-crime area is going to commit a crime isn't enough to justify a stop-and-frisk, why should purchasing the same guns Adam Lanza used lead to the assumption you'll do what he did? Guilt by association is not appropriate, especially when the associations made are vague.

There has to be some way of tracking who's buying guns and where that's less offensive. I know you can't please everyone when making public policy, but you should try to offend as few as possible. Maybe, instead of a gun registry that lists all current and future owners, we should develop a database of people convicted of any crimes that reflect dangerous behavior as a result of poor or impaired judgment. These crimes could range from felonies to DUIs. This database would be available to gun shop owners so that when someone who has proven to be a danger to the public tries to buy a gun, then a delay of however long can kick in.

It's not a perfect proposal for these issues, but which one is?

Cheng Yu Advocates for a Carbon Tax on Jet and Ship Fuel

According to AFP, the World Bank and the IMF are proposing a carbon tax on jet and ship fuel (AFP, 2011). If the proposal is passed, airlines and shipping companies will pay $25 for each ton of carbon dioxide released. This is a big step forward on the World Bank and IMF because they have finally acknowledged reality and are willing to break away from their ideological love affair with the “carbon market”. A carbon tax is also more cost-saving and effective than the alternative.

Not too long ago the World Bank and IMF were obsessed with the solution of the “carbon market”, as if that was the only way to save the world. Have you have heard about “cap-and-trade,” “CDM,” or “offsetting”? They all mean more-or-less the same concept: using market solutions to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide. I am not going to argue whether carbon dioxide released by human activities causes global warming since all major political parties and scientific institutions around the world have acknowledged the fact, including the Communist Party of China. (For your information, the Republican Party of the United States is the only major party that still casts doubt on global warming.)

Why is the obsession problematic? The idea of carbon market is that if we set up a goal to make reduction on carbon emission, it doesn’t matter whether the reduction is made in a factory in New York or in a field outside Nairobi. Participants of the carbon market can trade between each other, and the market can determine how much one should pay for emitting a ton of carbon dioxide. According to Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase, the carbon market is more efficient than the carbon tax (Duval, 2006). However, many people forget the fact that in Coase’s paper, there is a condition: if the transaction cost is low.

However, according to the offsetting projects going on in Africa, transaction costs, defined as money that goes to a third party other than the carbon credit purchaser and carbon credit producer, is as high as 80% (Yu, 2011). According to introductory economics, the market can not function efficiently when the transaction cost is too high (Frank, 2008). For other problems that the carbon market causes, you can get a clear idea by reading Janet Redman’s research, “World Bank: Climate Profiteer”. Despite the problems, the World Bank pledged billions of dollars to set up at least 12 carbon funds, with the ambition to push forward a global carbon market by 2020. That decision is not based on economic efficiency, but based on their obsession in “market-oriented climate solutions”.

This is why a carbon tax is a much more cost-saving and effective way to climate change. Current technology is able to measure the amount of carbon emitted. There is no need to hire “professional carbon consultants” or “professional carbon accountants”; and there is no need to set up a trading and clearing center, as required in the carbon market, which creates a lot of cost savings because carbon accounting requires special training. Also, many carbon offsetting projects require using land where indigenous people live. Even though the World Bank has systematic Safeguard Policies, the monitoring cost of enforcing them is very high (Yu, 2011). Using basic microeconomic theory, a carbon tax is called a per-unit tax because it is charged based on per ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Therefore, it can effectively reduce the marginal benefit of using jet or ship fuel, thus reducing the quantity used.

However, some might be concerned that the extra carbon tax will be shifted to consumers, an example of which would be the consumers paying more for an airline ticket. However, economic theory tells us that the airlines don’t have the incentive to shift the full price to consumers because that will reduce their profit. Airlines are a relatively competitive market. Suppose Airline A shifts the carbon tax to their consumers, then consumers will choose Airline B, which decides raise the price only a little bit. Demand for an airline is somewhat elastic, using an economic term, because while airlines compete with each other in the market there are alternatives to planes such as high-speed rail, which is not taxed in the proposal. Since the airlines’ goal is to maximize their profit, they do not have the incentive to shift the tax completely to their consumers because doing so would cause them to lose customers. However, there is a possibility that airlines will shift more tax burden to consumers on their international routes, considering there is no alternative to flying from Beijing to Washington in 14 hours. In the case of cross-ocean international flights, the demand is relatively inelastic.

By the way, you market lovers should know that a carbon tax is also a market-based solution. Since the World Bank and IMF play leading roles in global affairs, the carbon tax has significant power to encourage countries around the world to impose carbon tax. However, whether the new tax can be successfully implemented remains a mystery. But if you care about the future of humanity, you should tell your family, neighbors and friends about this. The more people support a carbon tax, the more likely it is that the politicians will implement it, which definitely brings hope for a more sustainable world.

References:

1. Duval, D. T. (2006). Coasian economics and the management of international aviation emissions. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(3), 201-213. Retrieved from www.scopus.com 
2. Frank, R. H. (2008). Principles of microeconomics New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
3. Yu, C. (2011). A review on the World Bank safeguard policies. (Unpublished paper). Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC.
4. Redman, J. (2008). World Bank: Climate profiteer. Institute for Policy Studies. Retrieved from www.ips-dc.org
5. AFP (September 24, 2011). IMF, World Bank eye carbon tax on fuels. Herald Sun. Retrieved from www.heraldsun.com.au

Cheng Yu is an economics student at the University of Illinois- Urbana-Champaign. His website is www.chengyuofficial.com. 

Giving Thanks and Doing Without

I haven't heard much about Occupy Wall Street since I'd glanced at the cover of The New York Post at my local newsstand and seen that the Occupiers planned to do something related to the transit system. Now, since I glanced at the front page and did not actually read an article on the issue, I'm not sure whether OWS planned to just protest near major train stations throughout the city or take concrete action to slow the system down.

Regardless of whatever they planned to do, I remember that my reaction was not supportive. The idea of me- a straphanger with an $104 30-Day Unlimited Metrocard- actually unable to use my Metrocard to get to work or appointments for any length of time was infuriating. I'm so dependent on the subway that I had no cares or worries about Hurricane Irene until I heard that MTA service was going to be shut down, so I care very deeply about public transit and my access to it, at least until I assume a position in society where I can get 24/7 use of a Town Car. After glancing at that front page, I felt the way many professional or upwardly mobile- but middle class- New Yorkers feel about Occupy Wall Street: I supported their broader message of greater equity in our society while I bemoaned a particular tactic or stunt as reported.

Driving on my way home from a Thanksgiving Eve function, my cousin happened to mention Occupy Wall Street. Being tired, I didn't say anything and listened inattentively. "My friend _______ says that Occupy Wall Street is (something not good)...He says that if those protesters really wanted to find jobs they'd be washing dishes because if you're desperate to work then you find a job...you have to start at the bottom. ______ says that they're not defending the working poor but bums." My ears by this point had perked up, but I was still tired, so I was in this odd state of being physically tired while feeling intellectually heated. My Uncle, who was either being diplomatic or was also tired, replied, "Yeah, I see how you could say that. A lot of teachers at my school feel that way about them too."

If I'd had the energy, I would have made a few counterpoints, but I wasn't terribly interested in debating the messenger of a viewpoint (as opposed to the one who holds it) and I immediately thought this would be a good topic for a post. I received an e-mail earlier today from someone who wrote, "We all have something to be thankful for- even the challenges, which often make us stronger and more clear-eyed about who we are and where we want to go." I can definitely say I have dealt with challenges over the years and have had to use those challenges as a means to reckon with important realizations I've made about myself, those around me, and our society in these turbulent times. Challenges can be useful and I have never met anyone who would deny their value, but we have to have a limit. The idea that all hardship builds character is a strain of thinking that I think has infected this person in a way that has infected many others, myself included. There is so much more hardship these days than there was in the early 2000s and 1990s and I wonder if our way of coping with it is rooted in some desire to move beyond the turbulence and try to take ownership of our lives in a way that has eluded us for too long.

Regardless of your political persuasion, I think every American can agree on a few basic things (even if Congress can't). The obstacles- of our mind, our circumstances, and our times- that we overcome are necessary engines of growth and innovation for how we live our lives. "Starting at the bottom" is not an uncommon story in this country so no one is really alien to the idea; from the existential to the financial, every problem presents an obstacle that can harden our resolve or break us. Unfortunately, what we're seeing today- in unemployment figures, international news, and the workings of Congress- leans toward breakdown more than resolve. And I think that is where any sympathy for Occupy Wall Street lies: in our bewilderment at how our public institutions have become so ineffective, shock at the amount of money this country produces, and sadness at the fact that for all the money we ALL make there are so few of us that get to keep it. Make no mistake, that waiter is making money as much as the stockbroker does; the only difference is that the waiter has less take-home pay and more back pain. Not to say that the stockbroker doesn't have her pains, just that she's more likely to afford a massage and a day off.

If you've graduated from college and your dream is to be the CEO of McDonald's, then working the cashier at a McDonald's is starting at the bottom, with your direction to be determined by your work ethic and savvy. However, if you graduated from college and your dream is to be a historian, then working at McDonald's is not starting at the bottom. It's starting underground.

No one should be desperate to get work. They should be eager for a job and qualified for the jobs they apply for, but they shouldn't be desperate. Desperation implies erosion of your senses and a vulnerability to negative influences. Desperate people become misguided people who become dangerous people and we don't need that. People shouldn't be desperate and they certainly shouldn't have reason to be desperate in this country. That's why the Occupy movement started here- not because our youngsters are crazier, but because they have an acute sense of the gap between what they're entitled to and what they're not getting. While the Occupiers should be thankful to have a city that sympathizes with them and some way of moving forward with their agenda and in their lives, they shouldn't be grateful for scraps. Simply put, people these days are not getting what they're working for and certainly not what they deserve.

So tomorrow, as you're stuffing your face, let's be thankful for what we have and who we have while hoping for more to come.

An Advocacy for the Nobel Prize as a Global Prize

I just read that three women- President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, Leymah Gbowee of Liberia, and Tawakul Karman of Yemen- have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This is stupendous on a number of levels, so much so that I would have done a jump for joy if I wasn’t so tired (and in public). But on a more personal level, I have decided that this event is worth writing about for this site after several weeks of dealing with more “practical” (read: stressful) matters and doing more creative writing (mainly to distress). 

President Johnson Sirleaf is the first women elected head of state of an African country, so it’s not shocking that she would be a contender for the prize. I imagine that the Committee has had her on a longlist for a while and was waiting to see how she would perform as president before finally deciding on her. Notably, she is the second African woman to win the prize (after the recently departed Wangari Muta Maathai) and the first sitting African head of state to win (F.W. deKlerk shared the prize with Mandela in 1993while he was in office, but does that count? And Mandela won it several months before he was elected President of South Africa in 1994). Regardless of your opinions on who bears responsibility for the political environments in sub-Saharan Africa- Is it the colonialists? The banks? The dwindling middle class?- President Johnson Sirleaf’s election as President of Liberia almost a decade ago marked a milestone in African history (yes, there is one) and a challenge to leaders across the continent and around the world. Would the West be more forgiving, in debt and other matters, of a female-led country? Would President Johnson Sirleaf’s counterparts in other countries give her due respect? And would this President, recipient of instantaneous international adoration, be able to maintain a base in her own country that she could use to get things done? In a struggling country where former warlords and perpetrators hold Senate seats and Charles Taylor walked free, the learning curve for the newly-elected president was steep. Today, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is still in office, still leading the recovery of her country, and still the toast of international policymaking circles, although she is facing an election on Tuesday. If she loses, any positive appraisal of her efforts will die down, but regardless of what happens next week, today the Norwegian Nobel Committee selected a personality who should inspire passionate debate- among academics, politicians, and her own people- about her worthiness for the prize, and her efforts as president. In contrast to the snooze-inducing choices the Committee has made in the past, I welcome such debate. 

The Committee’s choice to choose three woman also makes a statement that should resonate with citizens around the world: that nonviolent movements can succeed, and that the cause of women’s rights are not separate from, but a part of, any human rights agenda we have. Disparities in income, educational attainment, access to medical care, physical security, and domestic obligations affect women adversely, but considering that these affected women are our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters, these disparities hurt us too. I remember once hearing that if you educate a woman, you educate a family, so for those of you skeptical of high ideals and noble causes, remember who taught you to count, write, and read. And after you remember that, remember why. 

"Children of Invention": You didn't see it in theaters, but you can see it on Hulu (for free)!

I have an appetite for independent and foreign films that is rarely satiated by actually going to a theater and seeing them. Since I'm from New York City, I can't claim that the film isn't showing in my city since almost every film shows in New York, so I suppose the reason I don't support these low-budget films by paying for a movie ticket is because I'm cheap. In my defense, I will say that I tend to borrow the DVDs from the New York Public Library when they're available (there can be a long wait, depending on the momentary popularity of the film) and I watch the Sundance Channel, which means that I can watch newly acquired foreign and independent films in the comfort of my own home (and while checking my e-mail). It is through the Sundance Channel that I have seem some great films like "The Lives of Others" and "Four Months, Three Weeks, Two Days"; I almost saw "Maria Full of Grace"once, but my mother preferred not to watch a film about drug mules so I had to change the channel.

I haven't seen an indie in some time, and since I'm also too cheap to see a more mainstream movie like "True Grit", I have been making do with fond memories of seeing "The Social Network" and watching whatever movies cable networks choose to show. I didn't think I would see a good arthouse film until I was back in New York, but I found one a few hours ago...on Hulu. Yes, that Hulu, the Hulu that doesn't show every episode of "30 Rock" anymore and whose Movies section is chock full of trailers, Lifetime Movies, and feature films you wouldn't admit to seeing in polite company. The film I saw is called "Children of Invention". It premiered at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival (the one dominated by news of "Precious" and "The September Issue"), was released in eight theaters early in 2010, and was released on DVD in August 2010, but if you hurry you won't have to pay a dime to see it.

Mark Zuckerberg as Time Magazine's Person of the Year?

Time magazine these days doesn't tend to capture my attention much. Although I occasionally visit its website, the print magazine doesn't serve as appointment reading for me anymore; the variety of news sources that exist today, and the limits on my time, make that impossible. My disaffection with the magazine in the past several years has also been related to its misguided efforts to distinguish itself from other magazines. This has come in the form of a redesign and what has seemed like an increase in the number of pictures and graphics- at the expense of valuable text- a reader will see in the magazine.

Despite my fraught relationship with the magazine today (only as a reader of course), I have maintained an interest in its selections for Person of the Year. It defines Time and promotes the magazine the way that educational rankings make U.S. News relevant. In a dramatically changing media landscape, people do look to Time for an authoritative sense of the people who have the most influence on the events and changes in our world. The Person of the Year issue presents the best opportunity for Time to take attention away from more hip or fashionable magazines like Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, or The Atlantic. Time seemed to have forgotten that when choosing last year's Person or it wouldn't have chosen Mark Zuckerberg.