 |
| Episode IV: Let there be Light...sabers |
 |
| Episode V: "Lamb kabobs, anyone?" |
 |
| Episode VI: "Seriously, join the dark side." |
 |
| Episode I:"Away from the apple, step." |
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Bible by George Lucas
I don't read a lot of fiction, but I'd probably read the bible if it took place in space.
Jesus (Harry?) Christ: Rockin' the Wand, Yo
They say Fundamentalist Christians have a problem with Harry Potter. I say it's just a bad case of wand-envy. Problem solved.
 |
| Reparo Oculos Aperi! |
 |
| Aguamenti Vinum! |
 |
| Avada Kedavra Reverse! |
 |
| Revelio Panis et Piscis! |
 |
| Impervius Ambula! |
 |
| "Fucking Muggles" |
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Environmental Junk Status? It's a Rating Game.
The big three US ratings agencies are getting a lot of press these days: Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investor Service, and Fitch Ratings. Seems of late they've been wagging their index fingers at EU banks and whole European countries alike. An appropriate gesture, seeing as they must have sucked on the self-same finger and poked it up in the breeze prior to giving mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations Triple A ratings back in 2007.
The agencies will insist they're only rating a country's debt. But in a world of fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking, globalization and trade deficits, passing judgement on a nation's debt is tantamount to appraising the entire nation. That's some serious chutzpah if you think about it. "Excuse me, Greece, Portugal, Ireland?"
And when you check out their balance sheets you may well agree. Still, the Europeans are pissed. The Guardian went so far as to proclaim that the "EU Declares War on Ratings Agencies". Whatever you think about it, you have to confess - these "rating agencies" steal the headlines whenever they issue serious warnings and downgrades. Which got me thinking...
Why not a Natural Systems Ratings Agency?
It was a timely thought, because my sister (a marketing exec, recently moved into non-profit) and I (a Bratscal of incomparable bratscalness) were talking about the need for a sort of "Earth Health Index" as she called it. A website where - not withstanding the complexity of calculating and gathering ratings - the ratings themselves would be presented as simply and succinctly as possible.
Why not rate the health of the oceans? Or the Great Lakes? Why not rate the integrity of our boreal forests? Or the Columbian Icefields? Brazil's rainforests? The atmosphere? Our ozone layer? And why not do it using a rating system that even school children can understand, and for which economists and politicians already have an intellectual and emotional affinity?
I would be grateful for constructive feedback on this idea.
The agencies will insist they're only rating a country's debt. But in a world of fiat currencies, fractional reserve banking, globalization and trade deficits, passing judgement on a nation's debt is tantamount to appraising the entire nation. That's some serious chutzpah if you think about it. "Excuse me, Greece, Portugal, Ireland?"
"Ναι?""You're all junk."
"Sim?"
"Wha?"
And when you check out their balance sheets you may well agree. Still, the Europeans are pissed. The Guardian went so far as to proclaim that the "EU Declares War on Ratings Agencies". Whatever you think about it, you have to confess - these "rating agencies" steal the headlines whenever they issue serious warnings and downgrades. Which got me thinking...
Why not a Natural Systems Ratings Agency?
It was a timely thought, because my sister (a marketing exec, recently moved into non-profit) and I (a Bratscal of incomparable bratscalness) were talking about the need for a sort of "Earth Health Index" as she called it. A website where - not withstanding the complexity of calculating and gathering ratings - the ratings themselves would be presented as simply and succinctly as possible.
Why not rate the health of the oceans? Or the Great Lakes? Why not rate the integrity of our boreal forests? Or the Columbian Icefields? Brazil's rainforests? The atmosphere? Our ozone layer? And why not do it using a rating system that even school children can understand, and for which economists and politicians already have an intellectual and emotional affinity?
AAA - HealthyThere are powerful sources of information out there already. Like the UN Millennium Project: Goal #7 and their list of indicators. Or the Worldwatch Institute. And there are of course countless Universities and on-going studies. But I believe there could be untold value in building a single, simple, navigable dashboard, with a clear rating system, that allows us all to understand the current state of our natural systems at a glance. For example: three weeks ago a report written by a group of scientists organized by the International Program on the State of the Ocean in concert with the International Union for Conservation of Nature warned that the:
Aa - Sustainable
A - Sustainable - degraded
Baa - Sustainable - highly degraded
Ba - Unsustainable - functioning
B - Unsustainable
Caa - Tipping Point
Ca - Collapsing
C - Collapsed
‘‘...examination of synergistic threats leads to the conclusion that we have underestimated the overall risks and that the whole of marine degradation is greater than the sum of its parts, and that degradation is now happening at a faster rate than predicted" - NY TimesThis story flashed across the home pages of a few big papers before being buried and forgotten under Greece's sovereign debt crisis. I can't help but wonder, if these eminent scientists had also had a mechanism by which to participate in an Earth Health Index rating, and had announced a "downgrade" on the health of our Oceans from 'B - unsustainable' to 'Caa - tipping point', might it not have more easily captured and held the world's attention?
I would be grateful for constructive feedback on this idea.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sheila Bair: Near-Termism vs. Small-Picturism
I was reading the Washington Post today when an op-ed piece caught my eye. It was by a lady called Sheila Bair. Sheila was the chairlady of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and she seemed to have a bee in her bonnet about something she calls short-termism. I've never heard of "short-termism" before. I think she made it up. Which may have been a bit impulsive, on account of there already being lots of ways to call people shortsighted.
Sheila says we're too nearsighted as a society. That "our financial markets remain too focused on quick profits, and our political process is driven by a two-year election cycle and its relentless demands for fundraising." Apparently we all need to see a neural optometrist and get our foresight checked. Okay. But not today, there's a sale at Walmart.
She also says that "the type of information that dominates cable news and the blogosphere is generally not designed to appeal to our more rational, long-term thought processes." This surprised me. Partly because I don't have a rational, long-term thought process and my irrational, short-term thought process didn't know how to handle it. But also because I thought this was how capitalism and free-markets worked, and that Game Theorists and psychologists had known it all along.
In Rational Choice Theory people are deemed "rational" when they act to get what they want. Or, to use smarty-talk, when agents make decisions that maximize their utility (getting what you want). For example, I have the cold-sweats, I'm shaking, my body aches, I feel nauseous: mmm, heroin. What? Sure it's bad for me over the long run, but at the moment it's relieving all the horrible symptoms of my drug addiction. Rational choice. And if I can't rustle up enough dosh to buy me some smack, I'll try hooking, or stealing, or mugging. Once again, rational choice. 'But those activities adversely affect others', you whine. True. But those are "externalities". It's not my problem if you have to buy a new Rolex, or stereo, or course of anti-HIV medication. I'm high, baby - that's all that matters to me.
Unsavory example? Okay. I'm a single parent, have 3 kids to clothe and feed and I'm on social assistance. On my way home from looking for work I swing by Colonel Sanders' place for a bucket of the dirty bird with fries, then pick up some socks and undies shipped all the way from China at the local gigantic-mart. What? Now you're complaining that I'm selling my kids short nutritionally, increasing the trade deficit and promoting climate change. I've got $32 in my pocket. What do you want me to do? Pick up a bag of organic spinach and a carrot for dinner and send the rug rats to school a la commando?
Bair says "responsible policies are promptly vilified if they involve the slightest hint of short-term sacrifice." Adorable. I can't help wondering how many times Sheila has refused to fly to attend a wedding because it would be exacerbating America's reliance on foreign oil? I wonder how often she's downsized her family's living arrangements to conserve non-renewable resources and energy, curbing commodity prices and helping reduce costs for the poor? I wonder, when she's out for dinner at the Inn at Little Washington, if she refuses to have the Red Snapper, or Bluefin Tuna, or Orange Roughy, or Cod, or Chilean Seabass, because she is too farsighted to participate in the continued collapse and over-fishing of these species?
Short-termism. That's how we do. In fact we've become so preoccupied with the "economy" and near-term financial regulation that we're missing the big picture. There are too many of us competing for limited stuff. Our money is really debt. And the natural systems upon which the "real" economy relies are in decline.
Me, I'm a Bratscal, which means I'm hasty, impetuous, myopic and selfish. I say gimme all the Bluefin Tuna you have before it's gone. Besides, I need a snack. Ms. Bair's article is a long read. Still, it's a welcome distraction from this gloomy article in the New York Times: Ocean at Dire Risk, Team of Scientists Warn. Pass the wasabi.
Sheila says we're too nearsighted as a society. That "our financial markets remain too focused on quick profits, and our political process is driven by a two-year election cycle and its relentless demands for fundraising." Apparently we all need to see a neural optometrist and get our foresight checked. Okay. But not today, there's a sale at Walmart.
She also says that "the type of information that dominates cable news and the blogosphere is generally not designed to appeal to our more rational, long-term thought processes." This surprised me. Partly because I don't have a rational, long-term thought process and my irrational, short-term thought process didn't know how to handle it. But also because I thought this was how capitalism and free-markets worked, and that Game Theorists and psychologists had known it all along.
In Rational Choice Theory people are deemed "rational" when they act to get what they want. Or, to use smarty-talk, when agents make decisions that maximize their utility (getting what you want). For example, I have the cold-sweats, I'm shaking, my body aches, I feel nauseous: mmm, heroin. What? Sure it's bad for me over the long run, but at the moment it's relieving all the horrible symptoms of my drug addiction. Rational choice. And if I can't rustle up enough dosh to buy me some smack, I'll try hooking, or stealing, or mugging. Once again, rational choice. 'But those activities adversely affect others', you whine. True. But those are "externalities". It's not my problem if you have to buy a new Rolex, or stereo, or course of anti-HIV medication. I'm high, baby - that's all that matters to me.
Unsavory example? Okay. I'm a single parent, have 3 kids to clothe and feed and I'm on social assistance. On my way home from looking for work I swing by Colonel Sanders' place for a bucket of the dirty bird with fries, then pick up some socks and undies shipped all the way from China at the local gigantic-mart. What? Now you're complaining that I'm selling my kids short nutritionally, increasing the trade deficit and promoting climate change. I've got $32 in my pocket. What do you want me to do? Pick up a bag of organic spinach and a carrot for dinner and send the rug rats to school a la commando?
Bair says "responsible policies are promptly vilified if they involve the slightest hint of short-term sacrifice." Adorable. I can't help wondering how many times Sheila has refused to fly to attend a wedding because it would be exacerbating America's reliance on foreign oil? I wonder how often she's downsized her family's living arrangements to conserve non-renewable resources and energy, curbing commodity prices and helping reduce costs for the poor? I wonder, when she's out for dinner at the Inn at Little Washington, if she refuses to have the Red Snapper, or Bluefin Tuna, or Orange Roughy, or Cod, or Chilean Seabass, because she is too farsighted to participate in the continued collapse and over-fishing of these species?
Short-termism. That's how we do. In fact we've become so preoccupied with the "economy" and near-term financial regulation that we're missing the big picture. There are too many of us competing for limited stuff. Our money is really debt. And the natural systems upon which the "real" economy relies are in decline.
Me, I'm a Bratscal, which means I'm hasty, impetuous, myopic and selfish. I say gimme all the Bluefin Tuna you have before it's gone. Besides, I need a snack. Ms. Bair's article is a long read. Still, it's a welcome distraction from this gloomy article in the New York Times: Ocean at Dire Risk, Team of Scientists Warn. Pass the wasabi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)