Capitalism Doesn't Know How to Reproduce Itself!

By Dr. Shirley P. Burggraf, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Florida A & M University

(1) When people ask me if "capitalism can survive," I also have to ask: "What kind of capitalism? Laissez faire? Regulated capitalism?"

To survive, capitalism obviously needs to be regulated because of its propensity to crash when abused. Our current US institutional and regulatory systems seriously lag behind reality in at least two additional dimensions--dimensions beyond those of financial derivatives, leverage ratios, and institutions "too big to fail." Capitalism must quickly come to recognize globalization and human capital.

Globalization. Capitalism is increasingly global. It allows for the movement of capital around the world with the click of a computer button. National economies such as "the US economy" exist geographically, statistically, and politically--but much of what they do is driven by factors beyond the control of any one country.

Effective regulation now requires extensive global coordination. This is a daunting prospect given the state of global politics and the limitations of existing international institutions like the UN, IMF, and World Bank.

Human Capital. The single economic resource considered most important, according to dominant economic models, has changed over time throughout history. In feudalistic economies, land was the most key resource. Later, when factories and machines came to dominate the economy, business capital was the factor most key to success.

Today, knowledge and skills are the most important resources, the keys to success in high tech service economies. Yet there's little recognition in current economic models--or in public policy discussions--of who the economy's major investors actually are! A skilled labor force has become both increasingly important economically, and increasingly expensive to produce for families. At the same time, child dependency increases in length and complexity while traditional returns to parents (help on the farm and support in old age) have disappeared.

Parental investment in reproduction of human capital--having children, raising them, and supporting their education--still tends to be taken for granted as something that will get done as it always has. Our economy still assumes the existence of a gender caste system that confines women to family work.

When men were released from the European caste system at the end of the Middle Ages, a new set of laws and institutions had to be developed that, according to economic historians, evolved over 200 years and is still an ongoing process. Reorganizing the family economy, where half of the human race has worked throughout history, requires a similar level of attention. We must develop new rules and institutions that support the kind of investment in children a modern economy requires. Right now, advanced capitalism doesn't know how to reproduce itself.

(2) What can capitalism deliver with the most intelligent institutional support and regulations?

Capitalism, which harnesses individuals' energies and abilities in service of their own self interests, can be a very efficient system for getting a lot of work done. It works best when incentives are properly aligned and rules are enforced. Barring major technological innovation, however, no economic system is going to be able to continue on the growth path of the last 200 years in industrial countries. Resource and environmental constraints will ultimately impose limits.

Population decline in the most advanced countries--the ones with the highest consumption--will provide some relief from population pressure. Unfortunately, population decline also makes the invention of technological solutions less likely because they're the ones hosting the most research and technological progress.

The most advanced countries are also reservoirs of parental knowledge, information that must be passed on to the next generation. Not coincidentally, advanced countries are where opportunity costs of parental time invested in children are greatest. Someone has to produce the scientists and technicians capable of inventing and applying technology.

Countries like China and India are increasingly adopting fossil fuel technologies and they aren't going to settle for less output per person than the rich countries. The richer countries are therefore likely to have to make a choice--either make major retrenchments in standards of living to make room for the rest of the world--or burn up the planet.

Given the extent to which 200 years of industrial revolution has made economic growth a human birthright, the global system may be in real danger of burning or blowing itself up. That means we absolutely must find technological solutions, or revise our economic and political expectations for "progress." Please forgive the pun, be we need to outgrow growth one way or another.

(3) What are the alternatives to capitalism? Communism? Democratic socialism?

Communism: The Soviet Union's communist system, starting from a very low economic base, did fairly well initially (as measured by economic statistics, although with considerable compulsion of its citizens). The needs were obvious--infrastructure, power generation, basic factories. Yet communism foundered when more diversity was required, apparently because of information problems.

It's very hard for centralized managers, even the most honest and competent, to access and process enough information to run an economy of much complexity. Centralized control is particularly vulnerable to corruption--wise and benevolent dictators are rare. China is following the same path, although managing to keep state control longer and liberalize more gradually. What controlled economies particularly lack is the entrepreneurship and innovation needed to go beyond the basic stage of development.

Socialism: Some things like national defense, highways, and sidewalks, have to be socialized because of the "free rider" problem. Some things, like health insurance, are difficult for a market system to provide effectively because of the "adverse selection problem." Insurance companies only want to insure healthy, employed people, and many citizens don't want to buy insurance if an employer isn't providing it and they aren't sick. People who lose their jobs because of injury or chronic illness lose their employer's insurance just when they need it. Nobody's insurance is safe unless everyone is insured.

Some things, like schools, have beneficial externality effects that a market system (which only produces what individuals are able and willing to pay for) doesn't take into account. Democracy requires an educated citizenry. There are also issues of fairness, equality, and exposure to the risks of capitalism that cause democracies to choose some level of social insurance through income redistribution. But social insurance does tend to weaken the capitalist incentive system.

There is always room for argument about what governments should be doing, but capitalism seems likely to continue as long as civilization lacks a better alternative. My own questions for the future include:

• Can civilization survive the challenges that economic realities pose for political and social systems?
• Can politicians--who have to get elected locally--think globally and cooperate with the rest of the world sufficiently to regulate global capitalism?
• Can societies that have taken "women's work" for granted for all of human history develop the rules and institutions required to enable the family to compete with the market place? Can they get the resources they need to produce the healthy, skilled labor force modern economies require?
• Can the richest 20% of the human race find technological solutions for the constraints of finite resources, or downsize their definition of "economic progress" sufficiently to maintain a viable peace between the world's Haves and Have Nots?

These seem to me to be the relevant questions of today.

Editor's Note: A special thanks to Dr. Burggraf for sharing her thoughts on the future of capitalism. The topic came up in a lively book group discussion in August, and she kindly agreed to write her views here for the benefit of our Global Microscope readership. (Thanks, Mom!)

Questions of Public Corruption Plague Rep. Dan Kristiansen's Campaign

By Elizabeth A. Scott--Monroe, WA.

A formal complaint filed with the Public Disclosure Commission in late July raises serious questions of public corruption involving the Minority Caucus Chair, Representative Dan Kristiansen of the 39th LD.

The Questions: Evidence (as follows) obtained through the PDC begs several questions, including whether or not Rep. Dan Kristiansen violated WA state law by accepting $8,000 from corporations belonging to The Rairdon Auto Group and the WA State Automotive Dealers PAC.

It also forces the question as to whether or not the campaign contributions were intended as a bribe, and if Rep. Dan Kristiansen committed quid pro quo by sponsoring legislation (HB 2182) that would lower The Rairdon Auto Group's B & O tax rate.

The Facts: PDC records (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/) show that, on June 14, 2010, Kristiansen accepted maximum individual campaign donations of $1,600 from each of four businesses:

(1) Rairdon's Chrysler Jeep of Kirkland: $800 + $800
(2) Rairdon's Dodge Chrysler Jeep of Monroe: $800 + $800
(3) Rairdon's Dodge Chrysler Jeep of Smokey Point: $800 + $800
(4) Rairdon's of Bellingham: $800 + $800

At first glance, each business appears to be independently owned. If so, their contributions are in compliance with the $1,600 individual limit. Each business is individually registered with the state of WA through separate names such as DCOB, Inc., and CJOK, Inc., supporting the individual ownership assumption.

Further research into direction of the Rairdon corporations, however, suggests that Angela and Greg Rairdon have ownership and/or controlling interest in all of them (http://www.fortress.wa.gov/). They also advertise "family ownership" on their website, http://www.rairdon.com/.

The Law: WAC 390-16-309, "...two or more entities shall be treated as one entity and share a contribution limit under RCW 42.17.640 if one of the entities is established, financed, maintained or controlled by the other, as evidenced by any one of the following factors...(b) Whether one entity has authority or the ability to direct or participate, other than through a vote as a member, in the governance of another entity...or has authority or the ability to hire, appoint, demote or otherwise control...the officers or other decision making employees or member of another entity..." (www.pdc.wa.gov)

Common ownership and/or controlling interest in multiple corporations seems to qualify the businesses as related for the purposes of campaign contributions under RCW 42.17.640. Yet, Rep. Kristiansen also accepted an additional $1,600 from the WA State Auto Dealers PAC.

According to the PDC, he took the money in two $800 installments--one on November 5, 2009 and the other on July 13, 2010. Corporations in WA state, however, must share contribution limits with their PAC (See WAC 390-16-309 and WAC 390-16-311).

The $8,000 Kristiansen accepted from the automobile industry, mostly through interests controlled by Angela and Greg Rairdon of the Rairdon Auto Group, constitutes roughly 10% of Kristiansen's campaign war chest. It's an amount way beyond the means of most people, PACs, and individual businesses. In that light, it also seems reasonable to ask if the contributions were meant as a bribe in violation of federal law.

Since corporations and interest groups are expected to make contributions to legislators with whom they agree, bribery is a difficult question. The huge, possibly illegal sum of money the Rairdon family donated to Kristiansen's 2010 campaign might suggest public corruption, but could also easily be dismissed as speculation without clear evidence of quid pro quo.

According to the American Bar Association (www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2009-03-04/baran.shtml):

"No Quid Pro Quo...Under no circumstances may anyone provide a campaign contribution or anything else of value to a government official in exchange for an official act. That is quid pro quo, or what the laws usually refers to as bribes and gratuities. While rare, it is not unheard of for an official...to be tried for bribery in connection with campaign contributions... [It] will focus on whether the official or the lobbyist offered or requested a contribution in exchange for an official act such as introducing a bill..."

Given the American Bar Association's warnings, did Rep. Kristiansen commit quid pro quo? During the 2009 legislative session, Rep. Kristiansen was involved in the sponsorship of legislation that would reduce taxes specifically--and only--for automotive dealers. From the Legislative Digest (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Digests/Legislative%20Digests/LEGISLATIVE520DIGEST%202009%20NO.%2024.pdf):

"HB 2182 by Representatives Condotta, Ericks, Blake, Hope, Dammeier, Kelley, and Kristiansen: Reducing the business and occupation tax rate until July 1, 2024, for retailers, wholesalers, and service providers of motor vehicles. -2009 REGULAR SESSION"

Given the facts available through the Public Disclosure Commission and the Washington State Department of Licensing, it does seem reasonable to ask if the $8,000 Rep. Kristiansen accepted from Angela and Greg Rairdon and the WA State Automotive Dealers PAC was $6,400 more than state law allows.

It also seems reasonable to ask of this unusually large contribution was intended as payment for his sponsorship of HB 2182--legislation that would result in potentially millions of dollars in cash for Rairdon family businesses.

On or about July 30, 2010, a formal complaint was received by the WA State Public Disclosure Commission concerning the campaign contributions accepted by Kristiansen on behalf of Rairdon businesses. The ensuing Public Disclosure Commission meeting, held on August 26th at 9:30 AM, was blacked out. The live Internet feed of the proceedings usually provided for public viewing was cancelled.

The people of the 39th LD are waiting for an answers.

Editorials | Washington state sank to near the bottom in Race to The Top | Seattle Times Newspaper

Editorials Washington state sank to near the bottom in Race to The Top Seattle Times Newspaper

Groundwater, the Wild-Whiskey Chocolate Sauce of the Earth

Sometimes it's hard to get excited about groundwater. Rural residents of Snohomish County, like me, generally belong to one of two quiet groups--those that have good wells, and those that don't. And both have this in common: wells that were tested for "stuff" once upon a time. If the building inspector stamped the right form, the source of the water was then forgotten.

Like whiskey and dark, orange chocolate--blended and poured over ice cream--Snohomish County groundwater is especially tasty, not to mention absolutely necessary. We can't live without it; we're all in love with Earth's Wild-Whiskey Chocolate Sauce. Homes that don't have fresh water...do have "For Sale" signs in the front yard, and they're permanent fixtures. The original purchase price, maybe $200,000--maybe $2 million doesn't matter. Homes with wells that run dry or become toxic suddenly become worthless.

Homeowners and builders that find themselves unexpectedly without water often end up in bankruptcy. We've all seen them, the abandoned homes with sunken roofs. As we drive by, we wonder what happened.

Thanks to my love of geology (and M.S. from SUNY), a friend recently approached me with a question about our water supply. "I have a septic system," she said, "so it doesn't matter how much water I use, right? I put it right back into the ground. If I'm returning the water, surely there's no such thing as using too much?"

I appreciated my friend's concern, and she highlighted a common misconception--that our septic system returns water to the original source. Amazingly enough, groundwater is very much like starlight. The photons touching our eyes when we stare at Betelgeuse in the night sky, for example, left that star 640 years ago. While we watch, they come to rest in the depths of our retinas at the end of a 3,840 trillion mile journey.

As for groundwater, individual molecules often travel a great distance before finding a well. They, too, reach us at the end of a magical journey; theirs through the space-time continuum of porous rock. While Betelgeuse's starlight might seem old, paleowater from the famous Ogallala Aquifer of the US Great Plains probably dates back to the last ice age. That means roughly 65% of US irrigation uses water ~20,000 years old. (Not bad, eh Betelgeuse?)

Well drillers know that deeper is usually better because earth and stone act as natural filters. They also know that the higher the number of impermeable layers (like clay) they drill through to reach an aquifer, the greater the protection from surface contamination. This is really important for those of us with little-boy family members who play in the back garden, and can't always be trusted to go inside to pee.

According to Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute (Oakland, California) the average household requires about 50 liters of water per person, per day--not including gardening. After we consume it and process it, it begins a new journey, takes a new path to somewhere else. The water we return to the Earth via septic system almost never makes it down to our well intake, as long as it's a good well. (I have a friend with a shared residential well that's only 6 ft deep. This does not count as a good well.)

The water dispersed by a septic field sinks into the ground, hits the first sloping impermeable clay layer and flows downhill--or it evaporates. Either way, there's no return...no such thing as sneaking back to the watershed nest.

So yes... It does matter how much water we use--even when we have a well--even when we use a septic system. Plus, too much water flow through a septic field decreases its efficiency, and way too much water can cause it to overflow. And trust me, an overflowing septic system is a seriously nasty disaster!

Sadly, we need to get excited about groundwater really fast because our favorite Wild Whiskey Chocolate Sauce is being attacked. When too many homeowners, developers, or businesses consume the water upstream, the wells downstream run dry. Since huge new developments are being planned right now, we all have to wonder... Can my own well survive?

Consider this...the slope of the aquifer may not match the slope of the land at the surface. Your surface water may be running towards the East, and your well water may be running towards the West. So it can be hard to tell if you should worry about that new rural cluster being developed just up the hill from your home. They might be putting themselves first in line for your water supply--or not.

That's why we have a WA Department of Ecology, and an important local resource, Snohomish County Planning and Development Services (PDS). These groups are charged with studying this stuff, and they're supposed to pay attention to the difference between water sources that are sensitive and those that aren't. It's their job to make sure new businesses, new condos, and new schools are planned in a way that protects those with a financial stake in growth, as well as existing residents. After all, what developer wants to build a bunch of new homes only to have the wells run dry before they're sold?

Unfortunately, PDS doesn't have a good record of enforcing permitting restrictions. Politics and money influence PDS's development policy, even though they should know that responsible development earns more money for our communities in the long run. They seem to be overriding the Dept. of Ecology in favor of another manual that says, "Develop anywhere you want. We have a permit for that."

This stinks, and it's unexpected--but we're not helpless. Here's what we can do:

1. Demand a change in regulatory culture from our Snohomish County Executive, Aaron Reardon. Tell him you care about Wild Whiskey Chocolate Sauce (oops, I mean water) and that you want him to uphold building codes and population density guidelines. His SnoCo website is being revamped to make it easier for us to share input. Let's use it!

2. Arm yourself with knowledge about where your water comes from and where it goes. Look at the topography of your property. Which way does your liquid garbage flow--the extra lawn fertilizer, the pet poop extract? Even if we don't like the neighbors downhill very much, it's worthwhile examining our chemical usage every once in a while just to see if we could use a little less.

Think of this article as a good excuse to ignore the dandelion and clover flowers in your lawn. Tell your neighbors they stay green without fertilizer; they grow more vigorously than grass; they probably consume more carbon dioxide. Those are my excuses, anyway.

3. Lend a hand to environmentally concerned citizens like Ellen Hiatt-Watson--people who want our communities to grow; want new neighbors and new stores; want great jobs for our local building professionals--but know that Snohomish County Planning and Development Services must do its job. Growth must happen in ways, and in places, that are sustainable.

4. Notice that State Representative Dan Kristiansen (39th LD, pos. 1) doesn't express any concern about the environment anywhere on his website (except in one vague reference to meth manufacture). Notice that Kristiansen's challenger in this November's election, Eleanor Walters, grew up in a community where water and salmon were important to the economy.

Eleanor's website explains her understanding of the critical links between great jobs, community growth, and clean water. On May 25, Walters went on record to say, "Groundwater is essential to our continued quality of life here in the 39th district. We need to work together to protect this vital resource." Let's give her our support!

I know it can be hard to work up much emotion about groundwater. As a geologist, I understand. For some of us, it's helpful to think of water as if it were Wild-Whiskey Chocolate Sauce. Another friend of mine thinks gin and tonic with a twist of lime makes a better analogy... Either way, we can't afford to run out, to let our properties go fallow. Not now. There's only so much hardship we can take. ~Elizabeth A. Scott

Useful links:
*For access to your very own well log online: www.apps.ecy.wa.gov/wellog/
*For info about the impact of fertilizers on groundwater from WA State University: www.cru.cahe.wsu.edu/CEPublications/eb1722/eb1722.html
*For links to Snohomish County public officials: www.co.snohomish.wa.us/
*For info about Eleanor Walters: http://www.eleanorwalters.com/

Top 10 Tea Party Proposals for Maintaining Roads, Improving Schools

The Countdown...

10. For schools: repair leaky roofing with recycled grass clippings. Get that trendy "thatched" look as an added bonus.

9. For roads: replace "pothole" with "targeted speed-management device" in the city engineer's report.

8. Attack childhood obesity by cutting school lunches in half.

7. Raise revenue by lowering all speed limits 15 mph. Warn traffic police; keep mum to motorists.

6. Quit purchasing glue sticks for elementary school classrooms. Kids know spit is stickier anyway.

5. Train military for special concrete barrier black-ops. Mission: Sneak into Canada; steal expensive concrete lane dividers; install them on Hwy 2. (Might also work for bridges...more research needed.)

4. Don't replace 20 year old math texts. They provide students with a priceless, historical perspective.

3. Scrap half the school bus fleet. Mount seat belts from scrapped buses to roofs of remaining buses and warn children not to play with the power lines. Don't worry, children always follow directions.

2. Give the land back to the people! Privatize all roads. Residents and business owners with property in direct contact with any section of road should be directly responsible for any necessary improvement of said section of road. Costs and decisions associated with repairs should be equally split with neighbor across the street. (Personal injury and real estate lawyers, rejoice!)

1. Forget schools altogether. Put the children to work maintaining roads.

~

Not ready to thatch school roofing with old grass clippings? Support Eleanor Walters, the Democratic Party nominee for WA State Representative, 39th LD, pos. 1!

Ken Wilber--Essential Vitamin or Deep Fried Granola Bar?

(Author's note: I'd like to extend a special thanks to Beth for suggesting Ken Wilber as today's Global Microscope topic. Wilber is certainly an interesting character, and I hope this blog inspires discussion. Thanks! ~Elizabeth A. Scott)


Citizens of the Pacific Northwest have a fantastic appetite for innovation and sociopolitical activism. To that end, many of us turn to Ken Wilber, author of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995); A Theory of Everything (2000); Boomeritis (2002), for enlightenment and direction.


Wilber is perhaps most famous for his jumbo paradigm, Integral Theory. Loosely speaking, it's a conglomerate model of the human experience composed of ideas scavenged from biology, faith, business, politics, and psychology. Recently, Wilber's comments about a subset of this paradigm, Integral Politics, were published on YouTube under the title, "One Person, One Vote, One Catch." The post generated a tidal wave of comments.


Since Wilber is so influential--so appealing to our Pacific Northwest identity, it's worth examining Integral Politics for soundness. Should it influence our thinking about today's hot issues: panhandling, homelessness, incarceration, mental illness, health care?


If the answer is yes, then Wilber's philosophy is a vitamin; an essential, healthy approach we can use to increase the effectiveness of our political discourse. But what if it's really a deep fried granola bar? It could be tasty, healthy-looking, and a fatal 5,000 calorie heart attack catalyst. Together, we have to watch out for this kind of risk. So let's take a closer look...


Wilber's theory classifies people according to motivation, and assigns them a position within a pseudo-biological/developmental hierarchy. In his YouTube presentation, Wilber mostly talks about people near the top of his hierarchy--the "Worldcentric" folks, and those near the bottom--the "Ethnocentric" folks.


Now here comes the really interesting part. Wilber's "Ethnocentric" groups include Nazis, KKK members, devout Christians, and Republicans. He paints with the broadest brush possible, and uses only one color. For Ethnocentrists, he likes the color blue.


Since the opposite of blue in Wilber-World is green, he uses this color to represent "Worldcentric" people. These are defined as well-educated citizens interested in extending basic human rights to everyone regardless of race, color, sex or creed.


On YouTube, Wilber muses that Worldcentric citizens were responsible for establishing our current, representative form of government. He also suggests that our democracy has a built-in, catastrophic flaw: it pits Ethnocentric, values-focused citizens against Worldcentric, economics-focused citizens. He further asserts that the well-intentioned Worldcentric people are wrong to avoid "values" in the context of government. This, he feels, is one of the roots of civil unrest and displacement from government.


Even more interesting is Wilber's solution to American social discord. He proposes that we accept Ethnocentrism and Worldcentrism as natural stages in life. One must pass through the Ethnocentric stage to get to the Worldcentric stage. Then he compares Ethnocentrism to a molecule within a cell. The cell cannot reject the molecule, he says, so it's impossible for Worldcentrists to reject Ethnocentrists, even though that's exactly what they'd like to do.


According to Wilber, once Worldcentrists have accepted Ethnocentrism as part of their own natural development, they'll evolve onwards and upwards and become "second tier" citizens capable of "Integral Politics." He predicts that increasing numbers of people will actually do this because it's a natural trend. Plus, it inherently relieves tension between political groups. You can't hate your rivals if you see them as existing within a natural life stage.


In Wilber-World, the more people that practice Integral Politics, the easier it will be to make our social squabbles go away. Bible followers will be allowed to do whatever they want in their own homes but, he says, they "won't be allowed to burn people at the stake."


The appeal of Integral Theory to Democrats is that it pretends to promote compassion towards Republicans--and Democrats (like me) love themes of compassion. But watch out! Wilber isn't really teaching compassion at all. He's essentially saying, "Hey Democrats, acknowledge your dark, Republican, faith or ethnically-based genetic code and transcend to greatness. Love your conservative rival as you would a child, and political tension will go away." Can this be true?


Wilber's theory is entirely based upon the transposition of biological or evolutionary principles into a method for organizing geopolitical groups. It sounds scientific--almost logical--but in reality, it's like taking a rock classification system and using it to decide which cereal to eat for breakfast. Yuck!


True, there's often a relationship between genetic code and geopolitical identity, and some global populations are more closely related than others. The English, on average, might be more genetically and politically uniform than Americans. Sometimes this helps keep the peace, sometimes not.


In Rwanda, the New York Times reported just this week that the government has a stranglehold on political discussion. Dissent is not allowed, and international leaders fear citizens will soon be forced to identify with nothing more than their ethnic groups.


Ethnic identity has indeed been associated with the kinds of catastrophes Wilber mentions, and this is his most important--most valid point. Rwandans could be in real danger, since ethnic tensions have led to wholesale slaughter in the not too distant past. It could happen here, too. Think Oklahoma bombing.


I must point out, though, that ethnic identity is rarely the real problem. It's a statistical happenstance. We humans are social animals, and we're competitive. We naturally join groups. Does that mean ethnic or religious identity causes violence? Absolutely not. Famine, lack of economic or biological success, disease, hardship, quests for power/control--even boredom--make better instigators of violence. Ethnicity is just along for the ride.


The idea that Republicans should naturally evolve or develop into Democrats, and Democrats should naturally metamorphose into political super-beings, puts Integral Politics squarely inside a philosophical black hole. Wilber talks about Republicans and Christians the same way slave owners used to talk about human property--like they're not as developed as the rest of us. While I usually agree with liberal/progressive ideas, I find Wilber's stereotypes offensive. His model of Integral Politics is also scientifically unhinged.


There's no biological impetus for political groups like Republicans (Ethnocentrists) to change into Democrats (Worldcentrists) in a country like ours--a country that's not actively being ravaged by civil war. There's no reproductive advantage to being a Democrat. Republicans are not being hauled off to death camps, and I refuse to believe that mainstream Republicans would even wish such a thing on Democrats. (Extremist motivations can't be modeled, so they aren't worth talking about.)


Ironically, Republicans and Democrats often have identical goals: good health, public safety, economic security, even religious piety. We just have very different ideas about how to achieve them. Wilber is right to point out that we have much in common, much to accept; wrong to say it has anything to do with natural life stages. It has everything to do with peaceful communication, education, and open debate.


If Wilber were a vitamin, he would promote peaceful discourse. He would generate an atmosphere of mutual respect that could actually lead to progress. But if I were a Republican being called a social tadpole with a predisposition for white, pointy hats and stake burnings just because of my religious or ethnic identity--I would be furious. I definitely wouldn't be interested in peaceful discourse. I'd be offering Wilber a stack of deep fried granola bars.


Then again, maybe I'm not that highly evolved. I bet those things are tasty...

~Elizabeth A. Scott

The Dangers of "Earthnocentric" Bias

Forget the good 'ole days, the yester-years, or any other romanticized time period just before antibiotics. As a geologist, I'd like to go back to the Paleozoic Era. What could possibly be better than getting to see complex life first emerge from primordial algal ooze?


Life unquestionably began in a series of blockbuster pyrotechnics and chemical reactions flashier than any Olympic ceremony. (Perhaps nearby aliens charged admission and sold the broadcasting rights for a mere planet or two? Perhaps not.) Since I couldn't have afforded the cover charge, it's probably a good thing I missed the show by five or six hundred million years.


If I can't vacation in the Paleozoic, I can at least console myself with a much cheaper version of planetary Dish on Demand. The super-low installation fee equal to one rock hammer fits my budget, and natural sedimentation records Earth processes automatically. Unfortunately, we geologists haven't figured out where the remote control is buried, so some episodes are missing--like Gone with the Dinosaurs, Part 3 of 3.

Perhaps one of the most shocking things about biological evolution is that it really does occur in episodes. The successes and failures of species are highly punctuated; only a tiny fraction are prolific enough to make guest appearances in Earth's lithic script. Even then, for better or worse, their tales run like Hollywood pilot episodes. Most of them don't make it, and stardom is ultra-rare.

When friends ask me what I think about global warming, I'm forced to admit I see life as miraculous and fragile. The boundaries of geologic periods are usually defined by mass extinctions, and there are lots of them: the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene, Neogene, and my favorite--the Holocene--which, thankfully, does not yet have an upper boundary.


Death is so frequent it's a convenient tool for delineating Earth's stratigraphy. For geologists, it's a sobering perspective. But really, why should anyone else care? It's not like we're even remotely related to trilobites or woolly mammoths, right?


Sadly, we humans don't even have the physical durability of cockroaches. We might be adaptable; we've invented many wonderful things like air conditioners and heaters, and I love them. But we have yet to prove our adaptability on a global scale--a comfy living room can't shake a stick at a comfy atmosphere. And it's the atmosphere we need to survive.


Ironically, I often beg my progressive friends to try to keep their Earthnocentric bias in check--to avoid the "keep the Earth healthy" terminology and the worship of all things "natural." To a geologist, the slogan sounds like, "Make sure you keep this bucket of rocks nice and clean or the mud stones might get sick." Instead, it's critical we turn our focus to the survival of our species, and those upon which we depend--probably most of them.


Still, Earthnocentric bias is rooted in intelligence and good, hard work. Many conservative leaders, on the other hand, make me furious when they say, "Phooey on global warming--climate change is natural. What's not to like?" This reaction speaks to the other problem with Earthnocentrism...


Other than the fact that cyanide is natural, Earthnocentrism's organic focus unwittingly helps derail environmental reform. It can't be denied that our climate naturally fluctuates, and conservatives love to point it out. In doing so, they shove the discussion way, way off track. It doesn't matter at all if climate change is natural. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that much of it is. Does that mean we should help it? Accelerate it? Bring a quicker end to the Holocene with machines that amplify the effect? They've got to be kidding.


In general, geologists are very cautious about raising alarm bells. They're trained in collegiate infancy to understand the human and financial fallout caused by predicting volcanic eruptions that don't happen, not to mention other disasters. So when climate scientists speak up, I listen.


We owe it to our species to do whatever it takes to keep our climate safe for people. If that means fighting warming trends, natural or otherwise, then so be it. I'd much rather fight planet Earth than go extinct.


I still dream of visiting the Paleozoic at the very moment life bursts forth with diversity and vigor. I imagine the first ferns opening their fronds; the first fish discovering their fins; the first corals building their homes out in the open ocean. You might call me Earthnocentric, too.

~Elizabeth A. Scott
(P.S. Have you seen the remote?)

Dan Kristiansen's Tyrannosaurus Tax

Let's face it, nobody likes taxes. In popularity, they rank just below tetanus shots, mammograms, and waking up to discover your spouse stole all the covers. And no public official has ever gotten away with pretending otherwise.

As much as we despise taxes, we know we need them, just like vaccines. Our survival depends on them. Crumbling roads--bootless firefighters--starving, uneducated children are just not an option. Therefore I must ask... Why are Tea Parties so popular, when they make about as much sense as Tetanus Shot Soirees?

First, there's Dan Kristiansen, a WA State Representative who loves the idea that all taxes ultimately coalesce into a Tyrannosaurus Tax; an evil entity lurking under boys' and girls' beds. The fear is obviously self-serving... (Vote for me, I'll keep the Tyrannosaur at bay.) On the other hand, Americans have always been legitimately divided about how much power to give government.

Right now, Tea Party organizers are playing to America's nostalgia for revolutionary history. When I see signs in my neighborhood advertising "Tee" Parties, though, I get a little suspicious about their historical dedication. And playing with revolution is a very dangerous game--it, too, has sharp teeth, and worse--a realistic potential for violence.

Yet, Tea Party activists illustrate something important; something we cannot ignore. Our taxes must be the will of the people, not the will of a disembodied government. The minute we think government is acting without our consent--bloody, ugly, revolution looks attractive. And "powerless" is exactly how conservatives in my neighborhood describe themselves. Does that mean they're weak, whiny people? Sadly, no. It means something's wrong, and we'd all better get to work.

The Tyrannosaurus Tax myth cannot take hold in a free society empowered with self government. That's why we must acknowledge a very uncomfortable truth, that we're nowhere near as free as we should be. Until now, our democracy has depended upon a great many things: our right to vote, our right to run for public office, freedom of the press, the peaceful transfer of power from party to party, access to education, free speech.

Today, the machinery of our democracy is so overdue for maintenance; it's easy to understand why citizens feel powerless. Police roadblocks prevent minority voters from getting to the polls; high campaign price tags prohibit good citizens from running for office; our media is free, but consolidated; and most of all, our public education system is failing to inspire young adults to read, vote, get involved, and question.

These problems are the true seeds of the Tea Party movement, of revolution, even if the activists themselves don't realize it. We need to acknowledge them, to understand how urgent it is to shore up the fragile cornerstones of our government "for the people, by the people."

Generating new ideas for education, campaign finance reform and more, is really hard--no question--and taking flak for something innovative feels worse than mammogram squeezers straight from the freezer. But we're at a turning point in history.

We're being led by our first-ever minority President through the fires of economic crisis, war, and civil unrest. We have a unique opportunity to use the heat to forge great ideas, to kick Tyrannosaurus Tax in the butt. Let's do it.
~Elizabeth A. Scott

Hot Astronaut Babes Fight Over Lipstick, Crash Space Shuttle

On Monday morning, April 5th, seven brave astronauts climbed aboard 1,387,457 lbs of liquid oxygen, 234,265 lbs of liquid hydrogen, and struck a match. They rode a fireball into orbit, tumbled the space shuttle, Discovery, end over end in a difficult gymnastics maneuver, and safely docked with the International Space Station. Never mind the shuttle's broken Ku-Band antenna, or the missing insulation.

Three of the astronauts were women, and they joined a fourth launched separately in a Soyuz rocket. Monday's launch marked a new record for women--four in orbit at the same time. In a good way, it wasn't shocking news. But some of the (painfully unedited) comments posted to Yahoo!'s 4/2/10 announcement were quite the opposite:

1. "Oh, boy, catfight. Four women at the same time cleaning the capsule, got to be a fight sooner or later. Hope they are not steering that thing.......," (Bubbal).
2. "Great. So now we'll get 3 weeks of work done per month ;-O" (Lightfoot).
3. "...girls cant get along and are always in competition for male attention and wont focus on their work. and that is a really expensive mistake when they are trying to land and they are too busy bickering and putting on make-up to successfully land the shuttle," (Fighting Possum).

Conservatives argue that civil rights issues are old news, but comments like those on Yahoo! tell a different story. They yell, Hot Astronaut Babes Fight Over Lipstick, Crash Space Shuttle. Even more astounding, these comments generated 100 thumbs up in just a few hours.

According to KMB Legal of Washington, DC, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and related state agencies received 12,510 charges of sexual harassment on the job, just in 2007. That means it's more important than ever to support government representatives and candidates who make civil rights a priority.

Eleanor Walters is a clear choice for WA State Representative, pos. 1. As a member of Women to Women International, the Snohomish Human Rights Commission, and the Snohomish/Monroe Diversity Council, she takes civil rights seriously. She knows that astronauts, both male and female, are so much more to our country than hot babes bickering over lipstick. In fact, we all are. ~Elizabeth A. Scott

Walters to Help WA Citizens and Businesses Make Health Care Transition

“Welcome to Allied Medi-Magic Insurance… Please hold. Your call is important to us, and a qualified representative will be immediately available in six hours or less. For your safety, this call is being monitored. Do not hang up, or your co-pay will increase 200%. Pressing the “speaker” button will automatically charge a convenience fee of $421.50 to your account.

Kindly note that the routing code of your call has been changed to register on your phone bill as a 1-900 number with a trivial per-minute fee of $50.98. Take a deep breath and relax. If you blow up, your emergency room fees will not be covered. And please watch your language, or you’ll be an organ donor sooner than you think. Your call is important to us. Please hold…”

When you’re sick, it doesn’t matter if you’re progressive, conservative, libertarian, or Rastafarian. If your health care is managed by an insurance company, you might feel the need to pick up a ceramic dish and throw it.

My own insurance battle began with the birth of my first son. Nine months of prenatal exams, ultrasounds, and visits to a high-risk specialist—all within my insurance company’s network—apparently weren’t enough to convince Headquarters I might one day deliver a baby.

Soon after my husband and I brought our brand new family member home, we received a letter. The hospital’s delivery fees, it said, wouldn’t be covered because the insurance company hadn’t been given 24 hours’ notice. My husband, sleep-deprived and grumpy, called them right away. “What do you mean 24 hours?” he queried. “She was pregnant for nine months! How did you think this was going to end?”

Despite the antics of a thoroughly debauched insurance industry, citizens in our community are rightly worried about how new federal regulations are going to affect their own health care costs. Every smart business owner is worried, too, never mind the threat of a mountain of new paperwork.

Citizens of the 39th LD have an especially good reason to worry. Our Republican Representative in position 1, Dan Kristiansen, usually prefers to muck-rake rather than legislate. (Who wouldn't? It's much easier!)

That's why I'm excited to hear that the 39th LDDO has named Eleanor Walters as their nominee for State Representative, pos. 1. She has degrees in both Public Affairs and Law, and she's worked hard to gain the education and background needed to be an excellent Representative. In fact, contracts are her specialty, and she's ready to put her experience to work for us in the legislative arena.

Helping citizens and businesses sort through the health care overhaul will be a big challenge. It will also be the duty of our elected Representatives; state legislators do have the power to regulate the insurance industry, to mesh it with federal law to best suit our community. Bringing an end to the health care industry's fine-print paradigm, and making WA state law serve us in the face of big federal changes will be both difficult and incredibly important.

Perhaps we owe it to our community to support Eleanor Walters. We owe it to ourselves to buy some new dishes...and keep them. : )

~E. A. S.


(Note: Allied Medi-Magic is a completely fictitious entity with no relationship, intentional or implied, to any actual organization.)