Author Archives: hkmead

About hkmead

I am a 2008 summer intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan.

Buy American

Posted on by hkmead
2

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

Channel 4 WDIV Detroit reports on a new bumper sticker campaign prompting people to “Buy American Products: They’re Better and Safer.”

1. If American products were, in fact, better, we consumers would purchase them. As it turns out, however, foreign cars (at least in my experience) are markedly more reliable. Maybe American companies should focus on making not-crappy cars instead of trying to guilt people into buying subpar vehicles.

2. Toyota employs over 35,000 Americans (2007 figure), and this number is growing rapidly. Furthermore, MSNBC/ForbesAutos report that some “foreign” cars have more parts manufactured in the U.S. than “American” cars. It just goes to show that this is a global economy. It wouldn’t make any sense for Washingtonians to boycott Idaho potatoes, and it doesn’t make sense for Americans to boycott foreign goods. Consumers buy the best and cheapest products, regardless of origin, and producers make what they’re best at making, regardless of their products’destinations; international economic cooperation is a good thing. And yes, my dad’s job was outsourced.

3. Trade sanctions are a favorite foreign policy tool we use to “punish” other nations. (We won’t get into the fact that this alleged middle ground between words and war has the effectiveness of the former and the destructiveness of the latter: Sanctions strengthen dictators’grips on their people and primarily harm the innocents and the poor in the target nation.) It doesn’t make any sense to voluntarily sanction ourselves from global trade, either in one industry or across-the-board.

Narrow-Minded

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

Over at Freakonomics blog Sudhir Venkatesh journals his experience introducing a millionaire donor to life on the streets. It’s a long article, fairly interesting, and hits that all-important point: you don’t understand, you never could, but it’s still your fault.

Because I’ve never lived in extremely difficult circumstances, I can’t possibly understand those who lead such lives. There is a gap that our common humanity cannot bridge. It is a gap created by my narrow cultural experiences and is even more evidenced by my concern than by my apathy. The rich man’s questions show his ignorance, and his ignorance shows his in-bred insensitivity — even though he tries to learn out of care for his fellow man. We relatively wealthy ones fall all over ourselves to deny any knowledge of a poor person’s lifestyle, but even this is scorned as somehow presumptuous.

But I can’t help but wonder if sanctifying this gap isn’t just glorified otherizing. Even if we call ourselves the “other,” we still insist that we have little to nothing in common with the destitute. How does this help?

I think, however, that comment 8 displays the least grasp of the world around:

A lot of people in academia and in government make the case against minimum wage as it is anathema to free markets. I pose a challenge to these people especially now that a lot of them will be on summer recess. Why not spend at least 30 days living on minimum wage and see how they cope? This will give them the experience and moral compass needed to address the issue with the right knowledge.

Duh, the “squatter” in the story is NOT RECEIVING MINIMUM WAGE!!! If you read carefully, maybe you’d see that what jobs he has have to be under-the-table because of union regulations and, yes, minimum wage. Imagine how his life might improve if people could hire him legally, huh?

But my thoughts on this subject are clearly utterly discredited, because, see, my financial stability means I have no “moral compass.”

Higher, Faster, Stronger

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

I must admit my bias: I cared about gymnastics long before I cared about politics. I still drool over Olympics footage from the Atlanta games and, while I of course root for the U.S. I have nothing but sheer admiration for such athletes as Russia’s Alexei Nemov and Australia’s Ian Thorpe. “Miracle” is one of my favorite movies, and I don’t see how anyone can watch that and not understand what an awful thing a boycott is. I understand that there are deep and complex international issues, but I firmly support U.S. participation in the Beijing Olympics. While the games are about competition, and the teams are national ones, the Olympics should be free from foreign policy machinations.

The Olympics are about country (“Mike Eruzione… I play for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”), but not in a strictly political way. The federal government should not be politically involved in everything to do with America the country. My apple pie is American with or without FDA approval. Hamburgers are American with or without USDA-stamped beef. And for the federal government to even consider dashing the hopes and dreams of hundreds of extremely talented American youths is totally awful.

Maybe I’m just extra sensitive because gymnasts particularly face a very narrow window in which they are at their peak. Most are only in their prime for one Olympics. Has anyone seen Carly Patterson recently?

I’m no foreign policy expert; maybe boycotting the Beijing games would have sent some amazing message to China and they’d totally turn around the country. But I doubt it. [On the lighter side: The Beijing Olympics Are They a Trap?] I like to see the games go on in spite of international tensions. It’s sort of a Romeo and Juliet thing: The athletes will compete no matter how much their parent nations squabble. It shows there is something bigger, stronger, more comprehensive, more enduring, more important than government: human spirit.

Stamp of Disapproval

Posted on by hkmead
2

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

One day earlier this summer, I went to the post office to buy 1¢ stamps to augment my 41¢ snowman stamps. (I don’t send a lot of mail.) I good-naturedly joked about how I could hardly afford to send a letter these days with stamp prices rising so often. The postal worker would have none of this humor and archly informed me: “Actually, we have the lowest rates around.”

I was so stunned at this statement I could make no response. Of course the U.S.P.S. has the lowest prices! They also have the highest prices — in fact, they have the only prices, because they’re a legal monopoly!

(Granted, maybe she meant that U.S.P.S. rates for packages were competitive with UPS and FedEx, but, as I was buying stamps for first-class mail, that point wouldn’t have applied.)

If Ludites Owned the Machinery Patents…

Posted on by hkmead
3

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

…we’d still be riding in horse-drawn carriages and wearing homespun, hand-stitched clothing.

Ever since I was a young child I’ve had little respect for the music industry. The RIAA is one of the most backwards organizations I’ve ever encountered. For years they tried to eliminate online music sharing, getting all indignant that young people should violate the law when the incentives were clear: pay $20 for one song, or right-click-save-target-as. Clearly, no amount of cracking down was going to stop the mp3 revolution, but the RIAA stuck to its guns and sought to shut down online music distribution.

Finally Steve Jobs showed them that they could actually embrace and hugely benefit from easier music transfers. The whole thing was like watching someone lead a horse to a pond and hold its big ol’long face in the water until it finally drank.

Now, the music industry is once again technophobing away, utterly failing to recognize a huge boon when they see it. It’s really hard to tell what’s going on what with the whole thing very bureaucratized, but Pandora, an internet radio service that lets you customize “stations,” may face extinction due to a royalty hike. Maybe Pandora is whining and just seeking what the rate-hike-proponents call a subsidy, I don’t know enough about how this all works to know.

But I do know that Pandora and other customizable internet radio stations going out of business will not help the music industry. As Coyote notes, most of us who listen to Pandora end up buying way more songs we’d never have even heard if internet radio hadn’t introduced us to them. I know I’ve got a good list of about 20 songs I need to buy next time my lappy is in wireless range.

The Bossy City?

Posted on by hkmead
3

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

In a study of the 35 most populous U.S. cities, Reason Magazine reports, “Chicago wins the booby prize for most meddlesome metropolis by a wide margin.” Citing such regulations as bans on guns, smoking and DWOTP (driving while on the phone), Reason supports their hypothesis.

A group of us head off to Chicago later this week for Students for a Free Economy‘s second annual celebration of Milton Friedman’s birthday. I was surprised when people of all stripes started warning me that I can’t smoke in Chicago. I have no interest in smoking and, while I on principle oppose such regulations, I don’t deny I enjoy smoke-free air. (When I moved from Seattle to the Midwest it was such a throwback to hear “smoking or non?” — I hadn’t heard that since I was a small child.)

Howsomever, we nonsmokers have to realize the “first they came for the Jews” nature of these regulations. In a Chicago Tribune piece Mary Schmich argues, “Big cities are like big families—put a lot of people into a small space and somebody has to be charged with the power to say ‘Stop it.’” She [sarcastically?] lists activities that she would like banned because they bother her, such as barbequing with lighter fluid and running air conditioners during the day. For their own safety, she would like to see bicyclists barred from wearing headphones.

Whether she was kidding or not, Ms. Schmich paints a picture of what Reason calls “moral prudery and public health fanaticism” taken to the extreme. Once regulation gets started, there’s no way to stop it. If people can’t drive while talking on a cell phone, why should they be allowed to drive with the radio on? If the city needs surveillance cameras downtown, why shouldn’t they be able to put them inside private establishments? If smoking is banned, why should people be able to eat unhealthy foods? — oh wait, they’re not (Los Angeles, New York City).

So say goodbye to others’freedoms, and say goodbye to your own. You may think you know better how to run others’lives, but how many people do you think could run your own life better than you? That’s what I thought.

(Josh discussed the issue of smoking bans in a previous post.)

“You need to be educated (gotta go to school)”

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

The new education budget that passed both chambers removes Detroit Public Schools’veto power over charter schools. A lot of people are peeved. Rep. Virgil Smith, D-Detroit, claims,

Public school academies have been cherry-picking the good students … (adding to) the death spiral of the Detroit public school system.

This reminds me of a public school teacher who accused me in a “how could you?” tone of having “lowered the lowest common denominator” by being home-schooled. (Irritatingly, her mathematical metaphor has absolutely no applicability to her point — I’m glad I learned math from my mom instead.)

How could I? How could she suggest I ought to have sacrificed myself to somehow “level out” public education? I don’t see how my languishing in public schools for nine hours a day learning nothing* would help, and if I did, I probably wouldn’t have stayed anyway — I rather enjoyed getting my schoolwork done in a couple hours and having the rest of the day to play, tyvm.

Fundamentally, good students leaving a school lowers the average test scores, sure, but that statistic doesn’t mean their leaving hurts the poorer performers. (If anything, according to prevailing school-people wisdom, smaller class sizes would help, as might the ability to focus on a group of students with similar aptitude and difficulties.) The goal of a school should not be to look good statistically — it should be to improve the education of each student.

*I must amend this. In my three years at public school I learned two things: what a cylinder is and that Y is sometimes a vowel.

I wish my lawn were emo…

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

Let it be understood that I do not advocate violence of any sort except in self-defense and that I think all types of people should be allowed to express the lifestyle they have voluntarily chosen so long as they do not infringe on others’same rights.

I was intrigued by this Time Magazine article on emo-bashing (HT: Reason’s Hit & Run).

Most of all, however, the assailants target the emos for dressing effeminately, still a provocative act for many in a macho Mexico. “At the core of this is the homophobic issue. The other arguments are just window dressing for that,” said Victor Mendoza, a youth worker in Mexico City. “This is not a battle between music styles at all. It is the conservative side of Mexican society fighting against something different.”

The emos make a soft target for the aggressors. The vast majority are teenagers, often just 15 or 16 years old. Most are from comfortable middle-class backgrounds with little experience of the street battles in Mexico’s hardened barrios. And by its nature, the emo scene attracts followers who prefer intellectual indulgence to fistfights.

[Emph mine]

I’d say the second paragraph contains the real source of the clash. It may be narrow-mindedness and pride in one’s own way of life, but it’s not homophobia. Kids who grew up in truly rough circumstances and learned to toughen up to get through understandably don’t appreciate pampered rich kids moaning about… whatever it is emo kids are emo about.

No one likes a whiner, especially people who face much more difficult situations but who just suck it up and pull through instead of complaining. It is kind of an affront when some people gripe about petty stuff while others face serious dangers daily.* Pity-partyers can’t see the world past the end of their nose. But those who initiate violence against people who spend a good deal of the day attempting to look as hideous as possible are not displaying understanding, either. In beating up the pansies, I hold, thugs are guilty of acting on the very thing that fundamentally irritates them about their victims.

*I do, of course, acknowledge that some folks can have traumatic psychological torments that may or may not be as horrible as threats to one’s physical well-being.

I Reject Your Notion of “Self-Interest”

Posted on by hkmead
2

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

One awesome thing about the blogosphere is how courteous bloggers are. I’m not talking about posts or comments — these can of course get nasty. But the proliferation of such kind behavior as citing HTs, putting (pdf) after a link and giving spoiler warnings is pretty universal. And it’s pretty nice.

Do bloggers do this simply because they want more readers and so want to be as reader-friendly as possible? Maybe, but I doubt this is the sum of it. Because of peer pressure? Probably not, since that pressure would simply be in the form of losing readership. Do they include these courtesies because they consider readers to be part of their own community and so extend kindness to them? Perhaps — it’s either this or the last option: Because they themselves have suffered the intense frustrating of unknowingly clicking on a pdf link and waiting forever for Acrobat to open, and so want to spare everyone that pain?

I think the last two are the most plausible — which means bloggers are not acting in what some people would claim is their self-interest, since the poster does not stand to personally benefit from these courtesies.  Though some consider this to be irrational action, I think it’s perfectly reasonable. After all, “It’s nice to be nice.”

This brings me to the ultimate point: The concept of self-interest is of limited usefulness — it either dismisses genuine altruism or inherently encompasses all human action. Nice people are either irrational, manipulative, guilty or simply caring. I reject the first two outright. And though many have insisted that my altruism is motivated by a sense of guilt, I know that it’s not. Which leaves the last option. Most people like to do some nice things for themselves and some things for others — this is, I am sometimes told, in their “self-interest” since they like to do so. Which would mean self-interest is completely tautological: Anything I do is by definition in my self-interest. So where does that get us?

Crash and burn

Posted on by hkmead
Reply

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

In response to the airlines’ridiculous email plea vilifying futures market speculators, Kimberly Strassel vents her frustrations at airlines (HT: Coyote). I found it very therapeutic.

Note that the airline industry is so bureaucratized that it avoids the market forces that keep other service industries serving the customer. Because the payoff is cheaper and bigger if they lobby the government to restrict competition and bail them out in tough times, airlines pander to politicians, not customers. Remember this when you want more government intervention in more areas of the economy. The airlines are a perfect example of a “public/private partnership” — I sure as heck don’t want my health care going the way of the skies.

Also see Josh’s earlier post on oil speculation.

I feel your pain

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

I can’t even tell if this was a quick response to what hit the fan yesterday or if this was already in the chute, but Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, had a piece in The Detroit News today: “Reform state government to help voting, share pain.”

Share the pain? That’s all the “reformers” have to offer me? I hope for–heck, I demand– better. Michigan’s economic woes are not unavoidable. The pain will not be lessened by sharing it around. And passing a partisan power play masquerading as a “grass-roots” proposal will certainly not alleviate Michiganders’pain.

Sometimes, I really feel bad for politicians. They’re like Dobby the house elf in Harry Potter — we’d all be fine if they’d just stop trying to save us.

Another one rides the bus

Posted on by hkmead
1

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

(On the same vein as my previous post.) Gov. Jennifer Granholm sets a good example: Granholm enjoys her morning bus ride to work. The Free Press explains, “Granholm rides bus to show motorists ways to save” — because we obviously didn’t know before about public transit.

Today, she donned sneakers with her tan pantsuit to walk the few blocks from her Lansing home to a bus stop, then hopped on a Capital Area Transportation Authority bus for the half-hour ride to her downtown office. She carried her dress sandals and some work materials in a mesh backpack.

Maybe she could do us all a favor and set a truly useful trend: sneakers at work. I myself find most dress shoes remarkably uncomfortable and would greatly appreciate it if the governor would wield her influence to make my Pumas acceptable office-wear.

The governor has also ridden her bike to work. The Oakland Press reports:

She rode her blue bike to work Wednesday, accompanied by her security detail.
[...]
The governor, who had places to go after work Wednesday, didn’t ride the bike home.

Um, her blue bike? What is this, Us Magazine? No offense to politicians, but a governor isn’t exactly Nicole Kidman. And if she didn’t ride her bike home (someone obviously had to come pick her up), that didn’t exactly save any gas, now, did it?

Put on a Sweater

Posted on by hkmead
6

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is showing she’s earned the Pew Center’s recognition of Michigan as “well managed in the toughest of economic circumstances” by providing us ignorant residents with some driving tips to save us money:

-  Keep your engine tuned, maintain tires at the correct pressure, change the air filter regularly, and use energy-saving motor oil.
-  Avoid aggressive driving such as rapid acceleration and braking.  It can lower fuel cost up to 33 percent on the highway and 5 percent around town.  This can save as much as 49 cents per gallon.
-  Watch your speed – high speed creates more wind resistance.  Driving faster than 60 miles-per-hour can cost an additional 30 cents per gallon for every 5 miles per hour increase.
-  Be aware that running electric accessories like air conditioners can also reduce fuel economy by 5 to 25 percent.

So folks, your time and comfort are not valuable: Mosey on to work in the morning by extensively coasting and slowly accelerating, putz along on the freeway (increasing the risk of accidents by enraging normal drivers), and for heaven’s sake, drive with your windows rolled down instead of using the AC. Just a few sacrifices on your part can go a long way.

One wonders how much gas Granholm and Michigan’s other “outstanding leaders” use commuting and how much money Michiganders would save if we had a part-time legislature — or at least one that didn’t overspend its budget by over a billion dollars.

Weight a minute

Posted on by hkmead
2

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

Having long since sworn off G-rated animated films, I haven’t seen WALL-E. But the UK’s Telegraph reports:

WALL-E has garnered rave reviews for its satire on consumer culture, in which future humans are depicted as a group of obese gluttons who never leave their padded floating arm chairs.

But one group is not amused – the swelling ranks of fat pride groups, who believe the film propagates anti-obesity hysteria comparable with the quest for the perfect body by the eugenics movement in Nazi Germany.

[...]

Research published in April by Yale University’s Rudd Centre for Food Policy and Obesity suggests they might have a point. It found that one in eight people now complain of weight discrimination, up from one in 14 a decade ago. The report compared the impact on victims compares with racism and sexism.

OK, OK, OK. Let’s step back and think about this. Fundamentally, any choice involves discrimination. If I must pick one employee out of a field of dozens of competent applicants, I discriminate. I may discriminate based on education, experience, accomplishments, demeanor, verve, eloquence or whatever — this is all acceptable today.

Continue reading →

Improvements of Olympic Proportions

Posted on by hkmead
Reply

-Hannah Mead, MCPP Intern, 2008

Four years ago, I obsessively watched NBC’s frustratingly delayed, hand-picked and limited TV coverage of the Athens summer Olympics. When a necessary two-day trip pulled me away from civilization (read: Internet access), I made calls to the local paper to find out if Michael Phelps was still winning all his races. When I returned home, I thought I was the luckiest girl in the world because I could watch little 4-minute video clips on nbcolympics.com of the highlights of what I’d missed.

Now, I am nearly devastated by the fact that, after four years of waiting, I must spend the 2008 Olympics week at a conference. However, I am greatly encouraged by the long segments of the U.S. Olympic Trials available on nbcolympics, and pleased so far with my experience with Microsoft’s new silverlight. I’m sure I’ll sit in my hotel room and connect wirelessly with my little laptop to watch extensive Olympics coverage — something I wouldn’t have counted on or even necessarily thought of in 2004. And if I were moderately well-off, I would have one of those fancy phones and no doubt watch the whole thing live on it.

The Olympics are really a spectacular marker to note the technological progress we’ve made. Four years is a good length of time: long enough to show drastic changes, and short enough to recall what life was like before. We can’t deny that technology is still improving in leaps and bounds. Maybe in four years, I’ll actually be at the Olympics — no technology could ever be a substitute that.