My Quiet Life

Erica Gilmore is pushing a single-beer ban in the council.

I have already discussed some misconceptions about alcoholism, so I won’t re-hash those, but it’s quite relevant to how this proposed ban is misguided at best. Gilmore supposes that banning single-beer purchases will result in some sort of litter-free utopia. (You know, like .. Denver..) What it will likely yield instead is:

• Alcoholics pooling their money together to buy six-packs instead, and likely an increase in violent crime related to fighting over money or purchases.
• An increase in purchases of alternate sources of alcohol, leading to worse health (possible death), and littered empty mouthwash bottles instead of beer bottles. Oh, and nice pools of red/green/blue-tinged vomit on our sidewalks.

For a more practical and creative approach to dealing with urban alcoholism, consider things like the managed alcohol project.

Okay, I was just gonna let sleeping dogs lie with this whole Tyson food/refugees/immigrants/etc thing, but this is just too hilarious to let pass. Just read this. In short, Brian Mosely is a reporter with the Times-Gazette in Shelbyville, following the uh “Somalian Question”, I guess, in Shelbyville. Brian seems like an astute guy, and a decent reporter, and I even mostly agree with a lot of what he has to say about our refugee/immigration policy. A lot of the situations these people find themselves in do indeed resemble indentured servitude — but in a metaphorical sense, at best. These days, the manacles are economic and structural, but more on that later. The part where he goes off the rails is towards the end:

I also have to say that I do not feel that I am “obsessed” or “fixated” with the topic of Somalis living here, as one blogger believes. The refugees have lived in Shelbyville for the past four years, and no one has even addressed the issue until the T-G published the series in December of last year.

I would also have to suggest that the blogger’s opinion is quite possibly influenced by the fact that she makes her living by working with the Nashville refugee community, as she states on one of her other websites.

Aside from the fact that the second link was a link to Christy’s myspace page (which strikes me as a somewhat unexpected, unprofessional and vindictive swipe at her personal life — especially given the, uh, “eccentricity” of the commenters focusing on this issue), let’s focus on what he’s actually implying here: that Christy has a vested interest in refugees coming to this country because she works in social work. Let that sink in for a minute. Are you done laughing hysterically yet? I’ll wait. Come on, collect yourself. Okay, now read these comments:

So, you are basically stating that Christy works for the Refugee program in Nashville and profits from their plight? Heh, no wonder she defends it.

– Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Aug 3, 2008, at 4:01 PM
…

“Only in it for the rain.”

I think she means MONEY!
– Posted by Disgusted on Sun, Aug 3, 2008, at 4:26 PM

You can’t make this shit up. Social work: where all the scum and villainy of this earth goes to make a quick buck. I mean seriously. I have a lot of friends that are working with immigrants and refugees in particular. It’s insanely hard work with shit pay. I’d be offended on their behalf if it wasn’t more hysterical than it is offensive. The idea that anyone take a job like that for the money is so laughably idiotic that it borders on sheer insanity.

The Times-Gazette is doing a fine job of reporting on this issue, but I’d advise Mr. Mosley to lay off the personal redirection and speculation. I get the impression he’s imagining he’s on the cusp of some pulitzer-winning expose of a grand conspiracy of charities to bring refugees into this country. Or something. He’s either doing so out of ignorance to the economic complexity and sheer magnitude of the situation or he’s being willfully naive in order to, as Christy suggested, stir up controversy with the local yokels (which he certainly has).

Stick to calling for reform, avoid insinuating vested interest and conspiracy on behalf of the organizations trying to help these people. Someone might mistake you for an insane person.

THE SOMALIS ARE COMING!! NO ONE IS SAFE!! GUARD YOUR CHICKEN!!

I applaud Christy for bravely, calmly and logically addressing the comments in this news story about a Tyson chicken plant trading Labor day for Eid al-Fitr due to its largely Somali muslim employee base.

It’s worth reading for the amusement value alone.. I have to admire Christy for not resorting to the sheer mockery I’m about to indulge in:

I can’t believe this! I didn’t catch the local news tonight as I was heading to work. However, I clicked on “FreeRepublic.com” where I get most of my news (from a conservative standpoint)

This bit alone was worth the price of admission, and it requires no comment. (Go to freerepublic.com sometime, if you don’t know what I mean.)

I have forwarded this email to Gary Mickelson at Tyson as well… may his mailbox overflow with dissatisfaction!

I like this, too. Very epic.. Is this like the modern equivalent of “MAY THE STREETS OVERFLOW WITH THEIR BLOOD!!!”?

YOU SHALL SUFFER MY MIGHTY WRATH!! FEEL THE PAIN OF YOUR SLIGHTLY MORE FULL TRASH OR SPAM FOLDER!!!

The only thing that is probably worth adding to Christy’s analysis is how in their hysteria these people are also making a few very classic mistakes with regards to immigrants/refugees and basic economics.

First, you get the standard “they are stealing our jobs” thing, which is bunk. There will be turbulence and adjustment from the dynamics of a large influx of population, of course, but from a basic economic standpoint, new people become contributing members of an economy just by virtue of existing. Immigrants need to buy stuff to stay alive, too. They actually don’t just work 24/7, believe it or not. There’s a traditional counter-argument to this — that many immigrants from Mexico disburse a lot of the money they earn back home, and thus it’s not actually contributing to the economy here — but even this argument is probably not appliable to the Somali refugees in question, since (I am assuming here) most of them don’t exactly have anyone back home to send money to.

Second, there’s the “my tax dollars!!” thing. Christy did a great job pointing out all the ways in which they’re not exactly given a free ride, but it’s probably also worth pointing out that, you know, these immigrants are working. And getting paid. And thus, paying income tax. They pay taxes too.

It is a simple matter of arithmetic that change may be costly to the man who has something; it cannot be so to the man who has nothing. There is always, accordingly, a high correlation between conservatism and personal well-being.

…

As this is written, American liberals have made scarcely a new proposal for reform in twenty years. It is not evident that they have had any important new ideas. Reputations for liberalism or radicalism continue to depend almost exclusively on a desire to finish the unfinished social legislation of the New Deal. It was adversity that nurtured this program; with prosperity social invention came promptly to an end. On domestic matters, liberal organizations have not for years had anything that might be called a program. Rather they have had a file. Little is ever added. Platform-making consists, in effect, in emptying out the drawers. The Midwest and Great Plains, which once provided Congress with its most disturbing radicals, now returns its staunchest conservatives including also its most determined reactionaries. The political destiny of the United States does not rest with those who seek or who are suspected of wishing to repeal laws, withdraw services and undo what has been done. This also is change and unwelcomed. But, given peace and prosperity, it no longer rests with those who advocate major social experiment. In a country where well-being is general, the astute politician will be the one who stalwartly promises to defend the status quo.

– John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power

I am finally reading this. It’s only 4 years overdue from the library. Oops.

Just got back from an exhausting but enjoyable evening.. I went to the public safety forum at the library after work. Let me start by first saying that I’ve dumped a lot of vitriole about the attitudes about the homeless in Nashville that I’ve perceived — it’s something that I’m passionate about, and I am disgusted by a lot of what I see.

But I’ve lately tried to soften the rhetoric and be more engaging.. After all, these people are my neighbors (and you catch more bees with honey than vinegar, right?). Last week over at nashvillecharrette.com I discussed the Scene’s recent article Outlawing the Poor by Jeff Woods (who I have a feeling got some info/inspiration from recent blog posts I’ve made, but maybe that’s my egocentric imagination). As I wrote over there:

I like Skip and Ben and I don’t think they’re bad people. But I do agree with Woods’ editorial eye-rolling at the claims by both of them that they are pioneers because they’re living downtown. I mean, come on. If you wanna be a pioneer, move to lower antioch. That’d be impressive.

But, despite the fact that his article paints all of us with the same brush, I don’t disagree that the attitude he describes is pervasive. Yes, it’s anecdotal, but I’ve spent a lot of time at URA meetings, downtown partnership events. I’ve heard people scoffing at the idea that homeless people could be “allowed” to vote, propositions of “rounding them up” and shipping them to Memphis heard with a straight face, claims that “homeless people don’t have rights, homeowners do, and it’s time we start acting on them” (actual quote from a URA member), people from metro blaming the swallow/pigeon problem on homeless people (?!).. The list goes on. I’ve got lacerations from biting my tongue at these meetings. Before anything gets better, this attitude has to change.

So after this discussion, I have to say that this public forum was (mostly) encouraging. The forum was ostensibly to discuss “public safety”, but of course the only thing discussed (with a few exceptions) was homelessness, panhandling and affordable housing. A few people stood up to discuss other issues of public safety (which is also good), but were quickly drowned out. I don’t think people grasp how large this conversation/debate has grown, or how pervasive it is. So, it was still a lot of talk (and Nashville is really good about talking about solutions for our homeless problem), but it was at least an open dialogue. The few pictures I took do represent what happened all night — lots of different people getting a chance to speak their mind. And it’s hard to go wrong there.

There were some definitely cringe-worthy moments.. a crazy guy heckling and yelling (apparently Charlie Strobel and the CHD could have “cured homelessness” years ago, but they like getting paid. yeah. what?). Then there was the jack-ass of the night who gave a long speech about how homeless people were all just looking for a handout. He even recommended that the homeless people all pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I’m not making this up. I didn’t think people actually said that anymore. There should be some sort of Godwin’s Law for that expression, or maybe it could at least be one phrase in a form of Republican Lingo Bingo or something. Fortunately this woman got up later and very politely and quickly rattled off some statistics about the percentage of working homeless, living wage gaps, etc. and recommended he hop on the Internet to read a little more. Nicely done. And, you know, I call him a jack-ass, but I found my reaction to his little rant to be surprisingly sad rather than angry. It’s sad and frustrating to see people that can still think this way. Hopefully he’s a minority.

And lastly, a guy in an NHPP t-shirt stood up and said he thought it was a sham that we were using codewords like “quality of life” and “public safety” to discuss what’s really a full-frontal class war. Cringe-worthy, yes, but, you know — he’s right. Sorta. But, his comment didn’t really add anything to the forum except to add to the already tense feeling of divisiveness, and worse, it sorta misses the larger fact that class wars are fought along lines of structural institutions, bureaucracy, and years of culture and prejudice. And they aren’t won by demonizing individuals.

Anyways, I digress. So, there were comical or tense moments, but by and large everyone was civil. And I was actually impressed by the bulk of the comments being well-reasoned and sympathetic to the homeless in Nashville. I was also surprised by how quiet the URA and downtown partnership contingent were throughout — I don’t know if that’s because they didn’t have anything to say or because they were listening or swayed, so maybe that’s a good thing. Overall I thought it was a positive experience. I don’t know what this task force is expected to do that the homelessness commission couldn’t be doing or why, but here’s hoping.

The proof is in this headline: Berkeley to Marines: You’re ‘not welcome in our city’

Can you believe that? They’re trying to eject all the marines from Berkeley! Oh wait. They’re protesting the marine recruiters. Thanks, CNN, for your unbiased clarity.

Welp, Kucinich is out. Edwards is out. I can officially stop paying attention until after the conventions. Can anyone tell me why we even bother to have primaries in the rest of the states? The meme for this election is “change”, eh? Shyah.

I just hope Ron Paul sticks it out long enough that I can vote for him in the primary. Apocalypse 2008! woohoo!

Now that the election is actually in full swing, I think it might be a good time for everyone to go read this article on John McCain.

Appropos of nothing:

Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

I liked this summary — and, in a nutshell, it explains succinctly why I prefer Edwards. I am thinking about voting for him in the primary. I am a little tired of pissing in the wind, which unfortunately is about what a vote for Kucinich amounts to.

I haven’t really blogged about politics in a while, but.. Recently, my friend Nick received a press release from Bill Hobbs about the lottery. Knowing my history of disagreement with hobbs, he asked me what I thought about it. Rather than just respond via e-mail I figured I’d blog about it here. This is gonna be brief, since I don’t really find the lottery to be that complicated an issue. Specifically, he’s responding to Larry Daughtrey, who wrote in the Tennessean:

The demographics of lotteries are well known: the poor buy the most tickets and the middle and upper classes get most of the scholarships. The Democrats want to make money available on the basis of need; Republicans, none of whom voted for the lottery in the first place, want to hold the line.

Hobbs responds:

That issue is this: Democrats for the most part want to lower academic standards for getting a scholarship. Right now a student must graduate high school with a B average to get a scholarship; Democrats want to lower that to a C average, presumably making thousands more students eligible for the scholarships, which will soak up more lottery revenue.

First, a minor quibble: in referring to the lottery money’s application, Hobbs says it will “soak up more revenue”? “Soak up” here is a weasely synonym for “use”. What’s up with that? “Soak up” implies that it’s being wasted somehow. What else would we use it for? That’s what the lottery is supposed to be for, right?

Second, Hobbs’ main contention is that the lottery revenue scholarships serve as a significant incentive for high school students to keep their grades up — and turning it into an entitlement program will eliminate this incentive. That may be so, but frankly, it seems a bit unlikely that the lottery poses any real incentive for high school students. The stratification of student performance in our schools runs far deeper than mere grades — falling mainly along (surprise) class lines. So, I think these scholarships are unlikely to be a truly significant factor swinging things here.

Republicans understand that turning the program into an entitlement program puts taxpayers on the hook should the number of needs-based students ever eclipse the lottery’s revenue.

This seems to be a premature assumption — an entitlement program can be budgeted like anything else, can’t it? There’s no need to make commitments to anything that would have to put “taxpayers on the hook”.

Lastly, but most importantly, he sidesteps the primary point of Daughtrey’s analysis entirely — that the lottery is basically a conveyor belt of money from the lower class to the middle and upper classes via college scholarships. Hobbs sidesteps this contention by simply blowing it off as “tired old class-warfare rhetoric”. It’s difficult to ignore, however, the enormous and well-established bodies of evidence that a lottery is one of the most regressive forms of revenue-generation there is. It’s morally bankrupt and not worth defending on either side of the political aisle.