Howard Zinn, Author of People’s History, deceased.

Back in the late 70's I was profoundly moved when I read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. It was a critically important head-twisting contrast to the history that I had been taught in grade school and high school. Howard Zinn died today at the age of 87. Here is an excerpt of Amy Goodman's interview of Howard Zinn in May, 2009 (video available at this same site):

You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that? And I think the answer is: we should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes. Instead of Theodore Roosevelt, tell them about Mark Twain. Mark Twain—well, Mark Twain, everybody learns about as the author of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, but when we go to school, we don’t learn about Mark Twain as the vice president of the Anti-Imperialist League. We aren’t told that Mark Twain denounced Theodore Roosevelt for approving this massacre in the Philippines. No. We want to give young people ideal figures like Helen Keller. And I remember learning about Helen Keller. Everybody learns about Helen Keller, you know, a disabled person who overcame her handicaps and became famous. But people don’t learn in school and young people don’t learn in school what we want them to learn when we do books like A Young People’s History of the United States, that Helen Keller was a socialist. She was a labor organizer. She refused to cross a picket line that was picketing a theater showing a play about her. And so, there are these alternate heroes in American history.
One of Zinn's themes is that we can't depend on "the government" to lead us. We need always to carry the burden ourselves. Governing well is always self-governing.
[Martin Luther] King believed—and this actually is one of the themes of our people’s history, is that you cannot depend on presidents, and you cannot depend on elections and voting to solve your problems. People themselves, organizing, demonstrating, clamoring, they are the only ones who can push the President and push Congress into change. And that’s what we have to do now with Obama. We have to point to what Obama said in the course of the campaign, when he said we not only have to get out of Iraq, we have to get out of the mindset that brought us into Iraq. Obama, himself, has not gotten out of that mindset yet. And I think we, the people, have to speak to him about that.

Continue ReadingHoward Zinn, Author of People’s History, deceased.

For consumers, it’s not the free market. It’s the Wild West.

Bob Sullivan is quickly becoming one of my heroes, based upon my reading of his new book: Stop Getting Ripped off: Why Consumers Get Screwed and How You Can Always Get a Fair Deal (2009). Bob also offers a blog called the Red Tape Chronicles, where he reports on numerous consumer issues. It's well worth your while. I recently mentioned Bob's book on a post focused on America's profound case of Innumeracy. I'm a bit deeper into the book now, and I am highly impressed with Sullivan's ability to write clearly and persuasively with regard to consumer issues. I am also impressed with his ability to give an evenhanded account of many consumer issues. He doesn't deny that consumer greed has played a role in modern-day screwing of American consumers. On the other hand, consumer greed is only part of the story. The other big part of the story is that our federal agencies that we have had set up to serve as watchdogs for Americans, are doing a pathetic job. Consider the case of Bernie Madoff. The securities and exchange commission (SEC) was presented with overwhelming evidence that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme way back in 1999. They did nothing about it. Sullivan as "if the SEC isn't hunting down folks such as Madoff, do you really think it's protecting you?"

Continue ReadingFor consumers, it’s not the free market. It’s the Wild West.

Ripped off because we don’t do well at math

I'm in the process of reading Stopped Getting Ripped off: Why Consumers Get Screwed, and How You Can Always Get a Fair Deal, by Bob Sullivan (2009). He starts off by asking you to pretend that you are in a restaurant and you are presented with a menu that he illustrates on page 5 of his book. You are asked to assume that you ordered the onion soup (the price is clearly listed on the menu as $.60) and the "Lancaster Special Sandwich" (the price is clearly listed on the menu for $1.95). The question he asks is this: "How much should you leave for a 10% tip? I'll wait for a bit while you do your calculation in your head. No calculators, please. What did you come up with? [more . . . ] The answer is 25.5 cents, so either 25 cents or 26 cents would be an acceptable answer. What Sullivan next states is shocking:

If you answer this question correctly, consider yourself part of an elite group, because when the US Department of education asked US adults to answer it as part of a nationwide study, only 42% answered correctly. Less than half of American adults were able to pick two numbers from the list, add them, then perform the most basic of all percentage calculations--simply moving the decimal point one column to the left to calculate 10%.

Innumeracy is literally killing us. Try to think of a major issue facing our country that does not require a basic proficiency in mathematics that most of us don't seem to have. Think of the environment, energy, national budget, climate, health care, evolution being taught in public schools, space exploration, public health issues (e.g., the importance of vaccinations), the true cost of the "war on drugs," reform of financial institutions or taxation policy. Since most Americans cannot understand how to calculate a 10% tip, there is little chance that they could meaningfully participate regarding most of the big issues facing our country. These are truly painful words to write. Just think of the many math-related claims that got math-ignorant voters excited during the last presidential election, including Sarah Palin's claim that American could live long and prosperously on Alaskan oil (when straight-forward calculations based on known reserves showed that there is only enough Alaskan oil to supply America's current rate of use for six months). Imagine how different things would be if most Americans could actually calculate the minimal chance that they would be affected by an act of terrorism, and if they were able to compare that risk to the immense numbers of lives that could be saved by much more modest expenditures. But it's not even clear whether most Americans can benefit from further training regarding statistics. It's certainly true that many health care professionals don't adequately understand basic problems involving risk. The reasons so many of us are innumerate are not easily addressed. We desperately need proficient math skills to tamp down our fears. I know it has been tried (and abused) before, but a sinister thought enters my mind. The information presented by Sullivan makes me wonder whether we should make voters take and pass a rudimentary math test before allowing them to vote. How indignant could a rejected voter be if he/she can't figure out a ten percent tip? Understanding the many math-based claims asserted by candidates is sometimes the only way to see past their slick acting abilities. I'm not seriously suggesting a poll quiz, though I'm sure that my frustration is showing through. What we really need to do is provide better math education all the way through school. It appears that we are paying dearly for the many grade schools that fail at math education, individually and as a country.

Continue ReadingRipped off because we don’t do well at math

Can you tolerate NAMBLA?

image courtesty of the Federal Art Project, via Wikimedia Commons You think you're open-minded? What if the North American Man-Boy Love Association wanted to distribute a newsletter in your town? What if they wanted to hold a local parade celebrating pederasty? I am currently studying social psychology in graduate school, and I'm particularly interested in political psychology. One of my present research interests is political tolerance. "Political tolerance" refers to individuals' willingness to extend equal civil liberties to unpopular groups. When political scientists and psychologists measure political tolerance, they often probe individuals for their ability to withstand the most offensive, outlandish groups and speech possible. For example, a liberal-minded person may be asked whether they would be willing to allow a rally for the Klu Klux Klan or some extremist, militaristic group. Paradoxically, a truly tolerant person must be willing to allow racially intolerant speech. Political tolerance plays a cornerstone role in functioning democracies (at least, we think so). If voters can strip away the civil liberties of disliked political groups, those liberties lay on precarious ground indeed. If we cannot tolerate the words of anarchists or members of the Westboro Baptist Church, then we do not really believe in the boundlessness of speech at all. Academics say as much. In reality, voters are not so tolerant.

Continue ReadingCan you tolerate NAMBLA?

Against all odds: How marijuana was legalized in Denver

If your quest were to convince the people of your city to legalize a highly demonized drug which was entirely safe, how would you run your campaign? At the recently concluded True Spin Conference in Denver, I had the opportunity to listen to an animated yet highly focused Mason Tvert describing for the audience how he and his small and not-well-funded organization (“SAFER”) convinced the people of Denver to legalize marijuana in 2005, with 51% of the people voting in favor. He also spearheaded a 2006 campaign to legalize marijuana throughout Colorado. Although that latter measure failed, an astounding 41% of the people of Colorado voted in favor. In case you’re thinking that I’m promoting the use of marijuana, I am not, but neither would I attempt to prohibit any other adult from using it. I’ve never used marijuana (even though I once worked as a musician and the opportunities were ubiquitous. Millions of gainfully employed and otherwise law abiding people do like to use marijuana, but they are paying dearly for their attempts to feel good and seek stress relief. I am for the legalization of marijuana because that our country arrests more than 750,000 people each year for possessing or using an extremely safe drug that successfully makes people feel good. This destructive and expensive waste of government law enforcement is absolutely shameful. The number of people arrested each year is more than the entire population of South Dakota. and these users include many people you know and respect. There is rank hypocrisy in the air, given that marijuana inexpensively offers the harmless escape that most of us seek much of the time (in one way or another), without any serious side effects and without the expense of many other methods of escape. If there were no such thing as marijuana, when it was finally invented by a pharmaceutical company, we would hail it as a miracle drug (Big Pharma wouldn’t need to lie about its efficacy or safety, as it does for many other drugs). Governments would allow it to be sold at drugs stores and they would happily tax it.

Continue ReadingAgainst all odds: How marijuana was legalized in Denver