Holiday Cheer AKA Rant Against Consumerism

I should tread carefully here lest I come across as a socialist, or worse, communist.  I do think that government has a role in the economy, but clearly it should not be the primary driving source.  I consider myself neither socialist nor communist, but I believe that our materialism is harmful, both for humanity and for the environment.  I may be too anecdotal in this post, but I think the general idea is applicable for most people.  I realize that this comes across as quite the party-spoiler, but that tends to be a hobby of mine, for good or for bad.

Black Friday is a travesty.  I couldn't care less about its timing, the day after Thanksgiving.  I will not put much critique into the abhorrently long lines and primitive behavior.  No, the fundamental problem is that our economy lives or dies based on how much junk we buy.  Let's face it: girls, you hardly wear most of the fancy clothes that you spend so much money on multiple times a year.  All those t-shirts you got for this club or that sports team or your freshman dorm?  Might as well send them to the Goodwill with a note apologizing for destroying Africa's textile industry.  Of course, that's just the small stuff (mostly, depending on how much money you'll blow on prom dresses or new suits).  There's that iPhone 5S that you've just got to have.  There's a new PlayStation   If you're older, you might be looking into getting a new car.  One of the worst cases is when someone says that they're buying a new Prius to save the environment after trading in their "old" 3-year-old Prius because a new model came out.  Or maybe the richer folk decide that they need a Tesla to help the planet.  Unfortunately, even if you're getting the most ethically sourced, fair-trade, hemp skirt, it is not going to help the planet one bit.

In order to thrive with a growing population, we need to buy less.  I am guilty of temptations, but I try harder now to think of whether what I want is something that I'll actually use and something that will last.  I am not suggesting that you don't buy anything.  If you actually do need a new phone and you get a lot of benefit from having a smartphone, go ahead and get that new iPhone.  If your clothes are worn and unwearable for their purpose, get new clothes, or better, check out a used clothing store first.  But you don't need ten pairs of shoes and eight different dresses to go with them.  And yes, I think most of the blame for clothing deservedly goes to women.  From what I've seen, men are actually slightly less materialistic, although we might end up wasting just as much money (and therefore energy) on useless gadgets and fancy televisions.  Part of the blame goes to the manufacturers as well.  Instead of providing us with quality, upgrade-able, and durable products, we get laptops that don't last five years and are almost impossible to modify; instead, we dispose of them, not necessarily in the safest manner.  Then there is a fancier, faster laptop available for the same price that also won't last.  Don't even get me started on how bad Walmart is in this regard.

Unfortunately, there is a cost to reduced consumption, at least in simple terms.  If we decide to buy less stuff, then unemployment will go up even more.  I don't think that unemployment should be the face of the economy though.  High unemployment is a result of efficient production, lack of demand, poor education, and more.  It is easy to say that if consumers were more confident and just shopped more, the economy would be better off.  It's true that GDP would rise, but does that really improve our quality of life?  I don't believe that we need more jobs necessarily.  We need more people working, but they don't have to be manufacturing junk or building new cars or marketing a brand of sex-on-the-beach perfume.  There is certainly a need for more people cleaning up the streets, helping the poor, working at a rehabilitation center, or engineering solar panels that will compete with coal.  In some ways, we are moving towards a less-materialistic society.  The Internet has all but killed solid music and may yet lead to the demise of the printed book.  Newspapers are on their way out, as are non-Wikipedia encyclopedias.  There are companies that deal largely with re-selling used items to eager buyers, making it easy to buy and sell obscure products.  Unfortunately, at its core, the economy is still rooted in the exchange of new goods and services and every one of you reading this is part of the problem.

Now my simple list of advice::

• Don't buy a new t-shirt.  I made the mistake of wasting $$ on fancy t-shirts.  They're nice, but not spectacular.
• Don't buy new clothes unless you're going to wear them often (at least once per cycle of clothes for non-formal, weather-permitting).  And you don't need 10 different dress outfits for different job interviews and different dances and different "formal Fridays" and different concerts and junior prom and senior prom and graduation and college graduation and whatever other event you can think of.
• Don't buy something new unless it's really not worth it to get used.  This goes mostly for books, especially textbooks.
• Sell/give away your unused junk.  If I gave something that was not liked, I would want it to find a suitable home.
• Don't get too much decorations.  It's fine to decorate the house, but expensive pottery does not look different for the tenth $50 vase without any plants (saying this from experience as I write this from my living room).
• Do write cards.  They can say a lot and everyone appreciates them.  I need to focus on this...
• Ask your friend what they actually want!  If it's something fancy, then team up with their friends to get it for them rather than taking a stab at what small thing they will most appreciate.
• Volunteer, donate to charity, etc.  You'll make yourself happy, and you'll make others happier than your friend would be with the book that he'll never read.  If you want to buy a present for me, spend the time/money on finding a worthy cause, and more importantly, a reputable charity to invest in.  I seriously do not want any presents ever again.
• Go out, enjoy yourself.  Experiences matter!  Party it up, go bowling, go on an adventure.  It should be the people you're with that matter, not the stuff you're with/wearing.

Shameless plug: For any textbooks that you still need and can't get from colleagues, go here: http://www.betterworldbooks.com/.  Although it's still a for-profit company, Better World Books does a lot to help literacy (donate one book for every book you buy, gives millions of dollars to literacy charities, and more).  It is a Benefit Corporation, so it is not exclusively bound to maximize profits.

I would like to emphasize again that I am not suggesting you abstain from buying anything new.  Just spend more time thinking about what you are getting.  Is this something that you will use now, next week, five years from now?  Are you still going to get as pleasure out of it then?  Is it worth the energy, pollution, and waste that went into its manufacturing?  Then buy what you want.  Remember these words of wisdom from one Steve van Matre: "The key to a good life is not having what you want, but wanting what you have."

What is Happening to Moderate Republicans?

I am not studying for finals now and am angry about stuff as usual, but I am not going to touch on too heavy of a topic now.  The sheer magnitude of craziness of the Republican party has come to light again in the failure to pass a completely non-controversial UN Disability Treaty.  Only eight Republicans voted for a bill that would do nothing to change US law and was actually based on American policies.  Let's briefly examine what is happening (or has happened) to moderate Republicans.

Charlie Crist, former governor of Florida, switched to an independent and is now a Democrat
The late Arlen Specter did the same before he lost the Democratic primary

Dick Lugar (former Indiana senator) lost his primary by 20 points after serving in the Senate for 35 years.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska senator) lost in the primary before successfully running a write-in campaign to claim her seat (perhaps the only success story of a relatively moderate Republican recently)

Arnold Schwarzenegger would have a much better chance to win a national primary as a Democrat.

Jon Huntsman, a solid conservative former Utah governor, was ridiculed for preposterous positions like believing in science and supporting raising the debt ceiling over letting the economy crash.

Bob Inglis began his tenure as a reliable conservative, but his views began to moderate in more recent years. He voted for the stimulus and the DREAM Act.  More importantly (to me), he eventually came to accept the consensus on climate change and has been a strong advocate for a carbon tax (more on this later).  He lost his primary in 2010 by 41 points.

The whole of the moderate Republican presence Kansas state legislature, including the (now former) Senate president, got bombarded.  More on that here  (and just because it's Fox doesn't necessarily mean it's biased).

Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator before he decided not to pursue reelection, has endorsed Democratic Senate candidates in Pennsylvania and Nebraska.

Colin Powell, Bush's former Secretary of State, has endorsed Obama twice now.



Mike Castle decided to run for the Senate after a long tenure (18 years) in the House.  He lost to Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell, who got easily defeated in the liberal state of Delaware.


Lincoln Chafee actually lost in the general election in 2006 after barely winning the primary.  His response was not what you'd expect: "When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, he replied: 'To be honest, yes.'" Now he's an independent governor, probably more of a Democrat.

Chris Cristie was heckled for giving praise to Obama's handling of the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.  We'll see if the Republicans will embrace him in 2012 if he keeps his (somewhat) independent streak.  Or he could take the coward's way out like...

John McCain shifted to the right, now voting almost as an establishment Republican.  In fact, he was rated tied for the most conservative senator in 2011 following a long period of moderation before his 2008 campaign.

Mitt Romney.  Need I say more?

Okay, he wasn't really a moderate, but at one point, Tim Pawlenty supported cap-and-trade and believed in climate change.

Basically, the Republicans suck.  To be fair, the Democrats have consumed some of their own too, like Joe Lieberman (who has still for the most part supported the party's agenda since he became an independent) and Arlen Specter (the ex-Republican).  It is clear though that the purge is much greater on the Republican side.  Think of where the Democrats would be if not for senators in these states:

Guide to Naor's Opinion on Election Stuff

I probably should have written this before I voted, but here are my thoughts on some issues:

Before I say anything about the election itself, I want to express my disgust at two archaic voting processes that you should scorn no matter your party affiliation.  Let me start with the day of the election itself.  Is there any good reason that the biggest national event every four (if not two) years is held the second Tuesday of November?  Well, there was, back in 1845.  It has a lot to do with the Sabbath, farmers, and buggies.  Come on, is there anything that makes it good policy now?  Early voting and absentee ballots help, but they aren't available in all states and most people still vote in person.  There is the argument that the alternatives (making voting a holiday or have it on Saturday) would be economically harmful or cut into people's leisure time.  However, I doubt that modifying one day out of two years is going to stall vacation or destroy business.  If it does, then perhaps we should reevaluate our commitment to democracy  Voting should not be unnecessarily burdensome more than it already is in the form of long lines and and vicious campaigns.  Here is a petition in support of weekend voting (unfortunately it doesn't look like its going anywhere): http://www.change.org/petitions/why-tuesday-i-support-weekend-voting.  

The other dumb artifact of a different century is the electoral college.  The founding fathers didn't want a true democracy and wanted smaller states to have some influence.  Originally, the "electors" in each state were chosen by the legislature, but eventually their affiliation was chosen by the popular vote in each state.  As it stands, smaller states are over-represented in influence on the result, but the bigger issue lies with the process itself.  2000 aside, it is a rarity that the elected president actually loses the popular vote.  The bigger concern is really with the fact that so few states end up deciding the election.  Voting for president in large states like California and Texas, or small states like Hawaii and Alaska, is not very important considering that there is little chance of a close result.  As a result, the campaigns put no effort into some of the most important regions of the country.  I do not know how the vote would change if we moved away from the electoral college, but it would certainly be more representative.  Even among swing-state voters, there is a strong majority support for getting rid of the electoral college.  The best avenue now is a campaign to get state legislatures to pass an agreement to appoint all their electors to the winner of the popular vote.  It has passed for 132 out of 538 electoral votes; if just 271 votes are represented, then we can change the system.  This is because states are still not actually mandated to choose electors based on the state totals.  Hopefully this will eventually get the support it needs!

Now to some issues that I voted on:

President:

I'll offer my lukewarm support to Obama.  Although Michael Bloomberg may be a little more conservative than me, I'd like to see him as president.  See his endorsement of the president for more.

Other People

I voted for Democrats in all the partisan elections and voted for Jerry Hill over Sally Lieber (apparently he is more devoted to education).  I would support a Republican under the right circumstances, but I didn't see one I could support in this election.

Propositions:

Prop 30

BIG YES.  As much as it sucks to raise taxes in a still-down economy, we can't afford to cut back on schools.  Of course I'm biased as this could have a direct impact on my college tuition.  Yes, I'm sure that there are some things that we should cut, but gutting our schools and colleges isn't going to cut waste.  The tax increase is modest, temporary, and goes to a good cause.  I am not the biggest fan of teacher's unions, but it is not worth it to under-fund schools just to spite a few overpaid teachers, especially when most good teachers are probably severely underpaid.  

On that note, NO on 38.  Just a rich idiot who might not even support education since all she did was spend tens of millions of dollars proposing a slightly different bill than Prop 30 that ignores colleges and universities. If Prop 30 fails, Charles Munger (anti-Prop 30)and his daughter Molly (pro-Prop 38) are to blame.

Prop 31

No.  It has some good things like a two year budget cycle.  Unfortunately, it ended up being too complicated and gives too much power to local governments.  I don't really support balanced budget amendments either, something that is basically a part of this.  Any increase in spending of over $25 million would have to be immediately offset.  The biggest problem is this: "Allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless Legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days."  That is just a recipe for more fighting and bureaucracy.  I hope that the group that brought up Prop 31, which is actually legitimately nonpartisan, simplifies their proposals and comes out with a better bill.

Prop 32

NO.  By itself, it's not bad.  I support reducing campaign spending, but unfortunately it is nearly an impossible task in the wake of Citizen's United.  Proposition 32 unfairly targets unions while leaving Super-PACs and does nearly nothing to stop corporate spending.  

Prop 33

NO.  Stupid bill designed by the Mercury Insurance chairman.  Punishes people who have not yet had insurance or who decide to get rid of car insurance temporarily if they are disabled or decide not to drive.  

Prop 34

Yes.  I support ending the death penalty.  Just a moral thing.  I think we should avoid killing other people no matter the situation.

Prop 35

I voted yes, but I'm not so sure it's a great bill.  It will pass easily, but it seems to be dubious with regard to punishing prostitutes and their families as if they're sex offenders.  And I'm not sure how much effect the increased fines and jail time will really have on reducing sex offenders.  

Prop 36

Yes. It would modify the three strikes law to end mandatory life sentences when the last felony is non-violent.  My support is tepid due to concern that there may be a flood of cases in the court system.  Hopefully though, it will remove non-violent felons from unnecessary jail space.  

Prop 37

No.  I was initially in favor of this, largely because Monsanto is against it.  I am very skeptical of the positive impact of a chemical company that makes GMO crops just so people will buy Roundup.  Even for people who support labeling, the fact that meat and dairy products are exempt is very concerning.  The biggest GMO crops by far are soy and dairy.  98% of soy is used for livestock feed.  Most corn not used for ethanol (gosh don't get me started on how stupid ethanol is) gets fed to farm animals too.  A significant portion of the remainder is used for alcohol, which is also exempt from labeling.  

Well, since I am vegetarian and I don't drink alcohol, nearly everything that I purchase at a supermarket would be required to be labelled if it contained GMOs.  However, there is no credible evidence that GMOs are themselves harmful.  If they are, this is not the way to go about regulating them.  I believe that there needs to be more research into the safety of foods and pesticides, but there is nothing inherently different about GMOs than conventional crops.  I have my concerns about environmental sustainability and the actual effectiveness of genetically modified crops at increasing yields and reducing pesticide use.  However, simply slapping a label onto a box of crackers doesn't address these concerns.  

Another influence on my decision to vote against Prop 37 is that one of its biggest supporters is a anti-vaccination, alternative medicine by the name of Joseph Mercola.  He also believes that AIDS is caused by stress and that microwave ovens are dangerous.  His anti-vaccination stance is quite a bit more concerning to me than Monsanto's policies.

Prop 38

NO.  See Prop 30.

Prop 39

Yes.  It makes business pay taxes based on in-state sales.  Now, companies can choose to either do this or pay taxes based on property owned and labor employed in California.  This means lower taxes for companies that are from out-of-state.  Unfortunately, the first five years devotes $550 million to cleantech investments, basically filling the pocketbook of the bill's main sponsor and proponent.  I don't think that clean energy investing should have a place in this bill, but it seems to be generally good tax policy.

Prop 40

YES.  Not much to say here considering all opposition has been dropped.

Some local things:

I don't vote in Palo Alto, but I think Ken Dauber is nuts.  Unfortunately it looks like he will join the school board.  His views on closing the achievement gap are overly simplistic.  Basically, making Algebra 1 easier will do nothing to better prepare students for life.

Measure A

Yes.  A small increase in the local sales tax.  I am generally supportive of tax increases and relatively trusting of my county to not waste too much money.

Measure B

NO. It is fairly complicated and I admittedly did not read through all of it.  That is not a good sign, especially for a local measure.  It would basically replace a parcel tax that is expected to expire in 2016 and renew it for 15 years.  The money would go to water supply and flood control programs.  It will also supposedly provide habitat restoration  and ensure clean water goes to creeks and bays.  Unfortunately, from what I've heard, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is not the best organization and the bill has a lack of accountability.  Also, one of the main selling points is that it does not raise water rates.  I'd rather see a rise in water prices to pay for water improvements and hopefully lower costs due to reduced demand.  The measure has drawn mixed reviews from environmental groups and a neutral position from our local Sierra Club chapter.

Mention of Climate Change or Energy Taxes in the Presidential Debate