When thinking about investing money in infrastructure (whether physical, political, educational, etc) like healthcare it's important to frame the context in which this debate is being held. Let's be honest: our current system will change, probably quite often until some sort of equilibrium is reached, and then it will just change again. The idea of changing something we have now should never, ever be controversial.
Unfortunately, a counterproductive practice people tend to exhibit, that has been more recently explored in the field of behavioral economics, is peoples' misperception that waiting costs nothing.
I find the phrase 'status quo' interesting, because, in reality, it doesn't exist. Nothing is ever not changing in some way. The changes may be small or may seem unrelated, but they are not. And in terms of healthcare, the costs are enormous as emergency rooms become more overcrowded and more American families are faced with the horror of not having the ability to ensure the safety and health of their loved ones.
I am not even advocating a particular solution, and in fact, none of the solutions we have are perfect, and they never will be, but as science moves forward exploring and learning, so must we in public policy. And part of that is realizing that waiting has costs just as much as bad policy does, maybe even more. Not everyone will get exactly what they want out of this debate, but let's think about how we can best move this policy forward and help cover more of those 47 million uninsured Americans.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
An Open Letter to Research in Motion
Many people rely on their BlackBerry device to provide data and email services on the go. However, if email services fail, critical information or emails may not get through to the user. And unfortunately for the user, it is not always possible to tell when data services have gone down.
RIM should create an automatic process by which an SMS is sent to all subscribed data users (because when data/email fails SMS almost always still works) letting the user know that the email/data service is down, and to check the website, etc for updates.
This way if a user is expecting an important email, for example, they can make arrangements to get information from another source, rather than be in the dark as to why an email hasn't arrived. If you are on business somewhere and rely on your BlackBerry for email but email service is down, simply having that information can help avoid missing any critical information.
Sign the petition via Twitter here: http://act.ly/1k0
RIM should create an automatic process by which an SMS is sent to all subscribed data users (because when data/email fails SMS almost always still works) letting the user know that the email/data service is down, and to check the website, etc for updates.
This way if a user is expecting an important email, for example, they can make arrangements to get information from another source, rather than be in the dark as to why an email hasn't arrived. If you are on business somewhere and rely on your BlackBerry for email but email service is down, simply having that information can help avoid missing any critical information.
Sign the petition via Twitter here: http://act.ly/1k0
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Good News for Cell Phone Users
A 30-year, nearly 16 million person study concluded on Thursday that there was no link between cell phone usage and the potential development of brain tumors.
As reported in the The Age "We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumours from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," Isabelle Deltour of the Danish Cancer Society and colleagues wrote."
Read the full story here.
As reported in the The Age "We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumours from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," Isabelle Deltour of the Danish Cancer Society and colleagues wrote."
Read the full story here.
Intellectual Honesty and Modern Communication
Throughout the course of history, there have been many times when letters have been discovered posthumous which were written by a jurist, scholar or public official which contained controversial personal testimony or ideas far too radical for their time. That was a time when the original document or letter could not be reproduced in a way that could guarantee the authenticity of the reproduction. Meaning, people could write letters to colleagues, friends or even enemies across the country and the chance that the writing would ever leave the hands of the original recipient was very low. And furthermore, the chance that anything personally damning could be spread throughout the media was even lower. No longer is this the case.
I cannot fully express in this post how much that has changed. It has been a seemingly subtle and largely unseen transformation but it is inexorably fundamental to the core principals of how we communicate. No longer is communication, in any form, guaranteed confidential. Yes, some people have confidentiality notices on emails, or expect that “private messages” on websites are indeed private, but they are not. And not just because these messages often get stored indefinitely by a third party, but because in many cases these communications are stored, indexed, searched and cached - Indefinitely. Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog entries, email list messages (yes, many email listservs are indexed and cached in Google) are often if not always available in search results. And forget all of the emails, IMs, text messages and private/direct messages that are private yes, but stored without any policy as to their lifespan on third party servers.
In fact, search engines like Google cache (save old revisions) almost all of the content it indexes for its search, and there are many companies, organizations and movements gaining traction to track and save as many revisions and history of all online content for historical purposes.
This means that everyone in our culture is held to an astonishingly high degree of accountability as to everything they do or say. 150 years ago, or even less, you could not play a video, a sound recording, or show a snapshot of a website against one from another time. Now, socially critical TV shows, radio shows and websites routinely show a sound bite from two years ago in one context next to a sound bite of another context, seemingly showing the person ‘flip-flopping.” And what is the implication of this?
Well on the positive side, it creates accountability for anyone, especially public officials. It’s easy at this point in time, to ‘check the record’ to see what was really said or done in any past situation. And in reference to tracking online content, it provides a fascinating look into the progression of information and human culture. Both excellent benefits, however, there is a downside.
I’ll call this downside it intellectual superficiality. This is the state of affairs, which we are currently in, which fundamentally started with the photograph or photocopier, where one must start to grapple with the fact that anything written, said or done, may at some point be exactly reproduced, and could come back to them in such a way that could easily be spread quickly via online audiences. How thoughtful and upfront do we expect each other to really be?
Is it possible that these advanced forms of communication are actually creating a culture that doesn’t value thoughtfulness, honesty or disclosure in all aspects of life, but perhaps favors plausible deniability and vagueness instead? And what does that mean for the future of technology and communication and the concept of what is private versus what is public?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Some Quick Tips on How to Give a Successful Powerpoint/Keynote Presentation
Whether you are looking to do a presentation in a class, at work, or to a potential client, there are some serious do's and dont's of giving presentations - especially if you are going to supplement your presentation with a Powerpoint/Keynote slideshow. There are two different pieces to the presentation that are important. First is the actual presenting, i.e. how you speak, make eye contact etc. The second is whether you use, and how you use an electronic slideshow of some sort.
Regardless of whether you are using any material to supplement your presentation, there are a few simple but critical things that need to happen:
- Eye Contact: Not only does it show confidence and engagement with your subject, it helps people feel connected to you personally. Additionally, by making constant eye contact with actual audience members (don't forget about the people to your far left and right) this gives you a chance to read the reactions of your audience. You can tell if people seem to be perplexed, excited or bored and you can adjust what you're saying on the fly to make the talk more interesting
- No Reading: Reading off of a speech or any written material averts your eyes from the audience and doesn't show an engagement with the material. Reading a speech word for word sounds exactly like that, which is not what people are interested in hearing from you. If you need to use a speech, practice it ahead of time so that when you give your presentation, although you may have the speech with you, you know it so well you will rarely need your notes. Don't try and recite the speech from memory, but instead become so familiar with what you want to say, speaking about the topic becomes (and sounds) natural.
- Use Bullet Points: The best way to transition into making better speeches, or to help you through a talk that has statistics or other hard to remember bits of information, is by using bullet points. Instead of writing up a speech, make sure you are familiar with the topic, and then use a few bullet points to help keep you on track.
- Project: Not just voice, but confidence, intelligence and engagement. Speak directly to the people who are the farthest away from you (for example sitting in the back row) to make sure you reach all of your audience. Often people focus on the front row or whoever they know in the audience or is the closest. Projecting to the farther audience member will guarantee you are speaking to everyone closer than them and show you are confident in the subject
The next piece, making sure your presentation or slideshow is up to par, is often overlooked. In these situations, less is more, and a crowded or poorly done slideshow will ruin an otherwise interesting talk. A few quick pointers:
- Less is more, don't crowd slides with lots of notes or images
- Use the slides as a supplement not as the focus of the talk
- Don't let the slides or anything else distract people away from you
- Keep slides simple and without fancy designs, those powerpoint templates are bad news
- Make sure you are familiar enough with your material so that you don't need to read off of your own slides.
Good slide:
Bad Slide:
The best comparison regarding the difference between good and bad slideshows can be seen in this short article comparing Microsoft's Bill Gates using Powerpoing and Apple's Steve Jobs using Keynote: http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2007/09/steve-bill-redu.html
Bad Slide:
The best comparison regarding the difference between good and bad slideshows can be seen in this short article comparing Microsoft's Bill Gates using Powerpoing and Apple's Steve Jobs using Keynote: http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2007/09/steve-bill-redu.html
Friday, November 20, 2009
Why don't people vote and what can we do about it?
In my column last week we briefly looked at how social perceptions are the primary driving force behind motivating people to get out and vote come election day. However, most people, by a substantial majority, do not actually vote. What are the forces at work that keep people home on election day? And if social perceptions influence how people vote, could affecting a change of the social and cultural perceptions around voting could lead to an increased voter turnout over time?
Working on election day November 3rd provided a very interesting experience about all of these issues. I learned a great deal about peoples’ feelings and thoughts towards voting from the conversations that I became engaged in throughout the day.
By and large, the people who weren’t planning on voting, weren’t registered, and perhaps never have voted, expressed a certain skepticism about the process itself and about how important their role in the process of choosing representatives was. Interestingly, to this group of people, the idea that their one vote was no more or less than anyone else’s created a feeling of unimportance. Oddly, this is the opposite of many other people’s reactions, who feel empowered to be able to freely cast their ballot for the representative of their choice.
Additionally, there are people, for example a couple, who agree to disagree on the candidate of their choice, and by perhaps both even going to the polls together, effectively cancel each other’s vote, yet still feel necessity of going to the polls.
However, all these different ideas and perspectives are just many ways to look at the same situation. For example, some people feel empowered that by going to the polls, they can ‘cancel out’ the vote of an opposing voter. Others, however, feel powerless as they feel their vote will be ‘canceled out’ by someone less informed by them. Each situation is exactly the same, it is just two people casting opposing votes, yet one glass half-full perspective sounds positive while the glass half-empty perspective sounds completely futile.
What this really comes down to is that voting is more about social perceptions than anything else. People who feel that their vote is futile will fulfill their own destiny by not voting and making their opinion futile, which will only create more frustration down the road as the person becomes increasingly outside of the process happening around them. And people who feel that their vote is powerful will get out there and feel engaged to whatever is happening - even if they disagree with it.
That engagement is they key piece to the puzzle. Not everyone will always agree. The only way we could have true total 100% representation is if we all were representatives in a pure democracy, yet even then I would think that we wouldn’t understand and agree with even ourselves as much as we’d like to think.
So what can we do about people who feel powerless and disengaged? By making people feel invested in their community and their world, we can work to avoid the tragedy of the commons scenario that our voting numbers are emblematic of.
Getting involved or volunteering for something in the direct community is a sure way to start to feel connected and a working and productive part of this crazy and chaotic world.
If we can help focus more education efforts at really fostering a feeling of community ownership, we can begin to reverse the unfortunate trends over the past few decades of decreased community and civic involvement.
For a person who has never voted before, casting a ballot on a national level may seem of too little impact. Opening up government to really connect, work with and seek the feedback of residents on all ranges of projects is a prime way to help people feel they are part of something that is both larger than themselves and larger than the sum of its parts. Feeling part of something productive like that is an inspiring experience. Embracing the use of technology for open government and community engagement to reach new audiences and make new connections are sure ways for us to get there.
Working on election day November 3rd provided a very interesting experience about all of these issues. I learned a great deal about peoples’ feelings and thoughts towards voting from the conversations that I became engaged in throughout the day.
By and large, the people who weren’t planning on voting, weren’t registered, and perhaps never have voted, expressed a certain skepticism about the process itself and about how important their role in the process of choosing representatives was. Interestingly, to this group of people, the idea that their one vote was no more or less than anyone else’s created a feeling of unimportance. Oddly, this is the opposite of many other people’s reactions, who feel empowered to be able to freely cast their ballot for the representative of their choice.
Additionally, there are people, for example a couple, who agree to disagree on the candidate of their choice, and by perhaps both even going to the polls together, effectively cancel each other’s vote, yet still feel necessity of going to the polls.
However, all these different ideas and perspectives are just many ways to look at the same situation. For example, some people feel empowered that by going to the polls, they can ‘cancel out’ the vote of an opposing voter. Others, however, feel powerless as they feel their vote will be ‘canceled out’ by someone less informed by them. Each situation is exactly the same, it is just two people casting opposing votes, yet one glass half-full perspective sounds positive while the glass half-empty perspective sounds completely futile.
What this really comes down to is that voting is more about social perceptions than anything else. People who feel that their vote is futile will fulfill their own destiny by not voting and making their opinion futile, which will only create more frustration down the road as the person becomes increasingly outside of the process happening around them. And people who feel that their vote is powerful will get out there and feel engaged to whatever is happening - even if they disagree with it.
That engagement is they key piece to the puzzle. Not everyone will always agree. The only way we could have true total 100% representation is if we all were representatives in a pure democracy, yet even then I would think that we wouldn’t understand and agree with even ourselves as much as we’d like to think.
So what can we do about people who feel powerless and disengaged? By making people feel invested in their community and their world, we can work to avoid the tragedy of the commons scenario that our voting numbers are emblematic of.
Getting involved or volunteering for something in the direct community is a sure way to start to feel connected and a working and productive part of this crazy and chaotic world.
If we can help focus more education efforts at really fostering a feeling of community ownership, we can begin to reverse the unfortunate trends over the past few decades of decreased community and civic involvement.
For a person who has never voted before, casting a ballot on a national level may seem of too little impact. Opening up government to really connect, work with and seek the feedback of residents on all ranges of projects is a prime way to help people feel they are part of something that is both larger than themselves and larger than the sum of its parts. Feeling part of something productive like that is an inspiring experience. Embracing the use of technology for open government and community engagement to reach new audiences and make new connections are sure ways for us to get there.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
You have more control than you think
Losing one’s inhibitions and judgments has been ingrained into our culture as natural and inevitable effects from consuming alcohol. We teach our young people these things, and coincidentally, they end up displaying them as they grow older and begin experimenting with alcohol.
The idea that alcohol takes control over people and forces them act certain ways has not always been the prevailing idea. In fact, before the temperance movement picked up steam in the mid 1800s, alcohol was seen as a healthy, necessary and nutritious part of a rugged frontiersman lifestyle. However, strong and radical religious groups began to campaign against alcohol itself as the migration into cities that occurred around the industrial revolution broke down the social controls around behavior and the importance of being sober when using new machinery took hold in the workplace. Before then alcohol was seen as pretty much entirely beneficial.
Now, due to modern temperance political organizations, alcohol still has the same intense stigma that was attached to it leading up to prohibition. The idea that (a) once someone drinks they will most likely not be able to stop themselves from becoming alcohol-dependent and (b) once someone drinks they are no longer in control of their actions or emotions are puritan-based ideologies that in fact have no roots in medical science.
Just this week, more research from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions shows that people may in fact be much more in control of their drinking habits than originally believed. In fact, about 70% of those who experienced serious alcohol-related dependence problems entirely recovered on their own and, more importantly, cut back to responsible consumption patterns, and did not give up alcohol entirely. Dr. Mark Willenbring, director of treatment and recovery research at NIAAA, said in the LA Times that "It can be a chronic, relapsing disease. But it isn't usually that.”
The controversy around alcoholism wages on as the medical and scientific community is not in agreement as to how alcohol-dependence can manifest itself into a physically addictive condition. This research however, which is the largest alcohol-related study ever done in the US, suggests that we are moving forward to a better understanding of alcohol and behavior.
The idea that all people loose control with alcohol is a commonly accepted, though incorrect, assumption. It has, however, become totally ingrained in our society. Throughout the country, it is actually the bartender’s personal responsibility (and legal liability) to not serve anyone who is visibly intoxicated (a rule rarely, if ever, followed). The idea being that once someone begins drinking, they can no longer control whether they continue drinking. The excuse “Well I was drunk, what did you expect?” is a frustrating phrase heard all to often where people, rather than taking responsibility for their actions, blame the alcohol, much as was done during temperance.
Just this week, a trending topic on Twitter was “patrondidit,” expanded to Patron (a brand of Tequila) did it, i.e. alcohol being blamed for whatever the person might’ve done. Tequila itself actually takes the position of the most often quoted alcohol to relieve one of responsibility, even though its effects, and actually this goes for all types of alcohol of comparable alcohol content, are exactly the same, and the difference in behavior between different types of alcohol are entirely influenced by social expectations. Throughout history, there have even been nations that grant legal immunity to people who are drunk, while there are cultures, some that still exist, that do not accept intoxication as a social excuse for any social misbehavior.
The landmark study by acclaimed Brown University Anthropologist Dwight B. Heath in 1958 on the Camba of Eastern noted that “None of the stereotypes that are often applied to heavy drinkers was salient for the simple reason that behaviour while drinking was so little different from the normal behaviour during the long intervals between drinking.” The information from the recent NIAAA study reinforces the idea that the effects of alcohol on behavior (note: alcohol has serious effects on motor coordination and in some cases memory) are far more influenced by social expectations around acceptable behavior than anything biological or inherent in consuming alcohol.
I have mentioned the word responsibility multiple times, and it is a very important theme regarding how we educate, propagate cultural norms and set our state and national policies.
Instead of creating legislation that seeks to forward a moral stance, and is ignorant to the massive unintended consequences that are a degrading culture around responsibility, rising alcohol problems among our youth and rising incidents of drunk driving, we need to focus on creating policy that accurately sets standards of responsibility in our culture. By changing our current culture of repressive irresponsibility around alcohol into a socially-accepted and controlled culture of responsibility we can have positive lasting impacts on the safety and health of our young people.
Note: I do not support lowering the drinking age, but rather comprehensive enhanced alcohol policies that are based off of the fundamentals our successful graduated drivers license programs. Yes that means a graduated drinking age. Read more here.
The idea that alcohol takes control over people and forces them act certain ways has not always been the prevailing idea. In fact, before the temperance movement picked up steam in the mid 1800s, alcohol was seen as a healthy, necessary and nutritious part of a rugged frontiersman lifestyle. However, strong and radical religious groups began to campaign against alcohol itself as the migration into cities that occurred around the industrial revolution broke down the social controls around behavior and the importance of being sober when using new machinery took hold in the workplace. Before then alcohol was seen as pretty much entirely beneficial.
Now, due to modern temperance political organizations, alcohol still has the same intense stigma that was attached to it leading up to prohibition. The idea that (a) once someone drinks they will most likely not be able to stop themselves from becoming alcohol-dependent and (b) once someone drinks they are no longer in control of their actions or emotions are puritan-based ideologies that in fact have no roots in medical science.
Just this week, more research from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions shows that people may in fact be much more in control of their drinking habits than originally believed. In fact, about 70% of those who experienced serious alcohol-related dependence problems entirely recovered on their own and, more importantly, cut back to responsible consumption patterns, and did not give up alcohol entirely. Dr. Mark Willenbring, director of treatment and recovery research at NIAAA, said in the LA Times that "It can be a chronic, relapsing disease. But it isn't usually that.”
The controversy around alcoholism wages on as the medical and scientific community is not in agreement as to how alcohol-dependence can manifest itself into a physically addictive condition. This research however, which is the largest alcohol-related study ever done in the US, suggests that we are moving forward to a better understanding of alcohol and behavior.
The idea that all people loose control with alcohol is a commonly accepted, though incorrect, assumption. It has, however, become totally ingrained in our society. Throughout the country, it is actually the bartender’s personal responsibility (and legal liability) to not serve anyone who is visibly intoxicated (a rule rarely, if ever, followed). The idea being that once someone begins drinking, they can no longer control whether they continue drinking. The excuse “Well I was drunk, what did you expect?” is a frustrating phrase heard all to often where people, rather than taking responsibility for their actions, blame the alcohol, much as was done during temperance.
Just this week, a trending topic on Twitter was “patrondidit,” expanded to Patron (a brand of Tequila) did it, i.e. alcohol being blamed for whatever the person might’ve done. Tequila itself actually takes the position of the most often quoted alcohol to relieve one of responsibility, even though its effects, and actually this goes for all types of alcohol of comparable alcohol content, are exactly the same, and the difference in behavior between different types of alcohol are entirely influenced by social expectations. Throughout history, there have even been nations that grant legal immunity to people who are drunk, while there are cultures, some that still exist, that do not accept intoxication as a social excuse for any social misbehavior.
The landmark study by acclaimed Brown University Anthropologist Dwight B. Heath in 1958 on the Camba of Eastern noted that “None of the stereotypes that are often applied to heavy drinkers was salient for the simple reason that behaviour while drinking was so little different from the normal behaviour during the long intervals between drinking.” The information from the recent NIAAA study reinforces the idea that the effects of alcohol on behavior (note: alcohol has serious effects on motor coordination and in some cases memory) are far more influenced by social expectations around acceptable behavior than anything biological or inherent in consuming alcohol.
I have mentioned the word responsibility multiple times, and it is a very important theme regarding how we educate, propagate cultural norms and set our state and national policies.
Instead of creating legislation that seeks to forward a moral stance, and is ignorant to the massive unintended consequences that are a degrading culture around responsibility, rising alcohol problems among our youth and rising incidents of drunk driving, we need to focus on creating policy that accurately sets standards of responsibility in our culture. By changing our current culture of repressive irresponsibility around alcohol into a socially-accepted and controlled culture of responsibility we can have positive lasting impacts on the safety and health of our young people.
Note: I do not support lowering the drinking age, but rather comprehensive enhanced alcohol policies that are based off of the fundamentals our successful graduated drivers license programs. Yes that means a graduated drinking age. Read more here.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Follow up Links
From Pyschology Blog: Why do people bother voting: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/why-do-people-bother-voting.php
More information about the prisoner's dilemma: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
More information about the prisoner's dilemma: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Further Reading on Who owns the internet
Financial Times - Net neutrality required to spur innovation - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf87c126-c571-11de-8193-00144feab49a.htmlWall Street Journal - Facebook and Twitter Founders Join Net-Neutrality Wars http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/18/facebook-and-twitter-founders-join-net-neutrality-wars/
PC World - FCC Votes for Net Neutrality, McCain Wants to Stop Them http://www.pcworld.com/article/174211/fcc_votes_for_net_neutrality_mccain_wants_to_stop_them.html
The Great Debate: What is Net Neutrality (C-SPAN) http://fora.tv/2006/07/17/Great_Debate_What_is_Net_Neutrality
Why Net Neutrality is Important: http://kensingtonvictoria.com/?p=323
Monday, November 2, 2009
VOTE TODAY!
Make sure to get out and vote today. Click here to find your polling location: http://bit.ly/njvotinginfo
Saturday, October 31, 2009
October 29th News-Record Column: How the internet empowers the people:
Click here to read the article: http://bit.ly/2ORXJI
Monday, October 26, 2009
More Information on Column
Please watch Michael Wesch's Talk "The Machine is (changing) Us here.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
More links about this subject:
Media Ecology on Wikipedia
Media Ecology Association
Some further comments:
Although there is no way to answer the question of how exactly we are changing media and how in turn, our media is changing us, it is important to ask and to explore. Just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean we should not ask the question. We can learn a lot about ourselves and the way we communicate just by asking questions about media ecology and culture. I hope to cover this topic more both in my blog and in my column, so definitely keep an eye out for what I hope to be more and continued question asking about how we interact with eachother.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
WhiteHouse.gov Goes Open Source
On October 24th, the White House switched their website (whitehouse.gov) to Drupal, an open-source content management system. This will be hosted on Linux Red Hat servers.
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Clearly this a big win for open source proponents as the White House has taken a large step in opening the door for more government departments on all levels to consider using open-source technology. In working towards better government transparency, the Obama Administration has made several large steps towards that goal, and this latest development in that field. There is a lot of opportunity for Government 2.0 deployments, and it is great to see Obama Administration so clearly on board with enhancing government transparency.
Read More:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/whitehouse-switch-drupal-opensource.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091024/us-obama-web-site/
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Flu Vaccine
I just finished reading John M. Barry's Book: The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History (for my Emergency Planning & Response class at John Jay) where Barry eloquently traces the history and every detail about how around 50 million people died in the 1918 influenza pandemic. I used to to say "Why are people making such a big deal over Swine Flu?" Then I read that the flu pandemic in 1918 which was, by far, the worst pandemic in the history of the world, is the same strain of flu, H1N1, that is our so-called Swine Flu.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
The issue of mandatory vaccines is a complicated one, much more complicated than either side of the debate gives it credit for. Are we facing the same possibility of a severe epidemic? Or is this possible threat being elevated by American media in love with creating fear when there need not be?
To really answer the question of whether mandatory vaccines are ethical we much first have a better understanding of the threat that we are facing and at that point we can make a thoughtful, rational and expeditious decision as to how best to balance ensuring personal liberty while protecting public safety.
Friday, October 9, 2009
President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Internet media especially is in a frenzy today as everyone looks to get in their word edgewise on Obama's, what turned out to be controversial, winning of a Nobel Peace Prize. The award came at a time when Obama is facing crucial decisions regarding troop levels in Afghanistan.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Many Obama supporters hail this as a landmark occasion where the international community has finally recognized Obama's ideas and vision for a more peaceful and diplomatic world where working with other nations and cultures is seen as a priority rather than a drag on international relations.
Conservatives, and a fair amount of Obama supporters, on the other hand, feel that this award was issued far too early, at best, and cannot possibly be based off of his record because nominations were due for the award almost immediately after he took office.
Others even may say this award comes at an awkward time, as a NASA rocket was just launched into the moon. (Though for peaceful purposes. For now. You're on watch Moon.)
Although both sides have a good point, it seems to have brought to light two very important points:
First, Obama has not yet delivered on his campaign promises of bringing peace, withdrawing troops and shutting down Guantanamo Bay. Granted, he has not been in office a very long time, and to make such large changes considering the past eight years requires a lot of political capital that he may not have yet. But unless he can constructively shape this healthcare debate, he may have trouble gaining that much-needed capital.
Second, conservatives and the Republican Party seem that they would rather see Obama fail than see our country succeed. That definitely doesn't apply to everyone who considers themselves right of center, but 'mainstream' American conservatism has definitely picked out Obama as a target, for whatever reasons, and celebrate his failures, like when Chicago lost out for the Olympic bid. What happened to the standing beside your President in tough times, a mantra oft-repeated during the Bush years?
My take on it? Regardless of whether or not he should have been awarded the prize now, I am confident that by the time Obama leaves office he will have demonstrated that he does indeed deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
How relative is relativity?
Before I begin, I’d like to first ask you all to look at the images to the right and note what you see:
Almost everyone immediately perceives the darker circle on the left as being bigger than the one on the right. But is it really? It turns out the two circles are identical, yet just by surrounding that size shape with similar shapes of different sizes, we can immensely impact how the darker circle is perceived. The word perception is important because although the shapes are indeed identical, they are generally perceived to be different. This is this problem with relativity - it is fairly easy to manipulate how one sees something simply by changing the environment around it. Over the next few weeks, we will examine the impact of these theories on our spending. This week: How much is distance worth?
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman explored this idea in their paper “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Imagine you are in an office supply store, about to purchase a $25 pen. Aomeone whispers to you that a store 15 minutes away is selling that same pen for $18, a $7 savings. Would you take the drive to save money on the pen? The majority of people would. Next scenario: you are in a clothing store shopping for a $455 coat. Another customer informs you that the same coat is on sale for $448 at a store 15 minutes away. Would you drive the 15 minutes to save the $7 on a $455 coat? The majority of people would not.
One would expect that you would perform a quick cost/benefit analysis, basically: How much you would save minus how much it would cost to drive there (perhaps gas plus cost of time). However, if that were the case, then it wouldn’t matter if the $7 savings was on a $10 item, or a $10,000 item. But clearly that is not the case. Would you make any effort, say even go five minutes down the street to save $7 on a $20,000 car purchase? Not many people would put in that effort. But why? Shouldn’t saving money be worth it regardless of the price of the product you are saving it from?
It turns out that people do not generally base this decision off of a fixed or objective amount, but rather think about it relatively, in terms of a percentage. In the first scenario, the percentage savings were substantial, about 28%. However, in the second scenario, the percentage savings were seemingly insignificant, less than 2%. For some reason, people think about these savings on a relative basis, avoiding such facts such as actual savings in dollars. Nobody balances their checkbook with every withdrawal notated as a percentage of total savings, and products don’t cost a percentage of something - they just have a fixed cost that is deducted from our fixed savings.
Next time you are considering take the drive, or brushing off the worthlessness of taking a drive to save some money, calculate your decision based on actual cost, not percentages. You would be surprised how much money you could save if you think critically about all costs when purchasing something expensive. It’s easy to add options onto a car, leave a negotiation for a house without putting in a full effort or otherwise say something along the lines of “Well I’m already spending so much, what does this extra little bit matter?” If it is worth saving $7 on a pen, it is worth saving $7 on a coat. $7 is $7 no matter how must the product costs.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to bring to light some interesting problems with the way we think about finances in an effort to provide some non-intuitive advise and insight on how to save money in tough economic times. Next week: Spotting the decoy in product marketing.
Further Reading:Almost everyone immediately perceives the darker circle on the left as being bigger than the one on the right. But is it really? It turns out the two circles are identical, yet just by surrounding that size shape with similar shapes of different sizes, we can immensely impact how the darker circle is perceived. The word perception is important because although the shapes are indeed identical, they are generally perceived to be different. This is this problem with relativity - it is fairly easy to manipulate how one sees something simply by changing the environment around it. Over the next few weeks, we will examine the impact of these theories on our spending. This week: How much is distance worth?
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman explored this idea in their paper “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Imagine you are in an office supply store, about to purchase a $25 pen. Aomeone whispers to you that a store 15 minutes away is selling that same pen for $18, a $7 savings. Would you take the drive to save money on the pen? The majority of people would. Next scenario: you are in a clothing store shopping for a $455 coat. Another customer informs you that the same coat is on sale for $448 at a store 15 minutes away. Would you drive the 15 minutes to save the $7 on a $455 coat? The majority of people would not.
One would expect that you would perform a quick cost/benefit analysis, basically: How much you would save minus how much it would cost to drive there (perhaps gas plus cost of time). However, if that were the case, then it wouldn’t matter if the $7 savings was on a $10 item, or a $10,000 item. But clearly that is not the case. Would you make any effort, say even go five minutes down the street to save $7 on a $20,000 car purchase? Not many people would put in that effort. But why? Shouldn’t saving money be worth it regardless of the price of the product you are saving it from?
It turns out that people do not generally base this decision off of a fixed or objective amount, but rather think about it relatively, in terms of a percentage. In the first scenario, the percentage savings were substantial, about 28%. However, in the second scenario, the percentage savings were seemingly insignificant, less than 2%. For some reason, people think about these savings on a relative basis, avoiding such facts such as actual savings in dollars. Nobody balances their checkbook with every withdrawal notated as a percentage of total savings, and products don’t cost a percentage of something - they just have a fixed cost that is deducted from our fixed savings.
Next time you are considering take the drive, or brushing off the worthlessness of taking a drive to save some money, calculate your decision based on actual cost, not percentages. You would be surprised how much money you could save if you think critically about all costs when purchasing something expensive. It’s easy to add options onto a car, leave a negotiation for a house without putting in a full effort or otherwise say something along the lines of “Well I’m already spending so much, what does this extra little bit matter?” If it is worth saving $7 on a pen, it is worth saving $7 on a coat. $7 is $7 no matter how must the product costs.
Over the next few weeks, I hope to bring to light some interesting problems with the way we think about finances in an effort to provide some non-intuitive advise and insight on how to save money in tough economic times. Next week: Spotting the decoy in product marketing.
- Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice by A Tversky and D Kahneman
Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Embracing Technology for Open Government
Open Government has become quite a campaign buzzword over the past few years as technology and computer/online software are beginning the show the limitless potential available to us to create accessible and transparent government.
There are two primary distinctions when looking at the utilization of technology in government. The first is how government appears, or is accessible, to people. The second is government works internally.
The first has been adopted quite widely in campaign settings. Campaign websites often offer social-networking connections, mobile updates, smartphone apps, and other interactive features that help people stay connected. This transparency and engagement as not been widely adopted in the actual governance process, however. Although indeed rare, there are a few excellent examples. The best one may be the Federal IT Dashboard, a website that traces and explains all federal IT spending. Check out the website at: http://it.usaspending.gov/. You can find all of the investments, contracts, people in charge of projects, timelines and more. This site should be a tool not only to research federal spending but as an example of how open government can look and work.
The second is government technology for internal processes. One of the often quoted reasons for some failings in national security in the past is that defense and intelligence agencies, up until the past year or two, were using outlandishly outdated software that didn't allow collaboration or communication between different operatives in the field. Now many agencies have adopted Wikipedia-like software in top-secret platforms to encourage collaboration and sharing of information among various agents and agencies. This type of software, though of course critical in high-risk national security situations, can also be applied to save government money through increased efficiency while improving the services that are offered to people. The private sector has been pushing into increased collaboration and connectivity between various people working on projects, and that same technology could be applied to government to vastly improve upon the technology that exists and is used now.
Every once in a while, I will update this blog with interesting software or platforms which I encourage people to read further about:
Federal IT Dashboard: http://it.usaspending.gov/
NY Senate Website: http://www.nysenate.gov/
There are two primary distinctions when looking at the utilization of technology in government. The first is how government appears, or is accessible, to people. The second is government works internally.
The first has been adopted quite widely in campaign settings. Campaign websites often offer social-networking connections, mobile updates, smartphone apps, and other interactive features that help people stay connected. This transparency and engagement as not been widely adopted in the actual governance process, however. Although indeed rare, there are a few excellent examples. The best one may be the Federal IT Dashboard, a website that traces and explains all federal IT spending. Check out the website at: http://it.usaspending.gov/. You can find all of the investments, contracts, people in charge of projects, timelines and more. This site should be a tool not only to research federal spending but as an example of how open government can look and work.
The second is government technology for internal processes. One of the often quoted reasons for some failings in national security in the past is that defense and intelligence agencies, up until the past year or two, were using outlandishly outdated software that didn't allow collaboration or communication between different operatives in the field. Now many agencies have adopted Wikipedia-like software in top-secret platforms to encourage collaboration and sharing of information among various agents and agencies. This type of software, though of course critical in high-risk national security situations, can also be applied to save government money through increased efficiency while improving the services that are offered to people. The private sector has been pushing into increased collaboration and connectivity between various people working on projects, and that same technology could be applied to government to vastly improve upon the technology that exists and is used now.
Every once in a while, I will update this blog with interesting software or platforms which I encourage people to read further about:
Federal IT Dashboard: http://it.usaspending.gov/
NY Senate Website: http://www.nysenate.gov/
Speaker of New Jersey General Assembly Will Not Seek Another Term
Joseph Roberts, the Speaker of the General Assembly in the New Jersey Legislature will not be seeking another term, he announced on Wednesday
The announcement threw state legislators into a whirlwind on Wednesday, reports PolitickerNJ, as officials throughout the state are trying to figure out who will fill in that leadership position. Roberts spent 22 years in the General Assembly and cited his reason for not seeking another term that he needs a break.
Read More:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/three_nj_lawmakers_eyeing_asse.html
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/32859/roberts-announcing-retirement-downplays-possibility-senate-run
The announcement threw state legislators into a whirlwind on Wednesday, reports PolitickerNJ, as officials throughout the state are trying to figure out who will fill in that leadership position. Roberts spent 22 years in the General Assembly and cited his reason for not seeking another term that he needs a break.
Read More:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/three_nj_lawmakers_eyeing_asse.html
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/32859/roberts-announcing-retirement-downplays-possibility-senate-run
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
In Just 24 Hours, Newark Shudders Under Weight of Five Shootings
Over a 24 hour period, starting Monday morning with the death of a 14 year-old, there were six people injured in a total of five shootings in Newark.
Newark, once a cultural mecca in New Jersey - and much of the country - has in recent decades faced high crime rates, consistently putting the city ranked highest in the country among crime. Before 2006, a significant amount of that crime was taking place within the governing body of the city when former Mayor Sharpe James, who is now a convicted felon serving a 27-month prison term, used to be in charge. Since then, Mayor Cory Booker has taken crime and pubic safety head-on, though still faces significant challenges such as those 24 hours demonstrate. As reported by NJ.com, Mayor Booker said, "We're seeing still some progress but the last week or two has shown us that we still have a long way to go"
Several of the victims on Monday were innocent bystandars, such as one 62 year-old resident who was shot in the hip by a gang related drive-by as she was taking out the trash in front of her apartment.
Clearly there is no simple solution to this problem. It is obvious, more than ever, however, that intelligent and forward thinking policy and culture change are needed to ensure that our communities are safe and that no resident need worry about their safety when taking out their trash.
Newark, once a cultural mecca in New Jersey - and much of the country - has in recent decades faced high crime rates, consistently putting the city ranked highest in the country among crime. Before 2006, a significant amount of that crime was taking place within the governing body of the city when former Mayor Sharpe James, who is now a convicted felon serving a 27-month prison term, used to be in charge. Since then, Mayor Cory Booker has taken crime and pubic safety head-on, though still faces significant challenges such as those 24 hours demonstrate. As reported by NJ.com, Mayor Booker said, "We're seeing still some progress but the last week or two has shown us that we still have a long way to go"
Several of the victims on Monday were innocent bystandars, such as one 62 year-old resident who was shot in the hip by a gang related drive-by as she was taking out the trash in front of her apartment.
Clearly there is no simple solution to this problem. It is obvious, more than ever, however, that intelligent and forward thinking policy and culture change are needed to ensure that our communities are safe and that no resident need worry about their safety when taking out their trash.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Making The Problem Worse: Sweet Sixteen Broken Up, 10 Kids Arrested In Parsippany
Last Thursday night, Parsippany Police broke up a sweet 16 party after receiving a noise complaint.
Five officers responded to a house at around 1130pm after receiving reports of screaming and loud noises. The officers entered the house to discover a large amount of young people under 21 drinking, a few over 21, and the homeowner.
10 people under 21 were arrested and issued summonses, in addition to the homeowner who was also charged with providing alcohol to minors.
Do we really think that charging these young people with a crime will deter them? Or even more fundamentally, were they really doing something wrong? There were no reports of violence, of drunk driving, or of anything dangerous, but rather the "problem" itself was that alcohol was being consumed. And with older people and a parent present.
The only thing this accomplished was teaching the parents to not consume alcohol with their children and children not be loud when they drink. Anyone who thinks that arrests like these actually deter young people from drinking is entirely ignorant of the problems of alcohol abuse among young people and need to face the facts: Young people drink, and because of counter-productive policies that encourage underground drinking, they are drinking more excessively than they used to. If we want to break this cycle we will need to ditch the failed ideology that has created this problem and take a new outlook on how to keep young people safe with alcohol.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090811/UPDATES01/90811025/1005/NEWS01/Police+break+up+Sweet+16+party+in+Parsippany++10+charged
Five officers responded to a house at around 1130pm after receiving reports of screaming and loud noises. The officers entered the house to discover a large amount of young people under 21 drinking, a few over 21, and the homeowner.
10 people under 21 were arrested and issued summonses, in addition to the homeowner who was also charged with providing alcohol to minors.
Do we really think that charging these young people with a crime will deter them? Or even more fundamentally, were they really doing something wrong? There were no reports of violence, of drunk driving, or of anything dangerous, but rather the "problem" itself was that alcohol was being consumed. And with older people and a parent present.
The only thing this accomplished was teaching the parents to not consume alcohol with their children and children not be loud when they drink. Anyone who thinks that arrests like these actually deter young people from drinking is entirely ignorant of the problems of alcohol abuse among young people and need to face the facts: Young people drink, and because of counter-productive policies that encourage underground drinking, they are drinking more excessively than they used to. If we want to break this cycle we will need to ditch the failed ideology that has created this problem and take a new outlook on how to keep young people safe with alcohol.
http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20090811/UPDATES01/90811025/1005/NEWS01/Police+break+up+Sweet+16+party+in+Parsippany++10+charged
Monday, August 3, 2009
2 South Carolina Judges Rule 21 Year-Old Drinking Age Unconstitutional
Two South Carolina County judges ruled that the 21 year-old drinking age is unconstitutional.
Aiken County Chief Magistrate Rodger Edmunds and Richland County Magistrate Mel Maurer ruled that laws could only prohibit people under 21 from purchasing alcohol, and could not prohibit people under 21 from consuming or possessing alcohol. The main justificiation for the federally mandated 21 year-old drinking age is using the often-quoted commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate issues involving interstate commerce.
As reported by CarolinaLive.com "Both decisions relied on a 2008 SC State Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law banning 18 to 20 year olds from possessing handguns."
Both cases have been appealed, and will be heard in South Carolina's circuit court of appeals.I will post updates to these cases as they progress through the judicial system.
Sources and Reading
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/2_south_carolina_judges_challenge_drinking_age/49856/
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=332096
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1627
Aiken County Chief Magistrate Rodger Edmunds and Richland County Magistrate Mel Maurer ruled that laws could only prohibit people under 21 from purchasing alcohol, and could not prohibit people under 21 from consuming or possessing alcohol. The main justificiation for the federally mandated 21 year-old drinking age is using the often-quoted commerce clause of the US Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate issues involving interstate commerce.
As reported by CarolinaLive.com "Both decisions relied on a 2008 SC State Supreme Court ruling that overturned a state law banning 18 to 20 year olds from possessing handguns."
Both cases have been appealed, and will be heard in South Carolina's circuit court of appeals.I will post updates to these cases as they progress through the judicial system.
Sources and Reading
http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/2_south_carolina_judges_challenge_drinking_age/49856/
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=332096
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1627
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Independent Candidate Chris Daggett Names His Lt. Governor Nomination
On Tuesday, Independent New Jersey Gubernatorial Candidate Chris Daggett selected his nomination for lieutenant governor.
Daggett named Frank Esposito, a professor of history and education at Kean University for his Lt. Governor nomination. Daggett said of Esposito, "Frank Esposito has been in the forefront of the movement to reform our education system, which too often has failed New Jersey's children."
Vying to make education on the forefront of his platform, Daggett wants to tap the experience of Esposito to ensure voters see his platform as a strong supporter of reforming education in New Jersey. After the large corruption scandals which resulted in 44 total arrests which spanned both the Democrat and Republican parties, Daggett is claiming that, being the independent candidate, he is the real person who can reform Trenton.
Read More
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090728_Daggett_names_Frank_Esposito_as_running_mate.html
Daggett named Frank Esposito, a professor of history and education at Kean University for his Lt. Governor nomination. Daggett said of Esposito, "Frank Esposito has been in the forefront of the movement to reform our education system, which too often has failed New Jersey's children."
Vying to make education on the forefront of his platform, Daggett wants to tap the experience of Esposito to ensure voters see his platform as a strong supporter of reforming education in New Jersey. After the large corruption scandals which resulted in 44 total arrests which spanned both the Democrat and Republican parties, Daggett is claiming that, being the independent candidate, he is the real person who can reform Trenton.
Read More
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090728_Daggett_names_Frank_Esposito_as_running_mate.html
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Crucial Doctor in 21 Drinking Age Establishment Joins Founder of MADD In Speaking Out Against 21
Dr. Morris Chafetz, a psychiatrist who, in the early 1980s, sat on the presidential commission in that recommended raising the national drinking age from 18 to 21 now regrets his decision.
Dr. Chafetz now considers his role in pushing for the drinking age "the single most regrettable decision" of his career, reports the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Chafetz believes the 21 year-old drinking age has not worked, and, "To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States." Additionally, Dr. Chafetz recognizes the immense harm caused by the unintended consequences the drinking age has caused in American drinking culture, including the 1,800 deaths per year among college-aged youth in deaths related to alcohol.
Dr Chafetz is not in fact the first person (nor most likely the last) who has changed their mind being originally involved in supporting the drinking age, and now being outspoken against it.
Candice Lightner was the mother of 13 year-old Cari Lightner, who was killed by a drunk driver in 1980, the event which prompted Lightner to start Mothers Against Drunk Driving later that same year. The driver, Clarance William Busch, who killed young Cari, had 22 traffic citations on his record, including four for drunk driving (for which he had served at most 48 hour in jail). His fourth drunk driving accident, another hit and run, occurred just two days before killing Cari Lightner. Interesting, or ironically, for the drinking age argument, Busch was 46 years old at the time of the accident.
Busch had despicable track record that anyone would agree should be warrant enough to permanently revoke one’s driving privileges. After what happened to her daughter Lightner became concerned with the lack of severity for repeat offenders, and saw it as her duty to push for tougher drunk driving laws, especially for repeat offenders. However, Lightner soon left MADD and became one of the most outspoken critics of how purely “anti-alcohol” MADD has become. She stated that MADD “has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the
issue of drunk driving." Lightner left MADD in 1985, just one year after MADD lobbied the federal government to raise the drinking age to 21.
The issues surrounding youth alcohol abuse and drunk driving are serious, complicated and have historically convoluted explanations. As more people feel comfortable taking the political heat dished out by organizations like MADD (Who earlier this month criticized a New Jersey brewery for having New Jersey Turnpike exits themed microbrews) more academics, scientists and public officials will come out in support of a new solution. At a certain point, we will hit a tipping point and finally be able to move into an effective public policy discussion that will finally help keep both our roads and American youth safe.
Sources & Reading:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/underage-drinking.html
Dr. Chafetz now considers his role in pushing for the drinking age "the single most regrettable decision" of his career, reports the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Chafetz believes the 21 year-old drinking age has not worked, and, "To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States." Additionally, Dr. Chafetz recognizes the immense harm caused by the unintended consequences the drinking age has caused in American drinking culture, including the 1,800 deaths per year among college-aged youth in deaths related to alcohol.
Dr Chafetz is not in fact the first person (nor most likely the last) who has changed their mind being originally involved in supporting the drinking age, and now being outspoken against it.
Candice Lightner was the mother of 13 year-old Cari Lightner, who was killed by a drunk driver in 1980, the event which prompted Lightner to start Mothers Against Drunk Driving later that same year. The driver, Clarance William Busch, who killed young Cari, had 22 traffic citations on his record, including four for drunk driving (for which he had served at most 48 hour in jail). His fourth drunk driving accident, another hit and run, occurred just two days before killing Cari Lightner. Interesting, or ironically, for the drinking age argument, Busch was 46 years old at the time of the accident.
Busch had despicable track record that anyone would agree should be warrant enough to permanently revoke one’s driving privileges. After what happened to her daughter Lightner became concerned with the lack of severity for repeat offenders, and saw it as her duty to push for tougher drunk driving laws, especially for repeat offenders. However, Lightner soon left MADD and became one of the most outspoken critics of how purely “anti-alcohol” MADD has become. She stated that MADD “has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the
issue of drunk driving." Lightner left MADD in 1985, just one year after MADD lobbied the federal government to raise the drinking age to 21.
The issues surrounding youth alcohol abuse and drunk driving are serious, complicated and have historically convoluted explanations. As more people feel comfortable taking the political heat dished out by organizations like MADD (Who earlier this month criticized a New Jersey brewery for having New Jersey Turnpike exits themed microbrews) more academics, scientists and public officials will come out in support of a new solution. At a certain point, we will hit a tipping point and finally be able to move into an effective public policy discussion that will finally help keep both our roads and American youth safe.
Sources & Reading:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/07/underage-drinking.html
Jon Corzine selects Lieutenant Governor Nomination
Jon Corzine on Friday selected legislative veteran Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Teaneck) to be his running mate in the first ever gubernatorial election that features a running mate. Republican candidate Chris Christie made his announcement Monday of last week - the first candidate to do so.
Senator Weinberg, 74, has been in the state legislature for nearly 20 years. She started her tenure in the Assembly in 1991 and in 2005 was elected to the state senate.
Sen. Weinberg’s legendary, and widely recognized, experience as a reformer and a proponent of open government is considered to be one of the primary reasons that Corzine has selected her - and doing so just one day after a massive corruption scandal rocked the Garden State. Additionally, Senator Weinberg hails from Bergen County, a key swing county.
Throughout her career in Bergen County, Sen. Weinberg has battled what many consider to have been one of the most corrupt political machines in the state. A real New Jersey legislative legend, Weinberg is also the primary sponsor of 50 laws that are on the books, in addition to being a co-sponsor on another 40 current laws, an astounding record.
It will be interesting to see how the next round of polls places the candidates now that both Christie and Corzine have named a running-mate.
Senator Weinberg, 74, has been in the state legislature for nearly 20 years. She started her tenure in the Assembly in 1991 and in 2005 was elected to the state senate.
Sen. Weinberg’s legendary, and widely recognized, experience as a reformer and a proponent of open government is considered to be one of the primary reasons that Corzine has selected her - and doing so just one day after a massive corruption scandal rocked the Garden State. Additionally, Senator Weinberg hails from Bergen County, a key swing county.
Throughout her career in Bergen County, Sen. Weinberg has battled what many consider to have been one of the most corrupt political machines in the state. A real New Jersey legislative legend, Weinberg is also the primary sponsor of 50 laws that are on the books, in addition to being a co-sponsor on another 40 current laws, an astounding record.
It will be interesting to see how the next round of polls places the candidates now that both Christie and Corzine have named a running-mate.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
NJ Politicians, NY Rabbis rounded up as part of corruption ring
Today, federal authorities rounded up a host of public officials and rabbis - 44 in total - who are apparently linked to a ring of money laundering and dirty political contributions.
At a press conference today, federal authorities, including officials from the US Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations Division said that New Jersey needed to clean up its act, and that the Garden State may be the worst in the country in terms of political corruption.
As election season kicks into high gear for the governor’s race, in addition to many other state and municipal races, some felt as though the arrests were politically motivated. Federal authorities did state multiple times at a press conference today that politics had nothing to do with the arrests as this case, code named “Bid-rig,” has been developing for nearly a decade, and surpasses political parties and multiple administrations.
Corruption in public office seems so embedded in the governance process that it seems to barely register on the psyche of our state. These actions must not be tolerated, and both public leaders and New Jersey voters must take a stand for more transparent and honest governance. Federal authorities were right on when they said that law enforcement along cannot fix this issue alone, but rather we need a mental overhaul of how, as residents, we want our state to run and how open and transparent we must require our government to be.
More Reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24jersey.html
http://sbk.online.wsj.com/article/SB124835404608875685.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK4nrZ7GALyorz4G34gTnFocFM9gD99KCVB80
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/23/new-jersey-curruption-solomon-dwek-business-beltway-dwek.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20090723_N_J__official_resigns_amid_corruption_probe.html
At a press conference today, federal authorities, including officials from the US Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations Division said that New Jersey needed to clean up its act, and that the Garden State may be the worst in the country in terms of political corruption.
As election season kicks into high gear for the governor’s race, in addition to many other state and municipal races, some felt as though the arrests were politically motivated. Federal authorities did state multiple times at a press conference today that politics had nothing to do with the arrests as this case, code named “Bid-rig,” has been developing for nearly a decade, and surpasses political parties and multiple administrations.
Corruption in public office seems so embedded in the governance process that it seems to barely register on the psyche of our state. These actions must not be tolerated, and both public leaders and New Jersey voters must take a stand for more transparent and honest governance. Federal authorities were right on when they said that law enforcement along cannot fix this issue alone, but rather we need a mental overhaul of how, as residents, we want our state to run and how open and transparent we must require our government to be.
More Reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/nyregion/24jersey.html
http://sbk.online.wsj.com/article/SB124835404608875685.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iK4nrZ7GALyorz4G34gTnFocFM9gD99KCVB80
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/23/new-jersey-curruption-solomon-dwek-business-beltway-dwek.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20090723_N_J__official_resigns_amid_corruption_probe.html
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Christie, in a First, Picks a Running Mate (Featured in NY Times)
Some ask how important new media will be in politics. Today should answer that question once and for all, as Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie announced his pick for lieutenant governor on social networking sites, placing a video on YouTube as well as announcements on Twitter and Facebook.
Mr. Christie, a former United States prosecutor, selected Kim Guadagno, who currently is the Monmouth County Sheriff, to run with him. If elected, she will serve as the state’s first lieutenant governor.
Before 2005, the year that the position was created by a statewide vote — with much encouragement from then-Acting Gov. Dick Codey, who had to step in after Gov. Jim McGreevey resigned — New Jersey was one of a handful of states with only a governor position. In addition, our state’s governor appoints all cabinet level officials, many of which are elected in other states, contributing to the New Jersey governor widely being recognized as perhaps the most powerful in the country.
The new position of lieutenant governor will help equalize the vast amount of authority that currently is placed solely in our only state-wide elected official.
Ms. Guadagno , who has been the Monmouth County Sheriff since 2007, served 15 years as the commissioner of Monmouth Beach, as well as on the Board of Adjustments. Ms. Guadagno also spent 15 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, working both in Brooklyn and New Jersey.
Both Mr. Christie and Ms. Guadagno are long-time residents of the state — he was born in Newark, grew up in Livingston and now resides with his family in Mendham. Ms. Guadagno has lived and worked in New Jersey for many years, and now lives in Monmouth Beach.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is seeking election to a second term, has not made an official announcement as to his selection, though he is reported to be considering Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo, Senator Loretta Weinberg and Rhodes Scholar and winner of Season 4 of “The Apprentice,” Randal Pinkett.
Already a heated battle, with candidates mainly clashing over financial policy issues, the race between Mr. Corzine, Mr. Christie and independent candidate Chris Daggett should be historic, the first featuring a “running-mate.”
Stay tuned for more news on the local angles to the race.
Please feel free to visit the New York Times local section, where this blog entry was featured yesterday: http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/christie-in-a-first-picks-a-running-mate/
Mr. Christie, a former United States prosecutor, selected Kim Guadagno, who currently is the Monmouth County Sheriff, to run with him. If elected, she will serve as the state’s first lieutenant governor.
Before 2005, the year that the position was created by a statewide vote — with much encouragement from then-Acting Gov. Dick Codey, who had to step in after Gov. Jim McGreevey resigned — New Jersey was one of a handful of states with only a governor position. In addition, our state’s governor appoints all cabinet level officials, many of which are elected in other states, contributing to the New Jersey governor widely being recognized as perhaps the most powerful in the country.
The new position of lieutenant governor will help equalize the vast amount of authority that currently is placed solely in our only state-wide elected official.
Ms. Guadagno , who has been the Monmouth County Sheriff since 2007, served 15 years as the commissioner of Monmouth Beach, as well as on the Board of Adjustments. Ms. Guadagno also spent 15 years as an assistant U.S. attorney, working both in Brooklyn and New Jersey.
Both Mr. Christie and Ms. Guadagno are long-time residents of the state — he was born in Newark, grew up in Livingston and now resides with his family in Mendham. Ms. Guadagno has lived and worked in New Jersey for many years, and now lives in Monmouth Beach.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who is seeking election to a second term, has not made an official announcement as to his selection, though he is reported to be considering Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo, Senator Loretta Weinberg and Rhodes Scholar and winner of Season 4 of “The Apprentice,” Randal Pinkett.
Already a heated battle, with candidates mainly clashing over financial policy issues, the race between Mr. Corzine, Mr. Christie and independent candidate Chris Daggett should be historic, the first featuring a “running-mate.”
Stay tuned for more news on the local angles to the race.
Please feel free to visit the New York Times local section, where this blog entry was featured yesterday: http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/christie-in-a-first-picks-a-running-mate/
Friday, July 17, 2009
Medical Amnesty Policies Gaining Ground Nationally!
Every year, 1,800 college students die in accidents (off the road) involving alcohol. And what are schools doing to combat this rising problem? Some schools are "cracking down" on underage drinking, claiming that enforcing existing laws is all that needs to be done to fix the solution. However, some college presidents and administrations have taken a more thoughtful approach to ensuring their students stay safe: Medical Amnesty.
Medical amnesty policies grant students who call emergency service (campus police, EMTs, etc) for a medical emergency where people were consuming alcohol (whether that led to the emergency or not) and are under 21 immunity from punishment, in an effort to ensure a student never goes without calling for help.
The majority of college students report being less likely to call for help because of a fear of getting in trouble. Primary research we did when I was chair of the Public Health & Safety at Hampshire College (which contributed to eventual adoption of a medical amnesty policy at Hampshire) did show that students were significantly less likely to call for help if alcohol (or illegal drugs) are involved.
A recent story from ABC has more about this, please take a moment to read the story below!
Medical amnesty policies grant students who call emergency service (campus police, EMTs, etc) for a medical emergency where people were consuming alcohol (whether that led to the emergency or not) and are under 21 immunity from punishment, in an effort to ensure a student never goes without calling for help.
The majority of college students report being less likely to call for help because of a fear of getting in trouble. Primary research we did when I was chair of the Public Health & Safety at Hampshire College (which contributed to eventual adoption of a medical amnesty policy at Hampshire) did show that students were significantly less likely to call for help if alcohol (or illegal drugs) are involved.
A recent story from ABC has more about this, please take a moment to read the story below!
It's Official - Tap Water Safer Than Bottled Water
The large transportation costs and plastic usage of bottled water has long upset environmentalists who see a lot of wasted energy going into a product that is available throughout the country through your tap. To add to the seemingly large array of problems related to bottled water, Consumer Reports recently concluded that tap water is indeed safer to drink than bottled water.
In a Consumer Reports article from July 10th called "Is tap water safer than bottled?" they seem to answer that question in the affirmative: Yes, it is.
Bottled water, regulated under the federal Food and Drug Administration and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has less stringent quality standards than tap water, which is regulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The EPA has more restrictions as to the amount of particulate matter that can be present in water, and there are a few substances that the EPA regulates that the FDA doesn't have any limits for. Certain bottled waters leech carcinogens into the water as well from the plastics used in the bottle.
When looking at whether to drink bottled or tap water, personally I always choose tap water. In restaurants or any pubic places it's free, taste just the same as most bottled water (double-blind studies show that people are more influenced by either the brand or the price, and cannot actually tell the difference between premium bottled water and tap water), does not have the environmental costs as bottled water, and, it turns out, is actually safer for you. The choice seems pretty simple to me.
In a Consumer Reports article from July 10th called "Is tap water safer than bottled?" they seem to answer that question in the affirmative: Yes, it is.
Bottled water, regulated under the federal Food and Drug Administration and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has less stringent quality standards than tap water, which is regulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The EPA has more restrictions as to the amount of particulate matter that can be present in water, and there are a few substances that the EPA regulates that the FDA doesn't have any limits for. Certain bottled waters leech carcinogens into the water as well from the plastics used in the bottle.
When looking at whether to drink bottled or tap water, personally I always choose tap water. In restaurants or any pubic places it's free, taste just the same as most bottled water (double-blind studies show that people are more influenced by either the brand or the price, and cannot actually tell the difference between premium bottled water and tap water), does not have the environmental costs as bottled water, and, it turns out, is actually safer for you. The choice seems pretty simple to me.
Water is becoming a serious world-wide issue as people's access to clean drinking water is in higher demand than it has ever been. Drinking tap water, rather than bottled water, may actually help reduce the energy and environmental costs of ensuring that all people have access to clean, safe drinking water.
Consumer Reports: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/water_safety/
Consumer Reports: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/water_safety/
Friday, July 10, 2009
Update to A1360, New Jersey's Medical Amnesty Bill
NJ Bill A1360 a bill that "Grants immunity to certain underage persons for unlawful possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages" has passed in the Senate 38-0.
Here is the timeline the bill has taken so far: (From the NJ Legislature)
9/22/2008 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee
3/12/2009 Reported from Assembly Comm. as a Substitute, 2nd Reading
5/21/2009 Passed by the Assembly (77-0-0)
5/21/2009 Received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading
6/25/2009 Substituted for S2748
6/25/2009 Passed Senate (Passed Both Houses) (38-0)
Now, the bill needs to gain the signature of Governor Jon Corzine. I'll post updated as news comes out about that.
Here the sponsors of the bill:
Angelini, Mary Pat as Primary Sponsor
Johnson, Gordon M. as Primary Sponsor
Bramnick, Jon M. as Primary Sponsor
Evans, Elease as Primary Sponsor
Rodriguez, Caridad as Co-Sponsor
O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. as Co-Sponsor
Handlin, Amy H. as Co-Sponsor
Rible, David P. as Co-Sponsor
Chivukula, Upendra J. as Co-Sponsor
Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. as Co-Sponsor
Casagrande, Caroline as Co-Sponsor
Wagner, Connie as Co-Sponsor
Kean, Sean T. as Co-Sponsor
Girgenti, John A. as Co-Sponsor
Van Drew, Jeff as Co-Sponsor
Bateman, Christopher as Co-Sponsor
Turner, Shirley K. as Co-Sponsor
More Information:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
Here is the timeline the bill has taken so far: (From the NJ Legislature)
9/22/2008 Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee
3/12/2009 Reported from Assembly Comm. as a Substitute, 2nd Reading
5/21/2009 Passed by the Assembly (77-0-0)
5/21/2009 Received in the Senate without Reference, 2nd Reading
6/25/2009 Substituted for S2748
6/25/2009 Passed Senate (Passed Both Houses) (38-0)
Now, the bill needs to gain the signature of Governor Jon Corzine. I'll post updated as news comes out about that.
Here the sponsors of the bill:
Angelini, Mary Pat as Primary Sponsor
Johnson, Gordon M. as Primary Sponsor
Bramnick, Jon M. as Primary Sponsor
Evans, Elease as Primary Sponsor
Rodriguez, Caridad as Co-Sponsor
O'Scanlon, Declan J., Jr. as Co-Sponsor
Handlin, Amy H. as Co-Sponsor
Rible, David P. as Co-Sponsor
Chivukula, Upendra J. as Co-Sponsor
Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr. as Co-Sponsor
Casagrande, Caroline as Co-Sponsor
Wagner, Connie as Co-Sponsor
Kean, Sean T. as Co-Sponsor
Girgenti, John A. as Co-Sponsor
Van Drew, Jeff as Co-Sponsor
Bateman, Christopher as Co-Sponsor
Turner, Shirley K. as Co-Sponsor
More Information:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
MADD Lambasts Brewery over New Jersey Themed Beer
Mothers Against Drunk Driving on Friday criticized a New Jersey Brewery of helping contribute to the drunk driving problem by offering New Jersey themed beer.
Flying Fish Brewery, based in Cherry Hill, NJ, is receiving flak from MADD because of a new line of beers that they recently announced. This line of beers, celebrating New Jersey, will be comprised of many different beers to be released periodically, each one named after an exit on the New Jersey Turnpike. The first brew released "Exit 4" is named after the exit closest to where Flying Fish calls home. Reports the Associated Press, "The next beer, Exit 11 Hoppy American Wheat Ale, is scheduled to start hitting bars and stores in the region on July 15. The intersection of styles is a tribute to Woodbridge's exit, where the Turnpike meets the Garden State Parkway."
However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is criticizing the brewery for encouraging drunk driving. Mindy Lazar, the executive director of MADD, New Jersey said "The combination of a roadway and advertising for any kind of a beer doesn't make any kind of sense," she continued. "This is almost a mockery."
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority also has responded over concerns that the organization may be seen as endorsing the beer. Flying Fish has since released a disclaimer that no endorsement is implied.
Responding to MADD's concerns, Brewery president Gene Mueller said this not at all true, "The one thing that both of us agree is drinking and driving is never an option," he said. He also commented that they were originally going to base the alcohol content off of the exit number of the beer, but quickly realized that once you get around exit 16 or 17 it would become "dangerous."
Does naming a beer after sentimental or historically significant exits off of a state highway really create any problems? Is it likely that someone will see this beer and feel more comfortable getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming too much of it? Not likely, at all. Rather, this seems to be more of an attack by MADD against alcohol in general.
Since the organization's founding in 1980, MADD has gone through a few eras of leadership. Candice Lightner was the woman who founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Originally called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) after her 13 year-old daughter was killed by a hit and run drunk driver who had four previous DUIs, including another hit and run just days earlier. Lightner started MADD to crack down on repeat offenders and provide support for families or friends of people who have met tragedy because of drunk driving accidents. However, just five years later (only one year after MADD lobbied for the 21 year-old drinking age) Lightner left MADD, becoming an outspoken critic accusing MADD of becoming "anti-alcohol". Lighnter said, after leaving MADD, that the organization "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
Is it possible that MADD has seriously over-reacted to the Flying Fish Brewery's beers, which are meant to celebrate unique history and culture of New Jersey? Most likely, MADD is using anything it can to lobby against alcohol and its enjoyment, whether it be responsible, irresponsible, over 21 or under 21.*
*An interesting fact: MADD does not consider responsible alcohol consumption to literally exist for anyone under the age of 21.
Flying Fish Brewery, based in Cherry Hill, NJ, is receiving flak from MADD because of a new line of beers that they recently announced. This line of beers, celebrating New Jersey, will be comprised of many different beers to be released periodically, each one named after an exit on the New Jersey Turnpike. The first brew released "Exit 4" is named after the exit closest to where Flying Fish calls home. Reports the Associated Press, "The next beer, Exit 11 Hoppy American Wheat Ale, is scheduled to start hitting bars and stores in the region on July 15. The intersection of styles is a tribute to Woodbridge's exit, where the Turnpike meets the Garden State Parkway."
However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is criticizing the brewery for encouraging drunk driving. Mindy Lazar, the executive director of MADD, New Jersey said "The combination of a roadway and advertising for any kind of a beer doesn't make any kind of sense," she continued. "This is almost a mockery."
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority also has responded over concerns that the organization may be seen as endorsing the beer. Flying Fish has since released a disclaimer that no endorsement is implied.
Responding to MADD's concerns, Brewery president Gene Mueller said this not at all true, "The one thing that both of us agree is drinking and driving is never an option," he said. He also commented that they were originally going to base the alcohol content off of the exit number of the beer, but quickly realized that once you get around exit 16 or 17 it would become "dangerous."
Does naming a beer after sentimental or historically significant exits off of a state highway really create any problems? Is it likely that someone will see this beer and feel more comfortable getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming too much of it? Not likely, at all. Rather, this seems to be more of an attack by MADD against alcohol in general.
Since the organization's founding in 1980, MADD has gone through a few eras of leadership. Candice Lightner was the woman who founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Originally called Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) after her 13 year-old daughter was killed by a hit and run drunk driver who had four previous DUIs, including another hit and run just days earlier. Lightner started MADD to crack down on repeat offenders and provide support for families or friends of people who have met tragedy because of drunk driving accidents. However, just five years later (only one year after MADD lobbied for the 21 year-old drinking age) Lightner left MADD, becoming an outspoken critic accusing MADD of becoming "anti-alcohol". Lighnter said, after leaving MADD, that the organization "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."
Is it possible that MADD has seriously over-reacted to the Flying Fish Brewery's beers, which are meant to celebrate unique history and culture of New Jersey? Most likely, MADD is using anything it can to lobby against alcohol and its enjoyment, whether it be responsible, irresponsible, over 21 or under 21.*
*An interesting fact: MADD does not consider responsible alcohol consumption to literally exist for anyone under the age of 21.
Sources and Reading:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/mothers_against_drunk_driving.html
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TURNPIKE_BEER?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
NJ Gubernatorial Election Update: Chris Daggett, Independent Candidate, Enters the Race
Today marks the announcement of the candidacy of Chris Daggett for Governor of New Jersey. Daggett today announced that he will be seeking office on an independent ticket, citing that over 50% of registered voters in New Jersey are registered as not affiliated to a political party, and that independent voters outnumber both Democrat and Republican voters by a large margin in the Garden State.
Daggett has just surpassed, by $10,000, the $340,000 raised funds mark to qualify for public election funding. This means that for every dollar that Daggett himself spends, the state will provide $3. Daggett will receive that funding as part of agreeing to some terms, including taking part in official debates.
Daggett believes that neither party has accurately reflected what New Jerseyans want in Trenton and that the political system is broken in its current partisanship.
Daggett has just surpassed, by $10,000, the $340,000 raised funds mark to qualify for public election funding. This means that for every dollar that Daggett himself spends, the state will provide $3. Daggett will receive that funding as part of agreeing to some terms, including taking part in official debates.
Daggett believes that neither party has accurately reflected what New Jerseyans want in Trenton and that the political system is broken in its current partisanship.
More information at Chris Daggett's website: http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/
Sources & Reading:
http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/nj_independent_candidate_for_g.html
Monday, July 6, 2009
Describing the Divide
"Gradually I began to understand how different a place Hamilton had become..."
- Barrett Seaman. Former Time Magazine editor, author of Binge and trustee of Hamilton College.
- Barrett Seaman. Former Time Magazine editor, author of Binge and trustee of Hamilton College.
Drinking has always been a part of college life. Indeed the mere fact that alcohol has been associated with the idea of rebelling is partly what has contributed to it being seen as the root of many problems. The truth is, that as residential colleges started to become more common in the US, problems started to arise. These problems, including violence, sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, destruction of property and other similar 'immature' decisions and behaviors started to become serious problems that campuses have to deal with. Because these young people were able to live some of their youth years away from parental - or really any - oversight, they naturally become, well, more rambunctious than they had been. Alcohol was as much a part of that as anything else, though it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to conclude that alcohol itself (with no distinction as to how its drunk) was the cause. More likely, excessive and abusive alcohol use (which may lead to some of those problems) became the norm on college campuses.
When discussing the problems that college campuses face now, especially in regards to alcohol, I sometimes forget that my college experience is very different than the college experience of many of those whom I'm speaking with, who may have gone to school 30 years ago. (A time when my alma mater was just being built!)
This was brought up to me at my recent lecture/discussion "Rethinking 21" in Lake Luzerne, NY by a friend/audience member, who reminded me that there may be a large discrepancy of how people define campus life and alcohol culture.
Barrett Seaman lays down an very accurate view of modern college life in his book Binge: What Your College Student Won't Tell You. He sums this up well by saying, after spending two weeks living in student housing at Hamilton, "My two-week stay made me realize how very different student life was compared to what I had experienced."
When I speak about the problems of youth alcohol abuse with people older than myself they often share stories about crazy drinking parties when they went to college, yet as Seaman also notes, those events rarely, if ever, led to emergency room visits, stomach pumping or death. Unfortunately, college campuses are too often visited by ambulances, and as a student leader for four years, helping to organize many campus events, the goal is to reduce the number of ambulance visits from the previous year. Off the record, staff and organizers will use the number of ambulance visits on campus during an event to measure an events success. Many larger schools see multiple ambulance visits as inevitable and often specifically reserve ambulances to standby on campus. That didn't used to happen.
Although drinking culture on college campuses has existed for decades, if not more, in the US, the problems facing young people are vastly different than before and require a serious re-examination of the state of our college campuses to fully understand the problems that exist. I'll end with a quote from my thesis, Breaking Taboo:
Further Reading
Binge, By Barret Seaman
When discussing the problems that college campuses face now, especially in regards to alcohol, I sometimes forget that my college experience is very different than the college experience of many of those whom I'm speaking with, who may have gone to school 30 years ago. (A time when my alma mater was just being built!)
This was brought up to me at my recent lecture/discussion "Rethinking 21" in Lake Luzerne, NY by a friend/audience member, who reminded me that there may be a large discrepancy of how people define campus life and alcohol culture.
Barrett Seaman lays down an very accurate view of modern college life in his book Binge: What Your College Student Won't Tell You. He sums this up well by saying, after spending two weeks living in student housing at Hamilton, "My two-week stay made me realize how very different student life was compared to what I had experienced."
When I speak about the problems of youth alcohol abuse with people older than myself they often share stories about crazy drinking parties when they went to college, yet as Seaman also notes, those events rarely, if ever, led to emergency room visits, stomach pumping or death. Unfortunately, college campuses are too often visited by ambulances, and as a student leader for four years, helping to organize many campus events, the goal is to reduce the number of ambulance visits from the previous year. Off the record, staff and organizers will use the number of ambulance visits on campus during an event to measure an events success. Many larger schools see multiple ambulance visits as inevitable and often specifically reserve ambulances to standby on campus. That didn't used to happen.
Although drinking culture on college campuses has existed for decades, if not more, in the US, the problems facing young people are vastly different than before and require a serious re-examination of the state of our college campuses to fully understand the problems that exist. I'll end with a quote from my thesis, Breaking Taboo:
Some studies may correlate – sometimes very loosely - certain behaviors, but until you’ve been on the wrong end of the drinking age, and are leaving a party of high school students and have actually watched groups of intoxicated kids pull out their cell phones as they drunkenly climb into their cars trying to find the next party so they can drink more, you are missing a critical perspective regarding the drinking age.
Further Reading
Binge, By Barret Seaman
Sarah Palin's Resignation as Governor of Alaska
On Friday, Sarah Palin shocked quite a few people by formally resigning from her position as Governor of Alaska. Citing personal reasons, Palin gave up her position in a similar fashion to her resignation from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) in 2004. When Palin resigned from AOGCC in 2004, the move helped launch her into a larger political spotlight.
Although Palin ran on a populist platform for Governor, and held extremely high approval ratings (generally in the 80s) for the beginning of her tenure as Governor, her popularity took a nosedive after her VP candidacy in the 2008 Presidential election. Democrats accused her of no longer working with them, and Republicans felt as alienated as well. Palin's approval ratings after the '08 election dropped into the 50s and never fully recovered.
The best take on why Palin may have done this is from TIME:
1) This resignation is a mirror of her move in 2004 with AOGCC
2) She no longer has bi-partisan support
3) She has introduced almost no bills, and only one made it to becoming law
4) Her national publicity has waned since the election, and this is to remind America of Sarah Palin
5) The enormous cost of defending herself against ethics violations is not worth being in office for.
Follow up below to read TIME's full article.
Although Palin ran on a populist platform for Governor, and held extremely high approval ratings (generally in the 80s) for the beginning of her tenure as Governor, her popularity took a nosedive after her VP candidacy in the 2008 Presidential election. Democrats accused her of no longer working with them, and Republicans felt as alienated as well. Palin's approval ratings after the '08 election dropped into the 50s and never fully recovered.
The best take on why Palin may have done this is from TIME:
1) This resignation is a mirror of her move in 2004 with AOGCC
2) She no longer has bi-partisan support
3) She has introduced almost no bills, and only one made it to becoming law
4) Her national publicity has waned since the election, and this is to remind America of Sarah Palin
5) The enormous cost of defending herself against ethics violations is not worth being in office for.
Follow up below to read TIME's full article.
Sources & Reading
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800-2,00.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/07/06/republicans-perplexed-by-palins-resignation.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/06/1987086.aspx
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Re-evaluating the drinking age @ WhiteHouse2.org
WhiteHouse2.org is....
Head on over to the WhiteHouse2.org site to endorse asking President Obama to re-evaluate the 21 year-old drinking age.
Hollywood has the box office charts, television has the Nielsen's, college basketball has the ESPN/USA Today poll. Why don't we track our nation's priorities as closely?
White House 2 lets you set your own priorities for the United States. You'll get your own page, which you can send to friends and colleagues urging them to sign on to support your priorities.
The more people you encourage to endorse your priorities, the higher those priorities will rise on the site. And the more people who join the network, the more clout we will have with the President and the media to make our agenda happen.
(Source: Whitehouse2.org)
Head on over to the WhiteHouse2.org site to endorse asking President Obama to re-evaluate the 21 year-old drinking age.
Personal Democracy Forum 2009 Recap
Personal Democracy Forum (http://personaldemocracy.com) Wow. Instead of describing each session, as there are plenty of great summaries (search Twitter for #pdf09) I just wanted to note some thoughts:
Nate Silver brought up an interesting point in regards to the tea parties. Though he wasn't endorsing the content of those events, he certainly was impressed, and rightly so, at conservative organizing. He pointed out how it is in general more difficult for republicans to organize the way democrats do because they tend to live in rural areas - an interesting point that I hadn't thought about.
Blair Levin talked a bunch about how the FCC is changing to provide more access and accountability.
Vivek Kundra, the US Chief Information Officer presented the new federal IT Dashboard - a way to get information about money, investments, projects, budgets, contracts out to the American people. Really breakthrough concept & design - it.usaspending.gov.
Alex Ross, from the US State Dept., commenting on political organizing, said how drastic this culture is changing. No longer do you necessarily need a charismatic person who looks great on camera, etc. When organizing via Facebook or twitter, none of that really matters. This is interesting, as it is similar to much of what was talked about that seems as though technology is flattening the playing field of politics and political organizing.
The New York Senate Chief Information Officer presented the re-design of nysenate.gov, which is based on free, open-source software. This is a huge step, and hopefully an example for other state legislatures.
Overall, technology is going to be changing politics in ways that even now we literally can't imagine. So much happens so fast, and we are at the base of an exponential curve of improvement in tech. Looking even just at the role that Twitter has played recently in Iran, one must wonder what new platforms and technologies will be develop, even in the next few years, and how those new developments will impact government, politics and democracy.
Here is a list of the sessions/people I saw speak:
Opening Welcome, Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry
Did Obama Revolutionize Campaigning? A Conversation with Joe Rospars (Obama '08) and Mark McKinnon (McCain '08)
Keynote speech on how technology is improving government by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Reality Check: The Internet's Impact on Politics: A Conversation With Nate Silver, Fivethirtyeight.com
Powering the Youth Vote. Maria-Teresa Kumar of VotoLatino; Greg Miller of the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation; and Mike Connery of Future Majority
Mobile Politicking: From Text-Messaging Basics to Campaign iPhone Apps: Scott Goodstein, CEO - Revolution Messaging, LLC and External Online Director for Obama for America; Becky Bond, Political Director at CREDO Mobile and Working Assets; Nicola Wells, Organizer for FIRM, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement; Beka Economopoulos, Fission Strategy
PoliTech Demos: Tristan Harris of Apture, Stan Magniant of Linkfluence, Abby Kirigin of TipJoy
The Obama Broadband Initiative and the Future of the Internet: Opening Remarks by Blair Levin, FCC; Discussion with Josh Silver, Founder of Free Media; James Assey, Executive Vice President of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association; Hank Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T Andrew Rasiej (moderator)
Innovation in Government, Obama-Style: Conversations With and Vivek Kundra, US Chief Information Officer; and Macon Phillips, White House New Media Drirector; introduced by Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist
Chairman Steele said, “Take the lid off”: The New GOP Web Presence, Todd Herman, new media director for the Republican National Committee
Social Networks and Social Revolutions, Randi Zuckerberg, marketing director at Facebook
21st Century Statecraft: Fostering Citizen-Centered Diplomacy and Development, Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture and the Politics of Authenticity, Michael Wesch, Professor at Kansas State University
The Dangerous Power of Sharing (Power), Mark Pesce, Inventer, writer
Mapping the Networked Public Sphere: How Blogs, Mainstream Media and Official Sources Interact: Ken Deutsch, Director of Strategic Services and Partnerships at Morningside Analytics; Stan Magniant, Vice President & General Manager of Linkfluence Vincent Ducrey, French Government new media director; Michael Cornfield, Vice President for Research and Media Strategy at 720 Strategies
PoliTech Demos: Andrew Hoppin, the CIO of NYSenate.gov, David Moore of OpenCongress, Benjamin Stein of MobileCommons and Tristan Harris of Apture
Final Plenary: Can We.gov? How? A Conversation With Rep. Steve Israel, (D-NY) Jack Dorsey, Creator, Chairman and co-founder of Twitter, Ellen Miller, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation and Joe Trippi, Democratic Campaign Strategist.
Nate Silver brought up an interesting point in regards to the tea parties. Though he wasn't endorsing the content of those events, he certainly was impressed, and rightly so, at conservative organizing. He pointed out how it is in general more difficult for republicans to organize the way democrats do because they tend to live in rural areas - an interesting point that I hadn't thought about.
Blair Levin talked a bunch about how the FCC is changing to provide more access and accountability.
Vivek Kundra, the US Chief Information Officer presented the new federal IT Dashboard - a way to get information about money, investments, projects, budgets, contracts out to the American people. Really breakthrough concept & design - it.usaspending.gov.
Alex Ross, from the US State Dept., commenting on political organizing, said how drastic this culture is changing. No longer do you necessarily need a charismatic person who looks great on camera, etc. When organizing via Facebook or twitter, none of that really matters. This is interesting, as it is similar to much of what was talked about that seems as though technology is flattening the playing field of politics and political organizing.
The New York Senate Chief Information Officer presented the re-design of nysenate.gov, which is based on free, open-source software. This is a huge step, and hopefully an example for other state legislatures.
Overall, technology is going to be changing politics in ways that even now we literally can't imagine. So much happens so fast, and we are at the base of an exponential curve of improvement in tech. Looking even just at the role that Twitter has played recently in Iran, one must wonder what new platforms and technologies will be develop, even in the next few years, and how those new developments will impact government, politics and democracy.
Here is a list of the sessions/people I saw speak:
Opening Welcome, Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry
Did Obama Revolutionize Campaigning? A Conversation with Joe Rospars (Obama '08) and Mark McKinnon (McCain '08)
Keynote speech on how technology is improving government by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Reality Check: The Internet's Impact on Politics: A Conversation With Nate Silver, Fivethirtyeight.com
Powering the Youth Vote. Maria-Teresa Kumar of VotoLatino; Greg Miller of the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation; and Mike Connery of Future Majority
Mobile Politicking: From Text-Messaging Basics to Campaign iPhone Apps: Scott Goodstein, CEO - Revolution Messaging, LLC and External Online Director for Obama for America; Becky Bond, Political Director at CREDO Mobile and Working Assets; Nicola Wells, Organizer for FIRM, the Fair Immigration Reform Movement; Beka Economopoulos, Fission Strategy
PoliTech Demos: Tristan Harris of Apture, Stan Magniant of Linkfluence, Abby Kirigin of TipJoy
The Obama Broadband Initiative and the Future of the Internet: Opening Remarks by Blair Levin, FCC; Discussion with Josh Silver, Founder of Free Media; James Assey, Executive Vice President of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association; Hank Hultquist, Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T Andrew Rasiej (moderator)
Innovation in Government, Obama-Style: Conversations With and Vivek Kundra, US Chief Information Officer; and Macon Phillips, White House New Media Drirector; introduced by Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist
Chairman Steele said, “Take the lid off”: The New GOP Web Presence, Todd Herman, new media director for the Republican National Committee
Social Networks and Social Revolutions, Randi Zuckerberg, marketing director at Facebook
21st Century Statecraft: Fostering Citizen-Centered Diplomacy and Development, Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture and the Politics of Authenticity, Michael Wesch, Professor at Kansas State University
The Dangerous Power of Sharing (Power), Mark Pesce, Inventer, writer
Mapping the Networked Public Sphere: How Blogs, Mainstream Media and Official Sources Interact: Ken Deutsch, Director of Strategic Services and Partnerships at Morningside Analytics; Stan Magniant, Vice President & General Manager of Linkfluence Vincent Ducrey, French Government new media director; Michael Cornfield, Vice President for Research and Media Strategy at 720 Strategies
PoliTech Demos: Andrew Hoppin, the CIO of NYSenate.gov, David Moore of OpenCongress, Benjamin Stein of MobileCommons and Tristan Harris of Apture
Final Plenary: Can We.gov? How? A Conversation With Rep. Steve Israel, (D-NY) Jack Dorsey, Creator, Chairman and co-founder of Twitter, Ellen Miller, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Sunlight Foundation and Joe Trippi, Democratic Campaign Strategist.
Friday, June 26, 2009
NJ Gubernatorial Election Update: Corzine Restores Property Tax Rebates
New Jersey's tax amnesty program - a 45-day time period where New Jersey taxpayers could repay back owed taxes without penalty and only pay half of the interest - was originally expected to generate approximately $100 million that the state could use to help this year's budget. They were wrong.
The tax amnesty program has generated over $625 million (as of the 20th, with many envelopes still not counted) in revenue for the state. This unexpected massive generation of funds has been put to good use - direct relief for taxpayers.
Governor Corzine, who previously was not planning on distributing property tax rebates because of the state's financial situation (except for seniors and the disabled), now has said that all homeowners who make under $75,000 a year, senior citizens and disabled residents will receive a rebate, and homeowners who make up to $250,000 will be be able to apply for a rebate.
The number one issue in this election is taxes. And surprisingly, Republican candidate Chris Christie, who has blamed the current economic downturn on Corzine and been extremely critical of his tax policy (among others). And now, only a few months before the election Corzine will sign tens of thousands property tax rebate checks off to New Jersey residents. Although campaign spending has been fairly equal in the early part of the election, Christie is going to have to do a lot of work and advertising to not loose at least a few points in the polls because of this. Perhaps he'll even create a tax plan of his own.
The tax amnesty program has generated over $625 million (as of the 20th, with many envelopes still not counted) in revenue for the state. This unexpected massive generation of funds has been put to good use - direct relief for taxpayers.
Governor Corzine, who previously was not planning on distributing property tax rebates because of the state's financial situation (except for seniors and the disabled), now has said that all homeowners who make under $75,000 a year, senior citizens and disabled residents will receive a rebate, and homeowners who make up to $250,000 will be be able to apply for a rebate.
The number one issue in this election is taxes. And surprisingly, Republican candidate Chris Christie, who has blamed the current economic downturn on Corzine and been extremely critical of his tax policy (among others). And now, only a few months before the election Corzine will sign tens of thousands property tax rebate checks off to New Jersey residents. Although campaign spending has been fairly equal in the early part of the election, Christie is going to have to do a lot of work and advertising to not loose at least a few points in the polls because of this. Perhaps he'll even create a tax plan of his own.
Sources & Reading
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/gov_corzine_christie_spend_sim.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/gov_corzine_says_tax_amnesty_w.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/top_nj_democrats_hope_to_resto.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/nyregion/19njbudget.html?ref=nyregion
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=ACBJ&date=20090622&id=10043310
Thursday, June 25, 2009
NJ Gubernatorial Election Update: Barack Obama Fully Endorses Jon Corzine
Earlier this month Vice President Joe Biden joined Jon Corzine in West Orange to kick-off Corzine's 2009 campaign. On stage together, both men talked much of working together and using a positive and friendly relationship that exists between Governor Corzine and the White House. However, some skeptics pointed to the fact that Obama did not himself attend that the White House was not in full support of Corzine's re-election. Although the Vice President made it quite clear that the White House was willing, excited and had already worked with Corzine, President Obama has now made his first public statement regarding the election.
President Obama recently said, "I don't think it's surprising that he may have a significant challenge because that's, first of all, the nature of New Jersey politics," Continuing Obama remarked, "And, secondly, because a huge chunk of New Jersey's economy was tied to Wall Street and, obviously, you've seen a huge hit in terms of the financial sector of the economy, which has an impact across the board on revenue, state revenues, unemployment rates, so forth." Although admitting the challenge that lies ahead for Corzine, Obama made it clear he is confident in Corzine, commenting, "I think very highly of Jon Corzine. I think he's a terrific public servant..." He continued, "I'm confident that he can win re-election."
With the White House fully and publicly supporting Corzine, it will be interesting to see how and if New Jersey voters respond. Recent polls show Corzine trailing by up to 10%, but Obama, who enjoys a 70% approval rating in New Jersey, may be able to help convince New Jersey that Corzine is the right man for the job. Additionally, the idea that our Governor now will be able to work with the White House, a stark contrast to the past administration, is a bright prospect for New Jersey to continue to the lead the country in creating effective and socially responsible policy.
President Obama recently said, "I don't think it's surprising that he may have a significant challenge because that's, first of all, the nature of New Jersey politics," Continuing Obama remarked, "And, secondly, because a huge chunk of New Jersey's economy was tied to Wall Street and, obviously, you've seen a huge hit in terms of the financial sector of the economy, which has an impact across the board on revenue, state revenues, unemployment rates, so forth." Although admitting the challenge that lies ahead for Corzine, Obama made it clear he is confident in Corzine, commenting, "I think very highly of Jon Corzine. I think he's a terrific public servant..." He continued, "I'm confident that he can win re-election."
With the White House fully and publicly supporting Corzine, it will be interesting to see how and if New Jersey voters respond. Recent polls show Corzine trailing by up to 10%, but Obama, who enjoys a 70% approval rating in New Jersey, may be able to help convince New Jersey that Corzine is the right man for the job. Additionally, the idea that our Governor now will be able to work with the White House, a stark contrast to the past administration, is a bright prospect for New Jersey to continue to the lead the country in creating effective and socially responsible policy.
Sources & Reading
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/president_barack_obama_says_he.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/25/1977107.aspx
Friday, June 19, 2009
NJ Gubernatorial Election Update: Christie's Attacks on Corzine's Management of Economy Off-Base
Lately, Republic gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie has been lambasting current Governor Jon Corzine's leadership of the economy, using the high levels of unemployment as "proof" Corzine has failed New Jersey. Not so, says recently released numbers from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Christie claims that it is Corzine's mismanagement of New Jersey's finances that have led to the current unemployment rate. However, one need only glance at the news any day to know that nationally, indeed globally, unemployment is reaching double digits in places that haven't seen such numbers in decades.
When it comes to New Jersey, which has a current unemployment rate of 8.8%, the Great State falls below the national average, which is at around 10%. Additionally, New Jersey is faring better than most states in terms of its current budget deficit and percentage change of foreclosures compared to years past. Corzine repeated this message at the Employer Legislative Committee Dinner on Tuesday saying, "Facts are stubborn things."
Yes, we can all agree the economy is not in a great place, but this is a world-wide issue, not solely a New Jersey issue. The fact that Christie, along with a few other New Jersey Republicans, actually wanted to refuse about 17.5 billion dollars in federal stimulus money does not inspire confidence that they posses the skills and commitment to see our state through recovery.
In terms of looking forward, and how best to help New Jersey climb out of this economic downturn, Jon Corzine is unarguably a financial expert. New Jersey is beginning shovel-ready projects, and putting New Jersey residents to work in building for our state. Would these same projects be happening under a different governor? Perhaps. It's hard to tell exactly what is Corzine's unique ability, and it is easy for Christie to be critical from the sidelines. Joe Biden said it best, however. At Corzine's campaign kickoff earlier this month Biden said, "Do you know who I called first when Barack and I sat down to write the US economic recovery package? I called Jon Corzine."
Considering Christie's lack of enthusiasm for literally taking money from the federal government, I don't believe he will be able to forge a successful relationship with the White House, which could potentially have large implications for our financial situation. But with a federal administration that has a better understanding of economic policy than our most recent past administration, I do enjoy the commitment between our Democratic governor and Democratic federal administration who have promised, and have already been shown, to work together to help not only New Jersey, but set the pace for the US to recover as well.
Sources & Reading:
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30647/christie-and-corzine-give-dueling-speeches
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm
http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13107814
Christie claims that it is Corzine's mismanagement of New Jersey's finances that have led to the current unemployment rate. However, one need only glance at the news any day to know that nationally, indeed globally, unemployment is reaching double digits in places that haven't seen such numbers in decades.
When it comes to New Jersey, which has a current unemployment rate of 8.8%, the Great State falls below the national average, which is at around 10%. Additionally, New Jersey is faring better than most states in terms of its current budget deficit and percentage change of foreclosures compared to years past. Corzine repeated this message at the Employer Legislative Committee Dinner on Tuesday saying, "Facts are stubborn things."
Yes, we can all agree the economy is not in a great place, but this is a world-wide issue, not solely a New Jersey issue. The fact that Christie, along with a few other New Jersey Republicans, actually wanted to refuse about 17.5 billion dollars in federal stimulus money does not inspire confidence that they posses the skills and commitment to see our state through recovery.
In terms of looking forward, and how best to help New Jersey climb out of this economic downturn, Jon Corzine is unarguably a financial expert. New Jersey is beginning shovel-ready projects, and putting New Jersey residents to work in building for our state. Would these same projects be happening under a different governor? Perhaps. It's hard to tell exactly what is Corzine's unique ability, and it is easy for Christie to be critical from the sidelines. Joe Biden said it best, however. At Corzine's campaign kickoff earlier this month Biden said, "Do you know who I called first when Barack and I sat down to write the US economic recovery package? I called Jon Corzine."
Considering Christie's lack of enthusiasm for literally taking money from the federal government, I don't believe he will be able to forge a successful relationship with the White House, which could potentially have large implications for our financial situation. But with a federal administration that has a better understanding of economic policy than our most recent past administration, I do enjoy the commitment between our Democratic governor and Democratic federal administration who have promised, and have already been shown, to work together to help not only New Jersey, but set the pace for the US to recover as well.
Sources & Reading:
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30647/christie-and-corzine-give-dueling-speeches
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/gapmap/index.htm
http://realestate.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13107814
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Problem Is Getting Worse
When talking about the problems associated with youth alcohol abuse, many consider the problem getting worse, which may in fact point the current philosophies and policies being fundamentally misguided.
Today, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Part of the National Institute of Health) released a study which describes the increasingly severe problem of youth alcohol abuse. Some quick stats:
Number of alcohol-related accidental deaths
1998: 1,440
2005: 1.825
Percentage of 18-24 year-olds who report drinking and driving
1998: 26.5
2005: 29
Percentage of 18-24 year-olds engaging in heavy and episodic drinking practices
1998: 42
2005: 45
Each of these statistics independently would be more than cause for alarm. However, all three? Not to mention the countless more statistics that have recently been reported: The number of drunk driving incidents is on the rise, the age that people start drinking is getting younger, and the ratio of excessive drinking practices to responsible drinking practices is increasing.
Is the drinking age effective? Maybe our more basic, underlying assumptions were false to begin with. Looking at how best to reduce the problems and harm associated with heavy drinking by people at all ages, and especially young people, requires more than "How can we enforce the drinking age better?" To really provide effective policy, we need to ask "Is the 21 year-old drinking age based on true and effective policy foundations?" We need rethink our initial assumption - we need to "rethink 21."
Study:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/joso-cdp061009.php
Edit: Additional Article:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/16/alcohol
Today, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Part of the National Institute of Health) released a study which describes the increasingly severe problem of youth alcohol abuse. Some quick stats:
Number of alcohol-related accidental deaths
1998: 1,440
2005: 1.825
Percentage of 18-24 year-olds who report drinking and driving
1998: 26.5
2005: 29
Percentage of 18-24 year-olds engaging in heavy and episodic drinking practices
1998: 42
2005: 45
Each of these statistics independently would be more than cause for alarm. However, all three? Not to mention the countless more statistics that have recently been reported: The number of drunk driving incidents is on the rise, the age that people start drinking is getting younger, and the ratio of excessive drinking practices to responsible drinking practices is increasing.
Is the drinking age effective? Maybe our more basic, underlying assumptions were false to begin with. Looking at how best to reduce the problems and harm associated with heavy drinking by people at all ages, and especially young people, requires more than "How can we enforce the drinking age better?" To really provide effective policy, we need to ask "Is the 21 year-old drinking age based on true and effective policy foundations?" We need rethink our initial assumption - we need to "rethink 21."
Study:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/joso-cdp061009.php
Edit: Additional Article:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/16/alcohol
Saturday, June 13, 2009
NJ Gubernatorial Election Update: How conservative is Chris Christie? And how conservative is New Jersey?
Post-primary election activity is heating up and democrats have ratcheted up their criticism of Republican opponent Chris Christie. And Chris Christie is doing nothing to avoid it.
On the evening of June 11th, gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (who was appointed by George W. Bush) held a fundraiser, featuring, as the main headliner, former presidential candidate Mit Romney. In a state where Democratic president Barack Obama has a 70% approval rating - a full 10% over the national average - one must wonder why Christie, so soon, would align himself with such a conservative figure.
Romney's social policies are truly conservative, and not particularly in line with how more progressive New Jerseyan's tend to feel about social issues. A day after Christie's fundraiser, US Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-Cliffside park) said, according Politcker NJ, "Chris Christie is kicking off his (general election) campaign with a conservative Republican whose extreme right-wing positions couldn't be more out of touch with New Jersey residents." Two days earlier, U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-Hoboken) and U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-Paterson) made similar comments, noting that Christie is far too conservative and is aligning himself with national conservative figures who are often seen as far more right-wing than New Jersey is.
Is Chris Christie purposefully aligning himself with national, though well-known, political figures hoping for what comedy political commentator Stephen Colbert refers to (when he is the endorser) as the "Colbert Bump," or is Chris Christie genuinely too conservative for New Jersey? Although democratic incumbent Jon Corzine has not been advertising for as long as Christie, the Republican is up by 10 points in recent polls. This suggests that the only way we will answer who is the right person for New Jersey is on November 4th. However, as new developments occur, and new poll numbers are released, it will be interesting to see how effective each candidate's advertising campaign is in reaching New Jersey voters that certainly aren't conservative but, on the other hand, frustrated with the financial situation the state is in.
Sources & Reading
http://www.politickernj.com/max/30575/lautenberg-throws-christie-and-romney-bush-bundle
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30506/mendnez-and-pascrell-paint-christie-red
On the evening of June 11th, gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (who was appointed by George W. Bush) held a fundraiser, featuring, as the main headliner, former presidential candidate Mit Romney. In a state where Democratic president Barack Obama has a 70% approval rating - a full 10% over the national average - one must wonder why Christie, so soon, would align himself with such a conservative figure.
Romney's social policies are truly conservative, and not particularly in line with how more progressive New Jerseyan's tend to feel about social issues. A day after Christie's fundraiser, US Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-Cliffside park) said, according Politcker NJ, "Chris Christie is kicking off his (general election) campaign with a conservative Republican whose extreme right-wing positions couldn't be more out of touch with New Jersey residents." Two days earlier, U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-Hoboken) and U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-Paterson) made similar comments, noting that Christie is far too conservative and is aligning himself with national conservative figures who are often seen as far more right-wing than New Jersey is.
Is Chris Christie purposefully aligning himself with national, though well-known, political figures hoping for what comedy political commentator Stephen Colbert refers to (when he is the endorser) as the "Colbert Bump," or is Chris Christie genuinely too conservative for New Jersey? Although democratic incumbent Jon Corzine has not been advertising for as long as Christie, the Republican is up by 10 points in recent polls. This suggests that the only way we will answer who is the right person for New Jersey is on November 4th. However, as new developments occur, and new poll numbers are released, it will be interesting to see how effective each candidate's advertising campaign is in reaching New Jersey voters that certainly aren't conservative but, on the other hand, frustrated with the financial situation the state is in.
Sources & Reading
http://www.politickernj.com/max/30575/lautenberg-throws-christie-and-romney-bush-bundle
http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/30506/mendnez-and-pascrell-paint-christie-red
New Jersey Close to Adopting Medical Amnesty
On May 21, 2009, the New Jersey Assembly unanimously passed a bill that would grant a degree of legal immunity to persons under the age of 21 who have been consuming alcohol and call emergency services for medical assistance. A noble step forward in working to reduce the damage the 21 year-old drinking causes, especially for Americans under the age of 21.
Studies consistently show that young people are dissuaded from contacting authorities in a medical emergency if alcohol has been present and the people involved are not of legal age (Lewis and Marchell 2006). On college campuses, especially, this creates a dangerous situation where thousands of serious medical emergencies go un-reported as young people try to deal with the problem without any help from authorities. Oftentimes students will try to "sleep off" heavy intoxication instead of getting help, a circumstance that usually ends in the person slipping into a coma in their sleep or asphyxiating on their own vomit overnight. Because of the amount drinking that takes place among American youth (the amount of excessive drinking practices has risen steadily since the drinking age was instituted in 1984), and the, as it turns out, logical shunning of authority when an emergency exists, there are approximately 1,700 deaths per among college-aged students related to alcohol each year (NIAAA, Hingson et al, 2005). These deaths are almost entirely preventable.
Some campuses have been realizing that these deaths are preventable, and that the cause is a culture and legal system that disincentives young people from seeking help. Medical Amnesty policies (also referred to as good Samaritan or non-retaliation agreements) have been adopted at many campuses around the country including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, Tulane, UPenn, Smith and my recent Alma Mater, Hampshire College. These policies have one goal: Ensuring that no matter the circumstances, students will always reach out for help when they need it.
New Jersey has grappled with recent deaths on some of its own college campuses related to alcohol, and, as of now, the General Assembly has taken a proactive and effective step at limiting the harm from the underground culture that has been created from the drinking age.
Medical Amnesty policies, are, however, not the final solution. To entirely eliminate the underground, clandestine, dangerous and irresponsible drinking that takes place across the country we, as both a state and a nation, need to rethink some of our most basic pre-conceptions about alcohol regulation. That is a challenging task, and it is heartening to know that New Jersey legislators realize this and are taking steps right now to protect and keep safe the state's young people.
Studies consistently show that young people are dissuaded from contacting authorities in a medical emergency if alcohol has been present and the people involved are not of legal age (Lewis and Marchell 2006). On college campuses, especially, this creates a dangerous situation where thousands of serious medical emergencies go un-reported as young people try to deal with the problem without any help from authorities. Oftentimes students will try to "sleep off" heavy intoxication instead of getting help, a circumstance that usually ends in the person slipping into a coma in their sleep or asphyxiating on their own vomit overnight. Because of the amount drinking that takes place among American youth (the amount of excessive drinking practices has risen steadily since the drinking age was instituted in 1984), and the, as it turns out, logical shunning of authority when an emergency exists, there are approximately 1,700 deaths per among college-aged students related to alcohol each year (NIAAA, Hingson et al, 2005). These deaths are almost entirely preventable.
Some campuses have been realizing that these deaths are preventable, and that the cause is a culture and legal system that disincentives young people from seeking help. Medical Amnesty policies (also referred to as good Samaritan or non-retaliation agreements) have been adopted at many campuses around the country including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, Tulane, UPenn, Smith and my recent Alma Mater, Hampshire College. These policies have one goal: Ensuring that no matter the circumstances, students will always reach out for help when they need it.
New Jersey has grappled with recent deaths on some of its own college campuses related to alcohol, and, as of now, the General Assembly has taken a proactive and effective step at limiting the harm from the underground culture that has been created from the drinking age.
Medical Amnesty policies, are, however, not the final solution. To entirely eliminate the underground, clandestine, dangerous and irresponsible drinking that takes place across the country we, as both a state and a nation, need to rethink some of our most basic pre-conceptions about alcohol regulation. That is a challenging task, and it is heartening to know that New Jersey legislators realize this and are taking steps right now to protect and keep safe the state's young people.
The Bill:
A3160. Currently in second reading and awaiting approval from the Senate.
Sources:
- Lewis, Deborah K., Marchell Timothy C. 2006. Safety first: A medical
amnesty approach to alcohol poisoning at a U.S. university.
International journal of drug policy.
- Hingson, R. et al. Magnitude of Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity Among U.S. College Students Ages 18-24: Changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 26, 259-79; 2005
Further Reading:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp
http://www.politickernj.com/mysak/29968/angelini-911-legislation-receives-general-assembly-approval
http://www.gannett.cornell.edu/downloads/campusIniatives/AOD/Safety1stcornellMedamnesty.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)