December 29, 2004
-
topic: out with the old, in with the new
I went in to DC today to end my internship at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, with the American Democracy Project, and ended up beginning a new internship with the same organization (AASCU), but working in a different department, government relations and policy analysis. I’m keeping my emotions in a state of tao, I was prepared to come in today, say thanks, and that was that, and now I will give it another go, another 30-day test-drive, with the same attitutde that this could be fun or not fun, but, I’ll take from it whatever I can.
I am a bit more optimistic. The department I work with works with more tangible things than I was doing before. For example, they lobby on Capital Hill for things such as financial aid and Pell Grants, and I must say, hearing the words Capital Hill has a sexy ring to it, and despite the fact I’ve never been inclined to do anything political in my life, my growing interest in many things politics should make this a good experience. I’ve just been given a bunch of things to read through regarding state issues. The dept. does a monthly briefing called “policy matters,” and this month will be highlighting the major issues that will face state legislatures, both issues that directly effect higher ed., and those that indirectly effect higher ed., such as Medicaid, which is taking a larger and larger chunk of state funds. The backdrop of this briefing (and I must say I got a lot of info in about 20min.), is that while the economy has recovered a bit, there’s more hands and tin cups out there looking for some of those revenues. What I initially like about this new project is the clear interweaving of subjects, politics, economics, and education. It’s going to force me to learn about things I previously wasn’t very interested in, and should hopefully build more of a foundation to my understanding of how things work (it’s funny, in college there’s a physics class we call baby physics, titled how things work. But I still probably couldn’t tell you how a lightbulb works).
In other news, today is day #3 of training at ESPN Zone. Being a waiter is a highly engaging fast-paced job, which I do enjoy. The prospect of making good tips is also promising. But man-o-man, do my feet hurt…hopefully the shoes will be broken in soon enough. Much respect to those who grind it out in those grind-it-out type jobs everyday.
Comments (5)
i’m such a dick. I’ve been a DC for about 24 hours and I totally forgot to call you to meet! I’m such a bitch, I apologize. I think I’m leaving tomorrow, but if you’re around, let me know!
Good luck with the new internship.
That sounds really interesting what you’re going to be doing – I hope you tell about it in detail.
I did not say a successful culture entailed the ability to conquer another, I said a key ingredient in one was that it continued to survive. I think that’s a pretty big difference. The Nazi Jew analogy is an unacceptable stretch, and not just because I don’t really consider Nazism a culture. Jews were a minority in that one country before they were rounded up and executed, again in just one country, as a political ploy. Yet apart from this, around the world, Judiasm thrived. Contrast this to the case of the Native Americans, who were the only people who inhabited the Americas for hundreds of generations. The Europeans come, and within 3 or 4 generations, you have to buy a reservation pass to see them. There is really no comparison.
My refusal to participate in schemes involving stealing from the rich to give to the poor should not be confused with not wanting to help the poor. The question is the difference between short-term help and long-term help. For example, consider the question of the fastest way to help everyone in the country that can’t afford drugs. It would be to cancel patent rights on all drugs. Almost instantly, the cost of all drugs would fall to only a few cents, because it only costs a few cents, if that, to make actual pills. All the real costs are in the research that goes into it. However, the result of such a policy in hte long term would be disastrous. No new drugs would ever be developed. Who is going to spend the $800 million to develop a drug and get practically nothing on return on investment? Such problems occur whenever you punish the rich in the “noble” name of giving to the poor.
Witness the tragedy that was the War on Poverty. Between 1965 and 1995, we spent $3.5 trillion (in 1995 money), and what did we get for our efforts to “battle poverty” in a relatively good economy? An even higher percentage of poverty. When it (finally!) came time to reform the system, nearly without exception the reaction of liberals was “no, we must try harder. The problem is that we haven’t done enough taxing and spending.” Well we’ve seen where “try harder” leads. First to the 10% unemployment rates rampant across Europe, and then to the gulag. Instead, we reformed the system to make it much more dependant on work incentives. In spite of the cries of “genocide!” by the left, the rate of poverty fell, and despite their previous hysterics, today even the NYTimes praises the reform.
Dunno what’s wrong with my comments sometimes:
I did not say a successful culture entailed the ability to conquer another, I said a key ingredient in one was that it continued to survive. I think that’s a pretty big difference. The Nazi Jew analogy is an unacceptable stretch, and not just because I don’t really consider Nazism a culture. Jews were a minority in that one country before they were rounded up and executed, again in just one country, as a political ploy. Yet apart from this, around the world, Judiasm thrived. Contrast this to the case of the Native Americans, who were the only people who inhabited the Americas for hundreds of generations. The Europeans come, and within 3 or 4 generations, you have to buy a reservation pass to see them. There is really no comparison.
Also, regarding what we can learn from other countries, I think we can learn plenty. What we could learn could fill encyclopedias entitled “What NOT to do.” Just kidding (soft of). We could learn from the efficency and excellence of Israel’s intelligence agency, to my knowlege the only one with even the faintest knowlege that Iraq did not have WMDs. We could learn from Hong Kong’s pre-2000 market, which was more productive than every country in Asia save Japan and South Korea, consistently held a 2% unemployment rate, had great medical and education services, and was not even the size of NYC. We could definitely afford to learn something about nation-building, although from whom, along with if it’s even possible, I’m not quite sure.
My refusal to participate in schemes involving stealing from the rich to give to the poor should not be confused with not wanting to help the poor. The question is the difference between short-term help and long-term help. For example, consider the question of the fastest way to help everyone in the country that can’t afford drugs. It would be to cancel patent rights on all drugs. Almost instantly, the cost of all drugs would fall to only a few cents, because it only costs a few cents, if that, to make actual pills. All the real costs are in the research that goes into it. However, the result of such a policy in hte long term would be disastrous. No new drugs would ever be developed. Who is going to spend the $800 million to develop a drug and get practically nothing on return on investment? Such problems occur whenever you punish the rich in the “noble” name of giving to the poor.
Witness the tragedy that was the War on Poverty. Between 1965 and 1995, we spent $3.5 trillion (in 1995 money), and what did we get for our efforts to “battle poverty” in a relatively good economy? An even higher percentage of poverty. When it (finally!) came time to reform the system, nearly without exception the reaction of liberals was “no, we must try harder. The problem is that we haven’t done enough taxing and spending.” Well we’ve seen where “try harder” leads. First to the 10% unemployment rates rampant across Europe, and then to the gulag. Instead, we reformed the system to make it much more dependant on work incentives. In spite of the cries of “genocide!” by the left, the rate of poverty fell, and despite their previous hysterics, today even the NYTimes praises the reform.
I sure do wish thatliberalmedia had some sort of real education. How totally ridiculous. (a) most pharmaceutical research is done by research universities (especially the one thatliberalmedia attends) and is almost fully funded by federal dollars right now. At least this is true of most “disease-related” pharmaceutical research. Most private drug research is devoted to Viagra and other such drugs. The most profitable. thatliberalmedia somehow completely ignores the role of government in breakthrough research – from the polio vaccine to computers to space exploration. So if we eliminated patent rights on medications we’d save a fortune and lose absolutely nothing except drug ads on television.
(b) the War on Poverty worked amazingly: OK, don’t believe me? Think that in 1962 tens of millions of the poor, the elderly, virtually all the disabled had absolutely no health care. Poverty levels at the time were so severe as to be incomprehensible to Americans now. In fact, before the right came up with the lie that The Great Society didn’t work, they spent a decade insisting that it worked too well, the claim being that the whole rise in income among the lower class was attributable to federal hand-outs. It is, for example, during the decade of The Great Society that America became a country in which almost everyone owns a refrigerator, a country in which almost everyone has electricity, a phone, running water. In which medical care was first delivered to the rural poor. The change was dramatic, remarkable, incredible in fact. Other Great Society programs did much more.
It’s funny, thatliberalmedia often whines that poverty in America isn’t really poverty because we’re much better off than the poor in Africa. The reason we’re better off? It’s largely The Great Society. Lyndon Johnson gets a bad rap for many legitimate reasons, but if you were poor in America in the 1960s you probably owed him your life.