Making Lemonade: A Return to Responsibility?

I understand that there are people really suffering as a result of the recession, and I realize that I am fortunate. Even in the most economically depressed state in the union, I am one of those blessed to be prospering in this economy without a worry in the world about Anne or I losing our jobs. So I am aware how insensitive it may sound for me to say that I think this recession could turn out to be something positive. In fact, I'm not the only one who believes this, and I probably wouldn't be writing this if TIME hadn't validated my feelings. They have recently published a couple of issues highlighting some good things that are coming from this recession. In the April 6th edition, their cover reads: "The End of Excess: Why this crisis is good for America," and in the latest issue they have a story about the growing frugality in American consumers. In short, this crisis is good because it is forcing Americans to do things like become closer to friends and family, and is providing a good ass-kicking to our excessively consumeristic ways. It is exposing the danger of piling on debt and being financially irresponsible; and it comes at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware the need for sustainable forms of energy which has the potential of creating a stable new driver of our economy.

Along with highlighting the need for personal responsibility, this crisis may hopefully drive home the need for responsibility in the banking and financial sectors. Paul Krugman has a great piece entitled "Make Banking Boring" where he describes how banking and finance has gone through periods of excitement and boredom. Between WWI and 1929 the banking and finance sectors were "exciting," with those in the finance sector becoming fabulously wealthy, but with soaring debt. After the depression, regulation became tight, debt went down and banking became "boring." Yet this boring period yielded a time of great economic progress for the majority of Americans. However, in the 80's, regulation was lifted and banking became exciting again as those in the finance sector, once again, became fabulously wealthy and debt blew up. Ever since, the 80's extended into the 90's, and throughout the Bush years, as Americans piled on the debt and have lived excessively wealthy, consumeristic lives. Krugman argues that we must return to a tightly regulated system and restore responsibility. I agree, and my hope is that it will not only be the system that becomes more responsible and less excessive, but individuals as well.

But there are problems, and I think David Brooks has some valid points. In his column, "Big Spending Conservative," Brooks discusses how Obama has picked up on the responsibility theme as well. This should be good news that the president is driving home the message of responsibility and less excess, but Brooks points out his hypocrisy. Brooks writes:

"Moreover, for an administration that puts responsibility at the center, it is not itself very responsible. Federal spending is the leverage the administration uses to gain control over sector after sector, and yet this money is all borrowed.
Obama imposes hard choices on others, but has postponed his own. He presented an agenda that bleeds red ink a trillion dollars at a time. Now he seems passive as Congress kills his few revenue ideas (cap and trade) and spending cuts (agricultural subsidies). Huge fiscal gaps are opening this decade that can’t be closed by distant entitlement reform. They can’t be closed by cynical Potemkin cuts, a few million at a time"

I am all for government intervention and regulation. I am all for health care reform. I am all for "green jobs." I am all for good, effective social programs. But I am also all for fiscal discipline, and that is one thing I do not see coming from the administration or congress. Now, yes, the tax cuts will expire, and I think that is a good thing, but there needs to be some spending cuts as well, and more than a piddly 100 million dollars.

Drinking with the Kids (updated)

Not too long ago I posted a rant about how I believe putting alcohol on a pedestal encourages its abuse. I also said parents should be allowed to drink with their kids and model responsible drinking habits. Last month TIME published an article on this topic. Here's a couple quotes:

"A few years ago, a team of North Carolina researchers, led by public-health professor Kristie Long Foley, examined whether adults' approval or disapproval mattered when adolescents were deciding whether and how much to drink. Foley's team analyzed surveys of more than 6,000 people ages 16 to 20 in 242 U.S. communities. One predictable finding: kids whose parents gave them alcohol for parties were more likely to binge-drink. That discovery underscored years of research showing that the earlier people start to drink, the more likely they are to become alcoholics.
But another result was surprising: if kids actually drank with their parents, they were about half as likely to say they had drunk alcohol in the past month and about one-third as likely to say they had had five or more drinks in a row in the previous two weeks. As Foley and her colleagues wrote in a 2004 Journal of Adolescent Health paper, "Drinking with parents appears to have a protective effect on general drinking trends."'

"Kids from the Southern European countries of the Romance languages--France, Romania, Italy, Spain and Portugal--get drunk at about the same rate as American teens (or slightly less often) even though a typical kid in these countries can buy wine or beer in any shop from early adolescence. The Southern European model of moderate, supervised drinking within families seems to be the most promising approach, on the basis of the North Carolina study. Italy and Spain report very low rates of alcohol dependence or abuse (less than 1% and 2.8%, respectively) compared with the U.S., where the rate is 7.8%, slightly lower than France's 8.7%. (All the figures are from the World Health Organization.)"

The Solution to the Food Crisis, Environmental Degradation and Factory Farming

Growing up, I was quite the weird little attention whore. One of the things I liked to do to get attention was eat ants. One time, I ate a live one and it kept crawling up my throat. I thought it was hilarious; other people just thought it was gross. Americans still think eating bugs is gross, but much of the world doesn't, and maybe soon things here will change.

I read this article yesterday on entomophagy, which is the term for eating insects. I admit that I have a fear of large flying insects, so I wouldn't really be all about eating them. But given that there's more protein in insects than in chicken, and it takes less water to raise them I might reconsider. This is a great article and I predict that by the time I'm an old man entomophagy will be commonplace in the U.S. The article points out that sushi once had a high gross-out factor, and lobster is just a large cockroach. I would add that food in the U.S. is becoming increasingly multi-cultural and diverse, and shows like Bizarre Foods promote desensitization. I know, it sounds gross, but read the article, it makes a lot of sense.