In a Politico article, according to Sherri Bruen, the company’s guest relations manager::
“We apologize that Mr. Letterman’s mistake, which was not consistent with our standards and values, left you with a bad impression of Olive Garden.
but, this HotAir postfinished the paragraph with this::
“There will be no more Olive Garden ads scheduled for The Late Show with David Letterman in this year’s broadcast schedule.
We have not yet finalized next year’s advertising plan but will consider our valued guests’ opinions when doing so.”
The context being that the contract was already allowed to expire and no ads were planned. So, they caved to pressure. Or, did they? Apparently, the sources confirming the pulling of the ad sponsorship weren’t authorized to speak for the company and the NY Times reported there was no such decision. The Politico article was updated and the title revised from this::
to “Olive Garden Backtracks on David Letterman Ads.” Well, as the story d/evolved, quel surprise, comments from the Twittersphere started to trickle in, some defending Olive Garden, some critical of the chain, and a handful advocating a boycott for allegedly pulling the ads {recent} and for sponsoring Dave {2+ days ago}::
Olive Garden is in a tough PR spot. If their online demos {Quantcast} are fairly similar to their customer base, their market trends towards being white, female, 18-49, with 0-2 kids, making under $60K, and with some college. In other words, moderates.
Dave. Well, he’s getting a bounce from all of this. According to the NYTimes Media Decoder blog{16 June}::
“In preliminary national ratings, Mr. Letterman pulled in 700,000 more viewers than Mr. O’Brien Monday night, 3.9 million to 3.2 million, his biggest margin yet over his new competitor. Mr. Letterman routinely trailed the former ‘Tonight’ host Jay Leno by a million viewers or more.”
O’Brien still owns the coveted younger demos.
Update:: Video of Fire Letterman Protest from New York magazine
Tweeting sans Twitter:: "Paper-PC=Twitter" by Ludwig Wendzich on Flickr
Back in April, we had a lively discussion here on Twitter and language. I recently saw that the dictionary team at the Oxford University Press is on top of the sitch. Here’s some of their observations::
“Since January OUP’s dictionary team has sorted through many random tweets. Here are the basic numbers:
Total tweets = 1,496,981
Total sentences = 2,098,630
Total words = 22,431,033
Average words per tweet = 14.98
Average sentences per tweet = 1.40
Average words per sentence in Twitter= 10.69
Average words per sentence in general usage = 22.09”
Verbs in the gerund form are pretty popular, as well as informal slang like “OK” and “fuck.” Most common word on Twitter & general English:: “the,” with #2 on Twitter being “I.”
The OED folks seem to just be reporting some of their analyses, which I have no problem with. They’re not indicting anyone and even end the blurb with “Tweet on.”
Now, enter the shrill cassandras at HigherEdMorning who report on the above with a post, “The Hidden Problem with Twitter.” Talk about framing. That title is priming the reader to be wary of Twitter, but there’s more. The image used in the article decries the lament of every frustrated educator who has endured reading a crappy essay::
Image ~ "The Hidden Problem with Twitter" post
They report the OUP observations, but finalize their Twitterproblem trifecta with::
“So here’s the question: Is Twitter – along with instant messaging and texting – contributing to the destruction of language skills among college students?”
Twitterfail? I actually have a big problem with this. It’s taking observations and drawing inane conclusions that would pass muster in the most laxed ethnography course and would be a social science epic fail.
What gets really interesting is the discourse that follows in the comments. I urge you to take a look {there were 69 as of 3:18a on 18 June}. The interesting thing, to me, is how the social aspect of technological use creeps into the dialogue.
“Baloo559 Says:
Twitter, instant messaging and texting ARE contributing to, let’s call it degraded language skills, by providing a set of forums in which these degraded skills are accepted and encouraged. I believe acceptance is primarily a function of the youth of the majority of contributors. They lack experience with more formal language and don’t seem to grasp the subtly and nuance that come with its complexity. Degradation is encouraged by the fact that even the best texting phones or IM clients are poor writing instruments. 12 keys are inadequate as are one eighth scale, not quite QWERTY keyboards. Further encouragement comes from the satisfaction developing personalities take in expressing themselves in creatively alternative manners, especially if it tends to confuse authority figures.”
Did the abbreviated wording used in telegrams destroy the English language? I don’t think so. Neither will Twitter, or texting in general – as long as schools continue to stress good language skills in the classroom. As an English teacher and student of linguistics, I realize that English and all other living languages are constantly evolving, so Twitter and its “siblings” will affect English, but not to necessarily destroy or devalue it. As for spelling, well, English is a terrible model for spelling, so maybe these mediums will improve it!”
and this comment makes an interesting link to dictation::
“Jill Lindsey Says:
I believe that Twitter, messaging and texting language is just like the dictation shorthand from the last century. My mother wrote in shorthand and it just looked like a bunch of symbols to me but she and others skilled in it decoded it with fluency. No one but Golden Agers know or use shorthand anymore, but now we text. It is simply a new shorthand for a new context in a new age. Formal language is constantly evolving too. Think of the transition from Olde English to American English. Change does not have to mean destruction of language- its just evolution. Just like shorthand was a symbol system for more formal language, so is texting- the meaning is conveyed through a symbol system and translated in our minds. Spelling is just agreed conventions- those have and will continue to change over time. The only problem of concern should be when the meaning one is trying to convey cannot be discerned by the reader. We have to have common understandings for any symbol system to work- formal or informal.”
Whenever I see criticisms of youth or youth culture, I tend to look for ad hominems and finger-waving. Damn, fool kids. The Cisco fatty meme brought out a bunch of such anger. So, when it comes to Twitilliteracy, JRB offers his 2¢::
“jrb@msu Says:
As long as texting is treated like vocal dialects, I have no objection. Cajun, Cockney, etc. are fine but rarely get transcribed unless the accent is essential to the story. Likewise telegrams – they serve a purpose but we don’t ever see “telegram text” in written stories or formal correspondence.
But when this sort of “abbrev-speak” traverses the chasm into formal writing I think we risk losing a substantial chunk of our discreet and collective cultures, so much of which are recorded as written words (not wrds). Just as learning a second languange [sic] enhances the developing brain, so does an understanding of the colorful and deeply descriptive nature of the written word.
SS I think you miss a key point with using text speak for formal communications – sometimes, like it or not, we _have_ to adhere to a minimal level of decorum, and frankly students who cannot adopt such probably have an issue with authority which suggests ther are not the best candidates for a good old fashioned college experience (where the instructor still wields authority) – perhaps they are better suited to informal cloud-based learning, just before they step out to that job at Burger Queen.“
Bitter, much? Clearly, this gets people into a lather, but what plays out is a culture war of sorts, where technology and the social collide with a normative vengeance. What strikes me is a reduction of the “other” to a stereotype and having no interest in contextualizing what’s going on here with Twitter. There are also a lot of assumptions about an ideal orthodoxy, in terms of psychological information processing, learning, and expression, let alone the hegemony of English usage online. Going back to the OUP report, what about non-English tweets or tweets by non-native speakers? So many questions, but I’m a social science geek.
So, is this no big thing? While many think this is just a tempest in a teapot, I think these debates are just a tip of the iceberg in an increasingly globalized world. I think Novia in the first pic. will do just fine despite Twitterish communication. Oh, for all the n00bs, BFF 4 realz=Ben Folds Five.
Bourdieu on taste, using dimensions of economic & cultural capital.
I’ve used this very graph, but I’ve always wanted a way to engage students in a discussion of cultural capital that they could relate to. So, I was catching up on Macleans reading and found articles on Canada’s smartest cities. It brings up an interesting question of how learning capacity affects the local economic development. The Composite Learning Index, using ideas developed by UNESCO, gauges a city’s ability to foster lifelong learning::
“Until now, Canada’s score had been on the upswing, from 76 in 2007 to 77 last year. Today that number has dropped to 75, precariously close to the lowest level recorded, which was 73, in 2006. The figures are based on the annual Composite Learning Index, which gives every Canadian community (some 4,719 in all) a score according to how it supports lifelong learning.“
Here’s a link to a selected list of cities. Calgary tops the list at 89. In Ontario, Guelph, Barrie, Ottawa, Kitchener, and Oshawa all beat out Toronto, tied for 13th at 80. Poor Toronto. One article compared Windsor, Ontario {languishing in the index} to Québec City {one of the most-improved}, with the latter on an economic upswing.
“Quebec City’s unemployment has fallen markedly, from 6.8 per cent in 2006 to 5.2 per cent in 2009. And while Windsor’s total learning score was going nowhere, its jobless rate shot up, from 10.2 per cent to 15.2 per cent over the same period.“
The story is a bit more complicated, given that Québec City had had 50 years to reinvent itself after its economy collapsed, while Windsor is still watching its current industrial base crumble. While the learning index may be a proxy for resilience of its population to withstand exogenous shocks and the trials and tribulations of everyday life, one fact remains is that those at the top tend to be growing cities with wealthier citizenry. This pattern also follows the “most cultured” cities.
While the index is a tool that can be used diagnostically to help policymakers make decisions on spending, comparing cities with a weighted score seems a bit misguided. It would be interesting to create a Bourdieuean index based on his forms::
Embodied. The skills, abilities, & knowledge that someone has.
Objectified. The objects that transmit culture and knowledge.
Institutionalized. Institutional recognition of an individual’s skills/abilities/knowledge.
So, the challenge would be to find good indicators of or proxies for these forms.
The Canadian Council on Learning created this graph showing the relationship between the index {as a measure of cultural capital} and socioeconomic index for Canadian cities. While I do think that there are relationships between cultural, social, and financial capitals, I think the processes by which these relations are formed and fostered within various contexts {i.e., “fields”/”champs”} would be extremely valuable for policy decisions.
Correlation between the CLI and the social and economic well-being index, 2009
Twitterversion:: #newblogpost Hey Canada…How smart is your town? @macleansmag article on Composite Learning Index popularizing sociology? http://url.ie/1qkn @Prof_K
I now live in a relatively small country, ranked 36th. in population, at 33.7M {versus 306.7M in the US}, but in the top 10 in terms of economies with a GDP of $1.3T {#9 ranking}, versus 13.8T for the US {#1 ranking}. I mention this, as I wonder about scale and innovation, i.e., can smaller countries effectively compete in technology in a global environment? One of my interests in innovation is biotechnology, a “new economy” area focusing on better outcomes for “health, the environment, and for industrial, agricultural and energy production.” Advances in genetics are creating a race for companies and countries, with the idea of dominating the biotech field in order to enjoying profits and prosperity.
Last summer, I saw on a Canadian network a segment on how Canadian government investments in biotech were getting bought up by US firms, implying that the relatively small Canadian government was, in part, subsidizing innovations flowing south of the border. The Matthew effectkicks in, as rich get richer and the poor get poorer, given that Canadian firms were being snapped up by US firms with deep pockets, transferring value southward. According to a Globe & Mail article{click on license option}, another issue is that Canadian venture capital is lacking, so Canadian biotech firms often are capitalized by US venture capital firms that like to keep close tabs on operations and encourage offices/operations in the US.
Well, is Canada even a player in this biotech area?
According to 2006 OECD data, Canada is a player in terms of the number of firms {532}, the number of patents {ranked #6 in 2004}, and revenues {$83M}, along with an 11% compound annual growth rate {CAGR} of revenues from 1999-2005.
Given how collaboration and capital are now global, does it even matter where innovations are incubated? A study by Bagchi-Sen & Scully {2004} is illuminating. They divide biotech forms into two categories:: high R&D intensity and low R&D intensity. Each has a different take with respect to strategies within the context of globalization::
High R&D Intensity:: Ties to local universities/Canadian researchers & collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, but desire global capital inflows. Prototypical firm is in health theraputics.
Low R&D Intensity:: Emphasis on local production and development of Canadian market. Focus on strategic alliances with foreign firms. Prototypical firm is in diagnostics or agricultural biotech.
In terms of innovation policy, this brings up interesting food for thought for Canadian politicians in light of this recession. Thanks to Barack Obama, Canada’s large neighbour to the south is pumping $21.5B of stimulus towards science and technology, which begs the question, how will this affect Canada?
It makes sense that Canadian policy would encourage the projects of low-intensity R&D firms with ties to the US, as these firms:: may be able to capitalize on relationships with stimulus-receiving firms, will develop innovations for the Canadian market, and will be focused on local Canadian production and manufacturing. The high-intensity R&D firms could use funding {hint:: even more than $1B+CAN stimulus} that focuses on spurring innovations and the building of a sustainable base of Canadian talent and resources. Dalton McGuinty’s {Liberal Premiere} efforts in Ontariomight be a step in the right direction, but I’m not seeing clearly how this all fits together with an economic recovery plan. Biotech. is not without risks, particularly with respect to agricultural biotech, which consumers are uncertain of. Activists have alerted consumers with terms like “Frankenfood” for genetically-modified organisms {GMOs} and Monsanto’s lawsuits against journalists and farmers don’t help the cause. So, maybe ag. biotech is a lose, but developing Canadian competitive advantage in innovations, in terms of other forms of biotech, nanotechnologies, clean energy, and green collar jobs, may provide fertile terrain for politicians and policymakers.
Well, enough of this talk of the “new economy” of biotech and innovations, what about the old economy, still prevalent in many parts of Canada? Globalization has drawn Stephen Harper’s {Prime Minister} Conservative government into bailout fever to the tune of $9.5B, in order to secure that 16% of GM’s production remains in Canada. This includes $3.1B that the Province of Ontario ponied up by Dalton McGuinty’s government. Unfortunately, this might only save 4,400 jobs, after projected layoffs, according to CBC::
So, it looks like nation matters, but in a global milieu. Nothing surprising. If you were to advise Canadian politicians, should new technologies {e.g., biotech, green, energy} be developed more aggressively {or at least explored} and does it make sense to commit billions to save jobs with an untested GM restructuring?
Twitterversion:: #newblogpost How should Canada compete {bio}tech, given globalzatn, US domnce, & recession? #GMfail bailout, good idea? http://bit.ly/18bBq8 @Prof_K
Another hashtag I saw was #MSMfail for mainstream media fail. In the past, I’ve looked to CNN to have some coverage, but as one “tweet” noted, the switch from analog to digital TV was the big story::
In Iran, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist presidential candidate who ran against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been placed under house arrest, riots have erupted, and telephone service has been cut. This is a big story. Are there just interns at CNN headquarters in Atlanta this weekend? Twitterers have posted coverage by various news agencies and MyNewsJunkie noted the CNN failure. One tweet had a link to another social media site, Flickr, with a slideshow of images from Tehran::
Well, if you believe the Daily Show, CNN is all over the social media out of desperation to get/engage viewers::
Canadian viewers without a US proxy or HotspotShield can see the clip here, but go to 7min 40 sec mark. Comedy Network won’t let me deep link to the exact spot on the clip.
CNN seems desperate to connect with viewers seems to be dropping the ball here. ElleMac just let me know that someone at CNN directed Twitterers to the CNN International page, which has coverage, but as of 2:22 EDT, CNN.com has nothing on the home page, but there is one article on the CNN.com/World tab. On Twitter, CNN has nothing on Iran and CNNBrk has three tweets::
“Crowds in Tehran break into shops and start fires as they protest re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.about 13 hours ago from CNN
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won country’s election with 62 percent of vote, government says.about 18 hours ago from CNN
Main challenger in Iran’s presidential election calls for counting of ballots to halt due to “blatant violations.”
Are Twitterers being too hard on CNN and the mainstream media -or- is this just the state of journalism? Is this a case of CNN not really understanding what it means to truly engage in social media? There is content at CNN International and from CNN Twitterers, so why not be responsive 24/7? It reminds me of an emerging social media adage I’ve been seeing. You need to both shout & listen.
Twitterversion:: Lack of US coverge on Iranian election/protests/clampdown lead Twitterers to cite #CNNfail &#MSMfail. Too harsh or journalist #socmediafail?
After being on the road for a week, I finally had the chance to catch up on news and such, including the US Supreme Court appointment controversy of Sonia Sotomayor. The Meet the Press {NBC} soundbite that caused the maelstrom was this Sotomayor quote from 8 years ago::
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
David Gregory, host of Meet the Press, opted to provide a little more context this week, but he still failed to provide the widest context for her 2001 remarks. MediaMatters highlighted the parts Gregory omitted in bold::
“Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
[…]
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Gregory added more context, but his spin still doesn’t give the full picture. I “get it” why Gregory chose to focus on the text he did, as it was controversial and generated buzz. {Don’t get me started on press coverage of the BC election, particularly the supposed “beer tax” [non-]issue.} I grow tired of journalists or this new breed of quasi-journalist, the commentator {read:: infotainment}, engage in ratings-grabbing soundbitery from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
I feel that Barack himself has thwarted to a certain extent being “soundbit” into a pigeonhole.
Is this because of a specific relationship that has evolved with the media -or- is this particular to his rhetorical skills that embrace complexity?
In contrast, the US has had 16 years of “bubbas” who made it a point to boil things down to a lowest-common-denominator vernacular. In other Sotomayor news, I saw this sociogram {below} of her present and past relationships. I haven’t verified this mapping, but I wonder if the Senate Republicans will try to go after her in the confirmation hearings based upon this type of “evidence,” which can always be used to trip people up. Given that Republicans are already backing off on the racism angle, I’m wondering how much of this racism angle will even be used. Why bother, when you can frame her as “dumb”?
Sotomayor sociogram on Muckety.com
Twitterversion:: Sotomayor soundbite framed as racism-wider context less damning. More journalism fail? Obama defies soundbites-why? WWSD? Whatwillsenatedo?
I remember how my parents said that RFK was accused of being a carpetbagger, coming to New York to become a US Senator in 1964. Now that Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, finds his Conservative Party down in the polls by 5% {35-30%}, attack ads are being run tantamount to accusing the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, of being a Canadian “outsider.” The ads accuse Ignatieff of coming back to Canada after being gone for 34 years::
The Conservatives are really slipping in the polls in Québec, so you think they would come up with a more engaging attack ad than this one in French.
This one paints Ignatieff as a carpetbagging opportunist, living in the UK and referring to himself as American::
The Liberals may be further undermined by attacks from the Bloc Québécois in Québec, which has 24% of the population in Canada. Support for the Bloc is upwards of 40% in Québec, while Liberal support in the province is around 35%.
I find the anglophone ads to be rather effective at conveying the frame of Ignatieff as a elitist outsider. I agree with the pundits that Harper is fighting for his political life and managed to get into a feud with Brian Mulroney, a conservative blast from the past. Conservatism seems to be lacking cohesiveness on both sides of 49ºN.
Twitterversion:: Harper {Tories} attcks Ignatieff {Grits} on nationalism frame. H. fighting 4 political life, Grits gaining. Strange bedfellows in store?
The discussions were interesting, but what really stuck with me was whether or not good politiciansfollow the votes or get the electorate to see things differently. For example, given the anti-corporate climate, will politicians pander to where they think the electorate is or will they try to shape thinking about the economy?
Sell the sizzle, not the steak
In a shameless attempt to drive more pageviews, I included a pic. and cartoon of Ségolène Royal {Ségolène is a ThickCulture crowd-pleaser, according to our Google Analytics}, a French socialist {Parti Socialiste, PS} centre-left politician who ran for President in 2007 {losing to Sarkozy} and may run in 2012. Say what you will about Ségolène, she manages to capture attention. She has been known to have a quirky, evangelical style and has been accused by some as having a Joan of Arc complex. Well, this sounds familiar (see Glenn Beck video from last fall).
The comparison isn’t accidental. Obama with his power of persuasion, thus far, and the state of the economy may be providing a perfect storm for a change in the political zeitgeist. Will the Democrats see this as an opportunity to embrace that dreaded third-rail word, socialism, in terms of either rhetoric or implemented policy -or- would that just bring about a Gingrichian revolt akin to 1994? Change? What kind of change? New Deal change? New Frontier change? Great Society change? Is it a matter of the public looking for it -or- will savvy politicians frame a “new” economic order for them? I think we’re in for seeing plenty of sizzle sold, but at some point, steak will have to be on the table, specifically, in terms of economic recovery.
The upcoming election in British Columbia is pitting the centre-left (NDP) versus the centre-right (BC Liberal) {e.g., see blog on the BC Carbon Tax issue}, where the centre-left has a shot of controlling the provincial government. Nationwide, the NDP support has risen 1 point since December to 13%, while the Liberals and Tories swapped positions and are polling 36 and 33%, respectively. Perhaps regionally, there may a shift to the left {Canada has had NDP provincial governments in the past}, but I wonder as joblessness continues and bailouts persist, will national-scene politics in Canada and the US move towards a more socialist agenda? While Barack is far from a socialist, he’s gaining comfort in his centre-left stance::
“The economic philosophy that Mr. Obama developed during the presidential campaign drew from across the ideological spectrum even as it remained rooted on the center-left. As that philosophy has been tested in practice through his early months in office, the president has if anything become more comfortable with an occasionally intrusive government as a counterweight to market forces that are now so powerful and fast-moving that they cannot be counted on to be self-correcting when things go wrong.”
So, are you ready for some socialism? Will we see the selling of socialism? Sounds like an oxymoron, but it may be a matter of time before we see something like this. What’s Springsteen up to this summer?
I welcome any and all thoughts.
OK Ségo fans, while not entirely flattering, the following cartoon should help you with your fix.
Caption - François Hollande (fellow Socialist & now ex-partner): "Ségolène, what are you doing in my wardrobe?" Ségolène Royal: "Frankly, don't you find it looks better on me than on you?") Via Hillblogger3
Twitterversion:: EpicFail for capitalism? Given current econ & political climate, is US/Canada ready for socialism? Will politicns pander or reshape thinkng?
While the Vancouver Canucks advance in their bid for the Stanley Cup, the British Columbia provincial election is heating up, as the NDP has pulled within 2 points (39/41 +/- 3.4) of the not-so-liberal BC Liberal Party. The Green Party is running a distant third at 13%.
One of the big election issues is the Carbon Tax, which is a tax on pollution. It puts a price on the social costs of environmental degradation {negative externalities}. The carbon tax was initiated last year in BC, which should give Obama insights into his plans to address carbon reduction. {Obama’s already talking of a nationwide “cap and trade” policy.}
BC Carbon Tax & The Economic Sociology of the Environment
The BC carbon tax claims to be revenue neutral, meaning it returns the tax in the form of lower personal and corporate income tax. The tax shuffles funds around in the following manner where one-third of the carbon tax revenues are paid by individuals and two-thirds by industry, while two-thirds of the tax reductions benefit individuals and one-third benefit business. A fairness issue arises, as some businesses can pass the tax along to consumers, depending on the elasticity of demand. The carbon tax is initially (effective 7/1/08) $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (2.41¢ per litre on gasoline), but will increase each year after until 2012 to a final price of $30 per tonne (7.2¢ per litre). For US readers, this is currently 7.68¢ US per gallon of gasoline and will go up to 22.9¢ in 2012 (4/30/2009 exchange rate).
One of the issues brought up is that while the BC Liberal Party is imposing a tax on pollution, it’s allowing the export of carbon-producing fuels to leave the province untaxed. In addition, the government is allowing offshore drilling for oil as part of their energy policy. This is opening up the BC Liberals to charges of hypocrisy.
So, in the past 10 months, what has been the effect? I think it’s impossible to gauge the results, given that gasoline prices have gone down and the BC economy is in a recession, although with lower unemployment than Washington, Oregon, and California. I have to admit I am skeptical that the BC Liberal’s carbon tax policy will actually reduce carbon emissions. Why? This Canadian Dimension editorial introduces a paradox::
“By way of comparison, the average retail price of gas in Canada, adjusted for inflation, has risen forty percent in the past five years. The increase is the equivalent of $120 per tonne of emissions — four times as much as the maximum tax proposed in B.C.
But consumption did not decline. In fact, during the same period both gasoline sales and greenhouse-gas emissions rose to record levels…
In short, the B.C. carbon tax is regressive, shifting ever more of the province’s tax burden onto working people, while reducing taxes on corporations. It will do nothing to cut emissions or slow global warming.”–“B.C.’s Carbon Tax: A Regressive Hoax” from Canadian Dimension(4/30/2008)
How can this be? Are the economists that off-base?
As an economic sociologist, with a BA in the dismal science, I know at least some of the answers. Increasing prices through a Pigouvian tax without consumption/production alternatives offers no incentives to alter behaviour away from carbon emitting activities.
A Northwestern sociologist, Monica Prasad, offered this interesting observation::
“The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”
How did Denmark do it? According to Prasad, Danish policymakers subsidized environmental innovation by businesses and investing heavily in alternatives. The idea here is to give incentives to move consumers and businesses away from carbon emission generating technologies towards renewable ones. As a sociologist, I’m wary of talk of “pricing” carbon, as it attempts to reduce natural capital (i.e., the environment) with financial capital and the assignment of property rights, politicizing economic activity along the lines of power and wealth. I’d much rather see policy aimed at moving towards a different technological curve, away from carbon, along with an increase in investments in public infrastructure (e.g., mass transit in cities/suburbs) that offers alternatives to carbon-heavy practices.
The Politics of Carbon: “Axe the Tax”
Carole James, leader of the NDP, has been advocating dumping the carbon tax in favour of a “cap and trade” approach, the direction Obama is leaning towards. The NDP “axe the tax” stance was costing them politically, despite the tax being unpopular, as environmental groups criticized the move. In this election, there are 85 seats up for grabs. While the Green Party may siphon off votes from the NDP, it is very unlikely that a single seat will go to the Greens. Given the overall BC Liberal Party stance on the environment, environmentalists may have a tough choice on May 12. The carbon tax may fade away as a key issue, as the economy and issues of ethics and integrity might come front and center, but perhaps the economy and the environment will become an intertwined issue.
I’d like to see policies in BC and elsewhere move towards weaning citizens away from carbon. A recent Wired Magazine article goes over many of the issues involved in green technologies, including who will pay for the costs of innovation. I think the BC Liberal carbon tax isn’t the best policy, as I don’t see it reducing carbon emissions and is mute on carbon-emitting fuels being exported and untaxed. Whichever party wins, I see the BC government as playing a key role in spurring behavior changes through investments and incentives, but who will foot the bill, particularly given a tight budget?
What are your thoughts on a carbon tax? (In BC or even in the US)
What are your thoughts on policies that create incentives for businesses & residences to adopt new greener technologies or retrofit carbon-based ones?
Should policy focus on investing in new green technologies? How much should government foot the bill? Should green be linked to economic recovery plans?
What would the candidates & the “Fake Tweeple” candidates say?
The US Supreme court just ruled on a case {5-4}, upholding the FCC citing of the network for violating decency rules. The incidents stemmed from live broadcasts and involved Cher and Nicole Ritchie blurting out expletives during Billboard Music Awards in the early 200s. Here’s the Cher “incident,” where she’s receiving an award and responding to her critics. Nicole Ritchie’s transgressions involved banter with then-BFF Paris Hilton::
“Paris Hilton: Now Nicole, remember, this is a live show, watch the bad language.
Nicole Richie: Okay, God.
Paris Hilton: It feels so good to be standing here tonight.
Nicole Richie: Yeah, instead of standing in mud and . Why do they even call it “The Simple Life?” Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.”
Under the George W. Bush administration, the FCC made it a point to uphold decency rules. Some critics argued that the FCC wasn’t applying standards uniformly. Broadcast TV airings of Saving Private Ryan, full of “f-bombs” managed to make it through without scrutiny. The FCC has been a target for years on the topic of censorship and their “oversight” on the public airwaves. Comedian, George Carlin, made a name for himself with his “7 Words” schtick that’s a commentary on the FCC.
The Power of the Word in the Age of YouTube
In this case, Justice Scalia stated, “Even when used as an expletive, the F-word’s power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning.” On the dissenting side, Justice Stevens countered with, “The FCC’s shifting and impermissibly vague indecency policy only imperils these broadcasters and muddles the regulatory landscape.” Stevens noted with more than a bit of irony that the FCC polices for words with loose, at best, associations with sex and excrement, but has no issue with commercials for erectile dysfunction or going to the bathroom.
Bill Long makes a valid point, in my opinion, by bringing up the Internet and YouTube. Indecent content abounds online, with easy access and largely unfettered by regulatory bodies. What is the point of the FCC upholding decency standards? What exactly are they? Apparently, you cannot say expletives, but you can sell all the sexual innuendo sex you want::
Warning:: content may be offensive & idiotic
I’ve been up in Canada all week, a land far more lenient than the US in terms of content restriction. The FCC equivalent, the CRTC, tends to only intervene in serious or controversial matters. So, in Canada, you can drop an F-bomb, but not between 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. So, when the Trailer Park Boys comes on at 6:00PM, it’s bleeped, but not at midnight. Those unfamiliar with the TBP…enjoy. This one goes out to Justice Scalia::
Warning:: content may be offensive & idiotic, but funny.
About ThickCulture
A multi-disciplinary blog about what makes cultures "thick": public discourse, multiculturalism, technology, and civic engagement. Read more…
