In The Daily, there is an op-ed called The Cost of Tourism by Diana McCaulay about how tourism has destroyed Jamaica.  Is this anything new? Jamaica is one of seniors when it comes to having become a tourist trap.  Jamaica and Hawaii are the elder statesmen of tourist exploitation and the defilement of nature.

Can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The horse is out of the barn.  Insert your cliche of choice.

I grew up in Hawaii and this is the same thing. Truth is, tourism is the worst thing for any economy and the worst thing for any ecology. Even eco-tourism opens delicate and sensitive areas to way more traffic — and even considerate traffic is traffic.

OK, but tourism is also like organ transplant. In Hawaii, agriculture gave way to tourism; trade gave way to tourism. Pineapple and cane sugar were industries of the islands — some might say just as exploitative, if not more so.

But once the transplant occurs, not only are you committed to the new organ but there is a whole host of associated new problems.  Call them unintended consequences.  Once you get the new organ, you have to commit to taking all the anti-rejection drugs forever.  Tourism is like that. Yes, it saved your life and the life of your economy in a time of need, but at what cost?  Additionally, tourism is fickle — both in terms of where people go as well as whether they go at all. Maybe it isn’t ‘not Jamaica’, but it can always be ‘not anywhere’ as the 2007/8 crash proved: people weren’t going anywhere, even if they had the money. (It just looks bad).  And, when they were, they were going someplace super-exclusive where nobody would see them, as in ‘not Jamaica’.

Jamaica and the rest of the islands — including Hawaii — around the world have very little hope of reforming unless they pull a Cuba.

Myself? I guess I have never thought of Jamaica as anything but someplace completely ravaged already by tourism and exploitation. A lost cause, in much the same way that many people see Hawaii. In many ways, Jamaica has already been lost to addiction. I doubt the economy could survive the loss of tourism. Hasn’t it already?

Back in the 80s, Hawaii became addicted to Japanese money. When Japan coughed, Hawaii got the plague. When I was growing up, we realized that the Hawaiian islands were forever going to be a service economy — serving tourism and serving the military.

And then there’s the drugs. Hawaii and Jamaica have quite a few things in common:their own native animist cultures and a love of marijuana. But that’s another story for another time – the ravages of the war between drug-producers, drug-buyers, and state & federal law in the context of marijuana being illegal. Oh, what a terrible tale.

Oh, and Diana McCaulay: stop being so bloody nostalgic.  Are you serious?  D’you only want the travelers, and the people who engage with the culture, who engage with the people, who are interested and curious?  And if we American travelers are not up to snuff — if we only want a sunny place with warmth, booze, relaxation, entertainment, some Reggae, and the ocean — then shouldn’t we just stay within our own borders?

Not bloody likely – but guess what?  I guarantee you that that is the best idea anyone has had: spend vacation money at home, in our own economy, putting it into our own businesses!  Now, that’s what I like to hear.  Unfortunately, American travelers won’t even consider Jamaica any more.  The elite 1% that you’re so hungry for has moved on to Cambodia and deep Asia and is hot and bothered for Cuba.  What gentle 1% elite traveler is going to Jamaica any more?

In Hawaii, we called to the 99% of Americans that were left — the Americans who go to Hawaii and Jamaica on package tours, and are exactly like the 99% of Britons who go to Majorca and fight with the 99% of the Germans over sun beds at their all-inclusive package holidays.

You’re not being terribly realistic, Ms McCaulay but I forgive you — as I beg you to forgive me — because I grew up in the paradise known as Hawaii, on Oahu, and I can tell your heart is broken.  I have not been back to Hawaii since 1998, partly because I cannot bear the sort of heartbreak that comes from seeing the reefs I dove on destroyed, or the fish I swam with gone, or the paths to the waterfalls I used to walk with bare feet cursed with bottles and cans.

I can see that your naivete was just the result of the little girl remembering Negril coming out, and that I understand. I am so sorry and my heart breaks for you. The state motto of Hawaii speaks to the land, the defilement of which breaks our heart:

Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono — The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness

I hate to admit it but when it comes to the general health and wealth of the people, one often pushes to the side the land, the other beings, the pride of the native people and culture. I have seen Hawaii nei with loads of tourists from around the world and I have seen the opposite and I prefer the tourism with a caveat that will drive you nuts, Diana. I want a contained tourism in Hawaii.  I want the tourists in Waikiki or on the Kohala Coast or safely contained in the tourist traps of Maui than have them tramping the rest of the land.

I believe that the unintended consequences of eco-tourism and the curious footprints of the 1% traveler — the sort of which you approve — is unbearable.  For it is this traveler who brings his photos and experiences back home and conveys the true beauty of the land to his friends, thereby ruining it for real.  At least in Hawaii we can hide the most beautiful bits from the 99% tourists — it is in the bold 1% that absconds with the true gems and true secrets.

I hate those people.

I would have shared the entire article with you but the Financial Times reminded me like five times not to. So, this article was co-written by my friend and FT report, David Gelles, America: Vanquished by vitriol, and does a smashing job of doing an intervention on us American as firmly suicidal addicts requiring a 72-hour hold and some serious time working the steps.  What do you think?  Are you along the lines of “how dare they, commie bastards — we don’t have a problem” or “we’ve hit bottom and are powerless and need to be restored to sanity” — or somewhere in-between?  I would love your comments.

America: Vanquished by vitriol by Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson and David Gelles

[ . . . ]

After past murderous shooting sprees, US news media have been quick to speculate that violent video games, Hollywood films or heavy metal music may have tipped the suspected perpetrators over the edge. In recent days, as commentators struggled to make sense of the shooting in Tucson, many instead turned their lenses on themselves. The viciously partisan tone of much modern political coverage had set the stage for such violence, several argued.

[ . . . ]

On the right, commentators have equated healthcare reform with socialism, questioned the president’s citizenship and dubbed him anti-American. Glenn Beck, a conservative media star with a Fox News show, radio programme and two websites, joked about driving “a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers” in the Democratic party. Along with Mr Beck on the right are Bill O’Reilly, another Fox News host, as well as radio personality Rush Limbaugh and Ms Palin, who left public office for social media and a platform on Fox.

On the left, Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host who often names Fox rivals in the “Worst Person in the World” segment of his cable show, has called Scott Brown, the Tea Party-backed Massachusetts senator, a racist and homophobe and has urged the president to prosecute officials from the administration of George W. Bush for torture, “starting at the top”. Joining Mr Obermann on the left are Rachel Maddow, another MSNBC host, along with New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and media entrepreneur Arianna Huffington.

“When you flood the zone with language that suggests your opponents are not just wrong-headed but illegitimate and anti-American … this is dangerous and it provides a climate where a fringe group of extremists and mentally ill people are going to be encouraged to do something,” says Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the right wing American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

[ . . . ]

Vicious media divisions predate the American Revolution and peaked again in the battles between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, the witch-hunts of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the cultural battles of the 1960s. What has changed, says Mr Ornstein, is that extreme voices are not reined in: “We have virtually lost the concept of shame.”

But Martin Medhurst, professor of political science at Baylor University in Texas, says vitriol has risen since the mid-1990s because of economic uncertainty. “In dire economic times, rhetoric parallels the perceived crisis. Extremism of all types always preys on fears,” he says.

[ . . . ]

“If there weren’t an audience for this kind of polarised rhetoric on cable, it wouldn’t air,” says Mr Rosenstiel. “But it is also true that the most popular cable news host, Bill O’Reilly, has less than half the audience than the least popular network news host, Katie Couric.”[ . . . ]

Partisan news makes good money, Ms McBride notes: “The people that are most guilty of this kind of rhetoric know exactly what they are doing.”

Barring an economic revival, academics doubt the tone will change for long. “I don’t think the news media will change, because it’s all about ratings,” Ms Brown says. Attacks on Mr Beck or Ms Palin will only solidify their support, Mr Ruddy predicts.

On Monday evening, as the nation tried to come to terms with what had happened in Arizona, one of the most sober assessments came from Mr Stewart. The Daily Show host, who often paints the news media as a failing immune system for US society, chose not to attack them this time.

“I wouldn’t blame our political rhetoric [for Tucson] any more than I would blame heavy metal music for [the 1999 shootings in] Columbine,” he said. “Boy, would it be nice to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible, because then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this, the horrors will end. But … you cannot outsmart crazy. Crazy always seems to find a way; it always has.”

This is such an important thing to remember when you think about the upcoming November elections: post-WWII, America was more prosperous, more powerful, more respected, and growing more aggressively than in any time in history — all while “burdened with debt that totaled over 120 percent of G.D.P.”

“At the end of World War II, the U.S. was burdened with debt that totaled over 120 percent of G.D.P. But we made the investments vital to a new economy — the G.I. Bill, housing subsidies, the interstate highway system, the conversion of military plants, and the Marshall plan. We ran annual deficits over most of the next three decades and the debt grew in absolute size, but the economy and the broad middle class grew faster. By 1980, the debt had been reduced to barely 30 percent of G.D.P.”

Here’s the entire op-ed column from Bob Herbert, The Campaign Disconnect

One in five American kids was living in poverty in 2009. Across the country, once solidly middle-class families are lining up at food pantries and soup kitchens for groceries or a hot meal. In New York City, a startling indicator of the continuing economic stress is the rise in the number of homes that don’t have kitchens.

Election Day is approaching, but neither party cares to focus on the nightmare facing millions of Americans who have been laid low by unemployment, home foreclosures, personal bankruptcies, and jobs that offer only part-time work, lousy pay and absolutely no benefits.

In an era of extreme economic inequality (which is another way of saying economic unfairness), Wall Street can be on a roll and corporate profits can streak toward the moon at the same time that ordinary American families are stuck in depressionlike conditions with precious little hope of relief.

The Democrats are trying to put the best possible face on this terrible economic reality, imploring voters to give them a little credit for preventing matters from becoming much worse. No matter how valid, that’s a tough case to make to families whose properties are being plastered with foreclosure notices. Or to the breadwinners whose 99 weeks of unemployment insurance have been exhausted without anything in the way of a decent job materializing. Or the former middle managers now working for peanuts at Home Depot or Wal-Mart.

But at least the Democrats are still rooted in the real world. The Republicans, when they aren’t behaving as though they’ve lost their minds completely (see O’Donnell, Angle, Paladino, et al.), are peddling a fantasy that has already damaged the country profoundly. The party’s ludicrous “Pledge to America” promises to reduce federal budget deficits while, among other things, making all of the Bush-era tax cuts permanent and jacking up already insanely high defense costs.

The pledge is as dangerous as it is transparent. Economists have calculated that the tax cuts alone will cost nearly $4 trillion over the next decade.

These are the very same G.O.P. operatives who have spent years frantically looting the U.S. Treasury on behalf of their corporate masters, and they can’t wait to get another crack at it. As John Boehner, one of the ring leaders, put it: “We are not going to be any different than what we’ve been.”

What is especially weird is that while they are pushing plans guaranteed to increase budget deficits, the G.O.P. is united in opposition to investments in the economy that would put Americans back to work, revitalize sagging industries and eventually provide the taxes that are crucial to actually getting a handle on deficits.

Weirder still is that even Democrats who should know better are buying into this self-defeating austerity posture. More than 300 economists, including Robert Reich, the former labor secretary, have signed onto a public statement urging policy makers not to undercut any real chance at a recovery by focusing prematurely on deficit reduction. What are needed instead are prudent, sensible investments, especially in infrastructure, research and development, and green energy initiatives.

The statement, released by the liberal Institute for America’s Future, noted that President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform would like to reduce the federal deficit to 3 percent of the gross domestic product by 2015. That’s not realistic. It’s not going to happen.

More important is the following point made by the institute in its statement:

“At the end of World War II, the U.S. was burdened with debt that totaled over 120 percent of G.D.P. But we made the investments vital to a new economy — the G.I. Bill, housing subsidies, the interstate highway system, the conversion of military plants, and the Marshall plan. We ran annual deficits over most of the next three decades and the debt grew in absolute size, but the economy and the broad middle class grew faster. By 1980, the debt had been reduced to barely 30 percent of G.D.P.”

There is no doubt that the country, starved for revenues and still at war, will have to increase some taxes. Unnecessary spending should be attacked. But the nation is still in the throes of an economic crisis. Poverty is growing and the middle class is shrinking, and more than 20 million Americans are out of work or underemployed.

We can pretend that all of this is not happening and that there won’t be grave consequences as a result. We can cling to the Ronald Reagan-George W. Bush fairy tale that handing over ever more riches to those who are already rich and powerful is the way to revitalize the American dream.

Or we can take our cue from the best moments in American history, when the nation rolled up its sleeves and placed the interests of ordinary people at the top of its agenda.

I don’t even know what to say about the kind of bald-faced lies that happen every day on AM talk radio and on the cable news channel Fox News.

Dana Perino, I might even have to revoke my intense crush on you over this!

Read on, via Think Progress.  The terror attacks of September 11th happened during George W. Bush‘s administration, as you all know — right?

You know that, right?

Last night on Fox News, host Sean Hannity whined — as he usually does — about how the Obama administration doesn’t use the term “war on terror” (which is actually a good thing). Former Bush administration spokesperson and current Fox analyst Dana Perino joined in, complaining that no one is calling the massacre at Ft. Hood a terrorist attack. She then made this astonishing statement:

PERINO: And we had a terrorist attack on our country. And we should call it what it is. Because we need to face up to it so that we can prevent it from happening again.

HANNITY: I agree with you. And why won’t they say what you just so simply said?

PERINO: They want to do all of their investigations. I don’t know. All of the thinking that goes into it. But we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think we ought it to the American people to call it what it is.

Watch it:

Of course, the terror attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 — eight months into President Bush’s first term. But also, conservatives like to claim that the Bush administration prevented any terror incidents in the U.S. since 9/11. But they conveniently forget the anthrax attacks on U.S. news organizations and members of Congress over the course of several weeks beginning on Sept. 18, 2001.

Over the last couple days I have been hearing about these Tea Party Talking Points that The Heritage Foundation has put out.  I want you to see it because I have been hearing it quoted verbatim on conservative talk radio, on Fox, and elsewhere.  I hate it when people stick this closely to talking points, but it is an important and interesting study of messaging and the feared and admired ability conservatives have to show one united front.  Check this out:

DON’T BORROW, SPEND, AND TAX AWAY OUR FUTURE

The President’s Plan

• Blames Bush: President Obama correctly points out that he inherited a projected $1.2 trillion deficit in 2009 from President Bush and a Democratic Congress. However, his budget adds an additional $659 billion to that deficit, pushing it above $1.8 trillion. Although Obama has pledged to reduce the budget deficit to approximately $600 billion by 2012, that would still be $150 billion above pre-recession levels. Quadrupling the deficit and then cutting it in half is not “change.”
• Increases Spending, Again: After an $800 billion stimulus bill, the Obama budget increases spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, includes an additional $250 billion placeholder for another bailout, and calls for a Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) law while astonishingly violating that rule by $3.4 trillion.
• Expands Government: The 25% spending increase in the Obama budget represents the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal.
• Leaves Deficits: The Obama budget leaves permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and doubles the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion in 2009 dollars).
• Cuts Defense: The Obama budget fails to fully fund the core defense needs of the United States. About $30 billion more is needed in the base defense budget.
• Puts Government in Charge: The $634 billion for health care reform in the Obama budget is only a “down payment” on an eventual government-run system. Experts believe the actual cost could reach $1.6 trillion over 10 years. This is in addition to the trillions already spent on health care this year in the stimulus and SCHIP bills.

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

• Energy Taxes: The Obama budget proposes a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax that White House officials admit could actually generate $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years. This tax would cost each American household between $650 and $2,000 annually in new energy costs, even though President Obama promised that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this cap-and-trade program (January 2008).
• Oil and Gas Taxes: The Obama budget would collect $31 billion in new oil and gas tax revenue. These industries are already taxed above the industrial average, and increasing the burden would be detrimental to increasing or even maintaining domestic supply.
• Excise Taxes: The Obama budget would reinstate unnecessary Superfund excise taxes that expired in 1995.
• Death Taxes: The estate tax is set to expire in 2010, but the Obama budget and liberals in Congress are proposing keeping it between 35 and 45%.
• Tobacco Taxes: The largest tobacco tax in history is three times as likely to affect low-income Americans, who are more likely to smoke, as it is to affect high-income Americans.

There Are Alternatives

• A Path to American Prosperity: There are now two 10-year budget plans being offered in Washington. The Obama budget raises taxes by $1.4 trillion; the conservative Alternative avoids all tax increases and even simplifies the tax code. One budget does nothing to address the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicaid; the other begins to reform these programs. One budget permanently raises federal spending to over 22% of GDP; the other lowers it to pre-recession levels.
• Lower Taxes: Senator Jim DeMint’s “American Option” would have reduced business taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent to spur rapid growth in wages, jobs and business incomes. It also would have permanently repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax and reduced the individual tax rate to three levels—10, 15, and 25 percent—giving Americans more of their own money to fuel the economy and increasing disposable income for an average family of four by up to $4,500 by 2013.

I am in Washington, DC, for the inauguration, but aside from the excitement of seeing all of my global friends as they converge on DC for the inauguration, I am not participating to any great extent.  Why?  There are two reasons . . .

First, I have attended inaugurations, inaugural parades, and inauguration balls for the last 20-years, starting with the election of George H. W. Bush, Bush senior, into the White House all the way through to the second inauguration of George W. Bush back in 2005, which was held on a very cold January 20th, if I remember correctly. While I had my plans set for Berlin, I didn’t have my plans set up in Washington, so I am just going to enjoy the pleasures on the fringe.

Second, while I am blissed out that Senator Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States, I am allergic to two-million historical well-wishers crowding the National Mall.

I have to be honest, I am still dazzled that the United States elected an African American from Hawaii by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, especially in such jingoistic times. And I am proud and impressed and looking forward to not just the first one-hundred days but also to the second term.

The Obama White House really needs to be an eight-year presidency — two terms — because there is a lot of work to both do and undo.

What I do plan to do, however, is open up Naval Lodge 4 on Capitol Hill at 8 AM. I will be serving hot coffee and donuts from the 4th floor of 330 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. So, if you’re in the neighborhood and want some warm coffee, some company, and maybe a donut or two, please drop by for a cuppa.

I believe the 2008 presidential election is going to be between Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. I thought Dick Cheney might come down with a health condition but it might not take that. Via The Times of London

It looks like I am not wrong, “Republicans are urging President George W Bush to dump Dick Cheney as vice-president and replace him with Condoleezza Rice if he is serious about presenting a new face to the jaded American public.” Via memeorandum and the Times of London and Outside the Beltway

Image via Wikipedia

Even though I thought that today’s piece on the Erg was my best yet — and it was — it was not that much better than the one I did a couple of days ago. 5-seconds faster. I have the following scores submitted into the World Ranking Series for 20003.