Graphs worth viewing

Hans Gosling, TED Talk

I've been a fan of Hans Gosling, the statistician and Swedish medical doctor made famous by his colorful and easily understood TED presentations. He has helped people explore the world statistically and grasp macro-economic concepts.

Today, Al Gore pointed me to another statistical presentation about income disparity in the US and, as with the Gosling motion graphs, the import of the content struck me instead of the magic of the math.

The Al Gore Wealth Inequality in America video shows that the wealthiest one percent of Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 90 percent and that most Americans don't understand that. The gap continues to widen as the top one percent receives almost 25 percent of annual U.S. income, up from 12 percent just 25 years ago. It's a disturbing video but presented softly and well worth watching:



Al Gore says, "In order to make the U.S. system of capitalism truly sustainable, we must tackle this unhealthy concentration of wealth. Too much wealth concentrated in the hands of too few disrupts societal stability and corrupts the wealth-creating incentives of our capitalist system. Anger over income inequality has already sparked popular backlash in the form of Occupy Wall Street and other similar demonstrations. Indeed, the level of inequality in the U.S. is already worse than in Egypt or Tunisia, two nations rocked in recent years by popular uprisings that overthrew national governments during the Arab Spring."

The man presenting the figures describes the serious gap between perception and reality. Understanding reality is the first step toward challenging the situation and making changes, thus this short posting to introduce you to the video.

A New Book by Al Gore

Time Magazine calls Al Gore "the perfect stealth candidate for 2008" in their article which excerpts from his new book The Assault on Reason. I've read the excerpts but the book won't be available until next week. Gore says some wonderful things toward developing an understanding of how the media has failed us and what we can do to change the process.

It is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know I am not alone in feeling that something has gone fundamentally wrong.

One-way media, TV, enables manipulation of public debate which leads to cynicism, doubt and lack of participation.

Unfortunately [there is] a new cynicism about reason itself — because reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don't have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they're being "taught" in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.

So the remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way—a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.

I've blogged many times about Gore's point of view (which I share) on this subject. In the area of political dialogue, it might be called the “pollster-consultant industrial complex” [coined by Joe Klein] that has had the same effect in political dialogue as manipulative commercial advertising has on the buying public: lack of spontaneity, test-tube bromides, insipid photo ops, and idiotic advertising combined to pass for political discourse. In the current Time excerpt Gore is less dramatic and confrontational than he was last year when he said:

The conversation of democracy has been desiccated [pulverized; lacking in energy or vitality]. To bring it back to life, break the monopoly of broadcast and cable television.

Is there hope in what he writes? Does he propose a plan to take back the airwaves and enable real awareness and discourse? Here's what he writes:

...broadband interconnection is supporting decentralized processes that reinvigorate democracy. We can see it happening before our eyes: As a society, we are getting smarter. Networked democracy is taking hold. You can feel it. We the people—as Lincoln put it, "even we here"—are collectively still the key to the survival of America's democracy.

Cutting Carbon Emissions

First, a rant: most members of Congress are either lawyers or businesspeople. They know what “fiduciary responsibility” is. It means reading and understanding each and every bill that they vote upon.

Congress has not met this duty for a long time. Instead . . .

• They carelessly pass mammoth bills that none of them have read. Sometimes printed copies aren't even available when they vote.


• Often no one knows what these bills contain, or what they really do, or what they will cost.


• Additions and deletions are made at the last minute, often in secrecy.


• They combine unpopular proposals with popular measures that few in Congress want to oppose.

Once these bills are passed, and one of these unpopular proposals comes to light, they pretend to be shocked. “How did that get in there?”

America was founded on the slogan: “No taxation without representation.” It's not as catchy but perhaps we need another slogan: “No legislation without representation.”

Now, for cutting carbon emissions: the legislative process - to debate a strategic issue and negotiate a legal solution - involves fact gathering and discussion. The process includes sifting through biased and often selfish information sources and involves the art of persuasion, creative thinking, and manipulation as well as strength of character, due diligence and altruism.

Cutting carbon emissions - a world-wide issue of momentous magnitude - is a perfect example of how things are supposed to work.

There are thousands of industry groups. The automotive industry is one case in point. The industry has almost one hundred groups representing the various types of labor, parts suppliers, steel makers, the car manufactures, the truckers, shippers and other transportation industries, the sellers and dealerships, the engineers, the computer people, etc. And they each have a different point of view regarding what to do about reducing carbon emissions and how so doing will effect their group.

Each industry group attempts to present their point of view to the congressional committee members that might have influence on the development of a legislative proposal to address the problem. They also lobby staffers and reporters as well. Most such groups hire paid lobbyists to target and approach key legislators and staff members. Many of these paid lobbyists are ex- (or present) political consultants or ex-members or staff of the very Congress they are lobbying. Their very familiarity with the players gives them a bit more access than anyone else.

How does each group make it's point of view known, heard and favorably received? In caustic terms, one might say that cash opens the door and long-term economic promises keep them open for comments and rebuttals. Even if cash were taken out of the equation, it's still in everyone's interest to gather and hear information from every source before negotiating a solution.

Here's where integrity enters the picture. In recent years many committees and committee members have actually let industry groups draft the legislation that is then proposed by the committee.

Where did the due diligence go? The fiduciary responsibility?

Although extremely partisan members of congress might say that no money changed hands, how much does one favor his "friends" versus doing what's right for his country and constituents?

Only a new slate of players - elected officials with ethics, responsibility, and a passion for change - can sift through the partisanship, one sidedness and unfairness to craft a solution to cutting carbon emissions.

Ability vs. likeability

A friend of mine - a reporter - asked whether Obama was my type of guy.

My kind of candidate is the rare breed of person who is good at getting things done. He's a practical type - good with his hands and also good at inspiring and encouraging others to use their's wisely AND with conviction and efficiency. Ability to win elections isn't necessarily indicative of ability to make practical changes happen [particularly these days where the process of politics is a study in misuse of power]. Both Bush's have proven this to be true.

Is Obama that kind of guy? How can one know. Is Gore? There's a better chance with him than almost anywhere else. But Obama can bring tears to ones eyes. So could Mario Cuomo and Cuomo also got things done.

I'm not a happy camper with ANY of the present candidates. I've signed petitions to draft Cuomo and Gore.

There was a story caption in last week's BusinessWeek that read: Investing in Russia's People. It caught my attention because Russia needs that kind of investment and Putin is making it happen.

Whichever candidate convinces me that this will actually happen here in America - that he or she is dedicated and has the will to make it happen - will get my vote.

More than ever I'm interested in:

• Ability rather than like-ability.


• A change of direction from politics as spin, bicker and manipulate to negotiate and solve.


• Strategic investments in education, welfare, health care, physical infrastructure and honest communication.


• Changing our posture in world relationships from braggart/bully to willing participant.


• In rewarding those who educate our children instead of those who sell to them.


• And in reducing fear on three levels: lowering the rhetoric, cooperating in a world-wide fight against terrorist activities and helping lower worldwide poverty so that there are fewer breeding grounds for terrorist incubation.

Is Obama that kind of guy? He certainly says that he is. We'll have to wait and see.