Morning Metro: Emory History Minutes, CSD’s Nepotism Policy, and Pig’s Newest Home
Decatur Metro | October 13, 2011- Emory Report celebrates 175 years with 1-minute history lessons [Emory Report]
- Mayor Reed gives Occupy Atlanta 5-day grace period to remain in Woodruff Park [AJC]
- Tickets still available for Saturday’s ROOT beer fest! [Little Shop]
- CSD Board Adopts New Nepotism Policy [Patch]
- Augusta downtown revitalization seems to be working [Augusta Chronicle]
- Sydney Rhame on Atlanta Sounds! [WABE]
- Iberian Pig owners opening new “Southern Italian” restaurant in Roswell [Next Stop]
- “Will food get really expensive, driving down consumption and really hurting the world’s poorest people?” [NPR]
Latest from Decaturish
That NPR article is just weird. It starts with Malthus without bothering to say that Malthus has been as thoroughly discredited as anyone can be. His theories were all wrong; the famines he predicted did not happen. He assumed that population would increase exponentially but food production could not nearly keep pace. In fact we found new and innovative ways to greatly increase crop yields. Paul Erlich picked up the mantle from Erlich in the 70’s (the “battle to feed humanity is over”) and he was wrong, too. Erlich also lost a bet in the 1980s about the future prices of a basket of commodities. He bet they would all increase in price. In fact, all declined.
Will food get really expensive? No one knows for sure but I doubt it, unless the government keeps totally messing up the markets. Take corn, a staple crop, the price of which is massively distorted by Washington paying ADM to turn tons of corn into Ethanol, not to mention the massive subsidies paid to support the effort to turn corn into a sweetner for soda. An innovative idea at this point might be to get the government out of the agriculture market, not to expand its already bloated and failed experiments.
I’m not sure Malthus has been discredited as much as his prediction needed to be kicked down the road a bit because he didn’t anticipate the creation of synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizers aren’t in infinite supply either as far as I know. You may choose to believe that innovation will continue to outpace outright societal collapse, but it’s not entirely clear that will be the case. Many populations have collapsed after knowingly using up all their natural resources (read Jared Diamond’s Collapse). Why is the modern world any different?
Kicked down the road “a bit,” as in at least 160 years? And of course he did not forsee many agricultrual and technological advancements. That’s the point. Whenever you take the present (for Malthus, cow manure fertilizers, horse-drawn plows) and project it into the future, you are absolutely guaranteed to be wrong.
“Whenever you take the present (for Malthus, cow manure fertilizers, horse-drawn plows) and project it into the future, you are absolutely guaranteed to be wrong.”
So what’s the alternative? Never project anything? Create an alternative universe?
Yeah, pretty much. If the projections are inaccurate, then why should we pay attention to them? I realize that it is discomforting to know that we can’t predict the future, which is why so many people are so invested in pretending otherwise. And here you have an article lending some measure of credence to a prediction that hasn’t come to pass in well over a century since it was made!
I recall reading a speech (with powerpoint) Michael Crichton gave years ago, where he flashed a large group of words on a screen. He then said something like “here are dozens of words we use every day that a person from 1905 would not even understand. Tell me now that we can predict the future, or that it is even worth talking about.” I think he was right.
A simple but useful example is: think about how many incredibly smart people are engaged in economic forecasting and how awful their record is. Despite decades of practice, the forecasts are almost always wrong. in 2009 the administration’s top economists could not come close to predicting the unemployment rate two years hence. Every day highly paid analysts try to predict future stock prices. More often than not, they’re wrong. Highly paid fund managers rarely beat the S&P 500. The financial crisis of 2008 that seems so obvious in hindsight was predicted by almost no one. The best and brightest tried to predict the cost of Medicare when it was passed int he ’60s. 12 years later their projections were off by 100%.
The problem is each American “eats” about 400 gallons of oil per year. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
Just as we are moving past Hubbert’s peak(s) in fossil fuel extraction, the resulting fuel scarcity drives proliferation for food-for-transportation schemes that reduce food crop availability. Further reduction in food availability from climate changes (driven by buring fossil fuels) has already resulted in great disruptions in political and economic conditions around the world. …much more to come.
Excessive burning of fossil fuels is the common denominator in this equation.
Malthus underestimated ingenuity but we would are foolish to create and exacerbate currently unsolvable problems then dismantle the very regulatory and educational agencies that would have the best chance to mitigate and/or solve them.
+1
Hubbert’s peaks have never been proven, and I’d argue that current experience with natural gas is a good reason to seriously doubt that he was right. 6 years ago no one paid much attention to the Marcellus shale, now it yields massive quantities of gas. And I think you’d have a very hard case to make if your position is that ethanol subsidies have anything to do with fuel scarcity. Intense lobbying and graft is the better explanation.
I’m not saying that reducing fossil fuel use isn;t a good idea. I think it is for many reasons. But I don’t think we’re at any real threat of running out of them.
On the one hand I’m not happy about the nepotism policy, even though I’d probably love all the individuals mentioned in the article if I knew them. On the other hand, I’m glad it’s explicit and out in the open. The timing is interesting. Both candidates for the District 1 School Board position have expressed to me at one time or another concerns about the appearance of nepotism.
There is an old saying in politics that perception is reality. -The reality of whether job candidates are suitable is less significant than the appearances which hiring family members makes to the larger community. As long as the process is open, transparent, and accountable, then we will be on a strong footing both in real terms and in the court of public opinion.
I would like to observe that it was Mrs. Wilson that put the motion forward to adopt the stricter of the 2 nepotism policies which were on the table last night. -Rightly so, she argued that it requires a public vote of the board in cases where hiring of family members is involved. And by doing so, it makes actions in such hiring open, transparent, and accountable.
Mrs. Seals may have pointed out issues which need to be resolved with the creation of a vendor nepotism policy for the Superintendent. But it was also Mrs. Seals and Mrs. Wilson who backed Mr. Ahmann up on the desire to direct the staff to work up a vendor policy for future consideration.
Mr. Wisniewski’s concerns related more to getting the legal language to be consistent and fair with regards to how we define family relationships. The legal counsel also backed up Mr. Ahmann’s request by pointing out that while the board is responsible for approving contracts, the logistics related to those contracts fall heavily upon the superintendent. She also expressed that the board vendor nepotism policy could be used as the basis for one that would apply to the superintendent.
So all in all, I heard a healthy conversation and observed a step forward last night. I came away with the expectation that a superintendent vendor nepotism policy will come before the board for consideration in the not too distant future. I am hopeful that it too will set a higher bar and be adopted by the board.
Thank you for a more detailed analysis of the board meeting. Having attended the meeting as well, I feel that you added a great deal of pertinent information.
I, too, am pleased that the board voted for the more restrictive nepotism policy, which will require a public vote of the board to hire family members of the superintendent and administrators. This policy is in line with the current policy in place for board members.
I am not in agreement with Mr. Ahmann’s assertion that a blanket prohibition on the employment of family members is necessary or desirable. Perhaps my views will evolve as I gain a greater understanding of the system, but at this time it appears that the current policy is working well. I am in favor of policies that require transparency and accountability but that also allow case-by-case examination and judgment. I have faith in our elected leaders to apply the policy and faith in our community to vote them out if they fail to do so!
Another piece of the conversation included how a prohibition policy might be applied and the potential for legal action against the system. Mr. Ahmann asserted that it was unlikely for a family member of the board or administration to bring suit against CSD, and that if one was brought, the case should be settled and the policy then changed. I was dismayed at the flip nature of this comment which trivialized the possibility of costly litigation and its detrimental effect to the system.
I am looking forward to hearing more about a nepotism policy that covers vendors. I would again hope for a policy that both ensures ethical vendor contracting without unnecessary blanket prohibitions and has been thoroughly reviewed by the staff and legal counsel.
In case anyone is wondering, I do have a child in CSD schools, but otherwise have no stake in CSD, the board, or either of the District 1 candidates. In fact, I am currently undecided between the two. I enjoyed meeting both candidates at last week’s forum and am happy to have a choice between two solid candidates.
After what I’ve read here, it sounds like the new nepotism policy is an improvement in transparency and accountability. I’m glad to hear that.
John Ahmann has become sort of a Dr. No.
Maybe, but sometimes, the “Dr. No’s” are needed…not saying with this specific instance, but in general. At the very least, they do tend to provide a “stop & look before you leap” perspective.