America’s Dirtiest and Cleanest Cities

by Richard Florida

The American Lung Association's State of the Air report on America's most polluted cities is out. Here's  a summary (pointer via Planetizen).

Six out of ten Americans live in urban areas where air pollution can cause major health problems … Despite America's growing "green" movement, the air in many cities became dirtier during the past 12 months. The research names Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and Bakersfield as the most polluted US cities. The report finds that air pollution hovers at unhealthy levels in almost every major city, threatening people's ability to breathe and placing lives at risk …

Many cities, like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Washington, DC and Baltimore have made considerable improvements in their air quality over the past decade. People living in some of these cities however, are breathing even dirtier air than what was reported in the Lung Association's previous report. Only one city, Fargo, North Dakota, ranked among the cleanest in all three air pollution categories covered by the research.

Maps of the most polluted cities are here; the cleanest cities here.

A Game Of Torture Telephone

by Patrick Appel
Spencer Ackerman fisks Cheney:

[There] is a straight line between the the CIA interrogation program at Abu Ghraib, moving like a game of telephone. At each stage, an important safeguard or restriction assumed at an earlier stage — the techniques apply only to the CIA; the techniques are to be used only on Geneva-exempted enemy combatants; the techniques are to be applied only by interrogators — breaks down. Not once do you have to assume that the Bush administration’s principals wanted abuse to happen to reach this conclusion. This is why the law exists, after all: to prevent unintended consequences by well-meaning individuals that veer off into horror. Redefining the law on torture leads to what a 2004 Pentagon investigation called the “migration” of so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques — even if that investigation didn’t have any mandate for discovering that the origins of those techniques came from CIA programs approved at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

The Long Road Back

by Richard Florida

Felix Salmon points to Julia Ioffe's TNR story on Nouriel Roubini, zeroing in on the long journey back to recovery.

Given the right changes, perhaps the United States can develop with the productive long view in mind, and maybe its human talent can be spread more equitably. "When you have more financial engineers than computer engineers, you know that the brightest minds have gone into something where, probably, the margin was excessive," he had told me earlier. "Maybe some of these bright people are going to do something entrepreneurial, more creative, or go into government. I think that's actually a good change. The transition is painful, but the result may be good."

Salmon's comment is spot on.

[O]ver the long term, I'm optimistic that the redeployment of US human resources away from finance and into the real economy is bound to be a good thing. But in the medium term, the process of "scaling back and turning inwards" around the globe is going to be extremely painful — and is far from over. Or, to put it a more familiar way, things are going to get worse before they get worse. Only very slowly and very painfully might they start to get better — and it's not going to happen any time soon.

The thing that strikes me most is how very long it takes for economies to reset themselves during crises. Recovery from both the Long Depression of the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s took the better part of two or three decades. Both required not just a new wave of technological innovation, the creative destruction of various industries, and new modes of government economic intervention, but were premised upon a whole new "spatial fix" – the rise of the "modern" industrial city after the Long Depression and suburbia's rise after the Great Depression – to set in motion broad new patterns of consumer spending and demand which could power longer-run growth. My own father was just eight in 1929, my mother three, when the stock market crashed. They left Newark for a close-in working class New Jersey suburb in 1960 – three full decades after the onset of the crash.

Governments and central banks certainly have better monetary and fiscal policy tools at their disposal now and are more adept at managing economic downturns. Still, I fear it will be a much longer road to full recovery and a new normal than most people expect.

 

Why Music Matters

by Richard Florida

Universal Music Group, the world's largest recorded music company, is once again trying to adapt to the new world of digital music. It's created a new venture named Vevo in partnership with Google, according to the Wall Street Journal. Vevo aims to generate increased advertising revenue from streaming music videos.

But the enormity of the creative destruction sweeping the industry goes far beyond the iPod killing off the CD. The Gang of Four's Dave Allen argues that we are seeing the "end of the album" – a construct initially created by the limitation of vinyl technology in 1930 – as the organizing principle of musical production. He sees this as potentially liberating for musicians – or those musicians that can adapt. Industry veteran Bob Lefsetz predicts a return to the pre-LP era, when artists constantly pumped out singles and toured. He even draws a comparison to the way that Toyota has succeeded by building a reputation for reliability gradually through word of mouth.

Technology is also changing the way we experience music. Strange as it may seem to vinyl purists out there, many of the net generation increasingly prefer the "sizzle" of compressed MP3s to the sound of higher-quality files. Some musicians now check their final mixdowns on cell phones.

But not all the results are positive. Mark Fisher counters that the ubiquity of digital recording is again changing the way we experience music. As more and more people produce their own music, and with more music to consume online and elsewhere, we have less time to actually experience music. We now take our music in small bits, seldom listen to anything "whole," and have precious little time left over for live events. Like a digital-age Walter Benjamin, Fisher argues that such instantaneous exposure deprives cultures of the time and space they need to germinate and grow.

Technology and music have long interacted as economist Peter Tschmuck has shown. On the one hand, new technologies like the long play (LP) record, the synthesizer, and now the iPod have changed the music industry and led to the rise of whole new music genres. But, on the other hand, music has also powerfully affected the rise and dissemination of new technology. Without music and some ingenious entrepreneurs in the music industry, the phonograph would still be used as Edison intended: to dictate letters and store phone calls. Radio was seen as a "wireless telegraph" until one of Thomas Edison's researchers broadcast himself playing O Holy Night on the violin on Christmas Eve 1906. And we're all familiar with the way the MP3 popularized peer-to-peer file-sharing and broadband internet connections. But, It's about more than just technology, actually.

The way I see it, that music is a "fruit-fly industry" – one that can tell us a lot about the nature of technology, new business models, and the economy in general. Music is a highly competitive business – a hyper-competitive market in miniature, where competition for sonic, technological, and talent advantage spurs rapid evolution and change. New recording and network technology means that barriers to entry are lower than ever. Music is often the first sector to experience the full force of disruptive technology. It was the first industry to face the file-sharing crisis, and other industries like film and publishing are now learning from its experience. Musicians are quintessential examples of free-agent workers, mixing income and seeking out affordable, creative places to do their work. And the concentration of musical talent and firms into clusters and scenes – in an industry which requires little in the way of capital infrastructure and fixed costs – can help us better understand geographic clustering across a wide variety of fields.

Waxman-Markey, To–And–Fro

by Patrick Appel

Jim Manzi responds to Ryan Avent. In my humble opinion, Jim has the upperhand –partially because Ryan is forced to argue beyond the legislation in question and consider how W-M will impact future climate bills and international negotiations on climate change. That line of attack inherentaly has more variables and uncertainties. But you won't find a better, or more civil, pro and con debate on the Waxman bill. I encourage you to read both posts.

The Cannabis Closet: The Conservatives

Cannabis

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I used to be a conservative Republican like you.  I am now a conservative Democrat.  I think our government is overbearing in many instances. In the case of marijuana, it’s missing out on a large amount of tax revenue if the stuff were legalized and regulated like alcohol. Doing that would rid our prisons of many tokers and small time drug users, cut our prison and judicial costs significantly and increase our tax base. This would be especially true in California. Yet the insanity persists!

What really annoys me these days is at age 64 I think I have earned the right to smoke a joint once and a while without being exposed to the risks of our stupid drug laws. I ought to be able to go down to some local reputable dealer who pays taxes on the stuff and buy a joint once or twice a year, go back home and smoke it while I put a steak on the barbeque.  

Another writes:

I’m a 27-year-old programmer who lives in the Bible Belt. By the time I got my first professional job at a small company, I’d been smoking marijuana for a year. I took great pains to hide this from my coworkers and parents because of the social stigmas attached to marijuana. But I eventually found out that over a third of my coworkers got high on a regular basis. They came from different educational systems, different sociopolitical backgrounds; conservatives, liberals, college graduates, middle-aged professionals, CEOs, programmers, accountants, and secretaries. Even, I discovered, my parents.

Every job I’ve worked in since, I’ve found it to be the same. Even in places that test for drugs. It’s corporate America’s little secret – a great, silent number of professionals indulge in marijuana from time to time. We aren’t addicts. Most of us are responsible people.

Another:

I’m a Manhattan commercial lawyer in my mid-forties. Before my divorce, I lived in the suburbs, where I would get together weekly with two friends (a partner at one of the most highly respected “white shoe” law firms in the city and a C-level officer of a major corporation, both with young families) to toke covertly, rotating through our respective backyards. My pot-smoking friends in the city, like many Manhattanites, hail from all over the country. They include a physician, a professor, a 30-something personal chef, scrappy 50-something garment industry executives and scrappier traders. And a high school teacher.

While our lives are culturally distinct from those of “Real Americans,” we are, for the most part, productive, moral and responsible people (and you’d be surprised at how many supported George W. Bush and spout Fox News nonsense).

What all my pot-partners have in common is their fear, even though we all know that having a few buds in Manhattan will not result in a criminal record for any of us. The professional price of a mere arrest would be too great. Few buy their own and they won’t discuss their pot preference unless they know their interlocutor well. I buy my own and talk relatively freely about it, within reason.

My secret? I’m self-employed, and  know a top-notch criminal lawyer, who started out as a public defender, and who instructed me on police practice and who can get me out of any pot-related scrape. He doesn’t toke because of the symbolism – it’s against the law. But he keeps a few buds in his closet, which he’s saving for the day when pot becomes legal.