Actually, the Germans are unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot

       I have to admit, I'm not an expert in macro economics.  I'm just a person who tries to stay informed about world events and who is (at present) an American on the ground in Germany.  Please, dear readers, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that some smaller, weaker countries, like Greece, were able to borrow money like never before once they started to share the Euro currency with bigger, richer countries like Germany.  So, now that we are in a horrible recession, Greece has borrowed its way into oblivion and is having trouble making payments not only because it borrowed more than it could comfortably pay back, but because austerity measures resulted in a further slowing down of the economy (not to mention personal hardship and lapses in services) and the rampant tax evasion in Greece isn't helping either.  Also, nobody thinks Greece will pay up, so borrowing rates are sky-high.  Am I right?  Please, do tell me if I'm missing something here.
       Germany, by far the strongest and richest country on the Euro, is supposed to keep bailing out the weaker economies of Greece and (possibly) soon to be Italy, Spain, and Portugal.  The Germans seem to keep saying, "We've given them enough money, it's time for them to get their act together.  We have our act together, we pay our darn taxes and work until 67."  The Euro is a bit of a mess, and the leaders are now in Belgium trying to figure out what to do next.
     On June 26, Op-Ed contributors Kenneth Griffin and Anil Kashyap wrote the article, "To Save the Euro, Leave It" suggesting that instead of Greece (for example) leaving the Euro, that Germany should instead leave.  That's all "thinking outside the box" and sexy and off the wall and compelling and everything - but I can't see how you could actually talk the Germans into it.  The writers' idea is that once the Germans returned to the Deutschmark, the Euro would become instantly weaker, and the exports of Euro countries would become much cheaper and more competitive.  Additionally, a weaker Euro, "Would not solve the debt burdens of southern European countries, but it would give them needed breathing room to restructure their economies, reform labor markets, collect more taxes and reassure investors."  Please, pray tell, how would a weaker Euro allow a debt-strapped country to collect more taxes?  Tax evasion will somehow cease to be a problem with a weaker Euro, and all those Greek billionaires will allow the tax man into their giant offshore mattresses?
       But let's leave that aside for the moment.  The basic idea of this article is that Germany could fix things by leaving the Euro and going back to the Deutschmark.  That way, the Mark would be strong, the Euro would instantly be weaker, and other Euro country exports would instantly become more competitive than German exports abroad.  Apparently, once Germany would leave the Euro, Griffin and Kashyap believe that international companies will immediately start investing in tons of  factories in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, as the newly depressed Euro will allow companies to hire people to make widgets at low low prices and sell beach-front condos at low low prices too.  Apparently Germany would just have to deal with not having exports that were as competitive.  I very much doubt that Italian/Greek/Spanish/Portuguese exports would take off at such a pace, but let's say (for the sake of argument) that the writers might be onto something. 
       There's just one thing I have to ask dearest Kash and Griff, "What 's in it for Germany?"  Unlike the United States, Germany is a net exporting country.  Exporting German goods is a major part of the German economy and the German culture.  K and G admit it's going to be painful for the Germans, at least at first, stating:  "Germany’s industrial base would unquestionably endure hardship in the transition to a stronger currency . . . Over time, the industrial base of Germany would adapt and move forward."
        Griffin and Kashyap are Harvard and MIT trained financial geniuses in Chicago, and I'm sure either one of them could crush me with a single thought.  But last week I was at a public school here in the German city where I live, a public school in a tough neighborhood.  I go there once a week to help any kid who wants some free extra help with English, and sometimes I look through the extra textbooks left for teacher reference.  There are many high schools, such as the one at which I volunteer, that train students for highly specialized factory jobs.  And their textbooks are amazing.  They go on and on about how wonderful it is that Germany is a next exporting country.  How great it is that MADE IN GERMANY is an international sign of high quality and excellent craftsmanship.  How the students will go on to work in a factory and become part of this proud tradition.  Most of the kids I work with won't go to college, but they will have good paying, steady, well-respected factory jobs because Germany protects its factories, it's factory workers, and its export culture.
       Those three English words, MADE IN GERMANY, are all over the place.  Because English is more widely understood that German, the proud saying is always in English, but all the Germans understand it.  Is the local soccer team playing a game against a Spanish team?  You'll see a sign with a picture of a Seville orange over a MADE IN SPAIN sign next to a picture of a steel orange juicer over a MADE IN GERMANY sign.  There are even contemporary art shows called MADE IN GERMANY that showcase sculptures and paintings by local artists. I'm confused.  Why would Germany voluntarily leave the Euro and make life harder for all the people who make German exports?  Why?  Why would Germany so blatantly act against its own financial interest? 
       I don't doubt that Kashyap and Griffin are brilliant financial minds.  And I know that something must be done about Greece, and something must be done about the Euro.  But, I believe they are mistaken if they think Germany is going to endanger its net exporting status just to help its neighbors.  Nobody wants to keep bailing out other countries.  But if it's between forking out another huge bailout or crippling German exports for the next 50 years, I think I know which one Germany's going to pick.  The Germans didn't even finish paying off their World War 1 reparations until 2010 - so they seem to be able to grit their teeth and write a check.  It doesn't mean that they are going to let Bavarian Motor Works (BMW) become Athenian Motor Works. The MADE IN GERMANY culture is deeper than Kashyap and Griffin seem to realize.  The Germans are going to make sure that 20 year old German factory worker has a job before they worry that a 20 year old Spanish factory worker has a job.  And really, can you blame them?

STEM Education - the word is getting out (kind of)

     Dearest readers - as you know - I went off on a huge rant about how the United States trains plenty of young people in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.  So many, in fact, that many of my friends with higher degrees in STEM subjects are having trouble finding work.  Nevertheless, various politicians and news outlets (I'm looking at you New York Times) seem to think that it is the gospel truth that America doesn't have enough scientists, and gosh darn it, it would just be 1960 again if only we could just make science more fun for kids!
      Slate, an online news magazine that I really respect, decided to put their two misinformed cents in and asked their readers to suggest ways to get American kids interested in science, because having more scientists will just fix all our problems.  Naturally, this prompted a letter to the editor from me that the entire premise of this project is flawed.  Naturally, I never heard back.
     However, Slate must have gotten some sort of message from somewhere, because today they posted an opinion piece by an actual scientist!  Actual, working scientists had been suspiciously lacking from the "getting kids into science will fix all our problems" song.  Derek Lowe, an actual chemist, wrote a fascinating article tellingly titled, "We don't need more scientists - we need better ones."  To summarize for you, he lets us know that there are plenty of American scientists who are underemployed, and that it won't help to add 1000 mediocre scientific minds when you need 1 genius.  He talks about the outsourcing of many routine scientific jobs, and how it isn't a good time, economically, to be a mediocre scientist.  He also worries that the next Isaac Newton might be in an area with inadequate scientific education, so he ends up being a farmer instead of unraveling the secrets of the universe.  He also worries that the greatest American mathematical minds are working in finance instead of mathematics.  Funny how absolutely sane, rational, and reasonable an actual scientist sounds.  He also states that there is no scientists shortage:

             We don’t need as many scientists as we can get just because they’re scientists. Does a bowl of soup need all the salt it can get? We need all the excellent ones we can find, without shoveling in people who’d just as soon be doing something else.


       I also really liked one of the comments from a man calling himself  Scientific_American.  The first and last sentences of his comment were, "I'm an academic researcher, with a focus on cancer research, and I 100% agree with this post . . . the very idea that there isn't enough people is the field is laughable."
       Alright, Slate may have broken the story.  What's the next news outlet that's going to catch on?

Nobody's with you on this, dude

       Clemens Wergin of Berlin wrote on June 15, 2012 in the New York Times Op-Ed section in a piece entitled "Go, Fight, but don't Win" in which he tells us that although he is German, he does not want Germany to win the current European Soccer Championship.  He feels that Europe is getting a little anxiety ridden about the Germans using their good economy (at present the strongest of all countries on the Euro) to dominate the continent politically.  Therefore, it would be a sign of German humility to graciously lose the games - or at least not try to hard to win.
       Well, Wergin, I'm going to tell you 2 things, please stick with me, friend.

1.  Nobody is with you on this

Almost every car, tricycle, wheelchair, and shop window that I see is sporting the German flag right now.  When the Germans beat the Dutch, people were literally celebrating on the street in front of my apartment building.  And I don't really live on that busy of a street.  (Way to publish a non-representative, not at all news opinion, NYTimes)


2. Soccer doesn't start or end international conflicts

If I'm wrong, please let me know - I am willing to learn.  But wars are not started or finished on the soccer pitch.  Yes, sports are important, especially to a nation's identity.  They just aren't that important politically.  Sports can't end an economic recession.  Whoever wins, at the end of the European Soccer Championship, the Germans are still going to have their strong economy, and Greece is still going to be in the middle of a giant disaster.  Yes, there are people who live and breathe soccer.  There are people glued to TV screens, and there are people yelling in stadiums.  There are people who will cry and scream and get drunk and tell their grandchildren about it one day.  But there isn't a sane adult human being in this world who would trade a steady paycheck in a stable country for a little ball kicked into a large net.

32 Innovations =That Will NOT Change Your Tomorrow (at least 24 won't)

    

            The New York Times’ June 1^st, 2012 article “32 Innovations That Will Change Your Tomorrow” is absolutely fascinating.  Nevertheless, I think it’s some predictions really misguided.  Scientific progress is inevitable, certainly, and that’s a very good thing.  But seriously – some inventions are just The Segway – they just don’t add much of anything we didn’t have before.  I have used the numbers that appear in the NYTimes article.

Here are the 24 they got wrong of the 32 Innovations that Will Change Tomorrow:

1.      Electricity Generating Clothes.  Sorry, NYT, but scientific clothes don’t seem to catch on.  Those color-changing-with-light t-shirts from the 80’s sank like a stone.  Unless we’re talking about gear for performance athletes, it’s the celebs and the fashion industry who set clothing trends, not some guy in a lab.  We’re going to have to have a serious energy crisis before people start using their pants to change their cell phones.

2.      The New Coffee.  Guys, coffee is already fantastic.  If you start putting Seville oranges and toasted almonds and berries into it, you’ve just made tea.  Which is also already as good as it’s going to get.  I don’t think there big areas to improve coffee – it’s already WAY popular.

3.      Analytical Work Out Underpants.  Here’s the quote, “The hope . . . is that when you see data telling you just how inert you really are, you’ll be inspired to lead a less sedentary life.”  Hahahahaha!  People already have that data in the form of what they see in the mirror, how they feel, and what their doctor tells them.  If they don’t pay attention to that data, why would they listen to their underpants?

4.      Giant Touch Screen Kitchen Tables/Cabinets/Counters.  This is basically a room size computer monitor in the kitchen.  How many people are there who need to work at a room size computer monitor while at the same time cooking meals?  Seriously?  How many people?  Do you really think the average home cook is going to shell out tens of thousands of collars for Tom Cruise’s Minority Report computer wall?  Why?  To go on a virtual tour of ancient Mesopotamia while making pancakes?

5.      Shampoo/ Conditioning/ Hair Drying Machine.  This would be cool.  Except it would probably pull your hair in uncomfortable ways and it would be 7000% more expensive than just washing your hair yourself.  Remember that giant financial crisis?  Does it sound like a good time to try to get people to pay 7000% more for the same thing they have been doing perfectly well since they were kids?

6.      Cars that have computer abilities to reduce traffic congestion.  This would be awesome – but again – giant financial crisis.  An even cheaper way to reduce traffic congestion:  take a bus, a train, or a bike.

7.  8.  9.  Better Bike.  Awesome ideas.  I like the anti-theft handlebars that wouldn’t allow a thief to steer the bike.  But please tell me how it’s that much better than the $5 bike lock I already have?  Again – giant financial crisis, and I already own the $5 bike lock.

11. Better Climate in Airplanes.  Awesome!  But it’s just a few hours, so I’m still going with the less comfortable airline if it’s cheaper.

12. Subway Straps that are also video games.  No thanks!  We have enough access to games on all our 400 mobile devices!

13. Anti-Slouch Computer Screen.  People don’t love it when their office furniture tells them to sit like a lady.  Office furniture is NOT grandma.

14. The SpeechJammer.  This gizmo shoots something at the target that scrambles his or her brain temporarily so that he or she can’t speak for a few seconds.  Here’s what’s going to happen.  Assholes will get this gizmo.  Someone won’t be able to yell, “Look out for that Bus,” and someone will die.  Then they will all be outlawed.  Also, wouldn’t using it be denying someone his or her freedom of speech?

15. The Idea of Being Nice to Employees.  Nobody ever thought of niceness before in the history of human society!!!  Thank you for that!!!

16. Your unique bodily movements as iPhone password.  Never let a friend/your child/stranger in an emergency use your phone again!

17. Less Safe Playgrounds.  Ummm – seriously?  Even if children like them better, cities and schools are not lining up to knowingly build more dangerous playgrounds so that they can be sued when kids break their heads open.  

18. Lying to Athletes to get them to perform better.  Again, litigation, my friend.  People don’t like being lied to.  If it’s ok to lie to a 21 year old kid to get him to run faster, is it also ok to lie to a 21 year old kid about how likely he is to suffer brain damage if he gets one more concussion?

20. Fake Chemical Booze that won’t give you a hangover.  I don’t know, maybe this will catch on.  It may also result in a gigantic increase in binge drinking.

21. The Mind-Reading Shopping Cart.  This is a shopping cart that follows you around the store, points you towards products on your list, and chides you if you buy oreos when you are supposed to be going low carb.  Ok, it sounds cool.  Would I pay more for my groceries to get to use a cool cart over a regular one?  Maybe – but I’d probably only do that once and then go get the same groceries cheaper elsewhere.  Also – hate to break it to you, mind-reading shopping cart inventors – but it’s WAY better for grocery store (financially) when their customers buy impulse items that weren’t on their lists and stray from their diets.

23. Teeth Microchips.  These are daily, disposable microchips that tell your dentist if you have plaque.  Now, how is this better than going to the dentist every 6 months?  Alao, two things, teeth sensor inventors:  people don’t like this dentist as big brother idea, and they aren’t going to be too crazy about accidentally swallowing lots of mini computer chips.

26. Household cleaners that point out nasty bacteria so you can clean the hell out of them.  Is this really a problem?  Are that many people really getting sick from E.coli in their bathrooms?  Are they the kind of people who would buy and then use this product?  Maybe it will be fantastic.  I can see it being useful in a lab, but is there really a need for this at home?  

28. Better TV Dinners.  Maybe these TV dinners will be way tastier than previous ones.  It’ll probably still be much cheaper and healthier to cook at home.  But, like so many things that add to the obesity epidemic, it might be a runaway financial success.

29. Yogurt in a strawberry pouch.  This idea is essentially making food packaging that comes in an edible container.  Do people want to eat their food in something called Wikicells?  I don’t know.  But like number 28 and so many other things that add to the obesity epidemic, it might be a runaway financial success.

      30. Garden Sensors that water and put pesticides on your plants.  This could be cool.  Also, it gives you more time to eat your wikicell yogurt in your giant room size monitor kitchen.  Never will people have to get some fresh air or eat non-chemical-laced food again.

31. Robo-Petting.  Petting a little strip of “smart fur” to get the same blood pressure lowering benefits as petting Fido is not going to work.  Because, sex is a great stress reliever too.  And the people who pet pieces of faux fur will never have sex again.

   

Student Loan Discolsure - hahahahaha

       The New York Times, we need to have a little talk about your Editorial of May 22, 2012, "Full Disclosure for Student Borrowers."  In this editorial, the paper states that outstanding student debt is a huge problem in America.  (Which it is, as more money is owed in America on Student Loans than on Credit Cards, and Student Loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy - but I digress)  The editorial goes on to describe a student who has no hope of paying her $120,000 in undergraduate loans, and states that the remedy for this student loan crisis is to make sure that colleges and universities are up front and clear about what loans are, what grants are, and what repaying a loan is going to look like.
      The last three sentences of the editorial sum up the New York Times' thesis nicely:

          Congress should also require schools to provide in-depth, annual loan counseling to students and set criteria for the information that must be provided. All schools should be required to disclose annually the average debt load of their graduates.  Before students borrow to pay for their education, they need to understand the obligations they are taking on, and how long it will take to pay them off.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree.  Students and their families should be much better informed, and annualy informed, about the loans they are taking out.  I agree.

       But that's not the real problem.  The REAL problem is that a college education costs far and away more than it ever did before, and far and away more than it should.  I am 30 now, and I went to college in the fall of 2000, when I was 18.  I was very lucky to have been accepted by a highly selective private college, and I could not be more devoted to the place - which I absolutely loved and still love.  When I first matriculated, it cost around $32,000 a year.  I had everything you could ask for.  Small classes where the professors knew my name.  There was a recreational gym nicer than any gym I could afford now.  There were outstanding lab facilities, the grounds were spotless, the library well funded.  I studied abroad in London for a semester for the same price as normal tuition.  There were countless sports teams, there were countless campus plays.  My senior year I lived in a townhouse, which was owned by the college and for which my parents paid regular dorm fees, that had 2 bathrooms, 1 full kitchen, cable tv, and a washer/dryer - all for 4 students.  I had everything.  We couldn't go half a week without a famous speaker coming to campus to talk to us or an amazing band or arts organization coming to perform. I only wish I'd taken advantage of it all at the time!

       So here's how it is now.  That $32,000 a year is, adjusted for inflation, now around $41,600 in 2012 dollars.  Ok, fine.  That's a gigantic pile of money.  True.  However, the actual fees at my beloved alma mater will be almost $56,000 for the upcoming school year.  What is that extra $14,400 per year buying?  I, honestly, don't have the faintest idea.  Smarter and better informed folks than I have spilled plenty of ink trying to figure that one out.

       The real problem isn't loans, although providing loan counseling and making them dischargeable in bankruptcy would ease the burdens of many.  The real problem is that (for virtually all but the richest Americans) income is not increasing relative to inflation, and the cost of college is increasing much faster than inflation.  Higher education costs are just taking up more and more of a family's budget.  It just can't keep going on forever until a college education for one child requires average income parents to save 30% of their salaries for 18 years.  It just can't.  Cancelling the cable tv (as one NYT editorial online commenter suggested) isn't going to enable families to save enough.  We, as a society, need to make sure that any qualified student, regardless of his or her parents' income, has the opportunity to earn a college degree without crippling debt.

       The other issue at hand is that 18 year olds, kids who have been told for 18 years that they will fly as high as their dreams, are not going to be good judges of their own abilities to pay loans back.  It doesn't matter how much disclosure they get.  Their parents are often even more clueless.  Of course every parent thinks his or her little darling is going to get a high paying job at 22 or go on to medical school.  He was on the football team!  She was editor of the year book!  If a bank wouldn't loan an 18 year old $120,000 to start a business, why would the federal government loan her $120,000 to go to school to get a BA in anthropology?  Heck - a bank wouldn't give an unsecured loan to an 18 year old for $23,300 (the average student loan amount) to start a business. 
        Yes, disclosure about student loans would help.  I don't disagree.  But the real problem is the soaring cost of higher education.  Kids (and they are kids) will continue to take out these loans, because that's the only choice they have to get an education.  And let's not kid ourselves, the vast majority of good, physically safe, and well paying jobs go to college graduates.  Some of these kids will take out as much in loans as the forces that be let them.  And many of those who borrow much more responsibly will never be able to pay their loans back.  If you tell an 18 year old and his parents that he's going to need to get a job that pays $75,000 a year after graduation to pay his loans back and, um, eat - he'll still take out the loans, because they think he'll be one of the few to get that $75,000 a year job at the age of 22.  It's magical thinking - and WE ALL suffer from it.
       I appreciate that you are paying attention to the Student Loan crisis, The New York Times.  But you missed the target with this one.

Are You For Real?

The May 18th The Ethicist column was written by Andrew Light, Director for Philosophy and Public Policy at George Mason University and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.  I don’t doubt that Andrew Light is a brilliant man who does some important work.  However, when he wrote this column, he was all out of whack.

 A woman wrote to The Ethicist explaining that her elderly parents want her to become her 40 year old brother’s legal guardian.  Her brother needs a guardian because he became heavily involved with drugs and alcohol as a teenager, has suffered brain damage as a result, and has spent the last 25 years of his life in and out of prison, halfway houses, and rehabilitation centers.  She has been estranged from him for years.  It is very clear from her letter that she does not want to be her brother’s legal guardian because he’s a mess, she has been estranged from him for years, she lives a 7 hour drive from where he is, and – here’s the kicker – because she’s a single mother with a demanding job.  But, he is her brother, and she wants to help her parents.  She also has no intention (and with good reason) of never letting him in her home or near her child.

Thankfully, Andrew Light says that she should feel free to turn down her parents’ request if she believes doing so would endanger her child.  Thank goodness.  But, he goes on from there.  He talks all about how he would rather give his son a kidney than a stranger a kidney, like that’s somehow surprising or relevant to anything.  He also says that he does feel that she has more of a duty to her brother than she does to most people, because he is her brother, and she should do what she can to help him as long as it doesn’t endanger her daughter.  Because, he says:

Just as you may have a stronger moral obligation to your brother than to anyone on the street, you certainly also have equally strong, if not stronger, obligations to your daughter.

I’m sorry, but who the what what?!  What do you mean “equally strong, if not stronger”?!!  The daughter comes first.  FIRST first first first first!  I can’t tell you how far down the list estranged adult siblings are, but they are WAY behind one’s children.  All he needed to say was that if she felt she couldn’t be a good mother and a guardian to her brother, than being a good mother comes first.  Period.  End of discussion.  No need to feel guilty.  Believe me, a single mother with a demanding job is probably (like most mothers) already beating herself up about something.

Nevertheless, he decides to throw a little wood on that being a good mother/daughter/sister guilt fire.  After rambling a bit about an NYU philosopher, Light closes his response with:

Even though you’re alienated from your brother now, I hope there was something in your past that brought you together. Now you ought to try to draw on that experience of being a sibling and do the best that you can in a difficult situation.

Light, dear friend, are you telling me that remembering when he shared his peanut butter with her 35 years ago is going to do anything to ease the fact that he has spent over half his life in and out of jail?  I don’t know, Light, I kind of feel like people sometimes become estranged for a reason.  Assuming there are some fond memories left, they are probably greatly overshadowed by very tragic, if not horrific, memories.  If you don’t understand that, then you’ve probably never known somebody who has anything like the kinds of problems that this woman’s brother has.

            But I also think that we need to face the facts here.  This woman is a single mother with a demanding job who lives 7 hours away.  Her brother has an incurable problem and will never be able to live alone as a stable member of society.  Even if she really wanted very much to be his guardian, I still do not think it would be ethical for her to agree to do it.  She just doesn’t have the time to have a demanding job, be a good single mother, and be the legal guardian to an incurable adult patient 7 hours away.  In this case, as in so many cases, it is most ethical for the family to leave the patient in the care of trained professionals.  A professional social worker, assigned by an offical and located near her brother, would be a far more appropriate guardian. 

            Andrew Light, this woman wrote to you to ask if it was ethical if she admits to her parents that she’s not superwoman.  She wanted The Ethicist to say it’s ok if she chooses to care for her own child, her career, and her own sanity before she cares for the junkie brother she hasn’t seen in years.  Most people would have done just that.  You told her it was only ok, if she had to, just as long as she thinks about it, thinks about it hard, thinks about any good childhood memories, and thinks of anything – even the tiniest thing – she could possibly do for her brother, because she does have an obligation towards him.  A single mother with a demanding job came for help, and you gave her a whole bunch more baggage to lug around for no purpose at all.  And that, Andrew, I find to be unethical.

Oh The Ethicist – how I used to love you

I can’t tell you how much I once enjoyed reading the weekly The Ethicist column by Randy Cohen in the New York Times.  Sadly, the column took a turn for the worse when Cohen retired from writing it last year.  For a year, Ariel Kaminer from the Metro section filled in, but she was never as great. Kaminer recently headed back to the Metro section, and a woman named Betsey Stevenson, a visiting professor of economics at Princeton, wrote the May 10^th The Ethicist column. 

            One woman wrote in that she and her family had planned and paid for a trip to Disney World in Florida, but then she didn’t want to go spend money in Florida because of her disgust with the Trayvon Martin case and Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.  Writing as the ethicist, Stevenson told the mother that although voting with your pocketbook is important, the money was already spent.  Therefore, she should go to Florida, pack a vacation’s worth of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches so as to not spend any more money in Florida, and not show anybody the vacation pictures so that nobody else will be encouraged to vacation in Florida.

            I hate to say it, Stevenson, but that response is idiotic.  First, the logistical practical problems with this advice.  Whether that family is traveling by car, train, bus, or airplane – I guarantee you that bringing a vacation’s worth of food is insane.  With all the sun screen, hats, clothes, medicine, etc. that mom has to pack, you think adding a vacation’s worth of food is a good idea?  You think eating nothing but peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for days is a good idea?  They won’t be able to poop after the first day!  How about eating healthy?  Isn’t that a good thing to teach children?  Because eating nothing but non-perishable, suitcase-packable food isn’t going to be too healthy for too long.   

            Secondly, the economic practical problems with this advice.  I agree that voting with your pocketbook is important and something that should be taught to children.  But the affective version of voting with your pocketbook goes like this: 

Dear Corporation X,

I will now be purchasing your competitor’s product/service because I object to your labor practices/offensive advertisements/political actions.  If and when you cease to engage in these problematic labor practices/offensive advertisements/political actions, I will consider resuming purchasing your product/service.

Signed, Consumer

Voting with your pocketbook has to be targeted and specific to be effective and meaningful.  The person/people/corporation you object to also has TO KNOW that you are doing it.  In this case, the mother had a problem with the laws in Florida.  I understand and agree with those objections.  But, well – she’s not a voter in Florida – so she really doesn’t have a say in how Florida writes its laws.  Even if this mother could get her money back from Disney World, Disney is a multinational corporation, and boycotting it to punish a local government in a place where it has one theme park is not exactly going to be effective.  Now, if that mother wants to found or join a group of people who say they won’t be spending tourist dollars in Florida because they are upset about Trayvon Martin, then that would be specific, targeted, and might get noticed.  But I doubt it.  Local municipalities don’t tend to like tourists from outside telling them how to run things inside.  What we, as American voters, can do about another state’s laws that we don’t like is to push for stronger laws and regulations at the federal level.  That’s something this woman could do that would teach her family about taking part in democracy in a way that could be actually effective. 

            Thirdly, I have ethical problems with your advice, Betsey Stevenson.  You are suggesting that this mother actively practice – and teach her son – to believe in guilt by association on a grand, grand scale.  Don’t misunderstand me, what happened to unarmed Trayvon Martin in Florida was absolutely appalling, tragic, and should never have ever happened.  But, our objections should be with George Zimmerman, the law itself, and perhaps also the slow moving local law enforcement – although Zimmerman has indeed subsequently been charged with second degree murder.  It’s not quite right to punish the 19 million people who live in Florida and all corporations working there.  That’s painting with too wide a brush.  Because the next person to come along may paint with an even wider brush.  What if the next person blames anybody who has ever even visited Florida?  What if the next person blames the entire United States?  Children have a very strong sense of fairness, and this woman shouldn’t teach her child that 19 million people are to be shunned just because they live in the same state as a bad man and a bad Stand Your Ground law.  What would her son say to the classmate who goes to visit her grandparents in Florida?  Should he tell her that her grandparents are bad?  What about the teacher at his school who went to college in Florida?  Should he think that teacher is bad, too?  And for how long?  When do the people of Florida stop being bad?  When all 19 million of them write a giant apology note?  After 10 years?  After George Zimmerman is convicted?  When?  What exactly does this woman want the corporations in Florida to do to win back her business?

            As disgusting as George Zimmerman’s actions were and as problematic as the law is, it’s not ethical to teach a child that it’s right to punish all businesses or individuals that are in any way connected to Florida.  You never know.  Maybe some asshole who lives in your state will do something horrible, or your local laws will be revealed to be hugely problematic.  Will you really want someone in another state to blame you personally?
          Post Script - I do have one thing I agree with that mother and Stevenson about.  It is more than reasonable to avoid a vacation destination because you disagree with its political climate.  There is a beautiful country with absolutely fantastic beaches and wonderful food that I simply, will not visit at present, because I strongly disagree with the amount of underage sex tourism that happens there.  I do not judge people who visit that country, I do not judge citizens of that country I meet, but I will choose to spend my family's vacation budget elsewhere.  But, the mother who wrote to The Ethicist didn't choose to spend her vacation dollars elsewhere because she wanted to spend them in a place that was more in tune with her political values - although would have been a decision I would have agreed with.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your money in a place you believe has better values.  That's a good thing.  But Florida had the Stand Your Ground laws on the books long before the tragic Trayvon killing.  The law was in place before the mother made her trip reservations.  She was, in fact, reacting to a specific incident and the bad deeds of one man by attempting to punish a multinational company that also does business within a certain geopolitical boundary that also contained that bad man.    And that, well, confuses me.