ipadio: Steve Walker's phlog - 1st phonecast

Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com

Zakaria: How to Solve America's Debt Problem - Fareed Zakaria - Newsweek.com

Fareed, as always, is right. Time to start paying the bills while continuing to invest in our future.

Today's youth - 18-30 year olds, the people with the most to gain and lose in this struggle - need to speak up and demand to be heard. Here's a starting point for them to demand of our leaders:

1. Fix entitlements. Raise the age of retirement and link it to life expectancy. Tax benefits of the wealthy or have some kind of needs testing - Bill Gates shouldn't get Social Security, or he should at least pay taxes on it. Crack down on Medicare fraud (I think it's about $60 billion a year!).

2. Restore "PayGo," or "Pay As You Go," effective in the FY 2012 budget. If Congress wants to cut taxes or raise spending, it must find a tax to increase or spending to cut to offset it.

3. Abolish the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy ASAP.

4. Commit the country to energy independence from foreign oil by 2020. Invest in truly green energy and offer tax credits to businesses and homeowners who go green.

5. Eliminate agricultural subsidies that are making big agribusinesses richer and America's kids fatter. Kill the corn subsidies and you start to save lives - and make balancing the budget easier.

6. Eliminate the homeowner's tax deduction. I love it as a homeowner, but it makes no fiscal or policy sense. Phase it out over the next 5 years.

7. Phase in a Value Added Tax (VAT). While it is regressive - it hurts the poor and middle class disproportionally - it could help balance the budget and still allow for lowering income taxes on the working poor and many in the middle class. That might work out ok. Worth a closer look, at least.

A bit more on the GOP

The GOP is severely lacking in vision and leadership.  How else can you explain Sarah Palin?  What would I like to see from the GOP?  Serious solutions to our big challenges:

Job Creation - We need to get businesses hiring quickly and help foster new enterprises with new, higher paying jobs for the future.
New Energy - We need to develop new energy technologies to accomplish ALL of these goals:  reduce/eliminate dependence on foreign energy supplies; reduce carbon emissions; AND create new jobs and new intellectual property here, not in China or India.
Healthcare - We need to do all of these:  provide safe, reliable healthcare to everyone; reduce costs for large and small US companies, the US Government, and the consumer; AND make all fields of medicine more appealing as a career choice (address tort reform, for one).
Education - We need to provide a good education to all Americans (black, white, rich, middle class, poor, urban, suburban, rural, etc.) and an excellent education for as many as possible.  We need to make college more affordable and accessible to all.  We need to entice more kids to go into engineering, math, and medicine. We can't compete with China and India, or provide more and better healthcare here at home, without more kids studying math, science, medicine, engineering, etc.

At least the Democrats have some ideas about some of these challenges.  The GOP really has little to offer on few of them.  I get it.  Their leadership is weak and fractured.  The ruled the White House for 8 years and both the WH and Congress for 6 of those years and really screwed things up while allowing the problems to fester.  So they need to reinvent themselves.  But they need to do so quickly.  There are some core Republican principles they could rely upon to craft a new vision, including:

Fiscal responsibility - this may be tough given the need to spend more money on these challenges, but the GOP could lead the way on eliminating real waste, setting priorities, and reforming Medicare and Social Security  not by privatizing them but by embracing higher taxes for them in return for reduced benefits for the wealthiest recipients.
Individual empowerment - Rather than seeking more tax cuts for the wealthy, how about being creative about using the tax code to encourage private investment in solving the above-mentioned challenges?
American competitiveness - An honest appraisal of what it would take to make America more competitive in the 21st Century would inevitably lead the GOP to focus its efforts - and the hearts and minds of Americans - on these challenges.

Some things that concern me...

Just a list of some things that are bothering me lately.  No particular order:

• Obama's failure to present a clear vision to the American people and to get the word out about what he has already accomplished and why.  He is gifted in so many ways as a communicator.  But he and his staff suck at this.  How hard would it be in this day and age to get people to buy into:  "New Jobs, New Energy, and New Schools"?   Link healthcare to jobs.  Tell people we need new energy for new jobs and to stop fighting wars in the Middle East.  Then get a new Education Secretary and offer real education reforms.  Change the way schools are funded and encourage ad reward new teaching methods, not standardized tests.
• The privatization of the US military.  We have as many contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan as we have GIs.  The contractors operate without direct congressional oversight or civilian chain of command - and often without being held accountable under local or US laws.  This allows the USG to carry out wars with no clear goals and weak public support.  We need a draft for national service.  Pick 2 years in military or 4 years of either Peace Corps or AmericaCorps.
• Cyberterrorism.
• Exploding federal debt at a time when we need to spend more money to rescue the economy, create jobs, and invest in our crumbling infrastructure, education, and new technologies (energy, especially).
• The lack of a loyal opposition party with real ideas.  The GOP is a joke, and we are all paying for it.
• The Democrats' lack of strong leaders.  
• Our ignorance of the impact of chemicals in our water and homes.  Are we poisoning ourselves and our kids?

Initially, I was not so discouraged by Scott Brown's victory in the MA Senate special election this week.  I figured Obama would get the House to pass the Senate's version of health care reform - a flawed bill, for sure, but far better than nothing.  The President would sign it in the coming weeks and attention could turn to financial reform and jobs creation.

Instead, the President and House Speaker Pelosi are indicating that the House will not pass the Senate version.  Obama is talking about a more modest bill, which would probably have to be quite limited in its scope and impact to pass the Senate.  But Senate Majority Leader Reid seems to be more interested in jobs legislation than more battles on health care.

This is starting to feel like deja vu.

I had hoped we'd see a little fight from Obama.

6228JKAXTKZ2

Afghan government will need to do better than Pakistan's has so far...

Foreign Policy magazine's website has an interesting article on the differences between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Here's the link:

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/all_al_qaedas_are_not_created_equal

The article makes several good points, but I found the concluding paragraph most sobering in terms of the current debate over adding more troops.  Most of that debate has focused on whether or not the additional troops would enable success against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and whether, simultaneously, we can build up the capacity of the Afghan government and military.  Even if a counter-insurgency strategy with more US troops succeeds in neutralizing the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and stabilizing the Afghan government in Kabul, however, it won't be enough:

An Afghan government unable (or unwilling) to control its entire territory will not adequately protect U.S. interests in the region. Though U.S. COIN strategy rightly prioritizes protecting the Afghan people over controlling territory, a COIN-produced Afghan government must eventually control both the people and the land, or al Qaeda will still have a safe haven from which to plot against the West. Pakistan has not controlled the Federally Administered Tribal Area for years. Iraq neither controls its northern third or its borders. To protect U.S. strategic interests, the Afghan government will have to do better.


So even if the Afghanistan "surge" works, it is hard to imagine the Kabul government being more willing and able than the Pakistani government to eliminate Al Qaeda from its territory.  It would require an ability to control the territory of the whole country, the political will to engage in difficult military operations in the mountainous border region with Pakistan against extremists who are fairly popular among the local population in some areas,  and military cooperation with the Pakistani government.  That means the Pakistani government will have to prove more willing and able to eliminate its own Taliban insurgency and Al Qaeda in the border region and elsewhere.


That's a tall order.

Financial Reform - or Revolution?

We hear from Capitol Hill this week that the House is starting the process of writing and passing legislation to reform the U.S. financial system.  It seems clear, however, that these reforms, if passed, are unlikely to address the root causes of the financial and housing crisis that led to our current economic troubles.

I saw Michael Moore's new documentary, "Capitalism:  A Love Story," this past weekend.  I liked the film overall and found much of it to be compelling.  One of the major themes of the movie is that Wall Street has essentially carried out a coup d'etat in Washington.  As a result of Wall Street's control over our nation's capital, serious reform seems unlikely, if not impossible.  This situation is discussed in a riveting and disturbing segment of Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS from October 9:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

In the segment, one of the stars of the Moore film, US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), and MIT economist Simon Johnson, explain how Wall Street insiders and friends dominate the executive branch (Summers, Geithner, et al) while campaign contributions secure the loyalty of members of Congress from both parties.

It makes me wonder whether financial reforms will even do the trick.  What we need is a revolution - massive changes to our financial and political system on the scale of the New Deal or greater.  We may not be able to reconstruct the Glass-Steagall Act wall between commercial and investment banking, but we need the equivalent and more.  We need to keep banks from becoming "too big to fail."  We need to change the rules for financing of congressional campaigns - probably just have public financing.  We need to regulate derivatives and any new, risky investments Wall Street's "geniuses" come up with.  And we need to close the revolving door between Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.

If we don't, Johnson warns that the next crisis will likely be even bigger - just as this one was bigger than the technology bubble and the S&L crisis that preceded it.  If that happens, we might have a real revolution on our hands.

One more thought on Afghanistan (for now...)

One of the most compelling arguments for staying in Afghanistan and adding troops to better implement a counter-insurgency strategy is that we need to prove to the Pakistani Army and intelligence services that we are serious and we are staying.  If we draw down our forces in Afghanistan, this argument goes, one of two things will happen.  Either the Pakistani security forces - or elements among them - will decide that their long-term interests are better served by making nice with - and even, as they have in the past, supporting -the Taliban or in spite of Pakistan's best efforts the Taliban and Al Qaeda will use Afghanistan as a base for further destabilizing Pakistan.

This is a valid concern.  I would love to see some creative and realistic thinking on how we can stabilize Pakistan even if Afghanistan, once again, fails as a state.

More on the urgency of Pakistan - from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8303521.stm

Missing the mark on Afghanistan and Iran?

It seems like the policy debates in Washington on two of the most "urgent" challenges facing President Obama right now may be missing the mark.

Afghanistan would not appear to be the biggest threat to America and the world right now.  Al Qaeda has found a new refuge nearby in Pakistan.  The Taliban may be resurgent in Afghanistan, but while seeing the Taliban back in power in Kabul would be a humiliation for the US and a tragedy for many of Afghanistan's citizens - especially its women - it would not present a clear and present danger to the US or even that region.  The increasing strength and audacity of the Taliban in Pakistan, however, is frightening.  The Taliban in Pakistan seems to have a larger agenda than the Taliban in Afghanistan did while in power. It's almost like a mixture of the old Taliban with Al Qaeda - religious extremists with an axe to grind against the US and our allies.  There are several nightmare scenarios for a destabilized or failed Pakistan, and they all involve one or more of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or less-than-responsible elements of the Pakistani Army or intelligence services.  Yet our focus seems to be on Afghanistan, which cannot be solved without first solving the trouble in Pakistan.  And we seem to have no fresh ideas on how to solve Pakistan's woes.

With respect to Iran, the focus of the US and other concerned countries is on preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  Despite recent diplomatic progress on that front, there are few, if any, real options for denying Iran nuclear weapons if it truly wants them - and why wouldn't it?  Sanctions rarely work at forcing a change in a determined government's policies.  The Pentagon determined some time ago that there was no good military option for denying nukes to Iran.  So it may be that, as John McCain recently acknowledged, we may have to accept the reality of a nuclear Iran at some point in the not-too-distant future.  Now what do we do then?  How should we prepare for that eventuality?  Isn't that the real question policy makers need to be wrestling with in the coming weeks and months?  We need to continue our best efforts to deter Tehran from seeking the bomb while preparing for the day when it gets one.

Obama's "Vision Thing"

In spite of the Olympic embarrassment and his premature Nobel Peace Prize, I think that, overall, President Obama has done a pretty good job in his first 8 1/2 months in office.  Remember - he inherited the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression!  We were on the precipice of a real disaster in January.  I remember telling friends back then that Obama would largely be judged by how well he dealt with that crisis.  If we entered a depression, he would be a one-term failure, today's version of Herbert Hoover.  If we rebounded, he would be a hero.  While it remains to be seen whether we will see a smooth, albeit slow, recovery or a double-dip recession and prolonged double-digit unemployment, based on the data we have to date Obama deserves praise.  He passed a massive stimulus bill that probably helped stem the bleeding.  He managed what appears to be a sensible, successful (at least in the short-term) rescue of GM and Chrysler.  The banking system did not collapse, though there are lots of problems in that sector that could still send it over the deep end.  But things are better now than they were in January.  So Obama, rightly or wrongly, gets some of the credit.

But I was wrong about Obama being judged just based on the financial/economic crisis.  Certainly in his first term, he also has staked his legacy and reelection chances on health care reform.  Foreign policy challenges - from Iran and its nuclear program to Iraq and, increasingly, Afghanistan - also will greatly define his administration.

There is a sense that Obama has too much on his plate, that he is trying to do too much at once.  That is a valid concern.  Many past administrations have struggled because they took on too many things at once or were faced with too many challenges.  In Obama's case, however, I am not sure he can avoid or delay many of these challenges.  Health care is a problem that must be tackled in order to boost American competitiveness economically and avoid a looming financial crisis for Medicare.  Afghanistan is getting worse, as is the situation in Pakistan, and we need to decide if we need a new strategy or just more troops to make the old "new" strategy work.  The problem is that the rising instability and growth of the Taliban in nuclear-armed Pakistan is more of a long-term threat to the U.S. and the world than Afghanistan at this point.  Iran's nuclear program demands some kind of international response, and the US is the only country that can possibly herd the major players toward some kind of consensus.  And let's not forget climate change.  It may be as pressing an issue as any of the others.

So if Obama must deal with all these enormous challenges, why do so many of his supporters think he is overreaching?  I think it is because he is failing at the "vision thing."  President George H.W. Bush dismissed complaints that he had a vision deficit - no clear, overarching goals for his policies - but his lack of a clear vision for America's future is part of what made his Administration look out of touch and adrift during the 1992 election year, in which he lost to Bill Clinton.

In the health care debate, he did not, early on, lay out in a fireside chat-like address to the American people why we need to reform health care and how.  As a result, his opponents set the tone and agenda for the debate.  Americans heard more about "death panels" than they did about how we spend twice as much per person as other developed countries but rank just above Cuba in quality of care.  They heard more about the "public option" in recent weeks than why we need to have something like the public option to reduce health care costs.

Obama also has failed to make clear his vision for America moving forward.  There's no long-term vision for what he is trying to do.  One gets the feeling that he is trying to put out fires and avoid losing short-term battles.  Avoid failure in health care and get some kind of bill passed.  Avoid failure in Afghanistan by either sending more troops or redefining what success and failure mean.  Avoid looking feeble on Iran and avoid an Israeli strike against Iran that would create a new crisis to grapple with.

The policy review on Afghanistan offers some hope that the Administration is trying to think big picture and not be forced into short-term decisions with tragic long-term consequences.  I certainly hope we get more vision along with some sound, rational decisions on the full range of challenges we face.

Krugman on Education Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/opinion/09krugman.html?em

I may be biased because I am a teacher, but I agree with Krugman.  I teach because I believe in the value and importance of public education and the role education plays in our country and preparing for the future.  We really need to get our fiscal house in order long-term, but part of that is about using our tax dollars more wisely and effectively.  Education is a vital investment in our future.  It is the key to long-term economic competitiveness, innovation, and redressing the inequalities in our society.

We should not be addressing whether or not to fully fund education in our country.  We should be debating how best to fund it.

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush. Should donate award

I just sent this email to President Obama.  I wonder how many like it he will receive today?  The Nobel committee has tarnished this award a bit today.  It's a shame.

Dear President Obama:
I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of yours. I think that, overall, you have done an admirable job so far, under trying circumstances. As an American, as a teacher, and as a former US diplomat, I am dismayed, however, that you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Honestly, you have not earned it and I find the decision patronizing. In essence, you won because you are not George W. Bush.

When I helped lead the "Save Bosnia" campaign in the 1990s, I cam to appreciate the enormous sacrifices grassroots activists make every day in the cause of peace. I urge you, Mr. President, to turn this bizarre decision by the Nobel committee into an opportunity to reward and support a grassroots activist in the United States who is trying to bring peace to his/her community. Given the troubling gang-related violence in your hometown of Chicago, perhaps there is an organization there that could benefit from the attention and resources if you were to donate your award to them. I am sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of activists and organizers in this country worthy of such an act of humility and compassion.
Thank you for your service. I hope that a year from now we can say that you have truly earned this award.
Best wishes,
Steve Walker

Madeline Albright undermines feminism with her new book

Madeline Albright has a new book out.  Given the complex and challenging foreign policy agenda today (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, climate change, etc.), one would hope that the first female Secretary of State would make an important contribution to the debates of the day.  Instead, Albright reminds us of her lackluster (I'm being generous) legacy as Secretary of State and her lack of gravitas by writing a book on how she used costume jewelry as a tool of diplomacy.  Ticked off at the Russians or Saddam Hussein?  Forget tough diplomacy - change your lapel pin!

This is a step back for feminism.  Albright should be raising the level of discourse on the challenges we face in the 21st Century and demonstrating that female diplomats are at least as capable of solving those challenges as their male counterparts.  I know that when I was a Foreign Service Officer, the female officers I worked with were often more intelligent, more capable, and harder working than our male colleagues.  They had to be - it was harder for them to get in the Foreign Service, harder to get promoted, and harder to get good assignments because they were women.  A class action suit against the Foreign Service proved this discrimination to be a reality at the time.

As the father of two girls and an educator, I am embarrassed and disappointed that Albright does not take her responsibility as a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling more seriously.  Then again, expecting more from one of Bill Clinton's top diplomats is a bit unrealistic on my part.

Why Friedman Is a "Must Read"

This past week, Tom Friedman reminded us why he is one of the op-ed writers everyone should read.

In his most recent article, "Where Did 'We' Go?", Friedman makes a frightening connection between the right's attacks on President Obama and the political atmosphere in Israel prior to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.  Indeed, it is disturbing to hear and see the intense anger and disgust of protestors and critics who falsely assert Obama in not a US citizen, that he will kill off sick senior citizens if his health care reform passes, that he is a "closet Muslim," or that he is a liar.  As Friedman notes, Obama's opponents are not so much interested in a debate as in trying to delegitimize him.  Debate is not possible with such people.  Even the Republican leadership in Congress - in fact, virtually every Republican in Congress - views the health care debate as an opportunity to hand Obama a defeat rather than a debate about how to best fix an inefficient and bloated health care system that acts like an anchor on our economic growth.

Friedman worries that solving the myriad problems we face in the coming days, weeks, and years will be difficult given the extreme partisan nature of our political system.  He's right to worry.  We can't afford gridlock on these issues, or watered-down, lowest-common-denominator policies that placate a Republican or two but render the solutions ineffective.

At best, Obama and the Democrats will be forced to govern like George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress during his first term:  shove through their legislation and don't worry about bipartisanism.  My hope is that, if the Democrats are successful in passing serious legislation, moderate Republicans will start showing up to negotiate, especially if the legislation is popular.  But if they don't, I just hope Obama and the Democrats are willing and able to do what is necessary to take real action to solve the real problems we face.

Friedman's other important article this week was "The New Sputnik."  In it, Friedman warns:

...China’s leaders have decided to go green — out of necessity... What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of invention. And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out. You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China.

I believe this Chinese decision to go green is the 21st-century equivalent of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik — the world’s first Earth-orbiting satellite. 

Again, Friedman is right.  As he has encouraged for several years, we need to embrace the challenge of climate change as an opportunity to be a leader in developing - and selling - green technology to the world.  If we don't, we run the risk of losing even more jobs in the future to China and other developing countries that do understand that green technologies create jobs.

I may not agree with everything Friedman writes, but he sees the big picture like few others and understands important trends and how they might affect us over time.

Obama's Olympic Blunder

I know it sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking, but all week I kept asking friends why Obama was going to Copenhagen to lobby for the 2016 Olympics.  With everything else on his plate (health care, climate change, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc.), it seemed like a silly way to spend 24 hours and bad PR in the midst of the health care debate.  Now, I know that a president can do virtually anything on Air Force One, so it was not like he was away from the job for 24 hours, but appearances matter in politics - sometimes more than substance.

But what really made it look stupid was Chicago getting the fewest votes of the four contending cities!  It was bounced in the first round of voting.  I find it hard to believe that Obama's advisors were not able to find out in advance whether Chicago really stood a chance or not.  Clearly, it did not.  Obama's staff dropped the ball and Obama takes the hit.  That's ridiculous.

Krugman: Easy Being Green

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1

 

Paul Krugman is clear and lucid in refuting the major argument of those opposing climate change legislation - that it will ruin the economy.  Krugman notes that the cost her household would be minimal.  Unlike in the health care debate, President Obama will need to serve as "Educator-in-Chief" early on in the climate change battle.  He needs to make clear early and often, ideally through a "Fireside Chat" with the American people, that:

 

• Climate change is a reality, not a theory.  The debate is long over. 
• The longer we wait to deal with this reality, the more it will cost in terms of dealing with the effects of climate change and trying to slow the process.
• America's economic competitiveness in the 21st Century will depend, in part, on it's ability to be a leader in green technologies, especially those that reduce or eliminate carbon emissions.  Tom Friedman has been right all along:  Green is the new red, white and blue.  The "greening" of America will be good for the economy in the long run, not costly.  It will create jobs.  It will help us avoid the environmental disasters that are growing as a result of climate change.
• We need a national commitment to dealing with this evolving disaster, including increased investments in renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.), conservation, and clear goals for the next decade (all hybrid or electric cars and trucks by 2020, less than 25% of electricity from coal by 2020, etc.).

Unlike with health care, where it is a legitimate argument to support a wide range of legislation simply to get the reform process started, climate change demands dramatic shifts in policies now.  And the President needs to frame and shape the debate before his opponents do so - as with health care.  Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and other have shown that if you say a lie over and over again there are many people who will take it as gospel.

10 Lessons for Tea Baggers

This is a great list.  It really does drive me crazy that opponents of health care reform can get away with the crap they shovel.

I find it amazing that some people, who consider themselves more "patriotic" than liberals, will defend a health care system that is grossly inefficient and immoral while talking about our government like it is the most incompetent on the planet.  Ironically, many of these same people supported George W. Bush trying to export our system of government to other countries.  Our government is not perfect - far from it - but it does a lot of things incredibly well:

- For 46 cents, you can send a letter across the country in about 2 days.
- Our interstate highway system revolutionized transportation in this country over the last 50 years.
- The federal government created the internet.  Case closed!
- Many of our most important technological innovations of the last half century are the results of our space program and defense research.
- Medicare is a highly-regarded and very efficient health care program - and, yes, it is run by the federal government!
- Flawed strategies and goals from our political leaders have turned the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the messes they are.  But our military can beat the crap out of anybody else's conventional army, and unmanned drones are proving to be another effective military innovation.

I could go on, but I think the point is obvious.  Stop demonizing our government.  Admit that the existing health care system is an embarrassment full of waste and inefficiencies.  Then, let's have a serious discussion about how best to fix it.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have decided that they are best served by trying to defeat this reform effort in order to deny Obama and the Democrats any kind of victory.  They hope such a huge defeat will doom the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 (and maybe render him a  lame duck for the remainder of his term).  That means Obama and the Dems need to focus on passing the best possible bill that will actually insure everyone, make the system better and reduce costs.  Forget bipartisanship.  If Obama can sign a good health care bill this year, there will be moderate Republicans knocking on his door the next time around.

GoodGuide

GoodGuide is one of the most important and helpful organizations to come along in a long time.  It gathers and analyzes data on countless products so consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and why.  As noted on its website,

GoodGuide provides the world's largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home.

The organization is discussed extensively in Daniel Goleman's book, Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything.

GoodGuide is an invaluable resource that helps move us closer to radical transparency and empowering consumers to truly be the change they want and need.