Try this as a little experiment: turn on the TV or a major news website. What do you see? Chances are, you are witnessing Kate Gosselin cry on TV, Tiger Woods return to golf, or the latest reality TV show that wants to turn YOU into a star. Usually, you don’t follow such programming (I know I don’t). But now that you’re sitting in front of the TV, you ask yourself, what do all of these things have in common?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the inability of the middle-class American to keep up with their own dreams of financial stability in the midst of skyrocketing inflation, wage stagnation and a new apex of social inequality and wealth distribution. These words aren’t mine—they’re iterated and proved by economists and analysts much more qualified than I. But more poignantly, in the ashes of the mortgage boom, and in today’s weak economy, the American Dream has changed. Arguably, the sublime mediocrity we were seeking in the middle of the last century—the home in the suburbs, the white picket fence, the housewife greeting her working husband with an apron and a tray of frosted cupcakes as he walks in after an hard day’s work—has been glossed and whitewashed over by much shinier ideas. And some of those ideas involve lights, cameras, and action.

For a case in point, I give you the most popular television show on TV for the better part of the decade, American Idol. With ratings easily in the Top 3 since its debut (see Nielson TV ratings for exact quotes), and given how much TV the average American watches (up to 8 hours a day, also according to Nielson), there’s no question that mainstream TV can give us some leads on the pulse of the American psyche. One day, as I myself contributed to this statistic by watching an old episode of auditions online, there was something one (somewhat desperate) contestant said in front of the judges that really grabbed me. He seemed nervous and ill at ease, and when asked why he was so nervous, he said something along the lines of, “Well, look at this. All these lights and people. And here I am in front of you, in the Kodak Theatre. This is the American Dream!” One judge agreed (who happened to be Ellen DeGeneres). “It absolutely is,” she said.

And he wasn’t the only one. I can’t tell you how many others auditioning said they were doing this “for their family”, or “to give their children a better life”. One heart-wrenching story, from a father of an autistic child who was auditioning, had the hope that, maybe if he went far on the show, he could finally afford the proper medical care for his son. The point is these weren’t just musicians or thrill-seekerswaiting for their big break. They were pastors and oil-rig workers. They were ordinary Americans, and some of them were out of ideas.

Perhaps there was a time when fame and fortune were sought by those trapped in small towns, or dreadful jobs like Marilyn Monroe at the factory assembly line. But in our age of live fast and die hard, something tells me that time is over.

Call me old-fashioned and naive, but I thought the American Dream was about one thing, first and foremost—work. Just unglamorous, unadulterated work, and the idea that you proved yourself through it.

“I can’t believe this is happening! It’s real!” Idol contestants would say, over and over again. It may be happening, for a short while, but as most of these people are bound to find out, it is far from real. How did we get here? How did the get-rich or die-tryin’ mentality come to represent the American Dream? While there are no easy answers, the TV will always give us some clues. And some of those clues tell us that we’re starting to mortgage too much of what we’ve built for a few minutes under the blinding lights of second-rate stardom. And when those lights do go off, we come to realize that the theatre we stand in—the one where we’ve attempted to pursue our narcissistic desires—has been empty all along. Maybe, I think, it’s time we start on a journey that is about more than just ourselves.

At the University of Chicago, students have the tendency to stay on the campus grounds, within the safe boundaries of the Quad. In fact, I was the same way during my first quarter here. It is understandable; you are new to the college, let alone the city, and you would rather be comfortable and explore closer surroundings. Well, as your friendly neighborhood journalist, I am going to start reporting on restaurants and venues downtown that are affordable, easy to reach, and enjoyable.

Today’s spotlight falls on a popular venue in Wrigleyville known as The Metro. I know that sounds far away, but it really isn’t. Just take the Red Line to Addison, and once you get off, walk past Wrigley Field and head a block north. It does not really stand out so be careful not to miss it.

At first, The Metro looks sort of small and dirty. Both of these are false assumptions. Up the stairs, The Metro opens up into a wide and shallow room with a big stage, a bar, and a balcony. I actually prefer this set-up, compared to the long and deep variety, because it allows more of the audience to be up close to the performers (when I say “up close,” I mean it). Just last night I got a fist bump from Bobby “Blitz” Ellsworth, lead singer of Overkill. At the end of their set, he even dived off the stage and crowd-surfed the audience. The Overkill show is definitely one I am going to remember, a phrase I have uttered often after leaving The Metro.

It is not the best venue in the world, especially for metal or rock. The main reason is that The Metro is ‘professional’ and looks down on crowd surfing, stage rushing, and stage diving. Also, the sound quality is not the highest quality in Chicago: the House of Blues has a much better sound system. However, this place is not known for its heavy metal shows. For the most part, these guys book alternative and electronic gigs, such as Tim Green, who is making his first Chicago appearance on May 21, and Local H, who will be playing an entire album on May 23.

The one thing I have found in common between all the varied artists that come through is a passionate energy that transmits through the music to the audience and floor. Luckily, shows are reasonably priced; the most I have ever paid for a show is $25. If you do decide to go, make sure to check the age. Some shows are 18+ or 21+ so keep that in mind while planning your outing.
After grooving or rocking or dancing to whatever show you go to see, there are several places to eat nearby from local dives, upper class sit-down locations, and fast food restaurants. Everything one could possibly desire after a concert is at hand. Would I recommend going? Definitely. Am I going to go again? Definitely!

Next time, I will talk about two restaurants near the heart of downtown. Hope you enjoy whatever show you choose to attend. Maybe I’ll see you there.

INTERVIEW
Q. In simple terms, what is the definition of rape in Pakistan?
A man is said to commit rape who has sexual intercourse with a women under circumstances falling under any of the five following description:
• Against her will.
• Without her consent.
• With her consent, when the consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or hurt.
• With her consent, when the man knows that he is not married to her [while] she believes herself to be married.
• With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
*Note that the Minister has not mentioned the rape of men in this definition at all.

Q. What are you working on related to rape, in your capacity as Minister? Are there any strong projects in the pipeline?
As regards to my self as Minister of Women Development, we are working on the mandated as well as the national focal machinery to proactively take initiatives, for women’s empowerment in the country is extremely challenging. The Women Development Department is committed to work towards the protection, advancement, development and empowerment of women in all spheres. The Department, despite being constrained by many challenges is currently focusing on several key areas that are central to gender equality. These include social protection, legislation/policy initiatives, administrative/institutional restructuring, training and empowerment, and establishment of interdepartmental, inter-ministerial and NGO/CSO’s.

Question: What is the sentence for someone convicted of rape?
Whoever commits rape shall be punished with death or imprisonment [for a term] which shall not be less then ten years or more then twenty-five years and shall also be liable to fine.

When rape is committed by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.

Q. Many rape cases go unregistered because of social notions. How can we, as a society, overcome these mindset barriers? What is your stance on the social taboo that is created for a rape victim, and do you think that rape reform is necessary?
A very large number of people do not want to get registered the case of rape committed against their female relative. In a conservative society, rape of a girl brings a bad name to the girl. It becomes a matter of shame not only for the victim but also for her entire family. She will find it difficult to move in society or even go to her friends and relatives; parents will find it move or less impossible to get her married. She becomes a social out cast.

Perhaps out of 100 rapes, barely 10 are reported as FIRs. And the conviction of rape being less than 10%, THERE IS HARDLY ONE RAPIST OUT OF 100 WHO GETS CONVICTED. And the trial also takes several years.

Therefore, law for rape is there, but with 1% conviction, one can say that the law is there but not implemented.

As a society and especially as an Islamic Society, it is absolutely essential to take the following actions to provide justice to rape victims:
• We must as a society, condemn in very strong teams, this heinous crime perpetrated against women and girls and express our support for the victims and their families.

• In discussion programs on T.V. and Radio and also in seminars, religious leaders and scholars should be invited to give their views on this crime and for their support for the victims and their families.

• It will greatly help the victims and their families if the Imams in their Friday Khutbas (sermons) condemn the rapist and the crime in very strong terms and come out in support of the victims and their families. The Imams have great influence on people in their areas and their views in favor of the victim and their families will greatly help in changing the mindset of the people in their areas.

• Political parties should include in their manifestos, their resolve to help the victims and their families to continue their lives without being made out cast in their localities.

• Civil Society Organizations should come out aggressively in support of the victims and condemnation of the culprit.

• In police stations, there should be separate women sections with female police staff to deal with criminal complaints of women.

• Media should be [encouraged] to play a leading role in changing the mindset of people through discussion, talks with political religious and civil society leaders, and also through dramas and plays.

• Ministers, Parliamentarians, religious leaders, civil society Organizations and local leaders should visit the homes of the victims expressing their whole hearted support for the victims and their families and helping them to adjust themselves in the changed circumstances.

• FIRS of rapes should be promptly registered and trained and educated police officers should investigate the crime and present ‘chalans’ in courts at the earliest.

• The Chief Justice may be requested to get the rape cases disposed off within a month or two with day-to-day hearing.

• There should be victims and her family’s protection programs so that the offenders do not intimate them.

Q. What are the immediate resources the government offers to rape victims?
Victims [can refer to] the revolving fund for the release of female and juvenile prisoners through payment of fines, bail sureties and transportation. [Also, as per President's directives], a revolving fund for Rs. 20.00 million has been established in the Women Development Department for providing legal assistance to poor women pursuing their petitions of defending themselves in courts. [They are] defended free of charges by lady lawyers engaged by the Government.

The effectiveness of Rape law in Pakistan is evident by the Minister’s responses and she herself admits that there are severe problems with implementation. However, the country has seen worse – the present situation is a far cry from the controversial Hudood Ordinance of 1979, in which rape victims had to provide four male witnesses to the crime.

Therefore, although there is still a long way to go before rape victims can feel protected judicially, the steps being taken seem to be in the right direction.

Every once in a while, and especially in this great city of Chicago, you’ll hear someone talking about the American Dream—on the subway, in a café, at Saks Fifth Avenue. You’ll hear it manifest in many forms, ones which may not seem very obvious at first, but will all, upon reflection, inevitably touch that tireless optimism that refuses defeat or surrender. Here are some entirely fictional, entirely plausible, scenarios:

(Middle aged family man on L) My daughter got accepted to NYU, and she really wants to go, but it’s obviously much more expensive than a state school. Lets out a sigh. Things are really tight now at work and his wife Sharon is pregnant, but how do you say no to your daughter’s dreams? No, we’re gonna figure this out. Maybe a second mortgage.

(Girl on cell phone at Saks) Ohmigodohmigodohmigod. I want that Chanel bag. No, I need it. I definitely need it, so I’m buying it. Just look at it, it’s so cute. My creditors are going to kill me, but, ugh, screw them. I hate creditors, they’re so lame.

(Iranian immigrant speaking to a friend at neighborhood café) Yes, of course there are challenges to life here. Of course you miss home sometimes, your mothers cooking, all of that. But in America you can be…whatever you want. The idea that you can let go of all your fears and disappear into the crowd. Such a thing could only happen in this country.

Make it work. Don’t say no. You are what you do. There’s something incredibly refreshing about the kind of perseverant let’s-eat-our-cake attitude Americans have, one that I personally haven’t been able to find anywhere else. And yet, there’s something very sinister happening to their dreams, and (at the risk of sounding melodramatic) it’s happening as we speak, rumbling beneath our feet.

Now, I’m not a historian, but by all accounts, all the American history professors I know would agree that at the end of Second World War, things were good for American families. Now, these families are likely white and wearing very starched clothing. I realize that. I say this with full acknowledgement of the many faults of the social order of the time when it came to women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, and the anti-smoking lobby. That said, the 1950s may seem slightly drab, if not incredibly hokey time to live, where the most subversive thing one could find was Elvis gyrating his hips to “Hound Dog”, but consider this: A family could own their own home and live comfortably on only one parent’s full-time salary, send their kids to college when college was still affordable under said one-parent income, and taking care of one’s own arm and leg didn’t cost an arm and a leg.

Well, 60 years later, and things have changed profoundly. I’m not an economist, but if you can show me how, over the last 30 years, wages haven’t remained virtually flat, inflation on an unrelenting rise, and health care and college tuition (two of the most significant expenditures for the middle class family) absolutely ballooning, I’m gonna have to – to quote President Obama – take a look at your math. And neither of us would want that because I’m actually not very good at math. Put that with figures of distribution of wealth, and the picture gets a little scarier.

Since the 70s, the wealthy have been getting wealthier, with the result that now, in 2010 income inequality is at an all time high, even trumping the Great Depression (this is a study conducted by an Economics Professor at USC).

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while now, and I think the question that intrigues me most of all is, what now? What do do-or-die, don’t-fuck-with-me Americans who don’t have Van Goghs hanging in their Madison Avenue penthouses have to say now?
Well, as it turns out, they’ve got ideas of their own. Stay tuned, folks.

Now, a century later, another rebel movement has emerged – one that makes use of new media to foster debate on social and political issues. The Young Turks talk show, extremely liberal and freethinking, is one of the first shows available on satellite radio, television and the Internet.

Diskord recently got the chance to interview Cenk Uygur, the main host of the show and a regular blogger for The Huffington Post. He is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia Law School, and a former associate at the law firms of Drinker Biddle & Reath in Washington, D.C. and Parcher, Hayes & Liebman in New York City.

The Interview

Q. As a graduate of Top Ten schools, what pushed you to pursue a non-linear path? Do you have any advice for college students who want to break into journalism, but feel pressured to follow more ‘defined’ occupations?

Two things pushed me toward a new path: An unstoppable drive toward my true passion and an unending boredom with my legal job. My advice to you is terribly clichéd – do what you love. Life isn’t something you go through to get to something else. You will work so much harder and get so much more accomplished if you actually do something you enjoy. Money is earned; success comes naturally if you do what you were born to do.

Q. There are some hugely controversial posts by you out there, for instance: ‘If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew – You are Wrong’. How is the backlash to such articles? How do you deal with negative feedback?

My old Jamaican girlfriend had a saying that I have adopted – if you don’t like what I write or what I do – sad day for you. Yes, there is sometimes strong backlash to articles I write, but I’m certainly not going to stop writing in order to avoid the perceived offense of others.

Nine out of ten times, I couldn’t care less about the negative feedback. But if I think someone is making an intelligent, valid point about something I wrote, then I take that very seriously. Since I am open-minded, I have an enormous advantage. If I’m wrong, I simply change my position – and then voila, I’m right again. Seems simple, but people almost always debate to prove how smart they are, not to determine what is true. If you can let go of your ego, then you can always be right (a little ironic).

Q. You’ve played a big role in the development of new media – what roles do others like you and TYT volunteers play? What can they add to political debates?

What we add to the debate is honesty. Right now, most of the major media is structured around the all-important concept of access. The political channels need access to the politicians, so they suck up to them. The entertainment channels need access to the celebrities, so they suck up to them. This creates a powerful incentive to be fake and not deliver the actual news to your audience. And this creates an enormous competitive advantage for us. Simply by not selling out the truth for access, we can pick up a huge portion of the audience. To put it more bluntly, people are tried of the bullshit and we don’t bullshit them.

What can others add to the political debate? Anything they want. That’s the beauty of the new media. You Tube is international television and it costs almost nothing to put yourself on. There are no gatekeepers anymore, so go crazy. Dare to believe you can make a difference.

Q. As college students who have been following your political blogs for some time, we find your views on how arguments are structured in politics and the news quite thought provoking. Could you briefly tell us about your analysis of Roger Ailes’s ‘orchestra pit theory’, in simple terms?

Roger Ailes came up with the “orchestra pit theory,” which says that if two candidates are debating the Middle East and one makes a trenchant point and the other falls into the orchestra pit, the one who fell in the pit is the one the news is going to cover. This observation leads to the conclusion that the most important thing is to grab people’s attention and then lead them in the direction you want. Substance is not rewarded, attention grabbing is.

This plays out on Fox News almost on a daily basis. Fox News personalities fall into the orchestra pit night in and night out (I think Beck lives there). But what’s important here is that once everyone is paying attention, they control the conversation. It’s not the answer; it’s the question that matters. Once they frame the debate, everything else is window dressing.

Q. Your analysis of how Michael Moore and Alan Grayson have managed to shift arguments with conservatives in their favor, by using the same sort of table-turning techniques that the Fox and the Republicans have typically favored, is also really interesting. In your opinion, what are the dangers of liberals adapting Fox-like argument structures as Moore and Grayson have—does it ultimately hurt progressives to engage in that level of discourse, or are such arguments the only way to forward a liberal agenda today?

You need a mixture and context matters. Right now, the debate in this country is so skewed in favor of the right that we need many liberals doing head long dives into orchestra pit to balance the conversation (and the attention). This is where Grayson and Moore come in. Grayson is the perfect example. He says something inflammatory about how Republicans want you to die quickly. Everyone chastises him. Then they ask the question he wants to talk about – are Republicans causing the deaths of more uninsured by delaying and blocking health care reform? Yes, Grayson got bruised on the way in, but he changed the conversation to one that is very favorable to Democrats.

Later, if the context changes, then I would counsel Democrats to go lighter on the orchestra surfing. And if they start over-doing it one day, I would consider it my job to point it out and hopefully provide some corrective balance. But today is not that day.

And once you have people’s attention, I would hope that you would make an intelligent argument. There is a time for trenchant observations about the Middle East, and that time is when everyone is listening.

Q. Where does Obama’s rhetoric—’which preserves the decorum expected of the presidency but often fails to provide rallying points’—fall into this? What are the broader implications of his administration’s challenge to Fox?

So far, Obama has been puddin’ soft. You need balance between tough talk and reconciling with your enemies. For eight years, we had nothing but tough talk. But the proper remedy to that is not eight years of listening to your opponents without effectively challenging them. Obama understands the value of diplomacy and smart politics. But he underestimates the value of a good punch to the mouth (politically speaking, of course).

However, Obama is on the attack against Fox now, which is very good news. It’s imperative to point out that Fox is doing opinion journalism because the real damage they do is when people confuse their stories for real news as opposed to Republican propaganda. If the White House changes the conversation to how biased Fox is, they can’t lose. It’s not the answer; it’s the question.

Also, their willingness to stand up to Fox might a harbinger of good things to come in how forcefully they take on their political opponents. The idea of bipartisanship with this current generation of Republicans is a pipe dream. Hopefully, we one day get back to a country where bipartisanship is possible. But today is not that day.

Q. What do you think about the chaotic international situation? (This is an extremely open-ended question – do you have any strong opinions specifically related to Iran, Pakistan, or the Arab-Israeli crisis?)

We can and must do diplomacy with Iran. They are not cartoonish madmen; they’re rational actors we can negotiate with. You don’t get to negotiate with your friends; you have to negotiate with your enemies. And part and parcel of negotiation is that you don’t get everything you want. If we’re realistic, we can solve that problem.

Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world. We have to push them on routing out Al Qaeda (we haven’t pushed nearly hard enough before) without endangering the balance of the country. It’s imperative that the democratic government win out in the struggle against Muslim fundamentalist insurgents and the political struggle against their own army. That is a very delicate balance.

Both sides have to be realistic about what they can get in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don’t believe there can be a meaningful Palestinian right of return. Israel will not and cannot negotiate away its existence by allowing right of return. On the other hand, Israel pours salt on the wound of the occupied territories with settlement expansion. The settlements are poison to Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects.

The United States must have the power to actually influence Israel, in ending settlement expansion for example, for there to be any hope of peace. Can the US actually make Israel listen (for its own good)? There has to be consequences for not listening to us. If the US isn’t politically courageous enough to do that, then the chances for peace are a lot slimmer.

Q. Lastly, does TYT offer any opportunities for students to get involved? Are there any internships, shadowing externships, etc?

We are always open to internships. Almost everyone who now works here started by working for us as a volunteer. In the digital age, of course you can volunteer or do an internship from somewhere other than the physical location of our office. If you prove yourself smart and valuable to our operation, then we’ll very seriously consider hiring you. We’re interested in people who help us grow and get bigger and better. My advice to all the people who work for us is – make yourself invaluable.

The effectiveness of the show is evident in its increasing popularity. On the official website, a particular line resonates: ‘The real revolution is in daring to be honest with people. We don’t patronize our viewers or lie to them. We have real conversations and deliver the news honestly’.

Judge the show for yourselves. The Young Turks currently airs in several places, including XM Satellite Radio’s America Left, channel 167. TYT also has partnerships with AOL News, TidalTV and YouTube. Their segments are also available on their official website, theyoungturks.com, and as podcasts.

When Guinea gained its independence from France in 1958 Ahmed Sékou Touré became the its first president. He rejected French colonial influence. In a stroke of anti-colonialism he decided to implement a deliberate reversal of French rule and law. Everything, including basic sanitation was reversed. Touré sent the country into an unending spiral of poverty. When his despotic rule was finally overthrown in 1984, it seemed to be too late to undo the effects of his ruinous policies, which seemed to throw Guinea back into a lawless, feudal era.

This country is a classical example of the paradox of plenty. It has a plethora of natural resources including gold, bauxite, gems and petroleum. While only 29.5% of its population is literate. This statistic is heavily slanted in favor of the country’s men. About 42% of the literate are men, while the percentage of literate women barely breaks the double digits. Almost half of the country’s population lives below the international poverty line. Every resource is exported from this country. The sand from Conakry beaches are dug up and exported. Everything is also imported, evidenced by the unbelievable cost of food. The current exchange rate is 455 Guinea francs to the dollar.

Guinea has very little infrastructure including waste disposal. Most impoverished residents defecate in the ocean, and trash-strewn streets are an inescapable part of life.
Potential foreign partners remain wary of investing in the country due to its widespread corruption. Yet there are investors, particularly the International Chinese Fund who are working to develop much needed industry in this country.

Guinea was once known as a beautiful country. Vestiges of its colonial beauty can still be seen in Conakry, underneath layers of trash. Outside of the city, well into the countryside Guinea exhibits every shade of green. Its wild, natural beauty is apparent in its lush forests and waterfalls. It seems impossible that such unremitting poverty and beauty can exist in the same country.

True to the seemingly impossible legend that it was once a beautiful country, Guinea is home to a population of mixed women: the Puelle. The heritage of these women often comprises three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe. Stories abound of how they made foreign men give up their families in Europe and chase after them. They drove these men mad. In local lore, there is the story of a maddened German man, who wanders the streets of Conakry. Mixed children flit through the rubbish-strewn streets.

My friend and her family lived in Guinea for several years. They left shortly after the coup, which occurred in December 2009. My friend describes Conakry, the nation’s capital as, “A —hole”. Trash fills the street. When it rains— and the rain is torrential, as it wont to be in the tropics— several feet of water and trash mix and flood the streets. The nearby beach cannot escape the ubiquitous trash.

The meager progress and development being made in this country was halted by the violent coup of December 2009. The veiled autocracy, disguised as a democracy, passed into a phase of military junta. The coup and its ramifications for this fragile country will be discussed in the second installment of this article.

A community center in Würrich, Germany with solar panels on its roof (wikimedia commons)

We live on a spherical world, tilted slightly askew. And we have weather. Although we do not think of them now, preconditions such as these will have a profound impact on the way solar energy is implemented in this century, with corresponding impacts on the shape of our future economy. It’s currently imagined that a solar economy would leave the world as is, just with solar panels on the roof. But a meaningful shift from fossil fuels to solar power will require economies of scale—economies likely not offered by the small installations promoted by many current solar boosters. A solar-powered society may involve alterations to the Earth’s surface as dramatic as those caused by the industrial revolution.

The world’s most aggressive solar advocate is also one of the least likely: cloudy, high-latitude Germany. The German government subsidizes renewable power through the use of a feed-in tariff, which requires electric companies to buy power from solar panels at an above market rate for twenty years. This assures the installer of the system that they will make a profit, leading to a rush for the most expensive of the renewables: photovoltaics (solar panels). The result has been a solar power boom, with Germany generating over half of the world’s solar electricity.

There are two main modes for generating solar electricity. The centralized model operates much like a conventional power plant, setting aside a space for a solar panel farm (or mirrors to focus heat on a working fluid to run the generator) and distributing the power from there. A good example of this is a mammoth eighty-megawatt one planned for a former German Democratic Republic army base.

The other method, distributed generation, consists of small-scale solar installations, mostly on rooftops, all linked together by the grid. Germany’s feed-in tariffs have been incredibly successful in distributed generation, and similar incentives for solar power have already been implemented in Ontario and the city of Gainesville, Florida.

Since public utilities have to pay more for renewable energy under feed-in tariff systems, they pass on these costs to consumers. In Germany, this adds about an extra euro to each month’s bill—not a large amount, but the projected growth of renewables in Germany could lead to a monthly increase of two to eight euros, with figures in the higher part of that interval now being favored due to the trendiness of costly photovoltaics.

Also, there are also political-economic reasons for German investments in photovoltaic technology, though. By driving up demand for solar panels, the feed-in tariffs form something of a subsidy for the German solar panel industry. Photovoltaics are seen as a next-generation export, and the ability of manufacturers to generate high-paying industrial jobs is at least as to the German government as using solar power to generate electricity.

This does raise the prospect, however, that if Germany wants to run its economy from the sun it will likely have to pay much more for its energy. This is not entirely surprising—Germany’s abundant coal deposits fueled its rise to an industrial power. Germany might have the will to switch to solar power, but overcast skies at high latitudes mean they have to install more photovoltaics to extract the same amount of energy as another array in a sunnier climate. Switching to renewable power and remaining an economic power may well be contradictory aims.

There is a strong ideological component to distributed energy’s appeal. As Governor Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan put it, with distributed solar “every homeowner, every business, becomes a renewable energy entrepreneur.” Granholm uses the rhetoric of opportunity to sell distributed solar power, making small rooftop installations seem distinctly American. Distributed power also has sort of a Web 2.0 vibe. Rather than having to buy electricity from a big corporation, you can make it yourself.

Even if distributed generation fits well with the contemporary zeitgeist, economies of scale still present an issue. It is simpler to construct one big solar farm than a large number of installations on existing rooftops. In all likelihood, it is also a more financially viable option. Furthermore, at high latitudes like Michigan’s, today’s technology does not allow most consumers to generate electricity to make a profit, so Granholm’s statement is worse than rhetorical—it is disingenuous.

Nonetheless, solar cells have retained high levels of popularity, resulting in massive production, which in turn has caused retail costs to fall. Now China intends to cut prices even more — according to Reuters, US solar entities as well as German solar firms Conergy and Solarworld are becoming more concerned about China’s efforts to grab a larger share of the renewable market by cutting costs in order to compete. The US faces the task of trying to encourage consumers not to purchase the cheaper solar energy products made in China. Needless to say, there has been much speculation about trade barriers.

But is this truly the best way to establish a solar-powered economy? Solar projects have boomed because installers are guaranteed returns on investments, but such guarantees have forced Spain and Gainseville to restrict the number of new installations each year, while Ontario has had to temporarily shut down the program altogether. Just as fostering a photovoltaic industry has been instrumental in protecting Germany’s feed-in tariffs, in the United States job growth is a major argument for the promotion of distributed solar. Even in more favorable environments, these programs may not be financially sustainable.

A solar farm at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada

This is well illustrated by the centralized-distributed debate going on in Nevada. Distributed power is seen as more conducive to job growth. Danny Thompson—the treasurer for the Nevada chapter of the US’s largest union federation, the AFL-CIO—told the Las Vegas Sun that a centralized solar power plant would be a mere “flash in the pan” in terms of job growth. The incremental installation of photovoltaic panels on rooftops would provide more jobs over a longer period of time. This also means it will cost more. The great danger in sacrificing efficiency for current job growth is that it leaves our solar policy more exposed to changes in energy policy. Should feed-in tariffs drive up electricity costs too much, they will become an easier political target here than in Germany.

Even considering the ideal solar farm located in a sunny environment with its photovoltaics (or mirrors) positioned to maximize insolation, we would need to cover large swaths of desert with solar panels in order to really start replacing fossil fuels. “[The] Sahara could supply all of Europe, the Gobi could power China, and the Chihauhuan, Sonoran, Atacama and Great Victoria Deserts could electrify entire continents,” the Guardian’s George Monbiot dreams in his book Heat. Nicolas Sarkozy tossed the same idea around while proposing a Mediterranean Union. A solar economy would rework the Earth’s surface to save the atmosphere.

The scale of this inspires a certain awe: pyramids and Great Wall, look at how much bigger our civilization’s solar farms are! It also inspires fright—some conservationists are beginning to line up against schemes to cover the Mojave Desert with mirrors and photovoltaics, as is California Senator Diane Feinstein. If the damming of western rivers serves as any guide, though, the possible profits from paneling the deserts will likely prevail eventually.

As convenient as the sun has proven for four billion years of life on this planet, harnessing it to power our more recent inventions is a challenge. Our current technology has achieved neither the ease of nature nor the economy of fossil fuels, but our reckless use of the latter is forcing us to alternatives. The prevailing policy in Europe and the United States is not so much a solar policy as a jobs policy that involves photovoltaics. Despite enthusiasm over green jobs, we have to face the prospect that the path an environmentally sustainable economy may not be the one that creates the most jobs. Furthermore, a real plan for shifting our civilization to solar power would probably employ economics of scale to an unprecedented degree, opening up paradoxes about what a saved planet would look. Sunlight may be free, but we should not trick ourselves into thinking it can be harnessed effortlessly.

A version of this article first appeared in the Spring 2009 print edition of Diskord, and has been updated.