Wagster Speaks

How in Hock?

2010-09-29T21:33:00.009-05:00

Via Ezra Klein, I see that Karl Smith has come up with an interesting theory as to why consumer debt might not be as onerous as this chart seems to indicate.

But there's another, simpler reason why the consumer leverage problem has been wildly overstated. In 1980, the prime rate reached 21.5%; it's been going down pretty steadily since, and today it is at just a shade over 3%. It turns out that Americans have gotten into debt largely because they could afford to.

Source: Federal Reserve Board.

Excisions

2010-02-21T17:26:00.005-05:00

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This essay is probably too long to be a blog post. If like me you prefer to print out long pieces and read them off-line, here is a PDF link.

The death was announced, with respectful irony, on the front page of The New York Times: “Henry Molaison, An Unforgettable Amnesiac, Dies at 82.” Before that day he had been known to the annals of neuroscience, and to me, only by the identity-cloaking initials of H.M. I never met the man, but still, it felt like I had lost an unknown cousin.

Who was H.M.? And who was he to me?

Henry Molaison was knocked over by a boy on a bicycle when he was nine, gashing his head badly. The injury led to a series of debilitating seizures which continued and worsened until, at the age of 27, they were impeding his livelihood as a motor repairman. In 1952, he went to the Hartford office of Dr. William Beecher Scoville, a patrician neurosurgeon related to the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. After exhausting other treatment options, Scoville decided that some experimental surgery was in order. Using only scalp-deep local anesthetic, he peeled the skin on H.M.’s forehead over his eyes, drilled two silver-dollar-sized holes through his skull and – with a spatula-like retractor – lifted the frontal lobe out of the way so that he could access the limbic area of the brain. Then, with a silver straw, Scoville sucked about two-thirds of H.M.’s hippocampus out of his head.

Scoville’s surgery actually did reduce the frequency of the seizures – but it also created history’s most famous amnesiac. The memory-formation processes in H.M.’s brain were permanently damaged. For the rest of his life he would encounter every name, every face, every object, every event as if it were new and previously unknown to him. What the rest of us see as a vast landscape of time was, for him, just the thin 20-second slice his short-term memory could retain. All that came before was a confusing void; all that came after (since mental plans would soon be forgotten) was a dark limbo too. Till his death H.M. would need caretaking – first from relatives, and finally in an institution.

My first name is William. I was named after the surgeon who crippled H.M.’s brain. That obituary made some family history surface in my memory – and it prodded me to find out more about the man whose name I took. Behind my investigation was a nagging wonder… was I named after a neurological cowboy? Was William Beecher Scoville a gambler with a scalpel, willing to risk his patients’ faculties for his own surgical glory?

To answer that question, I must first do what H.M. couldn’t… remember how I got here.

* * *

The story begins in Lima, Peru – it is 1960, about a year and a half before I was born. Jorge A. Gadea, a young father of four, is diagnosed with a herniated disk. A respected local neurosurgeon, Dr. Fernando Cabieses, operates. Within days the patient’s condition is deteriorating and he is soon paralyzed from the neck down.

Cabieses didn’t know it, but the problem wasn’t a disk. A congenital cyst, present in the spinal column since before birth, had begun to grow and pressure the cord. Cabieses’ surgery allowed the cyst room to grow and bloom, causing the paralysis.

Years later, my father would paint Cabieses as the bad guy in the episode: “After I was paralyzed we went to Cabieses and asked – what can we do? He says ‘look, there’s no hope. Pretty soon your organs will fail and you’ll die. If the spasms are so bad, maybe we should take out the muscles in your body so you can die peacefully.’ I said no, ¡basta! Is there some other doctor we can consult? He said the only one who might be able to cure you is my teacher in America, Dr. William Beecher Scoville.”

And that’s how it was that my father and mother (with financial help from my extended family, my father’s Masonic lodge, and a generous American church) flew to Hartford, Connecticut, to place themselves in the care of (the soon-to-be miraculous) Dr. Scoville. I’ll let my father continue the story, as he told it to me many times:

“Once we got to Hartford things moved very fast. We met Scoville – he did his tests. He injected this liquid into my spine that showed up on x-rays, and he put me on a special table that tilted from one end to the other. That way he could see, from the way the liquid flowed, where the obstruction was in my spine. He operated and found the cyst. It was about the size of a grape, he said. This was a very rare condition, and this was one of his greatest operations. There were three or four operations in his career he was most proud of, and this was one of them.

“The very first day after the operation I was walking again. And except for my left arm being a little weaker than my right, I made a full recovery. A few months after that, you were conceived. And we called you William… en honor al doctor.

“Scoville asked me not to sue Cabieses, so I didn’t. But some people we knew said they had seen him drinking out late the night before the operation.”

It loses something without my father’s performance, but that was the gist: a bad doctor/good doctor tale. In the process of writing this, I dug up a medical paper that Scoville and Cabieses jointly wrote about my father’s case. The first thing that struck me was seeing my father referred to as J.G.; here he had attained the same initialed anonymity as H.M. The article puts the doctors on parity in one way: Scoville’s initial diagnosis was no different than the one Cabieses gave: a herniated disk. Scoville just had the wherewithal to fish around until he found the actual problem, the cyst. The paper confirms what my father used to say, that Scoville was proud of his operation. The article heralds a first-ever surgical recovery from a rare condition. (A somewhat sheepish footnote, added months after the initial writing, reveals that neither the condition nor the recovery from it was quite so rare.) The story about the Cabieses’ drinking is, of course, just a rumor. But if the rest of my father’s story is true, then Cabieses didn’t just miss the cyst, he gave my father a post-operative prognosis and palliative treatment option that, if heeded, would probably have killed him.

William Scoville, on the other hand, gave my father his life back, and for that he became something of a demi-God in my family. The Doctor stayed in contact with us, even visiting us in Peru once in the mid-60s.

I was too young to remember the visit, but my father told this story about it: “I took the doctor to the Inca museum. He stood in front of one exhibit for a long time. There were some Inca skulls with round cuts in them like they were made very carefully. Scoville says that looks like brain surgery. Not just that, but he is noticing that the bone got healed, meaning the patients survived the operation. And – here’s where it gets interesting… ¿sabes lo que dijo? Judging from the part of the brain they were working on, they were probably trying to affect personality. Something even today’s surgeons haven’t achieved!” My father loved that story because it incorporated two of his favorite themes: the genius of the Incas and the genius of Scoville. With the information I received later about Scoville’s interest in psychosurgery, I wondered whether the doctor wasn’t a little envious of his Inca counterparts.

My mother liked a different story: “Scoville was visiting around the same time Granpa was with us. Granpa had been having trouble with his legs. Scoville is sitting in the living room, seeing my Dad’s leg twitch – and it’s bothering him, he can’t take his eyes of the leg. Finally he can’t help himself anymore and he gets up, takes that glass ashtray” – and at this point, my mother would usually point to the actual ashtray that we still had – “and he tests my grandfather’s reflexes. He asks a couple of quick questions, and he says: here’s your problem. One of my father’s feet was swollen, and he had taken to wearing two different shoes… because one was looser and more comfortable for him. Scoville says the trouble is that one sole is thicker than the other, and that causes a tilt in his carriage. And the tilt is what puts pressure on the nerve… back here.” She points to her lower back. “And you know what – my father started using the same kind of shoe on each foot. The problem went away. He was right!”

After the company this story was told to left, I would hold the glass ashtray that Scoville used like it was the artifact of a saint. The ashtray had a chip off one of its edges… did the doctor use the sharp edge or the smooth edge to tap my grandfather’s knee? I was too young to remember the Lima visit, but we still have photos of it. One shows the surgeon with his young namesake by his side.

Allow me to pause and point out what might be obvious. My family at this point knew nothing about H.M. or his operation. I didn’t find out until the mid-nineties. I was leafing through my Sunday paper when Scoville’s name jumped off the page and ambushed me. It was a review of Philip Hilts’ Memory’s Ghost, a book about H.M. The review made Scoville seem craven, even joking to his wife about the mishap. I remember so clearly thinking: ‘I wish Papi were alive so I could see what he thought of this!’ It’s only when I was writing this piece that I constructed a timeline and soon realized… that would have been impossible. The book came out in 1995; my father did not die until three years later. Why didn’t I tell him? To protect him from being disillusioned? To protect me from unpleasantness?

Which leads to the question: how does memory get bent? It’s as if we have event dots in a mental graph of our life, and we draw a regression line through them. This line is who we are, where we’ve been, what our strengths and weaknesses are: our character, our story. We extend that line with a confident, dotted projection that leads to the glory or tragedy or oblivion we anticipate for ourselves. And when no one’s looking – and we’re not looking – the event dots get shifted a little closer to the regression line so that our story is a little tidier, a little more dramatic. It doesn’t matter why I failed to tell my father; I was embarrassed that I didn’t. So I changed the memory.

But here is where I have to wonder: what must it have been like to be H.M.? If you cannot produce memories any more, then how can you produce a narrative? And is this “self” we have anything more than just a narrative? They say that when he was uncertain of something H.M. would often remark, sometimes several times a day: “I’m having an argument with myself.” When his memory was removed by suction tube, did a unitary sense of his self go too? Of course, he recognized the package of sensation bundled in his skin – but did he see a character? Was there a Henry in Henry’s mind?

* * *

We moved to the Dominican Republic in 1976; Dr. Scoville had occasion to visit us there not long after we arrived. Before I describe how I remember him, let me share some descriptions I’ve come upon of the younger man. Everyone describes Bill Scoville as exceedingly handsome – and photographic evidence confirms it. He was a high-spirited man who met his first wife by jumping onto the running board of the moving car she was in. A colleague recounts other daredevil anecdotes: how he climbed a cable to the top of the George Washington Bridge at night, and how another time he jumped into a Spanish bullring with a live bull. In his youth, Scoville wanted to be a mechanic instead of a doctor, but his father prevailed on him to choose a proper profession. His mechanical proclivity led to his inventing and refining many neurosurgical instruments, but cars remained an enduring passion; he loved working on them and he loved driving them very fast. He owned a string of Jaguars, which he kept shiny and in excellent condition. And he applied his sense of adventure to his profession too: the same colleague describes him in a written tribute as “a free spirit, unfettered by rules and regulations…he is an innovator, never willing to accept the status quo… driven by an insatiable ego, seeking better ways of doing things and espousing new ideas with their frequent and often angry confrontations.”

The man I met was more mild-mannered – by the time you’re 70 years old, perhaps everyone is more mild-mannered. He had a second wife by then – a handsome, French-speaking woman – and two young children. We took their family to the then-best restaurant in Santo Domingo, Vesuvio – an Italian place on the Malecón. I remember his son more than him. I was a precocious 15-year old and he was a just-a-bit-more-precocious 12-year-old. Like me, he had been given Dr. Scoville’s first name.

For the most part, the Doctor seemed a little detached, a little distracted. But there was a point after dinner when the tone on the adult side of the table firmed. My father had lit up a cigarette after his meal and Scoville had admonished him, urging him to give up the habit. He was a man not prone to being chastened, but my father smoked his last cigarette that night. I’m sure he must have long known the insalutary effects of smoking, but the message gained force when it came from Scoville. (Curiously, he was too proud to remember it that way. In coming years, when he talked about giving up smoking he would say: “I woke up one morning and los cigarillos disgusted me. Just like that I quit.”)

Knowing that Scoville was something of an adventurer, my father had talked a wealthy friend into taking us deep sea fishing. It was threatening to rain, so our host wondered whether we should perhaps call it off. Scoville would have none of it. You could tell the prospect of wrestling with a marlin a la Papa Hemingway had captured his imagination. I was pretty excited too, so I was glad he was game. Unfortunately, we didn’t even get a nibble on the line, and had a rough ride on some choppy seas. By the time we were back at the dock Scoville was disappointed and a little seasick. I remember him bumping his head as he climbed out of the boat, and seeing him hold on to the part that hurt. The image of him I was left with was of a fragile old man: discouraged, queasy… and now injured.

As we were saying goodbye on that visit, Scoville addressed me, the pimpled teenager who was named after him. “If you decide on a medical career, I would be glad to write you a recommendation to Yale Medical School, where I teach,” he said. This pleased my father immensely. “Yale Medical School is one of the best medical schools in the world, if not the best!” he gushed after the doctor left. “And Scoville is willing to write you a recommendation!” He might have thought this was a sufficient condition for admission; my father had the Latin American view (which was proven correct often enough) that the world turned on an axis of personal connections. Of course, a medical career was the last thing on my mind.

The next time I saw Scoville was under a less happy circumstance.

I was 17 and very excited about going off to college at NYU. I was literally counting down the days in my head. Around the time I was down to single-digits, the Dominican Republic was hit by one of the worst tropical hurricanes of the century: Hurricane David. Our ground floor apartment was flooded with a foot of water. Looking out the taped windows it seemed like you were peering into contents of a blender. Trees were uprooted within our view. The next day we would learn that the eye of a category 5 hurricane had passed almost directly over us. 2,000 Dominicans had been killed.

My father was working for a non-profit at the time. It was quickly decided that, in order to solicit funds for hurricane relief, he would take the trip to the U.S. with me. While he was up north, he would take advantage of the opportunity to get a check-up with Scoville at Hartford Hospital.

We arrived in New York and took a hotel room in the east 20s. Our first night in town we decided to go see a movie. When we walked to the theater my father asked me to hold his arm while he negotiated the curbs. His check-up with Scoville was not customary; there had been a marked deterioration in his condition over the last few months. That night we saw Woody Allen’s Manhattan, which was late in its initial run then. It seemed to me like a preview of my new city’s secrets and sophistications.

The next day we took the bus to Hartford and a taxi to the hospital. Dr. Scoville greeted us in a warm but brisk manner. Here in his habitat, the Doctor no longer seemed as vulnerable as he did back on the Caribbean dock. After running some tests, his verdict was curt: “I’d like to operate again.” He explained that he would need exploratory surgery to see what was going wrong. My father wasn’t expecting this. “Do I have time to return to Santo Domingo and put my affairs in order?”

“I’d prefer to do it sooner rather than later,” Scoville replied.

The operation went for longer than expected. Being in the waiting room felt a little surreal… like I was in a too-melodramatic movie. I remember a kind nurse asking if I needed anything. And my memory of this is hazy but I think that after many hours Scoville came out and said something non-committal.

Scoville had only found adhesions, the scarring from previous operations, which he tried to remove as well as he could. However, my father woke up largely paralyzed from the neck down and would remain so for the rest of his life. He would retain limited use of his hands and a bit of feeling in his legs.

Years later, after Scoville’s death, my father would travel to Los Angeles to be examined again – this time with the benefit of an MRI, a diagnostic tool not commercially available at the time of Scoville’s operation. The doctors would tell him that Scoville had operated in the wrong place. The cyst had regenerated, but in a new location. Scoville had missed it altogether. Perhaps the operation itself did damage to the spinal cord, or perhaps it aided the progression of the cyst, as Cabieses’ operation apparently did. Either way, it seems likely that a better outcome was possible.

Looking back on those days since, I’ve often thought: if the boy that accompanied my father to Hartford Hospital had been a man, he might have had the presence and maturity to worry whether an operation that so depended on motor skills should be left to a septuagenarian. He might have had the sense to suggest that they seek out a second opinion, even if Scoville was good. Truthfully, I don’t feel guilty about the judgment I did not contribute to – the judgment to operate in Hartford with Scoville. I find it highly unlikely that the 17-year old boy could have stood up to the family God.

My father used to say that he had never been prouder of me than the day he took me to kindergarten and I was the only kid in the class who didn’t cry. The proudest he ever made me was in the days of his post-operative convalescence, when he arranged for some executives from a charity in Hartford to visit him in the hospital regarding hurricane relief. I had seen these performances before. When my father asked for money, he was never a beggar… he was a salesman. He didn’t ask pity for a weather-torn nation; he offered opportunity! – a chance to do good, to help rebuild. It was a great pitch. Even flat on his back in a hospital bed – his limbs no longer under his command, his life to come under a dark shadow – he could still cast a spell over these stoic New Englanders.

* * *

So what is the verdict on Scoville?

It would be unfair to write of the H.M. operation without providing fuller context. When he came to Scoville, Henry Molaison’s condition was dire. Prior to the operation he was having around ten minor blackouts a week; the grand mal seizures came as often as once a week. The disease was disrupting every facet of his life: work, family, social. He was not allowed to rise to the stage for his high school graduation, for instance, because it was feared he would have a fit. Drug therapy did not work for him.

Also, we must put the event in its period: this was the heyday of psychosurgery. Only four years earlier, António Egas Moniz had been awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work in developing the prefrontal lobotomy. And while nowadays the establishment might look askance at what Scoville himself called a “frankly experimental” procedure, the ethical protocols of current medicine had not been developed yet: no informed consent forms, no institutional review boards.

Having said that, Scoville performed an irreversible procedure on an organ even our current science understands poorly. It is a medical doctor’s first principle: first, do no harm. Scoville would argue that in his opinion the potential benefits outweighed the risks, but at least one of his contemporaries found the operation questionable; when Scoville shared the results over the phone with Dr. Wilder Penfield, an eminence gris in the field, his colleague is said to have exploded in anger.

Providing fuller context also forces fuller accounting. Scoville was one of the pioneers in bringing the lobotomy to the U.S., one of the more dismal procedures of 20^th century medicine. It is true, he was more sensitive to the side effects of the operation than others were. While the huckster Walter Freeman was streamlining the procedure into a 10-minute-long ice-pick-poke-through-the-eye-sockets that he even performed in hotel rooms (disabling patients that included JFK’s sister Rosemary,) Scoville was refining what he felt was a subtler, less damaging method called orbital undercutting.

Yet Scoville was complicit in the big problem with lobotomy: it was the lobotomists who decided how successful they were. Even in our day of evidence-based medicine, clinical trials for new surgical techniques are a rarity. That’s problematic, but less so when the results can at least be measured reliably; an orthopedic surgeon trying a new knee operation, for example, can measure the flexibility and strength of the post-operative joint to the degree and pound-of-pressure. Measuring psychic pain is more difficult. And crucially, weighing alleviation of pain against loss of intellect and higher functioning is exceedingly difficult. That is as much a philosophical as a medical problem, and that is what psychosurgeons needed to decide. Such a subjective call should not be left to doctors with a possible attachment to their handiwork.

There is evidence to question whether Scoville’s judgment was always sound in this regard. On H.M.’s chart prior to discharge, Scoville marked his patient’s condition after the operation as “Improved.” And in a 1961 paper he writes that total lobotomy is more likely to be indicated in the case of patients with a “low cultural background.” Presumably, this is because he believes that people with a lower educational level are less likely to miss the higher intellectual capacities that a lobotomy might damage, but really… isn’t that presumptuous?

Scoville didn’t just begin psychosurgery earlier than most, he held onto it longer too. By 1973, lobotomies had almost disappeared, made obsolete by drug therapies and electro-shock treatment, but a New York Times article of the time introduces Scoville as having “possibly performed more lobotomies than any other surgeon alive today.” Even at that late date Scoville is a proponent, claiming a 50% improvement rate, and admitting there is a price to pay: “the blunting of higher sensibilities, such as intelligence, abstract thinking, and the ability to fantasize.”

How should we judge Scoville? I’m sure he was a man who tried to do good, and I’m sure that for many patients he succeeded. Still, there is arrogance in his ambition. I have to suspect that his dreams of beneficent glory sometimes overshadowed the frail specimens of humanity before him. I have to imagine there were times when his story told him, when the shadows cast their caster. Scoville coveted the power to reshape the brain, the seat of the soul, the source of our suffering. He sought the power of a God. And like Icarus and Prometheus and all the other fellows who got too big for their britches, in the case of Henry Molaison he had a comeuppance – a very gentle one by mythological standards.

My father rebelled against greater authority too. Soon after he returned to the Dominican Republic as a quadriplegic, it seemed like he engineered a rupture with his employer, an organization that had been remarkably caring about his condition and accommodating of his handicap. His story would not be stymied by tragedy; indeed, he would send them to hell just to show them he was as capable and self-sufficient and fierce as ever. Underestimating his will was always dangerous: even after having lost that job, and even from a wheelchair, my father made substantial sacrifices and managed to put me through college – albeit with the help of a scholarship I was very lucky to receive.

That personal narrative which was forever quieted in H.M. – it must have been a raging, heroic symphony thundering in the minds of both Scoville and my father. It must have made the wispy music of the world sometimes hard to hear. The best defense I can make for whatever hubris either man had is emotional: that I owe so much to it. If my father had not recklessly disregarded obstacles, would I have received the education I did? Would I be forming these same thoughts? If William Beecher Scoville had not been too confident of his abilities, would he still have had the verve to cure my father? Would I have even come onto this earth?

* * *

Scoville was killed in an automobile accident in 1984. I wonder whether he was driving? I wonder whether his love of fast cars finally did him in.

My father spent the last 19 years of his life in a wheelchair. He died in 1998. The cause was complications from bed sores, the bane of paralysis patients.

Henry Molaison – the famed H.M. – outlived them both. He died on December 2, 2008, sparking many wonder-filled obituaries.

Ironically, today I find myself striving to achieve H.M.’s condition. It’s not that I want to lose painful memories. I want to discard burdening narratives: quiet the voices that grieve for loves lost and promise unfulfilled; quiet the whispers of sweetness to come, grandness to come. I want to live my life – not a story of my life. I spend a half-hour each morning sitting, watching my breath. It helps bring H.M. a little closer. In the Zendo I frequent there is a statue of the Buddha holding a knife; I’m told he uses it to surgically remove attachments.

Of course, I don’t literally wish for H.M.’s loss of faculties. Scoville took much of his life away from him: the ability to form relationships, to care for himself, to observe himself. Yet if we see him as just the victim of a horrible surgical mishap, we don’t do his life justice. They say that apart from his disability he was personable, humorous, intelligent. And importantly, H.M. was a teacher to humanity. The studies of him by Brenda Milner and Suzanne Corkin have opened up a new era in memory science. Henry was, at least intermittently, aware of this role. In an audio recording from the 90s he is heard saying in an earnest, middle-aged voice: “The way I figure it is, what they find out about me helps them help others.” It was a ravaged life, not a wasted one.

For H.M. and for me, Scoville was Shiva… a creator and a destroyer. Rest in peace, Henry, known to the world as H.M. Rest in peace, William, who’s name I took. Rest in peace, Jorge, whom I called Papi.

Open Letter to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney

2010-01-26T21:47:00.004-05:00

Dear Congresswoman Maloney:

I've been a Democratic voter all my life. I contribute money, to the best of my modest means, on the Presidential and Congressional levels, and I've been known to volunteer my time too. Back in 2000, when friends told me they would vote for Nader, I was appalled and tried to talk them out of it.

Yet here we are in 2010, and as best as I can tell I will -- for the first time -- pull the lever for the Green Party candidates this November. How did I get here?

Throughout the health care reform debate, I've been terrified that the Democratic party would throw away the cake because they couldn't agree on the icing. While I concurred with the left that the public option was a good idea, and agreed with the centrists that the excise tax would do some good, it was always clear to me that those policy preferences were of less importance than expanding coverage to the uninsured. There was simply no ill effect that could out-weigh the good of eliminating the mortality, morbidity, anxiety, and financial distress of 30 million people without health insurance.

I wish you saw things the same way. I've twice called your office trying to find out if you would be willing to vote for the Senate bill, but the evasive answer I got both times -- that you were "working on it" -- seems to indicate that you are part of the problem. (Incidentally, I've also called Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, trying to get them to cooperate with the House.) This pains me because you won re-election in 2008 by 60 points! It's hard to imagine how a Congressional delegate could have more freedom to vote their conscience.

Press reports seem to indicate that the Dems are preparing to foist a stripped down bill that would betray my only non-negotiable agenda item: the fullest expansion of coverage possible. You and the Democrats have failed so miserably I have nothing to lose in throwing my vote away: you won't pass health care reform, the Senate won't enact cap-and-trade, you won't touch immigration reform, or even mention don't ask/don't tell. Really, what is there to lose in letting Republicans get elected?

I doubt I will ever pull the lever next to Carolyn Maloney's name again, and it won't make any difference to your certain re-election. However, for the sake of justice rather than malice, I sincerely hope the broken bodies and broken dreams you've failed to prevent haunt you for the rest of your days.

Sincerely,

- WG

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

2010-01-21T21:18:00.008-05:00

It may be premature to write the obituary of health care reform today, but it’s hard to deny that it is bleeding, panting and prone. Who was responsible for what may be its mortal wounds?

It wasn’t Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. It isn’t her fault that she’s an awful candidate, or his fault that he’s a talented one. No, the bulk of the blame belongs to others. With deference to one of our honorees, let’s call these… the worst persons in the world!

This debacle wasn’t all these guys’ doing. But each of them represent in a perfect way the three groups that dimmed the dream of health care for (nearly) all.

Republicans. Richard Nixon proposed a health care plan that was very similar to the current proposal. Mitt Romney signed a plan in Massachusetts that was also a close analogue, but failed to address costs. A proposal like this one has been well within the Republican mainstream before, yet still Republicans have maintained the fiction that this was a far-out government takeover of health care. It is hard to conceive of how a plan could do more to minimize government intervention and still broaden coverage significantly.

The Republicans calculated that they had more to gain from a Democratic failure than from a bi-partisan success – and of course, they were right. But if they ever regain a Congressional majority, they will have to live with the culture they have created... drink the soup they've peed on, if you will. They’ve not only proven that obstruction is a winning formula, they have facilitated the means. 60 votes in the Senate, a super-majority that Republicans have not enjoyed since 1922, is now necessary for -- not just controversial -- but any significant bit of business. They might be able to lower taxes and drive us into penury through reconciliation, but anything needed and significant (like controlling Medicare costs) will be out of their reach. We are well on the way to Californiazation: a labyrinth of gridlock with Debt as the Minotaur.

Democratic Centrists. If Max Baucus had not dawdled for months in the foolish hope of getting a Republican to sign on and thus make it a little easier for his centrist buddies to cast a tough vote, this bill would already have been signed. If Lieberman had not killed Medicare expansion, a lot of support from the left would have been saved. If Nelson hadn’t held out for a Nebraska freebie, the Republicans’ best talking point would have been averted. All these guys, but particularly Baucus, share responsibility for the bill’s predicament.

Look, all sides face political pressure. And it is perfectly legitimate for legislators to fight for their interests. But politics is a team sport. It is better to score fewer points on a winning side than be the losing side’s big scorer. These guys thought they were covering their hide, but all of them will be in electoral trouble anyway; it’s impossible to defend a losing bill you voted for. When they get sent home, they won’t be able to say they saved many families from bankruptcy, or got medical care to those who needed it. They lacked circumspection and a sense of proportion about the stakes at play. They valued their place in office more than their place in history.

Democratic Lefties. Let’s not pretend this bill’s death-knell came solely from the moderates. In fact, some timely reporting seems to indicate that it is the progressives who are setting up the roadblock in Congress. Who are these people led by? Olbermann in the media, Kucinich in Congress, Jane Hamsher in the blogosphere. They decided to draw their line in the sand at a bridge too far: the public option, a proposal that never came close to having 60 votes. Even after the public option was diluted beyond significance, they kept at it as a matter of pride. What was the effect of this? Here, why don’t I show you.

Given that so many are dissatisfied with the bill because it doesn’t go far enough, it’s safe to say that if the proposal had maintained the support from the left the bill would enjoy a comfortable plurality of approval in polls and the narrative that it is unpopular would never have taken root. Lefties were angry that centrists were using their leverage in full, and they wanted to have an equivalent amount of leverage. The only way to do this was to convince others (and themselves) that they were willing to walk away too. The natural effect of that was for people, on the left and in the middle, to say… “well, it must not be a very good bill then.”

I’ve been flabbergasted at the epic ennui that so-called progressives have shown regarding the biggest progressive proposal in decades… the political dream of our lifetimes. They have placed the proposal in a murderous crossfire. Throughout, I’ve been stunned at how difficult it’s been to convince them that our most important priority should be extending coverage to the uninsured, something that I would think would be a basic assumption for them. Instead I’ve heard concern about cost controls being insufficient (as if the status quo were better), concern that the most effective form of cost control is included in the proposal, concern about the Democratic brand, concern about corporate profits, concern about ‘regressive’ taxation (on plans that cost what many would consider a healthy wage.) Really… does any of that stack up against the insuring 30 million people? Does it stack up against letting a whole lot of sick people get medical help?

I’ll say it again… politics is a team sport. It does not help the progressive cause to destroy a Democratic Presidency that could have (and still might) launch a decades-long majority.

And how has Obama done? I think his strategy was sound, but he is on the verge of a big mistake, if we take his morning talk seriously. Kevin Drum is absolutely right: going back to the Senate would be very foolish. If Obama tries to negotiate a new bill with Snowe and the Republicans, they will do the exact thing they did in 2009. String him along for months but leave him stranded well before a roll call is called. The preferable option is for the House to pass the Senate bill with a reconciliation sidecar. If it can’t do that, then they should pass a (by necessity) more modest bill with reconciliation. Ezra Klein suggest Medicare buy-in, Medicaid expansion, and taxes on the rich to pay for it.

If Obama does choose to go back and grovel to the Republicans, he will have lost this faithful supporter. As the former President Bush once sagely said: "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice… won’t get fooled again."

Fiscal Infantilism

2010-01-19T21:41:00.001-05:00

My major beef against the GOP is that it is the major purveyor of fiscal infantilism in our country. What's the standard line?

"Obama has run up a $1.2 trillion deficit! We need to cut spending to bring down that deficit, and cut taxes to get our economy going again."

But won't cutting taxes hurt our deficit?

"No! Cutting taxes pays for itself by spurring the economy."

Even among conservative economists, the only ones who believe this last claim are hacks like Larry Kudlow who are willing to deceive themselves on the historical evidence. Look at this graph:

The Republican tax cuts of the early 80s and early aughts both raised the deficit, even as a percentage of GDP. Reputable conservative economists like Gregory Mankiw readily admit that tax cuts cost money.

But for the sake of argument, let's imagine unicorns exist and tax cuts pay for themselves. Can we balance the budget by spending cuts alone? Well, how much is the deficit projected to be next year again? $1.258 trillion. And how much is discretionary spending for next year, including defense? $1.250 trillion. You could literally cut ALL of government except for Medicare and Social Security and still not be able to balance the budget. (And of course, we know from the current health care debate that Republicans would NEVER cut Medicare spending.)

The smart conservatives all know that they can't make these promises and be fiscally responsible, but they wink at each other and say "hey, tax cuts have been pretty good for getting us elected in the last 30 years. Why change a winning formula?"

Because you can't govern responsibly by getting elected on this platform.

And why do the talking heads, who often profess to be intensely concerned with matters of fiscal rectitude, why are they unable to ask a Republican a tough follow-up when they propose mathematically impossible remedies for our country's problems?

Honest disagreements are possible in politics, but this is surely a question of character. The numbers are inescapable. If a politician is willing to run on the standard Republican platform, he is either a stone-cold idiot or someone who cares more about power than their country.

The Case for Geo-engineering

2009-12-27T21:41:00.005-05:00

Nathan Myhrvold appeared last week on Fareed Zakaria's GPS making a compelling argument for geo-engineering in general, and one scheme in particular. I encourage you all to hear him out.

The arguments against geo-engineering tend to fall into three categories. The first is that we don't know whether geo-engineering will work. The second is that it is harmful to even talk about geo-engineering because it might puncture the political will to reduce carbon emissions. Third and finally, geo-engineering is a bad idea because it might bring about unintended side-effects.

Like most advocates of geo-engineering, I would argue that it should be researched further and deployed in conjunction with emission controls, not replacing them. However, in the interest of a fuller examination of our options, I will note that all three arguments could be made just as convincingly against emission controls.

We certainly don't know that an emission control strategy will work -- politically, at least. The IPCC has said that developed nations should reduce carbon emissions by 25-40% come 2020 in order to have a 'reasonable chance' of averting catastrophic global warming. Many now say these targets are too lax, but the Waxman-Markey bill currently being considered in the Congress wouldn't meet them. The bill would reduce U.S. emissions by 17%, and and even that weak bill has little chance of becoming law. With China determined not to jeopardize its growth strategy with verifiable targets, the odds of a global treaty that might head off global warming have to be counted as tiny.

The second argument is easier to dispense with. As Myhrvold himself argues, blaming geo-engineering for reducing the will for carbon controls is like blaming a bypass surgeon for encouraging his patient's snacking. You might also blame carbon controls for discouraging people from taking geo-engineering seriously.

The final argument is more substantive. Many people instinctively recoil at Myhrvold's proposal to reduce solar radiation by pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere via an 18-mile-long hose suspended by a trail of balloons. How could more pollution cure the effects of pollution? But the reason Myhrvold focused on sulfur dioxide is because a natural experiment of this stratagem has already occurred. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the air, lowering temperatures by half a degree. We know the climactic effects of this chemical, and we know its atmospheric effects as well because our power plants already eject it, albeit at far lower altitudes than Myhrvold is proposing. The overall amount of sulfur dioxide believed to be necessary to tame global warming is about one-twentieth of one percent of the amount ejected today by natural and man-made sources, but by expelling it near the arctic and at high altitudes we would be leveraging this chemical for the maximum of its reflective potential.

Are the risks zero? No. We need to research this idea further. But again, the unintended side effects argument could be made against emission controls too. Not even the most optimistic economists think the transition to a non-fossil-fuel future would be free in terms of GDP growth. Particularly in developing countries, GDP has a high corelation with all kinds of mortality data. Sacrificing growth could cost many, many lives.

If we are to be humble about what we don't know, then we should truly be humble about what we don't know. PBS recently had a valuable piece on the environmental effect of mining rare earth compounds in China. Rare earth, a collection of 17 rare elements in the periodic table, is indispensable for many green technologies from car batteries to wind turbines. At the dawn of the internal combustion engine in the 18th century, we had no idea what effect this technology would have on the environment. Can we say for sure that we know all the risks that renewable energy technologies might pose? These wouldn't be discrete acts like putting a hose into the stratosphere, but a million uncontrolled experiments scattered throughout the globe.

Of course, carbon dioxide has effects other than global warming. It also leads to the acidification of the oceans, for example. That is why geo-engineering cannot replace a saner energy policy, but it has to be at its side, preferably before the 'tipping point' effects such as methane release from permafrost and arctic ice melting take their worst toll. At its most basic, geo-engineering is something humble (and cost-effective) like painting your roof white to reflect more sunlight. More ambitious schemes include seeding oceans with iron to encourage plankton growth (the plankton captures CO2) and using solar-powered devices to create water vapor clouds over seas. The governments of developed countries, including our own, need to explore the safety, effectiveness and viability of these technologies.

Finally, I want to make a purposefully provocative comparison. The right-to-life movement tells us that abortion is murder. If they really think it's murder, shouldn't they be the biggest advocates of education about contraceptives? Usually they aren't, because they often believe that sex out of marriage is a sin too, and that education about contraceptives encourages this sin. Of course, education about contraceptives is not promiscuity. It is not even encouraging promiscuity, and might well include messages intended to discourage it. At its worst, education about contraceptives might be seen as encouraging promiscuity. So let's step back: is seeming like you might be encouraging promiscuity really worse than murder? Even if it were a sin, shouldn't you pick a lesser sin if it will diminish a far greater sin? The truth is that the right-to-life movement wants to use abortion as a trojan horse for its ethos. They say abortion is murder, and I'm sure they believe it, but they aren't willing to let go of their worldview in order to act rationally on their convictions.

I fear the same thing is true for not all but many environmentalists. They say the fate of the planet is in the balance, but if it truly is, shouldn't we be exploring every avenue to solve the problem? In the clip, Fareed Zakaria describes their attitude as Calvinist. I'd say they have developed a sort of secular spirituality. In their view, the only thing that will appease Mother Earth is not another sin, but the properly sanctioned sacrifice.

A Third Way in Afghanistan

2009-11-02T18:09:00.007-05:00

President Obama is currently pondering the most difficult decision of his young administration: our country’s future direction in Afghanistan. His choice has often been portrayed in the media as binary: should he pursue the counterinsurgency strategy (COIN) proposed by General McChrystal, or should he follow the counter-terrorist strategy advocated by Vice-President Biden?

Media reports indicate that Obama is unsatisfied with the choices he has, and he should be. Both approaches are fatally flawed. Before I say why that is the case, and what a better strategy might be, let’s review why we’re in Afghanistan at all.

What are our interests in Afghanistan? If the Taliban returns to power, it would likely provide a haven for Al Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks against us. There is a legitimate controversy as to how important safe harbor is for an organization like Al Qaeda, with many pointing out that in the past attacks have usually originated in European cities, and that Al Qaeda is now functioning under a ‘cloud’ model that obviates central command. This is true, but it is undeniable that allowing them to reconstitute a sheltered and functioning command and control would be an operational and propaganda victory for them.

If this were the only risk, it would not be sufficient reason for us to stay. The more serious risk we run is that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan might provide moral encouragement, financial assistance and tactical support to an insurgency in Pakistan. Pakistan has a large and capable military, but it is badly infiltrated, and the Pakistani population is the most radicalized in the region. Given that Pakistan has around 50 nuclear weapons, a radical fundamentalist regime next door is simply an unacceptable risk. The claim that is sometimes made about the Iranian leadership – that they are so fanatical they are willing to take risks that threaten their existence – is probably not true about them, but has proved true of the Taliban. In 2001, they threw away power and risked their lives rather than give up their Al Qaeda cohorts; that is a symptom of fanatical – and undeterrable – ideological commitment.

Preventing a Taliban victory, however, is a daunting task. In his recent resignation letter, U.S. Diplomat Matthew Hoh spelled out the difficulties. One doesn’t have to agree with his prescriptions to admire how well he frames the challenge:

If the history of Afghanistan is one great stage play, the United States is no more than a supporting actor, among several previously, in a tragedy that not only pits tribes, valleys, clans, villages and families against one another, but, from at least the end of King Zahir Shah's reign, has violently and savagely pitted the urban, secular, educated and modern of Afghanistan against the rural, religious, illiterate and traditional. It is this latter group that composes and supports the Pashtun insurgency. The Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups, is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal and external enemies. The U.S. and NATO presence and operations in Pashtun valleys and villages, as well as Afghan army and police unites that are led and composed of non-Pashtun soldiers and police, provide an occupation force against which the insurgency is justified. In both RC East and South, I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.

So when General McChrystal, in his August 30 assessment, writes:

ISAF’s [International Security Assistance Force’s] center of gravity is the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population “by, with, and through” the Afghan government. A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency; the insurgency in Afghanistan requires an Afghan solution.

He is giving away the very Achilles heel of the operation. The Afghan forces are as much invaders to the Pashtun tribes as the Americans are. The tribes see them as a force they’ve been fighting for decades: a Kabul-centered government that takes much, imposes much, and gives back nothing. Even if Kabul were squeaky-clean instead corrupt, and duly-elected instead of illegitimate, it would still not command the allegiance of the Pashtun tribes that have resisted their rule for decades. The Pashtun do not like the Taliban either, and they resent their interference – but at least the Taliban is Pashtun. Hoh rightly calls this sentiment ‘Valley-ism.’ The Pashtuns value affiliations of family, tribe, and proximity far more than they feel the bonds of nationality. That at this stage, we do not understand the nature of the challenge ahead of us is uncomfortably reminiscent of Vietnam, where we mistook nationalism for ideological fervor.

Conversely, the problem with a counter-terrorist strategy is not that it is impractical, but that it doesn’t address our interests adequately. Aerial strikes on terrorist targets would make our presence unpopular to the local population, and might hasten a fall of the government. The U.S. might be able to prevent the building of training camps in Afghanistan, but that is all we would prevent. An ideological movement threatening our vital ally, Pakistan, would remain unchecked.

We need to take a step back and ask ourselves: Is the end state we are envisioning – a stable and democratic Afghan government with control over all its land – necessary for the achievements of our goals? The answer is no. We are trying to give Afghanistan something it has never had before, something we do not need in order to defeat the Taliban.

Our recent experience in Iraq might hold some lessons for us. The key to the dramatic turnaround in that country was not the small increase in troops called “the surge,” or the change in strategy to COIN (which since it depends on a change of attitude in the population, would certainly have taken far longer to show such dramatic results.) The reversal was due to the Anbar Awakening: smart U.S. officers on the ground recognized a rift between Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency and intelligently exploited it. They backed and coordinated with Sunni brigades called “Sons of Iraq” that employed disaffected former insurgents. This is a strategy that bubbled from the ground up, and it caught everyone by surprise. We didn’t need to defeat our enemies; we could, in effect, hire them.

Perhaps something similar is possible in Afghanistan. Major Jim Gant, a decorated Special Forces officer, was stationed in 2003-2004 with seven other U.S. troops in a small Pashtun village near the Pakistani border. He writes about this experience in a paper, and corroborates much of what Hoh wrote:

Afghan tribes always have and always will resist any type of foreign intervention in their affairs. This includes a central government located in Kabul, which to them is a million miles away from their problems, a million miles away from their security.

But Gant goes on to describe how he developed close relations with the village chieftain, whom he affectionately called "Sitting Bull." He was audacious enough to arm and supply the village's fighters, probably breaking many rules but winning their trust and allegiance and gaining access to valuable intelligence. It is this approach - a tribal engagement strategy - that he advocates for the country as a whole. He calls the fighters Arbakai, a tribal militia that would protect their neighbors from Taliban intimidation. These could be the Afghani equivalent of the “Sons of Iraq,” grass-roots warriors defending their own tribal interests, with the U.S. as their ally – not imposing a central government on them, but giving them what they want: security, their tribal traditions, and the right to be let alone.

I will go farther than Gant does. Instead of envisioning an end state where Kabul dominates all of Afghanistan, we should be striving for Kabul + Largely Autonomous Tribe Lands. The Karzai government would control the heavily populated areas in the east of the country, and as best they could the border areas with Pakistan. They would have nominal sovereignty over their country, as previous Afghani governments have. The Pashtuns would be empowered to defend themselves from the Taliban, but they would largely be free of Kabul too. Provincial government structures would have to be developed in order to resolve inter-tribal conflicts and law-and-order issues; largely, governance would come from nearby.

Obviously, bringing about this end state is an extraordinarily difficult task. We would need a lot of men like Gant: smart, highly trained, with a ravenous cross-cultural appetite and a keen emotional intelligence. These people would have to develop close relationships on the ground and would need to attain a granular view of local politics. It would be a war won not so much by force as by micro-diplomacy. Despite the complexity of the task, this might be the only way to achieve our objectives. It is foolish to fight a war that requires winning the allegiance of an inherently conservative people while also attempting to re-engineer their society. As Gant writes:

We will be totally unable to protect the “civilians” in the rural areas of Afghanistan until we partner with the tribes for the long haul. Their tribal systems have been there for centuries and will be there for many more. Why should we fight against not only what they have been accustomed to for centuries, but what works for them? They will not change their tribal ways. And why should they?

Beyond Theory

2009-10-09T18:07:00.004-05:00

In this recent op-ed David Brooks contrasts Bentham, an arrogant central planner, with Hume, a humbler fellow who prefers decentralized, market-based solutions to problems.

I agree that there are two kinds of people in the world, but I don't divide them this way: my two groups are pragmatists and ideologues. One group works from the evidence to the solution; the other works from the solution to the evidence.

At this point in history, we can safely say that we know these things for sure: pure, unfettered markets do not work and central command economies do not work. The ideal is somewhere in the middle; we need to sort out when it is the right time to to intervene and regulate, and when we need to let the market do its magic. Who do we trust to do that? Who can look at the evidence dispassionately, and make decisions based on facts instead of predilections?

If I know nothing else about them, I'll go with the person who doesn't enter the room trumpeting his principles.

In Angels in America, Tony Kushner has the world's oldest living Bolshevik plaintively ask "how are we to proceed without theory?" That same question seems to be stirring in the hearts of many conservatives today.

Pssst! My Negotiating Position Is Not My Real Position

2009-08-20T15:41:00.002-05:00

I know I’m not supposed to say this. I’m supposed to say “the public option is non-negotiable! No public option, no health reform!”

I realize why I’m not supposed to say what I’m going to say. The people who are willing to walk away from a deal are the ones who have the negotiating leverage. I know this. But even though I really want to see the health care reform bill include the public option, I have this thing… I can’t help but blurt out the truth sometimes. And the truth is I wouldn’t dream of letting health care reform die just because public option wasn’t included. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious?

What would happen if health care reform failed?

Barack Obama’s presidency would be crippled. Any hopes of passing cap-and-trade, financial reform, or an immigration bill on our terms would be dimmed dramatically.

The Democrats would likely be punished in 2010. The last time a popular Democratic President failed to pass health care reform the Dems lost 54 seats in the House. A swing of that magnitude would give the Republicans the lower chamber again.

Health insurance companies would be able to continue to dump sick patients from their rosters.

Coverage would continue to be out of reach for those with prior conditions.

Lifetime caps and high out-of-pocket requirements would ensure that the endless march of healthcare bankruptcies continued.

We likely would not see another attempt to reform health care for a generation, if ever. 18,000 people die from lack of health coverage every year; extend that number over two or three decades and perhaps half a million people might die unnecessarily if we fail to gain universal coverage.

I’m not willing to pay this price. All these items could be avoided and reversed, even with a plan that did not contain a public option. Would a true progressive put an ideal bill above the pressing interests of 47 million uninsured? No, of course not. But we have to say we will!

Pretending that we are willing to kill health reform forces us to use unconvincing arguments sometimes. For instance, we say that if we don’t get the bill right this time, we’ll never get it right. This is baloney. Comprehensive health reform is extremely hard to pass: Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all failed at this challenge. There’s simply no evidence that tweaking health programs once they are law is nearly as difficult. S-CHIP has been repeatedly amplified and refocused, Medicare grew a prescription benefit, and Medicaid has been tweaked many times over the years, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

We also say that if we don’t pass the public option health care expenses will grow out of control and the Dems will be blamed for it, allowing the Republicans to roll back our reforms. Of course, the other side will try to blame us for growing expenses (and they will likely grow anyway, with or without the public option.) But what would happen with no bill at all? Many significant measures that would lower cost and improve quality – like comparative effectiveness research, more power to MedPAC, and health care IT expansion – would be lost. As for the idea that the Republicans would roll back universal coverage, I say this: Will. Never. Happen. No industrialized nation that has achieved universal coverage has ever gone back. Even Margaret Thatcher, a political giant who privatized every damn thing she touched, didn’t dare touch the British health service.

We have to over-sell the public option. CBO says it will save the government $150 billion over 10 years; a whole lot of money, but we have to pretend the fate of the trillion dollar plan depends on these savings. And we have to exaggerate the scope, even though it’s likely that only 10 million people will be covered by the public option.

Finally, in order to make sure that Obama puts maximum pressure on the Senate centrists, we have to pretend that he has the magical ability to buckle Senators from states where he lost by 15 points. Even though we’re a ways from getting even 50 votes in the Senate, we have to pretend that 60 is a cinch. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I know I sound like I’m being ironic. The thing is I’m not. Yes, the public option is an uphill battle, but it’s definitely not a lost cause. That’s why Steve Pearlstein is wrong in saying we should give it up. Intrade lists the public option’s odds at 35%. We are still in the game, and not letting on to our bottom line is a big part of the game.

So maybe someone in comments is going to “disagree” with me. You’re going to call me a sell-out and a weak-kneed accommodator. You’re going to say of course we should ditch the health care bill if it doesn’t have the public option… it would be worthless without it! That's exactly what you should say, thank you. Sorry we “disagree” (wink, wink.)

Others of you (not many I hope) are going to share my lack of discipline and surfeit of honesty and tell me you agree with me. All I can say is… shame on you.

Okay, maybe now I’m being ironic.

For Übergeeks Only: Why Krugman Is Wrong

2009-03-25T21:39:00.029-05:00

A couple of days ago, Paul Krugman wrote a widely cited post where he argued that the Geithner plan would amount to a huge subsidy for banks. The taxpayers, he fretted, would once again be taken to the cleaners. To fill in some background: in the Geithner plan Treasury funds are combined 1:1 with private equity; together they go to the FDIC and obtain a non-recourse loan six times greater than the original principal. Private investors decide how to invest while the Treasury piggy-backs on their expertise, splitting the proceeds with them.

Krugman is skeptical. The fact that the loans are non-recourse, he writes, would mean that investors would likely take greater risks since their losses are capped, costing the taxpayer dearly. I know... he won a Nobel Prize and I didn't. But he's wrong and I'm going to prove it.

Here's the example Krugman cites:

Suppose that there’s an asset with an uncertain value: there’s an equal chance that it will be worth either 150 or 50. So the expected value is 100.

But suppose that I can buy this asset with a nonrecourse loan equal to 85 percent of the purchase price. How much would I be willing to pay for the asset?

The answer is, slightly over 130. Why? All I have to put up is 15 percent of the price — 19.5, if the asset costs 130. That’s the most I can lose. On the other hand, if the asset turns out to be worth 150, I gain 20. So it’s a good deal for me.

Here is what he means. A bid of $130.50 makes the average outcome of the scenarios $0. That is the breakeven point... a higher bid than that will, on average, result in a loss:
In another post, he explains that "two-state numerical examples" are the natural way to think about these things. Really? Just out of curiousity, what would happen if we went to a three-state numerical example?
Huh. When you add a middle scenario, all of a sudden the breakeven point has gone down to $116.28. Of course, in real life outcomes don't isolate themselves into two faraway islands. What if we kept on adding scenarios...
Wow. It looks like if we modelled this more like real life the overbidding Krugman writes about diminishes. If there were an infinite number of scenarios between $50 and $150, as there would be in real life, the degree of overbidding might even be reduced to single digits.

Let's also ask ourselves: is the spread of uncertainty likely to be as wide as Krugman's example? Think about it. There's a 3x spread between the high value and the low value. This would be like saying that a security with a face value of a dollar could as easily cost 25 cents as 75 cents. Remember that investors will have information about the payment history and location and credit history of the borrower, and remember that they have a wealth of prior experience on how similar borrowers have performed before. Isn't it likely they will be able to make far better projections than that? What if we narrowed the scope of uncertainty?
That makes a huge difference. Now the rational investor is only overbidding by just under 5%. But okay, let's say we overshot when we narrowed the spread of the scenarios. After all, no one can really predict economic performance, and that will certainly be a significant variable. Let's widen the scenarios a little to say... 40% on either side. But let's not pretend that there's an equal chance of getting extreme scenarios as opposed to the middle scenarios. Let's weigh the scenarios on a bell-shaped curve, giving more weight to the likelier middle scenarios, and less weight to the unlikelier extreme scenarios:
Still, a rational investor is only overbidding by around 5%. But I hear you say: 5% of a trillion bucks is an awful lot of money. It sure is. But there are other factors we have not considered yet.

First of all, the FDIC loans are low-interest... but they're not no-interest. The government will be making some money on the loans that do happen to perform.

But more importantly, there is a fallacy in our calculations. We're pretending investors are eager to risk capital just for the sake of breaking even. That's crazy. On the day the Geithner plan was rolled out, Bill Gross of PIMCO went on CNBC saying he expected returns in the "low teens." For any investment where the entirety of your capital is at risk, that is the minimum you should expect. So the bids are going to be lower than the breakeven price; they need to factor in their profit. Notice also that profit expectations increase as the range of uncertainty we mentioned above, the risk, increases.

Nor should we forget that it's not cheap to pore over loan tapes and make calculations that are far, far more sophisticated than the ones we've just done. Expenses will be at least 1%... probably more. Lower the bid by that amount. (Meanwhile, our government will have no such expenses.)

Together, these underbidding effects will dwarf any overbidding due to the capped losses. While there is no guarantee that the U.S. will not lose money on this deal, it is far likelier that we will profit. As many economists before, Prof. Krugman has let his theory come untethered from reality.

Update: I forgot to decrease the cap amount as the bid decreases! Still, that doesn't change the numbers too much. In the final case, I still have a number just slightly above 5%. I'll update with correct numbers later. 1:32PM: The numbers are now corrected.

How Long Does Obama Have?

2009-03-09T21:09:00.002-05:00

Everyone seems to be asking themselves how long Obama has before the American people start getting -- as Andrew Sullivan puts it -- pissy. Nate Silver looks at polling data and guesses that it will be a year and a half. Blumenthal is skeptical, but not very specific.

I'd like to approach the question not from current poll data but from historical analogy. The other harsh recession since the great depression was the 1981-82 slump, when Reagan was in power. Like Reagan, Obama is a President with a pretty strong connection to the American people, so the comparison is apt that way. Let's look at the unemployment rate since that seems to be the measure that's most connected to popular anxiety, even if it is a trailing indicator for the economy.

Unemployment started going up in July 1981 and peaked in December 1982. Reagan's popularity bottomed around 45% in January of 1983, so it never really cratered. It was above 50% until October 1982. That seems to confirm Nate Silver's guess: about a year and a half, maybe a little less. I would just add two things: Reagan's recession began during his term. He was quite effective in blaming it on Carter, but the timing surely didn't help him. Obama's recession is more closely identified with his predecessor because it was already a year old when he stood on the Capitol steps to take the oath. Also, I would note how fast Reagan's popularity rebounded as the economy improved. Even though the unemployment rate was still above 10% half way through 1983, the economy was showing signs of recovery, so his approval rating was steaming back up to 60% by the fall of that year. Which is to say, if we start getting a visible recovery by Spring 2010, Obama's numbers may not fall below 50% at all.

Same as the Old Boss?

2009-02-28T08:46:00.005-05:00

Two full days ago, the following appeared in the Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):

CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters, said the agency will continue to carry out drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. He also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary.

Is he saying that the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief under Article II give him the power to override the law of the land, which includes our treaty obligations such as the Convention Against Torture? I thought we got rid of the people who told us that last election.

Then this is somewhat comforting…

The main change Mr. Panetta has planned, he said, is to establish "a clear set of ground rules" for interrogations and detainee treatment that are "in line with our ideals."

But you have to wonder what he could possibly mean by that, because the big slap in the face is yet to come:

On interrogations, Mr. Panetta said he believes the CIA can be effective if it limits itself to the 19 techniques the military is allowed to use. He said the administration is evaluating the effectiveness of so-called enhanced interrogation tactics such as waterboarding and will make recommendations to the president on what techniques should be allowed. In the interim, only the 19 techniques will be used.

Leon Panetta, head of the Agency that was given leeway to torture during the Bush administration, is now saying that waterboarding not only would be legal but is under active consideration?

I believe profoundly in President’s Obama’s governing project. In the joint address to Congress he said:

And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture.

Did he just mean right now? It should be the position of this administration that neither the President nor anyone in his administration has the authority to order torture; that it is already illegal and illegitimate.

What I find a little surreal is the almost perfect silence in the blogosphere about this. Glenn Greenwald? Nothing. Andrew Sullivan? Nothing. Josh Marshall? Nothing. Atrios? Nothing. All the powderkegs of outrage are suddenly powderpuffs of indifference.

The Director of Central Intelligence has just told us that torture is an option… we’re just not choosing to exercise it right now. We are one election away from a torture regime again, and they will be able to say "not only did Bush say we have the right to torture, but Obama agreed." It seems like our national shame is not over.

The Fifth Age

2009-02-17T20:35:00.002-05:00

After two disappointing elections, conservatives are wondering where their future lies. The clear-eyed ones realize that their project, as Reagan defined it, is finished if not complete. From 1980 to 2008, the highest marginal tax bracket was lowered from 70% to 35%. Welfare was reformed. The Soviet Union collapsed. Many businesses were deregulated. (Plainly, these items weren’t all their doing, but their wishing was in them.) On the other hand, the more ambitious conservative goals – privatization of Social Security, school vouchers, an imperial American presence worldwide, drastic reduction in the size of government – have little, if any, chance of coming to fruition.

We sometimes see the affinities of our ideological side as permanent. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Today, conservatives are known for wanting to shrink the size of the state, but in the first age of American politics, it was the Jeffersonian liberals who wanted to limit the federal; they thought that power should lie with the people, not a King-like figure. The Hamiltonian conservatives, on the other hand, argued for a strong central authority; they considered it necessary in order to resist the passions of the mob. It was an age that was both inspired and spooked by revolutions, both here and abroad.

Since that time we’ve had many inflection points, when the dividing lines between parties shifted. Are we coming to one of those moments? First, let’s consider the prior ones.

The second age of American politics was dominated by the Civil War; it runs from Jackson to the end of reconstruction. The issue that dominated the era was how much power should lie with the federal government, and how much of it should be retained by the states. The south saw the war as a conservative revolution… an attempt to protect a way of life.

The age of reform comes next. It runs from reconstruction to 1932. It is the only age that is not dominated by a single issue, but rather, many discrete questions. During this time, the mechanics of industrial capitalist democracy are refined, and it is largely (though not exclusively) the Republicans who are leading the way, doing some things that today we don’t usually associate with them, like taming large companies and conserving wild land.

The fourth age begins with Roosevelt’s coming to office in 1932. Beginning here, the primary argument is the size and scope of government. In many ways, the debate is framed by the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Roosevelt wanted to save capitalism from itself, to institute reforms that averted the real possibility of social unrest and even revolt. Reagan wanted to diminish any resemblance to the old Soviet Union, to return to a primacy of the individual and the marketplace.

Today, the argument is largely – though not completely – concluded. “The era of big government is over,” announced Bill Clinton. Barack Obama described the role of government modestly: “Government must do what we cannot do for ourselves.”

Transformational liberal projects remain – universal health care, day care, perhaps others – but liberals have been chastened by their 28 years in the wilderness. Hardly anyone in the Democratic Party hankers for a return to the 70% top marginal rate or welfare as we knew it. Sometime in the next decade or two we will still have arguments about the extent of government… but probably without even realizing it, we will come to some sort of near-consensus on the role of government.

Even today, the size and scope of government is no longer the dominant issue. We are at the dawn of the fifth age of American politics. The great tectonic shift of our lifetime is globalism. China, India, and much of the rest of the developing world are enjoying an unprecedented growth spurt; they will demand power comparable to their financial gains. Problems such as global warming will require coordinated international responses. The great technological innovation of our times, the Internet, is a beast that knows no borders; it will need international authorities. Perhaps as a reaction to globalism, tribal conflicts seem to be on the upswing; they will necessitate multi-lateral responses. Our current financial crisis illuminates how completely trade and investment have bound us together; financial coordination and regulation will need to develop.

It is around these questions that the fifth age of American politics will be organized: pro-globalist vs. anti-globalist; free trade vs. ‘fair’ trade; submission to international authorities vs. maintenance of sovereignty; pro-immigrant vs. anti-immigrant; multilateralism vs. unilateralism; pro-foreign aid vs. anti-foreign aid; seeing the U.S.A as a leader of a new, multi-polar world vs. looking backwards to the U.S. as unipolar superpower.

The next conservative movement will be populist and nativist. They will inherit the socially conservative, church-going constituency of today’s Republican party (social conservatism will never disappear, although with the baby boomers aging past their child-rearing years, it will lose some ferocity.) It will be an anti-immigrant and protectionist movement, strong on defense, but inward-looking in foreign policy. They will heap scorn on treaties, as well as international organizations such as the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, and others yet to be conceived. On global warming some will be denialists, some will fatalists, others will point to the sins of other nations as an excuse to avoid action ourselves. The new conservatives will lose support from the business community, but they will gain it from an increasingly disenfranchised working class. They will not be scared of government programs, and indeed, will advocate them for their constituencies.

Most surprisingly, these new conservatives are probably just as likely to take over the Democratic Party as the Republican Party. If it were the Republicans, we would probably see the new movement as son-of-Pat Buchanan, a new breed of paleocons. If it were the Democrats, we would probably see them as son-of-Dick Gephardt, pro-union pols in touch with their constituency’s conservative side.

Conservatism is not just a philosophy; it is a temperament. Liberals see social bonds as fraternal; conservatives see them as filial. Liberals identify with the collective, the people; conservatives identify with the nation – the motherland or fatherland. Globalism, the great seismic event of our lifetimes, will inspire a complex of passions close to the conservative heart. The emotions these questions raise will in coming years eclipse the old arguments about how much government we need.

Fix Social Security... So We Can Afford the Stimulus

2009-02-03T11:52:00.006-05:00

A couple of weeks before his inauguration, Barack Obama was asked the following:

QUESTION: Mr. President-elect, budget experts, as you know, agree that the real key to controlling federal spending lies with the entitlement programs. How early do you plan on addressing Medicare and Social Security? And what will your approach be?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, as I noted in my remarks, we’re going to be inheriting a $1 trillion-plus deficit. And if we do nothing, then we will continue to see red ink as far as the eye can see.[…] We are working currently on our budget plans. We are beginning consultations with members of Congress around how we expect to approach the deficit. We expect that discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part, of those plans. And I would expect that by February, in line with the announcement of at least a rough budget outline, that we will have more to say about how we’re going to approach entitlement spending, how we’re going to approach eliminating waste in government, one of Nancy’s tasks.

This is tantalizing, but not an indication that Obama -- in the first year of his first term -- will plunge headlong into the mythical third rail of American politics. Still... should he? Sadly, if Obama were to tackle Social Security most of the resistance would come from his own side. The reasonable argument the left wielded to defeat Bush’s privatization effort was the following: “Social Security ain’t broke. Yes, it will start running deficits in about a decade and exhaust its trust fund in about three decades, but all that is necessary to fix it is some small tweaks – if the assumptions are too pessimistic, maybe not even that. So let’s wait and see how it works out, and in the meantime, let's concentrate on more important matters.”

True at the time, but this position needs to be revised. Why?

First of all, the assumptions don’t look so pessimistic any more. For the 2008 report, the trustees assumed 2.4% GNP growth from 2007 until 2017. We missed that number in 2007, 2008, almost certainly will in 2009, and probably 2010 too. The assumptions are starting to look a little on the rosy side.

Secondly, saying all it needs is some small tweaks was always disingenuous. Yes, the changes necessary aren't large, but in political terms they are monstrously difficult.

But more importantly, there’s this (click to enlarge):

Source: www.zfacts.com

Our debt level as a percentage of GDP is the highest it has been since the Eisenhower administration, when we were paying down the cost of the World War II buildup. Are we at the point when creditors might start wondering about our ability to repay this debt? Are we risking a currency devaluation, massive inflation, a dumping of U.S. debt, the loss of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, and perhaps in the worst case, a loss of the enormous privilege of servicing our debt in our own currency? We would not be able to fix some of these consequences… they would be a serious and permanent injury to American power, prestige, and well-being.

What is the level of debt where these kinds of risks come into play? People that tell you they know are lying. But informed experts, including Larry Summers, are said to be worrying about such an eventuality.

It’s time to get beyond the liberal orthodoxy and look at a way to reestablish our fiscal credibility –- so that we can afford this stimulus plan and avoid punishment by the debt markets. Social Security is the way to do it. Look at this chart:

Starting around 2035, the difference between outlays and revenues is around 1 percent of GDP. Say we spent $825 billion on the stimulus and did absolutely nothing to pay it off. In three decades it would balloon to $3 or $4 trillion in debt in a $27 trillion economy. It would still probably be cheaper to finance that debt than to make up the Social Security shortfall, which would be around $270BN. By fixing Social Security, we can offset the perceived danger we add to our credit profile by spending on stimulus. And by showing the political will to control our spending, we add even more value to our creditor cred.

Need more reasons? The Democrats will have 58, 59… maybe even 60 seats in the Senate and a very popular President in the White House. When are we going to have more leverage in negotiating a Social Security fix? There is a real possibility we could make this most regressive tax just a little more fair. How to do it? I would favor raising the cap; if that is a non-starter because of the President’s campaign promises, maybe add a surtax for income over $250,000. Ramesh Ponnuru has an interesting suggestion: slow benefit growth to the rate of inflation for those that are well off.

Fixing Social Security would have another significant benefit… it would solidify Obama’s centrist credentials and probably guarantee his re-election. 63% of Americans don’t think they’re going to receive the full benefits they’re entitled to. An electorate that is re-assured on this matter would be enormously grateful.

The Race Card

2008-10-19T15:11:00.001-05:00

I've been a supporter of Obama since before the Iowa primary. I haven't volunteered for him (because that's not really me) but I've advocated for him and donated to his cause. Generally speaking, I've been proud of the campaign and its supporters.

However, one of the things that has discomfited me about the behavior of my side is how quickly -- not Obama -- but the supporters of Obama have imputed racist motives on their opponents, whether it be Hillary Clinton's camp or John McCain's.

When we were told that Bill Clinton was a racist because he said Obama's campaign was a "fairy tale" I was confused. I thought 'fairy' was derogative for gays, not blacks. Now, I will admit, not all the protestations about the Clintons were unearned. When Bill pointed out that Jesse Jackson had won in South Carolina too, his meaning was pretty clear: like Jesse, Obama was a marginal black candidate.

Still, over and over, the bloggers supporting Obama have used race as a shield for any criticism of their candidate. Here's one recent example, but it could just as easily be a dozen others:

McCain's latest: claiming that Obama will turn the IRS "into a giant welfare agency." And this even though McCain's rationale for this claim is Obama's support for a refundable tax credit, something McCain himself supports as a centerpiece of his health care plan. Par for the course, really: if you figure in the robocalls and recent ads, McCain's entire campaign is now comprised of innuendo and lies meant to tie Obama to various stereotypes of African-Americans and of course Arab terrorism. His purported foreign policy experience hasn't been part of the campaign's message in weeks. Just black, black, black, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist.

Why go to race? McCain's argument that progressive taxation is akin to socialism is absurd on its face and easily refutable without reliance on unprovable imputations about motives. You see, neither Josh Marshall, nor you, nor I can read minds. So why use an argument that will only be credited by someone who already sees ill will in McCain?

I'm not naive. I have no doubt that Obama's race will cost him among certain voters, and I don't doubt there are people on the Republican side trying to figure out how to maximize that effect. I just don't see the efficacy of calling it out unless it is blisteringly obvious. When you yell "racist!" when someone is just being a run-of-the-mill political heel, you cause a lot of defensive reactions. People develop resentments about their side being falsely accused of an abhorrent trait, and this leads them to be skeptical of any claims for minorities. We pay the cost of heightened divisions without enjoying the benefit of winning over hearts and minds.

Obama has avoided heightening the tensions he spoke of so eloquently in his speech on race. Those of us who support him should follow his lead and do the same.

Sometimes a picture...

2008-10-16T10:10:00.003-05:00

... is worth a thousand words.

Skill and luck

2008-10-13T08:58:00.001-05:00

Obama surely has some astonishing political skills. But he is also one lucky mother.

He loses the primary against Bobby Rush. If he had won, he probably would have gotten lost in the House of Reps. A Senate run in '04 would seem a little impatient and overly ambitious.

Carol Mosely Braun chooses not to run for Senate. That would have nixed his chances, and he wouldn't have even run. He wins the primary.

His Republican opponent, Jack Ryan implodes with divorce revelations. He is replaced by perennial court jester, Alan Keyes. He trounces him.

He is chosen to give the keynote at the 2004 convention. He would not have risen to prominence without that opportunity.

He has a tight race with Hillary Clinton. This allows him to grow his organization, to become better as a candidate, and to receive lots of free media time. All the unpleasant vetting happens in the spring instead of the fall. In retrospect, that tight race was the best thing that could have happened to him. And it could have gone the other way if he had just scored a couple of extra points in New Hampshire.

And now, in the general he faces someone who's age puts in relief his youthfulness and 'change' message. Moreover, he faces the most desultory Republican campaign in memory.

Obama isn't just good. He's also lucky. It's like a Michael Jordan when he's getting the rolls.

Exclusive Interview With George Will

2008-08-03T20:02:00.003-05:00

This Week, August 3, 2008:

GEORGE WILL: Beyond that, an awful lot of the ‘other’ he represents is the windsurfer, it’s John Kerry. The crowning, crashing irony of this year is that the first African-American Presidential candidate nominated by either party has the disadvantage of being too upper crust. That is, he’s Columbia University, he’s Harvard Law School, he’s too–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS: Arugula!

I was curious about this viewpoint, so I called Mr. Will up. He kindly agreed to a brief interview.

ME: Thanks for talking to me, Mr. Will! Big fan.

WILL: I like to dip my toe in the hoi polloi occasionally.

ME: You said on This Week that Barack Obama was too upper crust. I was wondering how that could be ‘cause I hear his Mom had to rely on food stamps at times.

WILL: Yes. Yours is a common misperception. Dear boy, being upper crust has nothing to do with your origins. And it definitely doesn’t have to do with money. You can come from generations of oil wealth and still be the salt of the earth!

ME: So John McCain could have seven homes and be worth $100 million and still be…

WILL: A man of the people, right. And an American hero too. No, being upper crust is about something else.

ME: Arugula?

WILL: Yes. Not just Arugula, but Arugula. In part.

ME: What else? I mean, other than Arugula?

WILL: Mesclun, Mache, Boston, Bibb, and of course, frisee. All of these are varieties of lettuce consumed by the upper crust.

ME: It seems like it would be hard to get your greens without being upper crust.

WILL: Not at all. Iceberg lettuce is permitted. So is romaine, as long as it is in a Caesar Salad.

ME: Huh. Is it just greens?

WILL: Of course not! Do you think I would be superficial enough to judge a man by the kind of leaf he eats?

ME: Well… I don’t know.

WILL: He also drinks a hard-to-get brand of beverage called Black Forest Berry Honest Tea.

ME: It’s hard to get unsweetened tea.

(Mr. Will frowns. I know it’s a telephone interview, but he frowns right through the phone line.)

WILL: Try Snapple diet.

ME: Artificially sweetened.

(He frowns harder.)

ME: You also mentioned something about windsurfing...

WILL: Right.

ME: But he doesn’t windsurf. He plays basketball. Pretty good at it too! Did you see him sink that 3-pointer on the first try, boy, that was -

WILL: You do know that John McCain had his arms broken in the Hanoi Hilton? He’d be sinking 3-pointers too if he didn’t love his country so much.

ME: Really? He’s 71 years old.

WILL: Let’s get on with it. Any more questions?

ME: Oh, sorry. Where was I? Windsurfing.

WILL: So upper crust.

ME: Why? It looks cool to me.

WILL: Do you think most people in this wonderful country of ours could afford to windsurf?

ME: Most people can’t afford Pappy Bush’s speedboats, but I never heard the media go on about how it was an upper crust pastime.

WILL: Pork rinds.

ME: Sorry?

WILL: Bush Sr. eats pork rinds. Big man-of-the-people food. It inoculates you against almost any kind of upper crust accusation. Heck, you could probably sprinkle some over your arugula salad and nobody would say a damn word.

ME: And uh… Harvard?

WILL: Surely I don’t have to explain to you why Harvard is upper crust?

ME: Well, no. I get it. But Dubya is supposedly a man of the people and he went to Harvard… right?

WILL: Harvard Business School. Every Fortune 500 CEO I know just refers to it as 'Budweiser U.' The Law School, on the other hand....

ME: You know… thinking about it. It seems like only Democrats are upper crust.

WILL: Really? I’d never noticed. Huh! Come to think, there really aren’t any Republicans who are upper crust, are there?

ME: No, I suppose not. (Pause.) Mr. Will, I’m curious. Would you be a man of the people, or are you upper crust?

WILL: I’m a man of the people, of course.

ME: But… you wear a bowtie!

WILL: I’m hanging up now.

Renaissance Man

2008-07-07T18:54:00.004-05:00

Andrew Sullivan links to this compilation of Steadicam shots.

Yes, the Steadicam's invention in 1976 revolutionized cinema forever. But there is a little-known fact about Garrett Brown, the genius inventor of the Steadicam... and no, it's not that he also invented the Skycam, an aerial camera rig that produces swooping shots, mainly for sports events.

Garrett Brown is also a remarkable voice talent. With his wife, Anne Winn, he has recorded some very funny radio commercials, nearly always in the genre of romantic comedy. Take a listen at their site. Start with the Amex or the Molson commercials.

Assuming What's False

2008-07-05T15:06:00.002-05:00

It has been said that Barack Obama is shifting positions on Iraq in order to move to the middle.

There's two things wrong with this statement. Obama hasn't been shifting his position on Iraq, but also... he's already right smack in the middle of American public opinion.

Here's some recent polling:

CNN
"If you had to choose, would you rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq that are currently stationed there, or would you rather see the next president remove most U.S. troops in Iraq within a few months of taking office?"
Keep Same Number: 33%
Remove Most: 64%

Time
"Do you believe that the United States should bring most of the troops home from Iraq in the next year or two, or should the U.S. wait until Iraq is relatively stable, even if it takes four years or more?"
In the next year or two: 56%
Wait Until Stable: 39%

LA Times/Bloomberg
"In your opinion, should the United States withdraw troops from Iraq right away, or should the U.S. begin bringing troops home within the next year, or should troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to win the war?"
Withdraw Right Away: 25%
Withdraw Within a Year: 43%
Stay as Long as it Takes: 26%

The conservatives critics of Obama who label him a political opportunist for allegedly changing his position have got it wrong; if he were to do so, he would either be an electoral dunce or a paragon of political courage.

The Issue No One Is Talking About

2008-07-02T21:31:00.000-05:00

If John McCain is elected he will be the oldest U.S President to begin his first term. At 72 years of age, he will be 3 years older than Ronald Reagan was in January 1981.

While this fact is often joked about, the media has not made a systematic exploration of what this means. This paper puts the incidence of Alzheimer's in someone as old as John McCain would be by the end of his first term at around 3.3%. Another study shows that about 22% of people over 71 suffer from cognitive impairment without dementia. Add these numbers together, and statistically there is a better than one if four chance that John McCain will suffer some sort of significant mental decay over the next four years. There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence that McCain's powers might already be diminishing:

Of course, there are other problems associated with advancing age: stamina diminishes and susceptibility to disease and injury increases. While McCain is a very peppy septuagenerian, he has suffered from melanoma, a form of skin cancer, and he has a variety of injuries from his Vietnamese captivity that could become chronic pain problems.

The Presidency is a tough job for even a young, healthy person. Famously, we have seen how the office ages its occupants. Can John McCain afford to hit the fast forward button? Or is it ageist to even ask?

I would argue that senior citizens should be offered the opportunity to do the same jobs younger Americans do. The Presidency, however, is a different matter because it is a job of unique and paramount importance, and because it entails a 4-year term. Many Fortune 500 companies force their CEOs to retire at 65, and I suppose they have good business reasons to, but if a CEO's intellectual powers are lost the board could fire him. We'd likely be stuck with a diminished leader. Under Amendment 25, power can be transferred to the Vice President only with the express consent of the President, or if the President is "unable to discharge" his duties, then with a majority vote from the cabinet. It seems quite plausible that a spirited man like McCain might hold on to office, despite the decay of his powers, and it seems implausible that a cabinet of the President's most ardent loyalists would take this power away from him.

So why won't the media discuss this legitimate issue? They don't think it's polite.

They need to be prodded. Once the issue is in the ether, the media will have an excuse to be impolite, which they love to do because it is provocative and good for ratings. Medical experts will be called on to testify on every cable news show, the newsmagazines will pen long thumbsuckers, and people will think about their own experiences with people over 70 and make up their own minds. The Obama campaign would have to be crazy not to bring this up, and I think they will. The trick is to inject the question into the national debate without alienating older voters. I would suggest that Howard Dean would be the perfect surrogate, both because of his medical background and because he's not running for anything. Obama can then issue a soft denial like "this is an issue that voters have to decide upon, not me, but John McCain certainly seems like an energetic guy."

Why My Neighborhood Is the Coolest

2008-05-24T20:55:00.000-05:00

According to the U.S. Census, Queens is probably the most diverse county in the U.S. With nearly half of its population born overseas, it comes a close second to Miami-Dade in the percentage of foreign-born residents, but Miami-Dade is predominantly Latin and Cuban whilst the population in Queens comes from more than 100 nations. Some populations concentrate in certain neighborhoods: Flushing, for instance, is predominantly Asian. Other neighborhoods like Astoria, where I live, and Jackson Heights not far away, have residents from many countries and would probably have a good claim to be the most diverse neighborhoods in the world.

Today I went to my greengrocer. The produce is about half as cheap as the Korean convenience store just a couple of blocks away, and about a third as cheap as Manhattan. The place is owned by a Greek. Central Americans work the produce, and pretty young girls from many different nationalities work at the cashier. The Brazilian girl who flirts with every male between the ages of 12 and 80 wasn't there today, so I got in another line. Pretty soon I was at the head, and there was an elderly man next to me in traditional Arab garb. "Did you get this from inside or outside?" asked the girl at the cashier. He couldn't understand what she was asking. The Greek girl next to her intervened; they tried with sign language to explain what they were asking, but it wasn't getting through. "I do not understand," he said. Finally, they just laughed and charged him the lower price.

Then, the first girl asked: "are you Muslim?" The old man understood this. He answered that he was. This very European-looking girl placed a hand over her heart and said "I am Muslim."

The Arab man smiled. "Yarhamkom allah" he said. "Yarhamkom allah" she replied. For my benefit, he turned and managed to communicate that this was how a muslim greeted a muslim. It meant 'God Bless You'. "That is all the Arabic she knows" laughed the Greek girl. "I know, I know" said the other girl, as if knowing only this much Arabic were a grave personal shortcoming. The Arab man asked where she was from; it turns out that she was from Kosovo. And that is where I left them. I walked away with the makings for an excellent salad and a smile on my face.

We all get along in Astoria. We're all after the same very American goal: to make a little bit better lives for ourselves and our kin. We're new to America, but we are the soul of America. We are the future of America. I will never understand the people that are frightened by otherness. I find it exhilarating.

McCain: No Holiday From Pandering

2008-05-01T10:28:00.003-05:00

John McCain's proposal for a gasoline tax holiday is getting some harsh reviews, including from some conservative economists.

McCain has admitted to a lack expertise about economic matters, but this proposal betrays something different: either a cynical contempt for the electorate, or an abject economic illiteracy.

It comes down to the basic laws of supply and demand. If the tax from gasoline is removed for three months, the price will go down. Yippee! But as any student of Economics 101 will know, demand will spike in response. And what happens when supply is fixed, as gasoline in the summer is, both because of flat crude oil production and limited refinery capacity? The price goes back up until supply and demand are in balance again.

But suppliers will ramp up production to make up for it, right? No. A temporary tax cut, announced with a few weeks of anticipation, is not going to get new refineries online for the summer.

When Obama says the tax cut will on average only save consumers $30 over three months, he's actually being too generous. The best guess is that it will be less than that, if anything at all. And this comes at the cost of our crumbling highway infrastructure, since that is where the revenue from the gas tax is dedicated.

McCain's tax cut will go straight into the pockets of the oil companies, not into the wallets of our strapped consumers.

Is Hillary Clinton's plan to fund the tax cut with a windfall profits tax on oil companies preferable? Let me hand it over to Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center:

Burman called this "utterly incoherent," saying that a windfall-profits tax would over the long term only exacerbate the supply problems caused by lifting the gas tax, because it would discourage the exploration for and development of new sources of petroleum. "So a policy intended to lower prices, but which won't do that, will be offset with a policy that's likely to raise prices over the long term," he said.

In his campaign we keep on going back to character issues. Rather than fixate on trivia, we should look at what the candidate's policy proposals tell us about them... both as leaders and as people.

Reading Sideways

2008-04-20T20:00:00.009-05:00

It's by no means an original observation to say that the way we read text influences the way we read an image. In western countries we tend to scan an image from the top left to the top right, then bottom left to bottom right. (I have written about what this means practically in another post. Nickel version: it's not about the importance of any particular area of the image -- it's about how we interpret motion, force and intention.)

So as one friend asks... what does this mean for the images of cultures that don't read from left to right?

The Japanese writing system starts from the top right and goes to the bottom right, then across the page from right to left. This allows for a marvelous experiment. If we turn a japanese print counter-clockwise by 90 degrees we would then scan the image in much the same way a Japanese reader/viewer would. Does this allow the image to make more sense to us? I think so.

This is a woodblock print, probably from the 19th century. Unfortunately, I cannot credit the artist (click to enlarge.)

Notice how much more dynamic the image looks when it is turned sideways. The figure with the sword looks far more dominant; the sitting figure much more helpless. The eye races over the stripes in the defeated man's robe like they were highways. The yellow-red pattern on the swordsman's costume looks flat when the image is upright, infused with action when the print is turned. The lake on the left seems inert; when the print is turned, it looks plaintive and peaceful.

This is another 19th century print (click to enlarge):

Notice how the cherry blossoms seem to fall more convincingly at right. The gradient background seems more foreboding. And most notably, on the left he seems to be weirdly off-balance; when the print is turned, he seems more like he's bracing himself against the elements... a major one of which seems to be the direction of the viewer's eye.

Update: Here's an insight that came about from the interplay in comments. In Western art the signature of the artist is usually in the last quadrant the reader would see, the lower right... just how you would sign a letter at the end, not at the beginning or middle. In a Japanese work, one would expect it to appear in the lower left, since that is the last quadrant a Japanese reader would see. And indeed, that is where these pieces I show are signed.

I'm convinced!

The Phony Balance (Or The Real Reason We Need to Leave Iraq)

2008-04-05T20:15:00.006-05:00

Publius argues that there is some moral hazard to staying in Iraq:

Here, the overriding risk is all-out civil war – whether inter-or-intra ethnic group – or regional war, or both. Our presence mitigates these risks – at least in the short term. Thus, Maliki can take risky actions like raiding Basra or openly turning the army into a wing of Badr, knowing that he and his allies won’t be exposed to the full risk of those actions (civil war) because of the American presence.

Publius is part of a school of thought which argues that we're allowing the Iraqi government to avoid the difficult choices required to reconcile Iraq. Our departure, they optimistically say, will spur the Shiites to make the compromises necessary for the government to survive. Now, we've used every other kind of leverage there is to prod the Shiite leaders of Iraq to share their power with Sunnis, and none of them have worked. Perhaps using withdrawal as leverage might have an effect, and it certainly can't hurt to try... but I have my doubts.

Maliki's problem is not being too ready to take risks; it is negotiating between multiple risks. For Maliki, not raiding Basra would be a risk as well. He is caught between the sword of the Sunnis and the sword of the more radical Shiite elements. The U.S. disengagement will certainly push him to make choices, but it won't make either sword less sharp, and it won't improve his ability to split the difference, if that's even politically possible for him. Yes, the U.S. is protecting him from Sunni insurgents, but as Basra shows, it's also protecting him from recalcitrant elements of the Shiite faction. The risk from both sides would grow, and it's hard to see how his ability to negotiate the risks would improve.

I would be glad to be surprised, but I don't think our departure would hasten reconciliation in Iraq. What I would argue -- and emotionally it's a more difficult argument to accept -- is that our departure might make things worse in the short run, but that it would allow Iraq to find its own balance faster. And that a strong Iraqi government is simply not possible under a U.S. military occupation.

Every day we stay in Iraq, we cheat the government there of legitimacy. While Iraq is under occupation, Iraqis will always see their government as a handmaiden to the U.S., rather than a representative of them. Elections are fine, but when elected officials seem circumscribed by a foreign invading army, those elections lose their power to confer legitimacy.

Machiavelli said the prince needs to be either loved or feared, and that it was easier to be feared. Unfortunately, we're not making it easier for the Iraqi government win either kind of respect. Even if the Iraqi military were a crack force (and Basra casts that in doubt,) they will not be able to prove that they can hold the country together while the U.S. is still there. Until big brother steps away, the neighborhood bullies are all going to suspect they can take on little brother. The consequences for the outcome of the Sunni-Shia struggle are clear: insurgencies are over when one side knows it has lost. The Sunnis will not know they've lost until the U.S. leaves and they still cannot win power.

We complicate the government's political position in other ways: since the government has to cater to a constituency of American generals and officials, it is less able to freely develop its own Iraqi-grown constituency. Moreover, the commitments of the government when negotiating with Sunnis are doubted, because it is not known how long the U.S. will stay, and it is not known which of those commitments were made under American influence.

Finally, we need to recognize that a small but significant portion of the total violence in Iraq is not aimed at Sunni or Shia, but by nationalists against a foreign encroacher, or by jihadists against a nation of infidels. It is in our power to remove that violence by removing the irritant that causes it: ourselves.

While we support it with the force of our arms, the Iraqi government will always be a cripple in a body cast, with its muscles atrophying inside. The body cast needs to be ripped off. Then we will know if it will strengthen its muscles and survive, or perish and be replaced by something else.

We can kid ourselves into thinking that our presence is calming the water, but we're just delaying the accounting. Putting Sunni insurgents on our payroll might quell the violence momentarily, but it does not quench their aspirations, and it runs the danger of strengthening their cohesiveness and organization.

You can put a thumb on either side of the scale and pretend that it has come to balance, but it hasn't. It's a phony balance. We need to take our thumbs off the scale and let Iraq find its own equilibrium; we need to let Iraqis solve their own problems. We can and should withdraw in a cautious manner that would maximize the government's chances for survival and minimize the odds of a donnybrook. But we also need to cast off our illusion of omnipotence and stop pretending we can doctor a culture we barely understand.

Slackering Off

2008-03-28T16:00:00.003-05:00

I've recently become addicted to Slacker.com. This site let's you program your own radio station. You name the artists you want played, and if you choose, Slacker will even add some random artists comparable to the ones you pick. It's a great way to sample new music!

BGRG Featured on Channel Frederator

2008-03-12T10:43:00.001-05:00

Blue Guy vs Red Guy is being featured on this week's episode of Channel Frederator. Apart from its website, Frederator is one the most popular podcasts on iTunes. Thanks to people at Frederator for including me!

Cutting Off Our Uplifted Nose

2008-02-28T17:58:00.006-05:00

President Bush objects to Barack Obama's willingness to meet foreign leaders without preconditions:

"Warming to the subject, Bush continued: “Sitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, 'Look at me. I'm now recognized by the president of the United States.'”

Most of the rest of the world thinks that over the last 8 years we've been haughty and high-handed. Most of the rest of the world trades with Cuba and they are puzzled that we maintain an embargo that has had no effect whatsoever on the political situation there. Seriously... who wins the most PR points from a meeting between the Cuban and American Presidents? It's not the guy with the surname 'Castro'.

McCain and the Lobbyist

2008-02-20T23:20:00.004-05:00

The New York Times reports:

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Both the woman, Vicki Iseman, and John McCain deny any romantic relationship. The New York Times piece needed to be published, but not this way. The Washington Post covers the same story in a fairer way; they don't make an insinuation of a romantic relationship based merely on the suspicions of some staffers.

Having said that, McCain's posture here is not going to hold. His statement:

It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.

He's going to have to answer legitimate questions: what was the nature and extent of their relationship? Did he discuss legislative matters with her? Did he intervene with regulators at her request? The straight-talker is not going to be able to pull off a stonewall.

Plagiarize This

2008-02-19T23:44:00.006-05:00

Barack Obama has run an excellent campaign, but he does make mistakes sometimes. The recent kerfuffle regarding his supposed plagiarism is one. Instead of saying this:

During a news conference here, Mr. Obama said he and Mr. Patrick “trade ideas all the time.” Asked if he should have given credit to Mr. Patrick, he said, “I’m sure I should have,” but he said he doubted that voters were concerned by the dust-up.

What he should have said is this: "You can't steal what is offered to you. Deval suggested these words to me. Deval is part of my team. Lots of people on my team have ideas or suggest phrases... I can't credit all of them."

Unfortunately, this smarmy column by Dana Milbank seems to suggest that this sort of nonsense could be stretched like taffy to cover a lot of unsuspecting surfaces.

Obama: The Most Liberal Senator?

2008-02-18T00:50:00.005-05:00

David Brooks was on the Chris Matthews show today once again saying how Barack Obama is the most liberal senator. Does this guy believe everything he reads in the National Journal?

While Barack Obama opposed the authorization of the Iraq war, he has voted to fund it. Other Democrats did not.

Barack Obama favors a universal health care plan that does not include individual mandates. There are Senators (like self-professed Socialist Bernie Sanders) who favor single-payor.

So how is this guy the most liberal senator? A visit to the National Journal clarifies the question. Apparently the services of the unimpeachable Brookings Institute were used perform something called principal-components analysis. From the description it sounds like they're plotting the degree to which there is a lack of variance with other senators on the left side of an issue. It seems to me that extremely liberal votes would exhibit greater not lesser variance. This seems more like a test for who is at the center of the Democratic Party, which is where casual observation would place Barack Obama.

Can we put this silly meme to bed? Barack Obama is not more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold. (Oh, that it were so!)

Gonna Be Wars

2008-02-11T14:34:00.001-05:00

I saw this a second time, and I still laughed out loud:

An Open Letter to Al Gore

2008-02-10T18:22:00.000-05:00

Will the Democratic nominee this year be chosen by superdelegates instead of voters? There's something Al Gore could do to prevent that.

February 10, 2008
The Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Dear Mr. Vice-President:

As you know, the party you and I belong to is involved in a very tight nomination race. News accounts tell us that the difference in pledged delegates between our candidates is small, and that by the end of the primary season on June 7 the votes of super-delegates may be necessary for either candidate to reach the 2,025 threshold necessary for nomination.

This raises some frightening possibilities: that our party will be bickering and divided during our convention this summer; that the favor of these super-delegates might be bought with promises of jobs and legislation; that the losing side will be left feeling bitter and ill-treated; and worst of all, that the political will of the voters of our party will be overridden by political operatives.

So far this election cycle you have withheld your endorsement from either candidate. This dignified and statesman-like stance, combined with your moral standing and political support in the Democratic Party, put you in a unique position as a party elder. That is why I urge you to pledge your vote as a super-delegate to the candidate who wins the most delegates through primaries and caucuses. Furthermore, I hope you will ask other super-delegates to join you in this pledge.

When our prospects for victory in November 2008 are so bright, it would be terrible for our party and country if crass political gamesmanship decided the outcome. Let’s keep the Democratic Party democratic. Let’s let the people decide the outcome, as – tragically - they were disallowed from doing in November of 2000.

Sincerely,

Yes, I am an Obama supporter. But I reject the conventional wisdom that the superdelegates will necessarily break in favor of Hillary Clinton. I think these are people whose livelihood depends on the strength of the Democratic ticket; they read the same polls we do. Many are likely to swing in Barack's direction in coming weeks.

So I don't write this letter from factional interest. In fact, if Barack Obama loses the pledged delegate count, I don't want him as our nominee.

I Saw Mommy Molesting Santa

2007-12-18T10:29:00.000-05:00

Presented without comment. Via Drudge (yes, I bookmark Drudge.)

Beowulf... Why?

2007-12-16T20:29:00.000-05:00

Robert Zemeckis, a very talented filmmaker, is back this season exploring the highly unpromising vein he started mining with The Polar Express. Beowulf is a loose retelling of the Old English epic poem. Like Final Fantasy, these Zemeckis films are photoreal depictions of human characters. The innovation that Zemeckis has clamped onto is procedural; rather than animating from scratch, he records actors’ performances, this go-around with a new motion capture technique that photographs them from multiple angles. I saw the rig he uses for this at the SIGGRAPH convention this summer; it looks like a geodesic dome fitted with dozens of lights and cameras.

Despite my misgivings about motion capture, I came to the film wanting it to succeed. I saw it on the first weekend, and in IMAX 3D. Unfortunately, I have to report that the film was an almost complete failure. Only two scenes really worked: Angelina Jolie’s seduction of the hero, and the final action set piece. For the most part it was a flat, frigid bore.

The question I was left with was… why? If this film had been made in live action with CGI assistance, it still would not have been a good film, but it would have been a better film. I know what Anthony Hopkins and John Malkovich can give a story. What motion capture got out of them was barely 10% of what they can do even when they’re having a bad day.

What went wrong? First, the motion capture doesn’t look that bad. When it’s bad, motion capture looks… dirty. There’s more detail there than needs to be there. Zemeckis has obviously had animators edit the motion extensively. The trouble is not the usual one of too much extraneous detail, but not enough. There’s no intimacy to the performances.

When humans look photo-real we expect photo-real expression. The human face is a highly complex interweaving of dozens of muscles. Moreover, we are extraordinarily adept at reading it; our species has evolved into master interpreters of our own faces. Small subtleties carry enormous meaning. The fault might not be with the motion capture alone, but the character rigs too. 3D technology has advanced enormously, but it still cannot quite simulate all the details of facial movement, at least not when the benchmark is human complexity.

Perhaps it is also the circumstances in which the motion was captured. An actor is far likelier to create a compelling performance on a set, with the actors he’s playing against right there in front of him. A geodesic dome is not quite the same spark to the imagination.

Finally, there is the issue of what 3D folk call the “Uncanny Valley”. This term was coined by MIT researchers on robotics. They were trying to come up with a robot design that would provoke emotional attachment. They found that the more like humans the robots got, the more warmly people responded to them. This perhaps was not surprising. What was more surprising was that there came a point when this effect started diminishing and reversing. People started getting a little freaked out by the human likeness. When the design started becoming completely convincing – like say, Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner – identification and attachment returned. This effect was dubbed the uncanny valley. People in 3D argue about whether it really exists. As one who has fallen in myself (in a mixed media project,) I can testify that it does exist. Does Beowulf fall into the uncanny valley? Well, it’s clawing up the far side, but it’s there.

I go back to the most pertinent question: why? Why bother recreating reality in mathematically defined polygons, when real reality is right here with us? I know the answer in my bones because I’ve made films both in 3D and live action. A live action shoot is terribly frustrating for control freaks like me… and presumably, Zemeckis. A plane flying overhead ruins your best take. The damn cameraman muffles the follow on another good take. The actor scratches his nose for no apparent reason, ruining yet another one. And if you say you’re satisfied with the shot, at 1AM in the morning, when you’ve been up and working your ass off since 6AM, then you will have to live with that for the rest of your life. You rarely get retake days. The 3D world, on the other hand, is infinitely malleable. You can tweak the camera angle or the hue of the hero’s plaid jacket till the cows come home. Yes, there are time constraints because budgets are never infinite but things can be… adjusted. Always adjusted.

The truth, however, is that this kind of stuff doesn’t really matter all that much. Filmmakers can obsess about things intricate like camera movements or subtle pictorial elements, but that’s just the icing on the cake. What matters is story and performances. To sacrifice performance for the flexibility to execute the filmmaking flourishes is terribly, terribly wrong-headed. And I just can’t imagine what other upside there is in a technique such as this.

I believe 3D animation does not need to be confined to family audiences. It can appeal to older, narrower audiences. But I also think animation needs to be allowed to be animation. Let it do what it does best: provide an imaginative restyling of life movement and life imagery.

Obama and Experience

2007-12-03T23:50:00.000-05:00

It took me a while to get off the fence, but Obama's Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech finally closed the deal for me. I'm on board with Barack. Here is the speech in its entirety:

I'm sure I'll make a case for Obama irregularly, infrequently and erratically in the weeks ahead. Where I want to start is by addressing what is perceived to be his biggest weakness: that he is inexperienced.

If Barack Obama becomes President in January 2009 he will have spent 12 years in elective office. I have to suspect that a longer experience than that might actually be detrimental.

Perhaps it's that Obama spent 8 years as a State Senator, and the Illinois State Senate is seen as a sort of minor league. Was he not seeing major league fastballs over there? Illinois is a pretty big state... if it were a country, its GDP would be bigger than Sweden's.

Perhaps the craft of drafting legislation is easier in the Illinois Senate than in the U.S. Senate? I can't imagine so. Are alliances and compromises easier to come by in Illinois, where perhaps politicians are not risk-averse, not particularly ambitious, and are unswayed by lobbyists? Again, I don't think so. If anything, from what I hear politics in Illinois -- and particularly in Chicago where Obama is from -- is hairier than what it is in most other places.

Perhaps we look to experience not to sharpen political skills (which Obama seems to have aplenty) but to give a candidate familiarity with the issues. There is overlap, but state issues are often different than federal issues. States don't deal with foreign policy, immigration, and a spate of other areas. If this is true and an important consideration, it should cut against the Governors and Mayors in the race more than it cuts against Obama, who after all would arrive to his inauguration with four years as a U.S. Senator as well.

Obama was ridiculed by the Clinton camp for citing living overseas as a child as a foreign policy qualification. Others may scoff, but as one who grew up overseas, I will not. A child under ten sucks up culture like a sponge. As wonderful as it is for Chris Dodd, for instance, to have been a Peace Corp volunteer in the Dominican Republic in his youth, the experience of being a child in a different culture is far more potent than that. One who experiences that will always have an eye for cultural difference and an ear for human commonality. He will have a firm foothold on the rest of the world.

Obama continued his multicultural upbringing in Hawaii, a cultural petri dish if ever there was one. As a young man, he would live in Los Angeles and New York before settling in Chicago, where he became a community organizer. Reading his fine memoir, Dreams of My Father, you realize what a political training ground that must have been: trying to reconcile the disparate agendas of radical black Muslims with conservative Christian churchgoers, and finding common ground between them. You see him learning to lead from behind, giving people the tools to succeed on their own rather than trying to hog the spotlight.

From there Obama goes to Harvard Law School, where he was the first African-American to be President of the Harvard Law Review. This is a political as well as intellectual achievement. Tellingly, his victory in the voting came from his ability to listen to the concerns of the conservative faction.

Out of Harvard, he could have gone to New York and instantly be earning a 6-figure income at any white shoe firm he chose. He could have gone to Washington and clerked for a Supreme Court judge, as is traditional for a President of the Law Review. Instead he went right back to community organizing. Eventually, he also taught constitutional law.

The first African-American President would come to office far better equipped for his duties than the President who freed blacks from slavery. After all, Abraham Lincoln only served for two years in the House of Representatives. Luckily, that was enough experience to bring change.

Hillary's YouTube Moment

2007-11-28T12:31:00.000-05:00

I just saw this on Andrew Sullivan's site. Wow. This is quite a bit more embarassing than Kerry's "I voted against it before I voted for it."

Krugman: Fighting the Last War

2007-11-16T00:50:00.000-05:00

Paul Krugman bops Obama on the head today in a column titled Played for a Sucker:

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

The fear, expressed by others in the Lefty blogosphere, is that accepting the Right's framing of a Social Security crisis puts the program in mortal peril.

I know, Social Security -- even with growth projections well below the historical norm -- is going to be solvent for another couple of decades. I get it. But can we get real? Privatization failed. It didn't even get out of committee. It didn't come close to getting out of committee, and that was before the 2006 election. Liberals are so traumatized, so used to being abused, that they would rather keep clutching the orthodoxies they're used to rather than grabbing the advantage. And that is precisely what Obama is doing!

He has proposed raising the cap on Social Security income, making our most regressive tax a little more progressive. Is Hillary Clinton really being a better liberal because she punts on the issue and leaves it for a blue ribbon bipartisan committee to work out later? Is there a more progressive solution this committee might come up with? Raising the retirement age? Lowering benefits? Are those more progressive solutions?

We've got to stop acting like scared children about this. We won. Privatization is dead. Now... can we talk to people about our solutions to their problems?

Revver Features BGRG

2007-11-14T20:55:00.000-05:00

Blue Guy vs Red Guy is featured today as an Editor's Pick on the Revver front page. With a little luck, I'm hoping to be able to afford a beer with the proceeds of this film!

I know this is total crap but...

2007-11-11T17:37:00.000-05:00

I appreciate even spurious praise. (That's probably why I did well: I use 10-cent words like 'spurious' occasionally.) On the other hand, Kevin Drum's site only gets a "high school" rating and he's got about 20 IQ points on me.

Blue Guy vs. Red Guy

2007-11-02T14:26:00.000-05:00

And since I'm sharing other people's video, I might as well share my own. Here's Blue Guy vs. Red Guy, a little 3D short I spent my free time on this summer. Once the short starts rolling you'll see an expand-to-full-screen button on the bottom; click it to see the film properly.

Enjoy! (And if you enjoy, share with others!)

I Got You, Mr. President

2007-11-01T13:34:00.000-05:00

Here's something a friend of mine, John Schnall, whipped up.

How to Catch Hillary

2007-10-30T23:40:00.000-05:00

There was a moment in the debate last night that might well come to be seen as a defining point in the campaign. It was when Chris Dodd challenged Hillary for wanting to have it both ways on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Why? Because it crystallized a whole narrative about Hillary: the calculating, straddling triangulator.

Obama and Edwards have been calling out Hillary on the issues, but they have not extracted a narrative out of the issues. If they are smart, they will let the issues speak about their opponent. Every time Hillary hedges on a question with an eye on November (as she did on Rangel's plan, Social Security, and many other times last night) they will bring up decisiveness and conviction. It's the one chink in the armor of the Clinton franchise: both historically and in their current circumstance. Change vs. Experience is a dead draw, or favors Hillary. Authenticity vs. Calculation is a clear loser for her.

It's been observed that Democrats are not good at creating narratives... we'll see if Obama and Edwards have the guts, brains and finesse to pull this off. If they don't, they won't win the nomination, and they won't deserve to win.

Psycho Killer... Qu'est Que C'est?

2007-10-16T21:36:00.000-05:00

I just finished seeing season one of Dexter, the Showtime dramatic series.

Some people don't like Dexter because they watch it as if it were a police procedural and complain about its implausibility. It's really not that -- Dexter is a superhero narrative. The hero had a formative experience in his childhood that resulted in a secret identity. This identity gave him great powers, but it also placed a great burden on him. It set him apart from a world to which he brought a mighty boon. This is the same story as Superman, Spiderman, Daredevil.

Dexter is the Superhero as Serial Killer... a really great twist on an American narrative form.

And by the way, is it just me or does Showtime seem to be overtaking HBO on the heat scale?

Right Brain or Left Brain?

2007-10-13T11:14:00.000-05:00

This test purports to discover whether you are right- or left-brain dominant. I'm not sure whether it does, and I'm still less sure about the traits they list under right and left brain. Still, it's a lot of fun... try it.

At first I saw her turn clockwise (from the top.) With quite a bit of effort, I did learn to reverse her direction. Here's some tips I've read from people online on how to reverse her direction: use peripheral vision; look away and then look back; cover her with your hand, previsualize her turning the opposite way, then slowly uncover her; use the eye opposite to your brain side.

From 3D perspective, this test takes advantage of an orthographic view... a view without perspective. Closer objects don't appear larger, and faraway objects don't appear smaller. This allows for the confusion in silhouette.

(Via Kos, where a poll shows that about 70% see her turning clockwise at first, and 30% see her turning counter-clockwise.)

The Seven-Year Twitch

2007-10-11T00:01:00.000-05:00

49 Up is the latest in a series of documentaries, most directed by Michael Apted, which chronicle the lives of a number of Britons at seven-year intervals, starting when they were seven years old.

Those of you who haven't seen the series definitely should -- they are worthy films. However, I am struck at how much darker the movies are getting. 7 Up was meant to be an exploration of class issues. By the time they got to 28 Up, the films had turned into a meditation on the eddies and flows of life and fate; one could celebrate the victories and grieve the failures of the protagonists. But by now, the movie seems like a mass performance of Krapp's Last Tape. Even the happy, well-adjusted subjects seemed tortured by the documentary process. It's become quite apparent: confronting middle-aged people with the dreams of their youth is an exquisite form of sadism.

S-CHIP on their Shoulder?

2007-10-10T00:52:00.000-05:00

It's nice when blogger mean-spiritedness gets a deserved backlash. Here's the rant version of the story.

Baby Bonds Take Steroids

2007-10-09T08:35:00.000-05:00

Matthew Yglesias defends Hillary Clinton's baby bonds initiative. Briefly, the idea is to give every child a $5,000 savings bond to help pay for college.

Frankly, the idea has little appeal to me.

I would prefer to let parents invest the money in an IRA-like vehicle, so that they could put it into equities. Assuming a historically modest 6% after-inflation yield, $5,000 would become $13,463 when the baby is ready for college. But I would prefer to not let them cash it in yet: the money would grow to $208,231 when they are ready to retire at 65. Invested in an annuity, that would provide a monthly income of about $1,400, far more than the average Social Security check, which today is only $895. At a cost of $20 billion a year today, we could ease our children from life's greatest financial liability, old age.

Seems like a deal to me.

Iraq and the History of Civil Wars

2007-10-02T11:29:00.000-05:00

Kevin Drum leans on some research on civil wars to scan our options on Iraq. A good post.

There's Something About Hillary

2007-09-29T15:10:00.000-05:00

Just days after 9/11 they had a benefit concert for firefighters and policemen at Madison Square Garden. Free tickets were distributed to firehouses and precincts. Newly elected Senator Hillary Clinton came out to greet the audience... and was roundly booed. So much so that she seemed shaken. Minutes later, Bill came out and was applauded wildly. She hadn't established a separate political identity at all from him yet. Why was one of them so popular and the other so unpopular? Sure, Bill is charismatic and emotionally warm... and Hillary does come off as a little stiff and cool. But does that explain the visceral dislike she inspired?

I don't think the reactions to Hillary are all due to her personality. The first lady plays an archetypal role in the national dream life: she is the mother figure. This particular mother had professional accomplishments; she went to work on health care. On a subconscious plane, this raised Hillary into a role she didn't choose. In our minds Hillary came to represent the greatest social transformation of our time: the entry of women and mothers into the work force. This revolution widened the productive resources of our society and has allowed many women to realize their full human potential. That is wonderful and it has been much celebrated. But it also created a lot of suppressed anger and resentment.

Freudians would call it projection. A lot of the good feelings, but mainly the bad feelings about absent mothers are overlayed on her. By being emotionally cool, Hillary unfortunately wears the role of the absent and rejecting mother too well. In the distorted faces of those firefighters and policemen -- a little tipsy and booing lustily -- there were lonely latchkey kids.

Apple Watch

2007-09-20T08:53:00.000-05:00

You may have read recently that NBC will no longer be selling its video downloads on the iTunes store after a pricing dispute with Apple. Today, the New York Times reports that the network will be offering free downloads on its own website. Advertising you can't fast forward through will be embedded in the shows, which will become unviewable after seven days.

NBC is putting its chips on the winning square (although I doubt consumers will be patient enough to download a different player from every content provider out there.) Paid downloads will maintain a share of the market, but advertising-supported downloads will be dominant. We have already played this out with cable: advertisers are willing to outbid us for our eyeballs... that's a proven. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that Apple is too attached to providing a pristine customer experience to recognize this fact and offer advertising supported content on iTunes. If they don't, they will get left behind.

Also, for some time now Netflix has been offering its subscribers downloadable movies at no extra charge. I have not been able to sample this since currently it is available only on the PC side, but friends who have tried it praise this service. If Apple can't match this offering, they ought to partner with Netflix and host it on AppleTV.

Finally, when I was at Siggraph, the 3D convention, Apple was recruiting 3D animators at the job fair. Just this morning I saw an ad they were running for a games producer. The fact that Apple is producing games themselves, rather than outsourcing it to a strategic partner, indicates to me that Apple is very committed to games. I would expect that both the iPhone and the iPod could become PSP-like game platforms, and the AppleTV could also become a game console.

The reason that AppleTV hasn't been a runaway success is because there simply isn't enough content to justify its price tag. If the AppleTV starts running free TV, movies on subscription, and a great collection of games then it could become a breakout hit that defines the Digital Living Room revolution.

Dubious Abbreviation Watch

2007-09-18T16:49:00.000-05:00

One of the more annoying traits of the blogosphere is its fondness for questionable abbreviations. Today, Andrew Sullivan titles a post MGM Update.

Well? Is he going to update his take on the classic Hollywood musicals? No, silly. Everyone knows MGM stands for Male Genital Mutiliation.

A Royalist Reading

2007-09-16T12:22:00.000-05:00

I was taken back by George Will's assertion on This Week that Jim Webb's law to make troop at-home time as long as deployments was unconstitutional. A little googling reveals that John McCain is making the same claim:

"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people will spend on tours of duty and how long they will spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional," McCain said. "The Constitution of the United States said Congress will declare wars and fund wars."

Will and McCain need to re-read Article 1, Section 8. The following power is explicitly granted to Congress:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

There is no ambiguity here.

Senate Tsunami?

2007-09-14T23:29:00.000-05:00

Fourteen months to election day and I'm already handicapping the Senate races? Yes, I know. I'm a pathetic political junkie.

The first thing to realize is that the Republicans are defending far more seats than the Democrats: 22 to 12. We can organize the possible Democratic pickups in these broad caterogies:

Return of the Prodigal Sons: Mark Warner has announced that he will run for the open VA senate. (The other Virginia Warner, John, is retiring.) Mark is a popular former Governor and a superb candidate -- I'd count that seat as a gimme. Also, Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska Senator, is considering running for the seat of the retiring Chuck Hagel. If he runs he would be expected to win.

What Will I do? I'm Red in a State That's All Blue!: Susan Collins, Norm Coleman, John Sununu, and Gordon Smith are defending their seats in states that have a strong Democratic preference. Susan Collins is the likeliest to squeeze by; John Sununu won't be so lucky. He just beat Ex-Gov Jeanne Shaheen by 51%-47% in 2002, a good year for Republicans. The polling now makes it look like a landslide for Shaheen.

Scandal-bait: Ted Stevens of Alaska seems to be sinking deeper into a bribery scandal every day. He's survived allegations of shadiness before, but this seems to be of a different magnitude. If this becomes an open seat it's possible that Red Alaska will tire of their corrupt local Republicans. Larry Craig is going to quit soon, but unfortunately he's from Idaho. Let's call that safe Republican.

On the bubble: Wayne Allard is retiring in Colorado. It's a purple state, and there is no leading Dem contender yet. Let's call that 50/50. Other candidates mentioned as vulnerable are Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Let's call them leaning Republican.

Safe as Subprime Houses: The other Republicans seem reasonably safe, but so did George Allen around this time in 2005. A perennial like Pete Domenici could easily be surprised.

Are there any seats on the Dem side that are in jeopardy? Mary Landrieu might be vulnerable. Also, Tim Johnson's health might be an issue after his recent stroke. However, if the environment is anything like it was in 2006 or is now, it'll be difficult for the Republicans to flip an incumbent.

The Democrats currently have 51 seats. I would consider it likely that they will gain six seats at this stage, but with perfect storm like there was in 2006, a filibuster proof senate is not out of the question.

Fun With Graphs

2007-09-11T12:29:00.001-05:00

Yes, Powerpoint has been the butt of parody before. Rarely, however, has it served the Confused God of Obfuscation as well as it did in General Petraeus's hands yesterday. Matthew Yglesias has the rundown on one particularly dishonest graph and Kevin Drum marvels at another.

UPDATE: Via Andrew Sullivan, here's an astonishing quote from Petraeus's PhD dissertation:

The Vietnam experience left the military leadership feeling that they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely, circumstances obtain -- i.e. domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign, and freedom to employ whatever force is necessary to achieve rapid victory. In light of such criteria, committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America's military forces (and hence the country's national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency.

Inhale and Hold

2007-09-09T10:18:00.001-05:00

Many of you might already be enjoying the third season of Weeds; since I don't have Showtime, I am just now catching up with the second season on DVD. May I just marvel at this show for a minute? Mary-Louise Parker is a miracle of nature and the rest of the cast is fine too... especially Kevin Nealon, who squeezes out the comic relief generously. I love how they've started to get a different cover for the theme song every episode. And most importantly, the writing is some of the best on television.

Learned Fecklessness

2007-09-06T07:27:00.000-05:00

In 1965, Martin Seligman conducted an experiment extending Pavlov's work on classical conditioning. First, he would expose a dog in a hammock to a harmless -- but painful -- electric shock while he played a tone. This happened often enough that the dog associated the tone with the shock.

Later, Seligman took the dog out of the hammock and put him in a small box. The dog was no longer constrained. Now, he played a tone as he electrified the floor. A normal dog in this situation would simply jump over a low fence to escape the shock -- escape was simple. But not for our dog. He had learned that the tone and the shock were inextricably linked, that any attempts at escape were futile. He had learned to be helpless.

This is what has happened to Democrats.

It all began when Nancy Pelosi took cutting off funds for the war off the table before she even took office. "As long as our troops are in harm’s way, Democrats will be there to support them," she said. Even if the Dems didn't want to end the war this way, agreeing to the Republican frame (cutting funds = not supporting troops) was asinine. It would be far better to keep the threat of a funds cut-off in your pocket.

Now, the New York Times reports that Dems are considering coming to a 'bi-partisan' compromise:

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said, “If we have to make the spring part a goal, rather than something that is binding, and if that is able to produce some additional votes to get us over the filibuster, my own inclination would be to consider that.”

How is a non-binding resolution going to end this President's war? How will meekly suggesting a withdrawal in the spring, which we know is going to happen anyway, going to end this President's war? The only thing such a vote will do is give the Republicans political cover. In 2008 they will be able to run ads saying "See, folks! I voted to end this war. You don't have to be angry at me!"

Conservative Andrew Sullivan is right. There is a whole generation of traumatized Democrats. Here he is about Clinton vis-à-vis Obama:

Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder.

We need to replace a whole generation of Democratic leaders. The ones we have now will never learn that all they need to do to avoid the electrical shock is to just jump over the damn fence.

NYC is Farm Country!

2007-08-29T17:22:00.000-05:00

Via Matt Yglesias, we get this map of Manhattan. The red dots indicate recipients of federal farm subsidies, with the big dots showing the ones receiving more than $250,000 a year.

I had no idea agriculture was such an integral part of my city's economy. I'm imagining a version of "Green Acres" where the Gabor sister prevailed over her husband.

Be glad that your tax dollars are helping to save the family farmer!

On Craig's Cruisin'

2007-08-28T21:32:00.000-05:00

After the discovery of Senator Craig's arrest for lewd conduct in Minneapolis, the meme de jour on the lefty blogosphere has been that although Craig is a hypocrite, he did nothing wrong. Matthew Yglesias thinks it, David Kurtz thinks it, Hilzoy sort of thinks it.

Let's look at the arrest report:

I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hand, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes. I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall.

Many years ago, when I was younger and perhaps less equipped to deal with the situation, a man very purposefully peeked through the crack in the door of my toilet stall, presumably for the purpose of soliciting sex. I banged on the door and he got the message and left. But it was definitely a violative act and I was upset by it.

Look, I'm pretty liberal on gay issues. I think gays should be able to marry the people they love and have all the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. But what Craig did -- in a public place -- was illegal... and wrong. To call it 'disorderly conduct' is mild.

UPDATE: Here's a much better story about an uncomfortable experience in a men's room.

ZunePhone

2007-08-26T21:02:00.001-05:00

Because Microsoft-bashing is always fun.

Obama Republicans?

2007-08-24T10:37:00.000-05:00

I've noted before that Barack Obama has the remarkable ability to make conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks swoon. This Iowa poll indicates that this effect is not limited to pundits; Obama is polling ahead of Thompson and McCain as the preferred general election candidate of Iowa Republicans.

The Score on Iraq

2007-08-24T08:47:00.000-05:00

Kevin Drum gathers together some helpful metrics on Iraq, but Matthew Yglesias delves into the Army's counterinsurgency field manual to remind us what the really important metric is.

McCain in Trouble?

2007-08-22T13:20:00.000-05:00

Kos has what he aptly calls "a shocker of a poll" showing that McCain is in trouble... in the race for Arizona Senate.

The New New Iraq

2007-08-22T13:17:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration has criticized the Maliki government sharply, and now Maliki has sniped back calling them "discourteous" and saying Iraq could "find friends elsewhere."

I had wondered how the administration would sell a continuation of their Iraq policy in September, when a report to Congress is due. Back in the spring the NEW AND IMPROVED! factor had been the surge. Yes, we've been in Iraq for four years now, but never with shiny new General Petraeus! Never with a true counter-insurgency strategy! Never with this troop surge!

Well, the surge came and -- because of troop availability -- it will have to wane in the spring. The incremental increase in troops managed to cut down on violence in Baghdad, but country-wide both US and Iraqi deaths are up compared to corresponding months last year. With key Sunnis leaving the cabinet, the political situation has actually gone backwards. In a development unrelated to the surge, Sunnis in Al-Anbar have teamed with the U.S. to fight Al-Qaeda, but that's a double-edge sword... we may just be arming future combatants against the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

So how can the administration sell a continuation? What's the new excuse to delay a reckoning? Where's the new NEW AND IMPROVED! factor?

Expect a new Prime Minister soon.

Elizabeth Murray, 1940-2007

2007-08-15T22:21:00.000-05:00

While I was on vacation one of my favorite artists passed. Elizabeth Murray was 66; she died of lung cancer. Her work is her testament, so I'll let it speak for itself. (Click any image to enlarge.)Bowtie, 2000.

Above: Open Drawer, 1998.
Below: Worm's Eye, 2002

On Vay-cay!

2007-08-11T13:55:00.000-05:00

The blogging has been light this week, and probably will be over the coming few days. I'm in SoCal visiting friends and doing the SIGGRAPH convention. Will tell all when I get back!

I Was Once in a Cramer Crater

2007-08-11T13:42:00.000-05:00

By now nearly everyone has seen this clip of Jim Cramer flipping out over the need for Bernanke to lower interest rates.

Is Jim Cramer really this insane or is it an act for television? Actually, he really is like this. Many years ago I pursued a career as a playwright and made ends meet by working at the document center of Goldman Sachs. Jim Cramer was there, working in the fixed income department. One day he came down with two hours of work which he needed done in 40 minutes in order to meet a Fedex deadline. For some reason he was under the impression that if he yelled at me, at much the same volume he reaches in this video, I would somehow attain the ability to type three times faster. Predictably, we didn't meet the deadline. Afterwards he seemed a little embarassed but didn't say he was sorry. After he left, his analyst underlings did apologize for him, though -- profusely.

There were a lot of type A personalities at Goldman, but Jim Cramer was really in a category of his own.

The Last Illusionist Locket Post?

2007-08-05T20:12:00.000-05:00

Most of the traffic I get on this blog is because of a single post: my March piece on how to build the locket from the Illusionist. Of course, I didn't really show how to build it... I just showed how it theoretically could be built in 3D animation. Many enterprising souls came up with more workable plans than I did, such as The Mechanical Philosopher, and now I notice that some people have actually built the thing. Here's Jane from The Cranitorium and Evadedia's blog. Both have videos of their completed lockets, and Evadedia -- who spent 3 days building hers -- is now selling it on Ebay.

Congratulations, people! It's been fascinating being part of weird worldwide subculture that has been hypnotized by a prop they saw in a movie.

More Nonsense from AP

2007-08-04T15:40:00.001-05:00

A couple of days ago I wrote about the AP's horrendous coverage of an Obama speech. Well, they've done it again. Kevin Drum writes how the first version of an AP story read as follows:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance."

This is how the conversation went:

AP: Sir, with regard to terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan ...

OBAMA: Yeah.

AP: Is there any circumstances where you'd be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons to defeat terrorism and Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: No, I'm not, uh, there has been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss.

AP: Not even tactical?

OBAMA: No. I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance. Uh, if involving you know, civilians... Let me scratch all that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table so...

If a politician corrects a statement right after he's said it, it shouldn't even be reported, much less shorn of context and described as his view. This is crazy and unprofessional.

The Union Says It's Okay

2007-08-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

Matt Yglesias is live-blogging from YearlyKos and comes up with a post that seems like conservative parody of what a liberal post would look like.

Chronicle of a Distortion

2007-08-01T21:51:00.000-05:00

Sometimes bad news coverage can set the tone for a story. Here's what the Associated Press wrote about Barack Obama's speech:

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Wow! Obama threatened to invade Pakistan! Drudge was off, Maguire was off, all the boys started ooh-ing at Barack's invasion threat. Except, of course, he said nothing of the sort:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America’s commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

It's a nuanced view. It offers Pakistanis carrots and sticks in exchange for their cooperation, it favors Pakistani democrats, and it allows for the possibility of military operations on Pakistani soil.

Ah, but it was too late. J-Pod over at the Corner was off:

Obama is full of it. This country is never — never — going to stage a major military action against Pakistan. Pakistan is a nation of 170 million people that has nuclear weapons and whose admittedly problematic and troublesome regime has, to some extent, cooperated with the United States in the war against Al Qaeda both in ways we know and ways we have no idea about. The concern that this strategically vital county might become an Islamic fundamentalist state is, should be, and will be paramount in every and all discussions about how to conduct the fight against Al Qaeda.

What's more, every serious person knows the United States won't invade Pakistan, even with Special Forces — since the reason we cancelled the proposed action against Al Qaeda in 2005 is that it was going to take many hundreds of American troops to do it. This isn't 15 people dropping like ninjas in the darkness. It's an invasion, with helicopters and supply lines and routes of ingress and escape. It would have had unforseen and unforeseeable consequences, but it would have been reasonable to assume the Pakistanis would have turned violently against the United States and hurtled toward Islamic fundamentalist control.

If the evil Bushitler Cheney Rumsfeld Monster wouldn't do it, nobody will do it.

Of course, both Clinton and Bush considered military operations in Pakistan, from a cruise missile attack to a special forces snatch-and-grab. Now maybe they made the right decision to not go through with those plans, but there's no reason why a President Obama should rule out such an option, especially when the threat itself might be persuasive.

If Giuliani had said the same thing, J-Pod would be chirping happily, but when a Democrat says it, the reaction is first to distort what he says, and then to have a tantrum and protest that it's impossible to out-hawk our Dear Leader so please don't even try.

Flight of the Mule

2007-07-29T22:24:00.000-05:00

I rented Maria Full of Grace recently. When I really like a film in the theatres, often I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD. It's interesting to see whether the movie holds up to a second viewing.

Maria Full of Grace does. It's the story of a feisty Colombian village girl who is recruited to become a drug mule. We see the circumstances that lead to her decision, how she has to swallow dozens of small packages of cocaine and keep them in her stomach for the length of a plane ride, and how she skirts past customs in New York. The story plays like a taut thriller. Sure, the plot skids a bit in the third act, but it never comes off the road, and the performances are excellent, especially Catalina Sandino Moreno as Maria.

For me, the story has resonance. It feels like a metaphor for the experience of a whole class of illegal Latino immigrants in the U.S.

Anyhow, it's a good flick. Catch it if you haven't already.

Work Update

2007-07-28T21:16:00.000-05:00

Here's a link to a project I just completed called Day Zero. It's an animated version of the TV show 24... a prequel showing the day before Season One. I joke that Jack Bauer tortures Spongebob in it, but of course, this ain't a parody... it's the real thing.

The series is done in a limited animation, graphic novel style. Xeth Feinberg did a great job of directing; I contributed with editing and compositing.

Enjoy!

Young Hillary

2007-07-28T20:55:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an article on some letters Hillary Clinton wrote to a high school friend back when she was in college. The letters show her to be a very bright, pretentious, self-absorbed undergraduate... not far from what you might expect.

As the piece says, "the letters contain no possibly damaging revelations of the proverbial “youthful indiscretions,” and mention nothing glaringly outlandish or irresponsible." True. But the fourth-last paragraph in the article does contain this:

Ms. Rodham skates earnestly on the surface of life, raising more questions than answers. “Last week I decided that even if life is absurd why couldn’t I spend it absurdly happy?” she wrote in November of her junior year. She then challenges herself to “define ‘happiness’ Hillary Rodham, acknowledged agnostic intellectual liberal, emotional conservative.

Of course it shouldn't matter, but she's going to have to explain the agnostic part at some point. She'll have to trace a personal journey from belief in God, to lapsed belief, to a return to faith. Why? Only 45% of Americans are willing to vote for an atheist for President. More people would be willing to vote for a homosexual.

By the way, if you've read me regularly you've probably picked up a certain anti-Hillary vibe. I have to say, I've been watching the debates and she has been very impressive... she's stood out every time I've seen her.

Contempt for the Contemptible

2007-07-20T07:45:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports that the administration has made a bold new claim of executive authority. Under the conservative legal doctrine of the unitary executive, the administration is announcing that the Justice Department will not pursue cases of contempt of congress. This raises two possible responses by the Democrats: challenge the decision in court, and let the cases wind their way through the judiciary; or go back to the long-dormant practice of enforcing inherent contempt. Congress has the right to use the Capitol Police to jail people who refuse to testify, and it has used this power in the past -- most recently in the 1930s.

Apparently Conyers has already raised the possibility in a letter to the administration.

This issue has been floating around the liberal blogs for about a month now, but it hasn't broken through to the mainstream media yet. My guess is that with today's news it will soon.

UPDATE: And on cue, the Washington Post publishes a piece about inherent contempt today. Ironically, when the day is done, the administration's attempts to broaden executive power will have the opposite effect; as with NIxon, a new layer of statute and precedent will be established to tilt the balance away from the President and towards Congress.

Fun With Regression Lines

2007-07-13T21:10:00.000-05:00

How are Catholics and supply-siders alike? Kevin Drum has the hilarious answer.

iPhone Murdered

2007-07-11T16:46:00.000-05:00

Wrong, wrong, wrong. On so many levels.

And of course, it will turn a profit, probably.

Great Expectorations

2007-07-08T18:54:00.000-05:00

Drudge reports that Katie Couric literally slapped around an editor when he slipped the word "sputum" into her text.

Long ago I worked at NBC News. Usually I was behind the scenes -- way behind the scenes -- but I remember a rare instance when I had to go to the studio where they shoot the Nightly News. Tom Brokaw was there in a corner, reading his text out loud to himself before the broadcast, rehearsing different emphases and intonations. I would suggest that if Ms. Couric takes her job seriously, which after all is nothing more than reading a script, she should at least read the thing beforehand.

Lead, Crime and Ancient Rome

2007-07-08T17:57:00.000-05:00

Via Kevin Drum, here is a fascinating link from the Washington Post. Economist Rick Nevin has been able to draw a high degree of corelation between crime statistics and the lead levels of years before when the criminals were toddlers. Most impressively, the corelation seems to hold true in nine different countries with varying regulatory histories. This corelation is stronger and more consistent than other celebrated theories, such as the Freakonomics idea that the legalization of abortion was responsible for falling crime... or the Rudy idea that all credit belongs to Rudy.

Kevin uses the opportunity to agitate for lead abatement, pointing to research showing that a reduction in lead levels would improve IQs measurably.

Coincidentally, I just finished reading a book about Roman times -- Augustus by Anthony Everitt -- that repeatedly cites uses of lead that would shock us today: the metal was used in make up, water pipes, wine-making, weaponry, and even cooking pots. The ubiquity, moldability, and low melting point of lead made it very popular in ancient times. The sort of poisoning that must have come from such use would surely have dwarfed the contamination we saw in the 20th century. Could this explain the violent, unstable nature of Ancient Rome?

A google search shows that this is not an original thought. Different theorists have put lead poisoning forth as a possible cause of the Roman Empire's fall.

It's helpful to remember... societies are very capable of poisoning themselves to death.

Fred Consorts With the Devil

2007-07-06T23:40:00.000-05:00

No matter what some idiot will tell you, Fred Thompson is not going to be President. Via Kevin Drum, here is an L.A. Times story about how he lobbied for an abortion rights organization... and now insists on denying it. The larger point, I think, is that Thompson was a lobbyist for 17 years. You can't spend that much time on a street corner asking the big boys whether they're looking for a date, and then turn around and run for homecoming queen. Too much embarassing stuff like this is going to crop up.

Oh Say! Marvin Gets It On

2007-07-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

Ever heard a song about war sung in a way that makes you want to make out? Happy Independence Day.

Ask the Question!

2007-07-03T22:41:00.000-05:00

From the White House press briefing today:

Q Tony, did Libby directly ask the President for --

MR. SNOW: No, there were no direct communications. And the President has not communicated directly with Scooter Libby.

Two things to note: first of all, Tony Snow doesn't let the reporter finish the question... does he not want to hear any clauses added to it? Second of all, notice the modifier: there were no direct communications.

There is reason to be suspicious that there was a pardon deal. The press needs to ask the question: did the White House have any communications with Libby or his representatives during or after his trial? If so, what was the nature of that communication?

Brooks In Three Acts

2007-07-03T01:56:00.000-05:00

David Brooks writes in the Times today about the commutation of Libby's sentence. If like me you sometimes think of him as Dr. Brooks and Mr. Hack... well, he's at his hackiest today. To put his opinion in perspective, let's contrast it with some of the things he said about the Marc Rich pardon.

ACT 1 - Good and Evil

"This is the essence of Clintonism. The other politicians are shorted. With him the sleaze mongers are left gaping and applauding because it just goes to another level."
- David Brooks on the Marc Rich Pardon, February 9, 2001

"President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense."
- David Brooks on the Libby Commutation, July 3, 2007

ACT II - The Disregard of the Inconvenient

"And this was the essential problem, it was the going around the Justice Department that created all the scandals that are now flowering."
- David Brooks on the Marc Rich Pardon, February 22, 2001

"For the first time in his presidency, Bush commuted a sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department, White House officials said."
- Washington Post, July 3, 2007

ACT III - Wishful Thinking

"And I think what the story does is it lasts."
- Brooks on Marc Rich, February 9, 2001

"The farce is over. It has no significance. Nobody but Libby’s family will remember it in a few weeks time. Everyone else will have moved on to other fiascos, other poses, fresher manias."
- Brooks on Libby, July 3, 2007

Thompson Dud?

2007-07-02T12:28:00.000-05:00

I had previously considered Fred Thompson the likely Republican nominee, but after seeing a speech of his on C-Span, I'm having my doubts. He presented no rationale or distinguishing factor for his candidacy. There were no red meat lines. The only thing he got mildly excited about was states rights, and while that's always been a conservative hobby-horse, I doubt it's something he can ride to the White House.

McCain is fatally wounded; Giuliani is a disaster waiting to happen; Thompson is going to be a dud. Something tells me Romney's going to get the nod. Look for giant flip-flops at the Democratic convention.

The Goracle Speaks

2007-07-01T09:11:00.000-05:00

Al Gore in the New York Times:

The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.

I never thought of it that way! It could be fun to be threatened with extinction.

UPDATE: What? Gore got an advance copy of the Sopranos finale? In a Halliburton-made lockbox?

The Credit Chernobyl?

2007-06-26T23:31:00.001-05:00

Some smart people think this link from the UK Telegraph is a bit alarmist, but it's worth considering. Wall Street has bundled mortgage debt with other obligations in such exotic ways that the sub-prime meltdown could affect not just the housing market but liquidity in other markets: the M&A sector, for instance. Not a pretty picture.

Fred Thompson, Lobbyist for Death Inc.?

2007-06-26T08:53:00.000-05:00

This Huffington Post piece about Thompson's service as a lobbyist is worth reading, although it does have silly parts. "Since his days as top minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, Thompson has collected over $1 million in lobbying fees." Geez, he worked as a lobbyist for 17 years. I hope he made more than that... a million bucks would be just a slice better than minimum wage.

I've written before about how Thompson's service as a lobbyist is likely to be a source of embarassment. The piece draws out one such blusher: Thompson lobbied for Philip Morris. It's going to be hard to spin involvement with an industry responsible for so many preventable deaths.

Reading to the Right, Shooting to the Left

2007-06-24T12:06:00.001-05:00

The way we read text influences the way our eyes scan an image. We usually start at the top left, then go to the top right, then the lower left quadrant and finally the lower right. However, it's wrong to oversimplify what this means -- other factors influence what the eye sees first: compositional elements, bright spots, and the human form can draw the eye no matter where they are located.

Moreover, location affects how we read motion and intention; it doesn't necessarily connote importance. Look at Venus and Adonis by Rubens. The top image is the original one, the bottom one is the flipped image. Notice how Venus and the putto are more effective in the top image: the fact that they're pulling in the same direction we're reading gives their efforts more strength. In the bottom image, Adonis is going in the direction we're reading, and he seems a lot more determined and likely to succeed in tearing himself away because of it. The sky and the pastoral patch on the right feels like a more enticing destination.

Usually, when the masters have painted firing lines they've put the victim on the left and the shooters on the right. Below is Goya's Third of May and Manet's Execution of Maximilian (click to enlarge.) The original images are on the left, the flipped images are on the right.

The firing squads seem stronger when they are flipped onto the left, but the paintings have less tension. The victims seem more hapless when they are on the right, but also less noble and less consequential. Talk shows almost always have the host on the right. Flipping an image of Tim Russert with Peter Pace, you can see why. The setting seems less fair and less congenial.

The Dramatic Chipmunk

2007-06-22T09:49:00.000-05:00

It's been called the best five-second video on the internet. Can't disagree.

Support or Name Recognition?

2007-06-19T13:12:00.000-05:00

Kos has an astute overview of the race for the Democratic nomination.

Performance Art Politics

2007-06-15T17:19:00.000-05:00

Mike Gravel, the candidate for President from the Angry Dadaist Party.

Good Eats, Good Show

2007-06-14T09:19:00.000-05:00

Lately I've become hooked on Good Eats With Alton Brown on the Food Network. It's not the usual cooking show with a Chef hamming it up in front of a salivating studio audience -- it's more like a wacked-out food documentary. Alton Brown doesn't just tell you the what of cooking, he tells you the how and why and the pronunciation and folklore and science and the competing theories... and on and on. It's like a TV version of Harold McGee's classic On Food and Cooking, which believe me, is high praise.

I'm definitely a foodie, so maybe I'm biased -- but I can't think of a show on TV that is simultaneously as educational and entertaining. (And since I'm on a food tear, check out how Pixar got the kitchen stuff right in Ratatouille.)

Minority Report Redux

2007-06-11T19:12:00.000-05:00

Not to be snotty, but waddya know... a really cool Microsoft product.

UPDATE: The two-finger gesturing might be a breach of an Apple patent.

The End of the Sopranos

2007-06-11T01:42:00.000-05:00

The Sopranos series finale was the most disappointing end to a major series since Seinfeld sputtered to a final stop. Despite its promising start, the final season flirted with many storylines... but failed to commit to any. Like a precocious teenager, the show seemed scared of not looking cool. It didn't want to seem like it was trying to work, so finally it didn't.

Still, The Sopranos was a landmark show. The best episode of all might still be that first show, where a Mafia boss with a troubled home life is visited by some ducks.

Thompson the Favorite?

2007-06-09T00:00:00.000-05:00

Before even entering the race, Thompson is the favorite according to Intrade. I think that's about right, and as I've written before, I think he would be a good match-up for Obama. Also, the generic Dem candidate has a 57% to 42% advantage over the Republican candidate... that's a huge advantage.

Ultra-HD?

2007-06-01T13:33:00.000-05:00

This post from NewTeeVee leaves me a little puzzled. It talks of a new TV format being developed in Japan with a resolution of 7,680 x 4,320. Just to put that in perspective, when filmmakers take CGI to 35MM they use around 2,000 pixels of horizonal data, or if they are very conscientious, maybe 4,000. Do we really need a format for the home that has twice the definition of 35MM film? How big would the screen need to be before you saw a difference from HD? People say a monitor needs to be at least 34 inches big before you can notice a difference between 1080p and 720p.

Oh, and how's this for scary: "An uncompressed SHV signal has a bit-rate of 24Gbps." Yikes. My biggest drive would fill up in about 20 seconds.

Upside-down is Right-side-up

2007-05-31T12:39:00.000-05:00

Via Andrew Sullivan, here is a link to a page on Ambigrams. Here is my first exposure to this concept, from way back in the 70s:

Look at the logo... now stand on your head and look at the logo.

Thompson's In

2007-05-30T15:55:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson has announced his intention to run for the Presidency. I do think he has an excellent shot, since conservatives are dying for an alternative to Rudy McRomney. One good thing about it from the Democratic view: if Thompson wins it completely removes the only serious liability of our most likely nominee, Barack Obama: the Republicans will not be able to say that Obama is not experienced enough: Thompson has only eight years in the U.S. Senate and no executive experience. (Also, about 17 years as a lobbyist which will no doubt provide ample grist for oppo dirt.)

But just so that you don't think I'm in Obama's pocket (at least not yet,) here is a biting comment from Kevin Drum's comments section on Obama's recently unveiled health care plan: "The audacity of blah!" Yep, that about sums it up.

Dobbs Checking

2007-05-30T12:13:00.000-05:00

Finally! The New York Times takes on the factually challenged Lou Dobbs.

Framing a Withdrawal Timetable

2007-05-25T08:18:00.000-05:00

I have to disagree with Kevin Drum disagreeing with Swopa (although I don't agree with Swopa either.) Swopa argues that we should emphasize our death toll in Iraq to win the argument, but Kevin counters:

The reason we should leave Iraq isn't because the war is costing lives, but because the war isn't critical to our national security.

Trouble is, the area is critical to our national security. Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, for God's sake. It could draw its Arab neighbors into a fracticidal Sunni-Shia regional conflict. And it could draw our NATO partner Turkey to move against our stalwart Kurd allies.

Those who favor withdrawal can't be seen to be promising flowers and sweets, like the administration did before the war. When we leave, things probably will get worse. But (and here is the rhetorical frame, which also happens to have the virtue of being true): Iraqis are the only ones who can sort this out... and they can do it better by themselves.

Why? A number of reasons:

1) Civil wars are only over when one side knows it has lost. Sunnis see both Republicans and Democrats saying they want to leave; they are aware of American domestic political pressure. The Sunni insurgency will not lose hope until they can take on the Shiites solo, without American interference. Until they do so a Shiite government will not have credibility of force.

2) Any Iraqi government which depends on the protection of the Americans will not be seen as a sovereign government, thus hurting its credibility with the Iraqi people and its neighbors.

3) An Iraq government that has to cater to American desires is handicapped in building its own Iraqi constituency, which inevitably will have contrary desires to America's.

4) Only a portion of the violence in Iraq is anti-American in motivation, but it is not an insignificant portion. By disengaging in the short term and promising to withdraw in the medium-term America would be diminishing an element of opposition. Al Qaeda has very little political support in Iraq. They are thriving only because of the American presence and the anarchy present there. Once a stable government arises, Al Qaeda in Iraq will be crushed.

We have to warn the public that violence will probably get worse, and the resulting government might not be to our liking, but also make it clear that if we stayed we would probably be turning a 2-year civil war into a 10-year civil war.

In other words, we need to talk to Americans like grown-ups.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum responds by e-mail:

Points taken, but I didn't say the area wasn't critical to our national security. I said the *war* wasn't critical to our national security. In fact, I think it's detrimental. I hope this doesn't seem like nitpicking, since I think it's a pretty important difference.

I agree about the possibility that Iraq will get a lot worse once we leave. In fact, I've blogged about this a few times before. It's hard to say exactly how politicians should address this, but I agree that, one way or another, those of us who oppose the war need to prepare the public for this.

Actually, as near as I can tell, we pretty much agree with each other. If there's any real disagreement, it's pretty small.

Substantially, I think our positions are pretty close. And perhaps I didn't characterize Kevin's position fairly. But my quibble was regarding rhetorical emphasis: it's the difference between saying "the war isn't important to us" and "we aren't helping by staying." I think Americans can instinctively grasp the concept that meddling sometimes makes things worse.