Kilroy Was Here

The Real Blame Game

2005-09-14T11:12:00.000-07:00

Over at Jane Galt's website, Jane boils down the solution to poverty into one magic formula:

If poor people did just four things, the poverty rate would be a fraction of what it currently is. Those four things are:

Finish high school
Get married before having children
Have no more than two children
Work full time

This is such a simplistic look at poverty (especially poverty among black Americans) that I loathe to even address it; however, let me list some things that might have more of an effect on interurban poverty than above.

Low Housing Values - "Blacks' confinement to segregated neighborhoods systematically reduces their access to investment opportunities. The middle class invests the largest share of its wealth in housing equity, which amounts to 43% of white assets and 63% percent of black assets. Confined to less-desired neighborhoods, blacks attain a much lower average rate of return on their housing investment than do whites. The current generation of black homeowners has, as of 1990, suffered a cumulative loss of $58 billion for this reason.Because creditworthiness depends on wealth, blacks' lower home values mean they are less able to obtain credit on favorable terms than otherwise equally qualified whites: The current generation of blacks has suffered a cumulative loss of $24 billion due to denial of mortgages and higher mortgage interest rates. (See Melvin Oliver & Thomas Shapiro, Black Wealth/White)"
Low Tax Base but Higher Tax Rates - "Black/multiethnic suburbs pay tax rates that are, on average, about 65% higher than those of white suburbs, even after differences in affluence are taken into account." (Thomas J. Phelan & Mark Schneider, Race, Ethnicity, and Class in American Suburbs, 31 Urb. Aff. Rev. 659, 673 (1996))"
Poor Public Services - "Even middle-class suburban blacks suffer from segregation. They enjoy lower-quality public services, and report lower satisfaction with those services, when they live in majority-black suburbs, compared to living in consolidated metropolitan areas where they are a minority. (Ruth Hoogland DeHoog et al., Metropolitan Fragmentation and Suburban Ghettos: Some Empirical Observations on Institutional Racism, 13 J. Urb. Aff. 479, 488-90 (1991))"
Low Business Ownership - "Lack of access to credit is a major cause of low rates of black entrepreneurship. (see Low Housing Values above) Among all privately owned U.S. businesses, half were started by their owners; the other half were inherited or purchased. By contrast, 94% of black-owned businesses are self-started (centuries of discrimination and segregation have left blacks with little to inherit). Business startups depend heavily on personal and family wealth, which is leveraged into lines of credit. Residential segregation, by depressing housing appreciation and reducing access to credit, therefore depresses black business startups, upon which blacks disproportionately rely to get into business. See Thomas D. Boston, Affirmative Action and Black Entrepreneurship (1999), pp. 76-79
Poor Job Opportunities - "Most job growth has occurred in predominantly white suburbs. The cost per mile of travelling to work is at least fifty percent higher for African-Americans than for whites. Often, public transportation does not cross city boundaries. Housing discrimination imposes barriers on blacks to moving where the jobs are located. These factors lead to fewer job opportunities and substantial depression in urban African-American wages. See Harry Holzer and Keith Ihlanfeldt, "Spatial Factors and the Employment of Blacks" New England Econ. Rev. (1996)

These are real problems that demand some governmental policy initiatives to address. Unfortunately, whites continue to engage in 'the blame game'.

Antiblack antipathy preceded segregation, but is reinforced by the reactions of segregated populations to economic disadvantage. Whites often attribute oppositional behavior to supposed racial characteristics rather than to the condition of segregation and disadvantage, reinforcing negative racial stereotypes. See Glenn Loury, The Anatomy of Racial Inequality (2002).

The Kilroy Platform: Moral Values, pt1

2004-12-15T19:17:00.000-08:00

Over at the Washington Monthly, Amy Sullivan brings up the taboo topic of abortion.

I'll second her general theme. The Democrats need to do something about their abortion position. And with that, I propose the first nail in the moral values plank of the Kilroy Platform: The Abortion Prevention Act

Democrats of all types realize that, in 99.9% of all cases, abortion is a tragedy, an emotional roller coaster that plays with the hearts and souls of families nationwide.

Unlike Republicans, we also realize that government action, in the forms of laws and imprisonment, will do little to prevent abortion. Instead, our government needs a coherent strategy to reduce this tragedy. This strategy should consider the following:

Sex Education The Kilroy Platform believes strongly that all teenagers need detailed sex education stressing abstinance and contraception. While, of course, we do not want teenagers to have sex, and we will encourage them to wait until they are mature enough to accept possible consequences, we realize that shouting at teenagers will not necessarily prevent them from sexual experimentation.

For that reason, we believe strongly in the education of contraception for our teenagers. Teenagers should be taught the different types of contraception, their use, and their effectiveness.

The Kilroy Platform realizes that this is less than ideal, but if the choice is between more abortions or more detailed sexual education, the Kilroy Platform chooses the latter.

Available Contraception The Kilroy Platform believes strongly in making safe contraception readily available. This should include contraception for teenagers, and subsidized contraception for the poor. Of course, we would strongly advise teenagers to not participate in sexual intercourse; however, if they do, we must reduce teenage pregnancy.

Easy Adoption The Kilroy Platform believes that adoption is too hard in this country and too costly. We must make it easier for childless families to adopt and for those who need to put their child up for adoption to do so. Bureacracy must be slashed in this arena.

Ultimately, the Kilroy Platform stresses that the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. We feel that this is where the most common ground lies. Those extremists who are unwilling to make these charges are less concerned with preventing abortion and more concerned with moral control of the public. We find this view to be undemocratic.

Trouble, Trouble, Boil, and Bubble

2004-12-15T09:35:00.000-08:00

Matthew Yglesias examines the housing market.

Shifts in the fundamentals that increase home prices should increase rental prices proportionally, but buy prices have increased faster. If demand for home purchases is rising faster than demand for home rentals, it seems to me that that can only mean that people are buying houses as speculative commodities -- spending more than the house is really worth to them in the expectation that it's value will only increase in the future.

I agree completely. The Rent to Equity ratio of houses has rarely, if ever, been higher. Furthermore, the advent of ARM, interest-only, and no money down mortgages is significantly increasing speculation in the market. I have heard that as many as 15% of mortgages are risky and a spike in interest rates could result in significant sell off.

Furthermore, human bias's are fueling this binge. People tend to invest based upon the recent past, rather than the long term past. If you look at housing markets over the last 30 years, rather than the last 5-7 years, housing prices have rarely appreciated at a rate greater than inflation (California is CPI +2%, Oklahoma is CPI - 1.0%). However, in the hot markets (SF, NY, San Diego, etc.), the last 5-10 years have seen much higher returns. People tend to extrapolate from 5 rather than 30 years, and it gets them in trouble.

Second, as was brought up in MY's comments, real estate is really multiple markets, not one big market. Unfortunately, many people are taking the results in very land-restricted areas (SF, San Diego, Seattle, NYC) and applying those returns to places where land is cheap and development is easy (Henderson, NV, Phoenix, AZ, El Paso, TX, etc.) So a lot of folks are investing in real estate in places where the fundamentals are far worse than they're assuming.

I could go on and on. In summary, if you're looking to buy a place to live, real estate might be a good investment, but if you're looking at real estate as a speculative short term investment, or an investment who's income will cover the leverage you've placed yourself under, you're playing with fire.

There's a Bear in the Woods

2004-12-02T18:51:00.000-08:00

Kevin Drum recently posted a comparison of the current Islamic fundamentalist movement with fascism of the late 30s, and communism of the late 40s.

What's the point of these historical highlights? Just this: in the five years before 1941, world events made the danger from fascism so clear that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor even diehard Republican isolationists didn't hesitate to declare war. The argument was over.

Likewise, by 1949 world events had made Soviet aggression clear to all but the farthest reaches of the left. Truman won the debate within his party largely because the threat was so plain that only a small minority could continue to ignore it.

But world events today are nowhere near so clear. 9/11 was a wakeup call, but in the three years since then what's happened that's the equivalent of even a single one of the events described above? There have been some scattered bombings, but barely more than before 9/11. North Korea and Iran appear to be building nuclear bombs, but they've been doing that for over a decade. The Middle East is dominated by brutal totalitarian regimes, but that's been true for as long as there's been a Middle East — and in any case the United States actively supports many of them.

In fact, let me be the first to suggest that the real generational danger to United States peace and security is not Islamic fundamentalism, but Russian nationalism.

Russia is currently becoming more and more anti-Democratic. Russia is backing anti-Democratic measures in the Ukraine. There are lots and lots of small, failing former Soviet States around Russia to invade. The citizenry is souring on capitalism and longs for return to a great nation. Russia has people that really know how to run a police state. Russia, China, and India will all be struggling to be the dominant power in Asia.

Oh yeah, and Russia has nukes.

By 2010, Russia could absorb Eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc, start building up against China, force the Persian Gulf region to offer up natural resources.

And this time, Russia won't be burdened by a failed economic ideology. They won't be trying to prove that communism is right. They'll just want to win by being the most powerful country in the world.

And with us distracted by a technologically backward, economically weak, idealogically crippled Islamic terrorism, we won't even see this coming.

Leave municipal bonds alone!

2004-11-24T21:54:00.000-08:00

In today's Daily Howler, Bob Sommersby brings up the tax rate of Teresa Heinz Kerry.

JOHNSTON (10/17/04): Teresa Heinz Kerry reported income of just over $5 million last year, slightly more than half of it from investments in tax-exempt municipal and state bonds, her 2003 income tax return shows, confirming her status as the wealthiest spouse of any major party nominee in United States history...

The two-page document...showed total income of $5,073,554 last year. Her primary source of income was the tax-exempt bonds, investments that generally produce a lower interest rate, but those in the highest tax brackets can often pocket more cash if they choose municipals.

Ms. Heinz Kerry paid a federal tax of $628,401, which is 12.3 percent of her total income and 27.4 percent of her adjusted gross income.

As regular readers will know, I'm a big fan of a progressive tax system, but let's get crazy about municipal, or tax free bonds.

First, tax-free bonds are good things. They finance essential public infrastructure (hospitals, roads, libraries) and allow these institutions access to lower rates of debt.

Second, tax-free bonds are not tax-free. Rather, the investor in tax-free bonds accepts a lower rate of interest in lieu of paying taxes.

Let's take Ms. Heinz Kerry's example.

She earned $2.5 million in interest on an estimated $50 million investment in tax-free bonds. (I'm guessing she's getting 5% tax free on her money.)

If she would have invested that money in taxable corporate bonds, she would have earned $500,000 to $1 million dollars more on her money. (I'm guessing Teresa Heinz Kerry could have gotten 6% to 7% on her money at similar rated corporate bonds.)

That extra $500,000 or $1 million is the 'tax' she paid on that income. If you included that money into her ~$600,000 she paid in taxes, Teresa Heinz Kerry would have an effective federal tax rate of somewhere between 20% and 27%.

More importantly, that forfieted income is, for all intent purposes, the very same thing as a tax. It goes to fund public infrastructure. It's money that would have gone to the investor otherwise. Basically, it's a pretty good thing.

Now, this is a way for Teresa Kerry Heinz to avoid paying the top (38%) tax rate. She pays somewhere in the range of 20-35%, depending on the comparable taxable investments. But that's what the market bears.

That 15% dividend tax rate though. That's just evil! More on that later.

The Kilroy Platform: Fair Taxes for All

2004-11-07T14:28:00.000-08:00

My dear American friends:

America needs your help. We are at war. Our economy is sputtering. Wages are flat or declining.

Right now, as our children graduate from high school and college, there are not enough new jobs for them. Right now, as our brothers and sisters are being laid off from manufacturing firms, there are not enough new jobs for them. Over the last year, for every 2 jobs our economy has added, our schools have added 3 people looking for work. This cannot continue.

As it was during the Civil War, during the Great Depression, during World War II, our great nation has once again reached a watershed--a crossroads where we need the sacrifice of our citizens in order to prevail.

And our platform is asking you for your help. For those of you who are making more than $200,000 a year, America needs your help. We need you to give more to this country.

If you believe, as we do, that our forefathers, our soldiers, our country has given far more to us than we can ever repay, then join with us to help this country in its time of need.

Taxes

The Kilroy Platform understands that even the most efficient and effective government needs resources to fund it. It is our sacred duty to do our part in funding our military, our currency, our government.

But we should do so fairly.

Right now, the Republican government punishes work and rewards leisure. Those dollars that are earned by sweat can be taxed as high as 35%. Those dollars that are earned by signing the backs of dividend checks or capital gains are taxed at no higher than 15%.

That is unfair. Why should we punish people for working? Our country was founded on the work ethic: that our national character is stronger when each of us is working to make our lives better.

Why is the dollar that the fireman, the teacher, the policeman, the autoworker, the nurse, the doctor, the lawyer, earn through the practice of their craft taxed higher than the dollar earned by the wealthy endorsing their checks?

A country that rewards work should not have a tax system that punishes work.

Now, the Kilroy Platform understands that investment is needed to create jobs and run the country.

Because of that we do not believe that dollars earned from investing should be taxed higher than dollars earned from working.

They should be taxed the same. All income, whether it's source come from labor, wealth, the lottery, or inheritance, should be taxed at the same rate.

We do not believe that labor is more or less important than investing or inheriting. All sources of income motivate people. As a result, they should all be taxed the same.

The Kilroy Platform is not advocating a flat tax. We still believe a progressive tax system is a fairer system of taxation.

Not all dollars are equal. The dollar that's used to buy milk for your children and pay for your mortgage are more important than the dollars we use to buy yachts and Jaguars. Since we have to fund the government, we would rather fund the government with dollars that might be used to buy yachts rather than dollars used to buy bread. As a result, we feel that a progressive tax system is the fairest way to do this.

But we don't feel that we should change the tax rates just because a dollar comes from labor rather than leisure. We need to reward work, not punish it.

The Kilroy Platform

2004-11-07T14:18:00.000-08:00

Well, after the drubbing at the polls last week, I, like many other people, have been thinking about the Democratic party. After reading this open letter to the Democratic Party, I've decided to put my thoughts down on paper.

These are all first draft thoughts, so please forgive me for my lack rhetorical flourish. And to the three people who actually read this, if you see any logical inconsistency or really bad idea let me know in the comments.

Based on the exit polls, there are basically four issues that I'll initially address: the Economy, Terrorism, Iraq, and Values. After that, (if I get that far), I'll try and address other issues.

Overall, the Kilroy Platform focuses on fairness, responsibilty, security, and communty. Ultimately, I feel like these are the core values of the American people, so I'll try and weave these throughout my thoughts.

Thanks in advance for your patience and help.

Wisdom is a Virtue

2004-10-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

The President campaigns on the Character Platform. As his debate performance shows, the President focuses on stength, courage, leadership, consistency, etc. In fact, the current George Bush campaign site headlines "Clarity and Strength".

But when we think about character, it's good to go back to the godfather of virtue, Aristotle. Aristotle was big on the virtues, but he realized that in order to achieve eudaimonia, the virtues must be guided by practical reason, by the ability to make good judgements.

In other words, while strength and courage are indeed admirable traits, strength without wisdom is like angelic tongues without love -- merely a resounding gong or claning cymbal.

So when we judge the character of the presidential candidates, when we judge their vitures, we should first judge their wisdom, their judgements.

Which is Senator Kerry brings up a good point in condemning the judgement of the President in preparing for the War in Iraq, and in planning for rebuilding Iraq. Character is more than courage, consistency, and clarity.

Character is wisdom.

Give Us A King

2004-09-13T11:33:00.000-07:00

Today, in Slate magazine, Steven Waldman writes on the trend of Republicans' rhetoric that George W. Bush was chosen by God to be President.

Yet it's hard to recall another instance of a presidential campaign so confidently promulgating the idea that its candidate had divine endorsement. The potentially dangerous implication is that since God put George W. Bush in the White House, opposing him is opposing Him. A person could get smited for that.

And, even an atheist such as I has chafed under this type of rhetoric. (I mean, we live in a democracy; don't the people choose our President?)

But Waldman brings up an interesting point towards the end of his article:

Of course, it's always possible God did put George W. Bush in the White House. But if He did, it doesn't theologically follow that He wants him to have a second term. Even those who believe that God controls world events usually concede it is hard for humans to divine the intent of the Divine.

After all, in the Bible, God is described as doing things for all sorts of inexplicable reasons—sometimes as a reward to the people, and sometimes as a punishment.

And this reminded me of Chapther 8 out of the book of Samuel. In Samuel, the Israelites, disappointed in the behavior of their judges, ask Samuel for a King.

6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

So, God gets a little pissed off about this King thing, and He tells Samuel to warn them about the type of King they could get. God curses the Israelites by answering their prayers.

Of course, the Israelites don't listen.

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.

22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.

When I read this passage, I felt chilled. For, lo, my brothers, doth the tribe of Americans repeat the errors of the Israelites. Forgoing the learnings of their ancestors, they, too, anoint themselves a King.

And, again, the King they choose takes the Sons and Daugthers of America to squander in his chariots and in his battles.

What Getting Into Harvard Really Means

2004-09-08T21:53:00.000-07:00

Gregg Easterbrook sites Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale study that seems to imply the education at Harvard does not significantly add more value to a person's long term income. Regular readers of this blog (Hi, Alder!) know that I've talked about this particular study several times over the last couple of years. So, you might not be surprised by Easterbrook's article.

Matthew Yglesias offers a tentative defense of Harvard, or at least, Harvard's admission process.

Their research indicates that there may be no good reason to attend Harvard if you can, as will usually be the case, get a more attractive financial aid package from a less selective school or else simply find a lower tuition at a public university. Their research most emphatically does not support the conclusion that whether or not you can get admitted to a highly selective college matters. On the contrary, the research indicates that the methods used by the admissions officers at these schools are rather good at identifying persons who are likely to achieve high incomes later in life.

Ah, yes, but then, what characteristics are the Harvard's of the world actually selecting for? Matthew seems to imply that the admissions process somehow distinguishes merit, or at the very least, talent. But is that actually the case?

Well, if you love Malcolm Gladwell articles as much as I do, you'll have remembered reading The New Boy Network way back in May, 2000.

This article profiles another Harvard graduate in his pursuit of a computer programming job right out of college. (He eventually takes a job with the hot company of the time, Tellme.)

You should really read the article; it's very entertaining. But for those who like their blogging boiled down, here's the important paragraphs:

Recently, a comparable experiment was conducted by Frank Bernieri, a psychologist at the University of Toledo. Bernieri, working with one of his graduate students, Neha Gada-Jain, selected two people to act as interviewers, and trained them for six weeks in the proper procedures and techniques of giving an effective job interview. The two then interviewed ninety-eight volunteers, of various ages and backgrounds. The interviews lasted between fifteen and twenty minutes, and afterward each interviewer filled out a six-page, five-part evaluation of the person he'd just talked to. Originally, the intention of the study was to find out whether applicants who had been coached in certain nonverbal behaviors designed to ingratiate themselves with their interviewers--like mimicking the interviewers' physical gestures or posture--would get better ratings than applicants who behaved normally. As it turns out, they didn't. But then another of Bernieri's students, an undergraduate named Tricia Prickett, decided that she wanted to use the interview videotapes and the evaluations that had been collected to test out the adage that "the handshake is everything."

"She took fifteen seconds of videotape showing the applicant as he or she knocks on the door, comes in, shakes the hand of the interviewer, sits down, and the interviewer welcomes the person," Bernieri explained. Then, like Ambady, Prickett got a series of strangers to rate the applicants based on the handshake clip, using the same criteria that the interviewers had used. Once more, against all expectations, the ratings were very similar to those of the interviewers. "On nine out of the eleven traits the applicants were being judged on, the observers significantly predicted the outcome of the interview," Bernieri says. "The strength of the correlations was extraordinary."

This research takes Ambady's conclusions one step further. In the Toledo experiment, the interviewers were trained in the art of interviewing. They weren't dashing off a teacher evaluation on their way out the door. They were filling out a formal, detailed questionnaire, of the sort designed to give the most thorough and unbiased account of an interview. And still their ratings weren't all that different from those of people off the street who saw just the greeting.

Now, I'm not sure, but doesn't the Harvard Admissions process have an interview?

So, we're forced to ask the question, what is it that the vaunted Harvard admissions process is really measuring? What is the primary characteristic that it's sifting for? Does it truly measure talent or merit or potential?

Or does it only measure the ability to project talent or merit or potential?

The Curse of Evenhandedness

2004-08-21T12:41:00.000-07:00

Last night on the Newshour, Mark Shields and William Kristol debated the effect of the Swift Boat Veterans attacks on John Kerry.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: This is not anonymous rumors. These are not mysterious ads popping up from nowhere. These are people stepping forward, volunteering to appear on every television show in the country, speaking into the camera on these ads, putting their names and reputation behind them. Some of them have been hurt because it turns throughout have been inconsistencies.

Some of the charges have I think held up quite well and they're willing to debate these charges against anyone. I think you found this last night against people who know a lot about it; it's really unfair, Mark. You're really slandering someone like John O'Neill who is a perfectly decent man who strongly believes....

MARK SHIELDS: I'll be happy to take on John O'Neill.... Where was John O'Neill --

WILLIAM KRISTOL: The Kerry campaign won't, though. If you asked the Kerry campaign to put someone up, another Vietnam vet to go up against John O'Neill, they won't put him up.

MARK SHIELDS: John Kerry has said to George Bush, you want to make Vietnam this... let's debate it.

WILLIAM KRISTOL: John Kerry's problem is not with George Bush. John Kerry's problem is with his fellow Vietnam vets.

This is the curse of subsitituting evenhandedness for objectivity.

In the realm of objectivity, truth is determined by many factors: official records, scientific method, historical research, objective facts, evaluation of sources,etc. In many ways, truth is persistent phenomena, leaving it's deep impressions across the landscape like fossils.

Unfortunately, the pursuit of truth in the realm of objectivity is hard. It requires research. It requires methodology. Ir requires discipline, resources, and time.

And these are things our modern media doesn't have.

So we substitute objectivity for evenhandedness. And in doing so, we regress 3000 years to the agora of Athens. Truth is no longer something supported by facts. Rather, truth is discovered by dialogue, argument, and rhetoric. In the realm of evenhandedness, we no longer have to strive with such difficult things as public records, or political agenda.

The pursuit of truth becomes easier. All we need is two contrary opinions. Then the viewer can make their choice. We no longer have to consider the public record that's stood for 30 years on John Kerry's medals. We no longer have to weigh the processing for awarding medals, the testimony of crewman, the institutional memory and pride of the Navy, the bueracracy of any large organizations, the ties of the Swift Boat Veterans with partisan groups, the inconsistencies of statements, etc. etc. That's too hard. And we may find after all this hard work, we don't even have much of a story.

No, if we want to know the truth, Kristol suggests, all we need to do is let these Swift Boat Veternas debate with Kerry. Why work so hard with all this research? Let's just have them on Larry King, mano a mano, and in 40 minutes, the viewers can decide for themselves.

Plus it makes such great TV.

Market Manipulaiton?

2004-08-13T14:44:00.000-07:00

Salon magazine reports on the Kerry contract's lack of movement after the Democratic convention today.

But traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets -- a real-money futures-trading system celebrated for its accuracy in predicting presidential election winners -- aren't buying it. Or, more specifically, traders aren't buying shares of John Kerry futures, and are instead favoring shares that will yield a payoff if George Bush wins the race in November. After reaching a peak of about 51 cents a couple of days before Kerry's speech, the price of Kerry futures on the market has steadily fallen in the past couple of weeks -- sinking to as low as 47 cents on Aug. 4, and coming to rest at their current price of about 49 cents. Bush, meanwhile, soared after Kerry's speech. The president's shares reached almost 53 cents on Aug. 3, and are now just above 50 cents. (Kerry's share price was rising on Friday morning, and he could conceivably catch up to Bush over the weekend.)

What accounts for the disparity between the polls and the IEM? Are the polls wrong, or is the IEM off?

One idea that hasn't been put out there is the case for market manipulation. This type of article (which every electioneering cycle sees a few of) is pure gold for a canidicy like Bush's. "Everything looks bad for Candidate A, but the IEM shows it to be great!"

This brings to mind the question, how hard would it be to manipulate the IEM market? Sure you might lose your money in the short term, but if you can get some of these articles for your candidate (especially as the horse race tightens), it might be worth your $500.

Currently there's approximately $40,000 in the market. How much would you need to make it look like market forces approve your candidate?

I'm not an expert here, but I am curious. If I come across any info, I'll let you know.

The Rise of Pre-emption

2004-07-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

"Pre-emption is dead," cries convetional wisdom. "The one good thing that's come out of the failures of intelligence, planning, and nation building in Iraq is our leadership will no longer look to lone adventurism to futher the cause of democracy."

If only this were so. Unfortunately, the seeds of the Bush doctrine are already taking root in the minds of Americans, and, paradoxically, the arguments against the Iraq fiasco provide some of the most potent sustenance for this new doctrine.

The left has provided two main critiques of Bush's Iraq strategy: incompetence and deception.

The Incompetence Maneuver stresses that the Bush administration did not spend enough time planning the post-war occupation and did not have the intelligence infrastructure necessary to accurately assess the threat from Iraq.

While the Deception Offensive claims that the Bush administration willfully mislead the American people by pressuring our intelligence agencies to modify intelligence, and that the Bush administration hid its true agenda for invading Iraq under dubious claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Unfortunately, neither of these two arguments put a stake in the heart of the so-called Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption. In fact, these arguments provide cover for some future neo-conservative administration to resurrect pre-emption, with the “We’ve Got It Right This Time” gambit.

Since the two main critiques are Critiques of Execution, rather than Critiques on Moral Grounds, or Critiques of Impossibility, future administrations (or even this administration) can claim to have learned the lessons of Iraq, point to supposed improvements in intelligence or better planning, and before we know it, we are off again on another wild ride. This time, it could be Iran or Syria, or North Korea.

Those against the Bush Doctrine need to attack it from moral grounds and from the grounds of impossibility. Moral grounds would include that pre-emption is against our character as Americans, that we cannot justify militaristic empire and all the restrictions to liberty that implies for security. As Ben Franklin was reported to have said, “He who sacrifices liberty for security shall have neither liberty nor security.”

Similarly, we need to begin to make arguments on whether pre-emptive nation building is even possible. With the rise in efficacy of asymmetric warfare, can any nation, no matter how powerful, occupy another country and enforce a new friendly regime. My own personal guess is that it might be possible, but that asymmetric warfare makes the risks of an unfriendly unstable regime are so great and the potential of a friendly, stable regime so small that this particular strategy is never a good one.

We who have opposed this war need to begin to elevate our arguments away from refuting the Bush Doctrine in execution and towards the refutation of the Bush Doctrine in principle.

IEM NEWS FLASH: Market sees increase likelihood of Republican gains in House

2004-07-14T17:46:00.000-07:00

**** FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH *******

The RH.gain contract has seen a 1 day increase of $0.058, an 18% gain over yestday's closing price of $0.32. KTS is currently investigating possible news that might contribute to the large 1 day gain.

**** FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH FLASH *******

IEM Market Update

2004-07-13T19:52:00.000-07:00

The Kilroy Trading Service Weekly Market Update on the Iowa Electronic Market

Amount invested: $500
Current portfolio: $484
Percentage gain/loss: -3.2%

Current values at last trade.

Presidential Winner Take All Market (PWTA)

Bush - $0.51 (KTS Shares: 0)
Kerry - $0.485 (KTS Shares: 137)

We here at the Kilroy Trading Service (KTS) believe that Kerry is undervalued at this point and our analysts mark Kerry as a BUY rating. Kerry is polling very well in both battleground and the so-called "blue" states. Democrats are supporting Kerry in higher percentages than Republican's are supporting Bush.

For similar reasons, we mark Bush as a HOLD. While Bush might be slightly overvalued at this time, history has supported incumbants, and, with the string of bad news, any positive news at all is likely to help the Bush effots.

Overall, the market has traded the Bush-Kerry bundle at 0.995 cents. There are 13,704 shares outstanding of Bush and Kerry.

Presidenital Vote Share Market (VS)

Bush - $0.511 (KTS Shares: 0)
Kerry - $0.482 (KTS Shares: 110)

KTS has Bush as a SELL at this point in time. In the last election, Bush won 47.87% of the vote. With Bush polling worse among rural voters, and with a good chance of a lower Republican turnout, Bush is valued too highly.

KTS has Kerry as a HOLD at this price. As long as Nader is in the mix, it is difficult to see how Kerry can beat Gore's 48.38% in 2000. However, if Nader continues to have trouble getting on the ballot, we may raise our guidance on Kerry to a BUY.

Overall, the market has the Kerry-Bush bundle trading at $0.993. There are 11,376 shares outstanding in the VTS market.

Senate Control Market

Republican > 51 seats (RS.gain): $0.389 (KTS Shares: 33)
Republican = 51 seats (RS.hold): $0.180 (KTS Shares: 66)
Republican < 51 seats (RS.lose): $0.420 (KTS Shares: 127)

KTS has RS.gain as a SELL. With our analysts' views on the presidential election, we foresee a negative coattail effect on the Senate as a whole.

KTS has RS.hold as a HOLD. Currently, we believe that this contract is fairly valued.

KTS has RS.lose as a BUY. If the Kerry-Edwards ticket remains strong and the Democratic base more energized, we foresee a greater chance of a Senate pickup here.

Also note, since Senate races are all statewide races, we forsee Senate races to be more competitive than House races. With most House districts gerrymandered in favor of the incumbant, House races will be harder to contest.

Overall, the market has the entire Senate bundle trading at 0.989. There are currently 771 bundles outstanding in the market.

House Control Market

Republican > 228 seats (RH.gain): $0.32 (KTS Shares: 1)
228 > Republican seats >217 (RH.hold) : $0.498 (KTS Shares: 110)
Republican < 217 (RH.lose): $0.175 (KTS Shares 135)

Our analysts are currently revising the opinions on the House Control market. We need to take into account the effect of the Texas redistricting in the current House race. We anticipate to have beter analysis on next week's report.

Overall, the market is trading the entire House bundle at $0.993. There are currently 524 bundles outstanding in this market.

Congress Control Market

Republican House - Republican Senate (RH_RS): $0.515 (KTS Shares: 0)
Republican House - Democratic Senate (RH_NS): $0.327 (KTS Shares: 100)
Democratic House - Republican Senate (NH_RS): $0.055 (KTS Shares: 125)
Democratic House - Democratic Senate (NH_NS): $0.111 (KTS Shares: 50)

The RH_RS is currently rated as a SELL by our analysts. In analyzing the underlying Senate and House Control markets, we believe that this contract is severely overvalued. Our current target on this contract is $0.465 a share.

The RH_NS contract is currently rated as HOLD. We feel that this contract is slightly undervalued, but, due to the thinly traded nature of the contract, we cannot give this a BUY rating.

The NH_RS contract is currently rated as a BUY. Again, we believe that the market as a whole has failed to see the relationship between the underlying House and Sentate markets and as a result has undervalued this contract severely. In our minds, with RS.gain and the RS.hold contracts in the Senate control market currently trading at a combined $0.569, we do not see how the NH_RS contract can be priced LOWER than the NH_NS market. Our current forecast for this contract is at $0.10 per share.

The NH_NS market in contrast is rated as a SELL. We believe that the current underlying markets do not justify this lofty rating. Our forecasted price at this time is $0.074.

Overall the market is trading the entire Congress bundle at $1.008. There are currently 786 bundles outstanding in this market.

These opinions are for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as advice for how to invest your money.

Entering the Market

2004-07-02T20:39:00.000-07:00

I've just sent in my application to the Iowa Electronic Market. Time to put my money where my mouth is on the presidential election and the congressional election. I'll try and keep my current market positions updated here.

Also, I challenge anyone else out there who reads this blog to enter this market. Let's see how well that high-faluting political analysis works in the REAL world!

The Vote Market

2004-06-15T21:33:00.000-07:00

Peter Levine explores the ideas of pragmatic libertarianism:

1. I’m open to pragmatic but not philosophical libertarianism: If you come at me with a coherent and radical version of libertarianism, I will resist it. In contrast to libertarians, I believe that human beings may make claims on others for economic support; that some of these claims are morally obligatory; and that governments may enforce such claims through taxing and spending. I don’t see a tax as an immoral “taking” of sacrosanct private property. This is only one place where I part company with abstract libertarian theory.

However, libertarians have also developed a whole set of pragmatic arguments to accompany their core philosophical beliefs. They say that governments tend to fail at their own explicit purposes, are often captured by special interests, and promote upward economic redistribution; and that markets work better. Libertarians often assert that these arguments must apply in all (or almost all) circumstances. They rely on fundamental theoretical reasons that derive from economics, not philosophy—for example, the idea that markets efficiently deliver what everyone demands. I think, in partial contrast, that market solutions often work in particular domains and are worth testing. In practice, this means that I am open to, and interested in, libertarian arguments that take the form, “A market will solve problem x” (where x is something like poverty, crime, or environmental degradation). Pure philosophical libertarianism, however, says, “We shouldn’t structure the ground rules of society in order to solve problems of this type; we should simply respect private individual liberty.” I disagree with this formulation, but that doesn’t prevent me from learning practical lessons from libertarianism

One way I think that 'pragmatic libertarianism' can acutallyoccur in our society is to have two different markets provide checks and balances to each other: the market of dollars vs. the market of votes.

The market of dollars can be more efficient, but can suffer from abuse and resentment.

The market of votes, in the form of representative democracy, can use a market-based system to check these abuses.

At some point, the market of dollars ceases to exchange goods and services and starts to exchange power-especially when wealth inequality grows past a certain point. At this point, the dollar market may actually limit liberty.

The market of votes can allow us to check these abuses and to force the market out of stable strategies that have unacceptable consequences.

Left Behind and Intelligent Design

2004-06-14T18:38:00.000-07:00

Kevin Drum posts about the Left Behind series and its reflection on the urban/rural divde. I can only relate too well.

Whenever I (a left-coast liberal atheist) vist my minister father, born-again step-mother, and religious school attending half-brother in Indiana, I'm often surprised at the differences.

Not only does my half-brother have a bookshelf devoted to Left Behind and Left Behind Jr books, my step-mother is constantly raving on me about Intelligent Design and how evolution is the work of the devil.

"Why do all you evolutionists want to disprove the existence of God?" she cries.

Where'd she get that crazy notion?

What the *&%^ is the matter with Kansas?

2004-06-14T18:16:00.000-07:00

I heard an interesting interview on Terry Gross last Thursday with Thomas Frank on his book What's the Matter with Kansas?

One of the interesting points Frank made on the show was the inherent contradictions inside of the Republican party.

For one, the social conservatives in the Republican party rage against the downfall of the American culture, with all those movies, music, magazines, etc. But the big business conservatives in the Republican party are doing everything they can to enable big business to continue to sell the very things the social conservatives rage against.

Another point he made was how the term liberal has devolved into a kind of curse word. A funny story he told: He's jaywalking across a street to get to a store. A car drives buy, honks, and the driver leans out the window and yells, "Get out of the street, you damn liberal!"

How did we get to this point?

The Republican party is large and contains multitudes.

There's equal and then there's equal

2004-06-13T19:36:00.000-07:00

Over in the trenches of the comments at Matt Yglesias and Political Animal, the different camps of the tax war fight over the field of Equality.

I can think of at least three ways to have a tax code applied equally.

1. Everyone pays the exact same amount. If the government needs $3 trillion to operate this year and their are 300 million folks in America, each person pays $10,000 dollars no matter what. It's certainly equal. Not sure about fair.

2. Everyone pays the exact same percentage. If the government needs $3 trillion to operate this year, and we need 25% of everyone's income to pay for it, then everyone pays 25%. Again, it's equal in a way, but I'm sure if you have to pay $5000 out of your $20,000 income, you're going to have to start choosing between lunch and dinner.

3. Everyone taxes have equal effect on their income. This is where progressive tax rates come in. Now, of course, taxing people so that it has an equal effect is a much harder puzzle to solve, but also, the most just. And should we choose simplicity over justice just for the convenience of it? Or should we wrestle with our tax system until we can squeeze every last ounce of justice out of it?

I think we should gear up and grapple.

Her Duchess, Paris of Hilton

2004-06-12T17:01:00.000-07:00

Over at Matthew Yglesias's website, Matt bangs his head against the estate tax.

I'll dent my noggin as well and add these two points to the debate.

Point Numero Uno: Given that the government must be funded through some sort of taxes, wealthy people should favor estate taxes over all other types. Why? Simply because they don't suffer the consequences of those taxes.

In other words, you're rich. You need to shoulder some burden of the guvmint. When do you want that money taken away from you? While you're still alive and could use it on fuel for your Gulfwing or that Picasso that's so necessary to complete your bedroom design? Or after you've passed unto the great beyond and have no need for it?

I vote for option 2.

(If you're trying to argue that the wealthy shouldn't be taxed in either case, go away! You're not honestly facing the fact that some level of government must be funded.)

2. Estate taxes have a social purpose. The last thing we need in this country is a de facto aristocracy. Especially a de facto aristocracy of Paris Hiltons!

All you in favor of estate taxes, go check out William Gates, Sr. view on www.responsiblewealth.org

Kilroy

Let Them Believe in Santa Claus....

2004-06-11T17:35:00.000-07:00

In Reason, today, Cathy Young comments on the pursuit of secularists to modify the seal of the Los Angeles.

My post is a great example of blogging on two hands.

One the one hand, I agree with Cathy completely. We secularists and atheists should not "moon the giant" with these small, largely ineffective pursuits at secularist purity. Like it or not, we're the minority in this country, and we should pick our battles wisely.

On the other hand, I don't think that this article should take away that fact that religious extremists are constantly and consistently pushing their agenda of turning our nation into a Christian nation through the implicit force inherent in the our federal and state laws. We should never forget that this tendency of a radical minority poses a much much greater threat to our democracy and freedom than the small minded attempts of a few to over-vigilant in the separation of church and state.

The Markets,Governments, and Local Optima

2004-06-09T08:13:00.000-07:00

One problem with natural selection is local optima. That is, nautural selection is all about small improvements, and one can think about small improvements as a rule where the next step must always be better than the previous one. Unfortunately, if one starts out climbing a small hill, one can never go down into the valley to get to the large mountain.

The markets have similar problems, without a large inflow of capital, a market-driven entity cannot easily move from more profitable processes and products to less profitable ones without being hurt by more short-termed minded competition.

This could be where the role of government helps out. Many programs that the government has started has avoided this type of problem, such as the GI Bill, etc. Government should provide some resources to help us escape from local optima.

Sometimes We Need a Nanny

2004-05-31T14:50:00.000-07:00

In Reason, Ted Balakker argues against seatbelt laws. Ted feels that the enforcement of seat-belt laws not only sacrifice our liberty to a paternalistic state, but distract law enforcement officers from doing the real work.

Unfortuantely for Ted's argument, there's one critical aspect to seat belt laws that undermine his whole theory: they work.

Ted mistakenly states

The good news is that most of us do buckle up. About 80 percent of Americans use seatbelts, a decision probably based less on government nagging than on a simple understanding of the safety benefits. After all, the word is out...

But if you follow Malcolm Gladwell's articles in the New Yorker (as I do), you may remember this article on this very subject. Gladwell finds

In the early nineteen-seventies, just at the moment when Haddon and Claybrook were pushing hardest for air bags, the Australian state of Victoria passed the world's first mandatory seat-belt legislation, and the law was an immediate success. With an aggressive public-education campaign, rates of seat-belt use jumped from twenty to eighty per cent. During the next several years, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France, and others followed suit.
...
Even as late as 1984, Claybrook was still insisting that trying to encourage seat-belt use was a fool's errand. "It is not likely that mandatory seat belt usage laws will be either enacted or found acceptable to the public in large numbers," Claybrook wrote. "There is massive public resistance to adult safety belt usage." In the very year her words were published, however, a coalition of medical groups finally managed to pass the country's first mandatory seat-belt law, in New York, and the results were dramatic. One state after another soon did likewise, and public opinion about belts underwent what the pollster Gary Lawrence has called "one of the most phenomenal shifts in attitudes ever measured." Americans, it turned out, did not have a cultural aversion to seat belts. They just needed some encouragement. "It's not a big Freudian thing whether you buckle up or not," says B. J. Campbell, a former safety researcher at the University of North Carolina, who was one of the veterans of the seat-belt movement. "It's just a habit, and either you're in the habit of doing it or you're not."

Today, belt-wearing rates in the United States are just over seventy per cent, and every year they inch up a little more.

It's not invasion of our freedom, it's just a habit. And sometimes we need a little encourgaement.

Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

2004-05-31T14:41:00.000-07:00

Kenny and Bob at The Cardinal Collective are having an interesting discussion on Deontology vs. Utilitarianism. (See the following posts

here,
here,
here,
here, and
here.)

Here's some thoughts I had about the problems inherent in deontology that I originally posted in a comment there.

The deontological quest is to identify some essential absolutist moral princple or principles and to build up from there. Personally, I'm very skeptical of any sort of absolutist moral principle, for three important reasons.

Incompleteness -- Much like Goedel in mathematics, I think that any moral system complicated enough to handle most moral situations will be incomplete. There will be at least one, if not more, important moral issues that the system cannot address adequately.
Interpretation -- Since any moral system grounded in Reason sophisticated enough to handle most moral situations will be complex, it's hard to imagine individuals being able to interpret this system the same. Looking at Kant's project, you can understand why this is so. I mean, most people (me, included) have a difficult time understand the basics of Kant (Synthetic a priori judgements anyone?) let alone the details.

Since people will interpret this system differently, in result, you will have multiple systems where the project is trying to find only one. Since moral systems do not have a self-correcting mechanism (a la Science), you end up with multiple incompatible viewpoints.
Human Nature and absolutism -- Human beings have a very bad record of using absolute moral systems to oppress and destroy fellow human beings. Whether the authority behind the system is God, or the State, or Reason, before you know it, some yahoo will use it to create a Them that must be Destroyed.

Utilitarianism, while certainly more fuzzy, does have the benefit of being a lot more flexible and a lot less subject to the Genocide Mental Virus.

Personally, I am coming to the conlusion that the ethical project as a whole suffers from the Grand Illusion of High Expectations. I am beginning to focus my life on a more humble enterprise.

Humans are, at our heart, social animals. Many of our social instincts are genetically bred from tens of thousands of years on the Savannah.

Societies are beneficial in that together human beings can forge against nature where separately we would fail. Agriculture, medicine, and engineering allow us to live much better than those who do not have them.

Social instincts that contribute to more efficient societies (call these Virtures) such as reciprocation, honesty, friendship, etc are to be encouraged. Those social instincts that undermine more efficient societies (call these Vices) such as rape, blood feud, selfishness, should be discouraged.

The goal of the criminal system is merely to encourge Virtue while discouraging Vice. Unfortunately, (or fortunately), this criminal system has to work inside of a complex, many times irrational, psychology of the human mind. What this means is that the most direct method (such as centrally ordered dicates) may often times be much more inefficient than less direct methods.

This doesn't necessarily have to be a utilitarian argument where all we need to do is decide which action has a greater benefit for the greater number. Rather, this has to do with which system of individual virtures can potentially create a society of human individuals where the greater number has the greater benefit.

We then can judge the system by its effects over time. And, to my mind, most importantly, have a self-correcting feature. If a system of vitures does not provide the desired benefit, we should hypothesize a new system.

So what's the point here?

Well, I would argue that deontology appeals to us in criminal justice because of an absolutist desire we have instinctually. Unfortunately, this absolutist desire does not provide the best criminal justice system, in the sense, that it leads to unfair application and does not decrease bad social instincts as much as it could.

One, it tends to play to other bad absolutist tendencies. For example, it's been well documented that minority races commiting similar crimes get harsher punishments. I could argue that this was a result of Absolutism coupled with Otherness. (THEY just don't have the moral sense that we good folk have.)

Two, it tends to be ineffective. Many studies have shown that incarceration INCREASES the likelihood of a person committing crimes in the future.

Unfortunately, this absolutist desire is with us to stay. It's in the DNA. So are challenge is to come up with a criminal justice system that can in some sense appease the absolutist desire while still being more effective in fostering a better society. A very tough nut to crack.

Comments?

2004-05-09T17:51:00.000-07:00

Blogger now has comments. Let's see how it works!

Retribrution Desire

2004-05-08T08:12:00.000-07:00

Kenny in the Cardinal Collective wrote a post on the philosophy of punishment that inspired the following thoughts.

I've recently read a book called "The Science of Good and Evil" which tries to ground morals and ethics in evolutionary psychology.

One of the theses of this book is that feelings such as righteousness and guilt are a 'moral sense' that is developed by the evolution of social species. In much the same way as feeling hungry or horny is the product of evolutionary pressures.

Under this framework, the desire for 'retribrution' and 'revenge' would also be developed through evolutionary pressues. That is, those pre-historic humans who had a well-developed sense of 'retribrution' formed more orderly and effective groups (and probably were more effective at wiping out human groups with less developed feelings of 'retribution').

If 'retribrution desire' is an inherent part of our biology, then we will never be able to convince people to abandon it. So the question is, how can we harness it or thwart it to create a better society?

For example, religion, 'magic', and blood money have been used to sublimate 'retribrution desire.' "No need to kill off all those McCoys. There all going to hell anyway." or "Heck, Granny Hatfield is going to put a curse on all those McCoys." or "The McCoys owe our clan 14 cows for the death of Jethro."

Criminal laws and prisons are another attempt to avoid vigilantism and blood feuds.

Since the biggest obstacle to using prisons as 'rehabilitation centers' is 'retribrution desire', and since that desire won't go away, how can we sublimate it and still achieve rehabilitation?

Blood money might be a good way. Send the offenders to a rehabilitation center for job training, etc. After 1-5 years in the rehabilitation center, 30% of all their pay goes to the families for a period of X years of employment.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Cognititve Dissonance and Polls

2004-05-01T09:24:00.000-07:00

Dave in The Cardinal Collective quotes a NY Times/CBS News poll statistic:

While 55 percent of Bush's supporters said they strongly favor the president, only 32 percent of Kerry's supporters strongly favor their candidate.

Now Dave posits that the difference in support between Bush and Kerry's numbers is caused by the difference in Bush and Kerry's ability to rally their base. Let me give you a different possibility.

In the 1950's Leon Festinger, a social psychologist, developed the theory of cognitive dissonance. Contrary to what common sense might have us believe, human beings don't abandon or weaken strongly held beliefs in the face of contrary objective evidence. Rather, when the beliefs are central to their identity, contrary objective evidence tends to strengthen those beliefs.

For example, when a central cult prophecy fails, rather than weakening the belief of the cult members, this failure results in a strengthening of belief and the rightness of their action.

Here's a quote from Festinger's famous article:

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. "

I would argue that this statistic show a similar event is happening right now with many conservatives and their attitudes toward Bush. When diehard conservatives are faced with so much evidence that the leader of his party is first, abandoning is small government views, and second, incompetently handling his leadership role, what are their options? To vote Democratic is so antithetical to thier sense of identity, that their only recourse is to redouble thier belief and provide ad-hoc hypothesis for this dissonance.

Kilroy

Chance and the Markets

2004-04-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

One other role of government would be to try and mitigate as much as possible (without destroying the free market) the role of chance in the market. Oftentimes competitors lose in the market not due to their own inefficiencies but due to chance in the market place. As Keynes noted, "The markets can be irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

One notion of the government would be to mitigate the effects of chance. This would include a large estate tax for the wealthies people (winning the sperm lottery) and providing some sort of temporary living assistance to people training for new jobs. This could help alleviate the burdens suffered by those whose jobs our outsourced.

Just some quick notes for myself.

Another Take on the Commanding Heights and the Liberal Vision

2004-04-18T10:42:00.000-07:00

(The following was posted in response to Matt Yglesias's post on Tactics vs. Strategy)

Last week, I've just watched "The Commanding Heights", a documentary about the history of 21st century globalization, cast against the background of the economic arguments between central planning / regulatory pressures (Keynesian) and free markets
Hayek's theories).

One of the things I noticed is that, during the 90s, free market strategies won out. The Democratic Leadership (i.e. Clinton, Rubin, etc.) has given up on massive Keynesian programs to more free market based programs.

Even the so-called liberal Kerry campaign is consistently invoking the power of the markets. If you look at Kerry's performance on MTP this morning and if you look at many of Kerry's policies, you'll see him refering to using the power of the marketplace to make programs more efficient. (For example, the removal of incentives to move corporations overseas, see Tim Noah's take at Slate.)

In the last 30 years, Republicans have been trying to sell the Hayek based free market system under the slogan "Smaller Government. Lower Taxes."

(Unfortunately, I think many conservatives have bought into the slogan and forgotten the underlying goal. That is, free markets, amabandon wage and price controls, de-regulate government sponsored industries, such as communication, energy, coal mining in the UK, baseball, etc.)

Now that the conservatives have won this ideological contest and the Democrats have adopted the power of the free markets, both parties find themselves in deep water.

First, the Democrats are trying to enact a new vision of government that embraces more Hayek-like views of the economy while simultaneously educating their base that the downsides of free markets are far better than the downsides of central planning.

Second, the Republicans are continuing to "fight the last war" and pound lowering taxes and de-regulation. They haven't yet realized that they've won that battle, and need to come up with a new plan for government in the light of both parties adopting free market strategies.

My thoughts are that the new role of government in a society that, for the most part, universally accepts the free market strategy is the following:

1. Ensure that the markets remain efficient by eliminating corruption, streamlining tax codes, and enforcing transparency of information.

2. Prepare the citizenry for competition in the markets through effective education and efficient healthcare.

3. Protect the markets by implementing foreign policies that preserve free trade and prevent miltary and terrorist tactics from intefering with the liberty of the markets.

Given this view of the role of government, we could then discuss the best strategies for achieving it.

A New Liberal Vision?

2004-04-17T14:11:00.000-07:00

(The following was posted in response to Mark Schmitt's Ideas in Liberal Politics and Peter Levine's
What's Wrong with the Left posts. )

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I just watched the DVD of "The Commanding Heights", a 6-hour PBS supplement to the book by the same name.

The basic outline of this piece was to contrast central planning government, from the Marxist-Leninism of the Soviet Union to the Keynesian socialim of pre-Thatcher Britain, with the free market ideas proposed by Hayek. The piece then looked at the growth and problems of globalism from the Keynes vs. Hayek lens.

Ultimately, of course, the anti-regulation, pro-free market Hayek theory tends to come off a lot better than the Keynesian central planning socialism.

For the purposes of this discussion though, one can categorize the American political struggle as the Keynesian liberal vs the Hayek conservatives. And for most of the 20th century, this might have been a good categorization.

But with Clinton in the 90's, it seems as if the Democrats through in the towel on this issue. Many Democrats hated themselves for doing it, but they ultimately determined that the downsides of markets were on balance better than the downsides of central planning for the most part. In other words, on one of the most major differences between the two parties, the Democrats blinked and agreed with the Republicans.

Looking at things this way, one can see why the Republican conservatives tend to have a more centralized, coherent vision than Democrats. Republicans are working from a playbook that's existed for 30-40 yrs or more. Large blocks of the Democratic party think it was a mistake to throw in the towel and want to return to pre-Clinton Democratic economic parties.

OK, so let's assume that this is an accurate (if highly over-simplified) way of looking at the source of the 'vision problem' of the liberal movement. What should a new liberal strategy look like?

Well, at its core, a political vision comes back to the role of government. Republicans and conservatives have a very clear view on the roles of government. Democrats don't. What would a good liberal view of government might look like?

Well, here's one idea. Given that liberals and conservatives now agree (for the most part) that markets are the best way to allocate resources. A liberal vision on the role of government could have the following points.

Markets, when operating correctly, are the best way to allocate resources among the citizenry. (Insure the blessing of liberty.)

Prevent the corruption of the markets. (Establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility) Free markets are very efficient as long as the playing field remains level. However, one problem with markets is that the 'winners' often want to retain the rewards of their winning without competing. This is anti-thetical to free markets. The Government needs to be the referee here and make sure that the winners only continue to win if their products, policies, etc. is better.

More importantly, the Government must prevent winners from using anti-market practices (collusion, bribery, secrecy, lying, etc.) from corrupting the market.

Prepare the citizens for competition in the global market and have the institutions in place to keep them competitive in the global market. (Promote the General Welfare) Our country can only continue to be competitive with other countries if we continue to have a well-educated, flexible, hard-working, innovative, and creative workforce. In fact, over the last 80 years, the countries with the most influence in the world have been those that dedicate the largest resources to their military. In the global marketplace of the future, the countries with the most influence may be those that dedicate the largest resources to the education of the citizenry. Furthermore, countries must find ways to keep their citizens healthy and working.

Build a foreign policy which allows us to compete equally with other countries in the world, and to move competition for international influence from the military realm to the economic realm as much as possible. (Provide for the Common Defense.)

This vision would tend to develop policies that would obviously be more liberal than our conservatives. Furthermore, it provides a better choice than the conservative 'small government' movement in a pro-market framerwork.

Well, these are just some initial thoughts and ramblings that haven't been well thought out.

Why Pundits Are Tsongas Democrats

2004-01-14T19:58:00.000-08:00

In Slate, William Saletan gives his anti-endorsement of Howard Dean.

Is Howard Dean electable? Should you vote for him? My answers, after watching him for a year, are: 1) theoretically, yes; and 2) tentatively, no.

I'm not one of those pundits who thinks Dean is too liberal or too Yankee, that he's another George McGovern or Michael Dukakis. The reason pundits analyze elections in such simple terms is that we can't handle the complexity of real life. To us, liberalism is a set of policies. To most voters, it's an attitude. Liberals are condescending. Liberals are naive. Liberals have no moral anchor. Liberals are weak in the face of evil.

In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton was reportedly saddened by the fact that the pundits and the college-educated seemed to be more supportive of Paul Tsongas, the sour-faced, dour, Massachusetts Senator.

Which leads us to the question, why do pundits support the underdog (or attack the frontrunner)?

I think the answer has to do more with the nature of punditry than with the elecatability of candidates. Pundits make their living not by stating the obvious, but by trying to come up with interesting and novel interpretations on current events.

As a result, pundits have a 'genetic' disposition to oppose the frontrunner. "Yes," Mr. Pundit may say, "the hoi polloi seem to think Joe Frontrunner is a great candidate, but take a look at his annoying habit A, or his surprisign past event B, or strange inconsistency C. Isn't in novel and interesting that the perceived frontrunner is the least electable."

For a pundit to say that the Joe Frontrunner deserved to be the frontrunner wouldn't be novel or interesting. It would be common and unintersting. And, let's not forget, career limiting. A pundit that uses Occam's Razor slits his own throat.

So, to me, it's no surprise that pundits, such as Saletan, would voice opposition to Dean in favor of Edwards (or Clinton in favor of Tsongas or GWB in favor of McCain). They have to for the sake of their jobs.

Unfortunately, the pundit conventional wisdom of defying conventional wisdom has the Godfather effect on the front runner. Everytime Joe Frontrunner tries to break out, the pudnits keep pulling him back in.

Free Speech

2003-12-31T17:13:00.000-08:00

Tim Bueler starts a Conservative Club, and is "hounded for his views."

How does this hounding take place? Is he prevented from telling others about his viewpoints? Have school officials tried to keep the club from forming? Let's take a look at the tape:

Watenpaugh said the district fully supports students' right to form a group like the Conservative Club as long as it follows guidelines set forth by the student body. He said the club meets those guidelines by meeting during times when classes aren't being held and having a faculty adviser.

English teacher Bernadette Tucker, club adviser, said she became involved because she believes students should exercise their First Amendment rights.

``Just because something is not popular it doesn't mean you can't say it,'' Tucker said.

However, the Times makes it sound as if the school is unsupportive of the Conservative Club.

In a telephone interview, Tim said he's been threatened at least three times by Hispanic students who call him "white boy" and "racist." One boy said he was going to "find someone" to beat up Tim.

In two of those instances, Tim said two faculty members stood by and did nothing to help him. Most recently, Tim said, he was confronted by a dozen Hispanic boys, who blocked him from walking down the hallway.

"They said, 'You're a racist,' and I said, 'Are you guys going to let me through?' " Tim said. "So I ducked into a classroom and told the teacher what was happening, and said, 'Can you help me?' And she said, 'No. Get out of here.' "

Earlier, he said he was eating lunch in a classroom when about seven Hispanic students surrounded him. Worried for Tim's safety, his father, Dennis Bueler, said he asked for help from a teacher who was also in the room.

"The teacher told him, 'When you say things like that, you've got to expect that things like this are going to happen. Why don't you go out the back door?' " Mr. Bueler said in recounting the incident.

This hounding takes the form mostly of verbal taunts, and the blunt threats common to high schools. The thing that is interesting to me is how victimized Tim feels. Obviously, his rights are being violated. How? By other people exercising there rights.

We do not prevent people from exercising their free speech rights by calling them rude when they say something we find offensive, or by criticising the policies we don't agree with. In fact, that's the nature of free speech.

Tim, you're not being oppressed. When you say things like, ``We obviously believe the liberals are trying to destroy everything in America that our forefathers fought and died for," you're just being rude.

The President's Latest

2003-12-31T12:59:00.000-08:00

In the 2000 campaign, I sent a contribution to John McCain. (Even then, I didn't care for GWB.) As a result, I'm now on the Republican fund raising mailing list. I thought it would be interesting to post these letters, and maybe make a few comments. Here's the latest that I received on 12/31.

The pace of the Presidential campaign is picking up and we will soon know who the Democrat nominee will be. Whoever wins the nomination will have done so by energizing their party's left wing with angry attacks.

It looks like that the GWB campaign has already identified Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee.

A strong foundation has been laid for victory in 2004, but I need your help to win what could be a close election.

Would you send my campaign a special contribution of $100 or $50 today at http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Grassroots? And will you help identify and get out the vote? As we saw so clearly in 2000, every vote matters. The strength of our grassroots team -- friends like you who make the phone calls, mail the brochures, put up signs, and knock on doors -- will make the winning difference.

Elections involve much more than ads and rallies. To win, we need people talking with their relatives and friends at work, at the coffee shop or over the back yard fence about the tremendous issues at stake. That's why I need your help.

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Grassroots

I have set big goals for our country. My Administration is making America safer, more prosperous, and better. We are meeting the challenges of our time.

This is an interesting use of the comparative. Notice that it's not, "My Administration is making America safe and prosperous." The question about comparatives is what are we comparing it to. Safer than America in 1863? More properous than American in 1931?

Our armed forces, joined by our allies, are on the offensive against terrorist enemies around the world. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and we are hunting down al Qaeda leaders and al Qaeda terrorist cells and bringing them to justice. Fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated from tyranny and our homeland has been made more secure.

So people could find work, I proposed an economic stimulus package. Our tax cuts returned money to the people who earned it. They have put it to work in our economy, which is growing again and beginning to generate new jobs, but we won't rest until everybody who wants to work can find a stable, productive job.

If you can't find a job, it must be because you don't want to work. And we all know how hard Paris Hilton worked to "earn" that money. I mean, have you seen The Simple Life? That's just plain hell!

The country is better off because we passed historic education reforms that will provide all our children a quality education, beginning with teaching every child to read. We took on a tough issue and fulfilled a promise to seniors by providing prescription drug coverage and more choices in a stronger Medicare system.

Notice that the program is the result. If someone points out in 3-5 years that children are getting the same or worse education, GWB can say, "But we put in the program." My guess is he'll throw in the tax language above. "Anyone who wants an education or prescription drugs can get one."

I have worked to remove obstacles to the full involvement of faith-based groups in confronting suffering in our communities and pressed for important new reforms in welfare.

Ah, the subtle use of codewords. All you Christians out there! The Democrats want to keep you from helping the poor! They keep putting these obstacles (like that silly separation of church and state) in the way.

Oh , and what reforms in welfare? Seriously, what's he talking about here?

The Democrats running for President have opposed many of these policies. That's their right in a free country like ours. And in this campaign, we will pit our optimistic, compassionate conservative philosophy which is making a positive difference in so many lives against their anger and attacks.

Anger watch again.

http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Grassroots

During the course of the campaign, I will lay out a positive and hopeful agenda to make our country stronger, safer, more prosperous and better for every single person fortunate enough to call themselves an American.

Or fortunate enough for me and my Republican thugs to call an American. You listenin', Soros!

I've got an important job to do that limits my time on the campaign trail. I take seriously my responsibilities as your President. I'm focused on the people's business, and there's a lot to do. The political season will come in its own time.

In other words, no debates for Bush.

And when it does, I will need your help. The other side says it will raise $500 million or more. To help overcome their intense opposition, will you send your contribution for either of the amounts I mentioned earlier or more if you can? Federal law limits donations to $2,000 a person or $4,000 a couple.

What other side?

You can call my campaign at 1-800-531-6789 or go to http://www.GeorgeWBush.com/Grassroots and make your gift using the campaign's secure Internet server. Whatever method you choose, please let me hear from you today. It would mean a lot to me to know I had your active support.

I am honored to serve as your President in these challenging times. The world has seen our country's resolve and courage. And I've been privileged to see the compassion and character of the American people.

All the tests of the last three years have come to the right nation. We're a strong country, and we use that strength to defend the peace and protect the weak. We're an optimistic country, confident in ourselves and in ideals bigger than ourselves.

Ah, now the optimisim/pessimism meme we've been hearing so much about.

Abroad, we seek to lift whole nations by spreading freedom. At home, we seek to lift up lives by spreading opportunity to every corner of America. This is the work history has set before us and we welcome it. And we know for our country, the best days lie ahead.

God, I hope the best days lie ahead. I'd hate to think it could get much worse.

Thank you for your friendship and may God continue to bless America.

A Little Tolerance Goes A Long Way

2003-12-30T18:38:00.000-08:00

In Reason, Cathy Young preaches moderation in the enforcement of separation of church and state.

In a society where the overwhelming majority of people follow one religion (albeit with many different denominations), there will, inevitably, be tensions between protecting the rights of the minority and respecting the rights of the majority. It is almost certainly concern for minority rights, not any animus toward Christianity per se, that accounts for the fact that in many instances, Christmas decorations are treated as suspect while Hanukkah or Kwanzaa ones are not. Yet to deny religious expression to the majority is not only unfair but counterproductive: Instead of promoting greater respect for religious minorities, such measures may generate a backlash.

I find this backlash evident in my own family. One vacation home, I was surprised to find out my father, who majored in zoology for a time, denied the validity of evolution. Incredulously, I asked my father and his new wife why. In the discussion, the backlash reared it's head. "Why do those evolutionists keep trying to prove that God doesn't exist?" my stepmother asked.

I was a little baffled at this. I don't think biologists have a stake on the whole existence of God game. Why would a 50 year old Indiana housewife feel that evolutionists were attacking Christianity.

Then it came to me. The Darwin fish. You've seen it. It's a satire of the Christian fish symbol with little legs and the word Darwin in it. When I first saw it, I thought it was clever and cute. A little harmless fun at the creationists expense.

But I think this little icon has done more to hurt the cause of teaching evolution than any other act. This icon sets up the false dichotomy: evolution vs. Christianity. We're right. You're wrong.

Perhaps a little more tolerance. A little thicker skin is called for. I'm all for separation of church and state. The state should not endorse any particular religion. But, speaking as an atheist, I'm beginning to wonder if all this thin skin at (let's face it) the practice of the majority of this country is doing us more harm than good. After all, tolerance is a two way street. If we atheists (and Jews and Muslims and Wiccans and other-non Christians) allow the majority of people to practice their religion in what are ultimately harmless ways (such as nativity scenes in public parks, Jesus fish, 'under God' in the pledge of allegience), maybe they'll be much less animosity when we need our own space to practice our own belief (or lack thereof).

Maybe we can have a President who doesn't have to talk about Jesus as his personal savior in order to be seen fit to lead this country.

14% Patriots

2003-12-30T18:25:00.000-08:00

William Jennings Bryan once said, "Of all the mean men I have ever known, I have never known one so mean that I would be willing to say of him that his patriotism was less than 2% deep."

Well, maybe 2 percent, but as the LA Times reports, for some, patriotism may top out at 14%.

The two areas of special interest are perks such as private planes, housing and deferred compensation plans, and stock option arrangements that may allow for the underpayment of taxes on the gains.

The biggest ticket item is likely to be stock options that were put into trusts and family limited partnerships, allowing executives to transfer the tax liability on the gains to children and organizations that would be in a significantly lower tax bracket than the executive. The IRS has labeled these deals as "listed transactions," which puts companies on notice that tax officials believe the deals to be so abusive that they must be immediately reported to authorities.

Hundreds of such arrangements are believed to have been entered into over the last three years, involving hundreds of millions of dollars in stock gains.

"The amounts are astronomical," said one compensation expert who asked not to be named. "The stock deals were heavily marketed to people with huge stock gains. If you figure that just 10% of the Fortune 500 got into them, you'd be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in tax."

Why do the people who have benefited the most from our traditions and free institutions are so contemptuous of those same traditions and institutions that they'll do anything to avoid contributing to them.

Helping the Least of Us Benefits All of Us

2003-12-30T16:35:00.000-08:00

Calpundit suggests that we peg them minimum wage to Congressional salaries.

But I'll renew an even better idea I proposed a year ago: index it to congressional salaries. Assuming a normal 2000-hour work year, congressmen make about $75/hour right now. How about simply making the minimum wage equal to 10% of that? Congress can then increase their own salaries anytime they want, but only if they're willing to help out the working poor at the same time. Seems fair to me.

Which reminds me of a pet idea I had. When I was going to run my own salary, I always imagined pegging the the total compensation of the highest paid person to no more than 10 times the lowest paid person.

Too bad we'll never see that through.

Investing Point to Remember

2003-12-29T20:24:00.000-08:00

From Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor:

The True Investor

The true investor scarecely ever is forced to sell his shares, and at all other times he is free to disregard the current price quotation. He need pay attention to it and act upon it only to the extent that it suits his book, and no more. Thus the investor who permits himself to be stampeded or unduly worried by unjustified market declines in his holdings is perversely transforming his basic advantage into a basic disadvantage. That man would be better off if his stocks had no market quotation at all, for he would then be spared the mental anguish caused him by other persons' mistakes of judgement. (Graham, p 203)

Florida Story

I once interviewed a group of retirees in Boca Raton, one of Florida's wealthiest retirement communities. I asked these people - mostly in their seventies - if they had beaten the market over their investing lifetimes. Some said yes, some said no; most weren't sure. Then one man said, "Who cares? All I know is, my investments earned enough for me to end up in Boca." (Graham, p220)

A Two Part Appraisal Process

We suggest that analysts work out first what we call the "past-peformance value," which is based solely on hte past record. This would indicate what the stock would be worth-absolutely, or as a percentage of the DJIA or of the S&P composite - if it is assumed that its relative past performance will continue to be unchanged in the future.... The second part of the analysis should consider to what extent the value based solely on past performance should be modified because of new conditions expected in the future. (Graham, p300)

Meme of Mass Destruction

2003-12-29T16:54:00.000-08:00

In today's Guardian, Karen Armstrong urges practicioners of religion to root out the violence inherit in their religion.

We can be certain of one thing in 2004. Unless there is some unimaginable breakthrough, we will see more religiously inspired terrorism. It often seems that we might be better off without religion. A cursory consideration of the crusades and persecutions of Christian history shows that religious violence is not confined to the Islamic world. If the different faiths really are committed to peace and goodwill, why do they inspire such hatred, and why are their scriptures so aggressive?

...The scriptures all bear scars of their violent begetting, so it is easy for extremists to find texts that seem to give a seal of divine approval to hatred.

...n a similar way, the Christian right today has absorbed the endemic violence in American society: they oppose reform of the gun laws, for example, and support the death penalty. They never quote the Sermon on the Mount but base their xenophobic and aggressive theology on Revelation. Osama bin Laden is as just as selective in his use of scripture. Most of the Muslim extremism that troubles us today is the product of societies that have suffered prolonged, hopeless conflict: the Middle East, Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir.

Religion, like any human activity, can be abused. You can have bad religion, as you can have bad cooking, bad art and bad sex.

But unlike art, sex, or cooking, you rarely have genocide or jihad in the name of Thai cuisine, cubism, or the Venus Butterfly. Religion, and in particular, religion's demand for blind faith and it's proof by appeals to an unverifiable authority, exacerbate our evolutionary drive for conflict with other groups.

While Armstrong pleas for reform from within religion, I think that history is against her on this one.

Don't They Have Wireless Access in Airports?

2003-12-29T16:43:00.000-08:00

CNN reports that the FBI urges police to watch for people carrying almanacs.

The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning.

...t urged officers to watch during searches, traffic stops and other investigations for anyone carrying almanacs, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways.

I find this interesting, but wouldn't it make more sense to give your terrorists a laptop with a cell modem or something? I mean the web is the ultimate almanac.

Where's that Election Abstract

2003-12-29T16:38:00.000-08:00

The Decembrist laments about the subjective criticism of the Dean campaign.

The other fascinating quote is from a political strategist I've worked with, both in the Senate and on the Bradley campaign, and respect a great deal, Anita Dunn:

"Dean faces one significant challenge, to go to the next level of his candidacy," said Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist who was a senior adviser in Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential campaign. "He has not yet achieved the level of admission to what I call that small circle of people in the United States that voters perceive as qualified to be president. That is an enormous hurdle. . . . He has, at every stage of his campaign, when he has faced a hurdle, found a way to move to that next level, but they get steeper."

That makes sense to me, but it's probably infuriating to the Dean camp. First, because the person making the statement is not easily dismissed as a hostile member of the Clinton establishment. But second, who decides when or how you've been admitted to that circle? Just out of curiosity, who right now might be said to be in that circle of people voters perceive as qualified to be president?

...Just like "electablity," I think this is a purely subjective judgment, one that may seem obvious after the fact, but is hard to prove right now. But subjective judgments are sometimes all we've got.

Is subjective judgements all we've got? I don't think so.

My favorite analogy in all of this is predicting winners in sporting events. While there is certainly some subjective judgements that must be made, the overwhelmingly more important elements that are used in predicting a winner are hard statistics.

My OBP, Total Bases Per Bat, and HR of the political struggle are number of donaters, endorsements, and volunteer hours. Dean's clearly doing a better job in all three areas than any of his competitors. Wouldn't this be a better indicator of 'electability' than these subjective measures?

Where's the Bill James of Elections when you need him?

Unamerican Historians

2003-12-29T16:00:00.000-08:00

Michael Knox Beran claims that we are undergoing a cultural crisis because historians are now focusing on the slavery side of our Founding Fathers. Here's a representative excerpt:

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Each new book on the founding of our republic might as well contain the scholarly equivalent of the surgeon general’s warning affixed to our beer bottles. "Warning: Studying the Men Who Founded the United States May Be Dangerous to Your Moral Health."

Nothing short of the most drastic measures could put a stop to what (in the view of some of our media and scholarly big shots) is a highly unfortunate development. What has so exasperated the intellectual classes? This — the fact that during the last decade or so the Founding Fathers have begun to be treated by a number of historians in an uncharacteristic way: with respect. Even veneration, of the kind traditionally accorded to lawgivers who found great cities or republics.

For a certain kind of academic historian or debunking journalist nothing could be more insupportable than this notion of the Great Man, the Heroic Founder. What, the outraged professor or muckraking editorial writer wonders, has gone wrong? How, in so up-to-date an age as our own, could some very dead white males manage to be so...popular?

...Do not misunderstand me. The question of slavery in the early republic should be studied. But make no mistake about the motives of those who are instituting the new gag-rule designed to marginalize books that deal with other aspects of the foundation of the republic. These self-appointed censors are less interested in encouraging the pursuit of historical truth than they are in finding new ways to undermine the moral legitimacy of a country many of whose qualities they abhor.

American Historians hate the qualities of America? All this de-humanization of historians is very troubling.

I mean, isn't the following an interesting question? Why did men who founded what we think as one of the great ethical countries in all history hold slaves? How did the reconcile this behavior with their purported love of liberty that was espoused in the Declaration of Independence?

These types of interesting questions tend to go in waves through academic communities, and there examination is not necessarily motivated by some political agenda. It could just be motivated by interest.

But to play the Amazing Kreskin and delve deep into the minds of these historians to only find freedom-hating communists demonizes these men and women and borders on the paranoid.

Books to Read in 2004 - Philosophy

2003-12-29T13:42:00.000-08:00

Here's some books I'd like to read (re-read) in Philosophy in 2004. Goal is 5.

Theory of Justice by John Rawls
Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy by Bernard Lewis
Who's Justice? Which Rationality by Alisdair Macintyre
Anarchy, State, Utopia by Richad Nozick
Ordinary Virtues by Judith Shklar
The Body in Pain by Elaine Scarry

Books to Read in 2004 - History

2003-12-29T09:58:00.000-08:00

Here's a quick list of books to read in the History section. Goal is 10 books.

The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan
The First World War by John Keegan
The Second World War by John Keegan
(Need 7 more)

Books to Read in 2004 - Financial and Economic

2003-12-29T09:51:00.000-08:00

Here's a quick list of books to read in the Financial and Economic section. Goal is 10 books.

The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham
The Commanding Heights by Daniel Yergen and Joseph Stanislaw
The Essays of Warren Buffett by Lawrence A. Cunningham
Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen
Security Analysis by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd
The Investor's Anthology by Charles D. Elis and James R. Vertin
The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith

UPDATE: A few more to read.

In An Uncertain World by Robert Rubin and Jacob Weisburg
Smartest Guys in the Room by Bethany Mclean and Peter Elkind
A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton G. Malkiel

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

2003-12-29T08:22:00.000-08:00

The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus. Funny, but tragic.

Moral negligence

2003-12-28T17:46:00.000-08:00

The Cardinal Collective posts about a Muslim football league that had teams named 'Mujaheedan', 'Infitada', and 'Soldiers of Allah'. In defending this practice, CC states:

When judging someone's actions, what's important is the intent, and I think (except for one team) there was no wrong intent.

While intent certainly is important in the moral judgement of actions, it is not the only criteria for judgement. For example, our legal system embodies the idea that there are some actions that are 'morally wrong' but do not have the requisite level of intent. This is the legal concept of 'negligence'.

Negligence uses the 'reasonable person'. If a 'reasonable person' in the same situation would have behaved differently (or more prudently), then the person who commits the act has behaved criminally. For example, the act of killing a person is deemed a crime (though a lesser crime) if it's done negligently, but without the intent of harm.

I think this same idea has great merit in morality as well. In this case, I believe a reasonable person would have realized that giving football teams names that could easily be tied to Mideast terrorism would have caused this level of outrage among some members of the community.

So, while I don't think that the coach's of these teams were severely immoral, in the sense that they knew they'd cause offense but did not care, I would think they were morally negligent . As a result, I think a 'should' argument would apply.

Telemarketing: Why not?

2003-12-28T15:40:00.000-08:00

Matt Yglesias has a post up asking us not to torment the telemarketers.

So, now that telemarketing is limited, how will companies reach out to people to try and get them to try their product? I predict that we are going to see a blast from the past rise up in our neighborhoods. Good bye telephone ringing during dinner. Hello doorbell ringing during dinner.

I predict a rise in door-to-door solicitation. The days of the door-to-door salesman are going to return.

More importantly, what's so bad about telemarketing, really? Why do people get SO angry about it?

Civil War, What Is It Good For?

2003-12-28T12:14:00.000-08:00

Matt Yglesias has an article up wondering if the late battles of WWII were actually effective. There's some interesting comments that say otherwise.

While I don't have much to say about WWII, it does remind me of my early post that the Civil War was a bad thing.

More thoughts on the Estate Tax

2003-12-23T18:32:00.000-08:00

Let's assume that we both agree on the level that government should be funded. I know this is probably not the case, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that we both believe that the government should provide the a set of services S and that it should cost $X trillion dollars. (Any difference in this assumption comes down to a scope of government or spending issue and is separate from a taxation issue.)

Given this assumption, the question is which dollars should we use to fund it. Our first approach might be to look to fund this $X trillion dollars with dollars that will limit the impact on the little guy.

It seems obvious to me that the negative impact on the little guy by taking away food-rent-shelter dollars to fund this $X trillion dollars is greater than the negative impact the little guy might feel if we take away luxury-dollars to fund the government even if those luxury dollars, through the magic of the capitalist market, may provide some positive benefit to the little guy.

Second, investment does provide needed infrastructure to our society. Those that invest in building that infrastructure are already rewarded (many times, very richly) by getting a return on their investment without having to spend any time or energy to earn that dollar. This is a good thing. However, much infrastructure is not created by private investment but through government action. And the development of that infrastructure must be funded.

I think that returns on investment should be used to fund more of our government than salary from labor for three reasons:

Our country has a moral belief that providing benefit to our society through work is central to a citizen's life.
A greater percentage of salaries is used for food-shelter-clothing dollars than for luxury dollars.
Salary dollars bear a closer relationship to the element of time than dollars earned through investment. Since time is so precious to each citizen, we should hold the money exchanged for time and labor to be more precious than money earned through investment.

Currently, our tax code punishes labor and rewards leisure.

The money earned by investment is taxed a much lower rate and has more opportunities to avoid taxes. The money earned through labor though is very difficult to shelter from taxes and is taxed at a higher rate. I find this antithetical to our country's moral values. Also, I find this has the practical effect of widening the gap between rich and poor which is damaging to a democracy. If the current trend continues, history shows it cannot end well for us.

The Bush Tax and the Dean Tax Plan

2003-12-23T18:27:00.000-08:00

The Dean tax plan is not necessarily a political loser. While pocketbook issues can influence elections, modern elections have often been influenced by personality.

By Dean saying that we all must sacrifice in repealing the Bush tax cut, he's promoting the notion that he's more interested in the "right" thing than in pandering to a particular interest or demographic.

In primary debates or in the general election, Dean can point to himself as the grown up. "Look," he can say, "I proposed this tax repeal not to win votes. If I wanted to win votes, I'd just repeal the tax cuts for the rich. This repeal is what is right for America. I'll do the right thing even if it's not popular."

Proof? Take a look at how Dean positions his signing of the Civil Union bill in Vermont.

If he's able to spin his tax plan this way, he may have a way of differentiating himself from Bush on a "I'll tell you the truth, not what you want to hear" axis.

By throwing in the "Bush Tax" angle he can also backdoor himself into the pocketbook side of things.

Like all politicians, he's trying to have his cake and eat it to. Fortunately, in this case, it just might work.

The Civil War was Bad

2003-12-23T18:26:00.000-08:00

To be contrarian, I'll argue that the Civil War was bad.

1) It is likely that taking a longer term, less aggressive stance toward slavery would have eventually stamped it out (see Canadian independence, British slavery, etc.).

2) The cost in men and material of the Civil War were the most horrific of any of our wars.

3) The Civil War solidified in the minds of many Southerners the righteousness of their unethical ideas. Which led to the Jim Crow south of 1880s through 1960s. Proof? See the current number of statues and memorials of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis in the South compared to the number of statues and memorials to Abraham Lincoln.

A more long term, less aggressive approach towards slavery might have made the South more amenable towards Civil Rights and Federal rule.

4) Many that fought on the side of the North in the Civil War came to disbelieve in the absoluteness of the abolitionist cause. (Much as we might come to regret our own absolutist stance on Iraq and the Middle East.) See "The Metaphysical Club" esp. the chapters on Oliver Wendell Holmes.

5) If we just had allowed the South to go and become their own country, the US might have been better off. Currently, our most benighted areas (in terms of infant mortality, illiteracy, poverty, etc.) tend towards the South. Furthermore, the extremism of our own federal government (in the sense that they are unwilling to compromise) tends to originate with our Southern politicians.

In other words, we should have let the Confederacy go.

A good quote

2003-12-23T18:24:00.000-08:00

John Rawls, discussing, especially, the responsiblity of Japanese and German civilians and soldiers for the conduct of their governments:

In the conduct of war, well-ordered peoples must carefully distinguish three groups: the outlaw state’s leaders and officials, its soldiers, and its civilian population. The reason why a well-ordered people must distinguish between an outlaw state’s leaders and its civilan population is as follows: since the outlaw state is not well-ordered, the civilian members of the society cannot be those who organized and brought on the war. This was done by the leaders and officials, assisted by other elites who control and staff the state apparatus. They are responsible; they willed the war; and, for doing that, they are criminals. But the civilian population, often kept in ignorance and swayed by state propaganda, is not responsible. This is so even if some civilians knew better yet were enthusiastic for the war…..As for soldiers of the outlaw state, leaving aside the upper ranks of the officer class, they, like civilians, are not responsible for their state’s war. For soldiers are often conscripted and in other ways forced into war; they are coercively indoctrinated in martial virtues; and their patriotism is often cruelly exploited. ( The Law of Peoples , pp. 94—5)

The Death of Horatio Alger

2003-12-22T21:06:00.000-08:00

A sad liink here from Paul Krugman.

The Party of Locke and Mill

2003-12-22T20:41:00.000-08:00

One of the axes that the liberal-conservative debate pivot on is the old empiricism-rationalism divide.

Though, of course, I have no statistical evidence, I have the impression that conservatives tend to argue more from 'common sense' and the 'examination of rules'.

Liberals, I believe, tend to argue more from 'results', 'statistics', and 'experiments'.

Case in point, California's failed Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the collection of racial data by government agencies.

Conservatives argued that we didn't need to collect racial data; the rules were already race neutral. Thus, collecting the data was counter-productive and uncomfortable.

Liberals argued that we didn't know if our 'race neutral' rules would have the benefit we desired if we didn't measure its effects. Ergo, we need to collect the data to make sure.

If this is the case that Republicans are the party of Descartes and Liebniz while Democrats are the party of Locke and Mill, then we can see why there are difficulties in resolving the two viewpoints.

There's a record for a reason

2003-12-13T09:14:00.000-08:00

As a football fan who participates in a no-line office pool for years now, I've come to the following rule which I use to help me pick the team.

The rule, "They have a record for a reason."

Often there are folks who still pick the Bengals over the Chiefs or the Lions over the Rams. "Look at how they match up!" they say. "The Bengals running back will overpower the Chiefs small defensive line."

At this point, I always say to myself, the Bengals are 2-12 for a reason. The Chiefs are 12-2 for a reason. Pick the Chiefs.

Similarly for Presidential candidates. Many folks say that Kerry or Clark would have a better chance, as if the match up of biography or policy is all that matters. But it's not.

Biography is just a small tool in putting together a winning campaign. Policies are more about government than politics. Politics are about putting together strong campaigns to win elections.

If Kerry and Clark were such master politicians, why are they floundering so far? If Dean so 'unelectable', why is Dean so successful?

Dean has the best chance to beat Bush because Dean has the best 'political' record in the primary. He's built the best campaign. He's made the fewest missteps. He's worked the hardest. He has the most volunteers. He's raised the most money. Furthermore, his policy positions are pragmatic and appealing to a wide base of voters.

Why do people still think the 2-12 Kerry would be better for Bush when Kerry wasn't able to use his huge advantage to crush a little known, insurgent candidate? Why do they think Clark will do a better job when Clark hasn't yet put together a strong track record?

Can't you believe your eyes? There's a record for a reason!

A Candidate for the Daily Howler

2003-12-12T09:06:00.000-08:00

Bill Saletan is mad at Al Gore. Really, really mad. So mad, that his emotions overtook him, and, in Tuesday's article, Saletan misattributes Al Gore's comments about the vote counting process in Florida to try and make Gore sound like a hypocrite when he endorsed Dean. An apples and oranges comparison that's not worthy of good journalism.

Today, Saletan has had some time to settle down. "It's not Gore's endorsement is wrong per se," Saletan says, "It's Gore's presumption that the election is over before the first vote is cast."

But the fact that Gore is endorsing Dean, and campaigning for him, shows just the opposite. Gore doesn't believe that the election is over; he believes it's just beginning. "Democracy is a team sport," Gore began when he endorsed Dean. "And I want to do everything I can to convince the -- anybody that is interested in my judgment about who, among these candidates has the best chance to win and the best chance to lead our country in the right direction."

Does Gore claim that he's rendered his judgment so everyone can call off the Iowa and New Hampshire elections? Of course not. In fact, Gore traveled with Dean most of the day, giving stump speeches to voters. Is this a man who believes that his endorsement 'ended an election before it began'? Of course not. These are the actions of man who embraces the democratic process and wants to participate in it.

Saletan is still very very mad though. As the previous candidate for president, Gore has a sacred duty to 'uphold tradition,' and not endorse someone. But at what cost should this tradition be upheld? If Gore thought this was a normal election year, he probably would uphold that tradition Saletan finds so sacred. But Gore does not think is a normal election year.

In speech after speech, Gore has consistently stated that this administration's actions are not only bad policy, but also undermining the very values of our Republic, threatening our democracy. As such, Gore thinks that it's time to abandon such niceties as tradition.

"[T]o the extent that we can recognize the stakes in America today," Gore stated, "I would urge all of the other candidates and campaigns to keep their eyes on the prize.... This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration. We can't afford to be divided among ourselves to the point that we lose sight of how important it is for America. What is going on in this Bush White House today is bad for our country. And it's slowly beginning to sink into more and more people out there."

So what would Saletan have Gore do? Should Gore 'uphold tradition' and stay silent on his beliefs, or should Gore uphold what he believes is his duty to his party and his country and do what he can to help defeat this administration?

What Gore does is something politically courageous. He leads. He knows that a field of nine candidates can waste it's time, energy, and treasure tearing each other apart while Bush and Rove grin in the White House In any other election, this might be bad for the party. But in this election, Gore has made it amply clear that he believes it will be bad for the country.

So Gore opens up himself to these shallow attacks by so-called pundits to try and convince others to elect who he thinks has the best chance against Bush. Why? Because Gore is 'keeping his eyes on the prize'. According to what Gore has said, this country is in danger from the very people who are running it. Democrats need to join together to do whatever they can to defeat that administration.

As leader of the party, there is no one more qualified to remind his fellow Democrats of that. If Gore truly believes that these are extraordinary times, as leader of the party, Gore *should* remind his fellow Democrats of that.

The Media Does Not Give Us What We Want

2003-07-20T10:04:00.000-07:00

In reading the comments from Howard Dean's guest posts on Lawrence Lessig's Cyberlaw weblog, the proponents of complete de-regulation of the media often gave arguments that ran along the following lines:

This "blame the victim" style of argument hides a significant fallacy and shows a significant misunderstanding of market theory.

Profit-driven corporations are not out to give people what they want; corporations are out to give people what they will take for the least amount of cost. For example, in the software world, people want fast, user-friendly, bug-free software for free; no software company will last long giving them what they want.

Big corporate media is driven by a similar motive. Here's a quick example.

SomeCableNetwork (SCN) broadcasts Investigative Reporting and gets a 3 share. From this, their ad revenues are $25 million per show.

OtherCableNetwork (OCN) broadcasts Man Eats Worms and gets a 1.1 share. From this, their ad revenues are $10 million dollars.

So, from first observation, you think shows like Investigative Reporting would begin to dominate the media.

However, that analysis ignores the other important feature of profit — cost.

If Man Eats Worms only costs $1 million to produce each show, then the profit on Man Eats Worms is $9 million a week.

If Investigative Reporting costs $20 million to produce each show, then Investigative Reporting only nets $5 million a week.

So, before you know it, SCN has cancelled Investigative Reporting and put in Man Eats Cockroaches.

And this line of argument fails to take into account other motivations for big corporate media. (For example, supporting the political party that will most likely allow greater concentration of the media.)

So, the next time someone dismisses your criticism of our conservative new media using the "media is just giving us what we want", tell them that for a market-loving conservative they sure have a limited understanding of markets.

Gemstar CEO - My screw ups are worth at least $30 million

2003-04-24T10:03:00.000-07:00

You might not know the company Gemstar, but, if you have cable TV, you know what they do. Gemstar owns TV Guide and runs all of the interactive guides on most cable boxes. So when you want to find out what on Fox next Tuesday, the program you use was written by Gemstar.

In line with my continuing chronicle on the audacious greed of CEO's, here's an excerpt from Phillip Swan's newsletter on the Cable TV Technlogy industry.

Nearly destroyed Gemstar's relationship with the cable TV industry by trying to bully everyone in sight. (The company now has to struggle to get cable operators to use its Interactive Programming Guide.)
Put Gemstar in financial chaos, causing the company to re-state its earnings twice in two months.
Refused to testify about Gemstar's finances before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC has filed a contempt charge against him.

Though I read more and more about cases like this, I am continually drop-jaw amazed.

The Ignorance of CEOs

2003-04-24T09:59:00.000-07:00

American Airlines CEO Donald Carty seems so surprised at the response of unions to hearing that executives at AA were to receive "retention bonuses".

Just another tale of the unabashed greed among today's corporate executives. On the right hand, American Airlines has been clubbing the working men and women of AA with the threat of bankrupcy unless they make wage concessions, cut benefits, and work more for their money.

On the left hand, American funds the pensions of its top executives and offers them bonuses of twice their salary if they stay until 2005. That would mean a bonus of $1.6 million dollars for CEO Donald Carty himself. This at a time when American Airlines has lost $5.2 billion over the last two years and expects to lose another $800 million this year.

How can executives be surprised at the unions response? Well, they could only be surprised if this type of avarice were so commonplace as to become an industry standard. But that couldn't be the case, could it?

"This is a fairly standard retention package, and I think the market understands that," said Stuart Klaskin, an airline consultant with Klaskin, Kushner & Co. in Coral Gables, Fla. "The real problem was the terribly bad timing in disclosing it."

Never mind.

The Immorality of Incest

2003-04-24T09:47:00.000-07:00

William Saletan asks yesterday in his Slate column, "What is wrong with incest?"

I enjoy Saletan's columns immensely for exactly this type of question. In the end, it is important to critically examine our seemingly commonsense moral assumptions. Luckily, in this case, I feel I can come up with a compelling argument against incest beyond the old chestnut of three-eyed children.

Saletan, in his article, is really only considering "brother-sister" incest. It seems that even in Saletan's openminded examinations "parent-child" incest is right out. Why would that be?

Well, the state obviously has a reason to outlaw "parent-child" incest. The legalization of "parent-child" incest could provide cover to parental abuse.

We intuitively realize that a father or mother has tremendous influence over their children, even into adulthood. Furthermore, one of the fundamental tenets of the parent-child relaitonship is the protection and nurturing of the child.

To use that influence for sexual gratification of the parent would be immoral. Also, the influence that parents have over children would make it difficult to impossible for the state to determine true consenus from coercion.

Therefore, in order to protect children from a selfish parents who would ignore or social mores, we should ban the practice of 'parent-child' incest.

Now, let us turn our attention to 'brother-sister' incest. One of the things to realize is that, much like the relationship between parent and child (or boss and subordinate), the brother-sister relationship is, in many if not most cases, a hierachical one.

Older siblings, like parents, tend to have huge influence over their younger siblings. Also, like parents (in kind if not in degree), older siblings tend to be charged with the protection and nurturing of their younger siblings.

Ergo, the older sibling-younger sibling can be taken advantage of in the same way as the parent-child relationship. In her recently published book, Brothers & Sisters (St. Martins Press, 1991), Jane Mersky Leder estimates that some "23,000 [women] per million in this country may have been victimized by a sibling" before the age of 18.

Thus, the difficulties surrounding the judgement of consensual sex among parents and children exist in the case of brother-sister relations. To prevent the abuse of the special protective relationship between an older sibling and a younger sibling, it is in the state's interest to outlaw all such acts.

To drive this point home, which would you find more immoral, case A or case B.

In case A, an adopted brother aged 21 and an adopted sister age 17, who were raised together since infants, have sex one day.

In case B, two strangers meet, have a long courtship, and have sex, and then find out later that they were actually biological siblings who were given up for adoption.

I think we'd have more of a moral problem with case A than B.

Back from Hawaii

2003-04-24T09:40:00.000-07:00

Sorry all. I recently had a career change and was off to Hawaii for awhile. I'm back now and blogging some more.

Kilroy

Those Who Do Not Know History....

2003-03-28T16:45:00.000-08:00

I remember a very telling point from Ken Burns's Civil War documentary.

A Union soldier asks a Tennesee share-cropper why he was fighting the Union. The share-cropper didn't own slaves.

The share-cropper responded, "I'm fightin' y'all because y'all are down here."

Progress of Racial Justice

2003-03-28T16:32:00.000-08:00

The Christian Science Monitor has an important article on the state of racial justice today and how it compares to the state of racial justice during the famous Bakke decision which outlawed racial quotas 25 years ago.

From that article:

In 1978, the life expectancy of a black child was five years shorter than that of a white child. Today it is six years shorter.
Twenty-five years ago, a black child's mother was three times as likely to die of complications during childbirth as a white mother. Today she is 3-1/2 times as likely to die during childbirth.
The infant mortality rate for blacks was twice that for whites. Today it is slightly more than twice.
In 1978, four times as many black families lived with incomes below the poverty line as white families. Today, that ratio remains unchanged.
For black adults, the unemployment rate was twice that of whites, and for black teens it was three times. Today, both statistics remain unchanged.
The median income of a black family in 1978 was 60 percent of the median income of a white family. Today, it is 66 percent of white-family income.
In 1978, blacks represented 11.5 percent of the population, but they were only 1.2 percent of the lawyers and judges, 2 percent of the physicians, 2.3 percent of the dentists, 1.1 percent of the engineers, and 2.6 percent of college and university professors. Today, blacks represent 12.3 percent of the population, and are 5.1 percent of the lawyers and judges, 5.6 percent of physicians, 4.1 percent of dentists, 5.5 percent of engineers, and 6.1 percent of college and university professors.

Yet, rather than find the cause of this disheartening disparity in a economic and political system that has disenfranchised blacks for over 300 years, conservatives are still blaming the victim.

At some point in the future, I'll address this in more detail. But of course, we have a war going on now.

Why Mute Dissent in Wartime?

2003-03-26T18:30:00.000-08:00

I believe that the support the troops argument goes along these lines.

The key factor in winning a war is breaking the will to fight among the populace of the nation-state.
If an enemy sees weakness in their opponents will to fight, that enemy's own will to fight will grow stronger. Thus, the stronger the enemy's will to fight, the longer the war, and the greater danger to our troops.
In democratic societies, vocal dissent among large portions of the citizenry are perceived by the enemy as weakness.
Thus, it follows that mass dissent endangers the troops by prolonging the war and delaying victory.

Therefore, if you support the troops, you should mute dissent (at least until after victory.)

Though I was against the war for a wide variety of reasons, it is hard for me to deny the force of this argument.

Kilroy Was Here

Where is Van Riper?

2003-03-26T18:08:00.000-08:00

The analyst that I would like to see is former Marine general Paul Van Riper.

For those of you who might not remember, Van Riper was the Marine Corps general who, playing Iraq during the last major wargame exercise Millenium Challenge 2002, defeated the Joint Forces Command through a mixture of innovative 'guerilla' type tactics that circumvented some of the technical advantages of the JFC.

From the Army Times:

Now this is a television analyst I'd like to hear from. Maybe some online magazine can ask him for some analysis?

Pledging for Dean

2003-03-24T16:35:00.000-08:00

Here's an idea for grass-roots, viral, campaign marketing.

NPR is having their fundraising drive in the near future. (It's next week for KQED in San Francisco). One of the thigns that they do in these pledge drives is ask for groups to volunteer to answer the phone. In return, the anchors plug the group during the pledge drive.

This might be a good grass roots way to get Howard Dean's name out to the demographic most amenable to his message. If at every public radio station doing the pledge drive thanks 'Volunteers for Howard Dean' at each one of those 5 minute breaks, it might get some play.

I've already contacted KQED in San Francisco about it. Maybe other folks should pick up the charge at other radio stations.

(Note: The Volunteer Services guru at KQED mentioned that there might be some FCC recommendaiton against this. I should know more later.)

Dean For America

2003-03-24T12:28:00.000-08:00

In the midst of a war and with over 20 months to go until the next Presidential election, I know that it may be early to think about which candidate you will support. However, I'd like to take a moment of your time to try and convince you to contribute at least $10.01 to Dr. Howard Dean's campaign.

Howard Dean is the former Governor of Vermont. Elected five times as Governor, Dean balanced the budget, made health care for every child in Vermont a reality, raised the minimum wage twice, created a "rainy day" fund which, even through three years of recession, is preventing Vermont from having to go through the type of draconian cuts that face us, and signed the civil union bill, giving homosexual partners the same rights as married couples. You can read more about Dr. Dean's biography here (http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?section=about&page=biography).

While his record has impressed me, I've been even more impressed by his fire and candor on the political trail. At the DNC winter meetings, Dean launched directly into his speech, asking, "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic leadership is supporting the President's unilateral attack on Iraq?"

In Sacramento, at the Democratic Party State Convention, Dean fired up the crowd by angrilly declaring, "I want my country back!"

In listening to Dean, I've been convinced that this is a man who can win the White House and who can push the policies that we need to put our country back on the right track.

I know that you will probably need more than my endorsement to make an informed decision about whether or not to contribute at least $10.01 to Dean's campaign. So please take a moment to review the following pages and video clips.

Dean for America (http://www.deanforamerica.com)
Video of Dean Speaking at California Democratic State Convention
(http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?Cat=Issue&Code=PE ,
select Road to the White House, and scroll to 24 minutes into the
broadcast.)
Dean's Speech on Foreign Policy
Salon Magazine, On the Campaign Trail with the Un-Bush
(http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index.html)
Washington Post Article on Dean
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50011-2003Mar18.html)
Howard Dean on NPR's Morning Edition
(http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1188565)

If after listening to Dean, you feel as I do, please consider donating at least $10.01 to Dean's campaign at http://www.deanforamerica.com/dean.cfm?section=involved&page=contribute . March 31st is an important milestone for Federal Matching Funds, and if you can donate $10.01 now, it will go even further than you might think.

Regardless of how you might believe, if you could take a second and let me know what you think about Dean, I'd really appreciate it.

GWB Military Table Timeline

2003-03-12T09:26:00.000-08:00

This was originally on uggabugga's blog, but I can't seem to find a copy up. I got this from Google's cache.

Old news?

skippy the bush kangaroo links to this well-writen piece about Bush's Texas National Guard service (actually, his non-service). We felt compelled to organize the material into a table:

when	Bush	other	situation
	Did not choose to join the full time active duty miltary
	Chose to enlist for duty in the (Texas) Air National Guard On application: checked "do not volunteer" for overseas assignment listed his "background qualifications" as "none."		Waiting list of 100,000 nationally at the time
17 Jan '68	Took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests Scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion	Speaker of the House in Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, admitted he had received a request from a longtime Bush family friend, Sidney Adger of Houston, to help Bush get into the Air National Guard. Barnes further testified that he contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose
May '68	Graduated from Yale		1/2 million men fighting; dying @ 350/wk
Years 1 & 2
27 May '68	Sworn in
after 6 weeks of basic airman training	Received a commission as a second lieutenant	By means of a 'special appointment' by the commanding officer of his squadron, with the approval of a panel of three senior officers. Normally required eight full semesters of college ROTC courses or eighteen months of miltary service or completion of Air Force officer training school. Texas National Guard historian said that he "never heard of that" except for flight surgeons
	Assigned to flight school	Normally reserved to pilots graduating from ROTC training or Air Force officer training
	'fast tracked' into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, a standby runway alert component of the 143rd Group		Over those on the existing pilot applicant waiting list
	Trained to fly the missile-equipped supersonic F-102 Delta Dart jet interceptor fighter
	Racked up approximately 300 hours of training flight time in the F-102	Qualified him to fly the F-102 without an instructor Short of the 500 hours of experience required for volunteer active duty combat operations in Vietnam
Year 3
Jul '70	Earned his wings
	Applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam tour	Was turned down for this volunteer active duty option	Air Force needed additional F-102 pilots to fly reconnaissance missions.
	Left to fly as a "weekend warrior" in the Texas Air National Guard out of Ellington AFB near Houston
3 Nov '70	Promoted to 1st Lieutenant	by Brig. General Rose
Jun '70 - May '71	Credited with 46 days of flight duty
Year 4
Jun '71 - May '72	Credited with only 22 flight duty days	14 days short of the minimum 36 days owed the Guard for that year
Apr '72	Flew for the last time in the cockpit of an F-102	All the overseas and stateside miltary services began subjecting a small random sample in their ranks to substance abuse testing for alcohol and drugs. Pentagon had announced its intention to do so back on December 31, 1969
Year 5
15 May '72	"cleared this base" according to a written report by one of his two Squadron supervising officers, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr.
24 May '72	Requested in writing a six-month transfer to an inactive postal Reserve unit in Alabama	If Bush had been temporarily transferred there, he would not have continued flying until he returned to Texas, because the Alabama unit had no airplanes
31 May '72	Transfer request was denied by National Guard Bureau headquarters	Bush should have returned to his base in Houston and continued with his flying duties. Instead, he remained in Alabama until late in the fall.
Aug '72	Scheduled physical	Could have been subject to selection for a random substance abuse test
	either: 1st Lt. Bush took his mandatory annual flight physical for pilots and failed it for some as-yet undisclosed reason, or he refused to present himself in the first place to an Air Force Flight Surgeon, who were readily available in almost every state	Release of Bush's miltary service record would resolve issue.
1 Aug '72	Suspended and grounded from flying duty on verbal order of the TX 147th Group's Commanding Officer for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Two years left of remaining National Guard service.	Expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended There is normally a Flight Inquiry Board If one had been convened, its three senior officer members would have documented why such a severe action was justified in relation to the country's miltary objectives at the time, as opposed to the simple desire of a trained pilot to just "give up flying". There is no evidence now in the public domain that a Flight Inquiry Board was convened to deal with Bush's official reclassification to a non-flying, grounded status This absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots. The implication is that Bush's misconduct was handled like everything else in his miltary service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections	Country at the height of the Vietnam (air) War
5 Sep '72	Ordered to start serving three months in an active but non-flying administrative Guard unit, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Alabama, for four certain duty days in October and November
29 Sep '72		In memo to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force, Major General Francis Greenleaf, then Chief of the National Guard Bureau in Washington DC, confirmed the suspension of 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status.
Oct/Nov '72	No official notation in his service record that Bush ever showed up for this assigned duty in Montgomery, Alabama. Bush: "I was there on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations." The Bush campaign conducted its own search of Bush's miltary records, and could not find evidence that Bush performed any duty in Alabama.	General William Turnipseed and Lt. Col. Kenneth Lott, who commanded the Montgomery, Alabama, base at the time said that Bush never appeared. "To my knowledge, he never showed up," Turnipseed said.
Nov '72 - fall '73	Returned home to Houston Texas. Did not report in person for non-flying duty to his parent Texas 111th Squadron during this whole time.
Year 6
May '73	Ordered to attend nine certain duty days in person during Summer Camp at Ellington AFB between May 22 and June 7. 1st Lt. Bush did not do so.
22 May '73 - 30 Jul '73	Bush was credited with 35 "gratuitous" inactive Air Force Reserve points -- in other words, non-attendance inactive Reserve credit time	No one in the Texas Air Guard at the time, has stepped forward to say they saw Bush in person on a single day between May 22 and July 30, 1973
1 Oct'73	Prematurely discharged with honors from the Texas Air Guard.	This leaves Bush without a single legitimate Texas Air National Guard service day for his fifth and sixth years of service to his Texas Air National Guard discharge.
26 May '74	Scheduled discharge.
Nov '74	Final inactive Reserve discharge with honors.	Bush was attending Harvard Business School as a full-time student by that time

NOTE: We are not familiar with miltary procedures or Bush's record and cannot vouch for the accuracy of this table. All we did was take the elements in the piece, and organize it so that the timeline may be better understood. (A critical review of some elements is available here.) This presentation is intended as a starting point for discussion.

UPDATE: We came upon this BuzzFlash Reader Commentary on Bush's miltary service (written on 25 Oct 2002), and this Washington Post story which fills in a few details (dated 28 Jul 1999). The Post story has a revealing picture of Bush while he was at Harvard Business School.

And while we're at it, this site: awolbush.com is devoted to the issue.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mother Jones has a timeline as well (with a few additional details).

Sacrifice

2003-03-11T10:03:00.000-08:00

An Essay I found on Tom Tomorrow's website

When Email Goes Bad

2003-03-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

Great article on how to manage your email. Putting it here so I can find it later.

When Email Goes Bad

Credible Alternatives

2003-03-07T09:54:00.000-08:00

Michael Walzer details a credible alternative to the "big war" that Bush is pushing for. (You can also find a copy of this article in The Stacks.)

After listening to Bush's simplistic and incompetent speech last night (analyzed very well by the always insightful William Saletan of Slate), I can only wish that we could have the level of discourse and thought that Michael Walzer provides at the highest level of our government.

The Seven Deadly Sins

2003-03-02T14:25:00.000-08:00

Here's a great article on the seven warning signs of bogus science (The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science). In this age of UFO worshipping cults claiming the ability to clone humans, everyone should make themselves aware.

The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

Acceptable Proof and Jealous Boyfriends

2003-02-26T10:21:00.000-08:00

In Slate today, Timothy Noah waxes hysterical about French's claim that they have seen no evidence of U.N. violations.

I have to admit that I have been confused by this whole 'indisputable proof' and 'PI' line of argument that Tim Noah's been posting over the last week or so.

However, the following line strikes me as logically fallacious. Noah writes:

Blix's failure to find any hardly proves they don't exist.

This puts to mind the jealous boyfriend who demands proof that his girlfriend isn't having an affair. You have to ask, what would constitute proof? What would satisfy the boyfriend that his beloved isn't making him a cuckold?

Note, that there is a difference between proving that something doesn't exist (i.e. logical impossibility) and something doesn't exist any more.

The claim that something no longer exists presupposes a proof that that thing existed at some time in the past.

Back to the jealous boyfriend example, if Jealous Boyfriend has pictures or letters of a prior relationship with the Other Man, then Jealous Boyfriend might be justified into asking Cheating Girlfriend for some sort of show of faith (or faithfulness).

However, if Jealous Boyfriend only suspects Cheating Girlfriend of cheating with the Other Man and has no proof, it would be unfair of Jealous Boyfriend to demand such proof from Cheating Girlfriend. For if Cheating Girlfriend denies any relationship with the Other Man, what can Jealous Boyfriend say? And how can respond to Cheating Girlfriend's claim that he's just being paranoid?

Back to Iraq, since I have seen no proof that 'mobile biological labs' ever existed, it's unfair of the U.S. to force Iraq to prove that these labs don't exist now.

Why I Am Against the War: Part 1 - Preventative War is Morally Dubious

2003-02-25T10:10:00.000-08:00

I have been giving a great deal of thought to the impending war in Iraq, and even though I've listened patiently to Kevin Pollack and Thomas Freidman, as it stands now, I am against any non-UN sanctioned military action by the United States in Iraq.

Over the next week, I will be posting a series of short articles on why I am against the war. Our first stop is on the notion of preventative war.

Many people who argue for the war do not comprehend the depth of change in the United States policy that the upcoming war in Iraq represents. For example, Rush Limbaugh, in his Feb. 17th show, compares the upcoming war with Iraq with similar actions in Bosnia, or Somalia.

However, as the PBS show Frontline so thoroughly documented, the upcoming war with Iraq represents a serious departure from the policy of containment that has guided United States policy for over fifty years.

The policy of containment is one where the United States prevents rival nations from exercising any aggressive intentions through a complex dance of diplomacy and deterrence. During the Cold War, containment allowed us to eventually overwhelm the Soviet Union and peaceably remove it from the list of enemies to the United States.

While containment was messy and dangerous, it surely was less messy and less dangerous than World War III with the Soviet Union and its hegemony.

Preventative war, on the other hand, is the attempt to avert future risk by invading another sovereign state now. As Michael Walzer states in his article Inspectors Yes, War No:

Preventative war is not ‘preemptive’. Preemptive strikes, such as the Israel strike on Iraq in 1981, are aimed at well documented impending threats to a states actions.

Preventative war, on the other hand, is aimed at more distant threats with harder to calculate risk. It’s not the case that Iraq is an imminent danger to the United States now. Best CIA estimates put an uncontained Iraq’s production of a nuclear device at five years away, and this does not take into account the development of a delivery vehicle.

As Walzer notes in his article:

In other words, we do not know whether or not Saddam Hussein can attain nuclear weapons. Even if he can, we cannot accurately estimate the costs in lives and resources it would take to deter Saddam Hussein or even the cost if he was able to exercise his new capability.

However, we the costs of a preventative war in terms of civilian casualties, military casualties, and economic resources more easy to estimate. Current estimates of civilian casualties to Iraq number in the hundreds of thousands, and estimates in economic resources number in the billions of dollars.

Not to mention the unknown outcomes of a preventative war in terms of terrorism blowback aimed at the United States, goodwill costs among other allies, and the cost of setting a precedent for the justification of preventative war.

(As an aside, some number that continued rule by Saddam Hussein will have costs in civilian casualties. However, those costs are surely far less than open war. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that future regimes in Iraq might not entail similar costs, and the United States.)

So, on the one hand, we have a nebulous potential risk to American national security with an impact on Americans we cannot calculate.

On the other hand, we have guaranteed losses of civilians, including women and children, with no guarantee that national security for Americans will be increased, and even the potential that American security will be decreased by seeing a rise in terrorism and a weakening of our alliances.

With this choice, I am reminded of the famous short story by Shirley Jackson, The Lottery. In this story, an innocent is picked at random in order to insure the continued prosperity of the town.

Is America prepared now to submit Iraqi children to a new lottery, where we will insure many of their deaths and disfigurement for a chance of increased security? A chance that has never been rationally explained or defended?

What if our children were placed in this lottery? Would we be willing to go to war then?

The Evolution of Cooperation in NASCAR

2003-02-25T09:18:00.000-08:00

I've often been intrgued by traffic. In many ways, I find it a beautiful thing. With just a few rules, some social conventions, and each driver trying to get to their location as quickly as possible, a well-choregraphed ballet emerges where brake lights, banking, and merging emerge.

In Social Science at 190 MPH on NASCAR's Biggest Superspeedways, David Ronfeldt details the mechanisms for this emerging cooperation from competition in NASCAR. For those of us who are fans of game theory, such as the Prisoner's Dilemma, and emerging cooperation from individual competition, this, along with Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation are must reads.

Here's the abstract from the article:

In aerodynamically intense stock-car races like the Daytona 500, the drivers form into multi-car draft lines to gain extra speed. A driver who does not enter a draft line (slipstream) will lose. Once in a line, a driver must attract a drafting partner in order to break out and try to get further ahead. Thus the effort to win leads to ever-shifting patterns of cooperation and competition among rivals. This provides a curious laboratory for several social science theories: (1) complexity theory, since the racers self-organize into structures that oscillate between order and chaos; (2) social network analysis, since draft lines are line networks whose organization depends on a driver's social capital as well as his human capital; and (3) game theory, since racers face a "prisoner's dilemma" in seeking drafting partners who will not defect and leave them stranded. Perhaps draft lines and related "bump and run" tactics amount to a little-recognized dynamic of everyday life, including in structures evolving on the Internet.

Dean in 2004

2003-02-21T20:27:00.000-08:00

OK, I've decided. I'm for Dean.

This is tough decision for me. I think that the Democratic field looks pretty good this cycle. I would very easily support Kerry, Edwards, Graham, or Clark. But I just watched Dean on CSPAN's site (you can see Dean speak if you go to the 2:00:00 mark), and I was impressed with his fire, honesty, and issues.

This is who the Democrats need. Go Howard go!

Hydrogen Car Bomb: Part II

2003-02-21T14:00:00.000-08:00

Gregg Easterbrook has eviscerated Bush's Hydrogen Car proposal in the latest version of The New Republic.

Easterbrook argues that in order to manufacture hydrogen in the amounts needed to replace the gasoline economy would not reduce dependence on fossil fuels. In fact, hydrogen in that amount can only be produced by "steam forming" natural gas in nuclear reactors. "But that means our miracle zero-emission hydrogen will be produced from fossil fuels via an intermediate stop at a nuclear reactor--not exactly what the Sierra Club had in mind."

Which leads us to Easterbrook's main point:

As Easterbrook notes, we currently have the technology today to make SUVs 25-35 percent more fuel efficient, but we, as a country, are unwilling to make the sacrifice to do so.

Our grandfather's suffered Depression and World War; they gave lives, labor, and love to preserve our country.

We are unwilling to give up our Cadillac Escalades.

A Fable

2003-02-21T07:00:00.000-08:00

A communist and a libertarian wanted to get some honey from a hive of bees.

The communist approached the hive and said, "Comrades, under the system of communism we believe that 'from each according to one's abilities, to each according to one's needs' is the law of life. Once you have achieved the proper revolutionary consciousness, you will realize that it is your moral obligation to give me your honey, as I need it. I will give you a party card so that when you approach your comrades with your needs they can give them to you."

The libertarian approached from the other side of the hive. "Don't listen to that statist. You have no obligation to him, nor me. However, under free market capitalism, I can pay you for your honey with this 20 dollar bill, a very fair price, and with this 20 dollar bill, you may determine for yourselves what your needs are and who you should buy them from, instead of relying on others to determine them for you."

The libertarian and the communist argued and argued over their philosophies and which one the bees should accept. "There's only one thing to do", the libertarian said, "we will see whether they accept my 20 dollar bill or your party card for the honey."

Each tried to place his token into the beehive to let the bees decide. At this point, the bees came out of their hive and proceeded to sting the crap out of both of them.

(Originally posted on Kuro5in by pyramid termite.)

What If You Do Not Look American

2003-02-20T10:27:00.000-08:00

This is a great column in the San Francisco Gate's website by Annie Nakao. I can't add to it, so here it is.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/02/20/DD221293.DTL

Descartes Demon

2003-02-20T10:05:00.000-08:00

In Descartes's Mediations, Descartes loses sleep by forcing himself to doubt the existence of reality:

Descartes, Mediations, Meditation 1

Studies may now show that this "malignant demon" is in fact our own mind. Consider the following from Michael Schemmer

As I wrote in December, while some may think that atheism is merely a negative position decrying lack of proof in some supreme being, more and more scientific evidence is being proposed to actual describe 'religious' and 'supernatural' human experiences in purely natural ways. The best positive arguments for atheism may lie in human being's understanding of the brain and its workings as well as the understanding of evolution on the human species development.

Descartes would appreciate this. It was from his own attempt to understand the workings of his own mind that precipitated his belief in the mind-body duality, and, from there, his belief in God.

If science can show us more reasons for why this mind-body duality does not exist and how the architecture of our brain developed through evolution lead us to an illusory belief in God, then, I'm sure that Descartes would reexamine his position, and may find himself with more uncertainty in his life, but also more truth.

Stuffing the Electronic Ballot Box, Part II

2003-02-20T08:05:00.000-08:00

Salon has picked up the story about black box voting.

It's all been here before, but it's nice to see fringes of the mainstream media are picking this up.

Interesting Alternative Tax Proposal

2003-02-17T21:57:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting proposal on how to replace all tax current tax vehicles with an Automated Payment Transaction Tax: Dreaming Out Loud: One Tiny Little Tax

You can read Dr. Feige's paper on this tax here: http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/wpawuwppe0106002.html

Cuts for the Street; the Street for the Poor

2003-02-15T09:13:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times editorial page:

Zen and the Art of Geo-Politics

2003-02-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

The impending War in Iraq has had me wondering about the best course of action. Of course, I believe that Sadaam is a bad guy. But on the other hand, I don't necessarily believe that military force is the most effective way to deal with him (or with any other tyrant.)

Recently, I’ve been giving considerable thought to the fundamental advantages of well-functioning democracies over other forms of government: non-violent transfer of power.

While other types of governments may be more effective in the sort term (see Singapore), these governments ultimately rest upon the personality of their ruling class. The weakest link in these types of governments is the frailty of the human body and mind.

Thus, whenever debilitating illness or death stalks these governments, the entire system is pushed to the brink of violence and overthrow.

Western-style democracies, by contrast, go through transitions of power easily, rarely provoking revolution, coup, or civil war.

Given that Western-style democracies can easily outlast petty tyrannies, dictatorships, and oligarchies, wouldn’t long-term policies of containment and aid make be more secure and more effective than the short-sighted war, invasion, and empire being considered by the United States government today?

In more blunt words, shouldn’t we do our best to aid the people of Iraq while we wait for Saddam to die of old age or coup?

I’m reminded of America’s own Civil War, where we rose up in arms against each other over the dying idea of slavery. Even though I admire the bravery of those soldiers who fought for the Union and for emancipation, I can’t help but think of the waste.

Most of the other Western democracies of the time were able to shed their slavery habit without losing so many lives. For the British, slavery is just a footnote; a bad habit they grew out of. America, on the other hand, still suffers from the fissures of our Civil War today.

In the end, I feel that the Iraq conflict is based upon the mistaken fears of the near future, and neglects our long term advantage. Because of our impatience and desire to immediately solve problems we see, we are provoking a period of bloodshed whose ripples will echo for the next generation.

In the end, maybe we should learn that sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing.

Happy Valentines Day?

2003-02-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

Corporate Weasel Watch Update: Tax Evasion and Large Corporations

2003-02-14T10:41:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, NPR's All Things Considered had three stories on Tax Evasion and large corporations. Here's some interesting notes I took from these reports.

In ATC's Enron story:

Enron paid no taxes on over $2 billion dollars of reported income.
Enron had 12 separate tax shelters set up.
These shelters allowed Enron to count losses twice as well as count depreciation on assets that would normally not be counted.
None of these tax shelters had any legitmate business purpose.
Enron's tax department was run like a profit center with revenue targets.
Enron claimed attorney-client privelege in order to hide important documents from government auditors.
200 of Enron's top executives earned over $1.4 billion dollars in 2000 alone!
These executives evaded their tax responsibility by structuring this income as deferred income.
These executives accellerated the use of this deferred revenue as they saw the impending doom of Enron approaching.

In ATC's Sprint story:

Instead of a flat fee, tax advisers often charge a percentage of what their clients avoid in their tax responsibility.
Favorite Quote: "It's pretty ugly, because you really don't expect or want tax advisers getting paid on how much they cheat." (Robert McIntyre, Citizens for Tax Justice)

Most importantly, ATC had a great short segment on the growing gap between the income reported to the markets (book income) and the income reported to the IRS (tax income). Corporations keep two sets of books: one which emphasizes their income to justify higher stock prices from capital markets, and one which limits their income as much as possible to limit their tax responsibilty.

The IRS estimates a gap between reported book income and reported tax income of over $155 billion dollars in the last year. As the chart to the left shows, most of this gap is created by the largest companies. This is because the largest companies are able to take advantage of some of the differing rules (i.e. options). Also, since evading your tax responsibility can be complicated, it takes a significant amount of money to structure these complex tax shelters.

If we eliminated the different tax and book accounting rules and just had corporations report one set of books, we could have more credibility and more oversight on the finances our public companies report to the street.

Something we desperately need these days.

UPDATE
Here's a link to a paper by Harvard's Mihir A. Desai on the growing gap between book and tax income: (http://www.people.hbs.edu/mdesai/divergence.pdf).

From Slate's discussion of this paper:

Corporate Weasel Watch: Sprint and Ernst and Young

2003-02-14T07:00:00.000-08:00

Molly Ivins comments on a sad state of affairs at Sprint It seems as if the executives at Sprint used corporate money to pay auditors at Ernst and Young to set up tax shelters for them. According to the New York Times, Sprint's auditor, Ernst and Young, sold Sprint executives tax shelters so that they can avoid paying taxes on over $100 million dollars of income gained on stock options.

From the New York Times article:

Molly Ivins expresses the outrage that's been hammering inside my head.

Unfortunately for the unpatriotic and greedy William T. Esrey, Sprint's former chief executive, and Ronald T. LeMay, Sprint's former president, their tax dodge didn't work. Sprint fired them, and now they are facing bankruptcy.

So what do they do? The sue of course. They're suing Ernst and Young, they're suing their lawyers, and, most egregiously of all, they're suing Sprint! This has to be the height of hypocracy. It's like those carjackers you hear about suing their victims for accidentally running over them while the victim tries to escape.

Molly Ivins has the right idea.

Senator Robert Byrd Calls Out the Administration

2003-02-13T16:21:00.000-08:00

Today Robert Byrd took to the Senate Floor to condemn the administrations record and beseech the Administration to change its ways. The full text of his speech is here below:

Floor Speech by Senator Byrd
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Ah, the Fresh Smell of Logic

2003-02-13T11:22:00.000-08:00

Michael Kinsley is right on today regarding the Estrada fillibuster. Estrada defends his evasiveness on his judicial views with the the following line: "I'm very firmly of the view that although we all have views on a number of subjects from A to Z, the job of a judge is to subconsciously put that aside and look at each case … with an open mind."

But as Kinsley rightly puts it:

The Law should be based upon logical reasoning. You think that a qualifed judge would find this logical flaw in this argument about judicial pre-judging.

Unless, of course, their "real reason for evasiveness is the fear that if some senators knew what his views are, they would vote against him."

Then, using this 'judicial prejudice avoidance' obfuscation would indicate a good lawyer, but not a good judge.

Corporate Weasel Watch: Enron

2003-02-13T08:20:00.000-08:00

When the Income Tax was first proposed, it was proposed as a 2% tax on those making more than $10,000 a year. When confronted with this, Presidential-candidate William Jennings Bryant said something along the lines of, "You know, I've said bad things about people, but I've never said something so bad as a man's patriotism only went 2% deep."

Yet here we are with the major corporations of this country doing everything they can to avoid their patriotic duty and help support the very government that enables their wealth. Enron is the latest in a long line of corporations that avoid their patriotic duty at the expense of their tax payers. The New York Times today cites a new report given to Congress:

Shame on these corporations who use the loopholes to avoid doing their fair share. But the real devil in this is the large accounting firms that enable this type of behavior.

Well, you may think that Enron is the primary offender and that we're getting them. But check out this frightening statistic from the same New York article:

It's disheartening to find out how shallow these people's patriotism actually is.

Media Bias is In the Eye of the Beholder

2003-02-12T21:12:00.000-08:00

With all of this discussion about media bias (see What Liberal Media? or Slate's The Varieties of Media Bias), one should at least consider that perhaps the perception of bias isn't in the media product, but in those who consume the media.

In fact, social psychologist's have done several studies that concern just that. One of the more famous studies was published in 1985 by Vallone, Ross, and Lepper. In this study, groups of pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students each viewed one of the same six segments about the Beruit Massacre of 1982. After viewing the videotape, the students were asked whether the report was biased, and, if it was, in what way was it biased. The results were quite interesting.

Even more interestingly, the more knowledgeable the partisan, the deeper their perception of bias. As if they had more facts at their command to confirm their suspicion.

So, if you want to stop media bias, to quote Michael Jackson, you better start with the man in the mirror.

The Artist as a Young Prisoner

2003-02-12T10:48:00.000-08:00

Nelson Mandela, a hero of mine, has recently turned to art. From the New York Times:

Here's a sample of his work:

Again, from the NY Times:

And Now For Something Completely Different

2003-02-11T10:56:00.000-08:00

Taking a break from our normal political and social dialogue.

This was sent to me in email. I laughed so hard, I had to post it here.

Stamp Out Spam!

2003-02-10T12:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Yahoo (and Hotmail and MSN and AOL),

Your free email services have been a God-send to many people on the Internet. Now people can have a single email account for personal use that they can check from anywhere. It's helped me out. My father, brother, and sister all use your services to send pictures of my nephew to me, or let me know how my uncle is doing. You should be proud; it's a good service you provide.

Unfortunately, as James Gleick notes in the yesterday's NY Times Magazine:

And I'm sure you're team of bright people have been thinking about how to resolve this issue. I've seen places that try to prevent the automatic creation of these free accounts, and I'm sure that does some good, though it's probably a little while coming, and I'm sure there might be a way for spammers to prevent it.

But I found the germ of an idea in this same article that may help you and help us. James Gleick reports:

It lacks even the modest checks and balances of traditional marketing: to print letters and send them through the post costs money; likewise to make telephone calls. A direct mailer can't afford a pitch so shabby and fruitless that it will produce a one-in-a-thousand rate of return. A spammer can, because sending a million more copies is practically free.

So here's my idea germ, ready to infect your brain. My friend AOL, and Yahoo, and MSN, and Hotmail, charge people to send mail. Receiving mail can still be free, but when you send, you have to pay.

You don't have to charge all mail. Say the first 25 letters a day go for free. But after that, you have to pay. The same way that direct-mail marketers have to pay. You can make it easy on folks. From 25-100 letters a day, have that cost 1 cent per letter. Or a buck to get your extra hundred letters out. After that, have the prices go up exponentially. $2 for the next 100. $4 for the next one hundred.

Make it economically disadvantageous for spammers to use Hotmail and AOL and Yahoo and MSN to send spam.

Otherwise, you may find your free services no longer worth the trouble. From that same NY Times article:

And if no one reads any mail from the free services, then why have the free services?

Electronic Voting on NPR

2003-02-10T08:02:00.000-08:00

NPR does a great overview of the problems with electronic voting.

Outrage Overload

2003-02-09T21:46:00.000-08:00

Or go see it here.

Shirky: Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality

2003-02-08T22:51:00.000-08:00

While I don't necessarily want to blog about blogging, this particular link (.Shirky: Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality) is quite good, and I'd like to read more about the Power Law.

If you want to know why I'm writing this log, it's mostly as a journal to myself. A way to link to important pages and vet my own thoughts about politics, philosophy, and ethics. Also, it's a place to make sure I don't forget about some of the more neat thoughts I run across.

Shirky's Power Law thoughts belongs here.

Computer Scientists Fear Voting Via Computer

2003-02-08T07:00:00.000-08:00

When the experts raise an alarm, we should listen. And as reported by by the San Jose Mercury News, the experts are weighing in.

David Dill, a professor of computer science at Stanford University, originated the petition. His statement is simple:

If you are interested in this issue, you should take a look at Cal Tech-MIT Electronic Voting Project.

However, David's critique reminds me of another computer scientist's critique of the security system in airports. Bruce Schneier, author of the classic book Applied Cryptopgraphy, points out a major flaw in security thinking in an Atlantic Article entitled Homeland Insecurity by Charles C. Mann :

Bruce Scheier gives an illustrative example of this when he encounters security troubles at the local airport:

Similarly any electronic voting scheme must "fail smartly." If after election day, fraud is suspected at a polling place, there must be a way for human beings to first, verify that there was fraud, and, more importantly, verify the true count.

A system that only stores votes in a single, proprietary, computer-readable format would have no way to verify the count. A system that stored votes in a variety of formats, including a human readable one, would not only have checks and balances, it would have an easy to verify and official way of hand-counting votes, should a manual recount be necessary.

My idea of an ideal voting system would be one that looks like the following:

People would use a touch-screen (a la ATM) to be easily prompted through a ballot. This touch screen could handle different types of elections (Instant Run-Off, etc.), and could tabulate votes electronically as a check.
The machine would then print out a ballot on heavy card stock. On one side of the ballot would be a citizen's vote in an easy to read format. On the other side would be a vote that could be read by an optical scanning machine. Like optical scanning ballots today, the optical scanning format should be easy to verify by the voter.
A human being could then verify that their vote is correct.
The paper ballot would be fed into an optical reading machine. This machine would tabulate the first official count.
At the end of the election day, the optical reading machine would spit out a report on the votes and its tabulation. This could be compared against the check count in the elctronic machine. If an error exceeded a certain amount, an automatic manual recount could be ordered.

At least this would fail better than say, a system that has no accountability and may allow a candidate with strong ties to the manufactor of voting machines to stuff an electronic ballot box and fradulently win an election.

Facts and Recommendations on Electronic Voting

2003-02-08T06:16:00.000-08:00

From the Cal Tech-MIT Voting Technology Report:

The Problem

The election process lost 4 to 6 million presidential votes in 2000
An estimated 1.5 million presidential votes were not recorded in 2000 because of difficulties in using voting equipment.
Up to 3.5 million Senate and governor votes were lost because of technology over the last election cycle for these offices.
According to the US Census Bureau, in the 2000 election, 7.4 percent of registered voters who did not vote (approximately 3 million) reported that trouble with their registration was the main reason they did not vote.
According to the US Census Bureau, in the 2000 election 2.8 percent of registered voters who did not vote (approximately 1 million) reported that long lines, inconvenient hours, or polling place locations were the main reason they did not vote.

Electronic voting will change how we vote in the near future. To capture the full potential of electronic voting, a substantial change in the development and evaluation of equipment is required. The federal government should develop a coherent national approach to the development of this technology.

A standard equipment platform must be developed to guarentee that voters can verify their votes and that voters can create a copy of their votes that can be used in the event of a recount (full auditability). We recommend that this platform consist of modular voting equipment, whcih allows for the separate development of equipment for generating votes and of equipment for casting and for counting votes. This will allow for the development of very secure equipmetn for casting and counting votes and for continual improvement in the ballto of interface design.
We must build to the best of breed in other sorts of electronic technology. The federal government must establish and fund an election technology research program for the development of equipment. This program will focus on ballto and interface design, on security, and on handicap accessibility.
The federal government must create and fund a system for evaluating equipment, based on lab and field testing of equipment. This will be more efficient than the curretn system, whcih, at best, relies on demonstration projects run by the firms that develop and sell equipment.
New standards must be developed focusing on appropriate standards for security, human usability, and handicap accessibility. These standards must evolve, based on the lessons learned through research and evaluation program.
Many election officials know little about voting systems used elsewhere in the country. The federal government should fund a clearinghouse for information about election equipment, election administration costs, and voter registration and polling place practices. This clearinghosue will act as a sort of "Consumer Reports" for countries.