Arnie: We Can Have It All

Arnie, from Copenhagen:

We in California have proven it over and over that you can protect the economy, and you can protect the environment. I don't think you have to choose. I think it is nonsense talk to say let's talk first about the economy.

He made that comment on Good Morning America, in response to a question from crack-interviewer George Stephanopoulos, who failed to ask the obvious follow-up question: "Uhh, but isn't California, like, going broke?"

Copenhagen

Let me get this straight: the U.S. is not only supposed to redirect some massive portion of its economy to dramatically reducing the amount CO2 we release, but while we're at we should be funding developing countries' efforts as well? Right in the midst of a severe economic downturn. Who could pass up such a deal?

Tale of Two Recessions - continued

In my last post, I contrasted the robust business recovery we saw out of the last deep recession we had (beginning in July '81) compared to the rather tepid one we're seeing now (and which may not even be a true recovery, for all we know). Another contrast is in how these recessions have been perceived.

I searched the New York Times for articles with the words 'Unemployment' and 'Hardship' to find articles that might be addressing the impact of the economy on people's lives. Here's what I found:

July 1981 - June 1983: 120 articles
Dec 2007 - November 2009: 56 articles

Why would this be? Why would the Times have been more interested in covering hard times back in the early 80's than they are today. I'm not sure that the answer is as simple as Reagan being president then. This bears closer scrutiny.

On a related note, Andrew Gelman discusses the relative severity of the two recessions, taking into account age of the population.

Are We in Recovery?

Are win in a recovery right now, and how strong is it? It looks pretty anemic, at least compared to the last great recession we had back in 81/82. Then, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker was ruthless in keeping interest rates high in order to wring the poison from the system. While the recession was painful (and since there was a Republican president at the time the press was equally relentless in featuring sob stories of unemployed workers, none of whom seem to be much in the news in Obamaland), the therapy worked. When the economy recovered, it roared.

Note the chart below comparing Gross Domestic Private Investment in the two recessions. The Volcker recession began in the 3rd quarter of 1981; this recession began in the 4th quarter of '07 (see NBER list of recessions). This one does not look to have the same robust recovery - though we'll see with the 4th quarter figures. The difference? This time around, no one's willing to apply any hard therapy.



Source: B.E.A. Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product

The #1 Suspect?

Imagine we're talking about any other country in world besides the U.S. Imagine the leader of the country is assassinated in the home province of the man who will directly succeed this leader on his untimely death, and that this man was himself a very powerful force in the government only a few years earlier until the late leader supplanted him as head of his party. Imagine further that the assassin is rapidly apprehended and in short order is himself dispatched. Now wouldn't everyone just assume that the new leader was responsible for the deed, or at least at the top of the list of likely suspects?

So how is it that so many believe the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy, but almost no one assumes Johnson was behind it? I feel close to 100% confident that Oswald acted alone, but whatever little doubt I have points in LBJ's direction. It would have been trivially easy for him to have arranged such a crude but effective hit. Certainly, compared with the other much discussed conspiracies, this would require the involvement of the least number of people. But it's never mentioned, except in fringe circles (google "Kennedy Assassination Johnson" for a flavor). Why is that?

Addendum: Imagine further that the murdered leader's brother and right-hand man, out of power after the new man takes over, 4 years later seeks the top office himself and during his campaign is himself gunned down. How could any conspiracist not zero in on LBJ. The answer, as Glaivester noted in the comments, is that the conspiracists are ideologically driven - they want to believe in the inherent evil of the U.S., and so must cast the assassination of JFK as the treacherous act of reactionary (i.e., American) interests to subvert the glorious march of progressivism. Although I also have a friend who believes in a similar conspiracy, but believes it was a necessary and proper conspiracy, as Kennedy posed too great a danger to the nation.

Will Hasan's Efforts Have Been in Vain?

Not if the Washington Post has any say in it. And no doubt General "Diversity is the most important thing in the whole world" Casey is listening.

U.S. Muslim service members say they stand out in both their worlds. Among fellow troops, that can mean facing ethnic taunts, awkward questions about spiritual practices and a structure that is not set up to accommodate their worship. Among Muslims, the questions can be more profound: How can a Muslim participate in killing other Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan?

No doubt frantic efforts at accommodation are already underway to make sure no Muslim soldier is ever driven again to take such extreme measures to voice his disapproval.

Meanwhile the New York Times is fighting a similar battle from a different approach: that the shooting is just another symptom of stress in the military and our failed efforts to relieve it.

But in the town of Killeen and other surrounding communities, the attack, one of the worst mass shootings on a military base in the United States, is also seen by many as another blow in an area that has been beset by crime and violence since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Reports of domestic abuse have grown by 75 percent since 2001. At the same time, violent crime in Killeen has risen 22 percent while declining 7 percent in towns of similar size in other parts of the country.

Yeah, I can just here those Killeen residents right now: "What - that Fort Hood thing? Please. We've had a 22% increase in violent crime ourselves - don't talk to me about mass murder - we live with it everyday!"

Clearly, according to the Times, Fort Hood needs more mental health professionals. Surely there are more crack psychiatrists like Maj. Hasan they could bring in to help?

What the Elections Mean

The Republican rout in Virginia and the shocking Republican win in NJ means that the Obama magic is officially over. It's become clear that the alleged Obama charisma was more a chimera and that the glow he emanated was just a back reflection of his supporters own sanctimony. But this pretty much makes it official - the guy is a bore personally and his natural inclination technocrat over leader. The MSM is struggling to maintain the myth - thus the Washington Post vainly tries to portray his lackluster foreign policy performance as the inner-community-organizer at work (like there's any evidence he was any good at that, either). And the Times features "The First Marriage" on its magazine cover in a desperate effort to spice up the brand, to no avail (more on this anon). So now it's down to plain old politics, which is good.

But not necessarily for Republicans. What this election does not tell us is that Republicans are back. They still have little to offer the breadth of the electorate. They were in charge more or less for eight years and only managed to accomplish the near destruction of the U.S. economy and our influence abroad. Right now they pretty much have to do their best to sabotage the Democrat's health care push - there's no choice there. But they've yet to come up with anything to grab voters' attention.

Elliot Spitzer has given them a hint how to proceed:

break up the banks. Imagine this: by next spring, an intellectual consensus will have emerged that the concentration in the banking sector that developed from the 1980s until the crash of ‘08 was misguided...A few brave souls on the Right — recognizing that the Republican Party has been bereft of ideas in its attacks on President Obama — will then try to re-define a populist, conservative attack by asserting that the White House has been captured by Wall Street. Real populism and change, they will argue, will come from the Republican, not the Democratic, party.

That is indeed the direction the Republicans must go if they want to grow their constituency. Rather than fretting over their share of the minority vote, they ought to be trying to expand it among the vast working class. They don't need to be pro-union to do this - not necessarily even anti-business. But they can't continue to be in the lap of large corporate interests. It will be tough, because that's where the money comes from. But they need to get back to emphasizing traditional family values - which is first and foremost about fathers being able to earn a decent wage for decent work, and being able to save money and find a good occupation for their kids without mortgaging their retirment on college. There are areas ripe for exploitation in the populist arena - they don't have to hang their hat on abortion to win the heartland.

But, alas, Republicans are too stupid - and too addicted to easy campaign cash - to even attempt it.

Replay Review in Baseball: It Ain't Gonna Work

The umps have been blowing at least a call a game in the playoffs, and its frustrating to see how blatantly wrong their calls are on the super-slo-mo replays they have now. But I can't see how video review of calls is going to work. You can't have the crew chief clambering thru the dugout to watch a replay each time there's an argument. You could have a guy in the booth to make the calls, but even if the MLB wanted to splurge on a 5th (7th, in the post-season) umpire for each game, what criteria is he to use when over-ruling? Could he just overrule each call if he disagreed? Or just the real bad ones? Where do you draw the line?

Football has a clever system where coaches must ask for the replay and forfeit a timeout if the call doesn't go their way. Time-outs in football are like gold - coaches typically hoard them and often end up wasting timeouts because they're too afraid to squander them early. And since the review takes time (a handy commercial-break's length of time) forfeiting a time-out makes sense. How would that work in baseball? You forfeit a trip to the mound if you don't get the call? Not likely to work - there's too many ways to stall in baseball. So you can't have the team's request a review because they'd be requesting them on every play. If you set a limit of 3 times per game, they'll use it 3 times every game. And there's no clear basis for a neutral party to intervene in some cases and not others. Allow the umpires themselves to ask for a review? Fat chance - they don't ask for help now from their crewmates, they're surely not going to ask for help from someone watching TV. I'm afraid we'll just have to put up with human beings for the foreseeable future.

Is 'Diversity' the Root of All Stupidity

UPDATE: School board weasels out of suspension. The local school board passed a resolution changing the rule that kindergarteners and first graders would only face a 3 to 4 day suspension. Video here.


I don't mean actual diversity (that's another debate) - but the "diversity" mantra that rules our society, and I mean the stupidity we find in our public institutions. The recent persecution of a 6-year old Cub Scout by his school district highlights my meaning. The boy brought his brand new knife/fork/spoon camping utensil to school to eat his lunch, and was dutifully suspended by his school for possession of a weapon and will need to spend 45 days in reform school before he can return. Of course there are wails of protest insisting on "common sense" in these cases, but the school's superintendent is not persuaded. “There is no parent who wants to get a phone call where they hear that their child no longer has two good seeing eyes because there was a scuffle and someone pulled out a knife” he intoned.

But the reason for this policy is made clear in the same article:

Education experts say that zero-tolerance policies initially allowed authorities more leeway in punishing students, but were applied in a discriminatory fashion. Many studies indicate that African-Americans were several times more likely to be suspended or expelled than other students for the same offenses.

So there you have it. In order to justify the suspension and prosecution of urban students for bringing switchblades to school, we must equally punish white suburban cub scouts who bring eating utensils to school, even when they're six years old, or else we are guilty of violating the fundamental rule of diversity: There are no differences whatsoever between different ethnic/racial groups, and therefore any measured differences are the result of discrimination.

The "zero tolerance" is not for the behavior being controlled. What there's zero tolerance for is disparate outcome. Thus, no individual in authority can be trusted to use common sense, because common sense is inherently racist. On a much more dangerous level this is our approach to terrorism. We can't possibly discriminate against immigrants based on the terroristic proclivities of their native lands; nor can we profile Arabs or Muslims based on their disproportionate engagement of murderous terror activities. As a result the civil liberties of all must be curtailed, whether you're a 90-year old grandmother or a 15-year old freckle-faced schoolgirl. All are equally likely to commit mass murder.

So we can all ridicule the buffoons in Delaware all we like, but they're just following the rules we've given them. It seems every 6 months there's another story of a 7-year old put in handcuffs or a kid thrown out of school for taking an aspirin, but as long as we hold "diversity" to be the reigning principal of our age, we can't expect anyone to risk using "common sense."

In Defense of the Nobel Committee (Kind of)

Yes, Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a joke, particularly considering that the nominaiton would have to have been submitted by February 1. But consider what would be the likely state of affairs under a President McCain. War with Iran - or at least heavy aerial bombardment of same - would be imminent if not already under way. Tensions with Russia over missile installations in Eastern Europe and breakaway provinces in Georgia would be at a fever pitch. And lord knows what degree of escalation would be going on in Iraqistan.

Leaving aside how our handling of these events play to the best interests of the USA (though missiles in the Czech Republic and the sovereignty of Georgia? - come on) - certainly from a peace-nik Norwegian committee, McCain would have been a disaster. So from their standpoint off in the idyllic confines of Norway, Obama's ability to get elected alone was sufficient reason to award him the prize.

William Safire, RIP

I read William Safire's Times columns religiously for many years and, while I very much enjoyed his writing and the basic tenor of his arguments, it seemed that over-and-over again he ended up being wrong. His most blatantly off-base argument was his accusing General Schwartzkopf of being a "new McClellan" for his apparent reluctance to take on Saddam in 1990. That was a few short months before the general orchestrated one of the most lopsided victories in the history of warfare. A bit later, just a few weeks before the fireworks would begin, he actually offered as a choice in his annual "Office Pool" predictions that Schwartzkopf would run as a Democrat, McClellan-like, against Bush. But it really wasn't his fault - he was after all an original neocon, and neocons are pretty much doomed to being wrong.

The 'Public Option' and Democrat Assurances

One of the more contentious issues in the health debate is whether there will be a so-called 'public option' - i.e., a government-run insurer of last resort. Health-care proponents claim it's necessary to "keep private insurers honest." Opponents claim the public option will destroy the health insurance industry. Proponents counter that this is a lie and the health care proposals in no way jeopardize private insurance - that there are safeguards to prevent this. We know that pundits on either side of a debate often lie, so which side is right this time?

This one fits a typical pattern we've seen over the years in which those on the left are the liars (yes, there are other patterns where the right is lying). The pattern is this:

Democrats push new proposal X
Republicans claim X will lead to Y
Democrats claim this is a lie and the proposal clearly prevents Y from happening
After a passage of some period of time, Y is the norm and those who continue to oppose Y are [insert appropriate anti-reactionary epithet]

Where have we seen this before? The Civil Rights Act, for one. Opponents claimed that it would lead to quotas. Proponents pointed out the act specifically bars quotas. Before we knew what hit us we had the EEOC and affirmative action was ensconsed thoughout the land, prosecuting instances of "disparate impact." Opponents are accused of bigotry.

When the immigration reform act was passed in 1965, Ted Kennedy promised Americans it would not lead to a shift in the nation's ethnic balance. Well, a dramatic shift has indeed occurred. Imagine arguing on TV today that immigration is a problem because it has changed our ethnic make-up.

Gay marriage is a recent example where the progression occurred rather rapidly. In his dissent in Lawrence v Texas, Scalia predicted* that the majority's decision to protect homosexual sex on Fourteenth Amendment grounds would lead to gay marriage being legalized. The majority scoffed at such a notion. But state court decisions legalizing gay marriage soon followed in its wake. And today, opposing gay marriage leads to charges of bigotry and can lose you your job.

So the 'public option' will absolutely lead to the destruction of the private insurance industry - it can't work any other way, no matter what 'safeguards' are put into the law. The only point of the public option is to provide a low-cost alternative to private insurance for those who can't afford the latter. "Keeping private insurers honest" means engaging in business practices that private insurers would find too costly. By definition, this will undercut the private market. The pressure to allow more-and-more people into the public option will be too great, and the floodgates will open. In a few years, when the private insurance industry starts to fall apart, proponents will point out how unfair it is that there is a private insurance market for the wealthy sucking up valuable health-care resources from the working class and that it should just be killed outright.

Now whether this is a good or bad thing is a different question - should we have a single-payer system or a private-insurance system? - I don't know. But the honest argument is that the public option will indeed kill the health-insurance industry. Come to think of it, Paul Krugman himself has argued just that.

*State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. Lawrence v Texas, Scalia (dissent).

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group. Lawrence v Texas, O'Connor (concurring)

Obama Kills East Europe Missile Shield

Good for him - it was a dumb idea that needlessly antagonized Russia, a country with which we have no proper quarrel. Hmmm - first he starts a trade war (where no one actually gets killed) with a "partner" who sucks $250 from us each year, and backs off from starting a real - he's on a roll!

Obama's Trade War

Could the tariff Obama threw on Chinese tires lead to a trade war? Not clear yet if it will, but if it does, then finally we'll have a war that, okay, we might not be able to win, but sure would be worth waging!

It's All About Race

Now Jimmy Carter is joining the "Joe Wilson's Outburst Was About Race" chorus. While using the "race card" to stifle criticism of the president is a concern, perhaps there's a silver lining? Perhaps there is a growing realization that, when it comes to pretty much everything, it's all about race?

Obama himself is all about race - he's nothing without his race - he'd be just another boring guy of above-average intelligence whom no one's ever heard of. Crime is all about race. Education is all about race. Government spending and taxation are all about race. The securitized-mortgage calamity was all about race. Income inequality is all about race. Is health care all about race? It's largely an issue of who pays for it vs. who benefits from it, and so like all such conundrums it too boils down to race. Foreign policy? Oddly, though very few foreign policy decisions are influenced by what we consider minorities, it seems a vast amount of foreign policy resources are driven by the fortunes of a couple million people in the Middle East who share an ethno-religious identity with a couple million people who happen to be doing rather well here in the U.S.A. And, obviously, there's immigration.

Non-Asian minorities have lower average achievement levels economically (lower median income), in education (test scores, graduation rates). They have higher rates of street crime, of poor health effects (obesity, hypertension) and illegitimacy. These differences are statistically significant and, more important, noticeable to pretty much everyone on each side, particularly to people like Obama who are much higher achievers than average. The question is how do you respond to these differences - resentfully or practically? Immigration greatly exacerbates these divides because it results in very large increases in the numbers of one underachieving group (Mexican-Americans). And when it comes to contentious issues like universal health care, it's a problem that places like Canada - or Vermont - don't have to wrestle with. So, yes, Joe Wilson's outburst ultimately finds its genesis in race - but so does pretty much every other controversy that pops up in this racially divided nation.