February 28, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Amazing Disappearing Money
In an otherwise sound comment about the partisan nature of the CEA, the New Republic lets slip an interesting comment on tax cuts and the economy:
Now, if the tax cut encouraged consumers to spend more, then, by definition, they must have saved less. To say the tax cut encouraged both spending and saving is nonsensical.
I think this highlights the basic misfiring of synapses in the big-government mind.
Look at it this way. If I get an extra $2 from not paying taxes, and I save $1 and spend $1, consumer spending and savings both increased. I have spent more and saved more. It is the government that is saving less, not I. How is this difficult to understand?
But wait, it gets better! If I spend my entire $2 on Frankwiches, then the Frankwich vendor has my $2. He could save it or spend it.
If I put the $2 in the bank, my bank might lend it to the Frankwich vendor, then he will spend it on Frankwich inventory. His vendor will then bank the money - and it may be loaned to someone else.
So, if a tax cut puts more money in the hands of the private sector, it can be saved and spent several times. In fact, there are only two ways the New Republic can claim any validity to this remark: First, if the consumer is spending a tax cut he didn't receive. While the tax cut bounty is small thus far, that is thankfully not the case. Second, if they mean the overall national savings rate (government and the private sector combined). They don't**. I guess the problem is they're still grieving that the government no longer has this money and it's interfering with basic reasoning skills.
The New Republic "Notebook" is guilty of my ultimate pet peeve - Zero Sum Logic. Yes folks, that's where the blog name came from. It is the ridiculous assumption that a dollar one person has is a whole dollar someone else doesn't have. The right way to look at it is, a dollar one person has is a dollar he might give to you, in a free exchange for something of value.
They are also guilty of what I call the "money in a mattress" assumption. TNR and folks like Paul Krugman like to say that wealthy people save their tax cuts, rather than spend them. This is true, but "savings" are not the same as stuffing them in a mattress.* In fact, if the money is saved, it usually ends up in a bank, bond or stocks. It is invested, which means someone else spends it on labor or goods, creating jobs one way or the other. So it is unclear, at best, whether the rebate spent on non-durable goods by a poorer person has the same or less stimulative value than that invested by a wealthy person. Both find their way into the economy pretty damn fast. Which makes it doubly ironic that we hear so much about our profligacy and need for increased savings from folks who apparently think consumer savings are a one-for-one drag on GDP.
The class wars produce a lot of zero-sum and mattress fallacies. Many of these pundits have become so accustomed to using them they don't realize how glaringly wrong they are.
*This appears to be why Krugman thinks a tax rebate to corporations is a lump sum transfer but somehow a tax rebate to lower income people is pure fiscal stimulus. Jonathan Chait, take notice, there are legitimate questions about Krugman's reasoning.
** National accounts, of course, are governed by the accounting identity Y=C+I+G+X, which dictates, with a little algebraic manipulation that private sector net savings/deficit as a % of GDP plus Government net savings plus net exports (again, as a % of GDP) must =0. So to the extent the private sector deficit as a % of GDP fluctuates, there must be an equal and opposite move in the sum of euivalent measures of the government surplus/deficit and net exports. This is why if the consumer started saving, the government surplus had to disappear (or the dollar could crash..). See Wynne Godley on this, or the third post I made in this blog.
From the desk of Jane Galt:VodkaPundit is moving, and so
VodkaPundit is moving, and so am I. Look for these files over at www.janegalt.net just as soon as I fix up my little FTP problem at my new host. You know, you could, like, bookmark the new link now so that there won't be any problems with the switchover. Just a suggestion.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition
This story about Judge Lamberth's special master for hacking the Indian Trust Funds is hysterical. Lamberth had grave concerns about the security of the Bureau of Indian Affairs computer systems, so he hired Mr. Balaran to test them.
Mr. Balaran's first attempt barely fits the conventional definition of hacking:
First Mr. Balaran went to a bureau building in Virginia, walked in through a loading platform and asked directions to the computing nerve center, where he plucked from a shredder a lengthy printout of data on some of the trust fund accounts that the agency manages for half a million Indians. Nobody stopped him.
In addition to poor physical security, systems gaps did exist:
Then he hired a team of hackers to break into the bureau's computers, using commonly available software...He hired Predictive Systems Inc. (news/quote), a computer security company based in New York, to perform a "pen test" — industry jargon for any electronic effort to penetrate the defenses of a computer system. When the Predictive Systems team examined the bureau's network, it was immediately apparent that it would be possible to gain access to sensitive data via the Internet using readily available software tools.
The usual bureaucratic antibodies emerge at this point:
the bureau protested the results, saying that the pen test ordinarily would have failed but that the Predictive Systems penetration team, as part of the exercise, had had detailed information about the agency's network.
This despite the fact that the Bureau had already admitted:
"For all practical purposes, we have no security," Mr. Nessi said in that interview.
Mr. Nessi runs the place, so that must have been IT with the denial. Nonetheless, they, too, were proved wrong by Mr. Balaran:
Finally, after the bureau complained that the computer assault had been unfair because it relied on inside knowledge of the agency's network, Mr. Balaran's team broke in again, without such help, even setting up a trust fund account in his name.
Judge Lamberth shut them down after this. Apparently, these concerns had been raised before, even by an outfit whose reliability as a watchdog has been called into question recently:
Mr. Balaran's report noted that there had been at least four earlier ones indicating computer security weaknesses at the bureau. Those warnings date from 1989, when the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen first raised concerns.Most recently, in late 1999, Mr. Nessi, then special adviser to the assistant interior secretary for Indian affairs, commissioned such a report from SeNet International, a computer security company. The evaluation, completed in the spring of 2000, cost nearly $1 million and identified hundreds of weaknesses.
But Mr. Balaran noted in his report that when he interviewed Mr. Nessi in June of last year, he discovered that the SeNet report had been read by neither Mr. Nessi nor any other Indian affairs official.
I've seen it before. Sometimes only a sledgehammer to the head gets a bureaucracy to admit the obvious. Unfortunately, it's not limited to the public sector.
An article in Federal Computer Week, describes the situation at BIA in detail:
"We've been operating with a cart and donkey. All of a sudden, we now have ëStar Trek,'" said Neal McCaleb, an assistant secretary at Interior and director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bureau's multimillion-dollar trust accounting computer system, which was set up less than two years ago to handle money generated by some 54 million acres of American Indian land, is at the core of the problem....."You need to develop a more holistic security programÖall the way from training employees to ensuring passwords to reducing the number of people with rights to developing appropriate firewalls to monitoring," said Al Pesachowitz, who was CIO at the Environmental Protection Agency when it temporarily shut down its Web site two years ago after a GAO audit found security problems.
No word on the mysterious umlaut hackers penetrating ëFederal ComputerÖ Week.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Things I need to do
Things I need to do before I can edit my article on the Microsoft Civil Complaint
1) Reboot my computer
2) Clean the screen
3) Get Q-Tips and clean the keyboard
4) Readjust my chair
5) Look up the closing price of Microsoft on the day the AOL complaint was filed
6) Go to the store for more Diet Coke
7) Check my hit counter to see if anyone new is visiting
8) Search my name on Google to see why I'm getting hits from Alt.Sex.Spanking
9) Get another glass of Diet Coke.
10) Go to Microsoft to see if they have a response to the complaint. Download all relevant updates for my copy of Windows.
11) Search for legal clipart on the web.
12) Search for my ex-boyfriend the M&A lawyer.
13) Search for all my ex-boyfriends.
14) Get the bottle of Diet Coke from the fridge so I don't have to keep getting up.
15) Walk the dog.
16) Go through my old college yearbooks to make sure that my ex-boyfriend the M&A lawyer actually was once cute.
17) Readjust my chair.
18) Watch Friends.
19) That new show looks pretty good too.
20) Send my sister out for another bottle of Diet Coke.
21) Go to TurboTax to estimate my tax burden this year.
22) Buy books on Amazon.
23) Organize my pencils.
24) Highlight relevant passages in the complaint.
25) Make a list of all the things I have to do before I can edit my article on Microsoft.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Andrew Ferguson
Andrew Ferguson of Bloomberg.com writes good columns on the war and international affairs. The linked column celebrates Pat Buchanan's poor prognosis.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Shiloh Bucher has a good
Shiloh Bucher has a good rejoinder to those who offered the alzheimers baby as a vindication of fetal research:
The Times' take on the designer baby reads: Baby Spared Mother's Fate by Genetic Tests as Embryo. This is not technically correct. The baby actually escaped the fate of its sibling embryos who were found to be unworthy of implantation and destroyed. The egg which was fertilized to form the chosen embryo already had not inherited it's mother's faulty gene. It is incorrect to say, then, that the child which grew from that embryo was spared from the mother's fate by the screening process. It's as though you picked a black marble from a bag of whites and declared that it was your selection of it which it made it black. It was already black-- that's why you picked it. Likewise, this child was born because it did not share its mother's flaw. Had it had the bad gene it would have been destroyed with the others, and another embryo would have been implanted. That embryo would be as different from the girl which was just born as one is from one's brother or sister. All you can say is that its parents were spared the heartache of bearing a child who would develop Alzheimer's disease should it live to be forty, and to achieve this end, who knows how many embryos were created and then destroyed.
I don't have an opinion on fetal research/cloning right now; I was disturbed by this case more because it seems irresponsible, to me, to make a special effort to bring a child into this world when you're going to be too senile to parent it within ten years. Nonetheless, while this story may or may not be heartwarming, dpending on your point of view, it gets us no further on the fetal research debate.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via Little Sanity: This article
Via Little Sanity: This article on application essays is hilarious. Change "My interesting patient" to "Why I feel that trading credit derivatives is more interesting than sex" and you've got 90% of b-school applications right there.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Charles Kuffner asks an interesting
Charles Kuffner asks an interesting question about Andrea Yates:
Ask yourself this question: If Yates' erratic and ultimately lethal behavior had been caused by a brain tumor, would you feel differently about her? If the answer is yes, then why is postpartum psychosis and schizophrenia not enough to mitigate your emotions?
I don't have an answer. On the one hand, I think it's pretty clear that she's as nutty as a junebug. On the other, I feel the same way about Jeffrey Dahlmer, and I didn't want him walking around, because then aren't we giving people a sort of an incentive to make their crimes as heinous as possible?
I know I'm all with the Heinlein quotes these days, but this one (I'm paraphrasing -- my books are in storge) seems to fit: "I figured there were two possibilities if he was sick. Either he wouldn't get well, in which case why leave him suffering? Or he would, in which case how could he go on living, knowing what he'd done. In the end, I figured the important thing was that no more little girls would die. That satisfied me. I went to sleep." Which I offer not to justify executing Andrea Yates, or even locking her up -- but how can she live with herself, if she isn't evil? Are we saving her life just to prolong her suffering?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Check out this excerpt from
Check out this excerpt from American Jihad, the new book on extremist muslim groups in America. If it's true, it's. . . well, take a look for yourself.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Robin over at Banana Counting
Robin over at Banana Counting Monkey reports that 40% of Canadian tax filers make less than $14K USD a year. Is this possible, or is it more likely that 100% of Canadian filers cheat on their taxes?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Interlude A kind reader sent
Interlude
A kind reader sent me this article, thinking that after the bra wars, I'd get a kick out of it. Which I did, in more ways than one -- the lingerie store it talks about is ten blocks from my parents' apartment. My grandmother is one of the last women on the planet who wears a girdle, and when the garters wore out, we couldn't find them anywhere. I must have looked through hundreds of google sites. But then one day my mother stopped into the Towne Shop on the off chance that they might have them -- and they did! My mother practically fainted with gratitude. The man who sold them to her told her that they sold 6, 8 sets a year, and that he had suggested to the owner -- his 94 year old grandmother -- that they discontinue them because they sold so few, but she made him continue to carry them so that she, and the other old women who had patronized the shop since they bought their trousseau there in the 20's, could get them whenever they wanted.That 94 year old grandmother is the subject of the article, and apparently she's a pistol.
And it turns out that I may need her services. We just got our first (soon to be disappointed) Premium Member of the Countdown to Drunken Rioting!
From the desk of Jane Galt:Someone's been playing another game
Someone's been playing another game of "bait the religious" with the modern secularists favorite sport -- dragging verses out of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and waving them at Christians or Orthodox jews. Usually this is done for the amusement of similarly minded friends, which is why those who do it are so shocked and embarassed to find that no, the religions in question didn't just, for example, take their position on homosexuality because they're mean, homophobic people (they may be, but that's neither here nor there; they all have well reasoned scriptural precedents for their positions. Whether or not you happen to agree that scripture is a sound basis for decision making is not relevant.) This particular letter is addressed to Dr. Laura, which just goes to show that whoever wrote it is ignorant as hell, because the last thing you want to do is get into an argument with an Orthodox Jew about the Law. Rabbis who were smarter than you and more fond of arguing spent a hundred years or so debating every possible permutation of every single law in the Torah, and then wrote it all down so thet the Orthodox you just picked a fight with can bore you for hours on the subject. It's called the Talmud, and go read Chaim Potok if you don't believe the shiksa.
Anyway, the letter's much funnier after you read John Braue's response to the questions. He doesn't have permalinks, so scroll down.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Now I know why I'm
Now I know why I'm among Google's top searches for the words WTC.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Best Wing
I do enjoy The Justice League West Wing. In last night's episode, President Bartlett struts around the Wing beating all his staff simultaneously in Chess while singlehandedly defusing a frightening military escalation between Taiwan and China. Whatshisname, the sensitive one, repeatedly sends his secretary out in the cold to harass two voters in the critical early-voting town of Hartsfield's Landing (Dixwell Notch in West Wing disguise) before midnight. He shows his humanity at 11:45 by giving them permission to go vote for the other guy. Light relief is provided by pranks perpetrated on C.J. by the ultra-cool presidential intern. At the end of the show C.J. is shown wondering, (after her desk falls to the floor like someone pulling on a turtleneck) how long she will be "his bitch". Press secretaries say these sorts of things a lot to African American presidential interns in "real" West Wings. Because they are Dems, they have "street cred". If they were Republicans, they would, of course, be racists, although the point is moot because there would be no African-American interns.
The inexorable presidential chess beating is delivered on incredibly valuable antique Indian chess sets he has just received from the Indian Prime Minister and is doling out to his staff. Please, petty souls, let us not be bothered with the ethical implications here - Jeb Bartlett's generosity is pure. As he halfheartedly slaughters Sam and Toby at the ancient sport, he manages to both inspire Sam to think of running for President, and absorb some profound advice from Toby - "run smart, be intelligent vs. not, competent vs. not." This is generally how Republicans are described on the show: "not".
The grand chess game, of course, is the Kabuki-style drama playing out between Taiwan, China and the U.S. He doesn't say "Kabuki" because those come from Japan, so only nots would draw that analogy, because they are, well, not. Bartlett manages to pull it off without a moment's hesitation, trading away something he never intended to do (sell Aegis destroyers to Taiwan) in return for a general standing down in military exercises. Neither his chief of staff, nor his National Security Advisor are in on the whole game. Only Jeb has all the pieces in his Yucca Mountain-sized cranium. Thank God for the positive correlation between liberal thinking and individual brilliance. And don't bother us with details, our lapses are by-products of our overwhelming intelligence.
At the end, Sam looks at the President and says, in childish awe, "how do you do it". "I get good advice, see the whole board" Jeb says, glowing in the well-deserved adulation. "Don't be afraid, Sam, I have confidence in you." It is hard not to tremble in the assured yet humble presence of the Great One.
Toby reminds us that Bartlett is a nobel-prize winning economist turned democratic Governor and president, as well as a grandmaster at chess and the special early history edition of Trivial Pursuit. He is, in other words, Paul Krugman's destiny. But Bartlett reminds us, in thundering Puritan tones, "I AM folksy". Bartlett wanders around the White House stunning everyone with his overweening knowledge of first century metallurgy, chemistry, the history of South Asia and the footnotes of the great philosophers, pausing only to take a quick breath before bringing up some new hairball of relevant historical anecdotes. By God, this is the presidency as it must be when the right guy was is in office.
I am especially grateful to Aaron Sorkin for pointing out that the Brokaw special on Bush was "a valentine" romanticizing the Bush white house in a fawning and dishonest way. Brokaw showcased the President as competent, Sorkin reminds us he is not.
In the next episode, I forecast, Bartlett will prove Goldbach's Conjecture while reconfiguring most of central Africa along tribal lines and convincing the dictators there to come live in Brentwood. He will also fix up C.J. with a boyfriend (who will be one foot shorter than her, like the rest of the staff) he encounters during translation of his memoirs into esperanto, show the token Coulterish hottie in Counsel's office a thing or two about feminism and give the chairman of the Federal Reserve a lesson on how education affects interest rates. His mathematical temerity will cause him problems on the campaign trail as the not party takes the opportunity to show how out-of-touch he is with the VCR buying, Goldbach's Conjecture-is-unproveable arm of the public. He shows his human side by having a cigarette and losing his temper with his long-suffering wife (recently renamed Jonas Salk II), in a heated argument about the effects of leather crafting technology on the development of renaissance monastic garments.
A whole week of News-inspired fantasy ahead of me before Sorkin straightens me out on the oxymoron of Republican Intelligence again. How will I wait?
Robert Musil has more Sorkin-related thoughts.
February 27, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Go read Stephen Green's list
Go read Stephen Green's list of celebrity put-downs by . . . Stephen Green. It's much better than most people writing about their own writing, mostly because Stephen doesn't try to hide it when he pats himself on the back for a job well done.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Some vandals have stolen the
Some vandals have stolen the entire print run of the California Patriot, an alternative newspaper at Berkely, because self appointed guardians of the student body morals didn't like what it said. Over at Banana Counting Monkey, Robin is issuing a clarion call to those of us with a little of the ready to help these kids get up the money to print another run. I'm putting in a little via PayPal, and encourage others to do so as well.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'd read about this, but
I'd read about this, but forgotten where I read it. No Watermelons Allowed brought it back to mind.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Report from the Front Lines
Report from the Front Lines
An anonymous reader from the bowels of academia, who is still trying to think up a good pseudonym, forwards the following missive to illustrate the "Separate and Unequal" place ethnic studies occupies in the academy:I'm forwarding a message sent to all students (and faculty, staff, and administration) here today. I should admit up front that all departments are guilty of what my friend Esmerelda Von Clausewitz (not her real name), an archaeologist who considers herself especially good at it, calls "major whoring": recruiting enough majors to one's department to keep the administration from cutting one of your tenuretrack "lines" (i.e. jobs).But I've never seen another department use the argument that its faculty are better scholars than their colleagues ("some of the finest faculty at the college"). This claim is false (says me), but how would one go about offering a counterargument except by public criticism of the scholarship of one's colleagues? (Which would be uncool under any circumstances, but in this case would also have you tarred and feathered as a racist.)
Dear Students,Many of you are in the process of deciding upon your major. As Chair of the Africana Studies Program here at F&M, I want to encourage you to examine the Africana Studies Program as a possibility. There are three reasons why I believe Africana Studies merits your consideration. First, Africana Studies is a rapidly developing interdisciplinary field of study with many pioneering, worldclass scholars at the forefront of the field. Indeed, some of the greatest scholars in the United States today are specialists in Africana or African-American Studies. As evidence of this, I invite you to examine the faculty at Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, NYU, and Columbia Universities. Second, many thoughtful observers believe that both the promise and difficulties that are faced by the people of Africa on the continent and around the world will, in this century, move from the periphery of international concern to the center. As a consequence, vast intellectual, humanitarian, economic and political resources will likely be brought to bear in service to the peoples of Africa, and we will need well-trained scholars in Africana studies to play a role. Last, the Africana Studies Program at Haverdell College has, at its disposal, some of the finest faculty at the college. Some of these include Professors [names expunged to protect the guilty] (among others).
If you think that you might be interested in exploring Africana Studies as an area of concentration - either as a major or minor -- I invite you to contact me.
With warm regards,
[Name Witheld]
Now coming up with tenuous rationales for persuading unwitting students to choose your major is hardly unique to any field of study. But I've never seen a department claim it had the best scholars on campus -- not if it wanted to hold its own in the annual mudfest that surrounded funding battles at my Alma Mater.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The Professor posts a piece
The Professor posts a piece on Enron that includes this passage from Paul Krugman on the faked-up trading floor:
the company's pride and joy is a room filled with hundreds of casually dressed men and women staring at computer screens and barking into telephones, where cubic feet and megawatts are traded and packaged as if they were financial derivatives. (Instead of CNBC, though, the television screens on the floor show the Weather Channel.)
which he contrasts with the truth:
. . . the phony trading room was staffed with. . . employees to resemble a real trading operation. . . "They would build out a set with a big, 36-inch flat panel screens and the teleconference conference rooms." Elkin said that it was all an act, and that no trades were actually made there. The people on the phones were talking to each other.
Okay, let's think about this. Hundreds of employees. None of whom told the other employees in time to prevent them from sinking their 401(k)s into the company? Or considered telling the clueless analysts about the fraud they were helping the to perpetuate?
And Krugman wants to go after Bush.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The Democratic Party has invited
The Democratic Party has invited me to join in their Countdown to Victory! with a credit card donation. Well, I'm inviting the DNC, and all of you readers, to join me in my Countdown to Drunken Rioting! by contributing as generously as possible to the tip jar at right. And if you donate more than $25, you'll get a hand-autographed photo of yours truly, debating Logical Positivism in a sheer negligee. Guaranteed to become a collector's item!
From the desk of Jane Galt:Food for Thought Question of
Food for Thought
Question of the Day: "Chinese Walls" are supposed to protect research analysts from receiving non-public information about a company's financial state. They are also supposed to prevent research analysts from reporting favorably on companies that their bank is doing business with. So what exactly are the synergies that are supposed to justify the joining of equity research and investment banks? From the desk of Jane Galt:WALL STREET ANALYSTS TOLD Congress
WALL STREET ANALYSTS TOLD Congress they were objective in their assessment of Enron and that the energy company's collapse took them by surprise.
In a related story, Jonathan Hillyard (16) of Ramapo, NJ told his parents, Cindy and Tom, that he had no idea that there was going to be alchohol at that party, and that while he was surprised and shocked to find people drinking when he walked in the door, he had nonetheless stayed so that he could drive home any of his friends should they become intoxicated. Moreover, he stated that he had no idea how marijuana could have found its way into the glove compartment of the family's Ford Expedition, but suggested that perhaps it was his parents fault for failing to lock the car properly each and every time they exited the vehicle. "You can't just blame me for everything that goes wrong," Jonathan was heard to say, as his father lifted him from the ground and hurled him into the car by his ear. "How am I supposed to know?"
Timothy Anderson (15), with whom Jonathan was supposed to be spending the night, could not be reached for comment. However, other students at Ramapo High reported that he had been heard muttering to himself in study hall "It's not my fault he went. . . I wasn't even invited to Claire's stupid friggin' party, now I get all the blame because I didn't tell my friggin' parents. . . like I'm not a big enough dork already. . . " The other students adamantly denied that such goings-on are common, but they did confirm that Timothy Anderson is a pretty big dork.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:A Proposal...
If Maureen Dowd and Anna Quindlen agree to stop larding their columns with irrelevant "poppy and junior" comparisons, I will agree to stop pointing out that their columns offer few specifics, no new ideas and no proposed solutions, but merely recycle the same warmed over pablum of strained analogies and unsubstantiated groundswells of "fear" and "malaise".
C'mon guys, is this the best you can do? Go on a Middle East junket and come back with a peace plan or something. It's been done.
From the desk of Jane Galt:On a lighter note, a
On a lighter note, a friend sends this tidbit, with the following blurb:
Isn't this the real reason we all went to work on Wall Street: to spend more on a few bottles of wine than we did on our B-school tuition? Oh well. Note that they washed it all down with a couple of $5 beers. . .
The article discusses six Barclays bankers who managed to spend £44,000 on one meal. Aficionados of business dinners will know that this wasn't actually spent on the meal (the befuddled restauranteur comped the food) but on the wine, most of which was older than they are. All this in the face of a decline in both profits and prestige in investment banking -- one thinks of F. Scott Fitzgerald and his cronies dancing on the edge of the abyss. Now all but one of them has been fired -- not for spending so much, although that's frowned on in today's more austere banking culture, but for trying to expense it.
Even more priceless, however, is this bit from the otherwise left wing New York Times:
The extravagance occurred as banks were instituting what some complain are draconian measures, requiring employees to fly economy class on business trips and limiting the amount spent on entertaining clients - sometimes to as little as £100 a person, or $140 - as business suffers one of its worst slumps in two decades.
Investment bankers flying coach! Oh, the humanity!
The ex-boy was a Morgan Stanley banker, and for a little while he was quite taken with the theory that the mothballing of planes had actually caused occupancy to rise on most flights post-9/11. Now, I knew from reports about capacity levels that this wasn't true; it didn't even seem to be true on any but a couple of high-traffic routes. Yet he insisted, based on his experience and those of his colleagues (all of whom spent more time in the air than most birds) that it was so. Then one day a light dawned. "Darling," I asked gently, "do you think that this had something to do with the fact that the cutbacks are forcing you to fly coach?" Even when you love them, it's hard not to take a little delight in the utter discombabulation of I-Bankers forced to live the way the peons do.
One would think this were tongue in cheek, if the Times weren't so relentlessly humorless these days. While half of me thinks this is a rare flash of wit in the staid Gray Lady, the other half thinks that this columnist is dismayed to find that her wealthy friends will no longer be able to bring her along on their lush vacations . . . Ayn Rand's Lillian crying "You don't understand! I'm not talking about not having money. . . I'm talking about real, stinking poverty!" But the article goes on to discuss prices and menus at the restaurant in a more traditionally indignant style, so I suspect a case of sudden onset adverb deficit disorder (ADD), which is often mistaken by laymen for subtlety.
Sigh. They spent all that money on wine, when they could have helped a needy MBA almost completely pay off her loans. . . up the revolution! Grab your calculators and your compilers and march on Wall Street! Underemployed professionals of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but 8-20 in accomodations no worse than the ones you have now!
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Diet Coke, the "Forrest Gump" of Beverages
Yesterday, I mentioned the prominently placed Diet Coke cans sitting in front of Skilling et. al. I still can't find pictures of what I saw, so you'll have to take my word for it.
Virginia Postrel dropped me a note to point out that a Diet Coke can was on prominent display in Clinton's testimony as well. Thus reminded, I also remembered the Clarence Thomas allegation involving a pubic hair on a coke can. Coke seems to be lurking about when the nation is watching, like Forrest Gump.
Since I don't think the drinker's attributes are projected onto the beverage, any publicity is probably good publicity in this case. I wonder, however, if the folks at Pepsi are trying to figure out how to insert themselves into a national scandal. One not involving accidentally setting celebrities on fire, that is.
I also mentioned Byron Dorgan's chart suggesting that GE has only 24 subsidiaries vs. Enron's 3,872. His aide apparently counted the subsidiaries on this 10K exhibit. This appears to count only subsidiaries directly owned by the public entity, one for each general operating line of business. Every subsidiary on this list has 60 or more subsidiaries of its own, when you consider that there is, at least, a sales subsidiary in every country. Just one example of the high quality of the dialogue yesterday.
February 26, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:More on Campus "Leftism"
If you are interested in further discussion about the potential effects of a left-leaning professorate, check out the comments on this MTZ post from last night. Jeff Goldstein, Brian Carnell and Professor Michael Tinkler weigh in.
I'm just honored to be hosting the party.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Pay for No Wine Time After Time
There's a story going around the street today that five bond traders went out to dinner to celebrate a deal and managed to run up a tab in excess of $60,000. They tried to expense it and some of them were apparently axed.
How do you work up a $60,000 tab? Easy - wine. apparently the wines they ordered ranged from over $1,000/bottle to up to $14,000. The meal was on the house (generous, eh?).
If you have the dough, I understand wanting to try a bottle of wine from the 1940s, although I bet these guys threw back some kamikazes first. The real crime, though, is that after a bottle or two of the good stuff, why didn't they break out the Fetzer? At that point you can tell the difference?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Will the gentleman in the
Will the gentleman in the center row with the fading media profile please sit down? You're annoying the audience.
Two hilarious posts on mindless celebrities offering unwanted opinions (unwanted by me, at least; someone's obviously buying all those copies of People):First Stephen Green provides several answers to the Time magazine's question of the week: Can Bono Save the World?
Then Elizabeth Spiers, whose excellent blog, Capital Influx, is new to me, offers this handy guide for celebrities wondering whether or not they should publicly opine:
If you're a celebrity and you answer "yes" to any of the following questions, you should never, ever, be allowed to speak about political issues in public.
1. Is your first name Cher?
2. Are you, or have you ever been, a Scientologist?
3. Are you, or have you ever been, Richard Gere?
4. If you received an envelope in the mail containing a white, powdery substance, would your first impulse be to snort it? (Be honest, Mr. Sorkin...)
Yes? Then do us all a public service and step away from the microphone...
From the desk of Jane Galt:Steve Chapman says they're persecuting
Steve Chapman says they're persecuting some guy for handing out Anti-American leaflets near ground zero. Well, actually, they're persecuting him for creating a public disturbance. But it carries more than a whiff of thought crimes about it.
The Professor points out that it took a libertarian, rather than a liberal, to publicize this one. I can't imagine why, unless Sontag et al. have realized that even most lefties don't regard them as courageous visionaries for spouting against their country this time.
However, it should be noted that this guy wasn't the only one doing this down at Ground Zero. There were swarms of them, before they realized that the Proletariat was not going to rise up with them -- or even give them an amused pass as silly kids or eccentric wingnuts -- this time. So while I am sure that the prosecution is influenced by what he was saying, the public disturbance must have had something to do with it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Investment banking is in trooooouuuuuble.
Investment banking is in trooooouuuuuble. . . .
James Cramer says that Global Crossing is worse than Enron . . . sit down, all you donkeys, not because the Democrats are tied to it, but because it represents a kind of financial chicanery, unlike Enron's, that's perfectly legal. The mechanism is known as a "Lazy Susan" and it works like this: I'm a big company. You're a little one. I invest money in your company on the condition that you turn around and hand that money back to me as sales of services. The beauty of this is that I get to carry that cash on the books twice: once as whatever security asset I acquire as a result of my investment, and again as sales driving through to the bottom line. Totally legal. Also totally bogus. The transaction has no economic value other than to inflate the stock prices of both parties to the transaction.I know, I've said it before. Nonetheless. The boom in the investment banking industry, to my mind, has been driven in a large way by transactions that have little economic value other than avoiding taxes or regulations. I was out to dinner with older bankers from an unnamed investment bank who pointed out that in 1970, they didn't sell business; they sat back politely and waited for clients to decide to do a transaction. Now they sell like hell. And how do clients judge them? By who pushes the regulatory envelope the hardest. Now, as a libertarian, I'm mostly against regulation. But I am for providing a common framework by which information gets exchanged. And in many of these transactions the other word for "pushing the regulatory envelope" is "lying".
As stock values erode, I think we're going to see a lot of these transactions unwind. And as we do, I think we're going to see congress, having pistol whipped the auditors, turn on the bankers. (Though this may be wishful thinking. Congress won't do anything about the trial lawyers until they've bankrupted every other man woman and child in America, because so many of our legislators hail from the legal profession. Now with Corzine and his ilk joining the fray, we may see a constitutional amendment to protect IB margins.)
From the desk of Jane Galt:Grandma used to say that
Grandma used to say that "the devil quotes scripture for his own purposes". Now Andrew Dodge reports that the irrational nutbags can use the forms of scientific inquiry, of which I am generally very much a fan, to their own ends.
Big Idiot Bonehead award three goes to Los Angeles, California school district official, Jim Konantz, who, in response to the pulling from a Los Angeles public school library nearly 300 copies of a book on the Muslim religion that describes Jews as "illiterates who reject knowledge," announced that the books may be back after he determines whether there is research to support that Jews are "illiterates who reject knowledge."
I'm waiting to hear how one designs a rigorous, double blind study on the subject. . . and how its authors would explain the seeming anomaly of illiterate doctors, scientists, lawyers and academics who "reject knowledge".
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:New Government Revenue Possibility
Hollywood has been using product placements to defray movie production costs for years.
The print/web media coverage of the hearings have cropped them out, but on TV one could not help but notice the Diet Coke cans in front of Skilling and Watkins. They sat right up front and a little to the side, where they put the score in baseball games. I hope they are getting paid well!
Could this be a revenue opportunity for government, or would that represent a moral hazard of holding pointless hearings? Or do we already have a moral hazard of holding pointless hearings....?
The part I watched involved an exhibit of the number of subsidiaries of Enron vs. other large corporations. The exhibit was obviously flawed (there is no way GE has only 24 subsidiaries, as Skilling quickly pointed out), so the whole exchange was a joke.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Blogger down again. I'm not
Blogger down again. I'm not going to complain about it; I'm just going to switch to another host.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Osama Bin Laden may have
Osama Bin Laden may have been tricked into buying what he thought was radioactive material by unscrupulous arms dealers. Containers found at the site were apparently hand painted with a skull and crossbones (we can only assume that OBL thought this was an example of the fine native craftsmanship to be found outside the decadent West) and dipped in medical waste to fool a geiger counter. Now, one side of me wants to go off into a long rant about the kind of terrible things that happen when the rule of law is absent. Luckily, the more sensible side has prevailed, and I'm just going to chortle madly at the realization that OBL is more credulous than a tourist at a 3-card Monte game.
Of course the unfunny side is that this confirms that Al-Quaeda is determined to get its hands on a nuclear device. I think we can safely assume that they don't want it to assure their own security. . . so it becomes even more imperative to root out every bud and branch of the organism. Especially since a chilling note at the bottom of the article indicates that weapons-grade material has gone missing in Russia.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Andrew Sullivan has written quite
Andrew Sullivan has written quite a bit about the nasty effects of the anti-AIDS regimen that keeps him alive; now it looks as if there may be some hope in the form new meds with fewer side effects. It looks like we're slowly building an armory against the drug that will allow infected people to live out a normal, or more normal, lifespan. But we can't get excited just yet -- they're in early trials, about which DLowe has some interesting, if slightly dispiriting, information. Question for the scientists out there -- does any of this research have application to other diseases?
February 25, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:My invitation to become a card-carrying conservative...
...arrived in the mail today from Accuracy in Academia:
The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have apologists and sympathizers on American Campuses. Worse, still, in most cases they are subsidized by your tax dollars.
I'm a warblogger(TM) dammit, I know the examples they're going to trot out already.
But for a tax deductible donation of $250 I can help them publish thousands of "Campus Report" booklets for distribution at colleges. The mailer proudly announces that these booklets have been burned at Berkeley, criticized in Isvestiya and caused AIA to be banned from conferences at Columbia University. Gee, with enemies like that, they must be onto something!
The website does relate a few anecdotes I hadn't heard (like this hate speech conference). But I'll stick with good-natured, equal-opportunity blogger ridicule and fact-checking their asses(TM) for the time being.
Something about distributing irate leaflets and defining yourself by a list of ideologically significant detractors sounds both familiar and problematic to me.
I also think it's a mistake to underestimate students. My most identifiable movement to "the right" happened in college, in the midst of all this supposed bias and foolishness. Kids rebel, and just because their professors are more predominantly left in political orientation doesn't make them exempt from student ridicule. In contrast to "Accuracy in Academia", you might argue the best aversion therapy is immersion therapy.
When I was at Yale, the Wall Street Journal ran a long hatchet-job article about the percentage of Yale students who were gay, political correctness, reverse discrimination, etc. It certainly didn't seem to describe the college I knew. Those kinds of anti-collegiate screeds from one of the nation's most prominent voices on classical liberalism just provide ammunition for more left-leaning ideologues to conflate proponents of free markets and/or hawkish defense policies with advocates of intolerance. You know - like they do.
Based on my experience at Yale, I would have to say that the number one occupational hazard of academia was indifference, as opposed to bias. I had more professors who didn't care than had an axe to grind. The "stars" during my time were the great lecturers - John Boswell (regrettably deceased), Wolfgang Leonhard, Jonathan Spence and Vincent Scully. These four professors' always packed the lecture halls. In sharp contrast to the tired lecturer mailing it in, they cared about their lectures and it showed. Boswell's story is particularly interesting, because while the Journal was busy criticizing Yale for discriminating in favor of homosexuals, the conventional wisdom on campus was that Boswell, because he was gay and wrote extensively on homosexuality, only got tenure when Harvard tried to hire him away.
During those bright college years I also noticed that profs tended to reward students for going out on a limb. Call this the second greatest occupational hazard. In an essay for history or literature, if you made and outrageous or tenuous argument but artfully made it seem to hold together, you earned a better grade than if you made an airtight, but more mainstream case. This is also, I think, human nature. My guess is that when the T.A. is grading the twentieth paper, he wants to - please- hear something original. This tendency to value artifice as much as substance (in the humanities, at least) probably leads to the more outrageous isolated examples cited by places like Accuracy in Academia.
Or maybe campuses really have become havens for nut sandwiches. I don't know. I've been a shallow businessperson for 14 years. Visit Bucher, Yglesias, Whited, Reynolds, or your favorite campus denizen for a more contemporary view.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Argentina: Still no light at
Argentina: Still no light at the end of the tunnel.
Can't raise taxes. Can't cut spending. Can't borrow money abroad.
Sounds like the country may be ripe for revolution. I can't decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Just came across this item
Just came across this item from the extremely interesting Lagniappe, written by a pharma researcher who's definitely can't be accused of writing about the same things as everyone else (safe to say, the first blog I've come across with a definite position on X-Ray crystallography). Anyway, Lowe says that the rate of pharma research may be slowing, but no one knows why. Smack me in the head if everyone blogged this already and I've just forgotten.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The Wall Street Journal reports
The Wall Street Journal reports that a leading index of business investment is still way down, though off its lows, indicating that the recession may be a longer haul than we thought.
I tend to agree. Consumer confidence may be up, but so are their debt levels, which means we aren't going to see a big rise in spending from that sector. Inventories aside, I think that we've still got a big glut of 90's overinvestment to work out of the system before the economy really turns around. When Cisco has to fake up some earnings by lowering its provision for uncollectable accounts, we're not out of the woods yet.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Olympics Spared Despite Patriotism
We are reliably informed by The NYTimes that:
the exuberant American patriotism that might have soured the Olympics did not appear to do so.
Phew, that was close.
For a reading experience chock full of similar bromides, such as:
it is hard to say whether the Salt Lake City version of the Winter Olympic Games ended an era or began one.and
That protest reminded everyone that the Olympics remain games among nations as well as among athletes.
read the whole thing.
I can just hear the editors: "Somebody slap something together about the olympics - didn't they end yesterday?"
February 24, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Gun Control in the Dem "Big Tent"
It appears that the Democrats may remove gun control from the front page of the party platform as a way to win back some red states:
Mr. McAuliffe has begun a "rural initiative" at the Democratic National Committee, complete with polls and focus groups, to find ways to attract more voters from the South, the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states — the huge interior area of the nation, colored red by the television networks during the 2000 election, that voted for George W. Bush for president. Right there near the top of the agenda, Mr. Ream said, is the gun issue.
They will have to pray that national Democrats stop making remarks like Paul Begala's, or at least make them out of earshot.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Tim Blair has a hilariously
Tim Blair has a hilariously ungrammatical letter from a reader who refers to the Fox News Network as "who" but his own aunt as "it". Somebody get this guy 300 mgs of lithium and a copy of Strunk & White.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Hypothetical Question of the Day:
Hypothetical Question of the Day: It's morbid. A friend last night posed the following question to the women at the bar: if you were Daniel Pearl's widow, would you want to view the tape?
How could you? But if you didn't wouldn't the nightmares be even worse than if you did?
I went to a mostly Jewish high school, and so the holocaust was very much with many of my classmates. One time, at the birthday party of I-can't-remember-which-friend, her perfectly normal looking grandmother, who had been chatting gaily about life in Warsaw when she was a girl, suddenly said "They killed my mother in front of me. An officer pulled her out of line and took out his gun and shot her in the head."
I wish I had had soem good response, but I was sheltered and young, and I can't even remember what inanity I muttered. But later. . .
Picture your mother. Your mother, looking much as she always does, standing in line with you. Your own, personal mother pulled out of line and before she can say anything, shot. Your mother afraid and panicked, and then quite suddenly dead.
How could you ever be normal for even one second of your life again?
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:I say "thank heaven" for little girls...
The New York Times Magazine cover story this weekend was Girls Just Want to Be Mean describing the "queen-bees" and "wanna-bees", and now Instapundit points me to Alpha Girl in the Wa-Po:
With all the debate among professionals over girls as victims, very few people talk about this: In middle school, girls have the only power that counts at that moment, social power. These alphas -- named after the first letter in the Greek alphabet -- are the brightest stars in their constellation, defining life as the young teen knows it. They decide that American Eagle shirts are what you wear with jeans, Dasani water is what you drink at lunch, Jen ispersona non grata at their lunchroom table and Brittany must ask Adam to Courtney's party.
Now, I've always said that girls can be just as vicious as boys, and often in more sneaky (and non-violent) ways. Why the attention all of a sudden? Is it because of the new He-Men? Backlash?
Myself, I would have loved to have a girl to go with the boys here, but it was not to be.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Dr. Manhattan brings us my
Dr. Manhattan brings us my favorite headline of the day: "IF YOU RUN SOMEONE OVER, YOU DON'T UNDO YOUR MISTAKE BY BACKING THE CAR UP". Close second runs his title line: "Politics, the Yankees, religion, public policy...and have I mentioned the Yankees?" Right on, brother!
From the desk of Jane Galt:William Quick says that America
William Quick says that America is the next Rome. Which leads to the question of what Attila is lurking in the hills.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Reviews Are In
Mark Lilla writes in the New York Times today:
The reviews are in, and they are bad. President Bush's characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" has been met by our allies' puzzled annoyance and by massive rallies in Iran that only strengthened hard-line elements there. How, one wonders, did the president and his speech writers blunder into this mess?
Apart from objecting to the idea that the only "reviewers" of this speech are timid Eurocrats and Mullahs (althought this fits with the general politics=hollywood theme on today's op-ed - see Dowd), I want to remind Mr. Lilla of the description of his own book, Intellectuals in Politics:
How can intellectuals, who should be most alert to the evils of tyranny, betray the liberal ideals of freedom and independent inquiry? How can they take political positions that, implicitly or not, endorse oppression and human suffering on a vast scale? In profiles of Martin Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, Alexander Kojève, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida. Mark Lilla demonstrates how the convulsions of the twentieth century shaped the political sensibilities of important thinkers who were so deluded by the ideologies of the time that they closed their eyes to brutality, coercion, and state terror.Along with a conclusing (sic) essay, "The Lure of Syracuse," these case studies show how the classical problem of the relation between philosophy and politics—which found its most profound exploration in Plato's writings on tryanny (sic)—is still with us. Mark Lilla's portraits illustrate how intellectuals who fail to master their passions can be mastered by them instead, and be driven into a political sphere they scarcely understand, with momentous results for our intellectual and political lives.
In the editorial, one of Lilla's points is that the Evil Empire remarks of Ronald Reagan were appropriate because the USSR was indeed an empire, yet the "Axis of Evil" is inappropriate for today's situation because Iran, Iraq and North Korea have few formal ties. A distinction without a difference, I say. These three regimes have a lot in common, including "tyranny, betrayal of liberal ideals of freedom and independent inquiry and oppression and human suffering on a vast scale."
His other point is that Reagan referred to an elite sclerotic bureaucracy in Moscow, while he deems today's and tomorrow's adversaries "networks" (but not "axes").
Our rhetorical response to these new adversaries must therefore be fresh — not least because some future adversaries may turn out to be not states, but transnational networks of disaffected people with global aspirations. To the extent that they represent anyone, it is not a state; it is "the street."
Perhaps so, but they need states to fund and base their operations.
Easy to criticize the speech, Mr. Lilla. What would you have said?
UPDATE: On the topic of "the street", Alex Knapp chooses this Michael Kelly "quote of the day":
"The 'street' in any given Arab country consists of 278 state-sanctioned mullahs already preaching death to the Americans and Jews, five state-controlled newspaper opinion columnists preaching ditto, 577,000 state security officers making sure nobody says anything to the contrary, and 73 million people who would very much like to be living in New Jersey."
From the desk of Jane Galt:McLaughlin group cites the following
McLaughlin group cites the following poll: Will you vote for a Democrat or Republican in November?
Republicans 50%
Democrats 43%
They say even Democratic polls are showing that marginal districts are in danger. This is insane -- who's ever heard of midterm elections favoring the incumbent?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Have you ever had that
Have you ever had that dream where you're suddenly told you have to take an exam -- but you weren't expecting the exam, and don't even remember registering for the class? Where you go in, sweating, and they hand you a paper on some topic you haven't seen since your freshman year in college, and everyone else in the exam room is busy writing away, but you can't even remember what "Cross-Elasticity of Demand" is, much less calculate it from that blurry little photocopied chart. . .
That's how I felt when the University of Chicago called me and told me that they couldn't find the take home exam papers from one of my last classes.
There I was, sitting at work, unable to check whether I had the paper. Eight months ago is a long time, and I began to doubt myself. Was it possible that, in my hectic rush to graduate and move at the same time, I had somehow missed an exam? Just -- forgotten about it? It's certainly not impossible; I've forgotten so many things I can't remember them all. I once forgot to eat for three days.
It was 10:00 in the morning, and that was a long day. With all my course packets packed away and my memory dim, how the hell was I going to write out another exam for Human Resources Management (not as dull as it sounds) -- to hell with that, how the hell was I going to explain that I couldn't remember whether or not I'd done the exam? I can tell you, I was as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Watching me fidget on the subway ride home was like a private screening of Rain Man without the white suit. When the train pulled into my station, I knocked over children and old ladies in my anxiety to get out of the train, run upstairs, turn on my computer, and . . . sigh in blissful relief. The paper was still there.
Well, I just heard back from them, and I got a good grade in the class, and all is well in the world of Meg. I'm not sure what this illustrates -- that virtue is its own reward, or that it isn't, or that bodychecking innocent geriatrics doesn't have the immediate bad consequences you might think. I'll have to draw out a punchy moral another time.
For now, I'm just glad it's over.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Next Right has a post
Next Right has a post on reparations for slavery that's quite interesting, partly because I haven't seen many African-Americans make these arguments. He's certainly right that the long term economics effects of slavery are dubiously positive, while the logistics and morality of establishing who gets what would be impossible. (Example: a friend who is descended from American slaves on one side, Caribbeans on the other. Does she get half? All? Nothing? ANd how do you choose?)
However, he makes one statement I have to challenge: that the short term economic effects of slavery weren't good. As it happens, one of my professors did some pretty exhaustive work on this very subject, which indicated that slavery was not the economic disaster we often imagine it to have been (wow -- even Megan thinks there are some things in this world that are good or bad quite independant of their economic effects!). He won a nobel prize for it. The link there provides a basic review of some pretty startling ideas about slavery; I highly recommend it.
An interesting challenge to reparations that he doesn't bring up, which I just heard recently, is that the Civil War destroyed whatever latent economic value slavery had built up. Sherman's march to the sea, war production and destruction, taxation and confiscation of Confederate property -- all destroyed the wealth of the South so completely that it was an economic backwater for another hundred years. The only remaining "capital built on the backs of slaves", my interlocutor argued, was locked up in the croporate descendants of the cotton mills of England. Any wealth that came that way in America had long been spent on the war that made the slaves free.
February 23, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Nataljia Radic is unbearably eloquent
Nataljia Radic is unbearably eloquent on the iniquity of Daniel Pearl's killers. Reading it, I heard echoes of the righteous thundering of the old Testament, and it put me in mind of that passage from Hosea:
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Amen.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via Dave Tepper: I just
Via Dave Tepper: I just took a quiz to find my personal philosopher, and the surprising answer: Aquinas scores tops, followed by Aristotle & Mill. Apparently, I'm a rigid, dry rationalist. Probably why I drink so much.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Just came across the Official
Just came across the Official Web Site of the Citizen Corps, the new millenium's answer to the Civil Defense Corps. It doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I half-suspect that the people who volunteer will be exactly the sort of people you wouldn't want within 200 miles of you in the event of an actual emergency. Which implies, I suppose, that qualities citizens like those of the Blogosphere should think about joining up.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Andrew Sullivan reports that professional
Andrew Sullivan reports that professional economists seem to share my opinion of Paul Krugman:
I . . . once regarded him as one of the better, if not best, international economic theorists in the world. Alas his sojourn into being an op/ed columnist has totally perverted him.
Amen, brother.
February 22, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:My Slobogoogle
I thought I'd do my part googling some Slobo-sympathizers. I dialed up Theodore A. Holden, "Computer Specialist".
Lucky me! Holden is apparently a well-known contrarian, and one James Foley already has a web page dedicated to...well not really debating him, but merely publishing his arguments for general amusement.
Anyway, here's a sample of Mr. Holden's opinion on a subject you probably think is even less controversial than the brutality of Mr. Milosevic:
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some axpect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror or F for Fornicator or some such traditional device, or an I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the former choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
That "less controversial subject", was that God's "hate" or evolution? Ah well, never mind, more can be found at his www.bearfabrique.org, including detailed explanations of his views on Kosovo:
It turns out that the entire case against Serbia was never anything but a bunch of bullshit. There was never any "ethnic cleansing" going on:No Ethnic Cleansing
and there was never anything remotely like genocide going on:
No Genocide
nothing but a bunch of fabricated bullshit and a bunch of poor sorry people (Serbs) having to defend themselves against an armed insurrection supported and supplied by outside powers.
If you know someone with a paleontology background, I'd love to hear their critique of this guy's arguments. It's not my long suit (not even my short suit), although the few abstract pictures of dinosaur-like shapes on a cave wall he documents would seem to do little to disprove the theory of evolution as he claims.
One thing is abundantly clear - this is a somewhat manic personality with way too much time - and a few disparate facts - on his hands.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Adam Smith Defended!
There is a scene in A Beautiful Mind where Nash is supposed to get the inspiration to define his Nobel Prize-winning Equilibrium. He is carousing with fellow mathematicians and a stereotypically dishy blond walks in. They argue about the merits of all competing for her attention and invoke the Invisible Hand argument of pursuing their interests. Nash runs off babbling about Smith's theories being incomplete because by all pursuing her none would actually win her attention. Only by cooperating would one of them have a chance to do whatever it is these rocket scientists are supposed to do with dishy blonds in the 1950s.
I remember wincing, thinking Smith had been handled badly by Hollywood, but I didn't pursue it in my blog critique of the...inventiveness of this screenplay. I feel I don't understand the Nash Equilibrium well enough to do it justice.
Thankfully, an economist has filled the gaps for me, and published it today in the Taste section of the Journal. The title of the article is "Mindless: How Hollywood Treats Ideas" and it is wonderful:
Many critics have noted that the movie bowdlerizes Nash's life, omitting mention of his bisexuality and divorce, among other things. But those omissions at least serve a dramatic purpose. Far more unsettling is that the movie rewrites not just Nash's life but his thought.Take the bizarre and ludicrous scene--apparently invented--where Nash, out drinking with his fellow graduate students, achieves the flash of insight that he's been desperately seeking for months.
If he and his friends all hit on the same woman, Nash reasons, they'll devastate one another's chances while letting other, slightly less desirable, women get away. "Adam Smith needs revision!" he declares triumphantly. To his baffled classmates, he explains: "Adam Smith said the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself, right? Adam Smith was wrong!" The message: Sometimes it's better to cooperate!
Well, duh. Does anyone believe that the benefits of cooperation could have eluded the astute Adam Smith?
...in the presence of free competitive markets, functioning price systems and well-defined property rights, the "best result" (in a sense that can be defined precisely) does come from everyone in the group doing what's best for himself.
That's not obvious, but it's true. It was proved, as a matter of pure mathematics, by economists like Gerard Debreu, Kenneth Arrow and Lionel McKenzie, beginning around the time Nash was supposedly having that fateful drink. Surely that would have been good enough for Nash, who through all his breakdowns never lost his respect for mathematical reasoning.In the real world, as opposed to the movie, Nash complemented Smith without supplanting him. The Invisible Hand tells you that good things happen when people compete in free markets. Nash laid the game-theoretic mathematical foundations for figuring out what happens when people compete in other ways. It turns out that without markets, many different things can happen, not all of them good. That means we should have more respect for markets, not less.
What the fictionalized Nash should have said--and the real Nash would have said--is that mating competitions can turn out badly because mates are not allocated through a competitive price system. But thank goodness other goods--from hamburgers to locomotives--are allocated by prices, yielding the desirable outcomes that Adam Smith promised us all along.
...why distort Nash's ideas? If you don't care about getting the ideas right, why would you care about John Nash? Ideas, after all, are what make minds beautiful.
The author, Mr. Steven A. Landsburg, is not only a U. Rochester Economics professor but a compelling and level-headed writer, an unusual combination. Paul Krugman, be afraid, very afraid.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Sicilian Gigolo Again
A post in Sophismata reminds me of my pet sky-is-falling prediction - the looming pension crisis in Europe and Japan. Raghu points to this Economist article:
Pension systems that work so capriciously make little sense at the best of times, and even less in an ageing world. Populations in the West and Japan are no longer pyramid-shaped as they used to be, with a big base of younger people and few pensioners at the top. Instead they are becoming top-heavy, with many more older people both in the workforce and in retirement. Ill-designed pension systems magnify the effect of population ageing by creating incentives for people to retire ever earlier. Unaffordable public-pension commitments threaten the fiscal solvency of many countries in the European Union.
I have a favorite prior entry with charts that describe
a) the future ratio of workers to retirees in Europe and Japan, and
b) the ratio of funded (meaning there is money set aside) assets to pension promises made by government.
This is a fiscal train wreck for Europe, and constitutes reason #5,741 that the U.K. should stay away from the EU. Reason number 9,763 came just today. If you want to understand the title of this entry, go to my 12/1/2001 post.
Before you leave Sophismata, check out his quick & dirty analysis of how investing only 22% of your 401k at Enron starting in 1999 would have left you with 60% in Enron as it was so famously measured by the press. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were more reporters (and pols) who could be bothered to run a simple analysis like this?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Jay Zilber has an extremely
Jay Zilber has an extremely thorough expose of Michael Moore's self-serving revisionism on the 2000 election.
I've disliked Michael Moore ever since Roger & Me. For those who didn't see the movie, a good part of it is dedicated to Michael Moore trying to interview GM executives about the closing of their Flint plant, and being turned away repeatedly. This was portrayed in the movie as being because they were "afraid" to talk to him. I happened to run into the son of one of those GM executives at the height of the movie's campus popularity, who had a simpler explanation.
"They had never heard of this idiot," he said. "Do you have any idea how many yahoos want to walk in off the street and talk to GM executives? If they let them all in, GM would never make any cars." [Editor's Note: Is that supposed to be a bad thing?]
This strikes me as fairly emblematic of Michael Moore's career; he attributes the indifference of others to malign intent, rather than his own cosmic insignifigance, and sells the resulting product to others suffering from the same delusion.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Welcome, Erotica Seekers I'm sorry
Welcome, Erotica Seekers
I'm sorry -- I didn't post my site there or there, although I admit it's hilarious. I was wondering where all the extra traffic was coming from. . .Anyway, sorry, but there's not much sex on this site. . . just good, clean, intellectual fun. I think this is more along the lines of what you're looking for.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Ken Layne on the Kobe
Ken Layne on the Kobe Bryant/Allen Iverson thing
. See, Kobe's from Philadelphia but they just don't like him. Why? I think it's because Kobe has a natural sophistication that, when combined with his life in Los Angeles and his childhood in Italy and his beautiful wife, causes Philly people to dismiss him as an elitist. Iverson presents himself as a ghetto kid, even though he's a multi-millionaire just like Kobe. But Iverson thinks a bunch of ugly tattoos and a posse of gansta hangers-on is keeping him real. Whatever, Allen.
Gangsta? I was watching him on Meet the Press last week, and he didn't look like a gangster -- he looked like an eleven-year old boy in the principle's office, slouched into his chair as far as he could go without falling off, making monosyllabic, sullen responses to the questions he was asked. When he did expound, it became clear that his view of the world was, to put it charitably, early adolescent.
On the other hand, that probably describes a lot of gangsters too.
From the desk of Jane Galt:This is the best idea
This is the best idea for a WTC memorial I've seen yet.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Bloggers. . . raise your
Bloggers. . . raise your hand if you find yourself spending long minutes trying to fix the "broken" HTML tags you just inserted into your Word documents.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Reader Jim Bennett emails to
Reader Jim Bennett emails to say that Estonia has followed my advice to abolish the corporate income tax! You heard it here first! Live From the WTC was actually so on the ball that Estonia abolished the tax two years before I even recommended it!.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Okay, what joker signed me
Okay, what joker signed me up for the Democratic Party mailing list?
Come on, fess up! We can do this the easy way, or we can make it reallll haaard. . . From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides My traffic
Notes and Asides
My traffic seems to have plateaued at a much higher level. I don't know where you're all coming from, but don't stop! Whatever it is I'm doing that you like, I'll do more of it.For those with missives lost in my massive pile of emails, for those waiting to see the permalinks updated, for those hoping for a little reciprocity off their links. . . I'm getting to it. Really. Today's the crunch day for both article & business plan, and then I'll be able to do a little more. I plead for your patience and continued goodwill.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Andrew Hofer is just cool.
Andrew Hofer is just cool. He not only writes insightful financial pieces that tell me something I didn't already know, but also produces pieces like this one on 12-tone music which make me laugh out loud.
It doesn't sound like a toe-tapping evening, does it? Spare me your nose-thumbing brasses, your sassy meter-fracturing outbursts yearning to be free. What on earth is a "self-contained" chord?Artists that create "challenging" art are often lauded as rebels or pioneers. But one wonders what authority they were rebelling against. Tommasini refers to Arnold Schoenberg, the father of 12-tone theory, as having "liberated dissonance". What I never understood was under what authority dissonance was imprisoned? Conventions aren't such straitjackets. Would it be brave of me to come out on stage and pass gas because convention says I should not? Would I be known as the artist who "liberated" his farts? People didn't like dissonance because they didn't think it sounded good., not because it was political dissent.
A neurologist friend tells me that there's considerable evidence that music is hardwired -- that we'll never be able to enjoy modern music the way we can enjoy Beethoven or Elvis because the chord structure used by almost all music is an integral part of the human brain.
Personally, I'm with the old pity and terror crowd. To me, unless it evokes emotion in the audience, it's not art, it's an intellectual excercise. I mean, it's very interesting that you can do these things with sounds, but it's also interesting that they guy who sweeps up the yard here can balance a banana on his nose. Done once, it's arresting. Done over and over again, it's a tired stunt.
From the desk of Jane Galt:No Watermelons Allowed has a
No Watermelons Allowed has a good post on the Laffer Curve, the misunderstood creation of a somewhat wacky economist named Arthur Laffer. Well, actually, he didn't create it -- he cribbed it from a paper describing the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany. Which is not the reason he is widely villified by opponents of the Reagan tax cuts.
The Laffer curve is based on a simple premise: if you chart tax revenue against the tax rate, obviously your revenue rises as your tax rate goes from 0% from 1%, rises again as the rate goes from 1% to 2%, and so on. However, it is equally obvious that at tax rates of 100% there will be no income collected, because no one will work if you take all their money. Therefore, there is some optimal tax rate between 0% and 100% where the government will maximize its revenue; after that point, the disincentives to work caused by the tax rate will outstrip the incentives provided by increasing disposable income, and the revenue will start to decline. Stupid jokes by journalists aside, this is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the point at which the curve maximizes; Democrats, in general, place that point closer to 100% than do Republicans. There are all sorts of complicating factors which make it hard to calculate, because contrary to the simplistic assertions of supply-siders, lowering taxes, even from fairly high levels, does not always cause people to work more, so the revenue from increased production doesn't necessarily offset the loss from lower rates. (In the interests of fairness, however, the Reagan tax cuts would not have resulted in deficits without hog-wild spending by a Democratic Congress, which Reagan lacked the political courage, or capital, to veto). So the problem isn't with the Laffer Curve per se; it's what was done with it. (Sounds like the beginning of a slogan: curves don't lower taxes; people do. . . )
No Watermelons discusses the increase in capital gains after the rates were cut in 1975 in support of the Laffer Curve. The increase in revenue is impressive evidence -- 250% in 10 years -- but we have to remember that there was enormous inflation during much of this period, with interest rates touching 20% at one point. Also, cuts in capital gains taxes have the effect of raising the value of the assets that were previously taxed, which is not in and of itself a good thing unless it also spurs investment.
Anyway, a good post. Go read it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Richard Hailey reports that after
Richard Hailey reports that after the Corporation for Public Broadcasting told them they'd have to make their programming more balanced between left and right (this from Clinton appointees), NPR tried to peddle their ass on Wall Street and there were no takers. Tee-hee! It's delicious enough that the network that thinks Noam Chomsky is middle-of-the-road attempted to turn itself into a rapacious media corporation; it's the icing on the cake when they find out that they're not worthy of becoming one. Academics who think that they could run GM if they weren't so busy with more important things, take note.
From the desk of Jane Galt:A Berkely student says the
A Berkely student says the Berkely sex class scandal is a temptest in a teapot, and that the activities which purported to be part of the class were actually extracurriculars organized by certain students.
Well, personally, I wasn't as offended by the sexual activity as by the elevation of dorm-room bull sessions to coursework. Perusing the list of courses offered in the same program that gave us male sexuality, I was flabbergasted by the crap that was masquerading as academic activity.
Don't get me wrong, I know that undergrads love these classes. I too took Human Sexuality, along with a number of other fluffy courses designed primarily to allow me to get an A for staring dreamily out the window and occasionally dashing off a paper that mirrored the most trivial philosophical discoveries of whatever Beat poet or PoMo deconstructionist had formed the professor's intellectual framework. However, the fact that most undergraduates would like to spend their four years getting as little for their parents' money as possible, does not mean that the university is obligated to abet them in this pursuit. If University administrators had a spine, students would have to organize their own trips to strip clubs instead of getting their instructor to do it for them.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Accordion Files
I believe it was P.G. Wodehouse who correctly remarked that "a gentleman is a man who can play the accordion but doesn't." Today's news provides confirmation:
On Thursday night, Mr. Bush was the guest of honor at a banquet given by Mr. Jiang at the Great Hall of the People, where after dinner Mr. Jiang serenaded the president and Laura Bush, with "O Sole Mio" in Italian, to the accompaniment of an accordion player.
Well, that certainly must have added to the "Roman Holiday" atmosphere.
Japan's Junichiro Koizumi also does a mean Elvis.
UPDATE: Speaking of "Roman Holiday", Michael Ledeen points out (link for WSJ subscribers) today:
China is not, as is invariably said, in transition from communism to a freer and more democratic state. It is, instead, something we have never seen before: a maturing fascist regime. This new phenomenon is hard to recognize, both because Chinese leaders continue to call themselves communists, and also because the fascist states of the first half of the 20th century were young, governed by charismatic and revolutionary leaders, and destroyed in World War II. China is anything but young, and it is governed by a third or fourth generation of leaders who are anything but charismatic...Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the world because of their history and culture, not because of their current power, or scientific or cultural accomplishments. Just like Germany and Italy in the inter-war period, China feels betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge historic wounds. China even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms, like the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat production -- the same quest for "autarky" that obsessed both Hitler and Mussolini.
It is therefore wrong to think of contemporary China as an intensely unstable system, riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the one hand, and the repressive instincts of communism on the other. Fascism may well have been a potentially stable system, despite the frenzied energies of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. After all, fascism did not fall as the result of internal crisis; it was destroyed by superior force of arms. Fascism was alarmingly popular; Hitler and Mussolini swept to power atop genuine mass movements, and neither Italians nor Germans produced more than token resistance until the war began to be lost.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Decline of the University
Two news items today point to the continuing decline of higher education as a viable enterprise.
First, after averaging tuition increases of "merely" twice inflation, tuitions are being hiked at three to four times the inflation rate. Price hikes like that make it clear that universities bucked the national trend of greater productivity over the last 15 years. Furthermore, after all the fancy talk about how their endowments were invested to withstand multiple bad years in the markets, the tuition hikes are explicitly justified by shrinking endowments:
"An economic downturn negatively affects every other university revenue source," said David L. Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "It affects corporate and foundation giving, earnings from endowments and fund-raising from alumni and friends. Tuition is the one revenue stream over which independent universities have control."
"Control", eh? May I introduce Mr. Warren to the concept of price elasticity? Costs are something you might have "control" over.
The second development is the fact that unions are making substantial headway on campus (graduate students/teaching assistants) while going nowhere in the economy at large. The latest ridiculous campus unionization movement is covered in the Times today - Residential Advisors.
I was a Freshman Counselor, the equivalent of a Residential Advisor. The idea that this group of select volunteers needs a union is laughable. Of course, I could tell you stories of the incredible working environment hardships endured while preventing four freshmen from consuming a beerball.
UPDATE: Well said Mr. Yglesias, a union is a voluntary association for the purposes of negotiation, not a basic need to be granted from some higher authority. I must say, I don't see the R.A.-university relationship as an employer-employee relationship so I think the University can dictate the terms as they see fit, including recognizing any such association.
If I didn't say "need", the beerball bit would not have been so incredibly funny. Back to the land of the bean and the cod (and inferior precision marching bands) with you.
February 21, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Save Me From "Important"
So rule Brittania, while Britten rules the staves, All the music-loving public are his slaves.-Michael Flanders & Donald Swann, "Guide to Britten"
If, settling into my seat in the concert hall, I read that a modern musical work is "important", or I just can't understand the language used to describe it, I know that what I am about to experience will not be easy on the senses.
Take twelve-tone music. Please. The first time I was exposed to seriously dissonant "modern" music, I began fantasizing about what must be written between the staves:
"Use fork or ballpoint pen to sound string to achieve proper metallic whining sound""drop two hundred marbles into piano body all at once"
"emulate a dozen cats on angel dust suspended on a chalkboard over boiling water"
"smash forearm on two octaves below middle C"
"drag fingernails over keys slowly while humming 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'"
In fact, composers such as George Crumb and Karlheinz Stockhausen (who was so unfortunately recorded saying September 11 was "the biggest artwork that exists at all in the whole universe") use new and unusual notations to convey the odd tonalities and rhythms they wish to achieve. Stockhausen wrote a "circular" piece, in which the musicians may start and end at any point, and Crumb has scored his work in the shape of a peace sign. I occasionally wonder if such scores might be intended to disturb the inner ear and thus achieve the disturbing sonorities of musicians vomiting into their instruments.
Anthony Tommasini, whose columns I enjoy and read avidly, illustrates the problem in his recent column "12 Tones Yield Any Number of Felicities" in the New York Times. This is a review of a concert called "12-Tone and Beyond" which starts hopefully:
Perhaps the buzz generated by this program and the festival as a whole signals that audiences, led by a new generation of listeners, have turned a corner. The emergence of 12- tone technique was easily the most significant theoretical development of the 20th century.
Tommasini uses the phrase "turned a corner" advisedly, as most classical audiences turn the corner away from the concert hall if they think something from the "Second Viennese School" is on the program. As far as "significant" theoretical developments, the concert-going audience has enough trouble unwrapping a cough drop quickly, let alone plumbing the quantitative depths of 12-tone theory.
The adjectives Tommasini uses tell the whole story:
spiky and fascinating..sassy, meter-fracturing percussion outbursts...agitated, zigzagging solo passages ...the combative instrumental writing, the volleys of nose-thumbing brasses...self-contained chords keep being repeated oddly, irregularly and inexorably.
It doesn't sound like a toe-tapping evening, does it? Spare me your nose-thumbing brasses, your sassy meter-fracturing outbursts yearning to be free. What on earth is a "self-contained" chord?
Artists that create "challenging" art are often lauded as rebels or pioneers. Against whom do they rebel? Tommasini refers to Arnold Schoenberg, the father of 12-tone theory, as having "liberated dissonance". Under what authority was dissonance imprisoned? Conventions aren't such straitjackets. Would it be brave of me to come out on stage and pass gas because convention says I should not? Would I be known as the artist who "liberated" his flatulence? People are averse to dissonance because it jars the nerves, not because it is political dissent.
The confusion of Avant-Garde and political dissent is by no means confined to music. Hegel said that "architecture is frozen music." If so, the architect Peter Eisenmann is an ice-cold member of the Second Viennese School. One house he designed is symmetrical along a diagonal. It has stairs coming off the ceiling going nowhere. He also designed a house that only exists in its designs impressed in relief on thick paper. It may literally be a deconstructionist's Nietzschean fantasy, but it's not a house. Or even a building. In fact, just what it isn't is very much on Eisenmann's mind:
"What can be the model for architecture when the essence of what was effective in the classical model -- the presumed rational value of structures, representations, methodologies of origin and ends and deductive processes -- have been shown to be delusory?"
Thus freed from the confining tradition of architectural function, one can hobnob with Cornel West and debate the value of architects as political oppositionalists. If artists are political oppositionalists, of course, those who prefer not to listen are oppressors, silencing the artists much as we "silenced" Barbara Kingsolver and Susan Sontag by ridiculing their reflexive counter-tribalism. If art is political expression, critics must be our repressive dictators.
We're terribly House and Garden, at number 7b, We live in a most amusing mews, Ever so very contemporary. We're terribly House and Garden, The money that one spends, To make a place that won't disgrace Our House and Garden friends.We've planned an uninhibited interior decor,
Curtains made of straw,
We've wallpapered the floor.
We're not sure if we like it but at least we can be sure,
There's no place like home sweet home….….Our boudoir on the open plan has been a huge success,
Though everywhere's so open, there's nowhere safe to dress.
With little screens and bottle lamps and motifs here and there,
Mobiles in the air,
Ivy everywhere,
You mustn't be surprised to meet a cactus on the stair,
But we call it home, sweet home.We're terribly House and Garden, as we think we've said before,
But though 7b is madly gay,
It wouldn't do for every day,
We actually live in 7a,
In the house next door.-Flanders & Swann - "Design for Living"
Less overtly political, but equally challenging are artists like Ornette Coleman. Coleman is famous for stretching the boundaries of improvisation. Do listeners put on his CDs for fun? Do they study Coleman's "harmolodics"? I have seen him in concert twice. Interesting? for a while. Some incredible instrumental chops? definitely. Musically enjoyable? not really. And I got the sense 98% of the audience was pretending to enjoy it in that "Emperor's New Clothes" sort of way. Why do we do this? Because we know Coleman is "important"?
Let's face it, most of this stuff is just damn hard to listen to. You might enjoy a concert or two (especially when you get the sense the musicians are having fun even if your not), but do you put it on at home? I doubt it. Some of these pieces create new sensations or simulate a feeling like an impressionist painting. But if there was a piece of music that helped you feel what it was like to be violently schizophrenic, would you listen to it more than once? I accept that it's artistic expression, but it too often fails at being any kind of recreation for the consumer.
For my own money, composers such as Hindemith, Mahler and Stravinsky all used dissonance effectively. Hindemith's "Der Schwanendreher" Viola Concerto is a piece that brings tears to my eyes (especially the second movement). My wife performed it once, but it's not a well-known piece and there are only a few recordings. Hindemith knows how to leave strict tonality then return to it in a soul-satisfying way. His "Mathis Der Maler" symphony is similarly stirring.
I enjoy searching for music that touches me deeply. But I feel profoundly silly pretending to enjoy art simply because it's "important", or because the artist has gone to strange extremes to dress up non-conformity as political dissent, thus rendering it immune to direct criticism.
UPDATE: Reader "Chip" writes:
If contemporary music has done
anything for me, it has been to improve my appreciation of the whole tuning up
experience.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The WSJ Steps in It
Yes, I'm back. I have no air travel stories to tell other than my return flight was delayed by some sort of dispute between a woman in first class wearing a shaggy purple overcoat and her granddaughter in coach (way back) sporting spiky purple hair and multiple face piercings. I got a good look at the latter because she flounced (I love that word) up and down the aisle several times to respond to her grandmother, who commandeered the plane's public address system. It was just as well that the grandmother refused to enter the coach section. I surely would have had a sneezing attack if she brought that purple angora abomination anywhere near my aisle seat.
Enough of that. I return to find that Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has done a Krugmanesque hatchet job on two huge financial institutions. In an article entitled Fannie Mae Enron, the Journal takes on its pet peeve, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises). In essence, the article is a long Ad Enronum attack on "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac", huge financial entities that make markets in mortgages and were originally created by federal charter.
Readers of this blog will know that I cast a suspicious eye on public enterprises and government guaranties (or, in this case, the appearance of a guaranty). However, it does not logically follow that that any entity with public support is automatically evil. Government control or subsidy creates hazards, the entities in question may or may not fall into these hazards.
The editorial makes several assertions about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among them:
1) "The taxpayers are on the hook" for their debt
2) They borrow, between them, $2.6 Trillion
3) They have such a poor handle on their derivatives borrowing they had to restate their net worth by over $7 billion.
4) Their financial disclosure is sub-standard
5) They have been cutting back on credit insurance
6) They do not disclose the counterparties of their derivatives trade (in addition to the price risk in a derivative their is a risk that the entity on the other side of the contract defaults)
7) They operate under opaque yet lenient risk-based capital rules
The WSJ even suggests congressional hearings on the basis of the above.
The first three of the above arguments are just false. The next four don't stand up very well to scrutiny.
1) There is no government guaranty. There is a perception in the market that the government would support these entities if necessary (probably true) but there is nor formal government guaranty of their debt. The appearance of the guaranty conveys an enormous business advantage to them but doesn't put taxpayers on the hook any more than they are for Citibank.
2) The total debt of FNMA and FRE is $1.3 Trillion, not $2.6 Trillion. If the Journal has used a new method to measure leverage or define debt, they do not describe it.
3) The derivative restatement was a result of adopting new accounting standards (FAS 133). These new standards are, to say the least, controversial, but the comparison between last year's and this year's accounting methods conveys no suggestion of a deterioration in the derivatives positions of either entity.
4) Disclosure levels are a subjective matter. More is always better. Generally speaking, however, analysts view FNMA's disclosure as better than most of the corporate world.
5) There does not appear to be any evidence of a change in credit insurance policy.
6) Few, if any, companies disclose derivative counterparties (generally, those counterparties object to the idea of other traders getting a sense of their book - it ruins the poker game). FNMA discloses the credit rating of all their counterparties by dollar value. Again, pretty good disclosure.
7) Risk-Based Capital Rules attempt to reduce total risk to a few parameters and are therefore easy to criticize. There are plenty of analysts who feel that FNMA and FRE operate under stricter rules than banks, given the demonstrably lower credit risk in their balance sheet.
There is more to criticize on technical grounds, but I think you get the idea.
So most of Wall Street is busy sending out faxes and research reports demonstrating how factually-challenged the editorial is. The Chairman of FNMA even took the unprecedented step of sending out an open letter to analysts and market makers pointing out the above inaccuracies and criticizing the tone of the editorial (I'd link to it, but it's not on their website for some reason). In fact, while this topic will no doubt be a snoozer in blogdom, the WSJ has enraged thousands of inhabitants of its namesake neighborhood.
I'm with my neighbors. This appears to be every bit as bad as the Times' constant Enronization of everything corporate or Republican.
There are many legitimate reasons to question the advantages that GSEs enjoy in the marketplace, as the Journal does every election season. Congress must debate our implicit support of these enormous market players. This attack, however, was not only unnecessary and ill-formed, but unwelcome in an environment of wobbling investor confidence.
UPDATE: Two news stories describing the Chairman's response:
Reuters
CBS Marketwatch
'NOTHER UPDATE: The editorial uses the phrase "lots of leverage and snarkily hedged risk". How does one hedge "snarkily"? Is there such a thing as an "Acerbic Swap"? Was the usual editor on vacation?
February 20, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:If you're wandering by from
If you're wandering by from the Businessweek forum, welcome. I'm afraid the site's not particularly geared towards business school students, past, present, or future, unless you're interested in learning what life is like for those of us who had rescinded offers, or in getting a preview of much of the material you'll be covering in school. It's pretty much politics, economics, and technology -- no nude pictures or breathtaking revelations about life at business school. I believe that's what one of the posters meant by "geeky". . . If you have burning questions about life at Chicago, you're welcome to email me via the link at left, and if I have time, I'll try to answer. Otherwise, take a look, bookmark it if you like it, and if not. . . good luck on your GMAT's and everything.
As for the "foxy" bit, I have no idea what brought that on, but the pictures will be up next week. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:Here's something else that made
Here's something else that made me laugh until I cried. It's been a good day for that sort of thing.
From the desk of Jane Galt:This is why non-computer literate
This is why non-computer literate reporters shouldn't be allowed to write stories on things they don't understand.
Kevin Maney listened to the very interesting David Gelernter (yes, the Unabomber victim) waxing lyrical about his new concept for an operating system and fell harder than I did for Tommy Meehan when I played my first game of spin the bottle.
First of all, software engineers, like everyone else, get overenthusiastic about the prospects for whatever they're currently working on. Second of all, this guy's starting a company. He's selling, okay? And third of all, would it hurt to do a little checking before you write things down?
The reporter describes a system that uses time, rather than files, to organize things, and describes that as a more "natural" way to do it. First of all, the brain has all sorts of "natural" storage mechanisms, only one of which is chronological -- if it's natural you want, why not organize our files by smell, the most powerful of the brain's associational tools? Second of all, good file systems set up by a competent administrator do organize things chronologically. You may recall that "sort by date" function in Windows Explorer. . . Third of all, merely organizing things chronologically is a terrible way to deal with things more than a few days old. Quick -- did you write the Henderson memo before or after you ordered the tickets for your last vacation? Of course, Gelernter isn't proposing that; he's proposing something that organizes all the files relating to a given topic chronologically. Well, many or most files relate to more than one topic, so you'd end up setting up various associations for each file, so that you could view it in its proper timestream. We already have software that does this quite well. It's called a relational database, and Larry Ellison, among others, has gotten quite rich off them. Of course, David Gelernter wouldn't sound quite so sexy if he were setting up another DB company.
Then the reporter goes over the top. He tells us that this software would have prevented Enron. Why? See for yourself:
So Windows did it. Bad guys could get away with bad things at Enron because Windows stored the relevant information in thousands of metaphorical burping plastic tubs. If good guys had been able to see the story of Enron's transactions, they would've spotted trouble and stopped it.Hey, people in technology blame Microsoft for all their other ills. Why not this?
Umm. . . because it's totally idiotic? Forget the fact that the system described, a cross between a database and a search engine, would be, on existing hardware, impossibly slow. Forget the fact that, as far as I can tell, a mention of the CEO in a memo would dump it forever after into the "timestream" for the CEO, rendering such searches near-useless. Forget trying to imagine the number of documents reading "the story of Enron" would entail, or asking who exactly would have the time or energy do this.
Let's think instead about a basic issue of which the reporter is apparently unaware: security. If you're on a network, and the network is any good, you will note that you can't see much except the stuff you're supposed to work on; personal and workgroup files, that is. Even in a poorly run network, however, confidential financial data are generally sealed up like the casino vault in Ocean's Eleven. The good guys wouldn't have been able to see the story of Enron's transactions, because the story wouldn't have been there to see. The data were locked away in the networks of other companies, or accessible only to those at the top of the food chain. No, Virginia, you can't blame Enron on Microsoft, the Freemasons, or evil Republicans. Sometimes, a badly run company is just a badly run company. It's not a symbol of anything.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Smarter Times catches the Gray
Smarter Times catches the Gray Lady (registration required) in a little bit of hypocrisy:
"The Supreme Court cannot permit cities like Cleveland to violate the Establishment Clause in order to improve education any more than it could allow them to deprive citizens of their free-speech rights, if that were seen as a boon to public education," the Times editorial says.Well, that's just rich, given that the Times has just concluded an editorial campaign arguing in favor of Congress depriving citizens of their free-speech rights, on the grounds that doing so would help clean up elections. The Times calls that "campaign-finance reform."
From the desk of Jane Galt:Boy, I really know how
Boy, I really know how to have fun. . .
If you want to know what makes me laugh until I cry, try reading this page, which is what you get when you translate my page into German using Google's translator, and then translate it back again. A sample (from this post):
Some suggest a Zuendungsquad Artabkommen for judging. Summarize: on a Zuendungsquad let load only some the members their rifles. Nobody on the Zuendungsquad knows whether their rifle has a rifle bullet or a free area. So none can be safe that they killed the poor hybrid, which they accomplish, which more probably forms it that they shoot it real, instead of, "inadvertently" to miss. The arrangement, which is suggested for the judges, is that you appoint 14 judges, only 7 of their notches counts (after the coincidence drawn) -- and nobody knows, which notches counted. He says, that would not solve the problem, and suggests instead of that we do not use only judges from countries in the competition.
I couldn't have said it better myself. That poor hybrid. . . on the other hand, Steven Den Beste will be happy to know that the Google translator thinks that he is "the best Steven".
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via Dane Carlson comes this
Via Dane Carlson comes this hilarious item: the cargo cult lives!
I've read Richard Feynman's famous description of the cargo cults, of which here's a choice snippet:
In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call ["sciences" like reflexology or ESP] cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
But I had no idea these things were still around. (CYA -- I'm extremely gullible, so it's possible that the article above is a hoax. It's still hilarious, however.)
This is how I feel about a lot of what passes for economic analysis in politics these days. It's dressed up with a lot of numbers, and the politicians talk fast and glib to cover the holes, but ultimately they're ignorant savages praying to the Invisible Hand and hoping that goodies will magically fall out of the sky.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Steven Den Beste has an
Steven Den Beste has an excellent post on game theory which illustrates why the high moral ground is usually a losing position in battle. It explains theoretically what I was trying to say practically about the Guantanamo prisoners: unilateral adhesion to the Geneva Convention is more likely to cause suffering than end it.
He also applies game theory to the figure skating brouhaha. Some are proposing a firing squad type deal for the judging. To summarize: on a firing squad, only some of the members have their guns loaded. No one on the firing squad knows whether their gun has a bullet or a blank. Thus, none can be sure that they killed the poor bastard they're executing, which makes it more likely that they will actually shoot him instead of "accidentally" missing. The arrangement proposed for the judges is that you appoint 14 judges, only 7 of whose scores count (randomly drawn) -- and no one knows which scores counted. He says that wouldn't solve the problem, and proposes instead that we only use judges from countries not in the competition.
I think that a random draw would work better than he thinks; more importantly, I see two problems with neutral country judges. First, there's no reason to suppose that neutral country judges couldn't be bought; these judges exist on a circuit where many favors can be traded inside or outside of the games. Second, we might then be scrounging for judges from countries that don't have a figure skating program, in which case we're getting inferior judging.
But how about a combination of the random draw with blind scoring -- no one even knows what the judge awarded? Granted, this would introduce problems of arbitrary scoring, but it seems to me that that's pretty much what we have now.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via Hokiepundit: A Virginia legislator
Via Hokiepundit: A Virginia legislator has proposed establishing a Tax-Me-More fund that would allow those who feel their taxes are to low to fix the problem:
Mr. Cox said he is opposed to any tax increase in the state, but his bill would let those who feel otherwise put their money where their mouths are. And those who give would be rewarded in cyberspace by having their names posted on the tax department's Web site.
I was raised by some pretty crotchety people who feel that moral responsibility starts with the individual first, society after. I have no patience for those who want taxes raised to pay for some program, but haven't given a good portion of their income to a similar private program (case in point: I supported private school voucher programs with my own cash, when I was employed). When Larry Summers said that actually doing something with the poor, rather than lobbying the government to do something with them, was what Harvard meant by "community service", I nearly passed out in delight. As far as I'm concerned, if the Hollywood mogul crowd thinks that the upper tax bracket should be higher, then they can put their money where their mouth is by, at the very least, refusing to take any deductions and not sheltering income. If they're so damn liberal, how come my parents pay a higher percentage of their income to tax than Steven Spielberg?
Interestingly, the only state that currently has such a program is Arkansas, where it has netted $276. Not one rich Democrat could stump up his "fair share"?
From the desk of Jane Galt:I don't usually blog the
I don't usually blog the Professor, since you've all read him already, but this item sparked some thought:
. . . truly limited government is not only wise, but essential to public safety. The state has unfettered access to capital regardless of how incompetently it performs, therefore allowing great damage to be done to the public. If the boobs and crooks at Enron were able to acess tax revenues, instead of convincing private creditors to give them more money, Skilling, Lay, Fastnow, and company would still be in the clover, while doing great damage to the economic well being of others.
One of the great mysteries to me is the Democrats in the Financial sector. Not because they're Democrats, per se, but because their politics is so. . . well . . . wierd.
They don't like any of the services the government currently provides, but they want it to provide more.
They spend their entire professional lives thinking up ways to get around the securities regulation, but think more regulation is the answer to almost every problem.
They are in favor of regulating every industry except their own, which they insist works efficiently.
They won't buy a garden spade for themselves without doing due diligence and a DCF, but they dismiss any numbers which prove that none of the government programs they support is anything close to efficient or effective.
They think that capital markets are good, because they discipline management, yet are in favor of a revenue-generating system with no feedback loop, that takes place at the point of a gun.
They are in favor of gun control, but they want armed guards for their money.
They don't think that average people should have unfettered freedom to manage their own money, but they think they know everything they need to know about environmental policy and campaign finance reform.
They want to tax the wealthy more, but not one of them ever misses a deduction.
The only item on their political agenda that ever seemed consistent to me was their opposition to defense spending. Defense spending is spending on a useless, non-wealth generating activity that does nothing to help the country -- until you need an army that is, at which point it is too late to do anything but call your friends on the Paris Bourse to pick up some tips on white-flag design. Cutting the corporate equivalent of this spending (along with, to be fair, a fair amount of corporate jet and junket spending) forms the linchpin of many mergers and LBO's.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Okay, I'm not ashamed to
Okay, I'm not ashamed to admit it -- I google myself. I do it a lot. But I just checked my stats and found someone else googling me. That's a little wierd.
February 19, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Banana Counting Monkey delivers a
Banana Counting Monkey delivers a resounding smackdown to both smarmy left wing movie cliches and the Canadian health care system. Tee-hee!
From the desk of Jane Galt:Rand Simberg writes to chide
Rand Simberg writes to chide me for not saving my work and thus losing my post on Japan. Too true, the fault is mine; I was not trying to blame Ev. Just saying that I understand how people get frustrated by blogger's hiccoughs.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Supreme Court Watch The Supreme
Supreme Court Watch
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument on the 1998 copyright extension (WSJ.COM -- subscription required.This is great news. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not one of those who thinks that "information wants to be free" so badly that the humans producing that information will put in long hours without renumeration to put it out in the public domain. I like copyrights. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear to me that the 1998 copyright extension was a gift from congress to their friends in the music industry. The purpose of copyright law is to provide an incentive to innovate, while allowing others in society to improve and extend others' ideas. Seventy-five years worth of revenue is sufficient encouragement; the extension was just a way for corporations who did not create the works to further cash in. The only reason it passed was that the costs are diffused over the whole population, while the benefits are concentrated in a couple of companies. Notice that there has been no extension of patent terms, where costs and benefits are more equally distributed.
In other news, the court today heard arguments on the Cleveland voucher program. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed.
The court also issued a ruling: teachers having students grade each others' papers does not constitute an invasion of privacy. I hesitate to use the word "pathetic", but what else do you call it? Our ancestors left their homes and families and crossed oceans never to see them again; came to a country with a strange language and customs; crossed prairies and rivers and hostile mountains and carved homes for themselves out of the wilderness, all because they dreamed that someday their great-grandchildren could . . . have an expensive legal hissyfit over whether letting other students see their spelling errors violated their constitutional right to never, ever get their feelings hurt. Folks, call me when the shuttle lands.
From the desk of Jane Galt:There are dark stirrings out
There are dark stirrings out there in Blogworld as the Blogspot monolith threatens our Blogability: links don't work, posts cannot be made, and worst of all, we are unable to reach Our Fearless Leader for inspiration. The villagers are not yet storming up the hill -- but they are firing up the torches.
I share the frustration -- believe me I do; I just lost an ENORMOUS post on Japan. However, I also realize that I'm getting a hell of a deal out of Ev. And I know that there's a vast pool of talent out there that might be able to get him past the rough spots of turning a hobby into a business -- a pool that, like me, is getting more than they're giving.
For what it's worth, I've lived through three startups and am currently working on my fourth. I'll make an open offer to check out the business plan/financials for free. Others with better knowledge in other areas (tech strategy, business analyst, technology, financial) can jump in any time.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via Dave Tepper: This woman
Via Dave Tepper: This woman says that the government knows who the Anthrax mailer is, but won't reveal his name because he's a former government employee who knows official secrets. This sounded a little paranoid to me, so I checked out the Federation of American Scientists, for which she works. Sure enough, the front page of their site is dedicated to complaining that the government spends too much on the military and not enough on everything else. Closer inspection reveals that it's a lobbying group with a bunch of Nobel scientists on the board.
Which is not to say that she isn't right, only that she most definitely has an agenda which this assertion supports. So take it with a large grain of salt.
From the desk of Jane Galt:For followers of the Horowitz
For followers of the Horowitz Poll Debate, here's a great piece by Wendy McElroy that serves as a useful primerto the ways in which statistics are abused by advocacy groups on both sides of the spectrum.
February 18, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:A skiing friend tells me
A skiing friend tells me that there's a severe problem among ski jumpers with anorexia. . . the lighter you are, the longer you go, yet strength is an important component, so they starve themselves. His stories on rooming with the ski jumpers at competition are funny or heartwrenching or just disgusting, depending on how you feel about vomit. All of which was brought back to me watching those ski jumpers on the Olympics. Even the men look more like wispy teenaged models than athletes. This is not, I think, quite what the Olympics founders had in mind.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Dave Tepper has a very
Dave Tepper has a very interesting post on EULA's (at least for us non-legal types) and whether or not they constitute valid contracts. Highly recommend.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Holiday Poem Happy President's Day,
Holiday Poem
Happy President's Day, everyone!O Captain! my Captain! our fearful trip is done,
The ship has weathered every rack, the prize we sought is won,
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring;
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up--for you the flag is flung--for you the bugle trills,
For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths--for you the shores accrowding,
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head!
It is some dream that on the deck
You've fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still,
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will,
The ship is anchored safe and sound, its voyage closed and done,
From fearful trip the victor ship comes in with object won;
Exult O shores, and ring O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
---- Walt Whitman
From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides Well, I've
Notes and Asides
Well, I've learned a couple of things from BosomWars 2002:1) There's an inordinate amount of interest in the subject in Blogland
2) There are also a surprising number of people who wouldn't recognize a joke if it walked up and slapped them on the . . . keister.
3) Puns are the lowest form of humor. That's why they're fun.
4) Attempts to legislate social policy by fiat always generate some extremely surprising, totally unexpected effects.
5) Nataljia Radic is extremely gracious in her position of strength.
Actually, I knew all these things already. But it was certainly interesting to have them reinforced.
To my recent contributors (especially the humongo one, whoever you are!) thanks muchly. I just blew the whole mozilla at Amazon buying books to make me smarter so I can compete in the new, harsher blogosphere environment. Although given the above, perhaps I should have spent it all at Elizabeth Arden. . .
Several of you have emailed to ask about a recent piece of gossip. This is amazing, since less than 48 hours have passed since it happened. From which you can infer that yes, it's true -- the boy and I have broken it off. It was entirely amicable so no condolences are necessary, though of course if you want to buy me a drink the next time you're in New York, I won't stop you. Apologies to my non-friend readers for intruding personal business, and it does seem an odd way to announce it, but then so did the multiple emails I've been sending/receiving.
Blogfest New York is happening on Friday. Anyone who's interested (don't let a l'il ol four hour train ride from Washington or Boston keep you away!) should check out www.sophismata.com for details. Then you can see for yourself whether I dare compete with Nataljia. (Editor's bet -- not likely!)
I'm sorry I'm not posting more (at least, I'm sorry for that possibly nonexistant number who wish I were posting more). . . the business plan/article/work/job search combo is crushing me. But I'll be trying to get some stuff up every day until Friday, and then whoo-hoo! It's time to party on Ricardo's Theory of Competitive Advantage! Get ready to rock.
February 17, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Robert Musil makes a couple
Robert Musil makes a couple of interesting points about Enron: first, that while the board may have been captive (in other words, management led them around by the nose), the culprit is more likely ignorance than malfeasance, since the board members were unlikely to deliberately open themselves up to the kind of liability they're facing for the amount they were paid. He also says that the accounting was not deliberate fraud. I think that depends on what the meaning of "fraud" is. They may have barely skated the line of legal by getting their accountants to sign off on their transactions, but I think that they were certainly aware that the financial statements misstated their true condition to the point of gross fiduciary breach. But read them and decide for yourself.
February 16, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:A Modest Proposal Safeguarding Women
A Modest Proposal
Safeguarding Women Bloggers from Unfair and Anti-Competitive Blogging Practices by the Live from the WTC Editorial BoardFor over a month now, we have watched as certain bloggers have used predatory tactics to unfairly steal blogoshare. Rather than standing in solidarity with their fellow female bloggers and building a truly inclusive, empowering blogging community, they have instead used their outsized power to hoard more than their fair share of blog readers. We have dreamed of the possibilities of the internet where, no longer weighted down by the physicality of the "real" world, we might build a new, radically empowering space. Instead we are confronted with the intrusion of the same old patriarchal paradigms and exploitationist power structures into our precious new nest.
We can no longer stand by while this rampaging bully uses her size to trample the rights of those smaller than she is. We refer, of course, to Nataljia Radic, whose latest power-grab is too blatant to be ignored any longer. It is only an accident of history that Ms. Radic should be so abundantly endowed with natural resources, yet she not only openly flaunts her unearned wealth, but also uses her assets to seize eyeballs from her less fortunate sisters. It is clear that this situation cannot be tolerated much longer. As long as Ms. Radic misuses her power, it will be impossible for Less Developed Bloggers (LDB's) to fulfill the promise of a virtual world where biology is not destiny. I call on Ms. Radic to immediately cease this shameless exploitation of Mother Nature and instead help to develop a more sustainable blogosphere where she can peacefully co-exist with those who are less well-endowed.
However, we fear that merely calling for justice will not be enough to realize the redress to which we are entitled. While in theory, we at Live From the WTC are, of course, in favor of free markets, it is clear that in this instance there is a massive market failure in which size begets more market share -- a classic case of monopoly. The only way to stop this market malfunction is to immediately and totally forbid the publishing of pictures on weblogs.
Some will say that this is anticompetitive. This is ridiculous. We at Live From the WTC are in favor of competition, and that is why we are pursuing this ban: so that blogs can compete on the merits, rather than joining in the race to the bottom of vulgar consumerism. The playing field must be leveled. Only massive surgery will suffice. We therefore ask our fellow bloggers to join us in our quest to build a blogosphere that is free, competitive, and inclusive, so that it can meet the needs of all bloggers, rather than a fortunate few. In the bright new future of the New Economy, our children deserve nothing less.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm reading Paul Krugman's The
I'm reading Paul Krugman's The Return of Depression Economics and it's reminding me why I'm so mad at him: it's a great book, and he's one of the great popular economics writers -- possibly the greatest one -- of our times. Yet he's pimping his credibility to any left-wing cause that comes down the pike, wasting his talent and our time. Of course he has a perfect right to do so -- just as I have a perfect right to take moral affront at his professional and personal laxity.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Synopsis: The Great Poll Debate
Synopsis: The Great Poll Debate
Here's the link to the Horowitz Poll for interested readers, as well as a complete list of the posts in the Great Poll Debate:Post One: I make fun of Professor Wilentz for arbitrarily dismissing the possibility of bias in the academy.Post Two: I respond to critics of the poll.
Post Three: I explain a little bit about sample size and research methodology for befuddled readers.
Post Four: I summarize the consensus of the long email/comment/other blog debate.
Post Five: I respond to Benjamin Kepple's post on the poll by explaining why the methodology of the poll was troubling, and why I feel it's vital to get good data
.
Post Six: I respond to Charles Kuffner's post, explaining why I think we should care whether the academy is skewed.
Whew! I had no idea that making fun of Wilentz would bring so much debate. That brings it up to date, I think. If more posts come on the subject, I'll update this section.
February 15, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Charles Kuffner asks what's the
Charles Kuffner asks what's the fuss about the academy being skewed to the left?
Well, there's two ways to respond to that. The first is to ask how you would feel if Oral Roberts and their ilk were the gateway to the good life for your children? Would you be happy that the only way you could get your children the most prestigious education was by sending them somwhere where the political center was around, say, the National Review -- and there were no professors in many departments with any other point of view? Would you send your children to an institution that was likely to draw blank stares when they went for job interviews so that they could get a balanced education, or would you send them off with the other kids? Would you smile when they told you that evolution actually wasn't a fact and affirmative action was dead wrong, and treated their new opinions as revealed wisdom instead of debatable ideas? Of course not. Of course if you're on the left, having a mostly left academy feels nice'n'comfy. But that's not an education, it's brainwashing. And if that's what you want for your children, I guess I'm not going to convince you it's a bad thing.
Which brings me to the second reason that it's a problem. The problem isn't the skew, per se; personally, I imagine that the distribution will be skewed to the left for quite some time. The problem is that if you drew the political distribution of the country as a normal distribution and stuck a line through the center, then plotted the distribution of most american universities, you would find almost nothing to the right of that center line. To hell with skewed; that's a political culture as monolithic as the one at those religious schools Ivy League professors like to make fun of.
Idea systems are like ecosystems; they do better when they are diverse. The whole scientific method, in fact, is founded on the belief that ideas maintain their vitality and fitness only in the hurly burly of an intellectual marketplace where they are constantly tested and challenged.
Professors in many subjects never have their core ideas challenged in any substantive way. Reading an argument is not the same as debating a subject with a competent opponent; I'm sure we've all had the experience of reading something that disagreed with our deeply held beliefs, thinking "Well, this is clearly ridiculous," and throwing the article or book aside in irritation precisely because it challenged something we wanted to believe was self-evident. The benefit of a diverse academy is that it forces people to actively defend their beliefs, and thus refine and improve them, discarding those which cannot stand the test of competition.
Students, who pay no taxes and have rarely had to actually make something work in the real world, are naturally liberal. I don't think the job of college is to change that -- but I do think that the job of any competent university is to present multiple viewpoints and encourage debate so that the students are forced to analyze and hone the ideals they embrace. The total dominance of the left is encouraging intellectual complacency, shutting down debate in many areas, and in general creating an unhealthy atrophy in the intellectual atmosphere of many humanities departments -- just as it would be if 94% of the academy hailed from the right. Homogeneity does not breed sharp thinking in any atmosphere. That is why the best conservative writing is the writing aimed at a general audience; it assumes nothing, proves every point, and offers genuine insight instead of complaining.
Kuffner suggests I want affirmative action for conservatives. Far from it. However, I think that there is probably outright hiring bias against conservative candidates that pollutes the applicant pool, as well as the eventual makeup of the faculty. I think that this should be forcefully stopped by outraged alumni, parents, and donors. I think that it would be, if we got some proof. So that's what I want; proof. Which is why I'm pretty sure the academy will go to great lengths to make sure that I don't get it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Greg Hlatky from A Dog's
Greg Hlatky from A Dog's Life sends a more detailed answer to my question about the BT patent:
The patent (U.S. 4,873,662) was filed in 1976, but didn't issue until 1989. Under the law at that time, patents have a term of 17 years. The law was subsequently changed in 1995 (I believe) to a term of 20 years after filing.The long time between filing and issuance isn't all that unusual. I recently
had a patent issue 14 years after the original case was filed and I have
several more that are still in prosecution 12 years after filing.
It all becomes clear. Much thanks to Mr. Hlatky, and to Steven Den Beste, who gave the short answer over there in the comments.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Benjamin Kepple has a different
Benjamin Kepple has a different point of view on the Horowitz poll:
To prevent any Krugman-esque follies, let me say this: I am a former employee of Mr Horowitz's. I also spent six years, four in the collegiate arena and two in the professional arena, reporting and commenting on the, ah, unique political situation in academia. That experience, however, lets me say without fear that Mr Horowitz's poll is not "discovering" a new phenomenon, it is not suggesting it, it is not hinting that bias may exist in academia. For he knows -- as everyone does in their hearts -- that a fearsome political bias exists in academia.What his poll does is take the reality everyone knows about and tries to put it into the stark, black-and-white realm of statistics.
I agree with Kepple that anyone who thinks that a rigorous poll would deliver significantly different results is sucking too hard on that bong. Nonetheless, I think it's important to try to do a rigorous poll along the lines I outlined for several reasons. The first is that however well you think you know something anectdotally, you don't know it until you can prove it. The second is that a rigorous study would give us the data to begin defining the precise scope and nature of the problem, begin analyzing possible root causes, and examine potential solutions. For example, right now there may be hiring bias, but there isn't any way to show it experimentally. On the other hand, if we could correlate the voting preferences of people extended offers with the voting preferences of the hiring faculty, that would be suggestive, particularly if the group receiving offers were different from the applicant pool. And the third reason is that there is a vast pool of people, in academia and out, who currently deny the scope of the problem. Only massive amounts of data from well designed studies will overcome their objections. I understand that the hard left will question any data, no matter how good, but there will be some towards the center who will be convinced, which is a major step towards rectifying the problem. At least, insofar as it can be rectified.
This is not to criticize Horowitz. His poll was as good as any journalist's poll ever is, and better than some. It is nonetheless fatally flawed because it is a reader response poll, which almost always introduces selection bias. For example, Nader voters may have declined to sent it in because they didn't want to give Horowitz grist; conversely, they may be more ideological and hence more predisposed to send it in. We don't know unless we do a better poll. So I think that Horowitz's poll is suggestive; moreover, I think it is probably approximately right. But I won't know how right it is, or why the phenomenon occurs, or what I can do about it, until I get better data. Horowitz has window on academia; it's up to others to open the door and step through.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides Despite my
Notes and Asides
Despite my promises, I stil haven't posted anything about trade. I will soon -- a riveting explanation of Ricardo's Theory of Comparitive Advantage that will, I promise you, have you on the edge of your seats.I also haven't posted anything about the great Napster debate, despite my deep interest in the subject. I'm going to, even though interest may have waned, write about the strategic aspects of the Bertelsmann/Napster deal when I get a second. It's more interesting than it sounds.
There's a big mound of email piling up in my box. Since I was raised to believe that you grow hair on your palms and go blind if you don't answer your correspondance the same day it was received, this pains me greatly. However, I am currently trying to write a business plan, write an article, find a job, and keep the job I have. I'm also trying to post at least a couple of amusing items every day so that my beloved readers don't go away and leave me. So if you've written me an email and I haven't written back or posted about it, it's not because I didn't get it, or because I don't want to respond -- you've just hit me at a time crunch. But when I'm over the hump, rest assured I will get back to you, even if you've totally forgotten that you emailed me. That's the Megan McArdle promise, the kind of quality that Megan McArdle's readers expect from Megan McArdle. Megan McArdle's readers can continue to support her at this difficult time by continuing to hit her page, thus validating what shreds of her ego remained after the New Economy was done with it.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
From the desk of Jane Galt:So BT thinks it owns
So BT thinks it owns the patent to hyperlinks. This reminds me of the guy who patented -- I'm not making this up -- the algorithm that made your cursor blink on old DOS computers. He didn't invent it, by the way -- he just filed the patent for it. Mucho moola for zilcho work.
Here's what I don't get about the BT thing -- the patent was filed in 1976. 'Splain me, please, why it hasn't expired?
February 14, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Travelling...
I am taking the elder two of my offspring on a Dad & Boys trip involving beaches, dolphins, etc. I will have a laptop, but don't know the bandwidth situation, so posting may be light.
Perhaps I can use the offline time constructively and whip up something meaty to post on my return (Tuesday 2/19). Or maybe I won't have a single creative thought for 4 days. Or maybe those two things aren't mutually exclusive...
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Advantage MTZ
From the breaking my arm patting myself on the back department, some comparisons:
The Wall Street Journal today - "The Federal Enron":
The little-known but scary truth is that the federal government also disguises some of its liabilities, or simply leaves them off balance sheets altogether. Exposing this isn't as much fun as watching Houston millionaires take the Fifth, but in the long run this is likely to cost more Americans more money than anything Enron did. If nothing else, the practices deserve more sunshine and public debate.....Even when programs are handled on-budget, the government plays by different rules. An enduring example is the treatment of federal insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Social Security taxes are included in the budget as revenue, but its attendant future liabilities are omitted. This is why the consolidated financial statement issued by Treasury last year shows zero obligations for Social Security (and Medicare). Zero. Buried somewhere in the footnotes you'll find disclosures of anticipated outlays, but the balance sheet itself is innocent of any liability, a habit not unlike a certain energy company's.
More Than Zero, January 28:
The Enron partnerships were accounting entities full of questionable self-valued assets supported by Enron stock that increased Enron's net worth and allowed it to keep the truth of deteriorating asset values off its financial statements. The Lockbox, or social security surplus, is a fictional accounting entity full of I.O.U.s both from and to the U.S. Government that somehow increases its net worth and keeps nasty truths out of its financial statements. Same idea, huh?
Thomas Friedman, New York Times, February 13:
Because the critics are missing the larger point, which is this: Sept. 11 happened because America had lost its deterrent capability. We lost it because for 20 years we never retaliated against, or brought to justice, those who murdered Americans. From the first suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, to the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport a few months later, to the T.W.A. hijacking, to the attack on U.S. troops at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, to the suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, innocent Americans were killed and we did nothing.So our enemies took us less and less seriously and became more and more emboldened. Indeed, they became so emboldened that a group of individuals — think about that for a second: not a state but a group of individuals — attacked America in its own backyard. Why not? The terrorists and the states that harbor them thought we were soft, and they were right. They thought that they could always "out-crazy" us, and they were right. They thought we would always listen to the Europeans and opt for "constructive engagement" with rogues, not a fist in the face, and they were right.
While Bush's speech made us all a little nervous, it was intended to make terrorist sponsors nervous. The jangling of European nerves was a side effect. This was a forceful speech intended to show terrorist regimes and dictators that:a) we won't necessarily be restrained by a need to please Europe or other parts of the world, and
b) we won't be restrained by waiting for an open act of aggression on your part.
The point was to increase our threat power. It would not have been effective if it weren't as jarring as it was. A credible threat can save lives, avoid conflict and increase bargaining power, however unattractive and realpolitik it may seem. A threat can actually eliminate the need for action rather than make it necessary. And certain critics need to wake up and notice that we haven't actually gone to war without consulting their governments first, we're just saying we reserve the right to do so. In Iran's case, a strong threat may actually push them in our direction, if we make the alternative unpleasant enough.
I guess my self-esteem is low enough that I find this affirmation encouraging.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm sorry I'm not posting
I'm sorry I'm not posting much today, but it's been a busy day. So for all of you love birds out there, I'm posting my favorite love poem instead of the usual bile and spleen:
HAD I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half-light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreamsHappy Valentines Day, everyone! May all your dreams come true.-- W.B. Yeats
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:How To Exaggerate Small Differences 101
Just move up the X-axis, and a 2.1% difference looks like this:
(graphic links to source)
Still good news, however.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:FYI - Blogspot Site Removed
My old blogspot site has been removed. If you see any links referring to it, please let me know and I will send the author a new link. All the old entries are here if needed, and can be accessed through the search option to your left (and at the bottom of the center column).
February 13, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:NPR on weblogs
Orrin Judd tips me off to this (realaudio) blurb on weblogs from NPR's all things considered.
Writing is a profoundly social act...in short, the web is rewriting writing.Nice little comment. Thank you Orrin.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Grumble Grumble
OK. Although we have not corresponded, add Charles Dodgson of Through the Looking Glass to the list of people who do an awfully good job of critiquing my arguments, or arguments like them.
But I'm not budging off my opinion of Krugman as a brilliant economist with blind spots created by partisan fury. His general acuity is why those blind spots drive me up the wall.
All I want is a consistent definition of "lump-sum transfers" for cryin' out loud. Oh, and why he thinks corporations and wealthy people shove money they didn't pay in taxes into a mattress for eternity.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Whining into the Wind Jonathan
Whining into the Wind
Jonathan Chait's beef with Bush is that he won't consider raising taxes:Bush and his staffers speak as if tax revenues and defense spending were somehow not fungible. Instead, the administration will only discuss trade-offs between defense, domestic spending, and deficits--never taxes.Interesting, because even as Chait is accusing Bush of leaving important things out of the equation, he is pulling the same trick:
while his personal ratings remain stratospheric, poll after poll shows (by a wide margin) that the public would rather scale back the tax cut than run a deficit.That's probably true, my problems with polls aside. Now, let's present them with the following options: would you rather scale back the tax cut, cut defense spending, cut domestic spending, or run a deficit -- the exact options Chait wants on the table. Which do the voters choose then? Defense spending is off the table; Grey lady aside, no one wants to cut the money for Our Boys. In the polls, lower deficit beats lower taxes -- but lower taxes beat higher spending. So what the public really wants is spending cuts, something congress isn't going to give them unless Bush sits on them. Which is what he's doing. So explain to me again why this is a bad thing?
From the desk of Jane Galt:On a lighter note, my
On a lighter note, my first year accounting professor testified on the Enron accounting disaster. He's an amazing guy, the co-author of the most widely used MBA financial accounting book, and his testimony is both intelligent and intelligible, even for a non-accountant. I highly recommend it if you want a clear explanation of why Arthur Anderson should be shaken like a dead bird in a spaniel's mouth.
It is also, more importantly, and indictment of the microregulation approach. He points out that a trend towards specific regulations for specific circumstances, rather than broad principles, allowed Enron to say, "Well there's no rule, so I guess we can do it." Dems & GOPs, take note!
Instead, he recommends, along with a return to broad principles, a strengthened audit committee and mandatory rotation of auditors every 5 years. This would put auditors on notice that every call they made would be scrutinized by first, a committee that actually knows what they're doing (Enron's clearly didn't) and second, it's competitors looking for errors. In other words, set up a system where judgement -- with stiff consequences for lapses -- replaces "Everything not compulsory is forbidden".
From the desk of Jane Galt:Whew! A great statistical argument
Whew! A great statistical argument is a joyful thing. To sum up: the sample's too small, and we need further study, but to get good data we need a better poll design. Specifically, we need polls that are not mail-in (people who bother to return polls generally aren't representative); and focus on objective criteria (who did you vote for?) rather than subjective questions (if the Democrats advocated, oh, say, killing babies, would you still vote for them?) because polls are inherently susceptible to the biases and inaccuracies of those who design them, and those who ask the questions.
It's important to look at the whole academy, but especially at humanities at elite schools, because that's where a majority of the media, especially the major media, derive their ideas, and there is data that suggests that they perceive the world to be centered considerably to the left of the country's political center, and that they tend to discount the bona fides of conservative intellectuals. Moreover, it would be better for the academy as a whole to have all sides represented in debates, so that students could develop sharper analytical skills. However, while it is important to address hiring bias, or self-selection due to perceived discrimination, it would be folly to enact remedies that lower the rigorous intellectual standards of the academy. The only caveat is that we must ensure that the existing professors don't set up the rigorous standards to exclude conservative thought.
Now, how do we bell the cat? Any suggestions?
From the desk of Jane Galt:I do want to talk
I do want to talk a little bit about sample size and the Horowitz poll, for those who may not understand the statistical arguments. Because there are really two separate arguments: whether or not the Ivy League professors are disproportionately leftists, which is what Horowitz was studying; and whether or not there is some reason that they are disproportionately leftists, such as a propensity of current professors to only hire people who fall on the left side of the spectrum.
Now, the poll. There are plenty of problems with the poll; it's methodology was apparently, to say the least, slapdash. I was at no time trying to argue that it was definitive; only suggestive. One of my commenters points out that there are other, better studies which say the same thing about the Ivy League.
Nontheless, while the sample is small it is not quite as small as some seem to be arguing. Let's look at the purpose of the poll: it was to prove that a given population is not a representative subset of a larger population; in this case, that Ivy league professors were not representative of the voting population. The sample that we take to determine whether or not they are representative is not a sample of the voting population; it is a sample of the population of Ivy League professors. So our sample, relative to the population size we are studying, goes from .000000005% of the relevant population to 1.5%. This is important because it tells us how representative the sample is likely to be. (I estimate the population of Ivy League Arts & Sciences professors to be approximately 10,000. This is an estimate, which may overcount (Penn lumps all it's faculty together; I tried to be generous in adding separate schools, such as Cornell's, with what might construe Arts & Sciences; not all professors teach) or undercount (several schools didn't give a count for faculty and I estimated numbers based on a ratio of 8.5:; I didn't count visiting professors).
Now there's another reason that sample size is important, and that is that the smaller the sample, the more likely it is to be influenced by discreet events. So if I say that the three women in my office now are a representative sample of the United States, I can argue that 1/3 of the people in the US are libertarians. This is way off the mark. But if I define the relevant population as, say, the trailer I'm working in, I'll be closer to right; the sample will be, probably, more representative.
That's why sample size matters, but not as much as my interlocutors argue. Small samples are bad -- my stats professor at one point advised throwing away any sample smaller than 50 events -- but people aren't bacteria, so we have to make do. 150 is still too likely to be influenced by random chance. But it is more likely to be represenative than some are saying.
Now, if we get a hold on how likely the sample is to represent its population (the Ivy League professors), and we determine that the population is, in fact, probably biased to the left -- bear with me, my rosy friends, we're speaking hypothetically -- then the next thing we want to do is to determine whether or not the difference between the population and the larger population of American residents and citizens is due to chance, or caused by some factor we can identify.
It certainly could be due to chance. The famous example of this is cancer clusters. This is when people think "six people on my block have cancer. That's not the normal distribution in the population. Therefore, something must be causing the cancer." The fallacy lies in assuming that the distribution in the larger population will be mirrored by any smaller subset of that population. If you checked that same block you'd get all sorts of clusters of things occurring at a much higher rate than in the US as a whole: people named Ralph, dachsunds, Toyota corollas in the driveway. One of the first things statisticians do is look at the sample size and try to figure out the probability of this happening at random.
If it isn't due to chance, we look for a reason. The hypothesis of the article is that there is a causal link between the political distribution of professors, and the political distribution of the people those professors hire. Alternative hypothesis: the causal link runs the other way, and that all these people are professors because only left-wing types want to be professors. Second alternative: There's some other factor we'll call X, which is correlated with the politics of both professors, and the people they hire; but there is no causal link, in either direction, between the politics of current and incoming professors. Since incoming professors immediately turn into current professors as soon as they in come, this third seems unlikely. My personal opinion is that the two things to some extent reinforce each other. However, the allegation of hiring bias is the most troubling, and therefore demands the closest scrutiny - which is to say, the highest level of proof. It also demands, if true, the most draconian remedy.
The most worrisome aspect of this is that we are unlikely to get that proof. Who should sponsor the studies into whether or not faculty are making politically motivated hiring decisions? The Universities. And who determines whether or not to undertake such studies? The possibly politically motivated faculty, who categorically deny that there's a problem. Well, I'm all for more data. But when the people decrying the lack of data are the same people blocking all attempts to get it, I get mad.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The "Ornpay" debate
I'm having trouble finding inspiration to join the..er..adult discussions bouncing around the blogosphere. "To each his own", I say. I find the whole subject of pornography, much like it's own pictorial subjects, disappointingly mundane when placed under megawatt floodlights and inspected at a range appropriate only for dermatologists.
Two things about the subject do interest me:
1) I was fascinated by the economics of the industry, which the New York Times Magazine featured in detail in May 2001:
ABSTRACT - Frank Rich article on men and women of San Fernando Valley, Calif, who control most of country's 'adult' video industry; videos produced revenues last year of $4.2 billion, significant portion of entire US pornography business, which, with estimated revenues in excess of $10 billion, eclipsed every other form of entertainment; some 11,000 adult videos are released each year, and rentals are estimated at staggering 700 million, with market porn moguls describe as diverse as America itself; several industry leaders, 'normal' and varied people, profiled; photos (L)
I found the portraits of the relatively normal-seeming folks behind the business amusing.
2) Given the various legalities and illegalities of the more deviant forms of erotic entertainment, what happens when animation/simulation technologies like Pixar's become cheap enough to be used economically in adult films? Moore's law says this is not so far away. Is it still illegal if no actors' were used? That debate will be interesting, and will break new ground. Perhaps it is already going on.
From the desk of Jane Galt:ISDN user from Penn State,
ISDN user from Penn State, you were just my 10,000th visitor!
There's no prize, or anything. But if you go to Penn State and hit my page around 8:57 AM EST, drop me a line.
From the desk of Jane Galt:This piece by Moira Breen
This piece by Moira Breen about romantic love vs. marital love is hilarious. I don't have anything funny to say about it or anything. Just go read it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Sophismata criticizes my earlier post
Sophismata criticizes my earlier post for, among other things, generalizing from too small a sample size. In keeping with my committment to let my readers know when I'm wrong, as well as my opponents, I post his response and my explanation.
Both of them haven't figured out what correlation means. Correlation "is a measure of the degree of linear relationship between two variables." For instance, when the price of oil goes up, the price of food also goes up. We say that oil prices and food prices are positively correlated. Similarly, when oil prices goes up, the sales of SUVs goes down; these two variables are negatively correlated. The price of oil affects transportation costs, which in turn affect the price of food. The price of oil also affects the cost of owning a vehicle. Thus, in this case, correlation is also causation. However, one can show that crime rate in certain cities is highly correlated to bubble gum sales. (I had to do this in junior statistics.) But you would be wrong to conclude that bubble gum is the cause of crime. Rather the population of this city increased over time, which affect both gum sales and crime. Comparing the voting pattern of two groups has nothing to do with correlation.
I wasn't comparing the voting patterns of two groups; I was theorizing about the correlation between the political makeup of the current staff, and the political makeup of the staff they hired, that being the subject of the article. I do know what correlation means, I do, I do!
But I may have confused people. The data, of course, refers only to the makeup of the current staff, so there is no way to run a regression showing the actual correlation. I got mixed up with Wilentz's words. I should have said that the deviation from the norm is massive, which it is.
Is the difference in voting patterns material? This takes us the the wonderful world of hypothesis testing. I think this is where Live from WTC was going, but how she is able to deduce that this is a three or four sigma event escapes me.
I didn't deduce it. As I said in my post, this was a wild-ass guess. For non statistics people (of whom I am almost one), "sigma" is a technical term referring to the standard deviation from the mean. I'm not even going to try to explain how this works, but basically, it refers to the probability of a given event being in a certain range in the distribution. A 3 or 4 sigma event is one that is highly improbable, like, say, getting either a 1550 or a 150 on your SAT's -- it happens to a very small percentage of the population being studied. So I was guessing that if you plotted the political makeup of academia, as a profession, against other professions, you would find them at the very far left of your spectrum, just as you would probably find, say, Southern Baptist ministers pretty far over there on the right. But it would be damn hard to design a study that would give you the data to plot, so this is, and will remain, a guess.
From the comments to the post, I think the poll only had 150 respondents. If 6% of the professors voted for Bush, then only 9 people in the survey voted for Bush. If you drew 150 people randomly from a population that voted for Bush 49% of the time, the odds of getting a group that had only 9 Bush voters is 5.9 x 10^(-42); that is pretty much zero. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, you are on very shaky ground to extropolate any information from a poll this small.
Yup, the sample's small. Certainly not definitive. Either that's not in the article, or I missed it. Mea culpa.
Nonetheless, Wilentz's reaction is wacky. When you criticize study design, you suggest a better study. You don't say, "well the sample's too small, so the effect isn't real, case closed." Wilentz looked at a suggestive study that was too small to be definitve, and said flat out "it's not true."
But I think that my post was a little jumbled and unclear about what I was saying, since the very clever Mr. Ramachandran couldn't make it out. So I apologize for any confusion that may have arisen, and urge everyone to go to Sophismata often to enjoy the fine mathematical and statistical insights to be gained there.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:The Knapp Questionnaire
I took a first shot at responding to Alex Knapp's anti-globalist questionnaire:
1. What is a corporation?
A corporation is an evil construct that turns otherwise valuable and moral human beings into rapacious thieves and killers and environmental assassins. It does so by associating them in the pursuit of something called “profits”, defined as “taking money that should belong to someone else and could not possibly be surrendered voluntarily for goods.For instance, look at my Doc Martins. I was forced to pay sixty bucks for these in a factory outlet. I could have used that sixty bucks to save a Northumbrian Swamp Rat.
2. If you're opposed to the oil companies, does that mean you oppose the use of plastic?
We have enough plastic, as it can be recycled. Should we need more because of degradation or population growth we can find substitute materials, such as hemp. Hemp is a great substitute for plastic, especially in liquid and corrosive materials handling. Besides, it, like, turbocharges the high when you smoke it afterwards.
3. If you're in favor of protectionist trading policies and are opposed to the free-market system, why haven't you moved to North Korea?
The North Koreans love their children too. I refuse to answer the rest of your question because it is nothing but empty meaningless labels spouted by a jingo-fascist brainwashed corporatist. Besides, I wouldn’t know a free-market system if it fell on me.
4. If economic sanctions mean that citizens in Iraq, for example, are impoverished and starving, doesn't that mean you support free trade with poor nations?
The sanctions exist because of the United States government, which we know is evil (Contras, exploding cigars, Hiroshima, etc.). The sanctions are evil because the U.S. is evil.Trade with Iraq is usually accomplished through corporations. But corporations are also evil. So not trading with corporations save lives.
We support..um...free trade in aid by governments. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
5. Isn't it awful that the organic food industry is making use of grass-roots political organizations in order to discredit their competition (ie GM foods) so they can make more money?
Once again, big companies are bad. Little companies that feature “organic”, “sustainable” and “natural” in their identity work are good. So no I don’t.
6. Would you like to sign this petition to force the EU to recognize the sovereignty of the nations of Europe and forbid their economic and political integration?
I’m tired of all this “sovereignty” stuff. I’m tired of all this “individual rights” stuff. I don’t think individuals have rights. Communities have rights! But states aren't communities, because they're run by politicians, and somebody would call that "sovereignty".
7. Would you like to sign this petition to condemn Palestinian terrorists for the deliberate targeting of Israeli civillians?
You should visit Palestine before you criticize.
8. Do you know how many trees your flyers have killed?
We like to think those honorable trees gave up their souls in the struggle.
February 12, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Japan
My recent blogging on risk and regulation got me to thinking about Japan. Specifically, why can't Japan make any progress getting out of it's deflationary malaise?
I do believe that Japan is an example of a country where the elite have attempted to program the economy and remove many of the risks. Japan is a country that has tried to grow without the downside of risk and entrepreneurship, particularly the downsides that would affect certain powerful interest groups. The domestic Japanese economy (the part we don't know well, not the Hondas and Sonys) has third-world levels of capital productivity. They have tried to keep every local retailer in business, attempted to foster lifetime employment, attempted to have the infamous Ministry of Interntaional Trade and Industry ("MITI"), stocked with the country's most elite graduates, guide the economy on a smooth growing trajectory.
It didn't work that well. Without the downside, there is no upside. Without the ability to risk, one cannot reap the rewards.
In the words of Woody Brock:
...the root problem is the lack of deregulation of Japan's domestic, 'prefectural' economy.The principal reason for this problem is the inability of the Japanese political system to distribute pain to special interest groups whose oxen simply must be gored. The sad result of today's status quo is corruption, lack of productivity, lack of competition, distorted labor markets, and problematic living standards (think $6 rolls of paper towels in mom&pop shops).
If you are interested in the "sclerotic" affect of interest groups on economies, and the importance of neutral "market augmenting" institutions such as contracts and property rights, check out further reading from deceased Nobel prize winner Mancur Olson, particularly his Rise and Decline of Nations. This book is an interesting complement to the more recent Mystery of Capital.
I am off to start my Andrew Sullivan book club reading. Blogging, for me, has come at the expense of television and reading. The former is fine, the latter is beginning to bug me.
UPDATE: Derek Lowe follows up, pointed out by hyperblogger.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Updated Map
Two more bloggers on the "where we were" map.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I usually don't write on
I usually don't write on affirmative action, but this little item really grabbed me: an article in The Daily Princetonian talking about whether or not there was institutional bias. One of the interviewees, Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, displays a staggering arrogance in dismissing the Horowitz survey, not to mention a staggering ignorance of statistics:
Sean Wilentz, a liberal University professor of history, disagreed with Horowitz's claim. "[Horowitz is] finding causation in what may only be a spurious correlation. This isn't social science, this is right-wing political agitation." He said that Horowitz's claim of systematic bias was just wrong and "certainly not true at Princeton."
Correlation is not causation; I totally agree. But his certainty is awe inspiring. This correlation is massive. 49% of America voted for George Bush. 6% of academia did. I don't know how the hell you'd get a standard deviation, but I bet if you did this would be at least a three or four sigma event. When an observed event, such as the ongoing skew of academia to the left, is that improbable, you assume that there is some sort of a causal link; form a hypothesis; and then test three theories:
1) The hypothesis is right
2) The causal link runs the other way
3) Some other, unidentified factor, which is tightly correlated with the factor you theorize is causal, is causing this.
The hypothesis: there is hiring bias in academia.
1) There is hiring bias in academia
2) The causal link runs the other way: academia is currently skewed to the left because only left-wing people want to be academics, since only left wing people currently are academics.
3) There is some other unidentified factor that has nothing to do with the current composition of academia.
I live in the Columbia zone of Manhattan, and once dreamed of being an academic, and my (non-statistically significant) experience is that most academics choose explanation 3. Their causal theory is usually that smarter people are naturally more liberal. Several of the same professors who told me this with a straight face also told me that no special talent was required to run a Fortune 500 company. They could do it, if they weren't so busy analyzing the poetic structure of Canto I of the Faerie Queen.
I would imagine that there is some combination of 1 and 2, plus maybe, hell, a dose of 3 (personal experience tells me that people who make it all the way through an English PhD often, perhaps usually, can't do enough math to rationally discuss economics. They also tend to argue anecdotally, and to mistake bon-mots for logic, verbal adeptness for intelligence -- hence their infatuation with Al Gore, whose book, if it proved nothing else, proved that he was certainly no brighter than his opponent. This often makes their policy ideas rather shallow, especially as they rarely experience dissent on core ideas.)
Wilentzes reliance on the possibility that it's a spurious correlation is extremely odd for a professor of History at an Ivy League institution. Aren't they supposed to have at least a passing familiarity with statistics? Then he delivered the coup de grace:
Wilentz said he believed that most academics are not politically impassioned, particularly those in the sciences. Having a faculty member for every political view is not essential and should not come at the cost of academic quality, Wilentz argued. "Even outside the classroom, not everybody is a red-diaper baby who is trying to, as far as I can see, overcome his own political guilt," he said of Horowitz. He said he felt that Princeton was relatively balanced in outspoken faculty, with he and George being the most public of the academic commentators at the University.
Let's put this under the microscope.
First of all, I don't think anyone's worried about the science faculty slipping Lysenkoism into the curriculum; the debate is about the humanities faculty skewing the education. So the science bit is irrelevant data, as Wilentz should know.
Second sentence is a goddamn beaut, isn't it? Let's think about this. I think we can safely assume that Wilentz is in favor of affirmative action. Which means that he believes that while it's important to have as many skin colors on campus as possible, it is not important to have a diversity of political ideas. This from a history professor. What if we formed a religion department consisting only of followers of the Reverend Jerry Falwell?
But it is the last bit that I truly love. The member of the majority sees no evidence of discrimination, and doesn't understand why the minority complains about being excluded, saying essentially that it is all in his head. The minority member feels excluded, sees others leaving his part of the American story out of their lectures, and states that there is open discrimination against his kind in hiring and promotion.
If that minority member were black, whom would Wilentz believe?
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Corzine's bad, hypocritical idea; my better idea
Jon Corzine and Barbara Boxer's proposal about limiting 401k investments (posted on earlier) still sticks in my craw.
In thinking about it, I feel this is hypocrisy on Corzine's part. Corzine made his fortune by acquiring and maintaining the vast majority of his net worth in Goldman Sachs. It may not have been in his retirement account, but he certainly was concentrated in it and benefited to the tune of nine figures when it went public. Furthermore, when it was a partnership, Goldman benefited from the fact that its profits were not taxed at the corporate level. Corzine said that since 401k's aren't taxed ("subsidized") the government should force their diversification. Applying this logic to his own situation would have prevented his accumulation of wealth, and likely his subsequent successful pursuit of a multi-million dollar senate seat as well.
A graph of Enron's stock price can be found here. If shares were granted by the company to employees in 1998 at $20-25, and they made up 10% of an employee's retirement account, should they be sold in 2000, when the stock was at $90 and made up about 30%? How do you decide that? In addition, how come all the discussion of employees' losses use the $90 peak figure as a baseline? Did they all acquire it at that price, boosted as it was by questionable acocunting? Of course not. The company's share price both gave and took away.
Come to think of it, at what point in Microsoft's history would you have told employees to sell? For a more extreme example, Look at employees of Qualcomm. In fact, I believe there is a blogger out there who held quite a bit of QCOM stock granted or purchased as an employee. Did he sell at the beginning of 1999 when the stock was under $10, or at the end of 1999 when it was at $200? Or this year at $40? I don't know, but I bet he made up his own mind. Corzine's plan probably would have had him out at $20 if he had acquired at $10. If I am right, the blogosphere would be immeasurably poorer as a result.
Finally, one thing I still haven't seen is any discussion about whether Enron employees were pressured by management to keep their stock. This would be a real story. It is quite possible for management to actively discourage stock sales by an employee (with implicit threat of demotion) and thereby discourage the employee from sensibly diversifying his own holdings. Why hasn't anyone looked into this? Or have they and I haven't seen it? (If you have seen such an article, please send the url along through the comment thread. Thanks.)
Instead of this nanny-state nonsense of protecting people from themselves, let's protect them from others and give them free use of their own property. Here's a regulation I could support: Employees should have the ability to shield their retirement account choices from management.
This isn't as simple as it sounds, the company has to police transactions in its own stock to prevent insider purchases and sales, and major insider transactions must be reported in SEC filings. Nonetheless, I believe a thoughtful ERISA rule is possible. A rule that might protect the privacy and freedom of employees to do as they wish with self-directed retirement accounts, free from the pressures of both management and the Nanny-State impulses of centimillionaires who already got theirs.
A purely libertarian resolution would not impose any rules - the employee chooses to associate with the employer and is therefore free to leave. But this is a pretty good answer as far as personal freedom and right to enjoy one's property goes.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Shannon Okey over at Bitter
Shannon Okey over at Bitter Girl has a great new collection of daily affirmations that I'm going to try just as soon as I crawl out of the dark abyss of my spam-driven depression.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Today's Wall Street Journal has
Today's Wall Street Journal has the best synopsis I've seen of the Argentinian crisis:
As the Japanese example demonstrated, the appearance that an economy is well run doesn't always mean that it is. The Argentine peso looked quite healthy after the Argentine congress passed a "convertibility" law a decade ago, pegging it to the dollar. Investors liked the convertibility law so well that they failed to notice that it was business as usual in the profligate Argentine national and state governments. Argentine politicians used up the proceeds from privatizations of state enterprises and then piled up debts to creditors abroad. When ultimately they were unable to service or reschedule these debts, the peso and the national government collapsed.
I think this points to the same thing my last post talked about: investors were fighting the last war. They were so focused on inflation that it blinded them to sovereign risk: the extra risk carried by government debt because governments, unlike companies, can't be sold at auction if they default on their debts.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Bruce Bartlett has a very
Bruce Bartlett has a very interesting article in NRO saying that the Democrats are mistaken to expect the recession to be an issue in this year's elections
It is often said of generals and admirals that they are always fighting the last war. Thus, on the eve of World War II, the Navy continued to view the battleship as its backbone, even though many analysts (especially in Japan) saw aircraft carriers as the weapon of the future. Indeed, many historians believe that the loss of our battleships at Pearl Harbor was a blessing in disguise, because it forced the Navy to turn more toward carriers.Economists are the same, in that they tend to view each new recession as a replay of the last one. This often leads to the adoption of inappropriate policies that can sow the seeds of future recessions, or at least prolong the current recession beyond what better policies could have achieved.
Democrats are betting that the current recession will be a carbon copy of the last recession, which officially began in July 1990 and ended in March 1991. That was actually one of the mildest on record. Real gross domestic product only fell 1.5% from peak to trough. By contrast, real GDP fell 3.4% during the 1973-75 recession. Bill Clinton's claim during the 1992 campaign that the U.S. economy was the worst in 50 years was always total nonsense.
Bartlett points out that the '90-91recession was unusual in that the employment decline was slow, and the recovery equally slow, leading to a public perception that the economy was stagnating, even though GDP had already recovered. So the Dems had an issue to browbeat the Republicans with at election time. Bartlett thinks that we'll see a more typical recovery this time, which would mean that we should see employment picking up by summer.
I agree with Bartlett that the Dems are relying too heavily on the economy. Flailing against Bush's teflon popularity, they seem to have adopted a strategy of sniping at Bush and hoping that the economy still stucks next fall. This is at best pretty risky.
At the same time, the Republicans are aggressively positioning on the economy with all of these doofus microinitiatives. They won't do anything for the economy, of course, but they may well help the Republicans retake the Senate. Which is a good thing if only because it will offer such a dramatic comeuppance to Jim Jeffords. Not that I have anything against the man personally, you understand -- it's just that I think that anyone who writes a book called "My Declaration of Independance" deserves what he gets.
February 11, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Spamwatch 2002 Today's favorite: Dear
Spamwatch 2002
Today's favorite:Dear William Galt, As a supporter of the Democratic National Committee, we would like to keep you updated on our work to secure Democratic victories in 2002. In the future, we would like to communicate with you via email and send you important information as we Countdown to Victory in 2002! The DNC is presently seeking your permission to keep you informed electronically via email. If you do not wish to have the DNC contact you by email, or you have received this communication in error, please type "REMOVE" in the Subject Line and reply to this email and your name will be deleted from our emailing list immediately.Thank you for your support of the Democratic Party.
Sincerely,
Your friends at the Democratic National Committee
If this is their idea of campaigning, I think Jim Jeffords had better start practicing his grovel.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Blog Breaks New Mathematical Ground
Sophismata has invented the seventh kind of mathematical proof (previously there were thought to be only six)- the disproof:
..where one tries to prove X but in fact proves NOT X.
Lots of good new stuff here, including an inflation-adjusted list of bankruptcies by size and the perverse logic of seasonal adjustments
From the desk of Jane Galt:Microsoft claims that Oracle pretty
Microsoft claims that Oracle pretty much wrote the sanctions recommendation from the states attorneys general. Oracle's behavior is certainly suspicious:
In its legal brief, Microsoft said Glueck's role in the states' remedy proposal is evident in documents already turned over by Oracle and the states.Microsoft's attorneys said the company has subpoenaed other documents from Oracle, along with a deposition from the company's chief corporate architect, Edward Screven, who was tentatively slated to testify as a witness for the states.
"When Microsoft pressed Oracle to comply with the document subpoena, Oracle abruptly announced that the non-settling states would not be calling Screven as a witness after all, which according to Oracle meant that Microsoft was no longer entitled to any Oracle documents".
Let's take a look at the remedy proposed:
The dissenting states want U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to require Microsoft to offer a cheaper, stripped-down version of the company's Windows operating system.In addition, these states say it would close loopholes in the Justice Department's settlement deal and do more to ensure Microsoft discloses key Windows code to other software makers.
Seems fair, right? It offers consumers an alternative to bundling, and levels the playing field, right?
Not quite. The reason is that the economics of the software business don't work that way.
Software has a very high fixed cost: the cost of developing the product, and the minimum physical and administrative overhead needed to run the business. It has a very low marginal cost: the cost of producing each extra unit of product. Unlike, say, a basket of groceries, Microsoft saves no money on the stripped down product, because the main cost, development, is a sunk cost: money already spent that can't be recovered. In fact, the remedy increases Microsoft's costs, by forcing the company to develop the same product twice. So profit margins will be squeezed at both ends.
Now ask yourself this: why does Oracle care? Oracle doesn't make web browsers or desktop software; Oracle makes big corporate databases. So why is Oracle penning this remedy? Because Microsoft is writing increasingly good database software, that's why; software that's considerably cheaper to purchase and operate than Oracle's.
Oracle benefits from this proposal in two ways: it forces Microsoft to divert corporate resources to developing the stripped down platform; and it lowers the profit margins from which Microsoft draws the money it uses to develop good database software. It might benefit consumers; but then, they seem to be happy with what they've got.
All Microsoft's competitors benefit a third way: they get Microsoft to unveil key pieces of intellectual property, aka its source code. There are two schools of thought on this, both of which have some validity: the first says that this helps consumers by forcing Microsoft to help its third-party software vendors write code that works as well under Windows as code written by Microsoft itself; the second says that this allows Microsoft competitors to help consumers in the same way as those guys on Eighth Avenue*.
At any rate, while I don't approve of some of Microsoft's predatory practices, it seems to me to be fundamentally unhealthy for the government to get into the business of taking one company's side against the other. This latest just points out how deep the rot goes.
* The stuff they sell is stolen; that's why it's so cheap
From the desk of Jane Galt:Evil Princetonian Dave Tepper has
Evil Princetonian Dave Tepper has an outstanding post on how voting works that provided much fodder for thought, such as these morsels:
We are electing candidates we know nothing about, to vote on issues that affect us day-to-day that they, mostly, know nothing about. And they can't ever know much about even 5% of the bills that come up. Take a peek at what's on Congress's plate sometime, and be floored.So that's the first half of the problem. It's simply too difficult for voters and legislators and regulators to deliberate on all the issues that government has appropriated for itself. And keep in mind that the above discussion only focused on the federal level of government, never mind the state and local levels. Taxation without representation? Hell, forced decisions are being made for us all the time without effective representation. You bear the brunt.
This reminds me of Hayek's assertion that one of the fundamental reasons that central planning would ever be inferior is that the planners would never have as good information as the the people who lived with their choices. The more we expect the government to do, the less likely the government is to do any of it well, because our representatives become jacks of all trade but masters of none.
Just opining in this space has opened my eyes to how much stuff there is out there that I don't understand anything about. I try not to publish on areas where I don't have a damn clue, but every so often, it turns out that although I thought I had a clue, I really don't. Which, I surmise, is the position most of our legislators find themselves in most of the time, as they are expected to have opinions on everything from tree mold to foreign policy. So the more regulation we have, the less likely it is that any of it will be any good.
He also explains better than I did why I don't think it's a bad idea to keep those who lack civic feeling from voting:
The vote you cast could start a chain reaction that causes someone else to lose everything they own, or be branded a criminal, or make them insanely rich at your expense. The votes that everyone else casts could do the same to you.
I do want to disagree with one thing he said, though: that people don't vote on a whim. Want to bet? Like the college students who voted for the straight Socialist ticket -- were they really planning to give their stereo equipment and European vacations to some Somali fisherman? Or did they just think it wouldn't matter? When was the last time you actually had a well formed opinion on your State Assemblyman or local District Judge? People vote on a whim all the time. That's why local judgeships are so rife with corruption.
Anyway, excellent, excellent post. Go read it now!
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:"Long-Bond" Bob Gets the Hoover Treatment
Have you ever had a milkshake so thick, that when you attempted to pull some up through the straw you felt like your uvula was headed down into the cup, with the rest of your head turning inside out to follow it?
That's what JOSEPH KAHN and ALESSANDRA STANLEY of New York Times must have felt like writing this fawning puff piece on Robert Rubin. It starts out as if it might address his call to the White House about Enron:
Mr. Rubin's call inadvertently gave comfort to the White House and to some conservative commentators, who said it was evidence that it was a prominent Democrat, not Republicans, who backed a government rescue — even though Republicans received most campaign contributions.
But, dagnab it, we just looooove this guy too much!
Mr. Rubin calmly ate a bowl of plain blueberries during a long breakfast interview in his red-and- beige office. Among fly-fishing trophies and official photos, Mr. Rubin hung an engraved chart of all the Treasury secretaries he had reproduced from the original at the Treasury Department. Wearing his customary charcoal suit and white shirt, he is youthfully trim but gives little evidence of overt vanity.Mr. Rubin — who carries the title at Citigroup of chairman of the executive committee — masks an overpowering intellect behind verbal modesty, hedging his views with a courtier's self-effacement ("Maybe I'm wrong," and "this is just my opinion, for what it is worth," or "this could be a bad idea") in a way that disarms bosses and opponents.
We must also remember that "Long-Bond Bob" is the sensei of the just:
In a year-plus of the Bush administration, his involvement has only intensified as he perceives a threat to the Clinton legacy of fiscal discipline. Seen by some as the wise man of his party, he runs a nonstop tutorial on economic policy, coaching Senator Daschle and other leaders on ways to debunk Bush military spending and tax cuts.
Robert Rubin is in the private sector. He uses his public sector connections to pursue his company's interests (see the bit about his supposedly harmless hobnobbing with Zhu Rongji as well his now famous phone call), attempts to preserve what he regards as his public sector legacy, and pursues his personal beliefs. Until I read this article, I thought that that sort of conduct was evidence of a crime in the Times' view.
Oh, whoops, that's only when you aren't one of the Times Illuminati.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Robert Bartley dissects the financial
Robert Bartley dissects the financial misbehavior of the Enron execs in this article.
Even if executives did not participate in the partnerships, they would face legal liability under insider-trading laws if they sold Enron shares knowing the books had been cooked. This no doubt explains why former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling insisted before the House committee that he knew nothing about essential affairs of the company he headed. He had sold more than $60 million worth of Enron stock, and insider-trading liability will turn on whether he understood that a falling share price might collapse the Fastow partnerships, ultimately backed by Enron's pledges of its own stock.The share-price decline in early 2001 was partly due to concern over inability to understand Enron's books, a sentiment heightened by Mr. Skilling's sudden departure. Chairman Kenneth Lay conceded that the company had lost credibility on Wall Street and pledged more disclosure to restore it.
Mr. Lay of course also sold millions worth of Enron stock. Insiders are prohibited from selling if they have material nonpublic information, but can get an exemption from this requirement by filing selling programs with the SEC. There will be an issue of whether this protection is trumped if the information is dramatic enough. I've never been a fan of the insider-trading laws, typically applied in niggling ways. Catastrophic failure is not niggling.
My sister thinks that they were out and out crooks. I'm not so sure. I don't think that they intended to deceive people at first; I think that, desperate for higher margins, they convinced themselves that it was a temporary measure that would help shareholders in the long run. Once they had done this, they dug themselves ever deeper trying to cover their asses.
But I don't think it matters, for two reasons. The first is that whether or not they intended to steal, you have to punish this sort of fraud just as heavily as the other sort, to prevent its recurrence. And the second is that the paragraphs above make clear that, whatever their original intent, when push came to shove the executives tried to bail their own asses out at the expense of the shareholders.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Jack Abbot apparently hanged himself
Jack Abbot apparently hanged himself last night. For those who don't remember, Jack Abbott was Norman Mailer's contribution to the murderer chic fad that swept across the intelligentsia in the 70's. Mailer helped Abbott, who was serving time for murdering a fellow inmate, publish a book, In the Belly of the Beast. He also staged a massive publicity campaign to spring Abbott. Six weeks after Mailer got Abbott released, he stabbed someone else and got sent back to the pokey.
This is the man who wants us to listen to his views on foreign policy.
February 10, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Where we were ( & are)
Jay Zilber has plotted Mind Over What Matters on the image below (and gives me several reasons to pay him a visit). I have added the approximate location of your author from 8:15A to 1:30PM on 9/11. Perhaps a few other downtown NY bloggers would care to continue this version of "underground photoshop tennis". Below is a low-res version of my response. Higher resolution can be found here.
UPDATE: My location is "MTZ", Megan McCardle's is "LFWTC", Jeff Jarvis is JJ and Jay Zilber is "MOWM". Sophismata is a stone's throw from MTZ.
(click here for higher resolution)
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Advantage MTZ?
As careful readers have noted, I viewed the nerve-jangling "axis of evil" language in the SOTU as an attempt at increased threat power, outcome uncertain. The trouble, as I noted to some correspondents, is that there seem to be few low-risk (and non-nerve jangling) ways of reducing the threat from terrorists and terror-sponsoring regimes. Now Matt Welch , noting Iraq's recent reversal on inspections, points out there may have been something to the SOTU bluster.
I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath. Saddam's pretty good at making superficially compliant moves without giving up anything useful. At this point he's probably moved all his weapons programs so far underground he figures he'll come out of any limited inspection clean.
On a more amusing note, Matt cites the feature column from Reason, which I have in my sweaty little hands:
On a related note, my Iraq sanctions piece is in this month’s Reason, which I heartily encourage all of you to buy, for Charles Paul Freund’s cover story in praise of vulgarity, if nothing else.
Indeed, read the Freund piece, and note that he takes bien pensant anti-consumerist Anna Quindlen to task for exactly the same sentiments that put me over the top in December. He does a better job all around, of course, but MTZ was enraged first!
From the desk of Jane Galt:Department of Sour Grapes ABC
Department of Sour Grapes
ABC is airing a long special on the deleterious effects the Olympics had on Nagano. Coming next week: Children turned into sex crazed maniacs by watching Friends. From the desk of Jane Galt:I just came across this
I just came across this little tidbit in an article about whistleblowers in the Grey Lady:
Consider Martin Edwin Andersen, a former manager in the Justice Department who complained in 1997 of what he called "a cesspool of official misconduct," including sexual favoritism in hiring, breaches of security and visa fraud in the department's overseas criminal training program.
Which doesn't answer the important question: how do those of us looking for jobs get this government training? Is there a lengthy application process? While I don't have any criminal training myself, I'm smart and willing to learn, especially if I can get posted to a fun country overseas.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I confess that I have
I confess that I have a sneaking fondness for the Olympics, but David Carr's rant about them is too hilarious to pass up.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The spammers may have gotten
The spammers may have gotten my note; today, by way of diversion, I got an e-card from a secret admirer, who thinks I'm cute! I would be more exicted if this address weren't used pretty well exclusively by people who've never seen me. (He loves me for my mind! Whoopee!) Well, since my admirer used my email address instead of my name, I'm pretty sure it's spam. But more interesting than the usual run of such things -- also more frustrating, since you have to waste time figuring out if it's spam. I do sometimes have secret admirers, you know.
I also got three emails this morning for the Barely Legal Teenage Girls. It's an uphill battle.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides Instapundited three
Notes and Asides
Instapundited three times in one week! It's like. . . it's like a dream come true. Welcom, Instapundit readers. Won't you come in and stay awhile? And if you like what you see. . . don't forget to bookmark!Shameless shilling now over. We return to our regularly scheduled programming.
A number of readers are still writing in to comment on my gun policy. During the course of this, I have learned quite a lot about machine guns. Josh Fielek wrote in to tell me that, contrary to my assertion that machine guns are intended to kill everything in front of you, they are used as tactical weapons to force the other guy to keep his head down while you advance. Since my knowlege of affaires militaires is limited to a surprisingly large collection of WEB Griffith novels, I defer to his much superior wisdom as a former marine, though I would argue that you still shouldn't be carrying something full auto in the city limits.
Meanwhile, reader Dave Paglia offers an extremely interesting tidbit on such weapons in the US:
'machineguns'- properly, full-auto weapons; firearms capable of firing more than one round for a single pull of the trigger- are indeed legal in the United States...or in some of them, at least. If memory serves, about eleven states allow legal private possession of Class-3 weapons (full-autos) and/or Destructive-Device weapons (shotguns with a barrel shorter than 18", explosives, grenade launchers, etc.) with proper federal and local licensing. I worked/hung out at a gun store here in North Carolina that specialised in both for about a year. The number of Class-3 weapons legally in private hands is fairly astonishing; nationwide it has to range in the low seven digits. Care to guess how many crimes are committed with them each year?
That's right. Big goose-egg.
So maybe I'm wrong about the city limits. Though I doubt it. But anyway, I never would have guessed 7 figures. And where can I get my grenade launcher?
Another little slice of WTC news: there are now several entrepreneurs near the site selling snapshot-size photos of the WTC going down and people fleeing. I surmise that the purpose of these is for the kind of people who go around pretending to be Navy SEALS to also pretend that they were there on 9-11. Well, of course it's revolting, especially since the people I knew who were there mostly can't talk about it at all, even when they're drunk. The ones who do say horrible things, like the Lehmann banker who watched the bodies fall on the World Financial Center Atrium. . . so if you see anyone flashing glossy snapshots of the WTC and talking about their experience there, ask some tough questions, even if it's someone you think you know. I read Stolen Valor (interesting anecdotes; meager data) and was just shocked by the number of smart people who were totally fooled by fake Vietnam vets -- including other vets.
February 9, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:I want to furnish an
I want to furnish an addendum to a post I made earlier, pursuant to Charles Kuffner's fine critique of it. When I made fun of the liberal use of the word Fascist, I was not trying to imply that liberals have cornered the market on name-calling. They certainly haven't, and it's one of the reasons that I can't listen to a Rush Limbaugh; all the ranting about the Feminazis distracts me from. . . well, whatever the hell his message is.
I was making fun of the use of this particular word, which is thrown around with great abandon, even though the peope who use it usually don't know what it means. I am not surprised that regimes practicing Fascist ideology are not very nice, any more than I am surprised that regimes attempting to implement Marxism-Leninism are not very nice. I find both political philosophies appalling for essentially the same reason. That does not, however, mean that I can use the word Communist, or Fascist, as interchangeable with "someone who is not very nice". Communism, and Fascism, are specific things. You can't expect me to respect, much less applaud, the willful misuse of a language I'm pretty fond of. (That being English, not invective).
Well all get carried away. I've taken the pledge not to call certain names; and I try, in general, not to call names at all unless they're meant in good fun (like my liberal friends I call Communists), or they're pretty close to accurate (like my liberal friends I call Communists*.) My readers are free to call me on it if I stray. But I reserve the right to hurl all the negative words in my lexicon at ideas I dislike.
So that's my position paper on name calling. Hope it cools the passions of my passionate emailers on both sides.
* just kidding
From the desk of Jane Galt:Swen Swenson, who seems to
Swen Swenson, who seems to rise around the same time I do, wants to know what I'm doing searching on Guns, Babes, and Full Auto. The answer is, I'm not -- my nameless Googler simply appeared as one of my hits on my bravenet counter, to which I am, I confess, addicted.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Over on TNR, Jonathan Chait
Over on TNR, Jonathan Chait is making fun of the way congress is sucking up to Alan Greenspan. Now first of all, I'd like to suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to heap scorn on Alan Greenspan if you were one of the legions proclaiming Clinton a genius for reappointing him or otherwise touting Mr. G as the greatest thing since the sonic toothbrush.
Second of all, I want to note, in a brief rejoinder to both articles, that while Greenspan is in favor of balanced budgets and eliminating debt, his policy statements make clear that he is more in favor of smaller government. That's why he told Clinton to balance the budget -- which was not, as his liberal interpreters have claimed, a mandate to raise taxes, but a suggestion to cut spending. That is why he supported Bush's tax cut; because while in an ideal world, he would prefer to have used that money to pay down the debt, it became clear to him that Congress was going to use the money to increase entitlement spending in order to pay of key constituencies. That is why he was in favor of the tax cut; he believed that the choice was not between cutting taxes and balancing the budget, but between cutting taxes and increasing spending. Noting the spending binge our boys in Washington just went on with the terrorism and farm bills as soon as the nation took it's collective eye off the bottom line, it's hard to doubt that he was right.
Third, this is also the argument against "triggers" that end the tax cuts if the deficit dwindles, because it eviscerates the restraints on government growth imposed by the tax cuts. Have a program you like? Don't worry about it -- spend away! You'll pop a trigger, taxes will go up on people who don't vote for you anyway, and you won't even get blamed for raising taxes in order to increase that spending!
I hate deficits, but not because of some wishy-washy theory about economic growth. Deficits of the size we're talking about running are not, IMHO, going to have an appreciable effect on GDP. Deficits are bad because they allow politicians to give voters goodies now while handing the bill to their children or grandchildren. Nonetheless, if it is a choice between a small deficit, and the spending spree Congress was prepared to go on with my tax dollars, I'll take the deficit any time.
And here's why: government programs never, ever die. Jonathan Rausch's superlative book, Government's End describes why: they develop constituencies that vote on a specific program, while few programs are large enough to develop significant constituencies against them. Meanwhile, as P.J. O'Rourke describes in Parliament of Whores, the programs grow, because that is what they are designed to do. Look at the farm bill -- we killed it in the 90's and it just got record funding. The only way to stop the process is to force politicians to make actual budgetary choices by restraining their revenue.
But I digress. What I was trying to talk about was Greenspan, and everyone jumping all over him. Fourth of all, the man's been telling us we were in a bubble for years, and we didn't listen -- now we're mad he's right. It's not his fault. Yes, he pumped credit into the economy when it least needed it, thus feeding the bubble. And partly this was because he overestimated the palliative effect that the New Economy would have on inflation, but then so did the rest of us. And mostly he did it because he had to -- because the Fed was afraid that people would cause a run on the banks prior to Y2K, queuing up for money. They didn't, but he didn't have his crystal ball handy to predict it. He did a pretty good job with the information he had. Why is it that the people who made him into some sort of a God two years ago are now the most eager to pull down the idol so they can spit on it?
(Incidentally, Chait's article isn't that mean about Greenspan. I'm just tired of all the people who loved him one minute and now would like to see him burned in effigy, and the article set me off.)
From the desk of Jane Galt:The New York Post says
The New York Post says there's a special team hunting for Osama's corpse. Well, that would certainly be interesting timing, coinciding Osama's death with the Olympics.
From the desk of Jane Galt:It turns out that Citigroup
It turns out that Citigroup managed to hedge its exposure to Enron, unlike every other bank that did business with them. The article suggests that the hedging instruments were somehow suspicious, because the interest rates were too low, but from what I can tell (not much), it arrives at this instrument by comparing apples to oranges: long term corporate bonds to shorter term credit-linked notes.
Interesting is what the article leaves out: that Citigroup employs Bob Rubin, who approached the administration on Enron's behalf right before the pyramid collapsed. Personally, I doubt there was anything unethical; it seems to have been good banking sense to lay of risk. Nonetheless, this non-story seems to my (admittedly jaundiced eyes) to be at least as compelling as the Bush-Enron connection. I had an earlier email on this from J. Bowen over at No More Watermelons, but forgot to post it.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Some Things to Think About; "If We Don't Take It, At Least We Must Control It"
NOTE: Sometimes you realize you buried the lede. The best part of this post, reflecting the most outrageous comment made by pols who don't think they are socialists, is in the last paragraph. Sorry.
I'm off to the in-laws and will not post until Sunday night. Here are some things I think are worth reading, if you haven't already:
1) A new cross-atlantic blog has been established and it looks promising.
2) Glenn Reynold's readers have sent in some excellent letters on who's got the most lopsided pension plan
3) In yesterday's WSJ, there were two articles nearly side-by-side that deal articulately with some of the regulation issues I discussed on Thursday:
Daniel Henninger on Judgement vs. rules
Review & Outlook (link requires subscription):
[the Boxer-Corzine Bill] is paternalism masquerading as investor protection. Millions of employees choose to invest their own money in company stock, and many have become rich doing it. Any Microsoft employee would have lost big by dumping his Microsoft shares for, say, a balanced stock fund. The Boxer-Corzine cap would deprive workers of a chance to profit when times were good and substitute political judgment for employee choice.Liberal politicians have spent decades telling us that workers should share in corporate ownership. But now after one big bankruptcy they want to tell those same workers they can only own so much. Their idea of the perfect pension system is Social Security, in which politicians decide all of the rules, including what you'll pay in and what you'll get out.
But 401(k)s have flourished in part because Americans are hungry for more retirement choices. The answer to Enron is to give investors more choices, and more information to choose wisely.
Corzine's quotes in the Times today are precious. Here's an important thing to think about - Sometimes the company stock gets to be more than 20% of the plan through market appreciation rather than additional purchases or grants. This is a bad thing? If you have a $1000 401k, and it has 20 $10 shares of company stock, should you have to sell if the company stock goes up a $1? Corzine talks about the elementary principle of diversification, but ignores equally elementary concepts of rebalancing and transaction costs. This is a proposal that will disproportionately hurt smaller plans and younger people. Elitist.
The other rationale for this plan is that since the government "subsidizes" 401k plans, they should be able to tell you what to do with it. Corzine and others have parroted this ridiculous line:
"I believe subsidizing savings to promote retirement security is a good thing," Mr. Corzine said. "But subsidizing risky investments is not. If people want to risk all their investment dollars by placing all their investment in their employer, fine. But they should do it on their own dime, not the taxpayers.' "Alicia H. Munnell, an economics professor at Boston College, has proposed denying employees the option of buying company stock in 401(k) plans in which the companies' matching contribution is in employer stock. She said, "If employees want to make imprudent investments, they should have to do it outside of the subsidized pension system."
By which they mean to say, "if we don't take your money by force (i.e. tax it), that gives us the right to tell you what to do with it." This is a disgustingly statist sentiment that flies in the face of property rights. Reject it, and its authors, in the name of all that is reasonable.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Fritz Hollings thinks that we
Fritz Hollings thinks that we should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bush and Enron because. . . ummm. . . well, just because there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing doesn't mean we shouldn't have an investigation! The Washington Post delivers the appropriate smackdown.
February 8, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:My New Favorite Google Search
My New Favorite Google Search
Guess who shows up when you search on Guns, Babes, and Full Auto? From the desk of Jane Galt:An Open Letter to the
An Open Letter to the People Who Keep Sending me Email addressed to Jane Galt:
I want to first thank you for the warm regard you have shown me over the years. Not a morning goes by when I don't open my inbox to a flood of correspondance from well-wishers all over the globe, some in places, and at internet sites, of which I have never heard. In this dark period of my life, it is always good to know that one has dear friends striving to keep one abreast of all the latest developments in financial opportunities, nutritional supplements, and Barely Legal Teenage Girls.
Unfortunately, the flood tide of your kind, kind interest has rendered me unable to respond to each email as I would like, or even to devote sufficient time to assessing the many opportunities you have offered me. I believe that if we set a few simple ground rules for our correspondance, we will both get more out of it. I wish that I could email each of you separately, but since I am currently receiving between 50-100 of your thoughtful notes a day, I find myself unable to address each one individually. Instead I have summarized some of my key concerns:
1. I am not interested in Barely Legal Teenage Girls.
2. I do not have a penis. If I did, I would not risk it with quack remedies, even if those remedies promised to make it up to 30% larger without chemicals or vacuum pumps.
3. I do not have a home. I do not have a mortgage. In fact, I live with my parents. I am twenty-nine years old, and I'm living with Mom and Dad, complete with fights about whose turn it is to take out the garbage and Why I Haven't Given them Grandchildren. I want to thank you for providing the daily reminders of my plight which have, at each reading, re-fired my resolve to get a real job. However, until I do, I still do not have a house. You may direct any solicitations regarding mortgages, home equity lines, home repairs, or the many benefits of genuine Sears aluminum siding, to my parents, although I warn you that since they have an apartment, they will probably not be buying any aluminum siding.
4. I am not interested in Barely Legal Teenage Girls even if they have just procured their first webcam.
5. When you send me emails regarding my damaged credit, this makes me nervous. I wonder how you know about my credit, and indeed, who else has this information. I wonder if a few childish indiscretions will keep me from the home-ownership that might permit me to enjoy the home equity lines, repairs, and genuine Sears aluminum siding which you have discussed in such glowing terms. I brood. I realize you think of me as a soulless creature with little time for anything except home repairs and Barely Legal Teenage Girls, but this is not the case. I have dreams. Dreams which may never be realized if I don't shake the depression into which your repeated exhortations about my credit have plunged me. Please stop sending them until such time as I can afford a therapist and/or Prozac.
6. I understand that when you send me emails about surefire ways to make money from home, you are just trying to help me out of my current financial straits. However, as I mentioned before, home is not a place where I currently desire to spend the larger part of my day. If you have any ways to make money from, say, a comfortable hotel suite on the Riviera, I would like to get those emails instead.
7. I am 6'2 and within the normal weight range for that height. While I have heard that you can never be too rich or too thin, I fear that if I lost Up to 100 pounds in 3 months, the only job I would be able to maintain would be as an extra in an Oxfam commercial. If I have to choose between being rich and thin, I choose rich. You can always buy a better body.
8. I thank you for your attention to my education. I have read your missives with great interest. I admit to great curiosity as to how you can provide a University Diploma for $500, when mine took four years, $50,000 of student loans, and liver surgery. I regret that I am unable to utilize this service, but as you can see, I am already well supplied with both degrees, and the attendant debt. Reading about people who got their degrees for 1/100th of the price of mine fill me with a mindless rage that only lessens my predisposition to partake of either home repairs or Barely Legal Teenage Girls.
9. I'm a heterosexual woman. No matter how hot and horny they are, I just can't make myself care about the Barely Legal Teenage Girls, although they would probably make better company than my parents and my Aunt Margaret. Please do contact me if you come across any Independantly Wealthy Biathlete Physicists.
10. You may have noted in earlier items that I do not have a job. Thus, I do not pay taxes. I know that when you send me ideas on how to Pay Absolutely No Income Tax! you are just trying to get me to look on the bright side, but I find that it simply kicks off the no job. . . depression. . . no job cycle to which I referred earlier.
11. Of course, I wouldn't mind larger breasts, but I might want to use these later and frankly, I'm afraid of what your creams might do to my parents' grandchildren -- and consequently, what they might do to me. Thank you anyway.
I appreciate your taking the time to read this. As long as we keep these rules in mind, I believe we can look forward to a long, beautiful relationship.
Sincerely,
Megan McArdle
From the desk of Jane Galt:A Dog's Life is just
A Dog's Life is just great this Friday. Everyone should read it, especially the NPR piece.
From the desk of Jane Galt:On a lighter note, Dave
On a lighter note, Dave Tepper thinks that the next trend in blogging, when diagramming sentences passes, will be calculating integrals. Not if I have anything to say about it, it won't -- I flunked out somewhere around Taylor Polynomials. Besides which, it seems Dave is blogging other women. I'll. . . I'll beat him about the head with an unabated ablative absolute, that's what I'll do!
From the desk of Jane Galt:Okay, I'm not ashamed to
Okay, I'm not ashamed to admit it -- I cried when I saw that tattered flag waving and understood, for the first time, exactly what Francis Scott Key was writing about. And I cried even harder when I saw that unbroken flag rise up the flagpole. And I thought, take that, Osama. That flag will be flying long after the world has forgotten your name.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Hit Referrer Smackdown - Final
Here are two counts from Gostats, which gives me a count by referrer. To be fair, this probably undercounts Mondo guy because Gostats was down for a few hours on Wednesday afternoon. But that just makes reporting it more fun:
5328 http://instapundit.blogspot.com/
11 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html
Interpolating from Sitemeter, I think the latter number should probably be in the 60s or so, upper limit 100. My original estimate of a 50X "advantage:Instapundit" was pretty good.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Judging from the parade of
Judging from the parade of former Winter Olympics sites, there are only about six countries capable of hosting the Winter Olympics. Is this odd, or what?
From the desk of Jane Galt:I just watched a cop
I just watched a cop sing God Bless America for the opening ceremony. God damn, I love this country. I love the constitution and the Declaration of Independance and the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation; and the guy who said "I regret that I have but one life to live for my country", and the guy who said "I Have a Dream"; and all the average people out there trying to do the best they can with what they have, and making an effort to be fairer and decenter to their enemies than any people in history have ever been; and I love the idea that you can become a nation just by having an idea. There may be better places to live at some time in the future, and better times to live in, but there is no better place or time in history, and I'm awfully glad I live here. Just. . . awfully glad.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm not always an enormous
I'm not always an enormous fan of John Derbyshire, but this column on capitalism and risk is really extraordinarily good. He takes a solid, common sense approach to Enron/Anderson:
Not that there isn't anything that might be done to lengthen the odds against con men. I think a few more "Chinese walls" could be established without adding to the regulatory burden. It seems crazy to me that someone on the fifth floor of a securities firm can be offering investors advice on the value of securities that someone down on the mezzanine was responsible for underwriting or bringing to market. I think it's double crazy that a firm whose employees are writing code for a company's systems can be responsible for auditing those systems. (I would have loved to be responsible for auditing my own systems! How come nobody ever asked me?) There are some clean, simple things that might be done. I'd also like to see suggestions for enforcing the Mr. Wu principle: that if your business fails, you end up personally broke. That doesn't seem to happen any more in the U.S. — not, at any rate, without the intervention of law enforcement (and not much even then).
I applaud that last bit, especially. What's so appalling is not that Enron failed -- it's that the accounting managers and mail clerks are sucking up the damage, while Ken Lay and the executives shield assets abroad. I've worked for several failed companies, and in any of the ones worth working for, our discombobulation was surpassed only by the financial ruin of the founders as they plowed everything they had into keeping the company -- and us -- alive.
He also points out, brilliantly, that you can't separate capitalism and risk. Read the whole thing, though -- it's worth it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Charles Kuffner responds to my
Charles Kuffner responds to my post on liberals who don't know the meaning of the word "Fascist" by rejoindering, first, that genocide certainly doesn't speak well for Fascism: "That sure is a ringing endorsement for fascism, I gotta say. Sorta like the old joke 'Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?' " This entirely mises the point. Genocide, or even racism, are not, contrary to popular belief, central to Fascism. They were simply coincident with Fascism. So genocide isn't to "fascism's credit" any more than what Americans did to the natives was an inevitably byproduct of Democracy.
He also points out that libertarians and conservatives are also guilty of name calling. Too true. This is why I have called for an end to the use of Taliban, Nazi, or Stalinist as descriptive terms for anyone other than members of the Taliban, the Nazi party, or adherents of Stalinist Marxism-Leninism. But again, Kuffner misses the point:
I wonder what the response would be if I said to these folks "The primary definition of 'jackboot' is 'a heavy military boot made of glossy black leather extending above the knee and worn especially during the 17th and 18th centuries'. What, specifically, do you have against jackboots?"
The conservative would at least accurately be able to identify what a jackboot is. They wouldn't stand there dumbly while they cast about for some definition of Fascist other than "Nazi" and some definition of "Nazi" other than genocidal. Most serious libertarians have a pretty good working knowledge of various political science concepts such Fascism, Socialism, Social Democracy, Communism, Imperialism, Capitalism, etc -- which is, in my judgement, not matched on the Left.
Considering hardcore libertarians as the conservative equivalent of the anti-globalisation protesters (I know right/left doesn't quite work here, but I think it's fair to say that while both are arguing for fairly radical sociopolitical change, the righties are adamant on property rights, whereas the lefties are extremely redistributive.) The righties, generally, understand the other side better than the other side understands them. So while there is name calling on both sides, the lefties seem dumber to me, because while the righties are engaging in childish exaggeration, the lefties are engaging in childish exaggeration with words they don't know the meaning of.
There is finally the matter of degree. Jackboot is not in nearly as wide currency as fascist or Nazi. Kuffner cites two conservative publications, one of which has a rhetorical style heavy on the name-calling I dislike. He neglects to mention the other sites his search brings up:
1) Sites selling or describing military gear
2) An article from Wired magazine about internet regulation
3) Sites about East Timor
4) Some name-calling tiff a university student union in Melbourne had with management.
5) Historical sites about Nazi Germany
However, repeating Kuffner's search on Merriam-Webster for fascist instead of jackboot yields the following:
1) A web site calling George Bush I a fascist
2) A website linked to the communist party of Britain which uses racism and fascism both ignorantly and interchangeably.
3) A lefty website which apparently thinks that we are on the brink of toppling into the abyss of a fascist world-state.
4) A web site worried that mocking Nazi leaders might be perceived as homophobic.
Both searches top 20 hit, by my count, four name-calling pieces of the right (jackboot) or left (fascist) persuasion, at least one name-calling site from the other side, a number of historical or otherwise factual sites. However, Fascism is a major historical movement. Jackboots are a minor item of apparel. I would have expected the jackboot namecalling to outweigh fascist namecalling in sample frequency. That it doesn't indicates a much higher use of fascist to call names. So perhaps we can call it a draw.
I wasn't supporting conservative name calling. I think it's dumb. I just think it's even dumber to combine polemic with the use of words you don't understand.
From the desk of Jane Galt:An editorial in the Wall
An editorial in the Wall Street Journal today points out that one of the reasons that Enron employees were playing Stock Market Roulette with their 401(k)'s is that companies are afraid to offer their employees professional investment advice for fear of being sued. Now, in general, I'm a fan of the random walk theory of markets, which says, among other things, that most people are unlikely to beat the market in the long run -- most actively managed mutual funds, in fact, underperform the S&P 500 index by a considerable margin. So my esteem for professional investment advisors is, shall we say, mixed. Nonetheless, they do fulfill certain valuable functions, among which is educating investment consumers on the subject of risk.
Most investors don't have an appropriate understanding of the risk in the market. It's for damn sure that the Enron employees didn't, because no competent investment advisor would have suggested that anyone have 60% of their portfolio, plus their job, tied up in one company. A little financial planning could have gone a long way for the Enron employees -- and for anyone else who isn't diversified. But they didn't get it, because no company wanted to be liable for its employees bad luck or bad decisions.
So here's the difference between a conservative and a liberal approach. A liberal wants to make a law saying that people shouldn't be allowed to have that much of their portfolio in one company. Well, all those Microsoft millionaire secretaries might have something to say about that, but even aside from that, this protects against only one very targeted risk -- the risk that your company goes bankrupt. But a lot of employees are inappropriately underdiversified by industry. It works like this: you work for Enron, so you figure you should buy what you know, which is to say energy stocks. If the whole sector tanks, you lose your job and portfolio, a lot like what the Enron employees are going through now. The conservative solution -- take away the regulatory and legal barriers that prevent people from making good decisions -- would prevent both scenarios.
It might cause others; there are, I am sure, arguments on both sides. But I think the fundamental difference I am drawing is sound: when things go wrong, the Democrats want a law against it. Republicans are much more friendly to enabling self-organizing systems. Which is why they wanted to make it easier for consumers to get information, while the Demcrats wanted to make sure that the consumers wouldn't need any information because they couldn't make any choices.
From the desk of Jane Galt:From the excellent Random Jottings,
From the excellent Random Jottings, a thought for the day (note that I don't have the thought for the day, because I'm hoping to have more than one):
Your brain comprises about 3% of your body weight and uses about 14% of your energy intake.Keep this in mind when you hear grey-beard Chomskyites condemn America and the West for using more than their 'fair share' of the world's resources. We are the brains of the world. We are the ones creating the advances that give us the hope of eliminating the ancient ills; plague, war and famine. In fact we have eliminated them wherever Western Civilization is allowed to flourish. We didn't do it on a starvation diet.
Your brain burns calories like a bonfire. It's an extremely expensive luxury that doesn't pay off right away. (That's why high intelligence isn't usually an evolutionary option.) But the payoff, when it comes, is big. We in the West, and especially America, should be eating the biggest slice of the pie. It's part of the job. It's our responsibility.
Addendum: High technology itself is a sort of voracious brain that can only exist on top of a very large and healthy industrial body. It's the apex of a very broad pyramid; for every visionary at the top, there are thousands of burger-flippers and siding salesmen at the bottom.
Europe might take issue that all this wealth is our fair share. But they'd find it hard to deny (if they were self-honest, a dubious proposition) that we've got that much stuff because we make that much stuff. And that without our wealth, all the technological goodies they so enjoy wouldn't exist.
February 7, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Why Can't You Understand Me?
Dear angry commenters:
I've been very disappointed at your hatred directed at me over these past few days. I would have thought that self-described peaceful dissenters directed to my pages would take more time to understand the root causes of my disorder (examining SOTU from a game theory perspective, that is), but instead you have been full of belligerent swagger and usenet leftocentrism. I see that your aim, for the time being well beyond aptitude and reasonable expectations, is...to read and understand simple sentences and then express yourselves in a way comprehensible to other humans.
Even the most creative humourist could not make up some of your comments. For instance, here are two:
1) someone named "mmmBeer" called me "sophmoric (sic)". This suds-appreciating fellow claims that STRATFOR is his brewerywebsite.
2) another language-challenged belligerent calls me "MINDLES(sic) HEDONIST DRECK" (see the comments) and goads me "DARE YOU TO POST"...on my own weblog (447 posts and counting).
One is astonished that out of thousands of sperm, these two somehow found their eggs first.
Richard Bennett has renamed MTZ "A Perfect Horror" in his link list, but I kind of like the sound of "MINDLES DRECK". I pronounce it like "Spindles".
Mad as heck scream "Mindles Dreck"
With rants and threats
But no spellcheck.
Here is a list of articulate bloggers that have criticized my posts or my site in a blunt but thoughtful way, exposed weaknesses in my arguments, introduced relevant new (and often embarassing) facts and oversights, and generally prompted a constructive dialogue. Some of these estimable individuals have even caused me to change my mind (heavens!). I consider them friends, if "virtual" friends. I am enriched by their acquaintance and I hope they feel similarly:
Dan Hartung
Thomas Nephew
Matt Welch
Virginia Postrel (ouch, did she let me have it once)
Ginger Stampley
Anthony Adragna
Steven Den Beste
Ripostes aside, I hope I can say the same about one of you some day. Get yourself a blog, and let us get a look at the whole you behind the usenet bluster. Or, if you prefer to debate the war, take the Den Beste Challenge. Nobody else has had the guts yet. Either way, come out from that dark, wet hole and give us the benefit of your..um..energetic perspective on an array of subjects. This community needs some dissent on certain areas, and we might like you, really like you.....or at least link you, really link you.
The alternative? If you don't like it, "change the channel".
Sincerely, Mindles Dreck
From the desk of Jane Galt:Some guy just tried to
Some guy just tried to hijack a plane going from Miami to Buenos Aires. The passengers and flight attendants subdued him with a fire ax. Then the passengers, whom he had tried to subdue, gave him medical attention until they reached Buenos Aires. To quote the eternal verities of the Muppet Show: "It is at times like these that I am proud to be an American Bald Eagle."
Hmmm. . . long distance flight, loaded with fuel. But it looks like they were halfway through the flight when this Uruguayan tried to storm the cockpit, which he couldn't get into because United has reinforced the doors. So maybe he just wanted to go somewhere besides Buenos Aires, or demand Equal Babes for Moody Loners, or something.
Question, though -- if this guy was acting alone, why would he think that he had a snowball's chance in hell? The entire country is primed for a "Let's Roll" moment the minute anyone even raises his voice to the stewardess. Sheila Jackson Lee, take notice.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm fascinated by this WaPo
I'm fascinated by this WaPo editorial calling for a gun ban, because it doesn't allege any actual harm has been caused by carrying a guns -- it simply assumes that the harm is obvious, without bothering to back it up with facts. The only safety incident they could come up with is that someone left a gun in a restaurant 3 years ago. Since I'm assuming that if anyone had been actually harmed by the gun carrying, they would have noted this, this amounts to saying that people shouldn't carry guns because the Washington Post doesn't like them. Well, if you're a regular reader you know what I think of that argument.
February 6, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:On Regulation
Following up on my "impending verbose blog warning" entry yesterday, here is an attempt to provide a fuller answer to Thomas' first question:
1) Is there any form of regulation of which you would approve?
Central to my own belief system is the idea of the "Invisible Hand". Individuals, acting fairly rationally in their own interests will collectively spur us towards a greater good. Necessary to these individuals acting rationally in one's own interests, however, is a system of laws that:
1) frees individuals from coercion by the state
2) allows them to act independently in their own interests, including the assumption of personal risk
3) protects property - the tangible rewards for acting in one's own interests and the central mechanism of capitalism.
Regulations (as opposed to criminal laws), for the purposes of this argument, are laws that seek to protect a system from the risk of an individual or protect an individual from a risk he/she does not understand. So, by definition, regulations limit individuals' ability to assume risk, and compliance with them extracts a net cost to productivity.
Corporations, organizations and communities are groups of people freely associated (ahem). "Associations", as I will call them, come after individuals in my belief system, but they are important actors in society, and need the same property and freedom as individuals to function productively.
Our dynamic economy and free society are based on individuals and associations having the ability to innovate, enter into contracts and assume risk, including the risk of failure. Most great new ideas sound nutty (a personal computer?, said the IBM Watsons in 1979, following up on their earlier prediction of a world market for eight computers), and many are. The road called progress is bumpy indeed, because it is so often that we improve through failure and adaptation. Bankruptcies are a sign that associations are assuming risk. Schumpeter called it "creative destruction", Virginia Postrel incorporates this idea into her concept of "dynamism." No matter what you call it, I subscribe to a body of thought that suggests progress is obtained in a messy way, with much stochastic variation, or "noise", around an improving trend. In markets, we say prices are "discovered" in the short-term volatility of transactions and information dissemination. The discovery won't happen without the "noise", they depend on each other. One never achieves an absolute or final price; the market is only "correct" in that it moves in a jagged path towards a mutating truth. It gets better, it never achieves "best."
The development of this messy dynamism is responsible for at least 25 Miraculous Trends of the 20th Century. The assumption of risk and accompanying "creative destruction" conveys tremendous benefits to the general public. For example, Telecommunications investors (and employees) took tremendous risk and have suffered the consequences. But now the entire country, with a little shopping around, can get long distance at 2.2 cents per minute, as opposed to 15 cents six or seven years ago. Because these investors assumed great risk by buying and installing all that fibre, they ended up transferring almost the entire profits of the industry directly to consumers over a period of a few years. Companies beat each others' brains out and the consumer benefits. Employees find other jobs and it begins again. That's why I maintain that capitalism is the best friend the little guy ever had.
So my acid test for regulation is:
1) Does it interfere with the regulated individual or association's ability to take risk and reap the rewards?
If the answer is yes, the regulation better be a) to avoid a massive systemic calamity or b) protect other individuals from something amounting to theft.
The first category of acceptable regulations are those that improve transparency. If the parties to a contract have all the facts available to them, that actually facilitates the risk taking process. So regulations that improve transparency are positive. They have two drawbacks:
1) They can become cumbersome to the disclosing party (ever written a prospectus?)
2) At times the disclosed information may be a proprietary business advantage, so the disclosure regulation may amount to a taking of property. This is a subject for another day, but as an example, the disclosure of Long Term Capital Management's positions to the investment banking community substantially accelerated its demise.
The second category of good regulations are those that prevent theft. These are really criminal laws, but insider trading is an example. If you trade securities based on information that could not reasonably be obtained by a hypothetical New York Times reporter (that's the phrase they have used in insider trading cases to describe the standard, I don't know why they chose the Times) you have stolen from those who were not in possession of that information.
Regulations I find useless, almost without exception, are those that prescribe behavior. These actually hamper the individual's ability to take risk, as I suggested in my derivatives entry. An example I gave there was the insurance company facing the choice of buying credit risk directly, or buying a packaged security that transforms credit risk into a different form of price volatility - a portfolio of low grade bonds directly, or a portfolio of low-grade bonds packaged and enhanced in a Collateralized Bond Obligation. Regulations make the choice academic, they encourage the CBO purchase. Regulations say "junk bonds bad, CBOs good!".
In a rational world, this choice isn't about the type of security, it's about the price for crying out loud! Depending on the price, the low-grade bonds may pay more per unit of risk than the CBO or vice versa. In fact, if enough investors were to arbitrarily eliminate any one category of security, that security will, as a direct result, offer tremendous relative risk-adjusted returns due to its distorted demand curve. If nobody wants rex cats but you, you are going to find great deals on rex cats - at least as long as there is a supply.
What you want is investors trying to figure out what the price for risk is and finding the best deal. Then the market works. We need individuals out there intelligently assuming risk, rather than having the choice dictated by an all-foreseeing regulation.
Otherwise regulation produces a kind of reversion to the minimum, or a lack of competition on quality. When the government prescribes certain behaviors, you tend to get only as much as is required to get the official seal of approval (i.e. in banks, the deposit insurance or the charter). The gradations of risk by which some customers might judge a bank go out the window and risk becomes binary - risky/not risky; government-approved or not government approved.
Behavior-prescribing rules and regulations tend to cultivate the bad behavior they implicitly expect. In a way that's what's happened to audits - the market began sort of checking the box - "clean opinion from major firm"? OK, books are good, next question.
On the other hand, if companies start to compete on how transparent their books are (and that process is underway with a vengeance), the sky's the limit, and the bar will be raised for the whole population. So I think behavior-prescribing, risk-reducing regulations assure static equality more than dynamic improvement.
I reject as destructive regulations that attempt to protect individuals from themselves, i.e., tell them what risks they can assume (how to invest their retirement funds), with whom they may enter into associations, whom they may hire to perform certain services, how the governance of their associations must work, what sorts of people they have to hire, or how they must interact with customers. Rules should not pervert the behavior of individual actors by limiting their risks or rewards in a material way. In attempt to achieve a social agenda or "smooth the ride", these regulations interfere with risk assumption, personal freedom and the proper functioning of the market. So they interfere with progress.
I hope that makes a little sense. On to international rules and treaties, and the importance of sovereignty later….
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Whose hits are bigger?
I remember when that Mondo guy wrote about "the warbloggers" and challenged Glenn Reynolds to some sort of hit-measuring contest (mine bigger than yours..). I've now been linked by both (and the last instapundit link was ages ago - probably about 10K per day in Glenn's increasing traffic), and I can tell you for a fact that being linked by instapundit creates about 50 times the hits.
What does it all mean? I dunno. My own hits are puny compared to just about anyone, but I make enough new acquaintances to make this strange hobby fun for me - and I don't have to worry about bandwidth. Shoot, I did this for a month without a hit counter and didn't think anyone was looking. Then, all of a sudden, Matt Welch, whom I check in on regularly, mentioned me out of the blue, and I did some time as a "link-slut".
I might as well go on record on the "importance of blogs" issue here while I'm on the subject. Individually blogs are totally unimportant, this one in particular. Cumulatively, I think this is an interesting phenomenon that will begin to change the News Media and, perhaps, media in general. The bloggers I see represent the most avid consumers of news media, and blogging is a change in how they consume. It is a much more interactive way of consuming media. News media will see this change in their marketplace and begin to change how they deliver information - more hard information linked together in one place, more information that can be downloaded and inspected, the talkbacks and news "forums" you already see springing up on the sites of major newspapers. And, of course, we will see the occasional desperate aspiring pundit trolling furiously for whatever hits he/she can get, taking poorly-conceived potshots in the hopes that he/she can build that heretofore elusive audience by becoming the "anti-Sullivan", "antiKaus " or "anti-Postrel".
In sum:
Blogging as a news consumer phenomenon=will spur innovation in news media
Individual blogs like this = not much More Than Zero. Just "For the love of the game..."
UPDATE: Yup, still true. Maybe 75 times as many. Actually, I can only see 10 or so of the last 100 hits that aren't instapundit. Thank you, Glenn, for making MTZ drink from the hit-firehose one more time.
2nd Update: for a visual of the difference, remember the "Behind the Deadlines" link was Wednesday (2/6) morning and Instapundit Thursday (2/7) afternoon, now click here.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Jonah Goldberg has a terrific
Jonah Goldberg has a terrific article on the debasement of the English language by PoMo and other academic fads. He points out that even in 1946, Orwell noted that 'Fascist' had become a catchphrase for "people I don't like". For amusement, try this parlor game I developed in college:
1) Find a liberal
2) Get him to say someone is a 'fascist'
3) Then say, "Other than one fascist's regimes penchant for genocide, what specifically do you have against fascism?"
Over 10 years, and I have yet to meet one who has any idea what Fascism actually is.
This is why you will notice that I am agitating for the total elimination of the use of 'Taliban', 'Nazi', or 'Stalinist' to describe anyone except"
a) Members of the Taliban
b) Members of the Nazi party
c) People who subscribe to the particular variant of Marxism-Leninism elucidated (insofar as he could be said to be lucid) by Josef Stalin.
Probably I am a violator on at least one count. But I hereby vow to go, and sin no more.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Interesting searches that bring up
Interesting searches that bring up my site: Today's exhibit is "What kind of habitat does a virus live in?" The answer, presumably, is in a libertarian one. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:Update Reader Glenn Thomson sends
Update
Reader Glenn Thomson sends a link to the groveling article by the head of Ernst and Young that I gleefully shredded just as soon as I was sure that E & Y no longer had any strategy consulting jobs available. It's a fascinating insight into the mind of a Big Five accounting CEO. From the desk of Jane Galt:My next question (for pros
My next question (for pros like Patrick Ruffini) is whether congressmen and Senators have to disclose every single contact they've ever had with anyone who works with a company that is regulated by a committee they're on. Because if not, I think the Bush Whitehouse should ask the GAO to sue to find out who in the Senate has been meeting with whom. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:We're Not Out of the
We're Not Out of the Woods Yet
You thought your accounting was bad? It seems an FX trader took Allied Irish Bank for $750 million. That's $750,000,000. It's worse than Nick Leeson, who was just a venal idiot trying to cover his ass -- which, come to think of it, describes the Enron execs as well. At least they thought they could make it all back. This guy just defrauded Allied Irish of the largest sum in banking history.Some salient facts:
-- The fraud was committed by using standard hedging arrangements -- but half of the hedge was a fictitious purchase
-- The size of the take means that this guy must have entered into contracts worth $750 billion
-- The perp fled when they called him at home to ask him about his odd trades.
-- Allied Irish is a medium commercial bank, for which trades of this size are flabbergastingly large, yet no one noticed.
-- There seems to have been collusion with the control department -- the watchdogs for banks who keep the people who handle the money from insider trading. These departments have always been a prime source of misbehavior.
-- Allied Irish makes up 12% of the Irish stock exchange, which plummeted today. Allied says everything is fine, but if everything isn't, this will be worse for Ireland than Enron is for us.
I sense that we are in for a few more nasty disclosures before we're through.
Update
Steven Den Beste also picked this up, and asked the vital question: who was the auditor? No, not Anderson -- PWC. Hello, Glass-Steagall.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Game Theory Addendum
I have some visitors today due to a link from antiwar.com. I have added the following addendum to my game theory post, just to clarify that analysis and morality are two different things, and to make sure that readers understand that the author inserted some thoughts that are not attributable to me....
ADDENDUM - Feb. 6: And here's a note for those of you who are here due to my recent "antiwar" link:
You'll notice several items in the screed you just read that aren't in quotes. That would be because I didn't say them (!). For instance:
1) "there's no real need to worry". There's lots of reason to worry, both because these terrorist states have us in their sights, and because addressing the threat they pose is necessarily a high risk, high stakes game. As some of my articulate correspondents have noted, there are times threats have worked (the Cuban Missile Crisis) and times they have been reduced to meaningless bluster. Hopefully, this time is not one of the latter.
2) "Declaration of war" - there was no declaration of war - at least from our side..
Whether you like it or not, Game theory is a legitimate way to examine geopolitics, taught in graduate schools and discussed in Foreign Affairs and such. Because it is merely an analytical framework, however, it renders no judgement on the actions of the players. It merely attempts to analyze the conditions that lead to success or failure (as determined by each player advancing their own interests) The analysis is amoral, which appears to be what has driven the author to distraction, and he has projected that amorality onto yours truly.
We use tools like this all the time. When one looks at the cost of a social program, or a medical treatment, it is necessary to specify how many lives are saved or improved vs. the cost. In most cases, saving the last life or addressing the last grievance is prohibitively expensive. That doesn't make the analysis moral or immoral, it just means that there is a moral decision to be made once the analysis is done. But it is important to measure the chances of success as well as examine our method of achieving it. History is full of examples of success in advancing interests achieved by immoral means.
If you are interested, another source of power in game theory is coalition-building. Our coalition-building power appears to have been insufficient thus far to combat terrorism and neutralize the threat power advantage of terrorists and terror-sponsoring regimes.
The comparison to Ali and Tyson was made only to illustrate the concept of changing threat power. I can find some agreement with Mr. Raimondo that, in the sphere of international relations, we should not behave like boxers preparing for a fight.
Finally, my reaction to this:
Well, put this in an analytical framework, Andreas – and you too, Ms. Postrel: because Americans do care about their lives, their things, their families, their conventions (otherwise known as morality), public opinion – and their constitutional form of government. Which is why this "crazy man" strategic perspective can only be deployed by a terrorist or a totalitarian.
That's exactly my point, thank you for making it again. These terrorists and thugocracies have one primary source of power - they can live with many awful consequences of their actions and we by definition cannot. A successful war on terrorism would ramp up the cost in their cost/benefit analysis to the point where at least those with some semblance of rationality would choose to pursue their objectives in some other way. We need to experiment and innovate to neutralize the terrorists' advantage.
There are many levers to push in an attempt to increase the perceived costs of aggression against us and our allies, such as sanctions, financial isolation and international pressure. But one cannot deny that the perception that we are willing to use force quickly, and suffer significant costs to ourselves in doing so is one of those levers. We must both threaten and use force with discretion.
A threat that one does not have to make good on is called a "deterrent". I hope we will find deterrents that are both successful and moral in the coming months and years. This is a risky business, fraught with worry - and it was so long before the State of the Union.
One thing about deterrents - if they are successful it's not obvious. I happen to believe the horrible prospect of mutual assured destruction was a net contributor to stability in the latter half of the twentieth century. Since it can only be compared to a hypothetical alternative, and since it is a behavioral theory (like game theory)we cannot prove that.
We will never construct a society or set of rules such that it is no longer necessary to consider how to advance our interests. There is no final state, only progress. However, a dynamic system of free, wealth-generating democracies advancing their interests, can improve everyone's lot.
Also - one quick word defending libertarianism from the antiwar interpretation: Libertarianism allows for limited government. One of government's legitimate roles is to defend our citizens and advance our sovereign interests. I don't see an inconsistency in a libertarian examining and possibly supporting this legitimate role of government. We aren't "antigovernment" (or dare I say "antigovernment.com") we're in favor of limited government.
February 5, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:An Unexpected Act of Editorial Discretion
Thomas has been after me on two issues recently, which I will attempt to paraphrase below. Hopefully I have not oversimplified. Even if I have, they are hardly straw men in the form I give them here:
1) Is there any form of regulation of which I would approve?
2) Is the "game theory" analysis a) flawed because it inevitably leads to our bluff being called or b) a path to an anarchic international system based on force as opposed to treaties, laws and international cooperation?
In attempting to get at the issues raised by these questions (creating rules, the importance of risk, sovereignty, the rights of individuals and associations of individuals) I have created several pages of text that appear to delve into a few of my own basic philosophical tenets. Due to recent sleeplessness, I just can't be sure whether it's crap or not. So I will try to complete it later.
Then again, why should I all of a sudden let that stop me?....
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'M NOT YELLING AT RICHARD
I'M NOT YELLING AT RICHARD COHEN TODAY. His column on the Palestinians and Israelis in the WaPo is sober and disquieting:
But that has not been the case. The probable reason is that years of Israeli occupation have changed the nature of Palestinian society, robbing it of both hope and, I would insist, rationality. It is now behaving as the Japanese did toward the end of World War II when, in desperation, they sent pilots crashing into U.S. ships. These kamikaze attacks were both effective and terrifying, but they were also a clear sign that Japan had gone nuts.The kamikaze attacks were an important element in the dehumanizing of Japan. They encouraged, maybe the right word is "permitted," the use of the atomic bomb. After all, the enemy was not rational. It was barbaric. It would never surrender. It would fight to the last square inch. Better to incinerate them all.
In a similar manner, suicide bombings have transformed the image of Palestinians. Now, in the view of many, they are similar to the people my guide once so excoriated and insulted -- so different, so primitive, so cruel and indifferent to human life that they celebrate the suicide of a loved one and the simultaneous murder of innocent people. This is the awful legacy of Yasser Arafat's inaction and reluctance to condemn these attacks: He has vindicated the ugly views of my first Israeli guide.
From the desk of Jane Galt:NRO today has an article
NRO today has an article on Enron and deregulation in California. It doesn't get any better than that!
From the desk of Jane Galt:A Random Sample of New
A Random Sample of New York Times Headlines
On Monday, President Bush sent Congress a new budget plan, which has little extra money for anything other than national security and tax cuts.
Some 300 world leaders were held spellbound on Sunday night by former President Bill Clinton, the ultimate Davos Man.
On this day in history:
1937: President Roosevelt proposed increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; critics charged Roosevelt was attempting to "pack" the court. (See this front page.)
1900: Adlai Ewing Stevenson, the American politician and diplomat, was born. (Read about his life.)
1887: Harper's Weekly featured a cartoon about technology.
These being the news columns. How come when Bush presents a budget it has "little extra money", whereas when President Roosevelt tries to appoint his own majority to the supreme court, it's "critics charge"? Besides, didn't anything ever happen to Republicans?
From the desk of Jane Galt:It seems that one of
It seems that one of our young ladies has caught the eye of a young man whose idea of romance is to stand like a large lump of flesh, staring at her back until she tells him to go away. Today, however, he was finally moved to press his suit. He cross the room. . . approached her. . . looked at her with a longing gaze. . . and said "Is that a printer?"
I'm trying to think whether I've been the victim of a worse pickup line, but none are currently springing to mind.
From the desk of Jane Galt:If there's anything more fun
If there's anything more fun than economics -- it's economist jokes!
A sample:
A boy was crossing a road one day when a frog called out to him and said, "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess." He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket. The frog spoke up again and said, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week." The boy took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it, and returned it to his pocket. The frog then cried out, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a princess, I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want." Again the boy took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket. Finally, the frog asked, "What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess, that I'll stay with you for a week and do anything you want. Why won't you kiss me?" The boy said, "Look, I'm an economist. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a talking frog is cool."
February 4, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Bye, bye, Instapundit readers. .
Bye, bye, Instapundit readers. . . I've enjoyed your stay. . . y'all come back now, you hear?. . . don't forget to write. . . I'll miss you. . . don't be a stranger. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:Waaaay back in January I
Waaaay back in January I explained why the Keynesian economics of which media types are so enamored is wrong. Now Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal does so even more thoroughly, although without the biting wit. A must read for those interested in learning a little more about economics.
From the desk of Jane Galt:MICHAEL KINSLEY PROVIDES some welcome
MICHAEL KINSLEY PROVIDES some welcome comic relief on the World Economic Forum. It's makes a nice break from making fun of guys dressed up as sock puppets to protest Pets.com.
From the desk of Jane Galt:All Guns, All the Time
All Guns, All the Time
Whew! Traffic has spiked, and so has the email -- all weighing in on the question of whether or not we should regulate guns like cars. From the nay side comes reader Jonathan Gewirtz:- As for treating guns like cars, how about going the other way -- eliminate driver licensing? Driver licensing is mainly a form of taxation and personal ID/tracking. It doesn't keep bad drivers off the roads. Let's license neither gun possession/carrying nor driving; let criminal and civil penalties for misconduct deter malicious nd irresponsible behavior.Actually, I disagree that licensing doesn't keep bad drivers off the road. It doesn't keep all bad drivers off the road, but if you've ever been to a third world country, you know how much worse it can get. The traffic fatalities in countries where anyone can get a license by bringing the examiner a carton of cigarettes are astronomical compared to ours (although, of course, you have to factor in seatbelt usage and vehicle age/maintenance -- but this isn't an easy factor, as older cars are often bigger and safer.) Civil penalties only work if you have enough money to pay them -- ask anyone who's been hit by an uninsured driver. Criminal penalties are not an effective deterrent if the person doesn't realize that they're doing something dangerous. In my, admittedly limited experience, most people who haven't fired a gun have no idea how hard it is to point and shoot. They won't correctly assess the risk of their hitting an innocent bystander. Plus I think it's dangerous to criminalize accidentally shooting bystanders during an act of self-defense.
Meanwhile, over at Coyote at the Dog Show, points out that unlike driving, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. True. But constitutional rights are not unlimited; the famous example is that the right to freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. This passes my test of a tangible, immediate negative externality. Constitutional rights can be regulated, so long as the regulation is narrowly constructed to resolve a particular, definite harm. (I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the legal language. But this is the synopsis I've gotten from lawyers whose smarts and judgement I trust.) He also worries about the possibility that the tests will turn into an effective barrier to gun ownership. I worry about that to. But I think that if we started from a premise of an individual right to bear arms, the court has demonstrated in first amendment cases that they can keep regulation minimal and non-intrusive over a sustained period. Of course, I think it's likely to be a long while before we start from the premise that there's an individual right to bear arms, so I can make these confident predictions.
Finally, Eugene Volokh offers a link to this terrific site, the relevant piece of which I have quoted here:
There are plenty of thoughtful arguments in favor of various restrictions on guns, but one of the oddest arguments from the pro-gun-control forces is "Why not regulate guns like cars?" The implicit argument here is "Why not require licenses, registration, tests, and so on for gun possession?"
(See, e.g., Chicago's Million Moms March on Mother's Day, PR Newswire, Apr. 27, 2000, quoting Million March organizer Donna Dees-Thomases as saying "We want Congress to create a meaningful gun policy in this country that treats guns like cars"; Partnership for Prevention's New Report to Congress Recommends Gun Owner Licensing and Gun Registration, U.S. Newswire, Mar. 24, 2000, quoting Handgun Control, Inc. president Michael Barnes as saying "For years now, we have been calling on Congress to treat guns like cars by a system of licensing and registration.").
This argument is odd because cars are basically regulated as follows:
1) No federal licensing or registration.
2) Any person may use a car on his own private property without any license or registration. See, e.g., California Vehicle Code §§ 360, 12500 (driver's license required for driving on "highways," defined as places that are "publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel"); California Vehicle Code § 4000 (same as to registration).
3) Any adult may get a license to use a car in public places by passing a fairly simple test that virtually everyone can pass.
This is pretty much how many gun rights advocates would like to see guns regulated: No need to register or get a license to have a gun at home, and a simple, routine test through which any law-abiding citizen can get a state license to carry a gun in public. Gun control advocates would in reality prefer a much more onerous system of regulations for guns than for cars.
Of course, one can certainly argue that guns should be regulated more heavily than cars; thoughtful gun control advocates do indeed do this. But then one should candidly admit that one is demanding specially burdensome regulation for guns -- and not claim to be "merely asking that guns be regulated like cars."
For more on this, see David Kopel's Taking It to the Streets, Reason, Nov. 1999
This being pretty much what I was trying to say, except, you know, concise.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:That was worthwhile
I attempted to upgrade my home PC to XP this morning. The upgrade CD failed, so Dell had me reinitialize my old setup. (in case you don't know, that means reformatting your hard disk and thereby losing all your data and programs since you received the PC from the factory). I backed up most of the important stuff.
90 minutes of bouncing blue bars later, the XP upgrade has a "fatal error" having to do with removing catalogs.
So my main machine is now dead until a new package of software arrives from Dell. I am reduced to begging time on the kids' or wife's PCs. Who, one would think, might be more forthcoming given the hours of free tech support and infrastructure maintenance provided by yours truly.
Nothing frustrating about that. I'll post when I can.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Love me love my data
A numerate critic rips apart the environmental study showing the US ranking after Botswana and Slovakia in environmental health. He does what he does so well -- goes after the numbers and the horrendous methodology, at one point catching the authors saying, effectively, "this data is useless. But we had to use it to make our point."
Anyone who has been to the gaping ravages in the landscape of Eastern Europe wrought by industrial bosses intent on taking a shortcut to the worker's paradaise couldn't possibly argue that any country there ranks above us in environmental health. This alone should have clued me in that the article was a crock, but alas, I wasn't paying attention. That's what's so marvelous about blogdom -- someone's always picking up on something you missed. Collectively, we're all smarter.
(Oh my God -- does this mean I'm a Communist?)
From the desk of Jane Galt:VIA Kausfiles, this WaPo article
VIA Kausfiles, this WaPo article says they're taking the zoo animals off welfare. And about time, too. Now if I can just figure out how to make Finnegan work for his dinner. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:I just love watching my
I just love watching my hit counter now. I can watch my projected hits rise by the minute. Thanks to Professor Reynolds and all his lovely, lovely readers who made this possible.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The Gun Control Debate Continues
The Gun Control Debate Continues
Swen Swenson from Coyote at the Dog Show writes in with a host of criticisms, all valid, some dead on, and I want to respond (I'm combining two emails for maximum grovel effect):In addition to being a blog monster, I'm a certified NRA hunter safety instructor. I've just finished reading your response to 'Myria' and, while I appreciate your sentiment, I must respond to several points: "You tell them that all guns, except revolvers and muzzle loaders, were semi-automatic. Despite the fact that they have never held a gun, they refuse to believe you." They shouldn't. In addition to revolvers and muzzle loaders, the popular action types include single shots, double barrels, bolt actions, lever actions, and pump actions. Autoloaders (semi-autos) comprise a small minority of all firearms in civilian ownership.
He's right, and I was sloppy. In my defense, I was quoting a conversation I'd had about handguns, with someone who later told me that all rifles were bolt actions like the one he'd used at camp when he was 12 and refused to believe that semi-automatic non-military weapons existed despite my offer to show him guns with magazines that fired a single shot. But still, I was sloppy.
"I think good gun law would also restrict certain types of guns from public places. High penetration rounds -- not in high density areas. You don't get to protect yourself by drilling one through the walls into some poor kid's bedroom."
No small arms ammunition of which I'm aware will penetrate 2 feet of stone, or even half a foot of stone. Not even the monstrous .50 Browning armor piercing. Most small arms ammunition is designed to penetrate one critter, two or four-legged, and efficiently expend all its energy therein. Anything more is useless. Anything less is worse than useless. Only the Glaser and Magsafe are designed to penetrate less. Only a few specialized rounds are designed to penetrate more and, sigh.. they are already illegal for civilian ownership.
Any law that further restricts the penetration of ammunition would logically go after the most penetrative ammunition, that used in high-powered rifles. The stuff hunters use. I'm told your gangbangers don't use the '06 much but hunters do. Let's not go there. The 'high-penetration rounds' bit is a red herring. It's intended to go after hunters, not gangbangers.
Seems I fell for standard misinformation. No excuse, but I'm willing to learn from my mistakes. But I do want to point out that I wasn't advocating making any ammunition illegal, or preventing its sale anywhere -- just telling people to chamber something a little lighter when they're in city limits.
"Ditto automatic weapons. Whether or not you think that people should have a right to own machine guns, I think most sensible people would agree that a right to carry around a fully automatic weapon in crowded public places is an invitation to disaster."
For all practical purposes full auto weapons have been outlawed for civilian ownership in the US since 1934. The only people who legally carry full auto weapons on the street are police. I agree that this is an invitation to disaster.
Well, here's the thing: I don't think they should be illegal. I just think it should be illegal to carry them in the city, where there isn't any safe place to discharge one. I'd really like to see guidelines for density use of weapons.
This is probably what Myria was talking about when she argued against 'reasonable restrictions'. Your proposed restrictions seem reasonable. They are not. They have either already been done: machineguns are outlawed. Or they are totally impractical, bullets that won't penetrate are useless.
The only reason I'm advocating the driver's license approach is that I'm advocating removing all of the other laws that currently prevent well-meaning law-abiding citizens from carrying guns. In the transition, I fear that uneducated consumers might decide to tote an Uzi in downtown Chicago. For all I know an Uzi is appropriate to self-defense in rural Montana. But in a dense area it's crazy. I think this point may have been lost; it may have seemed that I was advocating adding to exisitng gun laws, rather than replacing the lot of them with a simple demand that you be trained before you carry a gun in a public place. So to sum up my position:
1) You should pass an exam demonstrating that you know how to maintain the weapon, and can hit what you're aiming at at a reasonable distance. This obviously precludes people with certain disorders from public (as opposed to shooting range) firearms use: blindness, Parkinson's (if their hands shake badly), severe dementia or retardation.
2) In high density areas, we should develope guidelines for what guns and ammunition can safely be used, assuming that the person has been trained in proper firearm safety and operation. The beauty of (1) is that we now get to assume this.
3) All other gun laws should be done away with.
You've got to understand where we gun nuts are coming from. All of the gun control laws - some 20,000 of them - were proposed as 'reasonable restrictions' - 'just between us folks of good will.' We are rapidly running out of patience with that argument. As with the 'high penetration rounds' issue, the folks who propose such things are often not acting in good will. One example: Gun control laws were the backbone of Jim Crow, it took the Deacons arming themselves to put a stop to the Klan. You won't read much about that in the history books. Now, they certainly have you fooled if you are afraid of those 'high penetration rounds' coming through 2 feet of stone!
I confess, I fell for the propaganda. As I said in response to the earlier email from Myria, I understand perfectly the tactical reasons that the NRA is against mandatory training. I agree with them -- accepting a new law without undoing old ones is foolish. But if you could exchange a good mandatory training program for, say, doing away with New York and Chicago's (two name but two) near-total ban on guns, I'd think it was a deal well made. Which is why I know that the gun control groups would never go for it.
There's no such thing as an 'effective gun law', in the sense of a law that the lawless will obey. The malevolent, ignorant or not, will not obey restrictions, reasonable or not. If you could take away all their guns, and you can't, they would use machetes, clubs, or ball bats, or sharp sticks, or rocks, or.. airplanes. You are far better off defending yourself with a gun than you would be going mano e mano with ball bats against some 250# goblin. Disarming the general population doesn't work any better than disarming airline passengers, it only makes them easier to victimize.
No, you won't prevent criminals from carrying any gun they want, though I think a well armed population might reduce the incentive for doing so. The laws I propose are not in any way based on the supposition that we can reduce crime by imposing gun laws. They are based on the supposition that they present a minimalist way to ensure that normal people have the tools to safely use weapons in public spaces.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I looked at my hit
I looked at my hit counter and saw a threefold spike in 10 minutes, which could only mean -- I've been InstaPundited. Welcome, new readers! Stay around and look a while -- I hope you like what you see.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Economics For Non-Economist Today's Issue:
Economics For Non-Economist
Today's Issue: How can companies declare huge profits and still have no tax bill?Many people look at the fact that companies declare profits on their financial statements, but not on their taxes, as evidence that chicanery is afoot. And to some extent they're right, some of the time. But not as often as you think. There are fundamental differences in the way that corporations account for their earnings for taxes and for their financial statements. We all know that I want to abolish the damn thing entirely, but if we're going to have it, we're going to need to keep financial accounting and tax accounting separate.
This seems dishonest, but let's think about the purpose of the two types of accounting:
Financial Accounting is the kind that produces financial statements and annual reports -- the type that shareholders use to determine what a company is worth. Its object is to present a true picture of the value of the company.
Tax Accounting is the kind that produces your tax bill. Its purpose is to figure out approximately how much money you made during the year (taxable income, and how much you had to pay out in order to make that money (deductible expenses), subtract your deductible expense from your taxable income and tax the bejeesus out of what's left.
So let's look at a situation where the two might differ:
Say you have a company that signs an ironclad contract to build a building for $8 million dollars. You've got all the stuff, you're ready to go, and the contract is final -- there's no way that the buyer can renege unless they go belly-up. For all intents and purposes, that money is guaranteed. Your shareholders want to know about this. They want to see that income hit the bottom line so that they can appropriately value the stock.
But you don't have the money yet. If the IRS made you pay taxes on it, you'd have to declare bankruptcy, because you haven't gotten your hands on the cash. So while reporting that deal as revenue produces financially true statements, it doesn't tell the IRS how much money you can or should pay them.
Now, companies certainly take advantage of this. And there are arguments that certain types of manipulative securities and other items should have to be the same on the financial statements as for taxes. (I won't confuse you -- or me -- with the details.) However, the only place this is currently true is with inventory accounting, which I may explain another time if I run out of witty quips on slime molds or paddleball. The point is, that the reasoning behind the split between financial accounting and tax accounting is sound. So the next time you hear people saying X company had record profits but paid no taxes, you'll be able to tell them that this isn't as obviously wrong as it seems.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Via a new blog comes
Via a new blog comes this item from Off the Kuff is confused by why gun-rights activists would accept a driver's license model:
I have to say, it baffles me when gun-freedom advocates invoke cars as a metaphor for guns. Consider that in order to drive, one must have passed a driver's-education class, be licensed by the state, and carry liability insurance for any damage you may cause while operating your vehicle. In addition, your car must be registered by the state and must pass an annual inspection to ensure that it is in safe driving condition. You must prove that you are licensed and insured in order to buy a car. Finally, the state can revoke your license to drive if you demonstrate that you are sufficiently irresponsible or dangerous when behind the wheel.So, you know, if you really want guns and gun ownership to be treated in the same fashion as cars and car ownership, I can't say that the gun-control lobby will be unhappy with you.
Oh, I think they would. Because the fundamental aim of the more prominent groups is to outlaw handguns entirely, and in some cases long guns as well. The fundamental vision of the gun control groups is that there is no legitimate right to self defense with a weapon. That's why they publicize studies saying that compliance is the best option. That's why they want handguns, which have few sporting purposes, banned.
They are also incredibly elitist. Almost none of the gun control proponents I know (and I know a lot!) really think that they are dangerous with a gun. They don't like them, perhaps, but they don't actually think that they themselves can't be trusted with them. Neither are their friends the problem. It's the people on the other side of town, people of a different income level or ideology, who are dangerous. Which is when I start my "And yet you think these people should vote speech, which leads to extremely confused assertions that voting is much less dangerous than guns, assertions which ultimately trail off and are replaced with a vehement 'You can't be serious!'. Or they reveal their underlying belief that people who disagree with them, or are poorer or southern or whatever -- well, they're not advocating that we herd them into ghettos and forbid them to breed, but we shouldn't rule it out, either.
My "driver's license" approach is not based on limiting who can have guns -- it's based on making sure that they know how to safely use them. I would eliminate all discretionary laws -- not something the activists favor. I would eliminate all restrictions on weapons ownership which do not stem directly from negative externalities -- you can't fire that howitzer in an urban neighborhood, sir, but if you've got enough acreage, go ahead! So long, of course, as the noise level doesn't bother the neighbors. And I would require those externalities to be measurable: which is to say that the possibility that you might accidentally shoot someone at some unspecified time in the future is not a negative externality. The probability that if you fire a rocket launcher in New York City, you will kill someone, is.
I've had gun control proponents tell me that the disturbed peace of mind your neighbors get from knowing you have a gun is a genuine negative externality. Perhaps so. But if the legal system takes into account your peace of mind in deciding whether your neighbor can have a gun, it's also going to be able to take notice of your neighbors peace of mind when you decide to practice Santeria or have a quiet orgy. But religion's a constitutional right, I hear them cry. And then, embarassed silence.
(I realize in reading this that this sounds as if I swashbuckle around winning arguments left and right. I'm not trying to convey the impression that I'm some sort of a latter-day Clarence Darrow. I'm just compressing for dramatic effect the hours of drunken wrangling that precede my small, telling points.)
February 3, 2002
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Funniest Dead Links
Go to The New York Times: Newspaper Information and click on Facts About The New York Times.
At some point they'll fix this, and it won't be funny. But the idea that right now it returns a 404 error suggesting that facts about the Times "cannot be found" has me in stitches.
As the old Mr. Rogers parody says - "you easily amused".
UPDATE 2/8 6:30AM: Still dead!
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:West 43rd Street Trails in MTZ Environmental Study
Warning: I am about to trash a study of which I have only read selected sections. It's my blog and I'll say what I wish!
The New York Times reports the United States' poor showing in a study conducted by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University for the World Economic Forum:
A new study of 142 countries has found that Finland ranks first in the world for its environmental health and the United Arab Emirates ranks last, with the United States coming in at 51.The top five countries were Finland, Norway, Sweden, Canada and Switzerland. The five worst were Haiti, Iraq, North Korea, Kuwait and the Emirates.
The United States ranked behind Botswana (15) and Cuba (47), but ahead of Germany (54), Japan (62) and Britain (98)
What sort of study is this? Our environmental quality somehow ranks behind countries where energy is generated mostly by burning wood indoors? How can this be?
The study took into account 68 variables — including how a country responds to water and air pollution, how it protects land, whether its government is corrupt and how seriously it takes global climate change[emphasis mine] — to measure environmental "sustainability," or likely environmental quality of life over the next generation.
Now I see. I guess by trashing Kyoto our environment fell quite a few pegs. I wonder how we would have ranked if we had just pocket-vetoed it like everybody else in the industrial world? How did Enron's influence peddling (in support of Kyoto) factor into the corruption rating? Bit of a riddle, that - unmeasurable corruption that makes us "take climate change (unmeasurably) more seriously."
Daniel Esty, director of the Yale Center, attributed the United States' midlevel ranking to inadequacies in controlling greenhouse gases and reducing waste, offset by great success in controlling water pollution.
In other words, we generate a lot of trash and "greenhouse gases" while we make and consume 25% of the world's stuff and live in a country that's comparatively spread out.
Googling the study authors reveals that the Times could have led with the U.S. ranking 11th in environmental sustainability. Yet I can't reconcile that with the complete ranking here. Anyhow, you can download the whole thing if you like. I'm a pinheaded businessperson so I'm waiting for the powerpoint slides, but I did locate at least a nice geo-graphic:
Countries at extreme Northerly or Southerly latitudes do pretty well, don't they? If you make cell phones and classical music, store massive amounts of frozen water and (optional) balance it with empty "we would have ratified it if the U.S. had" gestures about the Kyoto accords, the "likely environmental quality of life" is pretty good! Too bad about Antarctica's lack of data. I bet it would have kicked butt. But we would have had to "model" the penguins' attitudes about global warming. I'm reasy to assume they're against it.
Speaking of missing data, it appears Afghanistan is missing data as well. Now there's a data and modeling challenge.
The ranking is pretty hard to swallow. I have a hard time accepting that we rank below Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia and Slovakia. As the Study authors concede:
Substantive gaps in data coverage were even more problematic. Many important variables had shockingly poor country coverage. Some variables were measured so poorly that we could not use any metric at all in the ESI. This was true for resource subsidies, wetland loss, nuclear reactor safety, and lead poisoning, for example. For two indicators, air quality and water quality, we relied on data sources that had such limited coverage that if it were not for that fact that these measures are so central to environmental sustainability we would have rejected them. One strategy we used to help deal with data gaps was utilization of modeled data...
So the data was so bad we would have rejected it, except that we needed the data to draw any conclusions. This, of course, does not impugn the conclusions.
I've just completed an environmental study myself, making extensive use of modeled data, as I have no reliable means of measuring the variables. But model them I will, because without them I could not conclude the following.
I ranked several neighborhoods by several hundred factors including the amount of hot air generated within confined spaces and the inhabitants' willingness to conflate hard data with subjectively measured attitudes and inferred assumptions. New Haven, CT and Morningside Heights, New York City ranked poorly on these criteria but still managed to come in before Berkeley and just after Cambridge Massachusetts. At the bottom of the list was West 43rd Street, where the exact source of a disproportionate quantity of greenhouse gases has yet to be pinpointed.
Seriously, how do you index corruption and "seriousness", let alone the "likely environmental quality of life", with hard measures of particles in the air or pollutants in water (especially when the hard data doesn't exist for many countries)? How do you "model" the amount of bacteria and chemicals in a country's water supply if they refuse to provide samples or self-report? My prima facie inspection reveals many reasons to be suspicious.
Since it appears we're being subjective here, I prefer this conclusion from another study:The most important policy implication of this paper is that an expansion in freedoms is accompanied by an improvement in environmental quality measures that relate directly to human health.
Would that be freedom from global government initiatives?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Okay, whatever I'm doing wrong,
Okay, whatever I'm doing wrong, I'll stop, I promise, if the Blogger gods will tell me. One more fubar post repeated:
Justin in time, Happy Fun Pundit answers all our questions about the Democratic tax plan. I can't tell you how relieved I am -- I thought they were engaging in venal politicking against the national interest, but now I realize that I was confused by the apparent illogic and my silly reliance on "economists".
From the desk of Jane Galt:We've all explained Enron. But
We've all explained Enron. But none so well as Dave Barry (via Joanne Jacobs Tee-hee-hee! I love that man.
Q. Why didn't Wall Street realize that Enron was a fraud?A. Because Wall Street relies on ``stock analysts.'' These are people who do research on companies and then, no matter what they find, even if the company has burned to the ground, enthusiastically recommend that investors buy the stock. They are just a bunch of cockeyed optimists, those stock analysts. When the Titanic was in its death throes, with the propellers sticking straight up into the air, there was a stock analyst clinging to a railing, asking people around him where he could buy a ticket for the return trip.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The military cleric attending to
The military cleric attending to the Gitmo prisoners says they aren't complaining about the conditions. If true, this puts them in the same position as those dopy feminists who argue that women are too stupid to know when they're being discriminated against -- a fine pro-woman position.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Meanwhile, Perry DeHaviland wants to
Meanwhile, Perry DeHaviland wants to build the biggest buildings in the world to replace the WTC. While I heartily applaud the idea of a big, in-your-face refutation of the terrorists, in this case I have to disagree, for two reasons.
He makes fun of Ed Koch. My Dad worked for Ed Koch, and while you may not like his politics, he fits my definition of an honest politician -- which is to say that he's genuinely interested in figuring out what works, rather than what sounds good to the uneducated masses. I know someone will argue with me, but darn it -- I just like the guy.
The WTC towers were a boondoggle. Buildings that tall are a fire hazard, almost impossible to evacuate, and extremely cost inefficient because of how much space you have to devote to the elevators and other physical plant -- plus the buildings don't last as long because of structural stress, unless you overbuild them, which further reduces profitability. Note that they were built by the Port Authority -- by then everyone else had figured out that super-tall buildings weren't profitable. Which is why the current tallest building is another government sponsored boondoggle in Kuala Lampur. So while I support rebuilding the site, I think it should be something that a private developer could profitably build. As a good libertarian, y'know. ;-)
From the desk of Jane Galt:Over on Libertarian Samizdata, David
Over on Libertarian Samizdata, David Carr has a compelling explanation of why such an overwhelming majority of writer and artistic types are socialists. Because it seems grossly unfair that no one wants to buy their work, and because there's always a much greater supply than demand of labor for these professions.
Yet I think there's also an element of self deception in two ways. There is the adamant refusal to believe that their work might be bad (I worked in publishing. It's awful. There are people who should have all writing implements taken away and their typewriters or computers smashed. Among my favorites were the guy selling me an illiterate opus about an angel coming to a garage in New Jersey who felt compelled to inform me in his cover letter that "This is not a true story"; and the gentleman who had composed an entire novel based around -- no, you won't believe me, but I swear to you on my honor that it is the unvarnished truth -- an entire novel based around Microsoft Word 2.0 clipart.)
There is also the self-lie that what they do is every bit as hard as digging ditches or word processing. Okay, it's not the same. You may work as many hours, and you may work as physically hard. But you do not suffer the mind-numbing, soul-sucking boredom that makes every hour a screaming agony. The fact that your average laborer is not as bright as you does not mean that he finds lifting things eight hours a day, 365 days a year, fulfilling. He's bored. It sucks. And unlike you, holding onto the vision of success and fame, all he has to look forward to is 40 more years of this, followed by a couple of years in Florida and hopefully, a painless death. The reason there's such an oversupply of writers, artists and musicians is that these things are fun. As witness all the bloggers giving away their thoughts for free. (That doesn't, incidentally, mean that you should ignore the tip jar over there. Don't make me post the pictures of the bullmastiff with the soulful, hungry eyes.)
Also witness that the price to be paid for getting a soft job as a writer in the workers paradise is that you aren't allowed to write, paint, or compose about anything except tractors and metal presses, and the masses gazing boldly into the bright socialist future. Starvation suddenly doesn't sound so bad.
From the desk of Jane Galt:The post below is FUBAR.
The post below is FUBAR. And can't be erased. So here it is again.
New Kid on the Block
I just discovered A Coyote at the Dog Show and I highly encourage everyone else to do so. He's in Wyoming, where I spent a couple of summers in high school, and where I found an unusually high quotient of cool people -- possibly why the blog is so good. Or maybe it's just the reason I get misty when I turn on the country station and hear "Sweet Wyoming Home" . . .Some of the good stuff involves my blog -- specifically, he makes fun of the New York Times History Quiz that I posted:
Which is more relevant to the average American, movie trivia or remembering the date of the Battle of Waterloo? Which was more fun to learn? I’m afraid that a focus on rote memorization of dates has been the biggest downfall of academic history. What does it matter that the 1700’s were the ‘age of discovery,’ if you don’t understand that it was the fluorescence of astronomy, thus navigation, and transportation technology, particularly ship building, that allowed this to happen? If you understand the 'what' and ‘why,’ the ‘who’ and ‘when’ will follow.
Okay, I agree to a point. But only to a point. Just as you don't have to be a lightning calculator to master higher mathematics, you don't have to memorize every little date to have a good grasp on history. But math teachers in New York have now decided to avoid teaching calculation altogether because it's easier to give the kids calculators. They want to focus on "concepts". Well, how do you grasp the "concept" of quadratic equations if you can't add?
The nineteen year old, very bright and competent office girl with whom I took the quiz had no idea when the Civil War happened -- she couldn't even make a guess. She was unaware that Russia had had a revolution. She thought WWI had ended in 1937, which is probably why she couldn't figure out when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany -- her exact words being "Was that his title?". Does it matter whether she thinks the Civil War ended in 1865 or 1868? Not really. But the whole sweep of history is to her as a closed book. Without a pretty good approximation of when things happened -- within, say, 25 years -- you can't grasp the processes of history, because every event is an isolated occurrance. Come to think of it, this may be the problem with the anti-globalization nuts -- they've been taught everything with no context. It's certainly the problem with my coworker, who thinks that AIDS in Africa is a CIA plot because she thinks that's more plausible than a virus spontaneously mutating, and that Aristotle stole all his ideas from an Egyptian library which wasn't built until after his death. So while, yes, I think just memorizing dates is fruitless, equally so is teaching people stories without a timeline. It's hard to understand that "flourescence" if you think it took place in 1950 or 100 BC.
Other good stuff, with which I won't argue:
On the moral superiority of vegetarians: "the only people more annoying are organic vegetarians." Wait -- you've forgotten the vegans. A friend who became a neurosurgeon reported that a growing problem in neurology during his residency was the children of hippy vegans who refuse to feed their children any animal products -- despite the fact that this inevitably leads to physical and neurological disorders. You can raise a child quite healthily on a lacto/ova-vegetarian diet, but not on one totally based on vegetable matter -- there's some protein they need, or a vitamin or something.
I find the PETA types especially amusing -- most of them are a little to the left of Noam Chomsky, and violently pro-choice, yet won't eat (unfertilized) eggs. I also find their belief that if we didn't eat meat, the chickens cows could run free and wild, to be hours of fun for the entire family. "They should be in their natural habitat," said the girl wearing burlap shoes. "They've been bred by humans for thousands of years," quoth I. "Their natural habitat is a farmyard". This caused her to display some decidedly un-pacifist leanings.
On the arrows in The Lord of the Rings: they're apparently genuine authentic European neolithic. Yes, the movie makers were obessessed, and a good thing too.
You should go read the whole thing. But don't call him Tony. You'll regret it.
From the desk of Jane Galt:A Suggestion: How about a
A Suggestion:
How about a ratings system for our newspapers -- a little icon that tells you how far left or right the article tilts. I wanted to post it on the page, but my html skills basically suck, so here it is. And think how much the Times would save by only needing one icon template?
From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides Well the
Notes and Asides
Well the new color combination is here. And to those of you who said it looks girlie. . . well, pooh to you.The dog and I went for a long walk today. And I think we've all learned an important lesson, which is that you shouldn't walk a dog in a fur coat no matter how cold it is out. The dog thought there was a large furry beast for him to play with (the coat, not me -- it's my mother's silver fox coat, which I borrowed because it's deliciously warm and makes me look like a brush mop with legs.) We had a wonderful time -- there was a road race in the park, which seemed to inspire Finnegan to drag me on a nice long run through the walkways. Three older women went gaga over the coat and told me that I should hold onto it and make it an heirloom. I didn't run into any anti-globalization PETA types to tell me that I shouldn't wear fur, which is a pity, because I had a long lecture all prepared about what it means to be on top of the food chain. All I got was a glorious sunny day, lovely people with their lovely dogs to talk through, a tramp through the underbrush with my dog who was so happy his whole body wriggled with joy, and a great deal of excercise. You can't have everything.
I have to go have lunch with my family now -- mmmm Chinese. I'll be posting around 2:00 for those of you who just can't get enough of my dry wit and/or bubbly personality. The rest of you can come back just to validate my sense of self worth, which is intricately tied up with my hit counter.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:New Intoxicants
Is it possible to get drunk on orange soda? You decide:
February 2, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:I'm working on my color
I'm working on my color scheme. It's a chick thing. . . just bear with me.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Blogger's choking. Damn, damn, damn
Blogger's choking. Damn, damn, damn -- and just as I was preparing to get rid of my background.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Backatcha Grey Lady
Once again I am caught merely screaming at newsprint while someone else busily pens lets mots justes with enough juice to make the pundits pound their foreheads and say "what were we thinking? Well, maybe that last part's unlikely, however appropriate.
I am referring to the silly editorial in the Times today, which reads like the opening of "Ode to Central Planning":
The news that the developer Larry Silverstein is gearing up to break ground on a new 7 World Trade Center should be a warning bell for all New Yorkers concerned with the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan. The city-state agency created to oversee that redevelopment must finally get organized. The public's views need to be officially heard, and planners should begin working with all deliberate speed. Otherwise the city is not going to get what it really deserves — a magnificently designed and masterly coordinated downtown Manhattan.
Megan McCardle handles this just right, bemoaning the Grey Lady itself falling into the wrong hands. Damn that private property stuff!
The news that the publisher Punch Salzberger is gearing up for a redesign of the New York Times should be a warning bell for all New Yorkers concerned with the intellectual development of our city. The public's views need to be officially heard, and planners should begin working with all deliberate speed. Otherwise the city is not going to get what it really deserves — a magnificently reported and masterfully* coordinated Paper of Record that includes all the vibrant cultures that make up our city.
Go read it all, if you can stand the small print (or get yourself Opera and play with that neat +/- zooming feature -soon to be incorporated in the new non-Opera compliant upgrade to XP).
UPDATE: I have played some part in bullying Megan into a format change, including a snazzy new multicolor scheme. I hereby retract snarky small type comments (which were no doubt seconded by Mr. Quick).
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:I'm So Great You'll Even Watch Me Tune Up
Fresh Air ran an interview with Bill Cosby last night. I enjoyed his observations about the club that started him off in stand-up:
the job description was the greatest...(the club owner) came to me and said "I need someone to break up the monotony of the folk singers." After these people sing about the wind called mariah, the dustbowl, goin' fishin, etc. in the falsetto voices, and after they stood their tuning up - I could never understand why the folk singers didn't tune up in the back and then come out front. They always came out and stood there for a good ten minutes tuning up in front of the audience.
Isn't it true that some people think virtue substitutes for quality?
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Oldest Unopened Ketchup
James Lileks is an extraordinary contributor to the blogosphere. I often print out his daily bleat and read it with my wife. He just writes incredibly well, with mousetrap humour and a knack for describing things you sort of notice yourself but never articulated. It's a bit like looking at a Jackson Pollock - "I could have done that" - but you didn't. And you couldn't have until you had seen it. I still chuckle at the idea of a janitor rushing to clean real vomit off the fake vomit at the Whitney.
Friday's bleat (2/1/02) discusses James' compulsion to buy "six pounds of Ketchup and one pound of meat." He is thus compelled because there are new and interesting flavors to be tried, promising to turn charred or boiled processed meat product into an authentical, spicy and enriching southwestern dining experience.
Reading the Bleat, my wife commented that ketchup is not necessarily made from tomatoes. Apparently, stored away somewhere at her employer, they have a bottle of "Mushroom Catsup". If you read the inscription, you will see it was preserved and packaged in 1819, at which time Ketchup was a generic term for a sauce containing vinegar.
Here is the Dictionary.com word history:
The word ketchup exemplifies the types of modifications that can take place in borrowingboth of words and substances. The source of our word ketchup may be the Malay word kchap, possibly taken into Malay from the Cantonese dialect of Chinese. Kchap, like ketchup, was a sauce, but one without tomatoes; rather, it contained fish brine, herbs, and spices. Sailors seem to have brought the sauce to Europe, where it was made with locally available ingredients such as the juice of mushrooms or walnuts. At some unknown point, when the juice of tomatoes was first used, ketchup as we know it was born. But it is important to realize that in the 18th and 19th centuries ketchup was a generic term for sauces whose only common ingredient was vinegar. The word is first recorded in English in 1690 in the form catchup, in 1711 in the form ketchup, and in 1730 in the form catsup. All three spelling variants of this foreign borrowing remain current.
At any rate, James, my wife is a fan, which should be an honor. She asked me to tell you that the Mushroom Catsup is not for sale. But she'd be happy to arrange a viewing next time you are in New York.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:url typos
Glenn Reynolds complains that someone has reserved "isntapundit.com" to capitalize on Glenn's popularity.
One site I check in on every week or two is dsl reports. Yesterday I inverted the "l" and the "s" and found what is clearly some sort of porn metasite.
Screwing up the domain extension when you are looking for The White House is a famous one. I expect there are many others.
I can't wait until one of my kids makes a mistake like that.
From the desk of Jane Galt:FROM A WALL STREET JOURNAL
FROM A WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE on the falloff in auto sales this quarter:
Despite the slide in total sales, GM boosted its first-quarter North American production target to 1.32 million vehicles from 1.3 million. The company said it still aims to build on momentum created by interest-free financing and other incentives. In last year's first quarter, GM produced 1.21 million vehicles.
Okay, I'm just a lowly MBA, but what momentum? Like Napster, all GM has succeeded in proving is that people like getting things for free. Which is a truism, not a business model.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Cornerhost Hacked
Cornerhost was attacked last night, putting many of us temporarily out of business - including Sgt Stryker and myself. Apparently someone has very little else to do on a Friday night.
Poor Michal spent the entire night restoring service. He's almost there.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Matt Welch has a great
Matt Welch has a great list of where to find common ground with the protesters he calls "noodle-muppets". And I agree with all of his points except being in favor of regulation My problem with the protesters isn't that I'm in favor of high tariffs and corporate welfare; it's that their notion of how to change this is toddlerish at best: I don't know how to make it work, but I want it to work, so I'll throw a tantrum until Daddy fixes it! But he is right that we should try to explain why free market solutions work better, so I'll look to put up some simple posts on trade issues over the next few weeks -- even though I'm quite sure that the protesters won't read them. That way, I'm not whining and handing out simplistic solutions (get a job, being the one that comes first to mind); I'm proposing solutions and mounting an education campaign in my own, small fashion.
From the desk of Jane Galt:MommaBear sends word that Sgt.
MommaBear sends word that Sgt. Stryker's site got hacked. Just a reminder to everyone to make backup copies of their work early and often, which is what I'm doing right now. . .
From the desk of Jane Galt:Okay, the news channels here
Okay, the news channels here are reporting that the much feared protests didn't happen because it was raining. Now when I was their age. . . we may have been dilettantes, but we didn't get stopped by a fine drizzle.
From the desk of Jane Galt:I read this NY Times
I read this NY Times article on Ground Zero and steam started coming from my ears as the editors blithely dismissed property rights and the rule of law as if they were no more than historical artifacts of little importance, like square dancing or the beefeaters at the Tower of London. But then I began to imagine what an editorial would look like advocating the same treatment of the New York Times as the Times is advocating for Silverstein. And I began to smile.
The news that the publisher Punch Salzberger is gearing up for a redesign of the New York Times should be a warning bell for all New Yorkers concerned with the intellectual development of our city. The public's views need to be officially heard, and planners should begin working with all deliberate speed. Otherwise the city is not going to get what it really deserves — a magnificently reported and masterfully* coordinated Paper of Record that includes all the vibrant cultures that make up our city.Mr. Salzberger, who inherited the enormous journalistic apparatus despite his lack of experience, apparently feels that he and his editors will be the leading voices in deciding how it should be run. Technically, as he owns the paper, he has a legal right to decide what should be put on its pages. But whatever he decides to do there will have a big impact on the entire intellectual community. While Mr. Salzberger promises "all the news that's fit to print", his ultimate goal should be a newspaper that fits into a spectacular new plan for truthful and timeley news coverage in the City.
The New York City Committee for Fairness and Accuracy in Media is in the process of setting up advisory committees on what to do with the paper. These panels should immediately begin providing forums for the many passionate voices concerned about the paper's future. Rudy Giuliani, the Committee chairman, is going to have to figure out how to give these many views their rightful due, while still coming up with an inspiring and unified proposal for the news coverage and editorial pages.
The sudden appearance of an array of conservative politicians on the advisory panels is worrisome. Too many political egos could produce a collective mush that pleases no one: our watchword should be "Remember Time Magazine". Actually, that's three watchwords. But certainly good ones to have, if you're going to have more than one. As I was saying. Great reporting requires a great editor and a great publisher. When the public is the client, it is too easy to wind up with little more than a tabloid. Mr. Giuliani's committee has the difficult task of making certain these public figures are heard but that the final plan is also a model of innovative reporting and scrupulous attention to facts.
While the committees are thinking, the readers that valiantly stayed with the paper after Mr. Salzberger's ascendance are still having to cope with the problems that come from selective reporting of facts and slanted, editorial style news columns. Unlike the editorial page, which few take seriously, these sections of the paper must be replaced right away. The Committeee should step in quickly to determine whether to restore the old center-left slant or institute a bipartisan editorial board that will ensure that labelling of people, groups or positions is distributed evenly, and both sides are heard. The Committee must find out how much it would cost to institute an objective regime at the paper, and whether it is necessary, considering the counterweight provided by the New York Post and Wall Street Journal. We should view this as a grand opportunity to provide New Yorkers with the full spectrum of ideas available in the marketplace, and determine where the New York Times will fit in this scheme. There are now numerous media proposals drifting around the city, some temporary and modest, others elaborate ones that advocates have been dreaming about for years.
Somewhere in the middle is a solid plan from the non-partisan Weblog Community that makes it possible to restore the area's news coverage in stages. Smarter Times has already begun its critique of the editorial pages, with a full-blown alternative to the Times expected within the year. Later the bloggers could construct a virtual neural network stretching leftward from the Libertarian Samizdata and Front Page Magazine across InstaPundit to a Chomsky conspiracy theoristt somewhere to the left of Tom Tomorrow. This plan would try to replace the tangle of muddled ideas and steep slant to the left with a more workable policy hub somewhere around Ken Layne. The motto, of course, will be "We've fact checked your ass!"
Mr. Giuliani's group needs to juggle many tasks at the same time — the editorial staff must be reamed out and fired, new reporters must be found, Mr. Salzberger must be brought into the fuller picture and the public must be allowed to have its say before it is too late. The outcome should be a living monument to the vibrancy of the city, a whole media plan far more powerful than the sum of its many parts.
*Ed. note: I tried to keep it as close as possible to the original. But my inner editor will not allow "Masterly" to stand in for "Masterfully". From what clown college is the Times now recruiting copyeditors who don't know an adjective from an adverb?
February 1, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:Tee-hee! Midwest Conservative Journal brings
Tee-hee! Midwest Conservative Journal brings us the news that those wily Rhodesians have unseated the Elders of Zion for control of the World Media. He doesn't indicate whether the Zionists still have control of the world's banks, but I suspect that we may soon hear some news from the crafty and shrewd people of Paraguay on that front.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Notes and Asides Incidentally, thanks
Notes and Asides
Incidentally, thanks a million to my contributors, whoever you are. I now estimate that I am being paid for this blog at almost a tenth of the hourly rate of those Bangladeshi garment workers the Planet Protest yobs are here to scream about. Which is only fair, since I can't sew.On a totally unrelated note, most of my archives seem to have disappeared from the archive box, although they're still on the server. Does anyone know what will happen if I hit the "Republish All" button in the Archive section of Blogger Pro?
Which reminds me that if you haven't signed up for Blogger Pro, you should if you can possibly afford to. If you want to help establish new paradigms for the Information Society, you're going to have to do the right thing on the money side. Otherwise we'll all have to go back to using vast networks of high-speed carrier pigeons, and the pigeons will probably be unionized federal workers, and then where will we be? Also, if you sign up now, you get a discount. $35 dollars is less than the cost of dinner and a movie for two at the local mall. And you don't have to eat Olive Garden Linguini Nondescripta.
And don't forget to buy someone's Blogger Ad for President's Day. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Exhortations are over. We will now return to our regularly scheduled deprogramming.
From the desk of Jane Galt:Disney has just announced that
Disney has just announced that it will no longer buy consulting services from the company that audits its books.
What a spectacular illustration of the power of the market. No regulators needed to intervene; just a pre-emptive strike to maintain trust in the accounting. (I've analyzed Disney's financial statements for a class -- they need the help.) I have a feeling that we will see, over the next year, companies taking a hit if they don't separate their auditors from their consultants. So audit services, rather than a loss leader, will actually be a detriment to the consulting side. I think we can fully expect to see the audit firms spinning off their consulting arms soon.
Now, longtime readers know that I think that auditors would still have conflicts of interest even absent the lucrative consulting business. But it's a start.
From the desk of Jane Galt:VIA INSTAPUNDIT COMES THIS article
VIA INSTAPUNDIT COMES THIS article on a handful of Mount Holyoke students demanding the right to carry guns. I find this interesting because my sister was the only social conservative on the Wellesly campus during her tenure there. So a Second Amendment Sisters chapter with 50 members at Mount Holyoke seems to represent something of a sea change in the women's colleges.
I have to say I'm a little disturbed, though, to hear that SAS is opposing mandatory firearms training for those carrying guns. The reason that we force people who drive cars to have licenses showing that they actually know how to operate the thing is that untrained operation has huge negative externalities (an economist's term for the costs that one imposes on others through one's actions). Even more so with a gun, where a user who doesn't, for example, know that the gun is likely to kick upwards and to the right when fired, probably won't kill himself, but quite possibly will kill someone else who isn't a legitimate target. Finding ways to minimize negative externalities is a legitimate focus of government. The right to bear arms does not imply the right to irresponsibly discharge them where others might be hurt.
Reasonable gun rights activists (and yes, I know that I am arbitrarily defining reasonable to measure a degree of agreement with my own views; nonetheless:) do not want to loose hordes of people who don't know how to load, clean, or operate their guns on the public. They want shall-issue laws, but that doesn't preclude making sure that the person who has this intensely destructive machine knows how to operate and maintain it. In my opinion it doesn't even preclude cops from being able to check that you are keeping the gun you are carrying cleaned, oiled, and otherwise well maintained, to minimize dangerous accidents. It does not mean that the blind or senile should be allowed to carry a weapon, any more than blind people can be allowed to drive a car, because it's insanely dangerous for others, and you can be sure that some idiot will do it anyway unless you threaten them. Again, in this case a gun is even worse than a car, because a blind person driving probably won't make it out of their driveway, but a blind person with a gun can easily carry it to somewhere it can do serious harm.
Yes, forcing people to get training before they can get a gun will delay them. The same can be said for getting a car, which someone might desperately need on an emergency basis to get to work. And I feel for women who are being stalked and are afraid, but bad cases make bad laws. I think the answer is rather to encourage gun training early, so that a woman who needs a gun can get one any time. I'm sure the libertarians will lacerate me. But just as the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to shoud "Fire!" in a crowded theater, the right to bear arms does not exist in a vacuum. Any regulation of the right should be soberly considered, minimized, and well reasoned. Note that I don't care whether someone is getting a handgun or a howitzer, as long as they maintain it and know how to safely operate the thing. But while I fully support the right of well meaning idiots to seal their own doom, I cannot extend that right to their neighbors.
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Game Boy Theory
Speaking of Game Theory, do you suppose Microsoft considered this possibility when they released the X-Box?
Sony said Wednesday that it would start selling Linux operating system kits for Linux programmers in coming months to allow Linux applications to run on its PlayStation 2 game console.
The consumer electronics giant said it would begin selling disks to install Linux on PlayStation 2 and tools to develop Linux applications.The kits will go on sale in Japan in May and in the United Sates (sic) and Europe in June.
update: Sophie's Mama sends these along to show how late I am with this observation:
From the desk of Jane Galt:Why is everyone so vehement
Why is everyone so vehement about Janet Reno? The things they make fun of her for often aren't things she can help. It's not her fault that she looks like a man, or has a gravelly voice, or isn't particularly poised or charming. I'm sure there are good arguments for hating her; it's just that I never seem to hear actual arguments, only nasty remarks about her hair. I felt bad for her when she passed out -- I'm blessed with something called Benign Positional Vertigo that has caused me to black out temporarily in public, and it's extremely traumatic. Not to mention utterly humiliating. As those of us on the conservative side of the spectrum were repelled when people on the other side expressed a wish that Bush had actually choked to death on the pretzel, so we should confine our bad wishes to Janet Reno to her political death, rather than a physical one. I really, really, really don't want to see her as governor of Florida -- but thank God there's no danger of that. So I can wish her a long and happy life in the private sphere.
From the desk of Jane Galt:If English Majors Did Your
If English Majors Did Your Books
They'd probably come up with something about like this hilarious post-modern accounting blather from Instapundit.Hey, wait a minute. . . I was an English major. And there seems to be a demand for these kinds of services. . .