August 08, 2008

Politics in the American Midwest

Ari Kelman reports from the Heartland:

Straight talk. My friends: Having just spent more than a month in Northeast Ohio, I can tell you anecdatally that the economy is THE story there. In my parents’ reasonably nice, middle-class suburb, every third house is on the block (4 bdr/2.5 bath — $159,000!). And the local paper, The Plain Dealer, in addition to running front-page articles about rising food prices, is filled with heartrending human-interest stories about struggling Clevelanders facing hard times. All of that said, I’m not sure that I’d describe the people with whom I spent time as “bitter.” But they’re pretty anxious. Which is likely the right context in which to run an ad like [this].... To be honest, I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a more devastating political attack that’s also true. “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” is probably also a contender:

<

Buce Talks About the Luckiest Horse in the Fifth Millennium BCE

From Underbelly:

Underbelly: The Luckiest Horse in the Fifth Millennium BCE: The subject for the day is the domestication of the horse, where and when and how and why, as recounted by David W. Anthony in his fascinating and absorbing new book, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2008)—and also a salute to the luckiest horse.in the Fifth Millennium BCE.

Per Anthony, the date is about 4800 BCE; the place is in what he chooses to call “the Pontic-Caspian steppes,” just above the Caspian Sea. The “why” is interesting: apparently not for riding, but for food—horses were big and meaty and could live over the winter in cold climates (riding came later).

AS to “how,” the flip answer is “it wasn’t easy,” which is not surprising when you stop to think of it: horses—or, more precisely, stallions—are a notoriously tricky lot and they wouldn’t take kindly to being stabled or hobbled or slapped into harness.

But as to precisely how, the DNA evidence provides a remarkable clue. Per Anthony:

the female bloodline of modern domesticated horses shows extreme diversity. Traits inherited through the mitochondrial DNA, which passes unchanged from mother to daughter, show that this part of the bloodline is so diverse that at least seventy-seven ancestral mares, grouped into seventeen phlogenetic branches, are required to account for the genetic variety in modern populations around the globe. Wild mares must have been taken into domestic horse herds in many different places at different times. (196)

So much for the ladies. What of the gents? Anthony continues:

Meanwhle the male aspect of modern horse DNA, which is passed unchanged on the Y chromosome from sire to colt, shows remarkable homogeneity. It is possible that just a single wild stallion was domesticated. (Id.)

Got the picture yet? “The standard feral horse band,” explains Anthony, “consists of a stallion with a harem of two to seven mares and their immature offspring.”

Mares are…instinctively disposed to accept the dominance of others, whether dominant mares, stallions—or humans. Stallions are headstrong and violent, and are instinctively disposed to challenge authority by biting and kicking. … [A] relatively docile and controllable stallion was an unusual individual—and one that had little hope of reproducing in the wild. Horse domestication might have depended on a lucky coincidence: the appearance of a relatively manageable and docile male in a place where humans could use him as a breeder of a domesticated bloodline. From the horse’s perspective, humans were the only way he could get a girl. From the human perspective, he was the only sire they wanted.

So here’s to you, Mr. Lucky, the granddaddy of them all.

Afterthought: Anthony’s book is a rewarding read but it’s hard to figure out just who is his target audience. He seems to have written at least three books here—the horse, the wheel, and language—or maybe six—one set each for specialists and non-specialists. The nonspecialist (that would be me) will get a lot out of it, but he’ll find himself skipping a lot of the detail. The specialist—well, my impression is that nothing is ever settled in archaeology, so I suspect there are plenty of specialists ready to prove to me that he’s full of something horsey.

Progress is Non-Linear

John Gordon:

Gordon's Notes: Progress is non-linear: Palm vs. iPhone Address Book: My iPhone Address book, with about 400 entries, is pretty darned slow.... The Address Book is very slow to launch (4 secs on my phone), but Google Mobile search also searches the Address Book -- and it's fast.... My Palm address book, with about 600 entries, launches instantly. There's no perceptible delay. Time to select an address on the Palm? Maybe 1-2 sec. On the iPhone? Maybe 6-7 seconds. (Faster if you use Google Mobile.) The iPhone has, of course, at least fifty times the processor speed and more than 1,600 times the memory capacity of the original Palm.

The Palm had essentially instantaneous responsiveness from day one. It was one of the design goals of the original team. The Palm was to have instant on, no user waiting for a system response, and no crashes. Incredibly, the original Palm team met those goals. Later... well, that's a sadder story.

Apple will one day fix the iPhone Address Book problems. Heck, Google Mobile already has. It is a good example, however, of the random walk aspect of progress. The iPhone does a lot that the Palm never could, but the original Palm did a lot of things well that the modern iPhone does poorly or not at all. Technological progress is squirrelly.

Henry Farrell on the Latest in Conspiracy Theories

The expertise of Crooked Timber is indeed awesome. Henry Farrell:

Straightforward answers to unnecessarily complicated questions, number whatever the hell it is now — Crooked Timber: I’ve been too caught up in a genuine academic debate over UFOs and sovereignty over at the Monkey Cage to respond to this quasi-related query from Kevin Drum:

Question: According to a poll done to publicize the new X-Files movie, the #1 conspiracy theory (in Britain, anyway) is the belief that Area 51 exists to investigate aliens. … But down at #10, we get this: “The world is run by dinosaur-like reptiles.” What the hell kind of conspiracy theory is that? Dick Cheney doesn’t look anything like a dinosaur.

Answer: It’s a conspiracy theory in which Dick Cheney is a shape-shifting dinosaur-like reptile, that’s what. A shape-shifting dinosaur like reptile who hunts people down for kicks in secret federal compounds, to boot. Crooked Timber surely represents the greatest concentration of expertise on this particular set of claims in the respectable blogosphere – see here, here, and here for more, and this article, by the mysterious “jsm,” for a fuller briefing on the David Icke phenomenon. Indeed one of our occasional contributors has actually been identified by Icke as a key member of the international lizardoid conspiracy. Since Icke came out as an actual anti-Semite, I think that our collective researches have ceased. Maybe, given the continued popularity of the theory, we need to start looking at this stuff again...

More Robert Bork Snark

James Boyle:

A Process of Denial: Bork and Postmodern Conservatism by James Boyle: The better known variant of originalism, and the one that Mr. Bork first adopted and held as recently as 1986, was the philosophy of original intent.The Constitution means what the Framers (or perhaps the Framers and ratifiers) meant it to.... Mr. Bork chose to shift his ground somewhat. In The Tempting of America he argues that the understanding of the public at the time the Constitution was ratified, rather than the intent of its original authors, should determine its meaning. There is obviously a price to pay for making this change.... This problem is a particularly acute one for Mr. Bork. Throughout The Tempting Of America he explicitly connects his struggles to those going on within other disciplines... [that] have rejected the idea that the text can only be read to mean what the author intended.... These other methods are referred to collectively (and a little pretentiously) as "the reader's revolution against the author." They represent everything that Mr. Bork finds most reprehensible in today's scholarship.... But the trouble with Mr. Bork's revamped and sophisticated version of originalism is that it can no longer appeal to the romantic idea that the imperial will of the author must govern the text... he has handed over interpretive competence to the historically located readers of the constitution.... Mr. Bork has joined the reader's revolution.

As I pointed out before, this switch is a costly one for Mr. Bork. To the initial cost of having been seen to adopt the very same methodology so often criticised by conservatives in other academic disciplines, one also has to add the cost of having been seen to change from one dogmatically asserted position to another. Mr. Bork obviously feels this one particularly strongly because he denies having done it. Though he described himself during the hearings as "a judge with an original intent philosophy" and argued in print that "original intent is the only legitimate basis for constitutional decision-making", he says in The Tempting of America that "[n]o even moderately sophisticated originalist" believes the Constitution should be governed by "the subjective intent of the Framers."...

The most interesting example of Mr. Bork's scholarly method is the point in The Tempting of America he takes sections from his 1986 article The Constitution, Original Intent, and Economic Rights which, as one might suspect from the title, defends original intent, and uses those sections to defend original understanding. At first glance, it appears that he does this by finding the words "original intent" wherever they appear in the article, and simply replacing them by "original understanding." Chunks of text which had reproved Paul Brest with failing to understand that the original intent determines the meaning of the 14th Amendment, are edited, expanded upon, a new philosophy of interpretation inserted. With a quick change of key words they can become reproofs to Paul Brest for failing to understand that original understanding determines the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Even the same counterarguments can be pressed into service. In 1986 for example, "[t]here is one objection to intentionalism that is particularly tiresome. Whenever I speak on the subject someone invariably asks: "But why should we be ruled by men long dead?" In 1990, Mr. Bork finds that "[q]uite often, when I speak at a law school on the necessity of adhering to the original understanding, a student will ask, "But why should we be ruled by men who are long dead." In the era of the word processor, this kind of "search and replace" jurisprudence has its attractions. Still, both the interpretive criteria and the identity of the `dead men' has changed, and Mr. Bork seems uneasy with that fact.

The closest Mr. Bork comes to admitting a prior attachment to intentionalism, is that point at which he confesses having previously "written of the understanding of the ratifiers of the Constitution". Actually, he wrote of the intentions of the ratifiers, and a more characteristic statement from his earlier self would be "I wish to demonstrate that original intent is the only legitimate basis for constitutional decision-making." This seems definite enough, but the new Mr. Bork does not like it. Having de-emphasised intention, and converted Framers to ratifiers, he then claims that he was merely using "a shorthand formulation, because what the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting must be taken to be what the public of that time would have understood the words to mean." Of course, according to his new theory, what Mr. Bork meant by his "shorthand terms" is irrelevant, the important thing is what he would be understood to mean when he said "original intent." Perhaps he feels his new method should not apply here...

August 07, 2008

What "Pro-Choice" Means

A bunch of messages in my email box criticize Democratic politicians who say they want abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare."

Amanda Marcotte takes them to school. Here she schools Amy Sullivan:

Pandagon :: Gah :: February :: 2008:

Interviewer: You're pro-choice. Does that interfere with being an evangelical?

Amy Sullivan: Well, I don't like the [pro-choice] label. I guess the reason I wrote about abortion the way I did in the book is because I have serious moral concerns about abortion, but I don't believe that it should be illegal. And that puts me in the vast majority of Americans. But unfortunately, there's no label for us.

Yes, there is. If you think abortion and other forms of contraceptive birth control should be legal--i.e. that women should have the legal right to decide when they have children--you are pro-choice.

Reading the Atlantic for the Thrill of Reading "Conversion Porn": Hoisted from Comments

The departure of Matthew Yglesias from the Atlantic means that the incoming Ta-Nehisi Coates will have to leap tall buildings in a single bound in order to keep the Atlantic from tilting from center-right to solid right. (I hope he can: but I fear he can only leap tall buildings in a couple of bounds.)

With the exceptions of Fallows (who is center-left) and Crook (who is center-right), the others' names just don't evoke the "this is a really smart and thoughtful person from whom I will probably learn something" needed to command first-string attention. Yet there is a certain fascination there.

In comments, Count Cant puts his finger on a piece of it:

Hoisted from Comments on "A Proposed Pecking Order for Honest Conservatives": A couple of points about Andy Sullivan:

  1. I read him frequently
  2. he has improved, and perhaps enough to be counted an Honest Conservative
  3. but he is a lagging Truth-Teller, not a leading Truth-Teller. He eventually gets to the truth, but only after a year or two of sliming, denouncing, and ridiculing the leading Truth-Tellers
  4. so my main motivation for reading him is that disreputable pleasure known as Conversion Porn...

Substantially Out of Touch

If there were a Kindle edition, I would have already bought and read Ron Suskind's new The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. I am sure that it is excellent.

But there isn't...

More on the U6 unemployment rate and "Recession"

William Polley writes:

William J. Polley: August 2008 Archives: I share [DeLong's] unhappiness with the conventional unemployment rate. It's a rough guide at best. And while I do think that U-6 is a useful indicator, what DeLong doesn't point out is that even today U-6 is a good point-and-a-half below where it was in 1994 (earliest year for which data is available in that series). That was a couple years after the end of a historically shallow recession (granted, it was still a period of labor market weakness).

So yes, some aspects of the economic situation are about as bad as during and shortly after the 2001 recession. Some are worse, and some are not as bad. When you consider the fact that the weakness in manufacturing is part of a longer term structural change, it looks less like a traditional recession even though it may soon (if not already) meet the NBER business cycle dating committee's criteria. If you're in some (though not all) types of manufacturing, this has been one long recession for a decade....

But there is a silver lining. First, the average seasonally adjusted mean duration of unemployment dropped from 17.5 to 17.1 weeks. Next, and I think this is a crucial point, the percentage of the unemployed who are reentrants or new entrants to the labor market both increased. In fact, since March, the percentage of the unemployed who are job losers dropped from 53.7% to 50.2%.... [T]his is a pretty noisy signal over the time horizon of a few months to a year.... However, it is something that bears watching....

But the U-6 number is bad news any way you slice it. So yet again we are left longing for more information. The economy remains at a critical point--teetering on the edge of a recession. Maybe in one. Maybe pulling out of one. I do have a feeling that if a recession is declared, it will not be declared until we are actually out of it. Perhaps we already are. But the labor market weakness lasts a couple years after the "official" end of a recession, so keep that in mind going forward.

I think that the question of what happened in the early 1990s--whether it is best viewed as a short and shallow recession followed by a "jobless recovery" or as something significantly worse--is contested. I'm not sure which side I come down on in that debate--I change my mind from week to week. But the fact that U6 was high in 1994 is not an argument that U6 is not an important and useful indicator, IMHO at least.

It seems to me that we are groping toward a language in which we have four business-cycle phases, which may or may not occur in any particular business cycle:

  • Expansion--output levels growing strongly, unemployment rates falling, capacity utilization rising.
  • Late expansion--measures of capacity utilization near previous peaks and measures of unemployment rates near previous troughs, output levels growing but not exceptionally strongly.
  • Jobless recovery--measures of capacity utilization near or below previous troughs and measures of unemployment rates near or above previous peaks, output levels growing but not strongly.
  • Recession--output stable or falling, measures of capacity utilization falling swiftly and measures of unemployment rates rising swiftly.

Does this make for a coherent and useful langauge for talking about fluctuations? I don't think so. What would a better language be? I don't know.


UPDATE: A very well-informed correspondent writes in:

  • Sorry to bug you again, but... The Business Cycle Dating Committee has a real problem. A recession has always involved a substantial decline in real economic activity. The committee has always used monthly indicated so as to designate peak and trough months, and because quarterly GDP gets revised so much so frequently. At the Stanford workshop, I asked Bob Hall if the committee would call a recession without a decline in GDP, and he said, "Of course not." This is a serious slowdown but I don't think it's a recession.

More Bad Unemployment News

Yet more bad unemployment news. The headline unemployment rate ought to be higher and rising faster, given what other labor market indicators are saying:

Jobless Claims Hit Highest Point in Six Years: The Labor Department reported Thursday that new applications filed for unemployment insurance rose by a seasonally adjusted 7,000 to 455,000 for the week ending Aug. 2. The increase left claims at their highest level since late March 2002.... The latest snapshot of layoff filings was worse than analysts expected. They were forecasting new claims to drop to around 430,000.... Meanwhile, the four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, rose to 419,500 last week, the highest since mid-July 2003. The number of people continuing to collect unemployment benefits went up by 31,000 to 3.3 million for the week ending July 26, the most recent period for which that information is available. That was the highest since early December 2003...

Transnistria...

"Sometimes it is hard to get solid news about Transnistria"? It is always hard to get solid news about Transnistria. But now I have heard of it three times in the past week--the only times I have heard about it in the past two years, first in a Walter Jon Williams story about human photosynthesis, then in a lunch conversation over the state of eastern Europe, and now Doug Muir:

Transnistria: underwater?: It’s sometimes hard to get solid news about Transnistria. No international news agencies report regularly from there, and it doesn’t have a good English-language site. News stories about the breakaway state tend to come out of Russia, Moldova or Ukraine, often in the local languages. So it’s not clear what impact the recent flooding is having there.... Since Transnistria is basically a thin sliver of low-lying land along the bank of the Dniester river, you would expect they’d have problems, but it’s not easy to find out what’s going on....

Meanwhile, Itar-Tass reports that Ukraine has decided to release a huge amount of water through their Novodnestrovsky hydroelectric dam. If this happens, Transnistria might have to evacuate about 50,000 people — roughly 10% of its population. That should be interesting.

I mentioned there are no good English-language sites for Transnistria. But there are several bad ones, most notably the Tiraspol Times and the Deciphering Transnistria “blog”.... [T]hey’re bogus in interestingly different ways. The Tiraspol Times is more classically Soviet, with lots of headlines like “To Transnistria’s plan of peace, Moldova responds with plan of war”. The Deciphering blog is more vaguely lefty anti-globalist why-can’t-we-all-be-friends-ish. They’re both drawing from the same well, but they’re using different buckets. I mention this because the Tiraspol Times has, so far, completely ignored the floods — 10% of the country’s population may be displaced, but their headline today is about how Moldova is destroying press freedoms — while Deciphering has an angry article about how the whole thing is Ukraine’s fault...

Slip-and-Fall

I missed this. From Lindsey Beyerstein:

Majikthise : Bork settles lawsuit over fall at Yale Club:

NEW YORK - One-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork settled a $1 million lawsuit Friday against the Yale Club after he fell stepping onto a platform to speak. His lawyer, Randy Mastro, said terms of the deal were confidential and he had no comment. Bork, 81, sued in Manhattan federal court last year, saying he injured himself so badly at the June 2006 event sponsored by the New Criterion magazine that he needed surgery and was left with a limp. He faulted the club for not having stairs or a handrail leading up to the platform.

Lawyers for the New York City chapter blamed Bork, saying any injuries he sustained were at least partially his fault for not recognizing potential risks, which the club said were "open, obvious and apparent." [AP]

Conservative icon Robert H. Bork settled his lawsuit over injuries he sustained when he fell off the platform at the Yale Club. Because tort reform is for the little people.... 

I shot an event at the Yale Club a couple months ago. I didn't see any obvious platform hazards in our room, but you never know.

There were always two modes of tort reformers. There were people who said relying on tort lawsuits to assess liability a lousy system because it (a) provides screwy incentives and (b) gives out semi-random lottery wins to a few. And there were people who said that filing a tort lawsuit was an act of theft and piracy. Bork was always in the second camp.

If somebody in the first camp wants to file a slip-and-fall lawsuit, I say fine: the fact that they think the system is bad from a utilitarian perspective doesn't make it in any sense immoral for them to exercise their rights under it. People in the second camp--like Robert Bork--are a different kettle of fish entirely. If they truly believe tort lawsuits are bad because they are acts of piracy and theft, then Robert Bork is a self-confessed pirate and thief...

August 06, 2008

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?

"Squeaks," I thought, refers to a one or two percentage-point lead. Not according to CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin:

Obama squeaks by McCain in polls - CNN.com: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The race between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama is extremely tight, according to the latest CNN "Poll of Polls." Just five points separate the two candidates -- Obama's 48 percent to McCain's 43 percent, with 9 percent undecided.... A CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll of 1,041 adults conducted on July 27-29... a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points...

Meanwhile, on the Campaign Trail

From AP:

Obama pokes at McCain over tire - pressure issue: ELKHART, Ind. (AP) -- Barack Obama taunted Republican presidential rival John McCain on Wednesday for first ridiculing him for advising voters to keep tires inflated and then later acknowledging that the practice saves gasoline. ''It will be interesting to watch this debate between John McCain and John McCain,'' Obama said.... Discussing the air-pressure issue during an appearance Tuesday night, McCain said he wasn't opposed to Obama's suggestion. ''And could I mention that Senator Obama a couple of days ago said that we ought to all inflate our tires, and I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it, but I also don't think that that's a way to become energy independent.''

Obama had noted that keeping tires inflated and cars tuned was endorsed by both NASCAR and AAA and should be part of any comprehensive plan to reduce reliance on imported oil. In mocking Obama, McCain told a motorcycle rally in Sturgis, S.D.: ''My opponent doesn't want to drill, he doesn't want nuclear power, he wants you to inflate your tires.'' The Republican National Committee widely distributed tire pressure gauges labeled ''Obama energy plan'' and suggested that was the Illinois senator's only idea for reducing oil imports, although both candidates have offered multifaceted energy proposals....

Obama campaigned in Indiana as his campaign released a new television ad that seeks to link McCain to President Bush.... Obama also questioned McCain's claim to being a maverick. While the Arizona senator has broken with his party on many issues in the past, he ''reversed himself on position after position'' to secure his party's nomination, Obama asserted. ''That doesn't meet my definition of a maverick.'' McCain's campaign ''ran an ad saying Washington is broken. No kidding. It took him 26 years to figure it out,'' Obama said.

Cleaning Up the Drafts File: Gillian Tett on Super-Senior Losses

I am sure that Gillian Tett is a happier and a wealthier woman in her new post at the FT in which I see her byline so much less. But I mourn:

-senior losses just a misplaced bet on carry trade: By Gillian Tett: Earlier this week, I asked a senior executive of one of the world's most troubled investment banks when he had first grasped the meaning of the phrase "super-senior". Sheepishly, he admitted that the moment was last August. It is a telling admission. As the credit turmoil rumbles on, the largest investment banks are continuing to make writedowns on an ever more eye-popping scale. One example is UBS, which has admitted it is now likely to have incurred more than $35bn losses from the credit crunch - in a matter of months. But as the zeros mount up, what is still baffling - at least to anyone who is not a banker - is how these institutions could lose quite so much quite so fast. Sure, we know that subprime is at the heart of these woes. But how exactly does a bank, such as UBS, conjure up losses larger than the gross domestic product of many countries - especially when, last summer, it seemed to be on track for another strong year of profits?...

It is clear that a key culprit was the issue of super-senior - and more specifically, what senior management did (or did not) know about this asset before last August.... The concept of super-senior debt was essentially invented by creative bankers about four years ago to refer to the chunk of debt that sits at the very top of the capital structure of a collateralised debt obligation. It is the bit that gets paid off first.... In theory, it makes this debt super-safe; indeed, so secure that rating agencies have been happy to give super-senior CDO debt a triple-A tag, irrespective of what lay inside the CDO.

When I first heard about this asset class a couple of years ago I initially assumed this stuff might appeal to risk-averse institutions such as pension funds. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, key buyers for super-senior in recent years have been banks such as Merrill Lynch and UBS. Most notably, as these banks have pumped out CDOs, they have been selling the other tranches of debt to outside investors - while retaining the super-senior piece on their books. Sometimes they did this simply to keep the CDO machine running. But there was another, far more important, incentive: regulatory arbitrage.

Most notably, because super-senior debt carried the triple-A tag, banks were only required to post a wafer-thin sliver of capital against these assets - even though this debt has typically offered a spread of about 10 basis points over risk-free funds. Thus, banks such as UBS and Merrill have been cramming their books with tens of billions of super-senior debt - and then booking the spread as a seemingly never-ending source of easy profit. It is not just the CDO desks that have been playing this game; treasury departments have been playing along. So have many hedge funds, including those financed by . . . er . . . the major investment banks.

But, last August it became clear why this 10bp spread existed: namely, because these assets are not as liquid as government bonds in a crisis. Indeed, the prices of some tranches of debt have fallen by 30 per cent in recent months, to the shock of senior managers. Hence these sudden, gobsmacking writedowns at places such as UBS, where the CDO desk alone produced over $15bn of losses, mostly super-senior linked. So there you have it: in the last resort, a key reason for these record-beating losses is not a failure of ultra-complex financial strategies or esoteric models; instead it arose from a humongous, misplaced bet on a carry trade that was so simple that even a first-year economics student (or Financial Times journalist) could understand it. It is a shocking failure of common sense and risk management. So the moral, in a sense, is also a simple one: if someone offers you seemingly free money, in seemingly infinite quantities, with a soothing new name, you really ought to smell a rat. Even - or especially - if you are in the position of running a supposedly sophisticated investment bank.

To put it another way, the market did not believe that these bonds were AAA--but those who originated them were able to convince their own employers that they were triple AAA, and nobody sufficiently high up at UBS or ML or Citi ever asked the American question: "If these securities are so safe, why are they paying ten extra basis points?"

Washington Post Death Spiral Watch (David Ignatius Blast from the Past Edition)

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Here is a golden oldie worth reprinting. At Salon, Boehlert watches Ignatius say that it was journalists' "professionalism" that led them to be lapdogs for Bush. And he responds appropriately:

Salon.com News | Lapdogs: Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, looking back on the press's failings with regards to Iraq, suggested, "The media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own."

Little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats? In a sense, Ignatius was right and for Post readers that statement may have had a ring of truth to it simply because the Post seemed to do such a masterful job of ignoring prewar criticism from prominent Democrats, like party stalwart Senator Ted Kennedy. In September 2002 he made a passionate, provocative, and newsworthy speech raising all sorts of doubts about the war. It garnered exactly one sentence -- thirty-six words total -- of coverage from the Post, which in 2002 printed more than a thousand articles and columns, totaling perhaps 1 million words about Iraq, but only set aside thirty-six words for Kennedy's antiwar cry....

When the Post was not downplaying criticism from Democrats, it was downplaying the warnings from respected foreign policy analysts, and even decorated generals. On October 10, 2002, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, delivered a keynote address at a Washington think tank where he outlined his grave concerns about the Bush administration's war with Iraq. Among the key points made by Zinni, who endorsed Bush during the 2000 campaign and whom Bush then handpicked to serve as the United States' envoy to the Middle East, was that war with Iraq should not be the United States's top priority. "I'm not convinced we need to do this now," said Zinni. "I believe that [Saddam] can be deterred and is containable at this moment." How did the Post play the antiwar speech by one of the administration's own senior officials? It set aside 336 words, which were tucked away on page 16. (One year later Zinni spoke before the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, undressed the administration for its bungled handling of the war, and famously described its misguided preemptive war effort as "a brain fart of an idea." The Washington Post declined to cover those remarks.)...

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Cleaning Out the Drafts File: Back in Law School, Barack Obama Decided He Would Rather Run a Journal than Win a Food Figh

Jodi Kantor of the New York Times selects sock puppets to convey her disapproval of the fact that Barack Obama decided, in his mid twenties, that he would rather run a journal than win a food fight. From January 28, 2007, page A1:

In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice: [Barack Obama] proved deft at navigating an institution scorched with ideological battles... developed a leadership style based more on furthering consensus than on imposing his own ideas... cast himself as an eager listener... giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once... even those close to him did not always know exactly where he stood. It is a tendency that could prove perilous on the campaign trail.... “He then and now is very hard to pin down,” said Kenneth Mack, a classmate and now a professor at the law school, referring to the senator’s on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style. Charles J. Ogletree Jr., another Harvard law professor and a mentor of Mr. Obama, said, “He can enter your space and organize your thoughts without necessarily revealing his own concerns and conflicts.”...

[T]he skills he displayed in law school may not serve him as well in American presidential politics, which sometimes rewards... sound bites... or fidelity to a base of supporters.... The law review is “fairly disconnected from the breadth and the rough and tumble of real politics,” said Bruce Spiva, a former review editor....

Obama was the most prominent minority student on a campus shaken by racial politics.... If he failed to use his office to criticize Harvard, Mr. Obama would anger black and liberal students; by speaking out, he would risk dragging himself and the review into the center of shrill debates. People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words.... According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.... Obama stayed away from the extremes... choosing safe topics for his speeches.... His speeches... were more memorable for style than substance....

Another of Mr. Obama’s techniques relied on his seemingly limitless appetite for hearing the opinions of others.... That could lead to endless debates... as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about... his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.... “The things that make law school politics fractious are different from the things that make American politics fractious,” said Ron Klain, who preceded Mr. Obama at the law review and later served as Vice President Al Gore’s chief of staff.... [Obama's] “is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country”...

Eight out of eight of Obama's law school classmates I have talked to say that this article of Jodi Kantor's is grossly unfair, and unprofessional.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Why Are There Still Republican Economists?

Eric Martin sends us to Clive Crook, who points out why real economists don't let their friends support Republicans anymore.

Eric:

Obsidian Wings: Magically Delicious: Remember, Clive Crook is a conservative-leaning economist:

Clive:

It is worth remembering where the blame for this neutering of fiscal policy lies: squarely with the Bush administration. At the start of this decade, the budget stood in surplus to the tune of 2.4 per cent of GDP. On unchanged policy, this was expected to grow to a surplus of 4.5 per cent of GDP by 2008. This year's actual deficit of 3 per cent of GDP therefore represents a worsening of more than 7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $1,000bn. Almost all of this deterioration is due to policy: to tax cuts, spending increases, and their associated debt-service costs.

That projected surplus was a priceless gift to the White House. It offered the Bush administration ample scope for outlays on homeland security and other unforeseen priorities, and moderate tax cuts as well, all within a budget balanced over the course of the business cycle. Instead, the administration knowingly opted for outrageous fiscal excess - adding insult to injury with its phony tax-cut sunset provisions, designed for no other purpose than to disguise the long-term fiscal implications. Eight years on, this startling record of fiscal irresponsibility has all but taken fiscal policy off the table as an available response to the slowdown.

The US economy had better have luck on its side. Luck is about all it has left.

Eric again:

While this might be true, Obama is awfully skinny, and popular too.  So you can understand the dilemma I'm facing in deciding which candidate to back come November.

More Alden Pyle Blogging...

From Ron Suskind's latest, The Way of the World http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/books/harper-gms/Suskind-ChamberlinExcerpt.pdf:

Wendy Chamberlin spends a day trying to redesign her website. The Middle East Institute has a large educational arm, where anyone off the street can learn the region's languages or get cultural acclimation, and she‟s looking to expand those programs. Online is the way to go.

On this late spring afternoon in 2008, after her assistant has left, she finds herself thinking about the big idea, the way to transmit to the world what she considers true American values—values, she feels, that have been twisted in this era by the plans and prerogatives of official power. Over the past months, she's sketched out this idea or that, some combination of the Marshall Plan and the Peace Corps, but different—tailored, somehow, to what's needed now.

And today, like other days, she keeps coming back to the same moment, something that happened in 2005 that changed her.

On that spring day almost exactly three years ago, her helicopter left at dawn from Khartoum, Sudan—the headquarters, in the mid-1990s, of Osama bin Laden—headed for an enormous refugee camp in Darfur, three hundred miles west.

Chamberlin, then the acting UN High Commissioner for Refugees, had a meeting at the camp with UN officials and representatives of the Sudanese government. Such meetings were always tense. The situation in Darfur was worsening by the day—and it was the kind of crisis she was convinced the world would be seeing more of. The immediate cause was climate change, a rapid rise in temperatures that had turned northern Darfur, the western edge of Sudan that borders Chad, into a wasteland. Most of Sudan's 40 million people were Arabic-speaking Africans, including northern Darfur's African Arab tribes, who were forced by drought to migrate south with their cattle. They began to fight with non-Arab Africans in southern Darfur—a group that had long sought independence—in a conflict that rapidly escalated in 2003, when the Sudanese government began arming northern Darfur's brutal Janjaweed militias. By 2004, as the slaughter—and the displacement of millions—was well under way, Colin Powell called it genocide, “a consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities.”

A year later, Chamberlin arrived at an enormous tent city of fifteen thousand refugees. In the few hours before her meeting with government officials, she realized that the entire refugee camp was run by a twenty-seven-year-old American, a young man just four years out of college.

Among the dizzying problems at hand was the matter of how women who had to leave the refugee camp to collect firewood were being raped and murdered by Janjaweed militants. The young man, who worked for an NGO, Refugees International, had negotiated a tenuous truce with the government so that representatives of the African Union—sort of a mini-UN, representing fifty-three African countries—could accompany the women.

This one kid had to be the liaison to the government, which was hostile—they'd burned all the villages in this region, which had created the camp—while making sure all the food and water actually made it to the people.

In the big tent at midday, the arguments about the attacks on the women raged between Sudanese officials, Chamberlin, and a representative from the UN Human Rights Commission stationed at the camp. The young man was silent.

Afterward, he and Chamberlin stood outside in the 120-degree heat.

“Why didn't you say anything?” she asked.

“If I say anything too strident to the Sudanese officials,” he explained, “they'll just kick me out. They'll declare me persona non grata, and then who will do what I do now?”

“I realized,” Chamberlin recalls, “that the guy from the UN Human Rights Commission, who was fairly ineffectual, had his role: to wave his finger in the faces of the Sudanese about the women or delayed shipments of food and water. You needed someone with a diplomatic presence, who had some protection.

“But it was the kid—this American kid—who was holding it all together.”

Chamberlin remembers standing there, speechless, feeling, she says, the young man's “vulnerability and responsibility. I asked him 'How are you managing this?'”

He didn‟t say anything for a minute, as though no one had ever asked him this.

“I feel responsible for the lives of these people,” he said.

Two years later, sitting in her Washington office, Chamberlin can hear his voice, and see him standing there.

“I'll bet every one of those fifteen thousand people knew that kid, who, without preaching to them or telling them what to do or how to be more like us, was their lifeline. And none of those people he managed to keep alive will ever forget that. They'd met an American.”

Today, as she packs up her briefcase, Wendy Chamberlin—who, like so many other characters in this American drama, simply wants to feel the surge of moral energy again—has her program, her big idea.

“I want to multiply that kid by a thousand, by ten thousand, and give him anything he needs.”

Impeach George W. Bush. Impeach Him Now

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush was told: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S...

He is as good at denying reality now as he was then. Greg Sargent:

TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Bush On Maliki's Endorsement Of 16-Month Timetable: He Didn't Say What He Said: Looks like we have yet another point in common between John McCain and George Bush: Both are responding to Nouri al-Maliki's inconvenient endorsement of Barack Obama's 16-month withdrawal timeline by saying that Maliki didn't really mean it.

From a new interview with the President...

SEOUL, Aug 5 -- President Bush said Monday he sees little distance between himself and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on how to approach troop reductions in Iraq, dismissing the suggestion that Maliki had effectively endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 16 months. "I talk to him all the time, and that's not what I heard," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post aboard Air Force One on the start of a trip to Asia. "I heard a man who wants to work with the United States to come up with a rational way to have the United States withdraw combat troops depending upon conditions on the ground, that's all."

If that sounds familiar, that's because it is. Last month McCain was asked what he would do as president if Maliki persisted in saying what he said, which is that he wants the troops out in around 16 months. McCain's reply: "He won't. He won't. He won't."

Maliki either didn't say what he said, or he didn't mean what he said. Life is so simple sometimes...

Barack Obama Logo

"I now know it is a rising, not a setting, sun" --Benjamin Franklin, 1787

What I Am Doing

    From Brad DeLong

    About Brad DeLong

    Organizational Tools for This Weblog

    Search Brad DeLong's Website

    •  

    If You Are Interested in...

    • Morning Coffee Video and Audiocasts

    Recent Posts

    Recent Comments