As long as I have managed to log onto blogger I thought I ought to throw in a link to this article about the flaws of peer review. http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/. I am, as you know, skeptical of the quality of work that passes as scientific these days and I find that this article fits comfortingly into my way looking at these things.
I really do think that the system of peer review is seriously flawed. I think one of the central ways in which it is flawed is a result of the efforts that universities have made to quantify or make measurable their 'productivity'. The things that universities are intended to produce, like useful knowledge an educated populace and a thriving culture are very easy to observe subjectively but very difficult to observe 'scientifically'. The way that many universities have attempted to solve this problem is by making peer reviewed articles the ultimate measure of accomplishment. The result of this focus is that academic workers are forced to literally spam the journals with endless waves of content in order to attempt to drive up their stats. This flood of papers, most of them of little interest or significance, breaks down the whole system. People do not have the time to read the articles being published because there are so many. Reviewers cannot be overly critical lest their own careers be jeopardized by overly stringent reviewers (a sort of grade inflation one might say). There are so many papers to be reviewed and the people who are supposed to be reviewing them are so busy trying rattle off papers themselves that it is not at all surprising that so much junk flows through the system. Nor is it surprising that it is so difficult for those with truly worthy ideas to be heard amongst all the noise (the whole point of journals in the first place).
What is perhaps more troubling is how this system reflects on the university system as a whole. Just examining the way the journals ideally function raises some serious questions. Researchers, funded by the public, produce papers, supposedly in the interest of public knowledge, which are then reviewed by other researchers, also funded by the public, so that they can then become the property of journals that then charge the public institutions at which these researchers work for access to the very papers they paid to create. Astonishingly enough, it is the very universities, who appear to be exploited by this process, that lend the journals the legitimacy they then turn around and pay for. What particularly bothers me is that, not only are the universities paying journals for doing virtually nothing but they are compromising their fundamental purpose by allowing the products of their researchers to be locked away from the eyes of the public whom they purport to serve.
In the interest of brevity I will close my comments here by praising the people at MIT for their success in recognizing what their institution's fundamental purpose is. The founders of our universities, whose goal it was to promote the growth and dissemination of knowledge and culture, would have embraced the internet as the ideal tool for the job. If the modern leaders of our universities paid anything more than lip service to these ideals they would provide every bit of information that they possibly could to the public through the internet. This is what MIT is doing and I cannot praise them highly enough for their efforts.
Appropriately, I think, I will sign off with a link to a lecture about this very subject on the MITWorld Distributed Intelligence server (I came across it (it is one among several that I have listened to there on related topics) while searching for a different lecture that I thought was particularly relevant to my topic but which I have thus far failed to locate).
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/72/
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
The Decline of Dollar Hegemony
Just came across a link to this speech about Dollar Hegemony (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). It lacks some of the more nuanced and subtle points, but the fact that it was delivered before the house of representatives pleases me. I do recall having read another speech on the same topic by Ron Paul in the past. You may also have seen it.
It is a shame that addressing the halls of congress is now merely a way of having one's sentiment officially entered into the record. If the house of representatives were actually a place of argument and debate something like this might spark a meaningful discussion about a pressing issue facing our nation. As things are, it will only serve as a testament to Mr. Paul's prescience after more serious problems arise.
It is a shame that addressing the halls of congress is now merely a way of having one's sentiment officially entered into the record. If the house of representatives were actually a place of argument and debate something like this might spark a meaningful discussion about a pressing issue facing our nation. As things are, it will only serve as a testament to Mr. Paul's prescience after more serious problems arise.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Jared Diamond and Ishmael
I recently happened across this article on agriculture that Jared Diamond wrote in 1987. Had I seen it earlier I could have avoided wasting several hours reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. It basically says the same thing in a sliver of the space without being as awkwardly heavy-handed and pedantic.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Re: Putting Numbers on Surveillance
I think generally that the amount of tortured logic we've seen from this administration in their legal justifications for a lot of things is fairly astounding. This definition of surveillance is par for the course. Respect for the law is obviously a foreign concept to these folks. It seems more like a game to them. If you want to read a great legal analysis of the NSA flap, a bunch of well-known legal academics and former high-level legal officials have written a very thorough and detailed piece for the New York Book Review.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Promise of Nuclear Energy
For a country that is "addicted to oil", there is surprisingly little discussion of a readily available and potentially safe form of energy: nuclear fission. Concerns about fission have been understandable, namely long-lived, hazardous waste products, the potential for use of nuclear waste in developing weapons for terrorists, and reactor safety.
In the recent article Scientific American: Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste [ ENERGY ], authors Hannum, Marsh, and Stanford detail a combination of new technologies that would essentially obviate these concerns. The approach involves a combination of fast nuclear reactors and pyrometallurgical processing (pyro). Currently, thermal nuclear reactors are typically used. These reactors use only about 5% of potential energy from nuclear fuel and create waste that requires some 10,000 years to decay to safe levels. Furthermore, the plutonium in the used fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons.
In contrast, fast reactors (already in use in Europe) burn a much greater percentage of the uranium/plutonium nuclear fuel, leading to a dramatic reduction in waste products. The real revolution will be pyro processing. A new technology, it involves reprocessing nuclear waste from thermal plants, separating unused nuclear fuel from waste products. The reprocessed fuel can then be used by fast reactors (not usable in the conventional thermal reactor). Unlike current reprocessing strategies, the reprocessed fuel is not suitable for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the waste left over from this process requires only some 500 years to decay to safe levels, a dramatic reduction from current methods. Using this combination of technologies, some 99% of potential energy from nuclear fuel would be used.
In combining pyro with fast reactors, we would effectively have unlimited nuclear energy with minimal generation of waste products. Plutonium trafficking would be markedly reduced due to different processing methods. As far as safety is concerned, there are many ways to ensure a reactor is very safe (as an example, the authors detail building the whole reactor into the ground).
The authors estimate that, if we started now, the first such reactors combining these technologies would come online in 15 years. I am amazed that we haven't heard more discussion of this. I think there is a such a kneejerk negative reaction to the concept of nuclear power that politicians are afraid to approach it. Yet, this technology is already available and needs only to be expanded to a commercial scale.
In the recent article Scientific American: Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste [ ENERGY ], authors Hannum, Marsh, and Stanford detail a combination of new technologies that would essentially obviate these concerns. The approach involves a combination of fast nuclear reactors and pyrometallurgical processing (pyro). Currently, thermal nuclear reactors are typically used. These reactors use only about 5% of potential energy from nuclear fuel and create waste that requires some 10,000 years to decay to safe levels. Furthermore, the plutonium in the used fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons.
In contrast, fast reactors (already in use in Europe) burn a much greater percentage of the uranium/plutonium nuclear fuel, leading to a dramatic reduction in waste products. The real revolution will be pyro processing. A new technology, it involves reprocessing nuclear waste from thermal plants, separating unused nuclear fuel from waste products. The reprocessed fuel can then be used by fast reactors (not usable in the conventional thermal reactor). Unlike current reprocessing strategies, the reprocessed fuel is not suitable for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the waste left over from this process requires only some 500 years to decay to safe levels, a dramatic reduction from current methods. Using this combination of technologies, some 99% of potential energy from nuclear fuel would be used.
In combining pyro with fast reactors, we would effectively have unlimited nuclear energy with minimal generation of waste products. Plutonium trafficking would be markedly reduced due to different processing methods. As far as safety is concerned, there are many ways to ensure a reactor is very safe (as an example, the authors detail building the whole reactor into the ground).
The authors estimate that, if we started now, the first such reactors combining these technologies would come online in 15 years. I am amazed that we haven't heard more discussion of this. I think there is a such a kneejerk negative reaction to the concept of nuclear power that politicians are afraid to approach it. Yet, this technology is already available and needs only to be expanded to a commercial scale.
Putting numbers on surveillance
The Washington Post has an article today that for the first time reveals the extent of the domestic surveillance program initiated by the NSA. In the past four years, some 5000 Americans have had "international" emails or phone calls intercepted. The administration claims that American lives have been saved because of this program, although there is no way to verify this. As it stands now, surveillance of purely domestic phone calls or emails still requires a warrant.
The article also provides some explanation as to why the administration circumvented FISA. Because this program has been of such low yield for information, it would easily be shown to be an unreasonable search given its unreliability. Hence, a violation of the 4th amendment.
In another insidious use of logic, NSA rules define surveillance as only occurring when a human examines surveillance data directly. The NSA is using more and more automated, computerized filtering systems that have the ability to scan large volumes of communications in the hopes of picking up information or patterns that could signal terrorist activity. Yet, only the hits that are actually examined by a human would be considered subject to possible legal protection.
This is a very slippery slope we are on. Intercepting terrorist communications is clearly important, but we can not allow it to come at the expense of speech and privacy. If it does, then the terrorists have already won. There needs to be an informed public debate about this, and it does not require divulging all details of current programs. If the government is listening in on me, I want to know about it.
The article also provides some explanation as to why the administration circumvented FISA. Because this program has been of such low yield for information, it would easily be shown to be an unreasonable search given its unreliability. Hence, a violation of the 4th amendment.
In another insidious use of logic, NSA rules define surveillance as only occurring when a human examines surveillance data directly. The NSA is using more and more automated, computerized filtering systems that have the ability to scan large volumes of communications in the hopes of picking up information or patterns that could signal terrorist activity. Yet, only the hits that are actually examined by a human would be considered subject to possible legal protection.
This is a very slippery slope we are on. Intercepting terrorist communications is clearly important, but we can not allow it to come at the expense of speech and privacy. If it does, then the terrorists have already won. There needs to be an informed public debate about this, and it does not require divulging all details of current programs. If the government is listening in on me, I want to know about it.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Be Careful What You Ask For
So Bill Kristol has been writing pretty consistently for a long time now about how the Bush administration needs to release all of the documents captured from Saddam. According to him these documents will vindicate all of the claims of serious and substantial ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Does Kristol seriously think the administration has not closely inspected the documents for this purpose? And does he think they wouldn't shout it to the world if they found something? Moreover, one wonders whether the administration's reticence to open this up to the public might have something to do with the fact that there is likely stuff in there about the Reagan administration and their serious and substantial ties to Saddam...
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Taxation Without Representation?
This isn't cool. Withholding aid funds from Palestine I can see. But stealing their tax money? That I don't get. The fact that Israel collects Palestine's taxes and has control over what to do with the money argues strongly in favor of direct Palestinian representation in the Israeli government (i.e. the one-state solution). This, of course, is precisely what Sharon (and now Olmert) hoped to avoid through unilateral disengagement. (From the article: "[Olmert] declared that Israel must maintain a Jewish majority by relinquishing control over large parts of the West Bank and establishing clear boundaries...")
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Playing Hardball With India
This is just a follow-up to the previous story about the US pressuring India over Iran. This report goes into a bit more depth on the relationship between the US and India vis a vis this nuclear treaty. Now, of course, Indian leaders are stuck with the problem of trying to look like they weren't cowed by the US if and when they do give in on this issue. I don't understand how this administration has failed to learn, after all this time, that when you want someone to alter their policy you need to leave room for them to change course gracefully. If you present it as a stark choice between the US and the people who voted them into office, they're not going to choose the US...
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Honest Dialogue
I guess it's predictable, but I'm somewhat irked by all of the coverage of the Palestinian elections suggesting that this result somehow signals defeat for the US's policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. I'm critical of the naivete of that policy for other reasons (primarily the fact that staging elections does not, by itself, make for a stable democratic government). But I don't see that criticism at play here. To the extent that we can successfully create democracy in the Middle East, I'm all for it. It's the implementation that I object to, not the objective. This was an exceptionally clean election, and one that signaled the importance of honest governance to the Palestinian people. Fatah symbolized the sort of corrupt and autocratic government that undermines democracy. Palestinians cleaned house on them, and now reports say that they are cleaning out their leadership. Palestine going forward will have two legitimate political parties, both of whom understand the importance of responsive, uncorrupt government to their voters, rather than deeply corrupt single-party rule. This is huge step forward for democracy in Palestine.
Moreover, I'm troubled by the assertion that because parties are elected in Middle Eastern nations that disfavor American policy (not just in Palestine; Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well), this means democracy is bad. I've long thought that the dynamic that the US and Israel have tried to foster in Palestine is absurd. They have rejected talks with Hamas, with Arafat and Fatah, basically with anyone who could legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. Instead they would rather hand-pick a representative for Palestine (Abbas) and speak only with him. Indeed, they would frequently grow upset with Abbas for failing to bring the other Palestinians to heel. But how could he? He had no power over them, no democratic legitimacy. Fatah didn't respect him, Hamas didn't respect him, and I doubt the Palestinian people did either. How could he purport to speak on their behalf? How is it supposed to work that an agent in a negotiation is hand-picked by the adversaries of his principals? Under what theory of agency is this legitimate? It's absurd. Even if Israel had reached an agreement with Abbas, it could hardly have been expected to meaningfully bind the Palestinians.
The US and Israel may not like the actual positions of Palestinians, but they cannot hope to produce progress if they refuse to even address them. The important thing in these various elections is not that the party who favors American policy should win, but that the party who accurately represents the views of the voters should win. It's the voters we need to worry about and be engaged with, not politicians. Engaging in dialogue with politicians is important only to the extent that they are effective representatives of their constituents. If the general populace of the Middle East dislikes American policy, that is not a fact that can be swept under the rug based on models of governance. We have had many US-friendly dictators around the Middle East, and it has not solved our problems. In fact it has made them worse by allowing us to ignore legitimate complaints of the general populace. There needs to be honest dialogue, and that can only happen when there are political leaders who can truly represent the interests of their people. To the extent that elections like the one in Palestine produce that, we are all better off.
Moreover, I'm troubled by the assertion that because parties are elected in Middle Eastern nations that disfavor American policy (not just in Palestine; Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well), this means democracy is bad. I've long thought that the dynamic that the US and Israel have tried to foster in Palestine is absurd. They have rejected talks with Hamas, with Arafat and Fatah, basically with anyone who could legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. Instead they would rather hand-pick a representative for Palestine (Abbas) and speak only with him. Indeed, they would frequently grow upset with Abbas for failing to bring the other Palestinians to heel. But how could he? He had no power over them, no democratic legitimacy. Fatah didn't respect him, Hamas didn't respect him, and I doubt the Palestinian people did either. How could he purport to speak on their behalf? How is it supposed to work that an agent in a negotiation is hand-picked by the adversaries of his principals? Under what theory of agency is this legitimate? It's absurd. Even if Israel had reached an agreement with Abbas, it could hardly have been expected to meaningfully bind the Palestinians.
The US and Israel may not like the actual positions of Palestinians, but they cannot hope to produce progress if they refuse to even address them. The important thing in these various elections is not that the party who favors American policy should win, but that the party who accurately represents the views of the voters should win. It's the voters we need to worry about and be engaged with, not politicians. Engaging in dialogue with politicians is important only to the extent that they are effective representatives of their constituents. If the general populace of the Middle East dislikes American policy, that is not a fact that can be swept under the rug based on models of governance. We have had many US-friendly dictators around the Middle East, and it has not solved our problems. In fact it has made them worse by allowing us to ignore legitimate complaints of the general populace. There needs to be honest dialogue, and that can only happen when there are political leaders who can truly represent the interests of their people. To the extent that elections like the one in Palestine produce that, we are all better off.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Nuclear Politics
India is apparently not very happy with the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear policy. I don't know a whole lot about South Asian politics (and apparently neither does the State Department), but I find this to be interesting. It seems that India and Iran are getting on pretty well. One suspects that China may also want to make friends with Iran, as Iran is in need of friends these days, and China could use some oil partners who aren't too far under the sway of the U.S. Russia has also had good relations with Iran, as they've been the ones setting up the Iranian nuclear program. If these guys are willing to back Iran at the U.N., that's a pretty formidable coalition, one that the U.S. and Europe may have a hard time overcoming. This could be very interesting.
Fatah Down in Flames
Holy crap. I always thought Hamas carried a lot of popular support from Palestinians, but I didn't anticipate this. The political fallout will be fascinating. As I've said in the past, I think this is probably for the best. Once Israel gets past its initial shock and revulsion, there will finally be an opportunity for negotiations with the potential for real results.
Update: The Newshour showed some lengthy clips of a Bush press conference where he discussed the election outcome. I hesitate to use the word "nuance" in the same sentence as President Bush, but I thought he did a good job. He put on pressure regarding the whole 'destruction of Israel' thing, but did not vilify Hamas more than necessary and strongly acknowledged the positive role of functional democracy with real competing parties in Palestine. He acknowledged that Hamas maybe could provide better domestic services and was not as corrupt as Fatah and did not give the impression that Palestinians were evil or stupid to elect them. I think that's about the right position to take. Western nations should continue to apply pressure against some of the more repulsive parts of the Hamas platform. But that should be balanced with an acknowledgment that they are the legitimate government that they have made positive contributions to Palestinian society and can continue to do so. Pressure is good. I think I could even get on board with a policy that there be no aid or negotiations until Hamas drops their charter demand for the destruction of Israel. I would probably draw the line, however, at demands that Hamas permanently renounce violence prior to negotiations. For one, I don't think it would happen. For another, I don't think it is fair unless Israel made the same pledge (which would obviously be problematic as regards their policing power in the occupied territories). Also it's not as if Fatah's renunciation of violence ever meant anything. It's no secret that they had a militant wing that continued to carry out attacks. I would hate to see the peace process derailed by a superficial pissing match of that sort. In any case, so far so good. Now we'll have to wait and see how the leadership structure shakes out for Hamas and how this affects the upcoming Israeli elections...
Update: The Newshour showed some lengthy clips of a Bush press conference where he discussed the election outcome. I hesitate to use the word "nuance" in the same sentence as President Bush, but I thought he did a good job. He put on pressure regarding the whole 'destruction of Israel' thing, but did not vilify Hamas more than necessary and strongly acknowledged the positive role of functional democracy with real competing parties in Palestine. He acknowledged that Hamas maybe could provide better domestic services and was not as corrupt as Fatah and did not give the impression that Palestinians were evil or stupid to elect them. I think that's about the right position to take. Western nations should continue to apply pressure against some of the more repulsive parts of the Hamas platform. But that should be balanced with an acknowledgment that they are the legitimate government that they have made positive contributions to Palestinian society and can continue to do so. Pressure is good. I think I could even get on board with a policy that there be no aid or negotiations until Hamas drops their charter demand for the destruction of Israel. I would probably draw the line, however, at demands that Hamas permanently renounce violence prior to negotiations. For one, I don't think it would happen. For another, I don't think it is fair unless Israel made the same pledge (which would obviously be problematic as regards their policing power in the occupied territories). Also it's not as if Fatah's renunciation of violence ever meant anything. It's no secret that they had a militant wing that continued to carry out attacks. I would hate to see the peace process derailed by a superficial pissing match of that sort. In any case, so far so good. Now we'll have to wait and see how the leadership structure shakes out for Hamas and how this affects the upcoming Israeli elections...
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
The Confirmation Process Confirms the Worst
I have paid some attention to the Alito hearings out of professional interest, and this weekend I tried to take a step back and think about what value the hearings have, if any, for the "weakest branch" and for our political system in general. I think the process does have value, but it is not for the reasons that many people might think at first.
First, it is hard to ignore the observation of Senator Arlen Specter that a nominee will answer only as many questions as he or she thinks is necessary to get confirmed. But is that bad? It should not be surprising to anyone that, when the same party controls the Presidency and the Congress, a nominee will be given more latitude and it is really his or her nomination to lose, rather than a burden to prove that the person reaches toward the mainstream. Even where the confirmation process is friendly, it still provides an opportunity to weed out nominees that have bad temperment or really bad judgment, and I think that is the best we can hope for. Judge Alito has good judgment and good temperment, therefore he will be confirmed.
But, some may say, he is really conservative and is bound to overturn important Supreme Court precedent that protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Well, if that were an important value to most people, and if it is true that Judge Alito would in fact work against these things, then he should never have gotten nominated in the first place. The failure, then, is not the confirmation process but the political process that allowed President Bush to appoint him.
Second, no one should accept for a minute that politics does not matter when it comes to judicial decisionmaking. That is to say, the Constitution was not written in such a way that allows individuals to determine the right answer every time, entirely divorced from value. What does "cruel and unusual" mean in an objective sense? "Unreasonable" searches and seizures? Who gets to decide whether the President is "faithfully" executing the laws, and what standard do you apply to decide that? Political leanings, upbringing, morays--these things will always come into play in deciding legal questions. Judges are humans, and the law (in the sense that we talk of it being decided in courtrooms, anyway) is a human creation.
I guess my overarching point is that liberal democrats should assume the worst as far as Judge Alito's conservative views, but it is a little too late to be worrying about that. The best we can hope for is a judge that is humble and willing to recognize that the law is not black and white, and is willing to take other people's views into account. And nothing I saw in the confirmation process gave me too much cause for concern on that score.
Will Judge Alito vote to overturn, or severely cutback on, Roe? Probably. Will he often find himself in agreement with Scalia and Thomas? Probably. But those things would not make him a bad judge, in my view. What matters most to me is that he does not believe the black robe gives him special access to the truth.
First, it is hard to ignore the observation of Senator Arlen Specter that a nominee will answer only as many questions as he or she thinks is necessary to get confirmed. But is that bad? It should not be surprising to anyone that, when the same party controls the Presidency and the Congress, a nominee will be given more latitude and it is really his or her nomination to lose, rather than a burden to prove that the person reaches toward the mainstream. Even where the confirmation process is friendly, it still provides an opportunity to weed out nominees that have bad temperment or really bad judgment, and I think that is the best we can hope for. Judge Alito has good judgment and good temperment, therefore he will be confirmed.
But, some may say, he is really conservative and is bound to overturn important Supreme Court precedent that protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Well, if that were an important value to most people, and if it is true that Judge Alito would in fact work against these things, then he should never have gotten nominated in the first place. The failure, then, is not the confirmation process but the political process that allowed President Bush to appoint him.
Second, no one should accept for a minute that politics does not matter when it comes to judicial decisionmaking. That is to say, the Constitution was not written in such a way that allows individuals to determine the right answer every time, entirely divorced from value. What does "cruel and unusual" mean in an objective sense? "Unreasonable" searches and seizures? Who gets to decide whether the President is "faithfully" executing the laws, and what standard do you apply to decide that? Political leanings, upbringing, morays--these things will always come into play in deciding legal questions. Judges are humans, and the law (in the sense that we talk of it being decided in courtrooms, anyway) is a human creation.
I guess my overarching point is that liberal democrats should assume the worst as far as Judge Alito's conservative views, but it is a little too late to be worrying about that. The best we can hope for is a judge that is humble and willing to recognize that the law is not black and white, and is willing to take other people's views into account. And nothing I saw in the confirmation process gave me too much cause for concern on that score.
Will Judge Alito vote to overturn, or severely cutback on, Roe? Probably. Will he often find himself in agreement with Scalia and Thomas? Probably. But those things would not make him a bad judge, in my view. What matters most to me is that he does not believe the black robe gives him special access to the truth.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
A Reporter's Peril
As a Christian Science Monitor junkie, I just wanted to point out the story of Jill Carroll, a reporter working for CSM in Iraq who has been abducted by insurgents. Her interpreter was killed.
A few days ago I was reading an article in the Atlantic that Ryan gave me written by one of their reporters, Nir Rosen, who has "spent sixteen months in postwar Iraq living mostly among ordinary Iraqis." I was somewhat amazed, at the time, that there were still foreign reporters living outside the green zone in Iraq. Given the poor quality of much of our news reporting I am all the more appreciative of the exceptional bravery and talent of reporters from outfits like CSM and The Atlantic. It takes balls of steel. I salute them all (and their Iraqi associates), and I hope and pray that Ms. Carroll makes it out safely.
p.s. Rosen's article, If America Left Iraq, is an excellent and informative read.
A few days ago I was reading an article in the Atlantic that Ryan gave me written by one of their reporters, Nir Rosen, who has "spent sixteen months in postwar Iraq living mostly among ordinary Iraqis." I was somewhat amazed, at the time, that there were still foreign reporters living outside the green zone in Iraq. Given the poor quality of much of our news reporting I am all the more appreciative of the exceptional bravery and talent of reporters from outfits like CSM and The Atlantic. It takes balls of steel. I salute them all (and their Iraqi associates), and I hope and pray that Ms. Carroll makes it out safely.
p.s. Rosen's article, If America Left Iraq, is an excellent and informative read.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Econfusius say--
(1) Make your cheap products look bad, sell more; and
(2) Echoing Yogi Berra: No one goes to the mall immediately after Christmas anymore, because it's too crowded.
Tim Harford, a columnist for the Financial Times and author of the recently published book the The Undercover Economist, apparently seeking to ride the pop-econ wave of Freakonomics, had this article in yesterday's Slate.com explaining why Starbucks offers the "short" cappuccino for the person on a budget, but it doesn't want you to find out about it. Here's a hint at what Harford is getting at: he says its the same reason why airports make their ordinary lounge so damn uncomfortable.
And in this piece in FT, Harford attempts to explain that the post-holiday sales are really bad for everyone--and then compares government subsidies to post-holiday sales.
I agree with the theory Harford propounds/summarizes in the first article, although I have some difficulties with the contentions he makes in the second piece. To be sure, there are some instances in which the Government or some other third party "distorts" the market such that, as Harford puts it, "tremendous amounts of money are spent but the beneficiaries are scarcely better off, if at all." In my view, however, there are clearly instances where subsidies do in fact make people better off: to take a straightforward example, there are certain products (such as cars) the market just does not price well because they generate a positive or negative benefit (pollution, for instance) that is not fully captured by the buying or selling party. The government, through subsidies or taxes--the traditional economist views subsidies and taxes as the same--can adjust the price so that consumption more closely mirrors what one would expect if all the factors were taken into account. (Hank, if you are reading this, and you disagree, please throw your hat in the ring. I would love to read what you have to say on this.)
I also think it is a little shady to analogize post-holiday sales to government hand-outs. For one thing, the post-holiday slash-and-burn pricing could be explained by the fact that stores are trying to unload one season's products at any price above marginal value, or for that matter, below-marginal value, if the product's lifespan is truly limited.
(2) Echoing Yogi Berra: No one goes to the mall immediately after Christmas anymore, because it's too crowded.
Tim Harford, a columnist for the Financial Times and author of the recently published book the The Undercover Economist, apparently seeking to ride the pop-econ wave of Freakonomics, had this article in yesterday's Slate.com explaining why Starbucks offers the "short" cappuccino for the person on a budget, but it doesn't want you to find out about it. Here's a hint at what Harford is getting at: he says its the same reason why airports make their ordinary lounge so damn uncomfortable.
And in this piece in FT, Harford attempts to explain that the post-holiday sales are really bad for everyone--and then compares government subsidies to post-holiday sales.
I agree with the theory Harford propounds/summarizes in the first article, although I have some difficulties with the contentions he makes in the second piece. To be sure, there are some instances in which the Government or some other third party "distorts" the market such that, as Harford puts it, "tremendous amounts of money are spent but the beneficiaries are scarcely better off, if at all." In my view, however, there are clearly instances where subsidies do in fact make people better off: to take a straightforward example, there are certain products (such as cars) the market just does not price well because they generate a positive or negative benefit (pollution, for instance) that is not fully captured by the buying or selling party. The government, through subsidies or taxes--the traditional economist views subsidies and taxes as the same--can adjust the price so that consumption more closely mirrors what one would expect if all the factors were taken into account. (Hank, if you are reading this, and you disagree, please throw your hat in the ring. I would love to read what you have to say on this.)
I also think it is a little shady to analogize post-holiday sales to government hand-outs. For one thing, the post-holiday slash-and-burn pricing could be explained by the fact that stores are trying to unload one season's products at any price above marginal value, or for that matter, below-marginal value, if the product's lifespan is truly limited.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Silly Libertarians
I was really hoping this article/speech by Bradley Smith, former FEC commissioner, would give me a chance to discuss the substantive objections to campaign finance reform. Then the guy referred to the Microsoft antitrust litigation as a "seemingly senseless regulatory legal assault" intended to extract campaign contributions from Microsoft. Uhh, right. It's amazing how quickly a person can drag their credibility through the gutter.
Smith's analysis of the harms of unregulated campaign money is largely limited to efforts to find quid pro quo returns on investment for corporate contributors. He takes this as far as analysis of the stock market reaction to McConnell v. FEC for companies that make political soft money contributions. What is this supposed to prove?
This sort of analysis is overly complex and makes it difficult to produce any sort of meaningful empirical data. What sort of scorecard do you use here? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of influence (not least of which the Microsoft example that Smith himself raised). Smith acknowledges that the data he presents has many critics, but claims that since they don't have better data, that makes his data somehow valid.
A simpler analysis is this: our system is based on democratic, one person-one vote principles. Does campaign money subvert those principles? Does it give influence beyond one-vote to big money donors?
In this view the analysis of harms should be considered from the other end. Does the money influence election outcomes? According to opensecrets.org, the odds of a challenger for a house seat in 2000 beating an incumbent were nil for challengers who raised under $500k, 24:1 for challengers with $500k-$1m, 15:1 for challengers with $1m-$1.5m, and 3:1 for challengers with over $1.5m. That looks a lot like influence. Obviously there are still confounding factors here (primarily that one might suppose that campaign money flows to more attractive candidates). But this seems like more meaningful data than the sort referenced by Smith. Additionally you've got quotes like this one (one of my all-time favorites) from Senator Fritz Hollings:
"The body politic has got a cancer of money. I ran in 1998, and I raised $8.5 million. That's about $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. If I missed Christmas and New Year's weeks, I'm $100,000 in the hole. So the race begins the next day [after your election]. We're collecting for six years out. That means we don't work on Monday. We don't work on Friday. I've got to get money, money, money, money. And I only listen to the people who give me money. With the shortage of time and everything else, you've got to listen to the $1,000 givers. I mean, no individual is corrupt, but the body has been corrupted."
It seems, to me at least, fairly obvious that money impacts election results. It seems also obvious that this gives political power to people who wield that money. That is problematic for a one person-one vote system. Smith never discusses this problem.
But he does talk about other evidence of corruption, apparently to show that BCRA is insincere. The hiring of spouses and children of politicians as lobbyists, contributions to personal foundations, and book contracts, for example. Frankly this only amplifies the need for regulation of money in politics. If anything this should support expanding BCRA into broader territory.
Smith criticizes McCain for speaking at a fund-raising dinner for the Brennan Center that raised money to support BCRA and to help defend it against McConnell's legal challenge. Apparently McCain also raises money to support campaign finance reform through his own Reform Institute. This is the sort of self-defeating argument often leveled at McCain and Feingold and other finance reformers: how can they argue for campaign finance reform when they accept the sort of contributions they argue against? A better question would be: if their argument is premised on the fact that the current political environment makes it necessary to raise large sums of money to get anything accomplished, how could McCain and Feingold hope to accomplish anything without raising money? Only people in the system can change the system. They have to play the game to change the rules. And ultimately this is not a discussion of the substantive merits of the issue anyway. It is merely smear attack against proponents of reform.
Here's an interesting thought I'd like to see some of these folks discuss. The Supreme Court appears to be increasingly coming under the control of Scalian originalists. There is a strong argument to be made that the original meaning for the First Amendment was merely to prevent prior restraint of speech. This was a system used in England where printers needed to get prior government authorization of material to be printed. The Sedition Act of 1798, for example, seems to our sensibilities to be a clear violation of the First Amendment. But no one seriously thought it was a violation at the time, and the courts never struck it down. The Republican (Jeffersonian) reaction against the Act was politically motivated (it was a Federalist device to squelch Republican press) and focused on the issue of federalism rather than the First Amendment. It did not implement prior restraint, and it allowed truth as a defense. This was free speech as compared to the English system. An originalist interpretation of the First Amendment would create a tremendous amount of breathing room for campaign regulation. I wonder how keen some of the conservative court cheerleaders would be for that..
Smith's analysis of the harms of unregulated campaign money is largely limited to efforts to find quid pro quo returns on investment for corporate contributors. He takes this as far as analysis of the stock market reaction to McConnell v. FEC for companies that make political soft money contributions. What is this supposed to prove?
This sort of analysis is overly complex and makes it difficult to produce any sort of meaningful empirical data. What sort of scorecard do you use here? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of influence (not least of which the Microsoft example that Smith himself raised). Smith acknowledges that the data he presents has many critics, but claims that since they don't have better data, that makes his data somehow valid.
A simpler analysis is this: our system is based on democratic, one person-one vote principles. Does campaign money subvert those principles? Does it give influence beyond one-vote to big money donors?
In this view the analysis of harms should be considered from the other end. Does the money influence election outcomes? According to opensecrets.org, the odds of a challenger for a house seat in 2000 beating an incumbent were nil for challengers who raised under $500k, 24:1 for challengers with $500k-$1m, 15:1 for challengers with $1m-$1.5m, and 3:1 for challengers with over $1.5m. That looks a lot like influence. Obviously there are still confounding factors here (primarily that one might suppose that campaign money flows to more attractive candidates). But this seems like more meaningful data than the sort referenced by Smith. Additionally you've got quotes like this one (one of my all-time favorites) from Senator Fritz Hollings:
"The body politic has got a cancer of money. I ran in 1998, and I raised $8.5 million. That's about $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. If I missed Christmas and New Year's weeks, I'm $100,000 in the hole. So the race begins the next day [after your election]. We're collecting for six years out. That means we don't work on Monday. We don't work on Friday. I've got to get money, money, money, money. And I only listen to the people who give me money. With the shortage of time and everything else, you've got to listen to the $1,000 givers. I mean, no individual is corrupt, but the body has been corrupted."
It seems, to me at least, fairly obvious that money impacts election results. It seems also obvious that this gives political power to people who wield that money. That is problematic for a one person-one vote system. Smith never discusses this problem.
But he does talk about other evidence of corruption, apparently to show that BCRA is insincere. The hiring of spouses and children of politicians as lobbyists, contributions to personal foundations, and book contracts, for example. Frankly this only amplifies the need for regulation of money in politics. If anything this should support expanding BCRA into broader territory.
Smith criticizes McCain for speaking at a fund-raising dinner for the Brennan Center that raised money to support BCRA and to help defend it against McConnell's legal challenge. Apparently McCain also raises money to support campaign finance reform through his own Reform Institute. This is the sort of self-defeating argument often leveled at McCain and Feingold and other finance reformers: how can they argue for campaign finance reform when they accept the sort of contributions they argue against? A better question would be: if their argument is premised on the fact that the current political environment makes it necessary to raise large sums of money to get anything accomplished, how could McCain and Feingold hope to accomplish anything without raising money? Only people in the system can change the system. They have to play the game to change the rules. And ultimately this is not a discussion of the substantive merits of the issue anyway. It is merely smear attack against proponents of reform.
Here's an interesting thought I'd like to see some of these folks discuss. The Supreme Court appears to be increasingly coming under the control of Scalian originalists. There is a strong argument to be made that the original meaning for the First Amendment was merely to prevent prior restraint of speech. This was a system used in England where printers needed to get prior government authorization of material to be printed. The Sedition Act of 1798, for example, seems to our sensibilities to be a clear violation of the First Amendment. But no one seriously thought it was a violation at the time, and the courts never struck it down. The Republican (Jeffersonian) reaction against the Act was politically motivated (it was a Federalist device to squelch Republican press) and focused on the issue of federalism rather than the First Amendment. It did not implement prior restraint, and it allowed truth as a defense. This was free speech as compared to the English system. An originalist interpretation of the First Amendment would create a tremendous amount of breathing room for campaign regulation. I wonder how keen some of the conservative court cheerleaders would be for that..
The Cold War Wasn't So Cold
Timothy Noah has a great column on Slate about post-Cold War decline of global violence. Noah rightly points out that while the Cold War may have been cold for Americans and Soviets, it was hot as can be for many third world nations where we staged proxy wars. These, not coincidentally, are many of the nations we now refer to as "failed states" and worry about as sources of terrorism. This is an important element of framing in the GWOT discussion. It is easy for diplomats and statesmen to get caught up in the Great Game, but nations and peoples are not chess pieces and this is a game more complex and unpredictable than our leaders generally imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
