The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Saturday, February 23, 2008

23 Feb 2008 08:10 pm

Face Of The Day

A dog is pictured backstage before Italian fashion house AB Soul show during the Autumn/Winter 2008/2009 women's collections at Milan Fashion Week on February 23, 2008. By Christophe Simon/AFP/Getty Images.

23 Feb 2008 06:36 pm

Thinking About Embargos

[Patrick Appel]

Stephen Hugh-Jones discusses the Cuban embargo and how the EU is "making the same mistake" with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus:

In sum, since the 1980s the EU has been trying, like the United States since the 1960s, to get rid of a regime it disapproves of through impoverishment; a regime, moreover, which, unlike Castro's, practises a tolerable version of democracy, and has never posed any threat to the EU's interests, let alone offered to install the nuclear missiles of its enemies. Like the US, the EU has failed. Yet, like the US, it persists.

23 Feb 2008 05:45 pm

Clinton Agonistes

[Andrew]

The staffers are turning to drink:

After 13 months of dawn-to-dark seven-day weeks, the staff is exhausted. Some have taken to going home early — 9 p.m. — turning off their BlackBerrys, and polishing off bottles of wine, several senior staff members said.

Some advisers have been heard yelling at close friends and colleagues. In a much-reported incident, Mr. Penn and the campaign advertising chief, Mandy Grunwald, had a screaming match over strategy recently that prompted another senior aide, Guy Cecil, to leave the room. “I have work to do — you’re acting like kids,” Mr. Cecil said, according to three people in the room.

This was precious from Susan Thomases:

"This is no woe-is-me woman."

Ooookaaay. Has Thomases been in a coma for the past two months? But there's the usual Clinton brazenness as well. Her entire message since Iowa has been a constant cooptation of Obama's message - yet he's the plagiarist? And she and her husband clearly played the racial card - and yet Obama is using Karl Rove tactics? If I worked for her, I would have hit the Cabernet hard a while ago.

23 Feb 2008 05:27 pm

Obama In Texas

[Patrick Appel]

Closer and closer:

23 Feb 2008 05:25 pm

Going Down Screaming

[Andrew, prematurely, but I can't help it.]

Sorry, Senator Clinton, this won't work. You sound desperate and whiny. And the mailer isn't that bad, for Pete's sake. The word "boon" should not have been in quote marks. But the rest is fine. The YouTube commenters capture the mood. She's losing it:

23 Feb 2008 04:21 pm

Chocolate

[Patrick Appel]

A brief history:

It's hard to pin down exactly when chocolate was born, but it's clear that it was cherished from the start. For several centuries in pre-modern Latin America, cacao beans were considered valuable enough to use as currency. One bean could be traded for a tamale, while 100 beans could purchase a good turkey hen, according to a 16th-century Aztec document.

Both the Mayans and Aztecs believed the cacao bean had magical, or even divine, properties, suitable for use in the most sacred rituals of birth, marriage and death. According to Chloe Doutre-Roussel's book The Chocolate Connoisseur, Aztec sacrifice victims who felt too melancholy to join in ritual dancing before their death were often given a gourd of chocolate (tinged with the blood of previous victims) to cheer them up.

23 Feb 2008 03:29 pm

Grammar Nerds

[Patrick Appel]

The Semicolon Appreciation Society.

(hat tip: Frank Wilson)

23 Feb 2008 02:06 pm

Bolton And The UN

[Patrick Appel]

I enjoyed Brian Urquhart's review of John Bolton's new book, probably more than I would enjoy the book itself:

Bolton is not a neocon. His political passions were ignited in his teens by Barry Goldwater, and he has always been a "libertarian conservative." He thinks that "our emphasis must be more on liberty than democracy... the first being freedom from government, the second being one way to select governments."[1] It is small wonder that he doesn't much like the United Nations, which consists of 192 governments. It says much about the Bush administration that someone with his views could be appointed UN ambassador.

23 Feb 2008 12:18 pm

The Superdelegate Gap

[Patrick Appel]

It is closing:

Clinton still leads among superdelegates 241 to 181, according to the AP survey. But her total is down two in the past two weeks, while Obama's is up 25.

23 Feb 2008 11:13 am

The View From Your Window

New Haven, Connecticut, 11.50 am.

23 Feb 2008 10:46 am

Global Warming And The Culture Of Fear

[Patrick Appel]

I think Elizabeth Weise may have inadvertently proven part of Peter Suderman's thesis (either that, or we are in even bigger trouble than I thought):

As climate change warms the nation, giant Burmese pythons could colonize one-third of the USA, from San Francisco across the Southwest, Texas and the South and up north along the Virginia coast, according to U.S. Geological Survey maps released Wednesday.

The pythons can be 20 feet long and 250 pounds.

23 Feb 2008 09:21 am

Saturday Morning Reading

[Patrick Appel]

The March Atlantic is now online, for free. A teaser from Alan Wolfe's article about which religion will win:

...breathless warnings about rising religious fervor and conflicts to come ignore two basic facts. First, many areas of the world are experiencing a decline in religious belief and practice. Second, where religions are flourishing, they are also generally evolving—very often in ways that allow them to fit more easily into secular societies, and that weaken them as politically disruptive forces. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal once famously showed that it would be irrational to bet against the existence of God. It would be equally foolish, in the long run, to bet against the power of the Enlightenment. The answer to the question of which religion will dominate the future, at least politically, may well be: None of the above.

23 Feb 2008 01:43 am

Honor

by hilzoy

Last night, in the Austin debate, Barack Obama said this:

"I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead."

A number of bloggers on the right went ballistic. Couldn't be true. No how. No way. Curt at Flopping Aces: "I’m gonna call shenanigans (codeword for he is lying through his teeth)". The (cough) Astute Pundit: "Obama at Texas Debate: Liar, Dupe, Or Enemy Propagandist?" (I'll take 'Enemy Propagandist' for five, Alex...)

While this was going on, Jake Tapper (yes, I know) actually spoke to the Captain in question, who confirmed the story. Later, NBC did so as well. And Phil Carter adds:

"In light of my experience in Iraq, Sen. Obama’s comments last night are eminently believable. Sen. Obama is also absolutely right to use this anecdote as a critique of the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. It is incontrovertible that the war in Iraq diverted scarce military resources (manpower, equipment, etc.) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The cost for that diversion was paid by America's sons and daughters, and our Afghan brethren, who continue to fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We owe our troops better."

In light of this, the best response would seem to be Tom Maguire's: "As a proud member of the Right Wing Noise Machine (or are we now the Freak Show?) I can only say "Ouch"." Curiously, Tom hasn't had a lot of company. Rusty Schackleford's take is more common among the conservative blogs I've read:

"Tapper called the "Captain" and asked him to verify his own story.

How, exactly, is it "verifying" anything by simply asking the same source if his story is true? This isn't the testimony of one source verifying the testimony of another source. This is two people reporting the testimony of a single source!

No one is accusing Obama of making the story up. We are accusing the "Captain" of making stuff up---or, at the very least, using selective pieces of information in order to lend credence to the bad war/good war theory. Obama then uses an untrue story to further the narrative which he hopes will get him elected."

Curt at Flopping Aces again:

"Of course with the “Captain” remaining anonymous its hard to come right out and say the man is lying since the Pentagon doesn’t have the particulars such as the dates, units, and other important info. With him remaining in the shadows its easier for Barack and his pal Tapper to just say “believe us” because well, just because."

To which I can only say: wow. Or, as John Cole put it:

"Now granted, Phil Carter has some military knowledge, so I would take this a grain of salt when you compare it to the vault of information these bloggers have procured over a lifetime of arranging GI Joe dolls while watching betamax copies of Uncommon Valor in the basement apartment they rent from their parents. I know it is a tough call, but I am gonna go with Obama, Tapper, and Phil Carter on this."

But besides that, consider two things. First, the bloggers I quoted above are accusing this unnamed Captain of lying. It's not exactly clear why they think the Captain lied, or why he would go on lying to various TV networks, but that's what Curt, Rusty, and the gang seem to think. And why do they think this? For the most part*, they cite claims like this (from Ace): "Milbloggers say the platoon is the basic organic unit of the army, and troops are never picked out of a platoon to serve elsewhere", or this (from one of Steve Spruiell's correspondents): "units as small as platoons are not pulled apart like that." That is: claims that the sorts of things the Captain described never happen.

I think that any claim of the form "X never, ever happens" are generally dubious when made about an organization as large as the US Army. They are especially dubious when made about the Army in wartime. Sometimes you can dismiss them out of hand. If, for instance, some Captain were to say that when he was in iraq, the troops under his command would turn into little bunny rabbits and scamper away into the shrubbery, skepticism would be in order. But when someone who has served in combat says something like: my platoon was stripped of some of its men, or: we were short of ammunition, that's really not something you can just assume is a lie in the absence of any further evidence at all.

I have no particular investment in the idea that this soldier is telling the truth. I don't see any good reason to doubt him, but some people lie, and for all I know, he might be one of them. I do, however, care a lot about the idea that we should not impugn someone's honor absent a good reason to do so. And that's what Rusty Shackleford, Ace, et al have done. They are willing to trash someone's good name because what he says doesn't fit their political narrative. And that's despicable.

***

* Footnote: A Pentagon spokesman later said that he found the Captain's story implausible, though since he didn't know the Captain's name or any of the details, he couldn't say for sure. Most of the blogs posts I've read accusing the Captain of lying were written before this spokesman appeared; Curt's at Flopping Aces is the exception here.

Friday, February 22, 2008

22 Feb 2008 09:34 pm

NeoGoodbye

by Reihan

I've been meaning to write a kind of lengthy meditation on the future of neoconservatism, taking off from Mark Lilla's entertaining and mostly unfavorable review of Jacob Heilbrunn's They Knew They Were Right. But to do that I first need to go through some of Lilla's earlier writing on the reactionary mode and the neoconservative reinvention of Leo Strauss. The thing is, I have to go see a movie in about thirty minutes. This is very troubling to me. I will, I pledge, write the post, which will be a little anticlimactic, at The American Scene. Briefly, I'd like to associate myself Peter Berkowitz's excellent short essay on "The Neocons and Iraq."

So I guess this is goodbye. I'd like to thank Andrew for allowing me to befoul his beautiful home on the web. Because I was a fan of Andrew's long before we ever met, I still feel very humbled and honored to work with him. I remember this blog when it was in its infancy, and it makes me very happy indeed to think that Andrew is introducing people, particularly young people, to his invariably brilliant, idiosyncratic notions and his slightly off-kilter sense of humor. One hates to gush, but Andrew's extraordinary success with this blog fills me with a lot of joy. It's a bit like Lost. The fact that millions of Americans watch Lost suggests to me that there are many millions of Americans who are incredibly cool and brainy. Pace Michelle Obama, this fills my heart with pride. You catch my drift here. Oh heck, I'll say it: I think you readers are pretty cool, particularly those of you who've advocated my summary execution on grounds of committing user-generated video crimes.

You should know that we have many, many exciting plans here at The Atlantic, some of which you'll see as soon as the middle of the next week. More on that to come.

Also, a brief plug: if you've enjoyed Jim Manzi and Peter Suderman, you'll find them and many others at The American Scene. I've been subtly trying to woo hilzoy, but I fear that's a lost cause. One of these days I'm hoping to get Pope Benedict XVI as a guest-blogger. And also Oakland-based rapper Too $hort. This would give us the breadth we badly need.

Take care. Have a lovely weekend! I have a terrible stomachache. Too many pears, possibly. Let's hope it's not fatal.

22 Feb 2008 09:02 pm

Adderall Memories

by Reihan

I avoid caffeinated beverages, alcohol, all illegal drugs, and prescription medication. Only two drugs have appealed to me: MDMA, for its supposed therapeutic properties, and Adderall. I've never used Adderall, despite the fact that I clearly suffer from a serious if undiagnosed form of ADHD. Molly Young's very insightful reflections on Adderall have piqued my interest.

Of course, I could have studied in college without Adderall, just like I did in high school – I just couldn’t have studied with such ecstasy. Theoretical texts, in particular, were transformed into exercises as conquerable as a Tuesday crossword. I could work out in the gym with a Xeroxed packet of Gayatri Spivak perched on the elliptical machine in front of me, reading and burning calories at the same time. The efficacy of the multitasking was exhilarating. On Adderall, the densest writing became penetrable. I had an illusion of mastery, at least, that lasted long enough to write the necessary papers and presentations.

Inevitably,

there’s a downside to a drug that makes everything interesting. By the end of junior year, I still had no idea what I liked or was good at. This past fall, when my senior year started, I took a break from the drug – at first because I couldn't find any, and then because I refused it. It took these four abstinent months to realize that I was not supposed to be electrified by everything I learned in school; that some of it had a vaccinating purpose, so that by trying a little now and reacting badly, I could fend it off later.

Young ends on a thoughtful and skeptical note.

There were no more ecstatic Joan-of-Arc-in-the-library experiences, no more imagined channeling of dead literary critics – but this, I suppose, is appropriate when what’s at stake is only a 15-page essay on Jane Austen, double spaced.

Perspective is a good thing, of course. One of my best friends was recently observing that his students spend a surprisingly large amount of time making excuses and demanding that exceptions from class rules be made on their behalf, as though getting a zero on a problem set is somehow the end of the world. There are graduate students, by the way, many of them in their 30s. Still, Young's essay makes me look forward to the exotic wonder-drugs of the future, when we'll have a more detailed understanding of the brain, and perhaps even a finer-grained understanding of the way different chemical compounds interact with individual brains.

A scientist, I forget who it was, once posited that the reason superintelligent extraterrestrials haven't bothered to get in touch could be that they are too busy playing unimaginably elaborate video games, or perhaps using unimaginably excellent drugs. It is, so to speak, a sobering thought.

22 Feb 2008 08:43 pm

Two Cheers for Tranzis

by Reihan

For John O'Sullivan, the central political conflict going forward will be that pitting transnational progressives, or Tranzis, against nationalist conservatives.

To sum up, Tranzi-ism is an ideology that extends regulation over the full range of human activity while exempting the regulators from democratic control by transferring governance from national democratic parliaments to unaccountable bureaucracies in independent agencies, the courts, and supra-national bodies.

This informs his subtle and smart view of Obama as a post-national figure, outlined in a recent National Review. As of yet, nationalist conservatives have failed to unite against Tranzi-ism, which, in O'Sullivan's view, accounts for their weakness. I wonder if this gets it right, or if O'Sullivan is (mis)using a Euroskeptic lens to (mis)read the American political scene, and in particular the immigration question. To what extent can we disentangle anxiety over lawbreaking and disorder from a more systemic, ideological concern over American sovereignty? Because I share O'Sullivan's hostility towards juristocracy, I find a lot to appreciate in his analysis. But I worry, perhaps more than he does, about the divorce between the political right and the transnational business class. O'Sullivan writes:

The first task for a serious conservatism is to de-mystify the unaccountable bureaucracies that are not only our enemies but also the enemies of the nation-state, religion, small independent businesses, aspiring entrepreneurs, families and married people, and patriotic and self-reliant citizens.

Earlier on, he explicitly identifies "senior managers in multinational corporations," glorified corporate bureaucrats, with the transnational progressives. This reminded me of Corey Robin's "Endgame," in which he made a closely related observation. And it also reminded me of Shell's fascinating Global Scenarios, which my friend Matt Frost sent to me a few days back. I've always loved scenario planning, from Russia 2010 to Peter Schwartz to Andy Marshall. The Scenarios offer a window into the multinational worldview.

The first of these “possible futures” is called Low Trust Globalisation. This is a legalistic world where the emphasis is on security and efficiency, even if at the expense of social cohesion.

The second, Open Doors, is a pragmatic world that emphasises social cohesion and efficiency, with the market providing “built-in” solutions to the crises of security and trust. The third, called Flags, is a dogmatic world where security and community values are emphasised at the expense of efficiency.

I think we can tell which scenario the good people at Shell like least. Nationalist conservatives can be dismissive of the "cosmocrats," and say good riddance to them. The trouble is that many of the "small independent businesses" and "aspiring entrepreneurs" share in at least some aspects of the Tranzi worldview. Assuming an antagonistic relationship between the transnational class and the patriotic and self-reliant risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In The Only Sustainable Edge, a terrific book with a terrible title, the authors argue that the offshoring and outsourcing are small parts of a much larger phenomenon they call "dynamic specialization." And "dynamic specialization," in turn, is aided by "productive friction," the process (roughly) by which firms learn from customers and competitors. At the risk of twisting the authors' terms beyond recognition, the most open economies will get smarter and richer faster because they will benefit from productive friction. This applies to the global market for talent.

So while I share many of O'Sullivan's reservations about the European Union, labor mobility is facilitating the creation of agglomerations of skill that will drive a great deal of growth. This doesn't mean that there isn't any room for immigration reforms that are sensitive to cultural anxieties and wage pressures, but it does mean that the Tranzis aren't always wrong. There is a way to reconcile these tendencies, but I'll save that for later.

22 Feb 2008 06:59 pm

Face Of The Day

Recently named Chairman of the African Union Comission (AU) and former Gabonese Foreign Minister Jean Ping speaks during a press conference in Nairobi on February 22, 2008. Ping said he was confident that the mediation efforts of former UN chief Kofi Annan would produce positive result in the coming days. Kenya's feuding political leaders on February 21, 2008 haggled over a power-sharing deal that could see the opposition given a special prime minister's post, as Annan gave guarded hope to an agreement. By Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty Images.

22 Feb 2008 06:04 pm

Defending Myself

[Patrick Appel]

Matt writes about my earlier post:

This strikes me as a pretty lazy equivalence. In a nation of 300 million people, I'm sure some people on the left have jumped at the opportunity to skewer McCain, but just about every liberal I read has taken the time to note that the Times' sexual innuendos were a pretty inappropriate way to frame a news story.

Ben Smith also has a post about liberal blogs staying skeptical of the McCain article. Yes, many on the left have been healthily skeptical of the NYT coverage of McCain, but if you were reading the posts on some of the far-left blogs when the story broke, there was immediate glee at the chance to bash McCain. Still, I've been re-reading the coverage and it was fairer than I recalled. Also, in the ensuing hours and days the liberal blogs have gotten more skeptical, and they will continue to get more skeptical the longer it takes for real evidence on the sex scandal to surface (if it ever does). The Washington Post story today about lobbyists in McCain's campaign makes a much more legitimate point. The key graf:

By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.

This is a justifiable criticism since McCain is considered anti-lobbyist, and it will hurt him throughout the campaign, but the sex scandal, if real, would sink him. Arguing about lobbyists is somewhat academic; a sex scandal any voter can understand.

22 Feb 2008 05:27 pm

Banning Legos

by Reihan

Two teachers reflect on Legos, power, and hierarchy:

In Legotown, the children had constructed a social system of power where a few people made the important decisions and the rest of the participants did the grunt work — much like the system in the trading game. We wanted children to critique the system at work in Legotown, not to critique the children at the top of the Legotown hierarchy. At the same time, we wanted them to see that the Legotown system was created by people, and, as such, could be challenged and reformulated. The children's reaction to the winners of the trading game was a big warning flag for us: We clearly had some repair work to do around relationships.

But that, of course, is the trouble with radical egalitarianism. It is ultimately driven by intense hostility towards "the children at the top of the Legotown hierarchy" rather than a dispassionate critique of "the system at work in Legotown." Challenging and reformulating Legotown means changing which kids are at the top of the Legotown hierarchy. Instead of kids who are good at building things with Legos, it will instead be the kids who please the teachers with their dedication to radical egalitarianism. And so it goes.

22 Feb 2008 05:09 pm

One Million Strong

[Patrick Appel]

More impressive than the amount of money Obama has raised is the sheer number of people who have donated to his campaign.

22 Feb 2008 05:03 pm

Pandora's Box

by Reihan

Gabriel Sherman's take on the NYT's McCain story:

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.

Here's my question: does this mean the Los Angeles Times is going to pull the trigger on yet another "scandal," this one involving the spouse of a leading presidential candidate? Ron Rosenbaum wrote one of the strangest blog posts of all time on exactly this subject in October, and it seems to have added salience now.

22 Feb 2008 04:18 pm

Adventures in Narcissism

by Reihan

I've been meaning to write a semi-serious post. My time at The Daily Dish will soon draw to a close. For now, I leave you with two overlong interpretations of modern indie classics, which you will find below.

Continue reading "Adventures in Narcissism" »

22 Feb 2008 04:03 pm

We're Not Iceland

by Reihan

Will Wilkinson parries with Matt Yglesias over Iceland, and I think Wilkinson comes out ahead. First, Matt writes,

Iceland features somewhat lower levels of social spending than do the other Scandinavian countries, but it's still a really high level especially when you consider that pretty much none of that tax revenue is going to the country's non-existent military. I would love to see the US become more like Iceland -- flexible labor market, high taxes, and generous public services sounds good to me. But I'm pretty sure Cato would freak out if I proposed a 50 percent increase in the tax share of the American economy.

To which Will responds,

Can’t they both be right? Iceland, much like Denmark, is more or less Hong Kong with a huge welfare state. High personal tax rates and redistributive policies certainly do affect incentives to work, save, etc. And certain state-provided services do tend to crowd out private alternatives. That said, it is possible to have high tax rates, lots of redistribution, and no other policies regulating the operation of the market. Neither Iceland nor Denmark leave their markets that unfettered, but it is simply undeniable that they are extremely wealthy, free-market capitalist countries. Indeed, the relative success of countries like Denmark and Iceland is outstanding evidence that the best way to ensure high levels of welfare spending (in tiny, ethnically homogeneous countries) is to let the capitalism rip.

And there lies the rub. Two thoughts. First, as Peter Lindert has argued, relying heavily on a VAT means that the people who are consuming public services are also paying for them. Our tax system is, suffice to say, not designed with this goal in mind. So Will's Rawlsekian vision, with which I'm very sympathetic, is closely tied to broad-based consumption taxes.

Many of our most egregious labor-market interventions reflect the egalitarian aspirations of a deeply divided society. We don't like the idea of handouts or special favors, so we choose radically less efficient and effective institutions that reflect our values yet fail to achieve our desired outcomes. Consider the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is designed to eliminate discrimination against disabled workers and, presumably, to increase the employment of disabled workers. In Japan, in contrast, the government subsidizes firms for hiring a certain number of disabled workers. The guiding premise isn't that corporations are bad guys that discriminate, but rather that it can be expensive to accommodate workers with special needs, and the state should foot the bill for advancing the goal of social inclusion. Guess what? The Japanese approach has done a much, much better job of increasing employment among the disabled. Our approach has been a tremendous boon for trial lawyers.

We often use a strangely legalistic framework for achieving social ends. Racial preferences also come to mind. Consider the following, from a Newsweek profile of Michelle Obama.

At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide. Verna Williams and Michelle became friends in their first year of law school. She remembers many of their fellow black students worrying that white classmates viewed them as charity cases. But she suggests Michelle was not among them. "She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that," Williams recalls.

Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a "legacy," just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton. Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton.

How odd. This almost suggests that there is something to be ashamed of, which seems like exactly the wrong attitude. But of course people are sheepish about being the beneficiaries of a racial preference. And imagine how uncomfortable people would be if we said, "Okay, we live in a racist society, so black and Bengali children will be given a larger school voucher to account for that fact." This approach would make a lot of sense. It is the approach that undergirded the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program, in which underrepresented groups were given a numerical bonus in determining admissions decisions. This had the virtue of simplicity and transparency. Sure enough, the Supreme Court struck that program down in favor of the Law School's "holistic," opaque approach to preferences.

My sense is that many of the pathologies of our labor market derive from the effort to navigate this tricky terrain of respect. Iceland and Denmark and Japan don't worry about this quite as much. Class consciousness, for example, takes a very different form, in which the less affluent feel entitled to certain benefits. They don't really give a damn about what the bosses think.

But the thing is the United States will never be Iceland or Denmark or Japan, which is why our labor market interventions will have to take a very different form. Would-be reformers need to understand this.

22 Feb 2008 03:29 pm

Brooks Covers the McCain Beat

by Reihan

Little-known fact: David Brooks began his career in journalism at Chicago's City News Bureau, where he pounded the pavement on the crime beat. In today's column, he unravels the rivalries and wounded egos that threaten to bring down the McCain campaign shoe-leather-style. And he also notes McCain's Hart-like vulnerability.

At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn’t just say he didn’t remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over. If no evidence surfaces, his campaign will go on and it will be clear that there were members of his old inner circle consumed by viciousness and mendaciousness.

Remember when Gary Hart dared the press to find evidence of his, ahem, "Monkey Business"? Well, they did. The bluster and bravado that I like and admire in McCain, and that my lefty friends can't stand, might indeed be the end of him.

Brooks's column reminded me, oddly enough, of Sam Anderson's brilliant investigative feature on The Splasher. It's awesome.

22 Feb 2008 03:27 pm

Rick Renzi Indicted

by hilzoy

Reuters:

"Republican Rep. Richard Renzi of Arizona was indicted on 35 criminal counts, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and official extortion stemming from land deals in his state, Justice Department officials said on Friday."

The indictment, if true, is pretty damning. Paul Kiel at TPMMuckraker summarizes the charges:

"The charges boil down to this, basically. Renzi (who's already said he won't seek re-election) is charged with doing everything he can as a congressman to strong-arm others into buying land from his buddy James Sandlin -- Sandlin then allegedly kicked back sizable chunks of cash back to Renzi in a series of complicated financial transactions (thus the money laundering charge). The main details of these charges were reported by the Arizona papers and The Wall Street Journal last year.

Update: Yikes. In a completely separate matter, the indictment charges Renzi with a conspiracy to "embezzle and misappropriate client premiums [from his insurance company] to fund his congressional campaign.""

According to the indictment, the extortion connected with the land swap was pretty blatant: at one point, Renzi told one of the companies he was trying to pressure into buying a property from his friend (Sandlin): "No Sandlin property, no bill." I don't think it gets more obvious than that. (I should note here that I love legal language: the indictment describes this as being, among other things, "a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States of its intangible right to the honest services of RENZI, free from deceit, bias, self-dealing, and concealment".)

The misappropriation of insurance premiums also seems pretty appalling, according to the indictment: Renzi basically took over $400,000 in premiums without bothering to actually buy any insurance with them. (The money seems to have gone to his Congressional campaign.) When the people he had supposedly insured got cancellation notices, the indictment claims that he sent them fake insurance certificates from another company, a company that did not, in fact, issue insurance policies. (He says this was a clerical error.) The indictment also notes (p. 21, 61 e, f) that Renzi mailed two checks to people he had insured, one listed as "Donation Towards Claim Expenses" and the other as "Donation Towards Claim Settlement". That suggests that he might have been paying out claims to the people he had insured.

All in all, it's pretty astounding. If the allegations are true, I hope he has a nice long time to reflect on conscience, integrity, and the meaning of public service from his very own cell.

***

As Paul Kiel reminds us, the US Attorney who oversaw this investigation was Paul Charlton, one of the Attorneys fired in the, um, US Attorney firing scandal. From the WSJ:

"People briefed on the case said investigators in Arizona asked Washington for clearance -- among other tools -- for a wiretap of Mr. Renzi's telephones, a highly unusual step against a sitting member of Congress, months before Election Day. The wiretap eventually was approved, and was in place by late October, these people said.

On Oct. 26, just days before the election, two political Web sites carried the first public word of the probe. In subsequent news accounts, an unidentified Washington law-enforcement official described the matter as "preliminary." Few details emerged, but the leak disrupted prosecutors' wiretap.

Meanwhile, Mr. Renzi, first elected to Congress in 2002, was fighting to hold on to his seat. In September, President Bush hosted a fund-raiser in Scottsdale on his behalf. About the same time Mr. Charlton was added to a list of prosecutors "we should now consider pushing out," wrote Mr. Gonzales's then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, in a Sept. 13, 2006, email to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers."

What an unfortunate series of coincidences. Stranger still, when the investigation was made public, one of Renzi's aides called Charlton to ask about it; Charlton reported that contact to the DoJ, as required, but oddly enough, the DoJ report of that contact was left out of the document dumps the DoJ made in response to various Congressional requests.

(Cross-posted at Obsidian Wings)

22 Feb 2008 03:26 pm

"Change You Can Xerox"

[Patrick Appel] In case you missed it, here was Clinton accusing Obama of plagiarism last night:

I don't understand why the Clinton campaign has been using this line of attack. Maybe it polled well in focus groups or something, but it is one of the most absurd tactics I have ever witnessed. I hope last night's fiasco put an end to it for good.

22 Feb 2008 03:08 pm

The Clintons are Radioactive

by Reihan

The late Tom Lantos memorably referred to former Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, as a "political prostitute" for his hilariously corrupt dealings with Russian gas giant Gazprom.

One wonders what Lantos would have to say about Bill Clinton. You may have missed last month's excellent New York Times story concerning Clinton's close ties to a Canadian tycoon named Frank Giustra. It seems that former President Clinton helped Mr Giustra secure an extremely lucrative mining deal with Kazakhstan's government, and that Mr Giustra offered very graciously repaid the favor with a donation of $31 million to the former's president's charitable foundation and a pledge of $100 million more.

But of course the Clintons expect to be compensated for some of their good deeds.

As Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president’s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

Clearly the Clintons are a remarkable pair, capable of spinning dross into gold. But wouldn't it be nice if they tried to find a more honest, less Abramoffian way to make a living, one that didn't rope in the rest of us into acquiescing while they play the government the way some of us play the slots?

22 Feb 2008 02:20 pm

Regulate Me, Please!

[Peter Suderman] The earmark crusades of the last few years have made fairly clear how politicians use earmarks to reward friendly businesses. What tends to get less attention, however, is that regulation, especially environmental regulation, is often used in a similar fashion. Perhaps not surprisingly, it looks like Hillary Clinton may be as guilty as anyone, and Tim Carney's got the goods.

(Bonus TAS angle: Reihan, always ahead of the curve, has noted the role this sort of regulatory gaming played in the War on Light Bulbs.)

22 Feb 2008 02:04 pm

The View From Your Window (It's Snowing In NY Edition)

New York, Upper West Side, 8.15 am.

Continue reading "The View From Your Window (It's Snowing In NY Edition)" »

22 Feb 2008 01:17 pm

Quote For The Day

[Patrick Appel]

"I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are," - Hillary Clinton, laying the groundwork for why Texas doesn't count and pressing to seat Florida and Michigan delegates.

22 Feb 2008 12:33 pm

Nerd Pride

[Jim Manzi]

Here are three amazing math, science and technology blogs that I think more people should read:

1. Understanding causality in economics and social science (e.g., People who go to college make more money than those who do not – is this because college improves their subsequent performance or because people who are more likely to do well anyway tend to go to college?) is an obsessive interest of mine. Andrew Gelman is a statistics professor at Columbia, and his blog is the place to go on this topic. Killer post: What's the matter with Connecticut?

2. Somebody who starts a successful technology company is usually either smart or lucky. Somebody who does it twice is usually smart and lucky. Marc Andreessen is both, and his blog is a running commentary on how to succeed in the new economy. Killer post: Why there’s no such thing as Web 2.0.

3. The integration of genetics with evolutionary theory to create the Modern Synthesis plays the same role today that the integration of relativity and quantum mechanics did a half-century ago. Gene Expression is the place to go for a conversation about its social and political implications that is simultaneously highly technically informed and completely politically incorrect. Every time I go to this site I am offended by something and learn something. Killer post: 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald.

22 Feb 2008 12:08 pm

Still Waiting For More

[Patrick Appel]

Pete Abel urges everyone to withhold judgment on the McCain Iseman scandal:

In closing, let me be painfully clear. I’m not dismissing the NYT story. I’m not screaming about liberal media bias. All I’m attempting to do is offer perspective, some of it based on personal observations of inside-the-Beltway life, in order to raise legitimate questions and thus encourage all of us to resist the temptation to believe there’s fire behind these wisps of smoke, until said fire is indisputably proven. We owe all of the leading candidates — McCain, Clinton, and Obama — the benefit of such doubt, the same benefit we would want, if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

The Iseman scandal coverage has been dizzying. The left jumped (at first, anyway) at the opportunity to skewer McCain, while the right equally cherished the chance to condemn the Times. If there isn’t more to the NYT’s research, if these allegations of an affair are false, this story could be the paper’s biggest mistake since Judith Miller’s faulty reporting on Saddam’s WMDs.

If the affair is real, then this will hobble McCain. He is already dragging the weight of an unpopular president and an unpopular war. Adding a sex scandal to his load may be one handicap too many.

Like Pete, I am trying to reserve judgment until we have more than wisps of smoke.

22 Feb 2008 11:24 am

Obama's Record Fundraising Haul

[Patrick Appel]

Reports are starting to leak out about Obama's fundraising numbers for February. Marc says it will be over $50 million, Patrick Ruffini says it will be over $60 million. Either way, those are some massive numbers. It doesn't look like Obama's money advantage is going away anytime soon.

22 Feb 2008 11:14 am

Hillary's Alleged Plagiarism

[Patrick Appel]

There is a lot of talk this morning about Hillary allegedly plagiarizing John Edward's or Bill Clinton's lines. I don't buy it for exactly the same reasons I didn't buy the idea that Obama plagiarized lines. Political rhetoric isn't subject to copyright. If those standards apply to Obama, then they also apply to Clinton. The difference is I don't expect the Obama campaign to jump all over her for allegedly lifting lines.

[Update:] Yes, I recognize the irony of this, and it is partially her fault because she is the one who made such a big deal about plagiarism, but I still doubt she "copied" or "plagiarized" lines from another politician. That is not how political speech-making works. Read James Fallows' (who was a speech-writer for Jimmy Carter) post about plagiarism in politics.

22 Feb 2008 10:25 am

Orr on the Oscars

[Peter Suderman] I was thinking about writing something on the Oscars, but that's now completely pointless. Why? Because Chris Orr has written everything I wanted to write, but better. I agree with every single thing he says in the piece except for his "Ought to Win" for Best Cinematography, which I would've given to Roger Deakins for the breathtaking pinhole-camera look he created for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Otherwise, Orr's article is the final word on predictions about this year's ceremony.

22 Feb 2008 10:17 am

Gitmo Puppet Theater

[Patrick Appel]

Scott Horton looks at the media coverage of the Guantánamo trials:

But while the American mainstream media presented the story with the main spotlight on the Pentagon and its announcements and some trivial sideshows in which bickering lawyers raised quibbles about vexatious technicalities like the hearsay rule, access to exculpatory evidence and the ever-present torture, overseas the Guantánamo proceedings got a different treatment. Outside of the United States, “Guantánamo” is a by-word for torture, authoritarian abuse and injustice. And the fact that the U.S. had elected to put these six detainees on trial before a military commission in Guantánamo drew a predictable review. “There will not be six persons on trial, but seven,” editorialized the predictably pro-American German newspaper Die Zeit. The seventh, of course, is the Bush Administration and its hopelessly corrupted concept of justice.

Continue reading "Gitmo Puppet Theater" »

22 Feb 2008 09:54 am

Sweded!

by Peter Suderman

As I predicted in my review, it looks like a number of high-profile critics weren't too kind to Be Kind Rewind (if only Reihan had reviewed it!). David Edelstein seems sort of amused by it, but says it could have used "a little slickness." Jonathan Rosenbaum wants to like it, but writes that "it's hard not to gag on the cuteness," and Anthony Lane is even harsher: "Every minute of Gondry’s film is irrefutable proof that charm is not enough."

Maybe not enough for Lane, but it's certainly enough for me. Each of Gondry's previous three films has been a paean to artistic melancholy. He's got a penchant for moping, innocent, childlike protagonists with a creative bent—Jim Carrey's melancholy cartoonist in Eternal Sunshine, Gael García Bernal's Stephane in The Science of Sleep. And to some degree, he romanticizes these free-spirited child-men, but also doesn't force them into hero modes that might be more commercial but aren't supported by the characters. Instead, he allows them to experience failure, gently and with dignity, and then lightly suggests that maybe, just maybe, sometimes failure is okay. Yes, it's an uncommercial creative's fantasy, a universe not driven by markets or popular opinion, but it's a refreshingly different view of the world than the manic success-driven ethos that fuels most Hollywood productions.

The gimmick of "Rewind," by the way, is that big-budget movies get remade on the ~~cheap~~ free with a sort of ramshackle, reckless amateurism. For reasons that are impossible to explain, these remakes come to known as "Sweded" versions. (To give you an idea, you can see a "Sweded" version of the actual movie trailer here.) I think it may be appropriate to think of this week's guest-posting here at the Dish this week—or at least mine anyway—as Andrew Sullivan: Sweded!

22 Feb 2008 08:58 am

The John McCain School of Ethics

[Peter Suderman] Over at the American Spectator, J.P. Freire has what I think is the smartest take on the McCain brouhaha I've seen so far. The real revelation here, he says, is that even a politician as seemingly devoted to principle as John McCain can't live up to the ethics standards he's promoted (and run into trouble with conservatives for doing so):

The NRA and the ACLU both can't buy ad time in the days before an election because doing so, by virtue of the ethical senator's own philosophy, is manipulating the people and hurting democracy. But when McCain hops a flight with a campaign contributor, it ought to be obvious that he's maintaining his integrity. Why is it that associations comprised of every day citizens are suspect, but a powerful politician is not?

Sure, it's a bait and switch. But it's a very good one because it demonstrates the very problem presented by the John McCain School of Ethics. This is not a story about what happened. It's a story about what could have happened. What was feared to have happened. What, it must be assumed in good faith, did not happen. Campaign advisers were afraid that "the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity."

22 Feb 2008 08:31 am

Obama And Clinton In Texas And Ohio

[Patrick Appel]

It's getting closer. The basis for each candidate's support:

In Texas, Clinton’s being kept competitive by support from Hispanics; she needs them to turn out in more-than-usual numbers, as they did in California, which she won Feb. 5. In Ohio she’s benefiting from a greater number of Democratic Party regulars than in Texas, fewer college-educated or higher-income voters, and support from union households. In both states, senior citizens are crucial to Clinton’s side; independents and younger voters, to Obama’s. And he’s taken a lead over Clinton on electability, a point he may try to drive home, along with his mantle of “change,” in the days ahead.

22 Feb 2008 07:42 am

The View From Your Window

Bellingham, Washington, 2.15 pm.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

21 Feb 2008 10:33 pm

Debate Reax

[Patrick Appel]

Marc makes an interesting point:

This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination.

21 Feb 2008 10:22 pm

Debate Blogging II

[Patrick Appel]

To my eyes, there wasn’t much new tonight. They debated health care mandates for the nth time, there was a more detailed discussion of immigration, and there was some talk about current affairs.

Clinton getting booed for saying, “that’s change we can Xerox,” trying to zing Obama on the alleged plagiarism charge, shows just how little that line of attack resonates with voters. She was good tonight. He was better. Her response to the final question was the most emotional I have seen her give in a debate (it was a good moment for her), but I didn’t see anything sufficient to stop Obama’s momentum. We’ll see what the voters of Texas in Ohio thought soon enough.

21 Feb 2008 08:53 pm

Debate Blogging

[Patrick Appel]

They’re being civil. Color me surprised. I guess Mandy Grunwald won her argument with Mark Penn.

They have been fairly candid about immigration (at least compared to the drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants flap). My bet is they know McCain can’t come after them on immigration since he supported immigration reform himself (not to mention the points they can score on this issue in a place like Texas).

21 Feb 2008 05:47 pm

Climate Prizes: Everybody Wins

[Jim Manzi]

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) has introduced a bill to provide government prizes to anyone who can demonstrate practical technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I have written extensively in support of such a program as one component of a research-based policy to address the risk of global warming, and obviously think it’s a great idea. Here’s why, in a nutshell:

I have written a lot about the fact that if (and it’s a big if) our climate and economics models are correct, then rapid, aggressive measures to reduce carbon emissions are not a good idea. The big question, of course, is what would happen if our models turn out to underestimate the impacts of emissions by a huge margin.

Consider such a case in which we learn 40 years from now that our predictions were wrong – and not just by a little, but so wrong that they are outside the probability distribution of model forecasts in a so-called “black swan” event. Suppose further that we had implemented the often-proposed ideal policy of a perfectly-implemented, globally-harmonized carbon tax on February 21, 2008 that ramps up over time to reflect the estimated external costs of carbon. Under a typical implementation of this policy the optimal tax burden would be relatively low for the next several decades and then ramp up over time. In everyday terms, the gasoline tax, for example, would be about 9 cents per gallon through 2010, and would then ramp up to about 25 cents per gallon by 2050. To put this in perspective, the typical US state already has about a 40 – 50 cent per gallon gas tax, and a typical Western European country has gas taxes of several dollars per gallon. We are not going to transform our economy with such a tax; major changes really start in the latter half of the upcoming century.

In the disaster scenario I have described, which would you rather have: the lowered emissions and associated technological change created by a 10 – 20 cent per gallon increase in fuel prices, or decades of directed research to build technological options? Investing in technology is lower-cost, and actually provides greater protection in a disaster than emissions reductions.

21 Feb 2008 05:25 pm

The Office Meets Juno

[Patrick Appel] The Office's Rainn Wilson auditions for the part of Paulie Bleeker in Juno:

21 Feb 2008 05:16 pm

Obamanomics

[Peter Suderman] Here's James Pethokoukis on the general shape of Obamanomics:

What is the economic philosophy of Democratic front-runner Barack Obama? I will elaborate on this later, but for now, think of it this way: He's Robert Rubin on trade (pretty much keep it open but help workers), Warren Buffett on taxes (higher rates really don't affect what rich folks do, so crank 'em up! ), and Robert Reich on spending (balance the budget later, "invest" now in education and science).

I've noticed a minor trend of Obama-support amongst libertarians (Dan Koffler, for one, and there appear to be several Facebook groups as well), and if you're looking primarily at foreign policy, as Tyler Cowen advises, that's certainly reasonable. On the other hand, as far as domestic policy goes, I think anyone with small-government instincts ought to take a moment to consider the above.

21 Feb 2008 04:03 pm

Face Of The Day

An Iraqi supporter of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stands near mock coffins, symbolizing killed Mahdi army members, during a rally on February 21, 2008 in the Sadr city Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad, Iraq. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is expected to announce within days whether to extend his Mahdi Army ceasefire or not. Al-Sadr declared a six month truce on August 29, 2007 which some Iraqi and US military officials claim has played a vital part in reducing sectarian violence. The six month truce is set to expire at the end of February. By Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images.

21 Feb 2008 03:22 pm

What The Pakistani Elections Mean For America

[Patrick Appel]

Joshua Hammer's new article reflects on how the elections in Pakistan might change the Pakistani-American relationship:

Nobody knows what the new political dynamic in Pakistan is going to look like, but it surely won’t offer the one-stop-shopping that the U.S. government has found so convenient. The relationship between an independent Parliament, led by the Pakistan People’s Party, and the military, commanded by Musharraf’s handpicked protégé, General Ashfaq Kayani, is likely to be messy and confrontational, with constant debates over military strategy in the tribal areas. Kayani, one of many Pakistani generals and brigadiers who studied in the United States, is said to be even more hawkish than Musharraf. By contrast, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower and the possible next Prime Minister, favors more negotiation, and, presumably, more cease-fire arrangements such as the controversial one that Musharraf approved in north Waziristan in late 2006. "We will have a dialogue with those who are up in the mountains and those who are not in Parliament," Zardari was quoted in the New York Times as saying. "We want to take all those along who are against Pakistan and working against Pakistan."

Continue reading "What The Pakistani Elections Mean For America" »

21 Feb 2008 02:32 pm

Beltway Confidential

[Peter Suderman] Like Patrick, I'm still trying to figure out what to make of the NYT story on McCain, but Gabe Sherman's New Republic piece on how the story came to be published is an utterly fascinating look at the inner workings of high-end political journalism.