Monday, May 31, 2004
Memorial Day Baseball Observations
Memorial Day is traditionally the first milepost of the baseball season, a time when the standings are starting to coalesce and flukes are becoming less prevalent (no more talk about how the Tigers are a good team for example). With that in mind, and since I haven't blogged on baseball since before the season here is a brief trip through the standings.
American League East
What a shocker, the Yanks and Red Sox have distanced themselves from the field and are within a half game of each other. Expect this to continue as the Sox get Nomar and Nixon back and the Yankees get Jeter back from wherever he has been mentally. The only surprise has been the poor performance by Toronto but expect that to change as long as they don't give up and trade Delgado.
American League Central.
I underestimated the White Sox or so it appears thus far. They can certainly hit, but Schoenweiss and Loiaza have pitched better than I thought they would, and if they continue the White Sox will be the division favorites. I still pick Minnesota however as I doubt the Sox pitchers are for real. I overestimated Kansas City and it looks like they will move Beltran and give up on the season by the all star break.
American League West.
The Angels have thrived despite a series of injuries. They have a talented group of players and are well managed. They will be in contention all season. Oakland will move up once Beane makes his typical midseason deals. Texas will fade due to pitching woes and it looks like Seattle's best days are behind them. The tragedy here is that as long as the Yanks and Sox continue to thrive, there is only room for one team from this division in the postseason. I have no idea whether that team will be Anaheim or Oakland.
National League East.
Look for the Phillies and Marlins to distance themselves from the crowd and put on a great pennant race. As long as Bowa is the Phillies manager, it should be a close race but if they get rid of him, Florida might be in trouble. Florida's great starting pitching will keep them in the race. Both teams are certainly contenders for the wildcard.
National League Central.
Did I say the flukes are less prevalent? Mark my words, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh will fade considerably over the next month or two. Cincinnati's pitching has been way above expectation and it won't continue. Milwaukee is building something solid for the future but their strength is in the minors not in major leaguers like Overbay playing over their heads. This will come down to Houston and Chicago who will wage a great four team race with Philly and Florida for three spots.
National League West.
Unlike their brethren in the central, San Diego is for real. They are in first and several players like Payton and Klesko are underperforming. Unless San Francisco can keep up the pace of the last couple of weeks, this is San Diego's division to lose. Don't underestimate San Francisco however as Bonds could carry them to a division title in a division that is weaker than it has been in nearly a decade.
(probably no posts until Sunday as we will be taking a mini vacation this week)
American League East
What a shocker, the Yanks and Red Sox have distanced themselves from the field and are within a half game of each other. Expect this to continue as the Sox get Nomar and Nixon back and the Yankees get Jeter back from wherever he has been mentally. The only surprise has been the poor performance by Toronto but expect that to change as long as they don't give up and trade Delgado.
American League Central.
I underestimated the White Sox or so it appears thus far. They can certainly hit, but Schoenweiss and Loiaza have pitched better than I thought they would, and if they continue the White Sox will be the division favorites. I still pick Minnesota however as I doubt the Sox pitchers are for real. I overestimated Kansas City and it looks like they will move Beltran and give up on the season by the all star break.
American League West.
The Angels have thrived despite a series of injuries. They have a talented group of players and are well managed. They will be in contention all season. Oakland will move up once Beane makes his typical midseason deals. Texas will fade due to pitching woes and it looks like Seattle's best days are behind them. The tragedy here is that as long as the Yanks and Sox continue to thrive, there is only room for one team from this division in the postseason. I have no idea whether that team will be Anaheim or Oakland.
National League East.
Look for the Phillies and Marlins to distance themselves from the crowd and put on a great pennant race. As long as Bowa is the Phillies manager, it should be a close race but if they get rid of him, Florida might be in trouble. Florida's great starting pitching will keep them in the race. Both teams are certainly contenders for the wildcard.
National League Central.
Did I say the flukes are less prevalent? Mark my words, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh will fade considerably over the next month or two. Cincinnati's pitching has been way above expectation and it won't continue. Milwaukee is building something solid for the future but their strength is in the minors not in major leaguers like Overbay playing over their heads. This will come down to Houston and Chicago who will wage a great four team race with Philly and Florida for three spots.
National League West.
Unlike their brethren in the central, San Diego is for real. They are in first and several players like Payton and Klesko are underperforming. Unless San Francisco can keep up the pace of the last couple of weeks, this is San Diego's division to lose. Don't underestimate San Francisco however as Bonds could carry them to a division title in a division that is weaker than it has been in nearly a decade.
(probably no posts until Sunday as we will be taking a mini vacation this week)
Friday, May 28, 2004
The Bush Regulatory Record
A new report is out entitled, Special Interest Takeover: The Bush Administration and the Dismantling of Public Safeguards. The report, issued by a coalition of pro-regulation organizations is a detailed look at the many areas in which the Bush Administration has pursued a deregulatory agenda and the costs of this pursuit.
First let me make a broad political science point. Very very few of the actions described in the report were made with explicit Congressional support. This serves to hammer home a point I've made before. The power of the Presidency in the 21st century is enormous. If the war in Iraq did not convince you, then just take a look at this report. Actions affecting the lives of every citizen and having economics impacts in the billions are taken nearly at the sole discretion of the executive branch (with the courts as a relatively modest check). Having these tools (combined with the ability to wage war) at his disposal makes the presidency the preeminent branch of government.
I was already familiar with many of the regulatory changes listed in the document so for me, the biggest revelations were the cutbacks in enforcement. In the areas of pollution control, worker safety and food safety, the Bush Administration has cut budgets and personnel making enforcement of the laws much more lax. One can have honest disagreements about what the law should look like but it is difficult to defend a position that the law should not be enforced (particularly in an administration heavy with rhetoric about enforcing the law).
The report takes every deregulatory action as a bad thing, which is not a position I agree with. The strident criticism of cost-benefit analysis is something I've criticized in this space before and is I believe, counter-productive. Specific actions on allowing health claims, making the medical privacy rules more workable, and minimizing the costs of the bioterrorism law are all things that in my view have merit (and honest people can disagree about).
The point to take from the report however is the totality of it. One can disagree with individual criticisms and still be appalled at the overall picture. The report gives shows an administration that is living by the principle that there is no such thing as a good regulation. The costs of this approach are enormous and largely invisible to the public. Bringing these issues into the public eye is a huge public service. Hopefully the report will get the attention it deserves.
First let me make a broad political science point. Very very few of the actions described in the report were made with explicit Congressional support. This serves to hammer home a point I've made before. The power of the Presidency in the 21st century is enormous. If the war in Iraq did not convince you, then just take a look at this report. Actions affecting the lives of every citizen and having economics impacts in the billions are taken nearly at the sole discretion of the executive branch (with the courts as a relatively modest check). Having these tools (combined with the ability to wage war) at his disposal makes the presidency the preeminent branch of government.
I was already familiar with many of the regulatory changes listed in the document so for me, the biggest revelations were the cutbacks in enforcement. In the areas of pollution control, worker safety and food safety, the Bush Administration has cut budgets and personnel making enforcement of the laws much more lax. One can have honest disagreements about what the law should look like but it is difficult to defend a position that the law should not be enforced (particularly in an administration heavy with rhetoric about enforcing the law).
The report takes every deregulatory action as a bad thing, which is not a position I agree with. The strident criticism of cost-benefit analysis is something I've criticized in this space before and is I believe, counter-productive. Specific actions on allowing health claims, making the medical privacy rules more workable, and minimizing the costs of the bioterrorism law are all things that in my view have merit (and honest people can disagree about).
The point to take from the report however is the totality of it. One can disagree with individual criticisms and still be appalled at the overall picture. The report gives shows an administration that is living by the principle that there is no such thing as a good regulation. The costs of this approach are enormous and largely invisible to the public. Bringing these issues into the public eye is a huge public service. Hopefully the report will get the attention it deserves.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Bush's speech on Iraq
Having little better to do last night, I dutifully watched President Bush's speech before the Army War College last night. I will start with the positive. The speech concluded with a wonderful rhetorical flourish that evoked memories of Bush's speech after September 11, the high point of his Presidency.
The negative aspects of the speech were not so much bad things but the lack of good things. We did not hear anything about when our troops can come home. We did not hear anything about who will take over political power in Iraq on June 30. We did not hear anything about how much control Iraqis will have after the transition. We did not hear about why the U.N. should accept greater involvement after we have spent a year denigrating the institution.
What we did hear was a lot of references to terrorism. This is a subtle attempt to rewrite history. There have been no documented connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Once the war started, Al Qaeda troops came pouring into Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was not a part of the War on Terror when it started. The reason that it is now, is because of us, not because of the presence of terrorists in Iraq.
Bush also repeated what was the best justification for this war, the hope that democracy in Iraq would give birth to democracy throughout the mideast. If this indeed happens, then the war may have been worthwhile. However it is not known whether, in March of 2003, the American public would have supported a war with this cause in mind if they hadn't been lied to about weapons of mass destruction, and connections to terrorism. It is also not known whether they would have supported such a war if they knew how high the casualty counts would be and how poorly it would be executed.
Therefore I see last night's speech as part of Bush's attempt to rewrite history in the middle of a presidential campaign. He will again and again hammer home that this war is about democracy and freedom. The words "weapons of mass destruction", so much a staple of speeches in 2002 and 2003 will not appear. John Kerry's job is to make sure that Americans do not forget how this war was sold to them and the costs that they have borne as a result of its mismanagement. If he does this well, at this time next year, Bush's attempts to rewrite history will be through his memoirs.
The negative aspects of the speech were not so much bad things but the lack of good things. We did not hear anything about when our troops can come home. We did not hear anything about who will take over political power in Iraq on June 30. We did not hear anything about how much control Iraqis will have after the transition. We did not hear about why the U.N. should accept greater involvement after we have spent a year denigrating the institution.
What we did hear was a lot of references to terrorism. This is a subtle attempt to rewrite history. There have been no documented connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Once the war started, Al Qaeda troops came pouring into Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was not a part of the War on Terror when it started. The reason that it is now, is because of us, not because of the presence of terrorists in Iraq.
Bush also repeated what was the best justification for this war, the hope that democracy in Iraq would give birth to democracy throughout the mideast. If this indeed happens, then the war may have been worthwhile. However it is not known whether, in March of 2003, the American public would have supported a war with this cause in mind if they hadn't been lied to about weapons of mass destruction, and connections to terrorism. It is also not known whether they would have supported such a war if they knew how high the casualty counts would be and how poorly it would be executed.
Therefore I see last night's speech as part of Bush's attempt to rewrite history in the middle of a presidential campaign. He will again and again hammer home that this war is about democracy and freedom. The words "weapons of mass destruction", so much a staple of speeches in 2002 and 2003 will not appear. John Kerry's job is to make sure that Americans do not forget how this war was sold to them and the costs that they have borne as a result of its mismanagement. If he does this well, at this time next year, Bush's attempts to rewrite history will be through his memoirs.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
The job of a professor
I've been contemplating a post on my teaching experience this semester lately. Then this op-ed by Stanley Fish appeared in the Times on Friday and what I wanted to say crystallized in my mind. Fish argues that the job of a professor is to teach subject matter and to do academic research. It is not, according to Fish, to advocate political causes or to model students into good citizens.
Fish has a point when he says that some academics (he might say many academics) do not do the teaching or research parts of their jobs sufficiently well. We all had professors in college who did not care about whether their students learned. And, yes there is plenty of research in mediocre academic journals that cause even the mildly skeptical reader to shake their head in wonder.
While the need for improvement in these areas exists, that does not mean that the professor has no other responsibilities. As a professor of public policy, discussing relevant issues is a necessary part of the classroom experience. My foremost task is to teach students how to think about such issues. In doing so, however it is inevitable that I push them to think about these issues the way I do. Often in a classroom setting that means getting them to question preconceived notions. In my case that often means getting them to question their liberal politics. I do this, not because I disagree with them (although occasionally I do), but rather because I want them to be able to understand other points of view and hope that they will be able to make their arguments stronger if they do.
Fish might argue that this is not advocating political causes but rather teaching rigorous thinking. I find such a separation hopelessly naive. I am not explicitly advocating particular views in the classroom but if students approach policy problems the way I want them to, they are more likely to come out with a particular set of solutions. I will never tell a student to vote for John Kerry but I will teach them to think about policy issues in a way that I think inevitably makes the current administration look like a failure. That is part of my job.
Should we also teach our students to be good citizens? Until this semester I might have agreed with Fish and answered no. Now I don't think there is a choice. If we want students to learn (particularly undergraduates) we have to teach them how to learn. We have to teach them that showing up to class and staying awake is part of how one succeeds in life. I had thought that they would know this by the time they reached college but this is not always the case. Next year I plan to be more strident in telling my undergraduates what they need to do to get an "A."
In doing their group projects one student complained to me about her groupmates. I told her that often in the real world, they would have to work with others who had different motivations and work habits. The student was surprised. I'm not sure that anything substantive that she learned from me this semester was as important as that revelation.
Fish has a point when he says that some academics (he might say many academics) do not do the teaching or research parts of their jobs sufficiently well. We all had professors in college who did not care about whether their students learned. And, yes there is plenty of research in mediocre academic journals that cause even the mildly skeptical reader to shake their head in wonder.
While the need for improvement in these areas exists, that does not mean that the professor has no other responsibilities. As a professor of public policy, discussing relevant issues is a necessary part of the classroom experience. My foremost task is to teach students how to think about such issues. In doing so, however it is inevitable that I push them to think about these issues the way I do. Often in a classroom setting that means getting them to question preconceived notions. In my case that often means getting them to question their liberal politics. I do this, not because I disagree with them (although occasionally I do), but rather because I want them to be able to understand other points of view and hope that they will be able to make their arguments stronger if they do.
Fish might argue that this is not advocating political causes but rather teaching rigorous thinking. I find such a separation hopelessly naive. I am not explicitly advocating particular views in the classroom but if students approach policy problems the way I want them to, they are more likely to come out with a particular set of solutions. I will never tell a student to vote for John Kerry but I will teach them to think about policy issues in a way that I think inevitably makes the current administration look like a failure. That is part of my job.
Should we also teach our students to be good citizens? Until this semester I might have agreed with Fish and answered no. Now I don't think there is a choice. If we want students to learn (particularly undergraduates) we have to teach them how to learn. We have to teach them that showing up to class and staying awake is part of how one succeeds in life. I had thought that they would know this by the time they reached college but this is not always the case. Next year I plan to be more strident in telling my undergraduates what they need to do to get an "A."
In doing their group projects one student complained to me about her groupmates. I told her that often in the real world, they would have to work with others who had different motivations and work habits. The student was surprised. I'm not sure that anything substantive that she learned from me this semester was as important as that revelation.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
In Praise of John McCain
In a scene evocative of high school bullies making fun of the kid they don't like, Dennis Hastert and fellow House Republicans mocked John McCain as a false Republican. While regular readers know that I do not consider that an insult, it does reflect the unique position of McCain in American politics.
I first grew to appreciate McCain at the same time most others did, when he ran against Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000. Prior to that, I had thought of him as someone with the right ideas about campaign finance reform and little else. With some help from the media, McCain was able to present himself as someone who said what he thought and was only minimally concerned with the politics of any given issue. He was savaged by Bush and overwhelmed by Bush's money. The fact that he won a half dozen primaries despite this is testament to the degree he connected with voters.
In the four years since then, McCain has demonstrated his integrity outside the glare of a presidential campaign. He shepherded campaign finance reform into law and consistently took positions at odds both with the Administration and with those of powerful interest groups. Despite his party affiliation many pine for him as a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket.
Make no mistake about it, McCain still holds some quite conservative positions, particularly on abortion and on government spending. It so happens that these are the "Democratic" issues with which I most loosely agree with the Dems. As McCain has moved leftward on other issues, particularly taxes and environmental policy, he has become a candidate I could see myself voting for. To be honest, if the election were between McCain, Kerry, and Bush, I'm not sure how I would vote.
So should Kerry consider him as vice president? I'd love it, but lets face it, I'm voting for Kerry unless he picks Pedro Martinez as his running mate (and Pedro wasn't born in the US so Kerry is safe). Picking McCain would splinter off conservative voters unhappy with Bush which would help Kerry. It would also drive away those on the left unhappy with McCain's pro-life position on abortion. Ralph Nader would almost certainly move up into double digits. Which of these effects would be greater? Who knows. I do think it is unlikely Kerry will go in this direction but I hope that McCain does have a role in the Kerry Administration at some point. The country would be better off if he does.
I first grew to appreciate McCain at the same time most others did, when he ran against Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000. Prior to that, I had thought of him as someone with the right ideas about campaign finance reform and little else. With some help from the media, McCain was able to present himself as someone who said what he thought and was only minimally concerned with the politics of any given issue. He was savaged by Bush and overwhelmed by Bush's money. The fact that he won a half dozen primaries despite this is testament to the degree he connected with voters.
In the four years since then, McCain has demonstrated his integrity outside the glare of a presidential campaign. He shepherded campaign finance reform into law and consistently took positions at odds both with the Administration and with those of powerful interest groups. Despite his party affiliation many pine for him as a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket.
Make no mistake about it, McCain still holds some quite conservative positions, particularly on abortion and on government spending. It so happens that these are the "Democratic" issues with which I most loosely agree with the Dems. As McCain has moved leftward on other issues, particularly taxes and environmental policy, he has become a candidate I could see myself voting for. To be honest, if the election were between McCain, Kerry, and Bush, I'm not sure how I would vote.
So should Kerry consider him as vice president? I'd love it, but lets face it, I'm voting for Kerry unless he picks Pedro Martinez as his running mate (and Pedro wasn't born in the US so Kerry is safe). Picking McCain would splinter off conservative voters unhappy with Bush which would help Kerry. It would also drive away those on the left unhappy with McCain's pro-life position on abortion. Ralph Nader would almost certainly move up into double digits. Which of these effects would be greater? Who knows. I do think it is unlikely Kerry will go in this direction but I hope that McCain does have a role in the Kerry Administration at some point. The country would be better off if he does.
Monday, May 17, 2004
The President's Network and All the President's Men
A couple of things this weekend have led me to think hard again about the role of the media. Several months ago, I posted about the role of the media, arguing that an objective media was an impossible standard to reach, and a competitive media reflecting the views of the population was the most we could hope for. I have also praised the beginnings of a liberal radio network by Air America, which is a step toward that ideal.
While I would not hold the media to a standard of objectivity, I would hold them to a standard of independence. Coordinating news coverage with those whom they are covering strikes me as significantly and inherently problematic. Individuals watch, read, or listen to the news with the expectation that the media is independent of those who are being covered.
We were having dinner with a friend this weekend who works in the same building as the folks planning the Republican convention in New York. He was riding in the elevator with two of these lovely people and overheard one say "So and so at Fox News said they would take good care of us this summer." Needless to say this confirms liberals worst fears about Fox. While I will be the first to admit that much of the big city mainstream media has a liberal bias, that bias does not arise from coordination with the Democratic party. Indeed in the interest of compensating for this perceived bias, much of the mainstream media is not hesitant to criticize Democratic politicians.
I do not expect Fox to be "fair and balanced." I do expect them to be a news organization that reports on the news rather than coordinates it with those in power. It is one thing to be manipulated by the Administration as many media outlets were over the buildup to war in Iraq. It is another thing entirely to cooperate in that manipulation.
Last night my wife and I watched "All the President's Men," the dramatization of Woodward and Bernstein's exposure of the Watergate scandal. The Post claimed to be objective and was villified by Republicans for being biased. What it was, was a newspaper investigating a story that both revealed a scandal of historical significance and helped sell papers. A paper coordinating with the opposition to Nixon could hardly have been as effective. Objectivity may be too much to ask for but integrity is not.
While I would not hold the media to a standard of objectivity, I would hold them to a standard of independence. Coordinating news coverage with those whom they are covering strikes me as significantly and inherently problematic. Individuals watch, read, or listen to the news with the expectation that the media is independent of those who are being covered.
We were having dinner with a friend this weekend who works in the same building as the folks planning the Republican convention in New York. He was riding in the elevator with two of these lovely people and overheard one say "So and so at Fox News said they would take good care of us this summer." Needless to say this confirms liberals worst fears about Fox. While I will be the first to admit that much of the big city mainstream media has a liberal bias, that bias does not arise from coordination with the Democratic party. Indeed in the interest of compensating for this perceived bias, much of the mainstream media is not hesitant to criticize Democratic politicians.
I do not expect Fox to be "fair and balanced." I do expect them to be a news organization that reports on the news rather than coordinates it with those in power. It is one thing to be manipulated by the Administration as many media outlets were over the buildup to war in Iraq. It is another thing entirely to cooperate in that manipulation.
Last night my wife and I watched "All the President's Men," the dramatization of Woodward and Bernstein's exposure of the Watergate scandal. The Post claimed to be objective and was villified by Republicans for being biased. What it was, was a newspaper investigating a story that both revealed a scandal of historical significance and helped sell papers. A paper coordinating with the opposition to Nixon could hardly have been as effective. Objectivity may be too much to ask for but integrity is not.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Environmental Regulation and Gas Prices
Earlier this week, there was a Senate hearing on the reasons for higher gas prices. The oil industry, fresh off of reporting record profits, blamed the high costs of environmental regulations for the high gas prices. In doing so, they took the weekly prize for best example of unmitigated gall away from President Bush who said Donald Rumsfeld was doing a "superb" job.
Environmental regulations do cost money and do result in higher gas prices. However, the environmental regulations that affect the gas industry have been in place for years. Does anyone believe that all of a sudden in 2004, oil industry executives woke up and said, "well I've absorbed the costs of these regulations for years because I'm a good guy, but I can't do it any longer?"
Far more likely is that said executive woke up and said, "hmmm, an anti-environmental president and Congress and higher gas prices. I can make a case to get rid of environmental regulations." Who cares that the rise in gas prices is far more likely to be due to supply restraints and oil company profit seeking? When will an opportunity to roll back regulations with demonstrated net benefits to the public in the billions of dollars occur again?
I am comfortable with the idea of oil companies making profits and do not see myself as much of a populist. When their greed gets to the point that they are saying things under oath that they are clearly smart enough to know are not true, I draw the line. George Bush has already been one of the worst presidents for the environment. If this gas price crisis is used to justify further rollbacks, then he will have environmentalists longing for the days of James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in the early Reagan Administration.
Environmental regulations do cost money and do result in higher gas prices. However, the environmental regulations that affect the gas industry have been in place for years. Does anyone believe that all of a sudden in 2004, oil industry executives woke up and said, "well I've absorbed the costs of these regulations for years because I'm a good guy, but I can't do it any longer?"
Far more likely is that said executive woke up and said, "hmmm, an anti-environmental president and Congress and higher gas prices. I can make a case to get rid of environmental regulations." Who cares that the rise in gas prices is far more likely to be due to supply restraints and oil company profit seeking? When will an opportunity to roll back regulations with demonstrated net benefits to the public in the billions of dollars occur again?
I am comfortable with the idea of oil companies making profits and do not see myself as much of a populist. When their greed gets to the point that they are saying things under oath that they are clearly smart enough to know are not true, I draw the line. George Bush has already been one of the worst presidents for the environment. If this gas price crisis is used to justify further rollbacks, then he will have environmentalists longing for the days of James Watt and Anne Gorsuch in the early Reagan Administration.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Survivor
Many people (particularly teenagers) use their blogs as a confessional. Today for the first time, I am doing the same. It is a confession that will come as little shock to some of my close friends but will certainly surprise others. I am addicted to the reality show Survivor.
Other than sports, I do not watch much television. I tuned in to the final episode of Friends last week because of the enormous hype, despite the fact that I hadn't watched an episode since the show jumped the shark 8 years ago. I was profoundly bored and spent much of the episode on the computer and reading the newspaper. Survivor however grips me unlike any network tv show since Buffy the Vampire Slayer (there's another confession for you).
It may be the reality genre, but in limited watching of other reality shows, none have compelled me to return the next week like Survivor does. My guess is that unlike other reality shows where gorgeous women must choose between gorgeous men (or vice versa) or Donald Trump must choose between successful businesspeople, Survivor always has some "normal" people in it. Watching these people interact, get to know each other, and eventually lie to and betray one another for a million dollars is gripping.
I'd like to make some profound statement about the show giving us greater insight into the human condition. Doing so would unjustifiably flatter the show (which takes place in an extremely unrealistic setting) and myself. Instead, I will just say that unlike much of what is on network television, there is genuine drama, suspense and occasionally comedy each week. And until there is something to replace Seinfeld, Survivor will be my one foray into network television each week.
So before I return to serious matters, let me ask one question: can you believe the way that Lex and Kathy acted on Sunday?
Other than sports, I do not watch much television. I tuned in to the final episode of Friends last week because of the enormous hype, despite the fact that I hadn't watched an episode since the show jumped the shark 8 years ago. I was profoundly bored and spent much of the episode on the computer and reading the newspaper. Survivor however grips me unlike any network tv show since Buffy the Vampire Slayer (there's another confession for you).
It may be the reality genre, but in limited watching of other reality shows, none have compelled me to return the next week like Survivor does. My guess is that unlike other reality shows where gorgeous women must choose between gorgeous men (or vice versa) or Donald Trump must choose between successful businesspeople, Survivor always has some "normal" people in it. Watching these people interact, get to know each other, and eventually lie to and betray one another for a million dollars is gripping.
I'd like to make some profound statement about the show giving us greater insight into the human condition. Doing so would unjustifiably flatter the show (which takes place in an extremely unrealistic setting) and myself. Instead, I will just say that unlike much of what is on network television, there is genuine drama, suspense and occasionally comedy each week. And until there is something to replace Seinfeld, Survivor will be my one foray into network television each week.
So before I return to serious matters, let me ask one question: can you believe the way that Lex and Kathy acted on Sunday?
Monday, May 10, 2004
Presidential Thoughts
The cost of having a five month window between the selection of the Democratic nominee and the conventions is now clear. With nothing happening in the presidential campaign, reporters have to invent stories. Nowhere is that in better evidence than in the recent trend of stories about how the Kerry campaign is in trouble. The silliness of this is well captured in today's column by Howard Kurtz .
Kerry and Bush are generally running dead even in the polls. This verifies the long held conventional wisdom that this will be a very close election decided in a small number of crucial states (not since four presidents in 50 years were from Ohio, has the Buckeye State gotten so much attention). So why do pundits say Kerry is in trouble? Because with the bad month that Bush has had (Iraq and 9-11 commission), Kerry should be surging. This is ludicrous. Forty percent of the electorate is going to vote for Bush unless he is caught electrocuting babies without being able to argue that it makes us safer. Another forty percent is going to vote against him even if he chases down Osama Bin Laden personally. In this environment, wild swings in the polls are unlikely barring a major terrorist attack.
This is why Kerry cannot be in trouble yet. It is simply too early to take seriously minor fluctuations in the polls or the lack of such fluctuations. Not until the conventions occur do such numbers have meaning. Yes, they have more meaning now than they did a year ago (when pundits were declaring Bush invincible), but that is only because they had no meaning then and only have a tiny tiny meaning now.
Another series of articles involves the strategy that the candidates should pursue. The Times this weekend had a piece on how this campaign was like 1988 when the President's father effectively tarred Michael Dukakis with negative labels from which he still hasn't recovered. Other pundits have analogized this campaign to Carter-Reagan in 1980, Bush-Clinton in 1992, and Clinton-Dole in 1996 and given advice to the candidates accordingly.
While I believe as much as anyone in Santayana's maxim that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, it is easy to get too wrapped up in these analogies. I do it myself occasionally. Presidential advisers must remember that every election is unique. We've never had a post 9-11 election before. We've never had an election where we had 130,000 troops in Iraq before. Economic conditions vary somewhat with each election. Kerry and Bush would be best advised to look at current conditions more than historical trends. Of course historical trends are fun for pundits starved for stories in this five month desert (meaning I reserve the right to write about them in the future).
Kerry and Bush are generally running dead even in the polls. This verifies the long held conventional wisdom that this will be a very close election decided in a small number of crucial states (not since four presidents in 50 years were from Ohio, has the Buckeye State gotten so much attention). So why do pundits say Kerry is in trouble? Because with the bad month that Bush has had (Iraq and 9-11 commission), Kerry should be surging. This is ludicrous. Forty percent of the electorate is going to vote for Bush unless he is caught electrocuting babies without being able to argue that it makes us safer. Another forty percent is going to vote against him even if he chases down Osama Bin Laden personally. In this environment, wild swings in the polls are unlikely barring a major terrorist attack.
This is why Kerry cannot be in trouble yet. It is simply too early to take seriously minor fluctuations in the polls or the lack of such fluctuations. Not until the conventions occur do such numbers have meaning. Yes, they have more meaning now than they did a year ago (when pundits were declaring Bush invincible), but that is only because they had no meaning then and only have a tiny tiny meaning now.
Another series of articles involves the strategy that the candidates should pursue. The Times this weekend had a piece on how this campaign was like 1988 when the President's father effectively tarred Michael Dukakis with negative labels from which he still hasn't recovered. Other pundits have analogized this campaign to Carter-Reagan in 1980, Bush-Clinton in 1992, and Clinton-Dole in 1996 and given advice to the candidates accordingly.
While I believe as much as anyone in Santayana's maxim that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, it is easy to get too wrapped up in these analogies. I do it myself occasionally. Presidential advisers must remember that every election is unique. We've never had a post 9-11 election before. We've never had an election where we had 130,000 troops in Iraq before. Economic conditions vary somewhat with each election. Kerry and Bush would be best advised to look at current conditions more than historical trends. Of course historical trends are fun for pundits starved for stories in this five month desert (meaning I reserve the right to write about them in the future).
Friday, May 07, 2004
Torture and Terror
Clearly the most important topic in the news this week is the horrible revelations about torture by US miltary officers in Iraqi prisons. Numerous op-ed columnists have covered the subject well including EJ Dionne, Richard Cohen, and Anthony Lewis. They have largely focused on the question of responsibility noting (I think correctly) that at a minimum Donald Rumsfeld must be held responsible and that the President, at a minimum, clearly has a management problem if he is not being informed of issues like this in a timely manner.
Taking a broader view is the pro-Iraqi war columnist Thomas Friedman. Friedman notes that this is a critical juncture in the Iraqi war and that while it is still winnable these revelations are a can cost us that victory unless they are dealt with immediately and effectively (Friedman also calls for Rumsfeld's resignation).
I think that the torture revelations have an even broader impact. The best, although not sufficient, justification that Bush had for invading Iraq is that a democratic Iraq could have a huge effect on the region and would greatly reduce the threat of terrorism (ignore for the moment that this was not the one of the top three reasons he gave). Instead, with the news from Abu Ghraib, the invasion of Iraq now threatens to dramatically increase the risk we face from terrorist attacks.
The War on Terror is something of a hybrid war. It is a "hot" war as evidenced by the battles in Afghanistan and the continuing attempts to track down Osama Bin Laden. It is also a war for hearts and minds. With over a billion Muslims in the world, we cannot wage war on all of them. Instead we must convince them that there is hope in democracy and freedom and that the life that such ideals offer is a better one than the theocratic dictatorship advocated by Bin Laden. We must win this argument despite the fact that we are foreigners saddled with a history of imperialism and disregard for cultures other than ours.
This is why this week's revelations are so harmful to the War on Terror. I would guess that many of those on the fence in the Middle East have turned against us this week. We have justified Bin Laden's rhetoric in their minds. The pictures we saw will be in recruiting videos for Al Qaeda for years to come. I've thought from the beginning that the war in Iraq was a distraction from our war on those who mean us the greatest harm. It now has become something much worse. We have given terrorists the means by which to strengthen themselves. That is a military failure of the first order. As such, the head of our military, the Secretary of Defense, must be replaced.
Taking a broader view is the pro-Iraqi war columnist Thomas Friedman. Friedman notes that this is a critical juncture in the Iraqi war and that while it is still winnable these revelations are a can cost us that victory unless they are dealt with immediately and effectively (Friedman also calls for Rumsfeld's resignation).
I think that the torture revelations have an even broader impact. The best, although not sufficient, justification that Bush had for invading Iraq is that a democratic Iraq could have a huge effect on the region and would greatly reduce the threat of terrorism (ignore for the moment that this was not the one of the top three reasons he gave). Instead, with the news from Abu Ghraib, the invasion of Iraq now threatens to dramatically increase the risk we face from terrorist attacks.
The War on Terror is something of a hybrid war. It is a "hot" war as evidenced by the battles in Afghanistan and the continuing attempts to track down Osama Bin Laden. It is also a war for hearts and minds. With over a billion Muslims in the world, we cannot wage war on all of them. Instead we must convince them that there is hope in democracy and freedom and that the life that such ideals offer is a better one than the theocratic dictatorship advocated by Bin Laden. We must win this argument despite the fact that we are foreigners saddled with a history of imperialism and disregard for cultures other than ours.
This is why this week's revelations are so harmful to the War on Terror. I would guess that many of those on the fence in the Middle East have turned against us this week. We have justified Bin Laden's rhetoric in their minds. The pictures we saw will be in recruiting videos for Al Qaeda for years to come. I've thought from the beginning that the war in Iraq was a distraction from our war on those who mean us the greatest harm. It now has become something much worse. We have given terrorists the means by which to strengthen themselves. That is a military failure of the first order. As such, the head of our military, the Secretary of Defense, must be replaced.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Obesity and Income
One of the best things the Bush Administration has done (disclosure: My office was heavily involved in the effort) was to have the FDA require the labelling of trans fatty acid content in food products. Trans fatty acids are among the worst kind of fats and with obesity a huge problem, the hope is that increased information will allow consumers to choose healthier products and thereby reduce the risk of heart disease.
Of course, while few would dispute that more information is a good thing, the question remains open as to how good a thing it is. Do people pay any attention to the food labels (I only started reading them over the past several years)? Assuming that they do, will they modify their behaviors? Obesity is a public health crisis on the level of smoking in this country so we have to ask how effective has government action been and what else can we do to combat fat.
Yesterday there was an article in the USA Today that should lead us to question whether labeling or any other incremental measures will have much of an effect upon consumption patterns. The article points out the simple fact that healthier foods such as fresh fuits and vegetables and salmon are more expensive than less healthy foods like macaroni and cheese and potato chips. This creates an income disparity in eating patterns that like many other things in life favors the wealthy. Most importantly it means that just telling people that certain foods are not good for them is insufficient to make much of a public health difference if these foods are cheaper than healthier products.
If we want to make a big difference in the food americans eat, then we need to unleash government's greatest power, the power of the purse. Since pollution has public health consequences, we make it more expensive to pollute and cheaper to produce cleanly. Studies have shown that the most effective anti-tobacco programs are not the wonderful ads on television but the taxes on tobacco products. This is particularly true because such taxes affect two groups who are particularly hard to reach, the poor and the young. The poor and the young have less money so raising the cost of cigarettes does a great deal to alter their consumption patterns.
The idea of banning fatty foods is laughable and would be bad public policy. The idea of taxing fatty foods like we do with cigarettes and alchohol will be hard to implement politically and practically but would be extremely good public policy. The idea of subsidizing healthy foods to make them cheaper would also be good policy and may be realistic poltiically. This is a direction that the government should be moving in.
If only there was a politician obsessed with good health who could take this up as a major cause. A former bodybuilder turned governor of California perhaps?
Of course, while few would dispute that more information is a good thing, the question remains open as to how good a thing it is. Do people pay any attention to the food labels (I only started reading them over the past several years)? Assuming that they do, will they modify their behaviors? Obesity is a public health crisis on the level of smoking in this country so we have to ask how effective has government action been and what else can we do to combat fat.
Yesterday there was an article in the USA Today that should lead us to question whether labeling or any other incremental measures will have much of an effect upon consumption patterns. The article points out the simple fact that healthier foods such as fresh fuits and vegetables and salmon are more expensive than less healthy foods like macaroni and cheese and potato chips. This creates an income disparity in eating patterns that like many other things in life favors the wealthy. Most importantly it means that just telling people that certain foods are not good for them is insufficient to make much of a public health difference if these foods are cheaper than healthier products.
If we want to make a big difference in the food americans eat, then we need to unleash government's greatest power, the power of the purse. Since pollution has public health consequences, we make it more expensive to pollute and cheaper to produce cleanly. Studies have shown that the most effective anti-tobacco programs are not the wonderful ads on television but the taxes on tobacco products. This is particularly true because such taxes affect two groups who are particularly hard to reach, the poor and the young. The poor and the young have less money so raising the cost of cigarettes does a great deal to alter their consumption patterns.
The idea of banning fatty foods is laughable and would be bad public policy. The idea of taxing fatty foods like we do with cigarettes and alchohol will be hard to implement politically and practically but would be extremely good public policy. The idea of subsidizing healthy foods to make them cheaper would also be good policy and may be realistic poltiically. This is a direction that the government should be moving in.
If only there was a politician obsessed with good health who could take this up as a major cause. A former bodybuilder turned governor of California perhaps?
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Thinking about health care
Health care is one of those issues that I have scrupulously avoided throughout my public policy career. I wish I had a good reason for this but it basically comes down to the fact that the issue struck me as hopelessly complicated and close to hopeless period.
This semester, I had to confront health care policy because I was teaching a health economics class to undergraduates. (warning this is not an inspirational story about how I now have hope for solutions to the health care crisis in this country). Over the past week, my students presented their evaluations of the health care plans presented by the various candidates for President. This has led me to wonder if the health care crisis is within our capacity to solve.
The problems with the US health care system are well known. Forty-three million people are without health insurance. We spend more per capita on health care than any other developed country yet life expectancies, infant mortality, and other health care indices lag behind many of our European and Japanese peers. Meanwhile our political economy makes anything approaching universal health care an impossibility. Finally to make matters worse, Medicare is in crisis with the fund that supports the largest part of Medicare expenditures running out of money within two decades.
Solutions fall into two categories. Incremental changes dominate the debate and while many of them are worthwhile (expanding SCHIP, the children's health insurance program, tax credits here and there, adding a half hearted prescription drug benefit to Medicare) none are likely to make a dent in any of the problems listed above. Changing the health care system en masse is probably what is necessary but the costs of doing so make it very unlikely.
Universal health insurance or anything that approaches it would likely come with the price of increased waiting times to see doctors, significantly higher taxes, reduced medical innovation, and talented young people choosing medicine as a profession less frequently. These are serious costs but after a semester of thinking about these issues, the economist in me has become more open to the idea that they are costs we will have to bear. The political scientist in me wonders how bad the crisis has to become before we recognize this reality.
This semester, I had to confront health care policy because I was teaching a health economics class to undergraduates. (warning this is not an inspirational story about how I now have hope for solutions to the health care crisis in this country). Over the past week, my students presented their evaluations of the health care plans presented by the various candidates for President. This has led me to wonder if the health care crisis is within our capacity to solve.
The problems with the US health care system are well known. Forty-three million people are without health insurance. We spend more per capita on health care than any other developed country yet life expectancies, infant mortality, and other health care indices lag behind many of our European and Japanese peers. Meanwhile our political economy makes anything approaching universal health care an impossibility. Finally to make matters worse, Medicare is in crisis with the fund that supports the largest part of Medicare expenditures running out of money within two decades.
Solutions fall into two categories. Incremental changes dominate the debate and while many of them are worthwhile (expanding SCHIP, the children's health insurance program, tax credits here and there, adding a half hearted prescription drug benefit to Medicare) none are likely to make a dent in any of the problems listed above. Changing the health care system en masse is probably what is necessary but the costs of doing so make it very unlikely.
Universal health insurance or anything that approaches it would likely come with the price of increased waiting times to see doctors, significantly higher taxes, reduced medical innovation, and talented young people choosing medicine as a profession less frequently. These are serious costs but after a semester of thinking about these issues, the economist in me has become more open to the idea that they are costs we will have to bear. The political scientist in me wonders how bad the crisis has to become before we recognize this reality.
