Talented Earthquake Productions

One Question for Ron Paul

2012-01-20T09:03:00.000-08:00

So Ron Paul published some newsletters, but doesn't want to talk about them. I find this odd, because I thot that the whole reason a person would publish newsletters - particularly if said person named them after himself - they would want to talk about them. Not Mr. Paul! This may be because the content of said newsletters is proving to be somewhat toxic and controversial. I've seen enough quotes from them that I have serious questions about his ideas on racial equality. He doesn't seem like he is overtly racist, and I'm willing to grant - at least for the sake of argument in this blog post - that he isn't. But he also doesn't seem to really care that much about working towards healing the wounds of the past, and he doesn't seem to care that much about taking strong moral stands against racism. That's putting it very mildly, but that's also not my concern here.

What bothers me far more is his reluctance to take any kind of responsibility for these newsletters. When some incendiary rhetoric from his pastor surfaced during the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama took responsibility for addressing the concerns raised by that rhetoric. He didn't give the sermons, but he understood that, as the first African-American presidential candidate for a major party, he was expected to addresses issues of racial inequality in America. Which he did. When Obama made the decision to run for president, he knew he was simultaneously taking on a certain responsibility for addressing moral issues. That's the deal. That's sort of the point of being president - or any kind of leader - in a democracy. You're asking for an opportunity to present your ideas to the public, and, ideally, shape the public debate, and thereby determine the policies of the country.

I would just like to ask Ron Paul one question: you claim that you did not read these newsletters before they were published. Then why did you publish them? Presumably it cost you a certain amount of money to do so. There's the basic costs for incorporating, registering trademarks, etc. Then there's the cost of paying the writers, paying whoever did the layout, and, of course, the actual printing and mailing. All of those things require money, and some of them - like, say, actually hiring the writers - take time. I'm going to assume, Mr. Paul, that you are the person who hired the writers to write these newsletters. If that is not the case - if you outsourced that rather fundamental management decision - then this conversation is over, and the remaining shreds of my respect for you are gone.

So that's the question: if you did not intend to exercise editorial control over newsletter that went out under your name, presumably designed to publicize your political views, then why did you publish them in the first place?

Steve Jobs, an appreciation

2011-10-06T11:02:00.000-07:00

I first started using Macs when I was in college. Macs were brand new. My family had had an Apple IIe (I think that was the model), but I never used it much. I remember my Dad being amazed that we had upgraded all the way to 64k of memory. But the screen was the classic green screen, and you couldn't do much more than type. But you could do lots of stuff with a Mac.

I wrote a paper in college about James Joyce's Ulysses. I argued that Joyce had achieved in literature what Einstein had achieved in physics. One of Einstein's great insights was that space and time were not separate, but were part of a continuum. Joyce, I wrote, understood form and content the same way. They are not separate, but part of a continuum. The (possibly pretentious) way that I put it was that form is infinitely refined content, and content is infinitely refined form. I'm not sure I could explain that today as well as I did then, so you're going to have to trust me on this one.

Part of Steve Jobs' genius is that he understood the relationship between art and technology in the same terms. Most people think of design and engineering as separate; Jobs understood that they are not just inextricably linked, but inseparable, and one informs the other. It's easy to design a machine without thinking about it's design; it's easy to design a machine without worrying about how well it works. It's very difficult to combine both. But, as Jobs understood, it's worth it. And because it's so hard, it's important to do it really, really well. Steve Jobs was not just a perfectionist because he wanted to be one; he was a perfectionist because he had to be one.

But it wasn't just art and technology that he understood as being parts of a continuum. He had the same understanding of art and commerce. The fact that Apple products are visually appealing isn't just a nice side effect of good design; that is part of what makes them useful. It's really easy to use an iPhone. The concept of a "user-friendly" computer was revolutionary in 1984. That simplicity is both aesthetically pleasing and technologically empowering. Again, that combination is very hard to pull off, but also worth it. And worth high prices. It's not just a nice idea to make something that beautiful that people also like using - it's a great business model.

Finally, this idea - that art and technology combine to make great products that are worth their price - is what drives Steve Jobs' other great contribution to American culture, Pixar. It's very technologically challenging to make a Pixar movie. But the fact that it's so technically difficult also means that the story has to be just as good, to justify the cost. Computer animation is nice to look at, but the charm of the images won't get enough people in theaters. Just like Apple, the perfectionism at Pixar isn't there just because the people there are neurotic obsessives. They're perfectionists because, like Steve Jobs, they have to be.

Sarah Palin's Presidential Ambitions

2011-05-30T16:56:00.001-07:00

Will Sarah Palin run for President? That's one of the most intriguing questions in politics today.

Here's my definitive, unequivocal answer: yes and no.

Actually, that's my definitive, unequivocal answer to the question: "Does Sarah Palin want to be president?"

To understand Sarah Palin's presidential ambitions, it's important to understand two things:

1. Sarah Palin does not want the problems and headaches that come with being president of the United States. She doesn't want to have to make tough decisions. She doesn't like being held to a strict schedule. She doesn't have a lot of personal discipline.

2. Sarah Palin is really, really ambitious, and loves the fame, power, glory and, most of all, the attention that would come with being president.

Sarah Palin wants to be famous, and loves having lots of adoring fans. She would love nothing more than almost being president.

Consider how well the 2008 campaign worked out for her. She spent two months flying around the country on someone else's dime, rallying the troops, and establishing her brand. She didn't have to make a single difficult policy decision. The fact that McCain failed was largely laid at his feet. So Palin got lots of attention with very little responsibility. She would have loved being vice president. Vice presidents don't do much. Talk about a job with glory, attention and power, but very little responsibility.

Almost all politicians in a democracy - Democrat and Republican - understand that politics in a democracy is about enlightened self-interest. You have to be able to cooperate with people who disagree with you - at least occasionally - as well as compete with them. But that only applies if you want to accomplish something within the legislative system. Sarah Palin has zero interest in passing legislation. She therefore has zero interest in cooperating with people who disagree with her, and every intention of simply competing with them - or just criticizing them. She doesn't just have no interest in cooperating with Democrats who disagree with her. She also has no interest in cooperating with Republicans who disagree with her. This is unfortunate for most other establishment Washington Republican politicians, because it means that the day may come when acting in her own best self-interest means acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the party. Which she will do without hesitation.

The 2012 campaign presents her with a conundrum: she doesn't really want to win, but she wants all of the attention that she would get from a presidential campaign. Her ideal 2012 experience would be for her to campaign vigorously for president, and then lose in the primaries in a way that allows her to blame the Washington establishment for her failure. Her problem is that the person with the best chance of serving as her foil is Mitt Romney, who is a weak candidate.

But her solution is simplicity itself. All she has to do is be herself, because she will inspire her fans, continue to piss off Democrats of all stripes, and alienate independents and moderate Republicans. Traditional presidential campaign theory says that candidates must campaign in the primaries to win over the base, but be prepared to move to the center in the general election. But because Sarah Palin has no interest in winning the general election, she has no interest in preparing to move to the center. She can do whatever she wants to stir up her base, because that's all she wants to do. If she keeps her fans' fires of devotion going, but alienates enough centrist/mainstream/moderate Republicans that she doesn't get the nomination, she still comes out ahead. If she does ultimately get the nomination, she can continue to inspire her most loyal followers without worrying about convincing any moderates or Democrats to vote for her, because she ultimately doesn't really want to be elected president. We're talking about a woman who would love nothing more than to have yet more reasons to claim being a martyr.

Sarah Palin doesn't even really care whether or not the GOP wins the presidential election. She might even prefer Obama winning a second term, because it gives her a perfect foil. If Romney is elected, she can stay on the sidelines and be critical of him if she doesn't consider him conservative enough. But eventually most Republicans would get tired of her. But if Obama wins, she can keep presenting herself as channeling the base's frustrations.

What's wonderfully, deliciously ironic about this - at least from the perspective of a liberal Democrat - is that Sarah Palin is the perfect embodiment of conservative Republican capitalist ideology. She is motivated entirely by her own self-interest.

But it's also unfortunate for Sarah Palin, because, while none of those Washington Republicans are as good looking as her, many of them are smarter than her. And there are lots of them. And they have lots and lots and lots of money. Sarah Palin can keep this charade going unless, at some point, she makes a complete and utter fool of herself. At that point, the likes of Karl Rove might be able to diminish her influence on the party; they might be able to contain the damage she does in the future. But at that point, the damage to the GOP will have been done.

And Sarah Palin will have millions in the bank.

Obama, Israel, and the Arab Spring

2011-05-20T12:03:00.000-07:00

So I watched Obama's speech on the Middle East. Many commentators seem to have focused on his comments on Israel, bluntly making it clear that the US favors a two-state solution. Nothing terribly unusual there; it's been clear for a while that will be required for a solution to this problem. He also spoke at length about the Arab Spring, and the hopes for democratic change. Again, doesn't seem very far out of the norm for a speech by an American president. Republicans, of course, attacked him for allegedly bailing on Israel. Part of this is appealing to hardline Israelis, hard of this is appealing to conservative Christians, and part of this is just a need on their part to attack Obama. More of the same.

But I haven't seen any commentary (although it's entirely possible that I missed it) on how the Arab Spring has completely changed the calculus in the Mideast, and how Obama grasps the importance of that. The Israeli-Palestinian issue has seemed intractable; both sides are dug in, neither trusts the other, and neither seems willing to compromise. But the Arab Spring has changed the debate, because it relieves a great deal of pressure on the Arab side of the equation. Corrupt Arab dictators have used Israel as a distraction; they've demagogued about Jews as a way of distracting their people from their own failings as leaders. The fact that many of them have access to oil wealth as a means of bribing their populations into complacency has, of course, been a big help.

But, as Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the countries undergoing transformation in the Mideast will become stable, secure democracies. Some won't. Some may very well see one dictatorship replaced with another. The best historical precedent that I can think of is what happened in with the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989. East Germany was absorbed into West Germany, and the Central European states are free, while some in the Caucasus are not. The same will probably be the case in the Arab world; some countries will make a successful transition to democracy, some won't.

But those that do, it can be reasonably hoped, will flourish. And with that flourishing will come, again it is to be reasonably hoped, a lessening of the pressure to blame Israel and the Jews for the problems of Arabs. It won't be easy, but it's been done before.

Netanyahu and his Republicans allies don't see things this way. Hardline Israelis, at this point, just don't have a lot of faith in the ability of Arabs to become peace-loving neighbors. It's not hard to understand why they think that. But it's also not hard to understand that they can not afford to think that very much longer. Likud will be very reluctant to negotiate. And, of course, there are more than a few Jews in Israel who believe that the land is there by divine right. There are also a fair number of fundamentalist Christians and Jews in this country who agree with that. In this respect, the interests of conservative Israelis and conservatives Republicans are aligned.

Their interests are also aligned in the sense that they want to see Obama fail. In Netanyahu's ideal world, a Republican wins in 2012, and he gets to spend another few years resisting pressure from around the world to compromise on a two-state solution.

But a key difference between Netanyahu and Republicans is that Bibi isn't stupid, and he doesn't have a fallback option. If Mitt Romney doesn't become president, he'll still be a rich, comfortable American. What is at stake for Netanyahu is the survival of the state of Israel. Republicans don't mind a state of permanent war; it keeps the defense contractors happy. Israelis know that, ultimately, it is not sustainable. But right now, they are also scared that, if they give an inch, the Arabs, like Hamas, will take full advantage of their weaknesses, and destroy them. This is why the Arab Spring is so important: it provides a glimmer of hope that peace may, in fact, be a viable option. Hardline Israelis are still very skeptical of this, for very good reason. But the whole point of Obama's speech was to take that tiny flowering of hope, that smidgen of optimism, and make it grow. That is, after all, his specialty.

Obama and Netanyahu do not like each other, and they don't really trust each other. But they do respect each other. Each is a very smart man, and each is a brilliant politician. The key difference between Netanyahu and his Republican allies is that Netanyahu, in the long run, doesn't care whether or not Obama is reelected. But he does care a great deal the survival of the state of Israel, and he knows that peace is required for that. Republicans also want the survival of the state of Israel, but they also prefer a mindset that encourages Americans to be afraid of terrorists, so the Pentagon budget stays at its absurd levels. But what is most important to Republicans is delegitimizing Obama. If Obama can convince Netanyahu that he can at least make progress towards peace, he can split Likud and the Republicans. It won't be a wide split, but Obama can make it clear that their interests are not as solidly aligned as it seems they are today. Besides, Obama also knows that there are lots of American Jews - most, actually - who are liberal Democrats, and therefore agree with him. Part of the purpose of his speech was to mobilize them to be on his side. Obama has a chance of convincing Netanyahu to work with him, because Netanyahu respects Obama's political abilities. Obama's chief of staff was a Jew from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel is one of the toughest politicians in America, and he worked for Obama. Many Republicans look at Obama and see an effete liberal intellectual. Netanyahu does not make that mistake.

The possibility of achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems almost impossible to achieve. But a year ago, if you had said to anyone in the world that Hosni Mubarak would be overthrown by mobs in the streets of Cairo, you would have been laughed at. And if, in 2003 you had said that a black guy with a Muslim name who was an obscure state senator in Illinois would become president of the United States in 2008, every single person in the world would have thought you were crazy.

Every single person in the world except for two: Barack Obama. And Michelle Obama.

Obama: The Anti-Reagan

2011-03-01T15:30:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted here in a long, long time, but a friend texted me that Obama is losing him. Time to get back on it.

Obama is the anti-Reagan. The superficial contrasts are obvious, apart from the skin color; Obama is a young president; Reagan was our oldest. Reagan came from the heartland, Obama literally from the geographical fringe of the country. Reagan was a movie star; Obama is a policy wonk. Reagan had a long history with both America and the conservative movement long before he became president; Obama sprang into Democrat consciousness literally overnight with one speech. They had similar family backgrounds, both from dysfunctional or non-traditional families of modest means. But where Reagan was divorced and a famously distant father, Obama is a devoted family man, with zero skeletons in his closet.

It is on policy political strategies where the differences are, of course, most important. The policy differences are obvious, although the argument could be made that Obama shifted closer to Reagan after he was elected. On the other hand, just about any president could be accused of changing in ways that make their constituencies uncomfortable.

But what was gone unnoticed and unremarked - probably because it's very difficult to tell - are the stylistic and strategic differences. Both, of course, are excellent public speakers, but the similarity basically ends there. Reagan had three basic beliefs: lower taxes, smaller government, and a strong defense. He believed in capitalism and the basic goodness of the American people. That was pretty much it.

Obama's political philosophy cannot, on the other hand, be reduced to a slogan, and he's barely tried to do so. He believes in the broad spectrum of liberal ideas; feminism, civil rights, gay rights, empowering the poor, protecting the environment, etc. The closest he's come to a tag line of late is "Winning The Future," which translates into a very poor choice of acronym, and which seems to be fading quickly. In 2008, he was all about hope and change, the epitome of nebulous campaign promises. It's hard to pin Obama down to specifics, either in terms of policy or even tenets of his ideology. Many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this, because it looks like he's waffling, or not making a commitment, or compromising too early or too often.

The other great contrast between Reagan and Obama is in terms of political strategy. Reagan would outline a basic goal, give uplifting but vague speeches, challenge his opponents directly, and refuse to compromise. But then he would compromise at the last minute, declare victory, and move on, so it looked like he won. This is one reason conservatives idolize him. They buy into the myth that he was a rigid ideologue, when he was also very much a realistic, pragmatic politician.

Obama is famously willing to compromise, and constantly reaching out to his political opponents, trying hard to reach consensus, broker deals, make sure everyone is involved in the process. Again, many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this approach, because it looks like he's compromising when he doesn't have to, or he's letting his opponents dictate parts of the agenda.

But the most important difference between Reagan and Obama - and this is where Obama beats Reagan, hands down - is that Obama is an absolutely masterful political tactician. Obama is very good at seeing the big picture politically, and defining a successful strategy. Hillary Clinton learned this too late - the 2008 campaign was a great strategic success. Obama and his team mapped out how they were going to win, followed the plan, and won.

But what is almost impossible for the public to see is how good Obama is with political tactics. His work on gay rights is the best illustration of this. He campaigned on ending the ban on gays serving in the military. For a long time, it looked like he wasn't doing much to advance that cause, and his supporters were grumbling. He had set up a commission to look into it, and the commission was set to issue its report in early December, 2010. That would be after the election, but before the new Congress took office. The results of the commission's study therefore would not be released in time to be an issue in the election, but they would be released in time for Congress to act on them.

I don't remember exactly how repealing the ban went down. It happened between Christmas and New Year's, when the American public is not paying much attention to politics. There was some kind of parliamentary maneuvering going on, but the Democrats got enough Republicans on board to make it happen. I think some of the Republicans who voted for it were about to retire, so they could "vote their conscience." I seem to recall Joe Lieberman being a strong advocate of it.

I have roughly the same perspective on his actions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). There isn't much Obama can do on this. It's not going to be repealed by Congress any time soon. Obama's position on gay marriage is "evolving," which is a very politically convenient way of not making a commitment for it, but not rejecting it either. That may even be true. But it's a classic politician's finesse - he doesn't want to piss of his gay supporters by coming out (sorry, couldn't resist) against gay marriage, but he's also aware that there are many independents and conservatives who are strongly against it. So he had his Attorney General come out with a hair-splitting position - the Dept. of Justice will not defend part of it in court, but they will continue to enforce it. I'm not quite sure how it works, and I work for a law firm.

It's all very confusing.

Which is exactly the point.

The fact that these processes - of repealing the ban on gays in the military, and challenging DOMA - were confusing is part of Obama's political strategy. Republicans had a hard time finding a point to challenge repealing the ban on gays in the military, other than the vote itself - which took place at the end of a lame duck session. Who would argue against a commission set up to study the issue? Now that the law has been passed, the Pentagon still has to draw up plans for implementation. Once it's official, most gay members of the military will probably come out slowly. The whole process is long, drawn out, and involved lots of people besides Obama himself - Bob Gates at the Pentagon, Harry Reid in the Senate. It's an incendiary issue, but Obama's process - long, bureaucratic, mostly behind the scenes - obscured the opportunities for heated rhetoric, and therefore diffused the anger. There is time between when the debate happened, when the law passed, and when it's implemented, giving the American people time to adjust to the issue.

But homosexuals in the military will be a fact of life by November 2012, and Barack Obama will take the lion's share of the credit. He'll tell his gay supporters that he delivered on a key campaign promise.

We see the same thing in DOMA. Obama's DOJ is not defending it, but is enforcing it. The DOJ informed Congress that it could DOMA in court if it wanted to, but that, of courses, puts the pressure to do so on John Boehner. I can barely follow it, and I work for a law firm. But it's a win-win for Obama. If DOMA is partially overturned, he will declare victory, but claim that it was a decision by a court. If he doesn't win, he can claim that he tried, but that it's either the fault of Republicans, or a court. Tactically, it's great. But it's very difficult to understand unless you are a hardcore political geek.

One problem with this approach is that while it confuses his opponents, it also confuses his supporters, even those who are smart and fairly politically savvy, like Matt Damon and other celebrities. This article explains why he and other celebrities are disillusioned. Unfortunately for both Obama and his supporters, it's in the media's best interest to play up how disappointed Obama fans are. But this particular article is both incredibly sloppy and clearly intent on playing up the disappointment. The picture of Matt Damon shows him scowling, to accentuate the point that he's unhappy. But the wall on the background reads "TIFF," or Toronto International Film Festival. That takes place in September. Since then, Matt Damon has been nominated for an Oscar, and photographed dozens, if not hundreds, of times. He's generally a very upbeat guy. But they somehow managed to find a picture of him looking unhappy.

Barbra Streisand is quoted as being unhappy that Obama didn't use executive privilege to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The quote is from some time "in December," i.e. before Congress repealed it. I think we can safely assume that Barbra Streisand is now happy with Obama's strategy to repeal DADT given that THE STRATEGY ACTUALLY FRICKIN' WORKED. Matt Damon is not happy about testing kids in schools. Neither am I, but that's a product of the Bush administration, and Obama has not been able to undo it. Jane Lynch is disappointed that Obama has not been able to do anything about gay marriage. The quote from her is from early January, again, well before Obama ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE.

Other celebrities who are unhappy with Obama about a particular issue include Hugh Hefner, Spike Lee, and Robert Redford. You know what? Give me 10 minutes, and I can find a whole bunch of celebrities who are unhappy with Obama. There were lots of liberals unhappy with Clinton. Lots of conservatives grumbled about Reagan. That's the nature of politics. As someone (I think Maria Cuomo) said, you campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose. The nuts and bolts of actually governing are always less exciting, and infinitely more frustrating, than the campaign. Obama waits a long time to move before he does so. But in the process, he's refining his plans and laying the groundwork. Which is difficult, if not impossible to see. But absolutely necessary.

What's the best possible evidence that Obama moves quickly? This is a man who went from being an Illinois state senator to being president of the United States in four years.

There is one more similarity between Obama and Reagan: both of them were seriously underestimated by their opponents. And, occasionally, their supporters.

Defending Derivatives and Responsible Financial Innovation

2010-06-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of making bets on opening weekend box office grosses - that's the raison d'etre of my other blog, TEQP-HSX. I've used real money on Intrade, although not for a while. So I was very excited about Cantor Exchange, the real-money spin-off of the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Cantor works just like HSX, except that the stocks have a shorter lifespan, and there is real money involved. The securities on Cantor are technically derivatives, and, as such, trading them has to be approved by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission. A great explanation of the potential benefits from Richard Jaycobs, president of Cantor, can be found here.

Most of the debate around trading in futures based on box-office receipts has revolved around technical questions, such as whether or not such contracts could be manipulated, how they would work, etc. There hasn't been much examination of the philosophical issues. That's what I am going to look into.

The core issue is innovation. Trading in box office receipts represents financial innovation. I'm not surprised that the major studios are opposed to it; this is the same industry that fought the VCR all the way to the Supreme Court. They were worried that machines that gave people the ability to watch movies at home would cut into their revenue; those machines are now a major source of that revenue. I can understand their initial opposition to VCRs - at the time, the idea that videotapes would generate lots of money for the studios seemed absurd. The lesson is that we don't know what the future holds, but that it's a usually a good idea to err on the side of more innovation, rather than less.

There's a saying in the movie business that movies are a great art form, but a terrible business. Consider: every movie is effectively a completely new product, almost a new company. Studios invest millions of dollars in products that can technically last forever, but really have a shelf life of a couple of months. Every product has to be completely different from, and yet very similar to, every other iteration of the product that has come before it.

Movie studios and movie theaters have come up with many different ways to control the chaos and hedge against the uncertainty of this wonderful and maddening business. Studios take out insurance against various kinds of calamity. They look for franchises, so they can make several movies that are fairly similar, and therefore likely to generate predictable returns. They use famous stars and directors who can dependably "open" a movie. They follow trends and jump on bandwagons. They test-market potential audiences. They scour film festivals for undiscovered gems that they can buy cheap, hoping for a hit. Theater chains build multiplexes, so that if one movie is not successful on a given weekend, they have others that are. They charge astronomical amounts for junk food.

All of these trends and business practices represent different instances of innovation, except sequels, which have been around since the Iliad and Odyssey. Each of these also has its downside; stars can be expensive, and many eventually lose their allure for audiences. Many sequels are not as good as the original. Many movies based on books or TV shows are not as good as the property they were based on. Trends burn out. Failure is inevitable with any widespread innovation. But learning from failure is part of what fosters further innovation.

I've read the statement by the MPAA before the CFTC on why they think these derivatives are a bad idea. I don't know whether or not all of the terrible consequences that they predict from trading in box office futures will come true. Nobody knows. That's the beauty of democracy: we experiment, and, if we're wrong, we change.

There is one aspect of this debate of which I am confident: this represents - and I realize that, given the current economic environment, this may sound almost like a contradiction in terms - responsible financial innovation. Our current economic crisis was brought about in large part because of irresponsible financial innovation. But box office derivatives are very different from exotic financial instruments like CDO's. First, CDO's are extremely opaque and obscure - most people had never heard of them before 2008, and even many sophisticated financial professionals have no idea how they work. Box office numbers, on the other hand, are public information; there are few pieces of financial information more widely available to the public. It's also very simple: that's why there are hundreds of thousands of players on HSX. There are some risks, but there are regulatory structures in place to deal with those risks that raise ethical or legal issues. Again, I don't know whether or not those structures will be adequate to address the risks and contain bad behavior. No one knows. What we do know is that those regulations, rules, and institutions can be adjusted and changed. Given the public nature of the information and the simplicity of the securities, I am confident the US government can handle the challenges of regulating these securities. The total value of the market will be a fraction of the market value of a single large company. It will not necessarily be easy to police this market, but it certainly won't be impossible.

At the end of the day, there is only one reliable way to make money in the movie business: make good movies. The problem, of course, is that no one - other than Pixar - has really figured out how to do that on a consistent basis. Some people are better at it than others - those are the ones that get to do it again. The market rewards those who make good movies. A market in box office futures will have the same effect: it will reward people who make and invest in good movies, and it will punish people who make and invest in bad movies. It will also have the opposite effect: it will punish people who bet against good movies, and it will punish people who invest in bad movies.

The movie studios have legitimate concerns, particularly about piracy and market manipulation. But the best defense against both of those is the same: make good movies. Seeing a movie at a movie theater is still a great entertainment value. Actually, I'd like to qualify that: seeing a good movie at a movie theater still is, and always will be, a great entertainment value. Markets in box office derivatives will be vulnerable to rumors. But so are all securities markets. The best defense against rumors is, once again, the same thing. Many, many very successful movies - from Jaws to Titanic and even the remake of The Karate Kid - have suffered from rumor, innuendo, and just bad analysis. The Karate Kid was a remake of an 80's movie at a time when the audience was supposed to be hungry for originality and tiring of remakes. It opened on the same weekend as The A-Team, which was also a remake of an 80's entertainment property. Both movies were predicted to open between $30 and $35 million. The A-Team opened at $26 million. The Karate Kid opened at $56 million. No one - not even the studio - had any idea it was going to do that well. But the optimists (I, unfortunately, was not among them) made a killing. The best way to manipulate this market is to make a good movie.

Trading in box office futures represents responsible financial innovation that rewards people who make and invest in good movies. For that reason, I think they should be approved.

Bloomsday and Bloody Sunday

2010-06-16T21:58:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of things going on right now that I am interested in - Obama's speech last night, the Lakers about to crush the Celtics in the NBA Finals, the World Cup, the sort-of failure of The A-Team at the box office. But I noticed an interesting convergence of Irish historical moments today. June 16 is Bloomsday, the day that Ulysses takes place: June 16, 1904. Which is the day that Joyce went on his first date with Nora, his wife.

Tim Rutten, in the LA Times, reminds us of a great line: "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." This is eerily appropos of the second moment in Irish history that is being dealt with - not merely observed - today. The British government released a report about Bloody Sunday, the day in 1972 when British soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians. That unleashed "the Troubles," the years which saw 3,000 people die in sectarian violence.

This is the nightmare from which we are trying to awake. In America, it is hard for us to comprehend differences between two branches of Christianity as being so violent as to cause thousands of deaths. We have, in a sense, awoken from that nightmare.

We have also awoken from a nightmare that afflicted Joyce, that of censorship. The link above in the title of his masterwork goes to Amazon, where you can buy many different copies of this book, and lots of other books about Joyce. That wasn't always the case: it was initially banned in this country.

Every culture needs something to be good at, something that its people take pride in, something that they are better at than other peoples, other countries. For the Irish, this is literature. Novels, plays, poetry - the Irish are genius at creating art with words. Joyce personified this: what he gave the world was a beautiful but difficult work, a spectacularly gorgeous and challenging ode to his hometown of Dublin. He challenged himself, he challenged his readers, he challenged other artists.

What the British government has done today is to rise to a challenge, one that it imposed on itself: the challenge to live up to its own ideals. The United Kingdom demanded of itself that it hold itself accountable for its own failures. That is an extraordinarily difficult task. It was also extraordinarily necessary.

I'm going to end this post by quoting Ulysses, because I've read it. I've been to Dublin, and even read the first chapter in the tower where it takes place. I'm only going to quote one word, but it's the most famous word in the book, the one everyone who finishes it remembers, because it's the last word:

"Yes."

Mark Kirk: Stupid AND Ironic

2010-06-02T11:39:00.000-07:00

Mark Kirk is a Republican Representative from Illinois who is caught up in a minor scandal about lying about his military record. Not a huge deal, except that he's running for Senate, and lying about your military record is the kind of thing that raises questions. It's more an issue of stupidity than out-and-out venality.

The specific issue is whether or not he was recognized as "Intelligence Officer of the Year." He wasn't, but his unit was. Sort of a fine distinction, but also something that anyone who has ever written a resume should get right.

Here's the irony: it's a stupid mistake about being "Intelligence Officer of the Year." So the fact of the scandal kind of repudiates the fact of the award.

The moral of the story is: don't make stupid mistakes about awards that have the word "intelligence" in the name of the award.

Salsa Classes at Hope!

2010-05-28T12:46:00.001-07:00

Movies and Criminals

2010-05-26T23:11:00.000-07:00

I was watching a collection of Ocean's 11 clips when I realized why I like a particular genre of movies. I like romantic comedies, and within that genre, I really like romantic comedies with a criminal element, like Grosse Pointe Blank, The Thomas Crown Affair, or A Fish Called Wanda.

Watching this video from Ocean's 11, it occurred to me that what criminals and filmmakers have in common is that they both have to be very creative. They both have to think outside the box. At least the kind of criminals played by George Clooney and Brad Pitt have to think like this. Criminals, by definition, are challenging the system, albeit for the wrong reasons. But they also have to pretend to be part of the system. Just like people making movies, criminals have to walk a fine line between fitting in, being like everyone else, and doing something that no one else has thot of. Entrepreneurs are the same way, which is also a reason why I like that class of people, as well.

It's not the most emotionally healthy or morally or politically correct analogy. But it sure is fun.

Star Wars question

2010-05-24T16:37:00.000-07:00

I just watched Stars Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope . I was in a Barnes & Noble, and I happened to see the DVD on sale. I realized I don't actually own it, so I figured I should buy it (you can too, on Amazon - Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope (1977 & 2004 Versions, 2-Disc Widescreen Edition)).

I noticed something that I've never noticed before. They come out of the trash compactor looking a little damp, but they dry off very quickly, and suddenly they don't look like they came out of a trash compactor. Not a big deal, because Luke and Han were wearing those presumably watertight stormtrooper outfits. Chewie is a Wookie, we can't really tell if there's a big difference in how he looks. But even in the first moments out of the trash compactor, Princess Leia looks great, as she always does. Makeup perfect, hair tightly coiled in those buns. At this point, she has been captured by Imperial stormtroopers, tortured and interrogated by Darth Vader, and seen her planet blown up. She has had just about the worst day ever. Yet there are no smudges anywhere on her face, and her perfectly white tunic thingy is still perfectly white. You would think that at the very least she would have been crying, after seeing her all those people die on her planet. But no, no running mascara for the Princess!

Here's my question: Did Princess Leia use the Force to keep herself looking that good, in the midst of all that trouble? Was that her special gift? We know that the Force was strong in her, being the daughter of Darth Vader and the twin sister of Luke. Is this why she never needed a lightsaber?

Also, we never really learn how the Rebel Alliance got the plans to the Death Star. We do, however, know that Princess Leia was involved in stealing those plans. If she could use the Force to keep herself looking great walking out of a trash compactor, did she use it in other ways we don't know about? Wink, wink, nudge nudge. Is this the hidden history of Princess Leia? Is this REALLY why Han comes back to save Luke? Did Leia plant some seeds in his mind before he left the rebel base?

Just curious about that.

Can't Resist This One - "What Is A Philosopher?"

2010-05-17T21:08:00.000-07:00

The New York Times introduces a new column/blog/something-or-other today by the name of "The Stone," and apparently it is a forum for philosophical discussion. Way to go, NYT!

The first column asks the question, "What is a philosopher?" Good way to start!

Here's my first take at an answer: a philosopher is someone who realizes how incredibly stupid it is to ask a question like "What is a philosopher?" because there are a million different answers, almost all equally meaningless.

Here's my second take at an answer: a philosopher is someone who can't resist trying to answer the question "What is a philosopher?" because his or her answer might be that one-in-a-million answer that is the most interesting and not entirely meaningless. Not "right," because in philosophy, there is no "right" answer, just more or less interesting ones. An "interesting" answer to a question, at least by philosopher standards, is one that provokes the listener into thinking more about both the question and the answer.

Here's my third take at an answer. This is a paraphrase of a quote from Franklin Roosevelt. He used the world "radical," not philosopher, but it's a fun take on it nonetheless: "A philosopher is someone with both feet planted firmly in the clouds."

Here's my fourth take. This one is rather cynical: A philosopher is someone who is paid to be professionally confused for years at a time.

Here's my fifth take, again rather cynical: A philosopher is someone who is professionally uninterested in making decisions.

Actually, four and five are not great answers, because it is entirely possible that someone could meet either or both of those criteria and not be anything close to a philosopher. But it was fun to write those sentences.

Sixth take. There are limits to questions. There are limits to what can be known merely by thinking. A philosopher is someone who is aware that these limits exist, and may even be vaguely aware of where they are, and completely ignores them.

Here's my final attempt to answer the question "What is a philosopher?": a philosopher is someone who understands this analogy: doing philosophy (not necessarily "studying" philosophy) is like driving a Ferrari: 99 times out of 100, it's either largely pointless, not worth the extra effort/cost, or potentially fatal. But that 1% of the time, there is nothing like it in the world.

Kick-Ass

2010-04-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

So I saw Kick-Ass, because I can identify with a geeky high school kid who wants to be cool, as, I am sure, many people can. Also, you have to respect a filmmaker and studio who name their movie "Kick-Ass." That takes a certain amount of chutzpah.

The buzz on this movie has been very good. I am pleased to report that the buzz is deserved. This movie does, in fact, kick ass. There are good movies. There are great movies. Then there are movies which change film. This movie will change film. It will be one of those movies which become part of the cultural consciousness.

There are many movies based on comic books, as this one is (the movie and comic book were developed in tandem). Most of them feature a male superhero. Occasionally there is a female superhero. Never before has there been a superhero who is an 11-year old girl. Kick-Ass is the name of the main character, a superhero created by a teenage boy out of nothing but his own hopes and dreams. And a cheesy wetsuit. Hit Girl is the name of the aforementioned 11-year old girl. Hit Girl is a much better superhero than Kick-Ass. Hit Girl can pretty much wipe the floor with Kick-Ass. Hit Girl, actually, can pretty much wipe the floor with just about anybody.

This is female empowerment unlike anything we've ever seen. She's the purple-haired daughter of Wonder Woman and Morpheus. Thelma and Louise, meet Wolverine. Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, call your agents - Men In Black just dropped a notch on the cool list. One thing that gives her an edge in the competition to be an unforgettable figure in the cinematic history of heroes with guns is that she is totally adorable. Sorry, Mr. Eastwood and Mr. Wayne, this is Gloria Steinem's revenge. And Princess Leia's.

But she's an adorable sociopath. She doesn't just take out the bad guys - she takes out a lot of bad guys. Questions have been raised, and will continue to be raised (and are being answered), about whether or not it is appropriate to have someone so young playing a role so violent. She also uses language the actress herself (Chloe Grace Moretz, an instant superstar) can't use in real life (she has said that if she did, she would be "grounded for life"). She isn't just violent and foulmouthed - she's also ruthless and coldblooded. But even when she is reloading her Glocks in midair - damn is that a cool shot - she's still somehow cute. The purple wig is a big help.

She's cute partially because she is just absurdly self-confident. We're talking James Bond-self-confident. Sean Connery James Bond-self-confident. You have a feeling that, if she met Darth Vader in a dark alley, she would take out her own light saber and do the Jedi a big favor.

Iggy Pop probably wasn't this tough at 11. And he's sure as hell never been this focused.

She's this way because she was trained to be a lethal assassin by her father, Big Daddy. Whoever thot up "Take Your Daughter To Work" never expected this. Nicholas Cage, who took his own name from a comic book (his real last name is Coppola; he is the nephew of Francis Ford Coppola, and changed his name to avoid any appearance of nepotism) plays Big Daddy. I am not a big Nicholas Cage fan, paticularly of late. But he's perfect here. Big Daddy has his own costume, strongly reminiscient of Batman, and that deep thirst for revenge so necessary for a great vigilante.

A great vigilante, of course, is nothing without a great villain, and Mark Strong is wonderful as the local godfather. He has a son with a Michael Corleone complex, interested in taking over the family business, despite being still in high school. Also present in this character are shades of James Franco in Spiderman.

But back to the title character. Kick-Ass, aka Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson, a Brit with a perfect American accent), does not have Hit Girl's collection of weapons or her years of martial arts training. He isn't even particularly strong. All he has for weapons are a taser and a couple of big sticks. What he does have - besides the obvious delusions of grandeur - is determination. And a high threshold for pain. Another thing he doesn't have - and which every superhero needs - is a girlfriend. This brings up an interesting issue with Hit Girl. She's cute, adorable, and funny - but she's 11. She's not beautiful or gorgeous, because those are adjectives that tend to be attached to females in our society who are at least past puberty. Lyndsy Fonesca, who was also John Cusack's girlfriend in Hot Tub Time Machine, supplies the sex appeal as Dave's friend Katie. Not girlfriend - she thinks he's gay. Tony Stark does not have that problem.

All of this would be meaningless, of course, if it were not a well-directed movie. It's not a well-directed movie. It is an extraordinarily well-directed movie. Just about everything, from the costumes to the cinematography, is stylized just enough to be interesting, but not so much as to be distracting. One reason Hit Girl's violent tendencies are so disturbing is that she goes way over the top, but the rest of the movie feels fairly grounded. It's a very realistic comic book movie. Even the 2 or 3 goombas who are fortunate enough to have some speaking lines before they get whacked don't feel like cliches.

On IMDb, this has a rating of 8.5 out of 10, which puts it at #166 out of the top 250. That would be the top 250 movies of all time. I completely agree with that. It may move up. 165 is Dog Day Afternoon. 167 is Gandhi.

I have my own answer to whether or not it's appropriate for an 11-year old girl to be responsible for a couple of dozen deaths. My answer, unequivocally, is yes. Because if that 11-year old girl can't take on a role involving lots of bullets and blood, then she won't have the opportunity to become an iconic badass on the scale of Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction (John Travolta was the epitome of cool in Pulp Fiction, but Jackson was the badass). And why shouldn't an 11-year old girl have an opportunity to become an iconic badass? There's a question that's never been asked before in the history of pop culture. Buffy was at least in high school, and it took her several seasons to reach icon status. Hit Girl makes Joan of Arc look like a slacker. That comparison hasn't been made too many times before.

What about preserving the innocence of children? Ah, it's a little too late for that. Harry Potter was 11 the first time he took on Voldemort. Wasting a room full of bad guys may send the wrong message to impressionable young minds about the efficacy of violence as a means of conflict resolution. Might be a little too late for that one, too. Problem-solving, let's remember, does wonders for self-esteem. Hit Girl - and Kick-Ass - solve a lot of very big problems.

Most superheroes have a sidekick. Trinity, let's be honest, is Neo's sidekick. Hit Girl is not Kick-Ass's sidekick. If anything, it's the other way around. She's not even Big Daddy's sidekick. Hit Girl ain't nobody's sidekick.

One of Yoda's great lines is "There is no try. There is do, or do not." Kick-Ass learns that lesson. Hit Girl was born knowing it.

Original Idea Fund Launches Today!

2010-03-31T07:40:00.000-07:00

Big excitement in the world of Talented Earthquake Productions today - I am starting a mutual fund on the Hollywood Stock Exchange, and the IPO is today! The Original Idea Fund will invest in movies that are based on an original idea. No sequels, prequels, remakes, or sequels to remakes. Nothing based on a book, play, comic book, musical, news story, or theme park ride. No biopics. No documentaries. Just original ideas.

So no Pirates of the Caribbean, no Ocean's Eleven, no Twilight or Harry Potter. But I will be investing in movies made by people like Kathryn Bigelow, Woody Allen, and Quentin Tarantino. I might be investing in the next Avatar or The Hangover. I will also be investing in StarBonds of actors and actresses who star in these movies, although initially I am planning to limit those to one or two StarBonds per movie.

The Fund will IPO at H$20, as all mutual funds do on HSX, and will delist, or cash out, when it reaches H$100. Looking forward, there is a question that I haven't answered yet. Many mutual funds cash out, and then have another IPO. So there have been six iterations of the New York, New York fund, for example. But, given the nature of this fund, I don't think I could do a sequel!

Trivial question of the Day

2010-03-25T16:44:00.000-07:00

President Obama stopped by a bookstore in Iowa today, and bought some books.
This line caught my eye:

Obama pulled out five $20 bills to pay for the two books.

This made me wonder: how does the president get cash? Does the White House have an ATM? Does he call up Tim Geithner and have him send some over? Does he call Ben Bernanke and have him bring some by the next time he's in the neighborhood? Does the Secret Service get it for him? How? Do they go to the bank for him? Wouldn't that mean he would have to give them his ATM card and his PIN?

Just couldn't stop thinking about that.

Health Care Reform passes

2010-03-21T23:01:00.000-07:00

The Democrats finally did it, passing health care reform. Props to Nancy Pelosi for bringing it through the House. Props to all the Dems in the House who voted the right way, which was most of them, and enough of them. There are some other procedural votes in the Senate, and then Obama has to sign it. But it's done.

The details of what this bill covers have been examined in excruciating detail in many, many places. Andrew Sullivan rounds up the usual suspects and their reactions. I'm just thrilled that we finally have something - anything - different from the status quo. I don't know whether or not this bill will solve the problems we hope it will. I hope it will. I have a certain amount of faith. For various reasons, I haven't followed the ins and outs of this debate as closely as I could have. I understand the basic outline, the amount of detail has been mind-numbing. I started following politics seriously when all you had to do was read The New York Times and a couple of other sources, and you knew all you had to know. I still haven't learned how to drink from the firehose that is the Internet.

What I do know, or at least what I feel comfortable theorizing about, is that this isn't just about healthcare, as broad as that topic may be. This may be the last great victory in the culture wars that started almost 50 years ago. Liberals have won on almost every issue in those wars: they have won on feminism, civil rights, the environment, abortion, and separation of church and state. They're winning on gay rights. They've essentially lost on gun control, but they're starting to win on crime, after losing for decades. Some would argue that they lost on the very broad issue of capitalism, but I don't think that was really up for debate. As frustrated as liberals are by corporations, only the wackiest have really seriously contemplated any kind of alternative to capitalism.

This is not just a political, legislative, or even cultural victory. This is a philosophical victory, an ideological one. What won tonight was the idea that government can improve the lives of its citizens. That's an idea that has been around for a long time, and there have been many victories on that front along the way. But this may be the ultimate victory for that idea. Which may be one reason Republicans fought this legislation so hard: they knew what was at stake, and they knew how badly they were losing. And now they have lost. Take it away, Mr. President:

Oscars!

2010-03-05T16:39:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year! Time for the Oscars! The ceremony is this Sunday (as if you didn't already know). The one bummer this year is that there isn't a lot of drama. Some of the categories are pretty much a lock - Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor for Inglorious Basterds, Mo'nique for Best Supporting Actress for Precious, Jeff Bridges for Best Actor for Crazy Heart. But the two big ones are a fascinating race, particularly since it involves an ex-husband and wife. Will Kathryn Bigelow be the first woman to win Best Director? Or will it be her husband, master craftsman James Cameron? Will they split the big prizes, with her winning Best Director and his movie winning Best Picture? That's my bet, because Avatar is one heck of a movie, and, even if the story is a tad cliched, the movie itself is an incredible visual spectacle, and Cameron does deserve recognition for that. I think he deserves recognition as a producer first, and director second, because I think he pulled off a small miracle producing this movie. I also think he did a very good job directing it, but I do take away a couple of points for the lack of imagination in the script.

The other sort-of controversy, which turned out to not be that much of a controversy, is the fact that there are 10 Best Picture nominees. There was quite the hullabaloo over this when it was announced, with strong opinions on both sides. Some thot it was a brilliant move, others thot it was the height of folly. I was in the middle. Yes, it could dilute the prestige, but it is not unprecedented - there were 10 nominees for several years at the beginning of the awarding of the Oscars, until 1943 - and it could be fun.

The answer turned out to be that it was a good move, largely because there are 10 movies worthy of the distinction of being a "Best Picture" nominee. Some people have issues with various nominations - a friend thinks The Blind Side stole a nomination from another, more worthy picture - but for the most part, each Best Picture nominee has received accolades as a very good movie.

Here's the list:

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglorious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

What's particularly impressive about this list is the diversity. There's something here for everyone, and for just about every demographic. There are two war movies, Inglorious Basterds and The Hurt Locker, but they couldn't be more different. One is a very gritty, realistic movie about Iraq, with a small cast, no stars, and not much plot. The other is a fantasy about WWII, starring Brad Pitt, with a very complicated story and lush cinematography. There are two science fiction movies - Avatar and District 9, but, again, they couldn't be more different. District 9 takes place in a filthy, disgusting ghetto/landfill near Johannesburg, while Avatar takes on the exquisitely beautiful planet of Pandora. There are two adult dramas set in contemporary America, The Blind Side and Up in the Air. One is a sentimental story about a white Christian woman in the South, her family, and her community. The other is a dark comedy about guy who has as few commitments and connections in his life as possible. An Education is about a cute British girl coming of age in the 1960's. A Serious Man is about a Jewish man coming undone in the 1960's. And then, of course, there's Precious, which is yet again different from all the others, and Up, one of the only animated movies ever to be nominated for Best Picture.

What a great crop of movies. Most of these aren't just different from each other - they are different from just about any other movie ever made. How many movies have been made about WWII that rewrote the ending? How many movie stars have made movies while at the peak of their stardom in which they played corporate hatchetmen who specialized in firing people? How many movies have been made about a guy who flies his house to another continent with balloons? And, of course, there's Avatar.

The Oscars this year also demonstrate all kinds of diversity in Hollywood, particularly geographic. There isn't much American about these Oscars. There are only three that take place completely in contemporary America - Precious, The Blind Side and Up in the Air. The Hurt Locker features Americans, but has all of about 5 scenes here, and was shot in Jordan. There are only three that feature American movie stars - Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, and The Blind Side. Of those, Brad Pitt was not in very much of Basterds, The Blind Side represents Sandra Bullock's first Oscar nom, and Up in the Air was that rare movie that scored two nominations for Best Supporting Actress. Meryl Streep, quintessential Hollywood royalty, scored a nomination for Best Actress for playing a famous American - Julia Child - who spends the entire movie in France. Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon scored nominations for playing South Africans, in Freeman's case Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth, an Englishman, scored a nomination for playing a gay Englishman, in a movie directed by a gay man, Tom Ford, who made his name working for an Italian fashion house (Gucci). Christopher Plummer, born in Toronto, scored a nomination for playing a Russian, Tolstoy, while Helen Mirren, a Brit, scored a nom for playing his wife. Carey Mulligan, also English, scored a nomination for playing an Englishwoman. Penelope Cruz, who is Spanish, scored a nomination for a movie (Nine) that is sort of a remake of a movie by an Italian (8 1/2). The man who will probably win Best Supporting Actor, Christoph Waltz, is Austrian. Among Best Supporting Actor nominees, Stanley Tucci is American, but he stared in a movie directed by a Kiwi, Peter Jackson, who also produced one of the movies set in South Africa, District 9.

Looking down the list of nominated movies, in Art Direction, we find two 19th century English icons - Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria - another movie set in London, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, and Avatar and Nine again. Among the Cinematography nominees, there is one movie with any scenes at all in America - and that's The Hurt Locker, with about 5 minutes in this country. The others are Avatar (another planet), Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Britain), The Hurt Locker (shot in Jordan, takes place in Iraq), Basterds again, and The White Ribbon (Germany). Costume Design nominees include Bright Star, about John Keats (there's that 19th century England again), Coco Before Chanel (French), and Parnassus, Nine, and Young Victoria again.

Hollywood both is and is not quintessentially American. It is American because it is physically located here, but it is and is not American because it embodies the great American qualities of freedom, adventure, and embracing the new, without limiting who can experience those to just Americans.

Quote of the Day

2010-02-27T18:51:00.000-08:00

"Never."

-Martha Stewart, responding to the question, "When do you turn off your BlackBerry?"

Toyota and Obama

2010-02-24T21:26:00.000-08:00

Remember when Toyota was the best car company on the planet? They made great cars, stylish automobiles that worked well, didn't have many problems, and got great gas mileage. It was just a better company than any American car company. When was that? Oh, yeah, a couple of months ago. How long had that idea been firmly planted in America's cultural consciousness? 25, 30 years? Something like that.

Amazing how a narrative can change overnight, isn't it? In a month or so, Toyota has gone from being a great company, one of those uniquely special companies that do almost everything right, to just another company, with its share of dysfunctionality, arrogance, and just plain stupidity.

Remember when Obama's presidency was in trouble? A Republican won a special election in Massachusetts, after a couple of Republicans won gubernatorial races in 2009, and suddenly Republicans had the momentum, and Democrats, particularly Obama, were in trouble.

I am so not worried about Obama. Really, really, really not worried about Obama. Tomorrow is the start of the health care summit. I don't know what's going to happen, but I am starting to get the sense that Obama and the Democrats are going to take advantage of the fact that, you know, they have massive majorities in Congress to pass legislation that they want. Great idea.

Obama is also taking advantage of the fact that, you know, he's president and all, and he has a lot of power to get what he wants through a Congress with both houses held by his party by those massive majorities.

But a couple of the reasons for my optimism about Obama stem from Toyota's current trials and tribulations. First, Toyota's fall from the pedestal reminds us of how fickle media/cultural narratives can be. Toyota isn't a very different company from what it was 3, 4, 5, or even 10 years ago. Most of the problems that have been cropping up have been happening for years. But something clicked, and suddenly the narrative changed. There were some stories about problems with Toyotas and sudden acceleration (the LA Times, to its great credit, was working on this story for months before it hit the rest of the national media). The suddenly there were stories about other problems with Toyotas. Then suddenly there were stories about how Toyota has serious structural problems, or how the management team has its share of incompetence and arrogance. All of those things were true for years. But something changed, and now people are willing to listen to those stories. Comedians crack jokes about Toyota, and politicians call them on the carpet. Someday the narrative will change again, and Toyota will have recovered from these episodes, and come out swinging, or they will be back on top again, or something.

The same thing has happened, and will happen, to Obama. His campaign, election, and inauguration were historical, and very hyped. The letdown was inevitable. The narrative has changed, but it will change again, just like it has for Toyota. The Democrats lost two governor's races, in Virginia and New Jersey. But neither of these were surprising, and neither really points to a national trend for or away from Dems. Virginia is a fairly conservative place, and, in New Jersey, the Democrat incumbent, Jon Corzine, was a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, rather substantial baggage right now. Scott Brown won a special election, but my impression is that Martha Coakley didn't run a great campaign, and Democrats took victory for granted.

There's also a specific reason why Toyota's stretch of bad news has implications for Obama. What's bad for Toyota is good for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. GM and Ford will pick up sales from disillusioned Toyota customers.

More importantly, but less substantive, GM, Ford, and Chrysler's reputations will start to recover. For years many people made a clear national distinction among car companies: American car companies were arrogant and incompetent; they couldn't make cars the way the Japanese companies could. There was, of course, an element of truth to that myth - the Big Three made most of their money on their big trucks, while the Japanese made solid, if not very exciting, small cars and sedans.

One detail that got lost in that mythologizing is that each of the Big Three has at least one iconic car in its stable. GM has the Corvette, Ford has the Mustang and the Lincoln Town Car, and Chrysler has Jeep. Each of those has been around for decades, and each has many, many hardcore, devoted followers.

I don't think the Japanese have some genetic predisposition for making better cars; I think the Big Three had each reached the point of being so bureaucratic that they were not very capable of being particularly innovative, while the Japanese companies were still smaller, more nimble, and more entrepreneurial.

Note my use of the word "were" referring to the Japanese. Toyota clearly has some problems with arrogance and failing to acknowledge voices of dissent.

All of this is significant for Obama, because Obama made the decision to save GM and Chrysler, and spent billions of dollars on doing so. People in Detroit had known for years about the problems afflicting GM: too many brands, too many models, too many dealerships. The problem was that no one at GM had the power to solve the problems. Even the chairmen couldn't close the brands they needed to get rid of, or close the excess dealerships. It took the power of the President of the United States to make that happen.

But Obama did it. He saved GM, and he saved - for now, at least - Chrysler. As Toyota's sales fall with its reputation, the reputation of the Big Three will start to improve. GM still has a lot of issues to deal with, and a lot of detritus to purge from its system. It will take some time for it to close down Pontiac and Saturn, and to sell Hummer and Saab. Those old dealerships will eventually be transformed into new buildings, but that will take time, as well.

Once all of those things happen, however, GM will be a leaner machine. Same with Chrysler. They will start once again making good cars that customers want to buy, and they will start making money. And many, many people will be working at them. Most of those people will be Americans.

And Barack Obama will be able to claim that he saved General Motors and Chrysler, and, with them, hundreds of thousands of American jobs. To say nothing of pride in American manufacturing.

And he will have done it with virtually no Republican help, and in the face of strong opposition from Republicans.

Really, really, really not worried about Obama.

The Hurt Locker

2010-02-14T09:56:00.000-08:00

So I saw The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, currently frontrunner for Best Director Oscar (her chief competition being her ex-husband, James Cameron, for Avatar). It's about a bomb disposal unit in the Iraq war. That's it. There isn't much plot. These guys defuse bombs. Mostly IEDs lying on the street. They use robots when they can, but sometimes they have to walk right up to the bomb and disarm them. They have special equipment, like an armored suit, but it's still one of the most dangerous jobs in the armed forces, not to mention the world.

It takes place in 2004. That's about all you know about the world outside of this small group of guys. No mention of weapons of mass destruction, George Bush, or even Saddam Hussein. You're up close and personal with them, like they are with each other. They don't know each other before being assigned to watch each other's backs. They have different ways of seeing the world, different levels of appetite for risk. They don't always agree, which means that they occasionally have to challenge each other. They make mistakes, which, in this environment, can be deadly. For each other as well as themselves.

The movie takes no position on the war, just shows it like it is. But that becomes the best possible antiwar message, because you immediately understand how insane this reality is. This is what should be a normal country, with normal people trying to live normal lives. Even under Saddam Hussein, they managed to get on with their lives. Getting up in the morning, eating, drinking, doing their jobs, falling in love, arguing with friends and families. Playing soccer. Enjoying the sunshine. Then we started a war in the middle of it. And we're still fighting that war. They would like to be able to walk across the street, but there might be an IED there. And we're sending young men, almost none of whom speak the language, to fight this war. While these people have no choice but to try to get on with their lives.

The main character is a guy who is really, really good at defusing bombs, William James (Jeremy Renner, who deserves his Oscar nomination for Best Actor). But he's also something of a cowboy who takes some bizarre risks. Which means that he gets things done, but his risks don't always work out.

A war is a perfect frame for mixing the real and the surreal, because we, the audience, don't really know what normal is. What is over the top? I have no idea, because I don't know where the top is. A guy snipping the wires to defuse a bomb at the last second is an action movie cliche. Except that here the guy snippping the wires isn't a British spy wearing a tux, trying to save the world and the woman in a beautiful dress that he's been sleeping with. The guy snipping the wires is an American soldier in camo who is trying to save the lives of a few Iraqis and Americans. There are no beautiful women. This is not a fantasy. There is no escapism.

Bill James knows he's good at his job, but he doesn't know why he does it. He's very grounded in reality, completely aware of what he has to do. But he's also strangely detached from his own survival instincts. He's pragmatic, focused, competent, and professional.

And just a little bit insane.

My vote for Best Director goes to Kathryn Bigelow.

Rootin' for the Saints

2010-02-07T10:58:00.000-08:00

I am going to be watching the Super Bowl with a couple of friends in a bar in Pasadena. I've watched the Super Bowl with these friends for the last few years. They're pretty clueless about football, but they like watching the Super Bowl. It's a little odd being the sports expert in the crowd, but it's a good feeling.

I am, along with probably 90% of America, rooting for the Saints. Partially because of Reggie Bush, who is a famous USC grad. But also, of course, for the underdog factor. Bill Plaschke of the LA Times explained this country's desperate need for a Cinderella story:

As our country lurches and heaves through the ankle-deep sand of its economic recovery, it has not helped the national psyche that every time we turn to our national pastimes for assurances that the little guy can still survive, we run smack into Goliath.

The New York Yankees won the World Series. Gee, that was fun. The Lakers won the NBA championship. Loved here, hated everywhere else.

North Carolina won the Final Four. Bear Bryant's old team won the Bowl Championship Series. Jimmie Johnson won his fourth consecutive NASCAR championship. The Connecticut women's basketball team has won 61 consecutive games.

And now Peyton Manning is getting ready to win another Super Bowl?

No thanks. Not now. Please. America needs to believe in the impossible again. America needs another dose of revival.

As a Yankees and Lakers fan, I was thrilled with both of those victories, although my otherwise great sports year was tempered by the dismal failure of USC's football team this year (they went 9-4, which was very sad). But I understand his point.

Of course, the greatest Cinderella story in America right now is playing out in the White House, but I suppose as soon he was inaugurated, Obama stopped being the underdog. Of course, the whole point of the Cinderella story is that she is the one who marries the handsome prince.

Save Poetry From The Professors

2010-01-23T15:07:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan points to an interesting blog post about the sorry state of modern poetry. I'm requoting what Sully liked:

The best thing that could happen to poetry is to drive it out of the universities with burning pitch forks. Starve the lavish grants. Strangle them all in a barrel of water.

Couldn't agree more. I studied a fair amount of poetry in college, and still own at least a couple of books of poetry. I can quote some Keats, and thoroughly enjoyed Bright Star. I've written a fair amount myself, and once spent three years working on one poem. But I can't stand most current American poetry. Here's how most poetry sounds to me:

I am a poet (pause, deep breath, sigh)
and you (pause) are who I am thinking of (pause, another sigh)
because (pause)
we are both (pause)
depressed.

Most poetry seems to be written by people who are scared of their own shadows, and are creating a space for themselves to be still, and quiet, and mostly alone. It's very inward-directed, and seems to be written by people who are anxious about even going outside. That's probably too harsh, and I'm sure there are thousands of great counterexamples. But that's what a lot of it sounds like to me. The writer of this blog post believes that the source of the problem is that many poets are comfortably ensconced in universities, and that poetry journals end up publishing poetry written by and for these university-bound folks.

Again, couldn't agree more. Except that I don't think this is anywhere nearly radical enough in its definition of poetry. It limits "poetry" to what is being published in books and journals. I think that's absurd. The English-speaking world has a great tradition of poetry called rock and roll. Consider this line:

"The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last-chance power drive."

Millions of people have heard that line hundreds of times each. It's from Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run." It could easily be one of the most overplayed songs in history. But try to think about that image without the context of FM radio. There's a reason it's overplayed - it's a great line for a rock song.

So I don't think the problem with American poetry is that Americans aren't interested in poetry. I think the problem is that a few people who are decent writers have managed to convince the rest of us that it's worthwhile to subsidize them so they can talk to each other about how special they are. And some of those people have convinved themselves that they are the ones who determine what is and is not considered "art."

What this writer fails to realize is that the disconnect and the concern is mostly one-sided. He's worried that Americans don't connect with contemporary poets. But the concern is not reciprocated. Most Americans don't read poetry because it doesn't speak to them - he's right there. But most of them also don't care that contemporary poetry doesn't speak to them. I'm perfectly capable of reading and understanding contemporary American poetry. I've even bought "Best American Poetry" books before. But I don't read contemporary American poetry not only because it doesn't speak to me, but because I don't care about it. Two sides of the same coin, I suppose.

But I'm falling into the same trap - defining "poetry" as what is published by people who call themselves poets, and is published in poetry journals. It's not that I don't care about contemporary poetry. It's that I don't care about a particular brand of poery.

Marianne Moore said it best:

Poetry

I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond
all this fiddle.
Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one
discovers in
it after all, a place for the genuine.

Cheer Up, Idiot Democrats!

2010-01-20T21:58:00.001-08:00

Just about any competitive athlete, particularly any pro athlete, will tell you that one of the most important things in any competition is to not let your opponents rattle you. Never let 'em see you sweat. Stay calm, stay focused.

Democrats would be well advised to keep this in mind these days. I knew there would be some finger-pointing and blaming going around after the loss in Massachusetts, and that's what I saw today. Some blogger actually blamed Obama. There was the usual sniping that Obama isn't liberal enough, he's alienated his base, etc., from the "progressive" camp, vs. the "liberals don't know how to compromise" argument from the "moderate" camp.

Not only is this tired and cliched, it's stupid and counterproductive. Taking yourself too seriously is an occupational hazard of being a political junkie. I know this, because I have this tendency myself. Taking yourself too seriously is also an occupational hazard of being a philosophy major, and I was one of those, too. One of my antidotes to taking myself too seriously is the motto of this blog (it's right under the masthead).

Democrats lost a seat they had every reason to believe was an easy victory. That was stupid. But Democrats still have large majorities in the House and the Senate. Plus they have the presidency.

Exactly one year ago today, a young African American with a weird name achieved what most thot was impossible, and was inaugurated President of the United States of America.

Guess what, Democrats - he's still President.

I have said this many times before, and I'm sure I will say it many times again: I refuse to be afraid of my political opponents. Unless someone has a gun to my head, I'm not afraid of them.

I am particularly not afraid of my political opponents when my party controls the levers of power.

Apart from the question of just making the decision not to be afraid, I have solid evidence why I shouldn't be afraid of my political opponents: my side is winning. Not just with today's majorities, but over the course of history. We have won decisive victories in terms of feminism, civil rights, and the environment. We are slowly winning the battle for gay rights. I could go on.

Anyone who is angry at or disillusioned with Barack Obama has not been listening to Barack Obama, because a central part of his message has always been this: This is going to be hard.

There are no meaningful victories without setbacks. I keep thinking about Mark Sanchez, the quarterback for the Jets. Last year, he was the quarterback for USC. He had a year of eligibility left, but he went pro. Some questioned his move - his coach, Pete Carroll, was famously upset - but this year, Mark Sanchez is one victory away from playing in the Super Bowl. And he's the quarterback of the Jets!

Never let 'em see you sweat. Never let yourself be afraid of your political opponents. But never underestimate them, either. And never, ever forget that you are an American, and that the arc of history bends towards justice.

Suck it up, Democrats.

Obama's Next Message: We Have Taken Responsibility

2010-01-19T22:05:00.000-08:00

Josh Marshall has a rush take on what Obama should do in response to the loss of a Democratic senate seat in Massachusetts. As I wrote in my last post, I think one thing Obama should not do is freak out. Take advice from that ultimate guide to adventure, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy: Don't Panic. There is a great deal of unfocused rage floating in the country right now, and it needs a target. Obama, as president, makes a very convenient target. I find the Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien disaster instructive. Neither Jay Leno nor Conan O'Brien is responsible for this mess. They were both perfectly happy in their jobs, and both doing well. It was the idiot suits at NBC who spent years messing this up. But Leno and O'Brien are both very public faces, so they get a fair share of the anger, largely because few people know how to yell at Jeff Zucker.

But Obama is not responsible for the mess that this country is in: Republicans are. Obama has, however, accepted responsibility for cleaning it up, and I think that should be his message: "We have taken responsibility." We (Democrats) have taken responsibility for winding down the war in Iraq. We have taken responsibility for winning the war in Afghanistan. We have taken responsibility for stabilizing the financial system. We have taken responsibility for reforming the health care system. We have taken responsibility for taking care of our fellow citizens in this time of tremendous hardship.

Republicans, on the other hand, have done nothing of the kind. They have refused to take any kind of responsibility whatsoever for their failures. They have refused to take any kind of responsibility for the failures of oversight which led to a catastrophic financial system failure. They have refused to take any kind of responsibility for violating basic tenets of the rule of law. They have refused to take any kind of responsibility for blowing up the deficit. They have refused to take any kind of responsibility for exacerbating massive inequality.

But Democrats have taken responsibility for cleaning up the Republicans' mess because Democrats have the guts to do so, while Republicans don't. Not all Republicans: there are many Republicans who are very capable of taking responsibility for cleaning up their own and other people's messes, like my Dad. I always add a caveat about my Dad when slamming Republicans, because Dad is a very enlightened Republican (and he's cleaned up a few of my messes over the years). He's enlightened enough to have voted for Obama.

But many Republicans, like Dick Cheney, are just wimps. They talk tough, but they don't have the guts to make tough decisions. Obama, of course, does have the guts to make tough decisions. Decisions like taking responsibility for other people's mistakes.

This Would Be A Good Time Not To Freak Out

2010-01-19T21:39:00.000-08:00

So Scott Brown won the race to replace Ted Kennedy as a senator from Massachusetts. It's a bit odd for me to write that sentence, because I have a cousin named Scott Brown, and he isn't in politics, and lives about as far away from Massachusetts as you can in this country (he lives out here in Southern California). He does have a tough job; he does PR for Chrysler.

I have to admit that I didn't see this one coming, but in this respect, I think I am in good company, that company being pretty much every other Democrat in the country. I wasn't following this race until very recently; again, like all my fellow Dems, I suspect. Also like my fellow Dems, I am going to be looking for an explanation, although I am going to try to avoid any kind of intra-party blaming. I am not going to take sides in a moderate-vs.-progressive flame war.

My take on it is that Democrats took the voters of Massachusetts for granted, and if there is one thing that can be said to be an iron law about politics in a democracy, it is that voters hate being taken for granted. It is said that you should not speak ill of the dead, and, of course, a death is a time to remember mostly good things about a person. But I think Democrats, in all their praise of Kennedy, forgot that he was, besides being a great senator, an alcoholic womanizer who got his Senate seat because of his family. My gut tells me that many people voted for a Republican because they really were desperate for a change. I can understand that. I have had many experiences with feeling suffocated by an overwhelming sense of liberal superiority. I went to an elite East Coast liberal arts college in the 80's - I get why lots of people find liberals often insufferably arrogant.

I've also heard that Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign and Scott Brown ran a brilliant one. I didn't follow it, but I'm going to accept that as fact. I don't know the minutiae, and I'm not that interested.

What I am interested in is the future, and I think that still looks good for Democrats. They still have a brilliant and charismatic leader; they still have large majorities in both the House and Senate. What they don't have - yet - is a strong record of accomplishment.

Obama has been compared on many occasions to Reagan, and it's instructive to remember how bad Reagan had it in the early 1980's. Inflation, unemployment, and interest rates were all very high. The recession was horrible. There were serious doubts about the future of this country. Reagan, to his credit, beat inflation, high interest rates, and unemployment. He was also, of course, responsible for a horrible deficit and many other ills. I don't know how much credit goes to Reagan for all of that, and how much goes to people like Paul Volcker, who was chairman of the Fed at the time.

I find the comparison with Reagan apt for another reason: Democrats didn't realize it at the time, but they were losing their ideological legitimacy. America was still in the throes of the post-60's era. Liberals were winning most cultural debates - feminism, civil rights, challenging authority, etc. - but they were losing the battle over the role of government in society. Reagan touched a nerve when he told people that government had gotten too big. It took Democrats several lost elections to realize that. I think they went too far in accommodating conservatives in this regard, but they needed to make a correction.

Today, Obama faces the same challenge: conservatism as an ideology has run out of steam, intellectually, politically, and morally. Obama's problem is that he doesn't have a cadre of people articulating the replacement. That will be the subject of my next post.

Quote of the Day

2010-01-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

"Before you try to revolutionize my business, I'd like to know that you actually know my business."

-George Clooney, "Up in the Air"

Only In New York - Let The Sun Shine Im

2010-01-09T19:34:00.000-08:00

Suddenly I am really, really, really nostalgic for Washington Square Park. I have to admit that this wouldn't happen in LA:

Quote of the Day

2010-01-08T22:35:00.000-08:00

"I used to hide the fact that I did not know the difference between net and gross profits. Thankfully, someone explained it."

This doesn't sound like a great quote. I'm sure there are many people who don't know the difference between net and gross. What's odd is who said it: Sir Richard Branson. Yes, that Sir Richard Branson, of the Virgin empire. He said it in response to the question "Have you ever lied at work?" in a questionnaire in the Financial Times. What's ironic here is that he apparently lied at work, but now he's being honest about it. In a worldwide forum, no less. Props to him for being honest about something that any first-year MBA student would be embarrassed to admit.

My second-favorite quote from this interview is "The bottom line," when he is asked "What is your most hated business expression?" The next time someone tells me that profit drives business, I am going to share this with them.

Cautiously Optimistic About Detroit

2010-01-04T11:45:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post surveyed residents of Detroit about how they feel about the future of Motown. There's general agreement that the place is in ruins now, but most have not given up completely. Which is good, because I'm from there, and I still have family there (Hi Mom!).

I'm of the opinion that there is a silver lining to the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler: it clarifies the status of manufacturing in Detroit and places like it. I've been hearing about the decline of American car manufacturing for years. GM has been losing market share for years. Chrysler already flirted with bankruptcy once.

I've also been seeing the Big Three perpetuate delusions about their status, and make strategic decisions that, in retrospect, were just not right. GM and Ford both bought European car companies, and are both now getting rid of them.

Beyond the specifics of what failed - like Saturn - what failed generally was strategic, theoretical thinking that had no connection to the basic raison d'etre of the car business. There is one way to make money in the car business: make good cars that people want to buy. It's like the movie business. There is one way to make money in the movie business: make good movies that people want to watch. What GM, Ford, and Chrysler failed to do was consistently execute on the details.

But now we know that those experiments failed. We have clarity courtesy of President Obama.

Conservatives complain that politicians should not interfere with business decisions. Except that a key part of the problem at GM and Chrysler was politics, specifically, the internal kind. Imagine office politics wherever you work. Now multiply that by 1,000. Or 10,000. That's what office politics are like at the Big Three. Many people have known for years that GM was making too many different models of cars. But each division had its advocates, and even the chairman of GM did not have the power to lay down the law and cut divisions.

The office politics at GM and Chrysler were literally so bad that it took the intervention of the most powerful man in the world, the president of the United States, to cut the Gordian knot.

So now we have clarity about the future of American car manufacturing. It's not dead. I have faith that the Big Three can build good cars. I have faith that they now understand that their experiments have failed. There are lots of people in Detroit who know a lot about designing and selling good cars. Those people will still have good jobs. And there will still be people wielding rivet guns and paint sprayers. Just not as many of them.

What's ironic for me is that there are some people who saw this coming years ago, and one of them is a guy named Bill Clinton. An essential part of Clinton's message was this: The jobs that created a blue collar middle class in the 1950's are going, many of them are gone, and they will not be coming back. So we have to deal with it. This is why he focused on health care reform early in his first term - because he knew that the model of employer-based health care was changing, and not for the better. It's also why he focused on job training and empowering people to go to community colleges for retraining.

It's not clear what is going to replace manufacturing as a source of jobs. But transitions like this one have always been problematic. There have always been winners and losers as industries and companies change.

We don't know where we will go from here. But we know we can't stay where we are.

Quote of the Decade

2010-01-01T14:21:00.000-08:00

"Know hope."

-Barack Obama

Too Many Honors Societies

2010-01-01T10:50:00.000-08:00

Were you in an "honor society" in high school? I wasn't. I don't remember there being an honor society, although I suppose there was one. It didn't matter, I still got into one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country (Swarthmore). Today, however, they seem to be sprouting like weeds, to the point that some schools are cutting back. Sure, it will good on your college application if you're in five honors societies. But that should also raise questions for any college admissions officer about how seriously you were involved in all five.

But there are other reasons an overabundance of honors societies are a problem: first, they raise unrealistic expectations. Once you're out of college, awards are not handed out like Halloween candy. There are six Nobel prizes awarded each year, for the entire world. When someone wins an Oscar, it means that they were the best in the world in that category that year. Period, end of story. There may be multiple valedictorians in a single high school class, but in the real world, every football team has exactly one starting quarterback at a time, and every company has exactly one CEO. There have been some new awards created for entertainment (I'm still not sure what the "People's Choice Awards" are), and there seem to be lots of "Top Ten" lists, but an Oscar is still an Oscar, an Emmy is still an Emmy, and a Grammy is still a Grammy. The Nobel Prize in Economics is new - it was not part of Alfred Nobel's will. So the Nobels have expanded by one prize in a century. Not much danger of cheapening anything there. There are numerous college bowls, but there is one Rose Bowl, one national championship game, and one Super Bowl.

There are three things that will get you into a good college: 1) being a good student 2) being a responsible citizen 3) being interesting. If you are in five honors societies out of 12 at your school, you may be interesting, or your school's honors societies may have low standards. Or you may be trying too hard to spiff up your college application. But if you made your own prom dress from a pattern in a magazine from the 1950's that you found in the local library, you are interesting. If you're the starting quarterback on a football team that went 8-1, you're a good athlete. But if you're the captain of the brand-new lacrosse team that your school just started, you are interesting.

The big problem with so many honors societies is that they are meaningless as soon as you graduate from high school. I was on the debate team in high school. I was moderately good, but I didn't win any awards. It probably helped me get into college, but I never put it on my resume, and I don't think I've had more than 5 conversations about it since high school. As soon as you get to college, no one cares what you did in high school. And as soon as you graduate, no one cares what you did in college.

I think we confuse cause and effect when we think about elite higher education. We see people like Barack and Michelle Obama, who went to Ivy League colleges, and we think, "If I want to be highly successful, then I have to go to an Ivy League college as well."

Hogwash. It does not hurt to go to one of those colleges. But it is not necessary.

The Obamas got into Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard Law because they are smart, competent, and creative. Those are the same qualities which have made them successful in life. But getting into Columbia and Harvard did not make President Obama smart and competent. He got into them because he was smart and competent. He was smart and competent before he went to Harvard Law, while he was there, and after he left. Going to Harvard Law did not make him smart and competent. It showed the world that he was smart and competent, but there are lots of ways to do that. What you don't hear about are the superstar lawyers who went to places like the University of North Dakota or Arizona State (those are both real-life examples that I know of).

There is one thing that is vastly more important than education for being successul in life, and that is knowing what you want. If you graduate from a small community college, but you're determined to be an editor for sitcoms, you've got a decent chance of making it. But if you graduate with honors from an elite college, but you have no idea what you want to do with your life, you might spend years spinning your wheels. Trust me on this one, I graduated with honors from an elite college, but I had no idea what to do with my life, and I spent years spinning my wheels.

If you are in seven honors societies but you have no record of accomplishment in any of them, you might be just collecting tassels. If you're only in the Latin honor society, but you're the president, and you raised money for a trip for you and other students to travel to Rome to read Latin transcripts at the Vatican, then you are focused and committed, and you know what you want. I knew a guy in college who majored in Latin, one of the least practical degrees imaginable. But he got a job working in the rare manuscripts section of a major library in New York, and he was very happy. If you're on the cheerleading squad, you might be doing it just for fun. But if you're the captain, you practice for three hours a day, you bought videos on cheerleading, and you recruited your friends to join the squad, you're focused.

Most people get basically one job based on where they went to college: their first one. After you get your first job, you get your next one based on how well you did in the first one. I have interviewed for dozens of jobs. No one has ever mentioned the fact that I have a degree from Swarthmore. I got one job because I had a degree in philosophy - the president of the company liked philosophy majors (his father had a PhD from Harvard). But that was also one of the worst jobs I ever had.

Self-esteem does not come from collecting meaningless awards and joining groups just because you can. Self-esteem comes from knowing who you are, knowing what you want to do with your life, knowing what you are good at, getting good at it, and being better at it than other people.

Quote of the Year

2009-12-31T18:56:00.000-08:00

The Quote of the Year for 2009 comes from the same person as last year: my brother Ted. Two years in a row! Way to go, Ted! At some point during Thanksgiving, as we were talking about politics (a favorite topic in the Halbert household), Ted said:

"There are some people who are still in shock that Barack Obama is president."

Which sums up the whole year fairly well. We opened with Obama's inaugural, a momentous and historic occasion. We wrestled with the stimulus, cash for clunkers, winding down the war in Iraq, a nuclear Iran, amping up the war in Afghanistan, and, of course, health care. And bailing out GM and Chrysler. And dealing with climate change. I think Obama has handled all of these well. There have been some disappointments: I think he's been too secretive and hasn't loosened the grip of the executive branch on its own power as much as I would like.

My paternal grandparents would have been among the people in shock at Barack Obama as president. They were both smart people, but they would not have been able to understand it, let alone appreciate why my siblings and I were so enthusiastic about his candidacy and presidency.

History - particularly American history - is always partially about the differences between generations. This problem is ever more acute today, because as the pace of technological change continually speeds up, the younger generations are ever more capable of moving and thinking faster than older generations. My paternal grandfather was born in February 1905. That's only 14 months after the Wright brothers flew, and only 40 years after the end of the Civil War. Both of those events were always ancient history to me. Not to him.

For people under 30, the idea of a black president with an unusual name is not even remotely strange or bizarre. For many people over 80, who were in their 40's and 50's when Archie Bunker was on the air, it's too weird to understand. They're still in shock.

But they're also still Americans, and they understand that, as powerful as the president is, the system is far more powerful, and as much as they may disagree with the president, they still have a place in the country. They may call him a Muslim or somehow unAmerican, they may chant slogans about taking their country back.

But they can't. Obama is as American as any teabagger or Glenn Beck fan. Or me or my brother.

Quote of the Day

2009-12-30T09:39:00.000-08:00

"Well, no one said it would be easy."

-Andrew Sullivan, in his excellent assessment of Obama's first year. He makes the very good point - which should be obvious - that one of Obama's great achievements this year was preventing a second Great Depression.

He also mentions that the right is furious at Obama because they sense that he is changing the dialogue to a degree similar to how Reagan changed it. Except, of course, that Obama is swinging the pendulum back towards government activism, rather than away from it.

It has been said of FDR that he saved capitalism from itself. I think Obama is doing the same thing - he is preserving capitalism despite the best efforts of capitalists to wreck things.

What is driving conservatives nuts is that Obama is turning out to be better at saving capitalism than Republicans. That's gotta hurt.

Quote of the Day

2009-12-29T14:51:00.000-08:00

"Parts of the US electorate that agree on nothing else are united in their disappointment at Barack Obama's first year as president. He must be doing something right."

Editorial in today's Financial Times. The English seem to have a sense of the absurd grounded in reality that works really, really well.

Purging Books

2009-12-28T21:47:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has a funky human-interest item about purging books from your personal library. They asked several prominent book people, i.e. some professors, novelists, and the owner of The Strand, about what to do when they have too many books. Most acknowledge an occasional weeding-out process.

I've done this a few times. In college, I went on a long book-buying binge. It lasted several years. It was something of an obsession. I bought all kinds of "classic" books very cheaply - at used book stores, garage sales, book fairs, you name it. A couple of years after college, I had about 4,000 books. At some point, I needed to get rid of them, and I needed money.

I loaded up my parents' van with several hundred books. I took them to John King Books, the largest used book store in Detroit, and one of the largest in the world. It's absolutely huge - 4 floors, and each floor is easily 5,000 feet. It dwarfs any Borders or Barnes & Noble. Some old guy with a thick white beard offered me $125 for the lot. I turned him down, because I was sure I could get more somewhere else.

I went to another used book store and sold a chunk for $100. Went to another and sold a chunk of the remainder for $20. Went to another and finally got rid of the last few for $3. Total: $123. It was a good lesson in negotiating and efficiency.

Over the years, I've occasionally gone through my remaining books and performed a purge. There are always a few moments of "No, I really don't need this." The last time was a few months ago. I still had several boxes of books in my parents' basement. This time, I took the load to John King, and they didn't want them. Wouldn't pay me for them. The best they could do was store credit. $70. I tried to give that away to my parents or a friend, but no one would take it. I've still got it. I went to another book store with the ones that John King wouldn't even exchange for store credit, and got $17 cash. For books that were worth probably $250-$300 new.

What we're seeing here is the blessing and curse of efficiency. Over the course of the 20th century, it became easier and easier to print and distribute books. As they became cheaper, it got easier to collect them. But as the cost decreased, so did the value. One reason I feel comfortable getting rid of books is that I know I can almost always find any particular book again.

In some respects, it's somehow sad to see books lose their value. But there are upsides. Given that they are now so cheap as to be almost worthless, it's easy to give them away. There are still many places on this planet that could use more books - small town libraries, prisons, even developing countries. There are programs that send books from our overstuffed personal libraries and bookstores to these places.

Of course, the downside of books being so easy to make is that it takes a certain amount of resources to make them. The Kindle and its ilk are rendering physical books less and less relevant. They're also letting us read books with far less use of resources.

Physical books have lost their value. But knowledge and writing have not.

USC wins the Emerald Bowl!

2009-12-27T09:56:00.000-08:00

Well, the football gods smiled on the University of Southern California yesterday, as the almighty Trojans beat Boston College, 24-13. In a nice touch, Patt Morrison interviewed Pete Carroll yesterday in the LA Times. Carroll is one of the best college football coaches ever, and one of the most important people in Los Angeles. He's also a great guy who does a lot for the community, and does a lot without getting any credit for it. Props to the LA Times for running this series of Patt Morrison interviews. One thing that the LA Times has done exceptionally well over the last few years is experiment with their Op-Ed page, and this is a great example.

Matt Barkley threw two interceptions, but he was also 27 for 37, for 350 yards. We'll take that. Here's a video highlight. Now I just have to figure out why it's called "the Emerald Bowl."

Ross Douthat on Obama's First Year

2009-12-26T11:17:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking about blogging about Obama's first year, but didn't have a hook. Ross Douthat provided one. He writes today about how Obama has confounded so many people during his first year. Douthat is a good writer, but elegant confusion is still confusion.

Obama baffles observers, I suspect, because he’s an ideologue and a pragmatist all at once. He’s a doctrinaire liberal who’s always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf.

On DailyKos, DemFromCT has a great response:

Ross, your homework assignment is to write an essay starting with "Obama is a doctrinaire liberal because..."

On one of the most important social issues defining the liberal agenda today, gay marriage, Obama is to the right of just about every liberal: he's in favor of traditional marriage, and always has been. Part of that may be political calculation, part of that may be his honest belief. I don't know, and I don't care. Gay marriage is currently opposed by a majority of Americans, and vehemently opposed by a significant minority. That will change over time, but there is absolutely nothing that Obama can do about it now, or probably at any time during his presidency. The Defense of Marriage Act is not going to be overturned for at least 10 years, if not 20 or more. That's not being pragmatic or even realistic: that's not being stupid. But it also renders any definition of Obama as a "doctrinaire liberal" a little problematic. See also: willingness to use force as an instrument of foreign policy.

In this column we see one of the classic perils of punditry: generalizing from one's own experience to that of the population at large. Obama confounds Douthat because he is not conforming to the conservative stereotype of liberals. Part of that stereotype is that liberals hate capitalism. That used to be true, and it's still true for some. But Josh Marshall, Markos Moulitsas, Jon Stewart, and Arianna Huffington are all highly successful and influential liberal activists and highly successful and influential entrepreneurs and capitalists. Liberals have gotten over their antipathy to capitalism. The Cold War is over. Thanks, we realized that. Bt, dt: been there, done that.

Liberals are still highly critical of many large and exploitative capitalist organizations, like Chevron and Goldman Sachs, but there's a difference between ExxonMobil and capitalism. Liberals may not love capitalism the way conservatives do, but they've learned to live with it. So when Obama saves large banks from going under, most liberals understand that Obama is doing what is necessary to keep the system from going under. They may not be thrilled that Obama is doing it, but they direct most of their anger at the banks, not Obama.

Douthat's next mistake is completely misreading Obama's campaign:

It’s also puzzling because Obama promised exactly the opposite approach while running for the presidency. He campaigned as a postpartisan healer who would change the cynical ways of Washington — as a foe of both back-room deals and ideology-as-usual. But he’s governed as a conventional liberal who believes in the existing system, knows how to work it and accepts the limitations it imposes on him.

I find it bizarre that a columnist for the New York Times would take isolated bits of campaign rhetoric at face value, and then extrapolate from those snippets a governing philosophy. I find it equally bizarre that he thinks this is a clever contrast. Obama campaigned as someone who is willing to listen to his opponents, and engage them in dialogue - which is exactly what he has done. If his opponents refuse to return the favor, that's their fault, not his. Part of his "postpartisan healer" appeal is based on the fact that he does not govern from a position of anger, and he does not incite his followers to hate their opponents. Again, that's exactly what he has done. He can be critical of Republicans, but he refrains as much as possible from inflammatory rhetoric. You will never hear Barack Obama accuse his political opponents of being treasonous simply because they disagree with him. So we are getting what we expected, and what Obama sold - a politician who listens carefully to all sides of an argument, asks detailed, intelligent questions, and makes decisions based both on his personal beliefs and what reality is.

As for Obama's belief in the existing system. Of course Obama believes in the system as it exists. That's implicit in the fact that he ran for president, and held political office for many years before that. Again, this gets back to his ability to understand reality as it is. His campaign was a great example of this. He looked for the tactical and strategic weaknesses of his main opponents - Hillary and McCain - and developed strategies and tactics to beat them. Looking at his track record as a legislator, it should be clear that his ability to get things done is fused with his ability to compromise. Liberals should not be surprised by this: the same was true of Clinton. We also hated Bush because he took the exact opposite approach: he didn't ask questions, didn't listen to voices of dissent, made decisions based on ideology rather than reality, and wreaked havoc on the world. There are some liberals who are not thrilled that Obama is not a pure liberal. But there are also many liberals who are thrilled that, even when Obama does something they disagree with, they know that he has thought about it carefully.

I almost feel bad taking on Douthat, because it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Conservatives have exaggerated his liberal instincts into radicalism, ignoring the fact that a president who takes advice from Lawrence Summers and Robert Gates probably isn’t a closet Marxist-Leninist.

This also ignores the fact that Marxist-Leninists are not elected to public office in the United States in the 21st century, with the possible exceptions of the occasional city councilmember in some very small town. About the only public figure I can think of who might be close to a Marxist-Leninist would be Noam Chomsky (and I'm not even sure about that), and I can't remember the last time I saw his name mentioned in a liberal blog.

Then there's this gem:

Absent political constraints, Obama would probably side with the liberal line on almost every issue. It’s just that he’s more acutely conscious of the limits of his powers and less willing to start fights that he might lose than many supporters would prefer.

This is called "one of the consequences of holding office, as opposed to being an activist." It's also sometimes referred to as "Poli Sci 101." It's categorically absurd to discuss how a president operates "[a]bsent political constraints." That's like talking about how Hollywood studios would make movies "absent the interests of the audience." Yes, Obama takes into account political considerations when making decisions. This is why he is called a "politician."

Douthat does make one point that is not utterly ridiculous, but still boneheaded.

Obama doesn’t enjoy the kind of deep credibility with his base that both Reagan and Kennedy spent decades building. When Kennedy told liberals that a given compromise was the best they could get, they believed him. Whether the issue is health care or Afghanistan, Obama’s word doesn’t carry the same weight.

Yes, Obama has frustrated many liberals. But talk about nostalgia warping history! I'm not a student of Kennedy, but my impression is that he didn't spend decades building credibility with liberals. He was a privileged member of the elite who didn't serve in the Senate much longer than Obama. I also seem to recall that Johnson - who had a much better life story and record of accomplishment as a liberal president than Kenndey - had a rather fractious relationship with young liberals, like, say, every person who went to Woodstock or bought a Beatles album.

Obama's word carries weight with liberals for three reasons: his life story, the fact that he is about to sign a major piece of health care reform, and the fact that he thinks things through. One more time: Obama makes decisions based on asking intelligent questions about reality. This is what confounds Douthat: it's liberals who are the realists, not the conservatives who swear fealty to capitalism and its alleged grounding in the real world. There are some liberals who are frustrated with Obama. There were a fair number of liberals who were frustrated with Clinton. Remember welfare reform? Not real popular with liberals. There were conservatives who were frustrated with Reagan. Activists, intellectuals, and theorists are empowered by their willingness to pass judgment. There will always be people who pass judgment on politicians, because there will always be people who figure out a way to get paid to do so.

But the latest example of someone even remotely radical who challenged the establishment while running for political office is Ralph Nader, and most Kossacks bristle at the very mention of his name. He is persona non grata among a large chunk of the Democratic base. Like about 95% of the Democratic base. We have seen the price of enforcing ideological purity, and we are not interested in paying that price again. Obama frustrates some liberals. But he also gets things done. Big things.

If anything, it is a sign of Obama's success that he leaves his opponents so utterly confused. I understand Douthat's confusion, because I was in the same position in the 80's as I opposed Reagan. I just could not wrap my mind around the fact that so many people in this country voted for a man who seemed both so stupid and wrong. Later I realized that he wasn't as stupid as I thought he was, and liberalism had spent a large chunk of its intellectual energy. But before I realized that, I spent many years in denial about the failures of liberalism. The fact that the Berlin Wall fell while I was in college was a big help.

Conservatives are in the same place that I was. They're in denial about the failures of conservatism and furstrated because they can't get any traction attacking Obama. Remember the line that Obama was taking on too many things at once? Yeah, that didn't go anywhere. Obama as socialist? Sure, because socialists are so willing to spend billions propping up banks and saving old-line industrial behemoths.

The defining sign of Douthat's confusion is this line:

[U]sing cynical means to progressive ends (think of the pork-laden stimulus bill or the frantic vote-buying that preceded this week’s Senate health care votes) tends to confirm independent voters’ worst fears about liberal government: that it’s a racket rigged to benefit privileged insiders and a corrupt marketplace floated by our tax dollars.

"A racket rigged to benefit privileged insiders?" Is the man completely unaware that Dick Cheney was the former chairman of Haliburton? Has he forgotten that Bush pushed through massive tax cuts that benefited the rich? The last two Democratic presidents have been men who had absolutely no help in life from their fathers. The two before that weren't exactly East Coast elites. Yes, Obama has helped out banks. But Republicans are trying to paint Obama as an unAmerican socialist who is also tight with the Establishment. There are three terms to describe this failure to resolve contradictory ideas: 1) "cognitive dissonance," 2) "lack of connection to reality," and 3) "electoral failure."

Emerald Bowl tonight!

2009-12-26T10:02:00.000-08:00

Tonight is the Emerald Bowl! Big excitement! This year, the Emerald Bowl is hosting the almighty Trojans of the University of Southern California, and some team from the east. Oh, wait, that's right, it's the Eagles of Boston College. I have a fair degree of respect for Boston College, since my sister went there, and I have decided not to engage in any trash talking about USC's opponent this year, in the spirit of humility required of USC fans at the end of this dismal season.

For those unaware, USC finished the year 8-4, which is a complete disaster. We did not win the PAC-10 conference championship, so we are not going to the Rose Bowl, let alone the BCS national championship game. But this is, I suppose, to be expected - with great success comes occasional failure.

Personally, I think of it this way: The Lakers and the Yankees both won championships, so I think I maxed out on my personal sports karma for the year. The Red Wings didn't win a championship, and the Redskins are playing like pathetic wimps. But I'll take two championships in one year, even if it means I have to sacrifice USC playing in the Rose Bowl.

But I am going to feel sorry for Boston College tomorrow.

The View From My Window

2009-12-25T16:42:00.000-08:00

I took this picture from my office window a few days ago. It's not the best view from where I sit, but it does have the cool effect of showing snow visible from an office in downtown Los Angeles. I was going to take another picture today, since it's Christmas, and we have another clear view today (we usually have some kind of smog), but the batteries in my camera died. So hopefully tomorrow. Meanwhile, enjoy.

And, of course, props to Andrew Sullivan for his long-running feature "The View From Your Window." I'm going to order the book any day now.

Raining in LA

2009-12-11T21:09:00.000-08:00

We're having a citywide hydration event here in Los Angeles. This is great for us, because we always need rain. So everybody is happy that it's raining. Reminds me of an old country song. Doesn't this take you back?

Obama on Afghanistan

2009-12-02T22:10:00.001-08:00

I caught the last half of President Obama's speech on Afghanistan. I'm glad the decision has been made and there will be no more discussion of "dithering." I'm not all that thrilled with sending another 30,000 troops, but I am reluctantly supportive. Part of my rationale is that I trust Obama has thought this through thoroughly, and has weighed all of the options carefully. The other part of my rationale is that I basically agree with him, much as I don't want to.

There have been many comparisons of Afghanistan with Vietnam. Newsweek looked at the question of whether or not Vietnam was winnable. I don't think that's the right question. I think there are two questions about Vietnam that I haven't seen discussed much: 1) how was it related to WWII, and 2) So we lost - so what?

First, on the WWII question. American armies have a reputation for "fighting the last war," and supposedly that's what we did in Vietnam. But thinking about WWII also sheds some light on why we were there in the first place.

From the perspective of 40 years, it seems ridiculous that we were even in Vietnam. It's a small country thousands of miles away from us - what was the threat? Even the domino theory seems strange and absurd. I understood Vietnam when someone once explained something about California politics in the 1950's. California was conservative in the 50's because people were worried about war with China. That sounds absurd today - China is a large country, but it's also technologically years behind us. It's also across the Pacific ocean.

But so was Japan. In the 1950's, the idea of waging war across the Pacific was very plausible and scary. China was allied with Russia, which had a large military presence in Europe. A sea war in the Pacific, a land war in Europe - in the 1950's, that scenario was strongly reminiscent of WWII, except that Russia and China are both much larger than Germany and Japan. In that context, going to war in Vietnam makes more sense.

Which leads to the second question. We lost, but so what? We now have diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Cambodia went Communist, but no other countries in southeast Asia did. We lost the war in Vietnam, but, in retrospect, we didn't have to fight it at all. We won the ideological war. Of course, we didn't know that in the 1960's, but it's useful, I think, to realize that we won even though we lost.

I am confident that we will win the war against Islamic extremism, just like we won the war against communism. But while fighting in Vietnam was a result of thinking about a WWII-like scenario, Afghanistan is the mirror image of Vietnam. We know that al Queda is, in fact, a direct threat to us. As Obama pointed out in his speech, we are not fighting a nationalist insurgency. Even the geography is radically different: arid mountains vs. jungles.

The key difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan is that, while Vietnam was mostly self-contained, the war in Afghanistan has potential repercussions for its neighbors. Al Queda is in Pakistan, which, unlike Iraq, does have nuclear weapons. Pakistan also has an ongoing, unresolved border conflict with India. India has its own history of sectarian violence and terrorist attacks. India also borders China, and has differences with that country. To the west, Afghanistan borders Iran, quite the hotbed these days. Iran, of course, is developing nuclear weapons, is threatening Israel, and borders Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan, or even the "war on terror." It could very easily spill into another country. It is already spilling into Pakistan.

But there are also positive developments. We are getting along much better with Russia these days. Turkey is a stable country with increasing influence in key areas, particularly Kurdistan. There may be a change of regime in Iran in the near future. If that happens, many things could change quickly, hopefully for the better. Saudi Arabia is very worried about all of this, and might make a dramatic move. We might capture Osama bin Laden. Gitmo will hopefully be closed soon.

We won the Cold War despite making a lot of incredibly stupid mistakes, like fighting in Vietnam. We have, are, and will continue to make many mistakes fighting Islamic terrorism. I don't think Obama's decision to send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is one of them. At least I hope not.

Oprah v. Sarah

2009-11-19T08:23:00.000-08:00

So Sarah Palin, on her book tour, stopped by Oprah Winfrey's show the other day. I didn't watch it, partially because I was at work, but mostly because I really didn't think I could take watching Sarah Palin for an hour. But one of the loyal readers of this blog told me I should watch some of it on YouTube, so I did.

I only saw a few minutes, but I think that was enough. I like Oprah, I respect her, she's obviously very good at her job, but I can't say I'm a fan. That's mostly because I am not in the target demographic. Talk shows like hers have a purpose, but not for me.

Part of that purpose is to have the conversation that many people are having, but on a national scale, and with a great deal of preparation. What exactly is the purpose of this whole book tour by a failed vice-presidential candidate? Is she running for president? Does she just want to make some money?

Probably both. She's clearly making money, and she's quite probably running for president. Why go on Oprah? She endorsed Obama last year. She has a huge constituency, sure, but she is also very much a card-carrying member of the "media elite."

Watching Sarah Palin on Oprah's show, even for a couple of minutes, I realized something about the ex-governor of Alaska. At one point, Oprah looked highly skeptical, like she was looking at a dead slug. Oprah is, we can assume, not a big fan of Palin. But that's a key part of the appeal for Palin and her base. I could see the slightest hint of fear in Sarah Palin's eyes. She might never admit it, but she's very insecure. She's terrified of Oprah, for the same reason that she's terrified of those "media elites" - they're smarter than her, and much more well-informed than her. They are much more intellectually curious. That's why Charlie Gibson was able to sandbag her with what should have been a simple question - what do you think of the Bush Doctrine? It's why Katie Couric was able to expose her as an intellectual lightweight by asking the even simpler question, What newspapers do you read?

But the fact that Sarah Palin is afraid of someone like Oprah ironically gives her all the more motivation to be on her show. Sarah Palin is incredibly competitive, and the greater the challenge, the more she wants it. You have to respect that. You don't have to like it, but you have to respect someone who takes on that kind of challenge, who is willing to overcome her own personal insecurities and fears on a national stage. Constantly.

This is a big part of her appeal to her base: she's willing to confront people who look down on her. Just the fact that she is willing to do so gives her a certain degree of credibility. It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon. She writes a book because she and her publisher know there will be a market for it. It's already a "New York Times bestseller," which means that someone like Oprah has to take her seriously, at least to some extent. So her base gives her a certain respectability, which she uses to convince Oprah to invite her onto her talk show. Once she's on stage with Oprah, she doesn't have to do much. All she has to do is hold her own. She doesn't have to prove that she's got the solution to global warming or the Israeli-Palestinian problem. All she has to do is maintain her dignity. She has to be enthusiastic, charming, and fearless. She doesn't have to be the smartest person in the room; she has to not be an idiot. She just has to prove that she is worthy of Oprah's attention. Again, a self-reinforcing phenom: her base will show up in enough numbers to demonstrate what they already believe about her: that she deserves not just their attention, but the attention of the entire country.

I don't have a problem with Sarah Palin's lifestyle, although I'm not a fan of the idea of shooting wolves from airplanes. If she wants to eat caribou meat that Todd shot for her, more power to them. But I expect my leaders to be capable of asking difficult questions, not just of their advisors and their opponents, but of themselves. Sarah Palin is very sure of herself. So is Barack Obama; his calmness in the face of challenges and crises is a big part of his appeal for me. But Obama's confidence comes from asking questions, searching for answers, and finding them. In that respect, I think his confidence is earned. I have respect for Sarah Palin's ability to charge ahead, and I think she deserves some of her confidence. But not enough to be president.

Liberal Arts Colleges and Teaching Leadership

2009-11-16T10:52:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post has a blog called "On Leadership" (I guess it's a blog, it feels like one). Today there is a guest column about "Why colleges should teach leadership." The author is a recent (2005) graduate of Harvard. While there, he established a leadership institute, to address what he saw as a gap in the education at Harvard.

He nails the problem:

Education is a college's reason for being, and leadership needs to be a part of the classroom experience. For that to happen successfully, the definition of the classroom must evolve. It should not simply be a place where students hear lectures, but rather an interactive environment that extends beyond the confines of the room itself. Experiential learning emphasizes discussions, projects and team work rather than problem-set solving or textbook-reading.

I completely agree. I went to Swarthmore, a classic liberal arts college, with a strong liberal/progressive tradition. Every administrator, every faculty member, every board member, will tell you that the College teaches leadership, and believes very strongly in doing so.

My experience was completely different. I was the "treasurer" of the Amnesty International chapter on campus. I was effectively president, but you couldn't call yourself president of a student political organization. There wasn't any official prohibition - the College does, after all, have a president - but it just wasn't done. There was an unwritten and unspoken rule that you did not impose a hierarchy on a student political group, because it was supposed to operate by consensus, according to the Quaker tradition (Swarthmore was founded by the Society of Friends, and still hews to some of the traditions of the Quakers, but is officially non-sectarian). It was basically taboo to call proclaim yourself a figure of authority. This was but one example of political correctness.

I was co-president of the campus science fiction club, the Swarthmore Warders of Imaginative Literature. My co-president and I called ourselves "The Presidents Who Go 'Ping!'" after the hopsital scene in Monty Python's the Meaning of Life . But it was, as should be obvious, not a terribly serious organization, so no one minded if we called ourselves president. Besides, one of our predecessors had referred to himself as "Lord God Emperor" or something like that. We were modest in comparison.

The lack of title was the least of my problems learning leadership at Swarthmore. There is one key to teaching leadership that was missing at Swarthmore. Someone has to actually do it. At a college, there has to be someone who makes a commitment to teaching students how to lead. Ideally, each student organization should have a faculty advisor, a mentor who provides guidance by virtue of setting an example, answering questions, and empowering students to make decisions.

I did not have a faculty advisor when I was treasurer of Swarthmore. It never occurred to me to try to find one. I don't know of any student organization that had a faculty advisor, although it's possible that I missed something. The faculty at Swarthmore, were, to their great credit, committed to teaching undergraduates. Many of them were also committed to teaching students about issues of social justice and social criticism - I minored in Sociology specifically so that I could study Critical Theory. They were great at talking the talk.

But they had no idea how to walk the walk. Some of them were personally active in politics. But a professor providing guidance to students on how to be a leader of a political organization just was not part of the social fabric of the college. The College had other means of encouraging students to be politically active - one of the most prestigious scholarships was the Lang scholarship, provided by Eugene Lang, chairman of the board of managers. It required the recipient to take on an off-campus social change project. The college also provided grants to some students who engaged in social change projects - I got $400 to support my internship when I went to Washington to intern for the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. That was great. The College also provided Amnesty International with some money out of the student activities budget, which was good. But I also had an internship with Amnesty's Mid-Atlantic regional office in Washington, and didn't get any financial support for that.

Over the course of a couple of years running Amnesty International on campus, and two internships in Washington fighting the death penalty, I had a grand total of two conversations with faculty/staff about my political activities: once, when someone told me that they were sending me a check for $400 for the grant, and once about a parking ticket (I drove a college van to an Amnesty event).

I never had a single conversation with any Swarthmore faculty about my personal political activism. Never got any guidance about how to make decisions as a leader. Never got any advice about what to do when someone in the organization is doing something wrong.

I had lots of conversations, and wrote many papers, about what is wrong with capitalism. This, of course, was a time when my real-world economic experience consisted of summer jobs as a dishwasher. But no conversations about what I personally could actually do to make a difference.
I went to Washington for my internships because I was so sick of theory that I just had to find some way of getting some hands-on practical experience. I arranged my own internships, again with no help whatsoever from anyone at the college. I had two great mentors in Washington: a guy named Jim O'Dea at Amnesty, and a woman named Leigh Dingerson at the NCADP. They both gave me good projects to work on. They were both excellent managers, with real passion for their causes. I am, all these years later, still grateful to both of them. But both of those experiences were completely removed from my college education.

Do I sound a bitter? Maybe just a little. This is one reason that I do not donate money as an alumni to Swarthmore (there are several reasons for that). After I left, the College started paying more attention to this issue: they created a position for someone to provide this guidance. I applied for that job, but didn't get it (the person who was hired was a friend, and an excellent choice). I understand that the College has spent money on building facilities to support student activism. That's all well and good, but too late for me.

I was thrilled to read this column in the WaPo, because the need is urgent.

Just like cars from Detroit, our existing educational models works, but significant advances have taken place in the field, and these models haven't always kept up.

Liberal arts advocates argue that the purpose of a liberal arts education is to teach students "how to think." That's great. For me, however, it was not necessary. I had a fantastic high school education (in suburban Detroit) that taught me how to think. Swarthmore did not teach me how to think - I already knew that. I got some good practice on how to argue, but Swarthmore did not teach me how to think.

What Swarthmore also did not teach me, and what I desperately needed, was how to make decisions. That is an essential duty of leadership - it's what leaders do. The problem wasn't just the lack of mentors, but my particular curriculum. I majored in philosophy, and minored in English and Sociology & Anthropology (S&A is one department at Swat). Philosophers make decisions about theory, but they do not make decisions that affect other people. There weren't a lot of role models for leadership among contemporary women poets or in Joyce's Ulysses. Sociologists may argue about what leadership is, but there aren't many opportunities to practice it in the classroom.

The problem with lack of mentors was particular to Swarthmore in the late 1980's, but there is a general porblem teaching leadership on American campuses. One thing leaders have to do is evaluate risk. But professors with tenure are insulated from risk. Leaders take risks in the hopes of reaping rewards. Any good leader is going to have their share of failures, just by virtue of being human. But any good leader is also going to be someone who learns from their failures.

Professors, however, being insulated from failure by tenure, do not have the same opportunity to learn from risks taken that do not work out. So professors, at least those with tenure, will probably be poor teachers of leadership. Tenure grants them permission to create impregnable, and very intellectually sophisticated, defense mechanisms justifying why their ideas don't match reality. My favorite joke about economists is that an economist is someone who sees something working in practice, and wonders if it will work in theory.

I would love to see more efforts at teaching leadership on American college campuses. What any effort to do so, however, must take into account one thing: there are already many high-profile people at colleges who teach students how to lead, how to make difficult decisions, and how to motivate others to achieve a common goal. These people take risks, and are held accountable when they fail.

These people are called "coaches."

Health Care Passes In The House

2009-11-07T22:25:00.000-08:00

The House of Representatives passed its version of health care reform today. TPMDC has a great analysis of the issues here.

The bill passed the House 220-215, just a couple of votes more than needed. Abortion, a long-simmering issue, exploded in the debate in the last couple of days, as some conservative Democrats decided that they couldn't vote for Federal funding for abortions. They got their way. I'm not thrilled with that, and lots of feminists and liberals are going to be disappointed, but I'm not surprised this happened. Abortion is one of the last battles of the culture wars that is still open, and conservative Democrats need to feel like they won something in this debate. As a percentage of the actual money involved, I'm sure funding for abortion is miniscule. But it's a very high-profile issue, and Democrats from culturally conservative districts can use this vote to demonstrate their independence from "Washington elites."

Obama, as I expected, used some of his political capital at the end, showing up on Capitol Hill to bang some heads and twist some arms. Just a few days after the votes in Virginia and New Jersey that were allegedly so bad for him, he achieves a major victory.

Momentum breeds momentum. As Democrats have come together, they have, collectively, ever more reason to vote together, to make something happen. They must all hang together. They don't all have to vote for the bill to get it to pass, and I'm sure Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn have a very good sense of who they can bring on board under what conditions. As they get closer to passing the final bill, they get closer to defining the political reality. And conservatives and Republicans get closer and closer to losing a major battle. That's one reason that they are fighting so hard, and using such absurd rhetoric - if they lose this one, they don't just lose on the issue - they lose their ability to be obstructionist. Some members of the base will be ever-more frustrated and vitriolic. But a fair number of Republicans are going to be deflated and demoralized. And a fair number are going to be disgusted at the tactics of this highly vocal minority. There are still many, many moderate, tolerant, decent, open-minded conservatives and Republicans who still believe that respecting your opponent is a key quality for being successful in a democracy. Those Republicans, by definition, are not rabble rousers. They are not the ones raising signs on the steps of the Capitol. Which means that they aren't the ones being noticed in this debate. But there are millions of them, and they are paying attention.

Reading the article in TPMDC, I finally started to pick up a good understanding of what is at the core of the debate. I finally get the basic issue. We have lots of uninsured people in this country. Taking care of them costs the rest of us a lot of money. We have to get those people insured. There are a couple of ways to do that: abolish all private insurance, and enroll everyone in the same government program, or encourage/force everyone to buy insurance on their own, or encourage/force all employers to offer insurance. The problem with encouraging/forcing all people to buy insurance on their own is that many of them will not be able to afford it, and many will resent having to buy insurance when they haven't had to before. So, to make it possible, and to ease the pain, the government will do two things: 1) offer subsidies so people can afford to buy insurance, and 2) set up a government-run insurance program for people to buy into. To level the playing field, and to make insurance work better, the government will also be imposing new restrictions on insurance companies.

I finally get it. It's great not to have to worry about the constant battle over fine details of political gossip - which Senator said what about what obscure part of the bill, and how did the White House react, and how did the Senate leadership react, etc. I found the news coverage - particularly on the liberal blogs, TPM, DailyKos, and HuffPost - getting bogged down in that kind of detail. That's a subject for a post-mortem.

But the bill passed the House. On to the Senate.

All Hail Hideki!

2009-11-05T08:04:00.000-08:00

The almighty New York Yankees won the World Series last night! Hideki Matsui was named MVP. He had 6 RBI's in this game, which the Yankees won, 7-3. Woo hoo!

In 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated, the Lakers won the NBA championship, and now the Yankees have won the World Series. All is right with the world. Well, almost. USC has lost two games this year, and probably won't win the Pac-10 title. Other than that, tho, it's been a great year.

I watched the game at a bar in Sherman Oaks with a friend who is about the biggest Yankees fan I have ever met, which is saying something. It was her 27th birthday, and the Yankees won their 27th World Series. It was, she said, the best birthday ever.

I bought her dinner. It was the least I could do.

Election Day!

2009-11-03T19:59:00.000-08:00

It's Election Day, but a rather boring one. There are two governor's races, in Virginia and New Jersey. Gay marriage is on the ballot on opposite corners of the country, in Maine and Washington. Given the paucity of actual data, but given the ravenous appetite of the media - and us deeply obsessed political junkies - there will be much analysis, much of it wasted. Is this good or bad for Obama? Kos is firmly of the opinion that it says next to nothing about Obama, and I agree. Like Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local." These candidates and ballot initiatives are being judged on their own merits. As will Obama in three years.

I haven't commented on these races much, but I have been following them. Chris Christie, the Republican and former US Attorney, won in New Jersey. This is not surprising. The current governor, Jon Corzine, is not terribly popular. I'm not plugged into New Jersey politics enough to really know why. Corzine, however, has the baggage of being a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, at a time when investment bankers are not making friends among the populace. One good thing about Obama's background as a community organizer: he didn't go the investment banking route, which he easily could have done. Christie suffered from some minor scandals, but they were minor - an inappropriate loan to a staffer, some traffic violations. If Corzine had been more popular, those might have done some damage. But my impression is that Christie came across as the lesser of two evils.

Bob McDonell, the Republican, won in Virginia. Again, not surprising - Virginia has been a Republican stronghold for a long time. It's somewhat surprising that Virginia has two Democratic senators. The one noteworthy development in this race happened when McDonell's old graduate thesis surfaced. He took some very conservative positions, and Democrats were hoping that would alienate moderates and women. But he immediately, and apparently effectively, distanced himself from those positions.

The one fascinating oddball race is in New York's 23rd CD, where a Conservative Party candidate is competing against a Democrat. The Republican bowed out after teabaggers and their ilk made it clear they wanted an ideologically hardcore candidate. Someone at The Albany Project is calling it for the Democrat, with 70% of the vote. Wow, that would be quite interesting. That would be a rather spectacular setback for the Republican party - the district has been GOP for 100 years. If the Democrat takes that, it will spark lots of good old-fashioned internecine warfare. Gotta love the prospect of that!

Dropouts

2009-10-31T14:43:00.000-07:00

Two people just dropped out of political races: Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, withdrew from the race for the Democratic nomination for governor of California. DeDe Scozzafava, the official Republican candidate in NY's 23rd Congressional district, withdrew because of an ideological battle raging in the Republican party between moderates and conservatives. She was losing that battle to the Conservative Party candidate.

Other than the timing, the races are pretty much mirror opposites: one's a Democrat, one's a Republican; they are on different coasts; one dropped out days before the election, the other dropped more than a year before the election. One's a Federal election, but for a single district; the other is a statewide election, but it's California.

Easily the most important difference, tho, is what it says about the politics within each party. Scozzafava was already nominated to be the Republican party nominee in the election; she was ousted by someone who is not technically a Republican. The party of the Establishment was the site of an insurgency. Newsom, on the other hand, withdrew in favor of someone who has not even announced his candidacy yet: Jerry Brown, aka "Governor Moonbeam," a man who could have been described as having an "alternative" approach to governing, had the term been around when he was running California in the late 70's and early 80's. Among Democrats, a man who was at once both a scion of the party (his father was also governor) and a symbol of its flakier elements, is now an elder statesman. As I've always said, irony is 9/10th of the law.

I'm not really going to miss Newsom, although I will miss the competition within the Democratic party. I hadn't spent any time paying attention to his policies yet, but he strikes me, at least from this distance, as smart and competent, but not the most responsible guy around, and not one for reaching out to members of the opposition. The great challenge for the next governor of California is going to be fixing the broken politics of California, which will require rather extraordinary dealmaking skills. Brown has so much history that is so far in the past that even the ghosts of his scandals and strange media interludes have disappeared. He and Linda Ronstadt appeared together on the cover of Newsweek in 1979. There are many voters in California who don't remember this because they weren't born yet. Heck, there are voters in California who don't know who Linda Ronstadt is. A governor dated a mainstream pop star? And the controversy would be . . . ?

There's no word yet on whether or not anyone will rise to challenge Brown. Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of LA, bowed out of the race a while ago, and I don't think he will be tempted to get back in. He seems intent on actually getting the things done that he said he would get done. Dianne Feinstein has wanted the office for literally decades, but she'll also be about 96 when the race starts, and what Democratic Senator would want to leave DC while Obama is in office? Fabian Nunez, former Speaker of the Assembly, is young and ambitious, but he had a bad habit of spending campaign donations on things like "office expenses" at Louis Vuitton in Paris. Not really a great idea.

I know even less about the various personalities involved in the fracas in upstate New York, but boy am I having fun watching it. Doug Hoffman is the nominee of the Conservative party and, now, the Republican one, sort of. So Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, neither of whom, I am willing to bet, has ever set foot in the district, made announcements about who the representative in Congress should be. This had the rather bizarre effect of pissing off the Republican county leaders in the district, but energizing people on talk radio. That's a neat trick. How welcome do you think Ms. Palin and Mr. Pawlenty are going to be in those Republican county offices in 2012? If Mr. Hoffman loses, they will be persona non grata.

The big winner in all of this so far, even before the election, is President Obama. First, he scored points for bringing a Republican into his cabinet: the former Representative, John McHugh, accepted Obama's invitation to be Secretary of the Army. Now Obama gets to watch Republicans engage in a little fratricide. The icing on the cake, of course, will come if the Democrat wins the election.

Obama Takes On Executive Pay

2009-10-23T19:54:00.000-07:00

The Obama administration's "pay czar," Ken Feinberg, has cut executive pay at some companies that received financial help from the government. The Federal Reserve has taken a similar action with some of the banks that it regulates.

Conservatives will argue that the government should not intervene in the free market to this extent. They're absolutely right - the government should not be setting the pay rates of top executives of American companies.

But top executives of American companies should not be asking the government for billions of dollars to save them.

One detail that seems to have been missed in the discussion of these decisions is that of the seven companies on which the Obama administration brought down the hammer, only 3 - Citigroup, Bank of America, and AIG - are straight financial companies. The other four are General Motors, Chrysler, and their respective financial companies.

The fact that four of these seven companies are really automotive, rather than financial companies, changes the picture somewhat. First, I would have no problem with many of the current top management of GM and Chrysler leaving. I think those companies could use some fresh blood. Second, Most of the best people have already left - they now work for Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, and the one American car company that didn't get bailout money, Ford.

The Fe's move is target at banks, not just bankrupt icons of America's industrial history. There are technical questions about how the Fed's regulations will (hopefully) rein in excessive risk-taking. I don't quite get how that will work - that starts to get rather technical.

In political terms, with which I am more comfortable, I think this was a very good move by both the administration and the Fed. Cutting paychecks is something everyone can understand, even if there are arguments about the legitimacy or efficacy thereof. It's also a great use of political capital. No one will feel sorry for people forced to live on $200,000 a year. At least no one who votes in a Democratic primary. Democrats can now point to something Obama has done in connection with the bailout and recovery that no Republican - particularly not George W. Bush - would ever even contemplate. It puts the financial industry on notice that Obama is willing to make tough decisions that are in the best interests of the American public, rather than Wall Street.

What Wall Street apparently fails to realize is that while the massive difference between the pay of CEOs and other fat cats and the regular folks on Main Street may be the result of legitimate business activity, it is inefficient for society as a whole. Someone making $100 million a year is going to spend a fair chunk of that money inefficiently. Some of it they will donate to charitable organizations, some of it they will use to buy normal things, like cars and clothes. But a fair amount of it they will spend on luxury items that do nothing to promote economic growth. A $500,000 boat is a nice thing to have that a family can use for fishing and traveling. That's a perfectly legitimate use of wealth, and it generates other jobs. But a $50 million yacht is ridiculous. Even if it generates millions of dollars in jobs and economic activity, it still represents a great deal of waste.

This is something that conservatives have never understood: capitalism generates efficiencies for individual companies, but it creates inefficiencies for society at large. That is what we have seen with this horrible recession. Absurd pay for executives at bankrupt companies, or companies that required massive infusions of capital from the government, are a great example of capitalism generating inefficiencies in society at large. The Obama administration is just redressing these inefficiencies.

FDR, it is said, saved capitalism from itself. Obama is doing the same thing.

Newspapers and Vice

2009-10-22T09:17:00.000-07:00

Maureen Dowd has some intriguing ideas for how to revive the newspaper business in yesterday's column. Taking a look back at the history of print journalism in this country, she notes that newspapers were not exactly holy places - they reeked of alcohol and gambling, and sex in the office was not exactly unknown. Today, in our more enlightened times, we do not tolerate such things. But, Ms. Dowd opines, what if we allowed newspapers to take bets on sporting events? Lots of papers are flirting with money-making enterprises that were traditionally associated with the lesser emotions. The NY Times, our NY Times columnist points out, has a wine club, and Conde Nast has a dating site. Just about every newspaper in the country covers sports. And every one of those newspapers - from the smallest hometown rag in Montana, to the Times itself - has readers who bet on sports.

What she doesn't mention is that there is a whole category of newspapers who advertise much worse things than gambling. "Alternative" weeklies have ads for massage parlors and escorts. That's basically legalized prostitution. Here in LA, they also have ads for marijuana "clinics," where you can go to buy pot if your doctor prescribes it. Of course, it's absurdly easy to find a "doctor" who can prescribe that for you. And some of those newspapers do real investigative journalism. The LA Weekly recently won a Pulitzer. OK, it was for their restaurant columnist, but still, it's a good paper. All we are doing by prohibiting gambling on sports is driving it underground. It happens all the time. Every day. We also drive it offshore, to Websites based in Caribbean islands, where it cannot be taxed by US governments. I'm not advocating for massage parlors and drug clinics. But as long as they are there, and some papers are making money off of them, why don't we let more respectable newspapers engage in businesses in which no one gets hurt?

Health Care Reform Passes Senate Finance

2009-10-13T20:32:00.000-07:00

The Senate Finance Committee passed its version of health care reform today. Woo hoo! That's a big one, the last committee vote. One Republican voted for it: Olympia Snowe, of Maine. Personally, I'm glad I can finally rest easy and not worry about whether or not she is going to vote for this committee bill.

Except that, of course, I now have to worry about whether or not she is going to vote for the final bill, and whether or not that will include a public option. Brian Beutler at TPM provides a good analysis of Snowe's role in the end game. If she supports the final bill, does that give moderate Democrats political cover? The problem with this analysis is that ignores the fact that the Democrats have a 60-vote majority. At some point, Obama is going to start twisting arms, and make supporting this legislation a key test of party loyalty. "Supporting the President" has a lot of pull in DC. At the end of the day, they are Democrats.

There is no question that some bill will pass. The only question is what will be in it. Republicans want to water down the public option. Snowe will score points with Republicans if she can claim that she used her leverage to make it a better bill, as Republicans define it. Of course, there's also the issue that she will look the odd woman out if she is the only Republican to vote for it. Critics on the right will be able to make her a convenient target, and they can easily accuse her of selling out.

But there is one thing that has to be keeping Republican leaders up at night: it is entirely possible that the Democrats know what they are doing. What if this bill really does bring a lot of resolution to the health care crisis? What is a public option turns out to be a good thing?

What if Barack Obama is right?

That possibility has to have people like Mitch McConnell just terrified. That is one of the basic rules of politics: you have to keep in mind that sometimes (hopefully rarely), your opponent will be right, and you will be wrong. The tricky part is knowing when to admit that. The trickier part is knowing when to recognize it.

The fact that one Republican might vote for this bill means that Republicans are hedging their bets. Democrats, to their great credit, have been very open to Republican suggestions during this debate. It was extremely frustrating for the Kossacks to watch Max Baucus negotiating with the Republicans on his committee for what seemed like forever, but there is no way that Republicans can say that Democrats rammed this down their throats.

So Republicans have to keep in mind that the Democrats might be right. If they are right, the fact that one Republican voted for it, and several Republicans on this committee negotiated with Baucus in good faith, would mean that the Republicans could claim that they had some influence on the bill, and it was their contributions that made it a better bill. Of course, the fact that almost all of them voted against it would be a rather effective counter argument.

The Republicans beat Clinton on health care. Newt Gingrich took that victory and ran with it, winning the House in 1994, much to the Democrats' surprise. But Clinton won reelection in 1996, and Gingrich was eventually forced out of office.

Obama's bill will probably be much better than Clinton's would have been. So Republicans won the battle back in 1993, but with this bill, they will have lost the war.

Oh Sweet Automotive Irony: Porsche Sponsors Andrew Sullivan

2009-10-11T14:41:00.000-07:00

I read Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, several times a day. The Atlantic currently has a feature with him being interviewed by one of his co-bloggers, Ta-Nehisi Coates. I watched one and enjoyed it. It's nice to see some experimentation on a blog, even if it's not particularly creative. Sullivan has done this before, with Marc Ambinder. Sullivan has a good screen presence.

There's one slightly ironic detail. The series of video interviews is sponsored by Porsche. Nothing wrong with that. I like Porsches, and actually learned how to drive a stick on a 944. Except that, in a poll of bloggers, asking them what kind of car they drive, Andrew Sullivan replied thusly:

I don’t drive and cannot drive. I have no license and never learned. It’s saved me a fortune and the planet some grief.

Yes, that's right, Porsche, maker of high-end sports cars, the kind of automobiles driven by people who buy cars strictly because they love to drive these kinds of cars, is sponsoring probably the only high-profile blogger in the United States who not only does not own a car, but doesn't know how to drive.

So we know that there is no possible way that Sullivan is biased in favor of Porsches. Which is good. I'm sure the vast majority of his readers appreciate Porsches (although I am sure that there are a few who have issues with them). It's a very classy advertiser for an intellectually sophisticated blog.

But I just can't help but appreciate the irony.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-10T18:52:00.000-07:00

I was at my parents' house in suburban Detroit yesterday, taking care of some personal stuff, and then flew home to LA, so I didn't get a chance to blog about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was in the kitchen when my brother yelled out from the family room that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. At first I thot he was kidding, but this is not the kind of thing that he would joke about. Not that my brother doesn't have an good sense of humor (he does), but this is not the kind of thing he would joke about. So as soon as I realized that this was for real, I started wondering, along with just about everyone else on the planet, just why he had won?

I am with most liberals that, while it's nice for Obama to win, it's a little early in his career. How can you top winning the Nobel Peace Prize? What does he do for an encore? I think Obama has done some things that will eventually bring peace, like opening up to Cuba and talking to Iran, but none of his initiatives have really borne fruit. There was a solid piece of news on the peacemaking front today; Hillary Clinton helped broker an agreement between Turkey and Armenia to normalize relations. It still has to be approved by their respective legislatures, but this is a major achievement. This was high on the list of famous historical grievances carrying weight in the modern world. So the Obama administration can claim one foreign policy breakthrough, even if it came after Obama won the Nobel.

I do have one bit of intellectual sleight-of-hand that I am using to frame why the Norwegians gave this to Obama so early in his career. Some people have criticized this as a political move. But that misses the point. Of course it's a political move: the awarding of a "peace" prize is by definition a political move, because it is recognizing a participant in some kind of conflict, usually armed, and those participants are usually associated with one side. There are exceptions that the Nobel committee has recognized: the Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc. But the very idea that those who advocate for the non-violent resolution of conflict should be recognized is an ideological one; most of us just happen to agree with that ideology, or with the recipients.

In many instances, by the time the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded, it's clear which side should be recognized; the ones who have achieved peace. But not always; if the Nobel Peace Prize were only awarded to the victors after they had achieved victory, it would lose some of its efficacy. In politics, after all, timing is very, very important. It would also be boring if the only people who won were people in retirement homes. It is, at this point in history, utterly noncontroversial that Martin Luther King, Jr. won the Nobel Peace Prize, but I'm sure there were people in this country who disagreed with that at the time. And I'm sure Dr. King found the awarding of the prize very useful.

So we should not be surprised that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee made a political statement with the awarding of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. They make a statement every year. The timing is unusual, and, honestly, not that great. I will freely admit that, even as a hardcore Obama supporter, his list of accomplishments is a little thin. I am hopeful that Obama can prove decisively that diplomacy is not merely an alternative to the use of force in international relations, but actually a more effective one. The best thing that Obama can do for the world is to prove that conservatives are wrong on that score. But he hasn't done it yet, and so five Norwegians look like they are making statement about their preferences in American politics, rather than recognizing specific achievements.

But who are we, as Americans, to complain about people in other countries meddling in our internal affairs? Conservatives are particularly hypocritical in this regard, considering they advocate for the use of force in meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

There is one upside for Obama: it completely wiped the Chicago and the Olympics from the news.

The Norwegians have made a bet that giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize at this point in his career will pay off. It is an unusual and risky move. But it is also a gutsy one, and it took a certain amount of courage to make this political move. Which, I believe, is what the Nobel Peace Prize is all about.

First Monday in October

2009-10-05T20:41:00.000-07:00

This is the first Monday in October, which is the official start of term of the United States Supreme Court. "First Monday in October" is also the name of a movie about a woman who is the first female justice on the Supreme Court. I have no idea if it's any good; I've never seen it, I just remember the title. It stars Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh, so it might be good. I'm pretty sure it's a comedy.

This term is notable, of course, for the presence of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic member of the Court. She was officially sworn in September, but I wanted to note that today is the first day that she is sitting on the bench. Viva Sonia!

No more cupcakes for you!

2009-10-04T07:46:00.000-07:00

New York City has decided that there shall be no more bake sales, or at least a lot fewer, because selling junk food to kids makes them fat.

But it also makes them rich. Or at least rich enough to be able to go on field trips and buy sports equipment, which is what they do with bake sale money.

I want to go on record as saying that I think this is a terrible idea. Yes, I understand the imperative to stop feeding kids lots of bad food, and I could lose a few pounds myself. But this is also a great example of why conservatives criticize liberals: because liberals believe in the nanny state, i.e. the idea that those in power know what is good for you, and have the right to dictate how you should live your life.

Liberals are forgetting a key lesson of history, and that would be the political correctness of the 1980's. I survived that era, but barely; I still have bad memories of the PC police. There is an element of puritanism in both liberal and conservative viewpoints; conservatives have their versions of enforcing morality. Someone (H.L. Mencken?) once said that puritanism is the idea that someone, somewhere, is having fun, and that they must be stopped. Telling students that they cannot have bake sales is a version of that.

How about this: if a group has a bake sale, they also have to have a fundraiser that somehow promotes healthy living, like a walkathon. Or maybe the football team (although I suspect there aren't a lot of high school football teams in NYC) asks people to pledge a certain amount of money for each point they score. Or bake sales have to incorporate some educational element, like coming up with new recipes, or working with professional chefs. What about forming some kind of organization, and encouraging the students to treat it as a real corporation? There could be a group that hosts bake sales, and the other school groups outsource it to them. Or maybe limit the amount of sugar and/or fat that can be used, which would force students to be really creative with their ingredients. It's entirely possible to make really good snacks and desserts without lots of calories, but you have to focused on doing just that. That might require more work on the part of the school administration. But it would also be much more rewarding than a straight ban. And there wouldn't be risk of a backlash. Remember, these students are all future voters.

Obama and the Olympics

2009-10-02T23:20:00.000-07:00

Chicago is not going to host the 2016 summer Olympics. I wasn't terribly surprised; I think I would have been more surprised if Chicago had been chosen. Since 1980, the US has had the Olympics four times: Lake Placid, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City. We are not exactly suffering from a shortage of Olympics in this country, and Brazil made what was to me the very strong argument that it had never been held in South America. Tokyo was another contestant, but it was just held in Beijing, another Asian capital, and the Olympics were held in Tokyo in 1964. Madrid was the European representative, but Barcelona hosted the Olympics in 1992. Rio had to be the prohibitive favorite.

President Obama had campaigned for Chicago, but to no avail. Of course, now people are wondering about the political implications. Conservatives were thrilled that Obama suffered a defeat on the international stage.

But Obama was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't. If he hadn't gone to Copenhagen and Chicago had lost, conservatives would have been critical of him for not making the effort, and they would have blamed him for the loss. They would have said that he doesn't really care about America, that he only wants glory for himself, that the Olympics wouldn't matter to him because he'll be, at best, a lame duck in 2016, etc. If he hadn't gone, and Chicago had won, conservatives would have said that America didn't need his sales pitch, that we can do fine without him. If he had gone and Chicago had won, they would have said he was wasting his time, that Chicago would have won whether or not he was there. Conservatives would have done everything possible to either blame him for the loss, or deny him praise for the victory.

I think most fair-minded people will say that at least Obama gave it a shot. "Fair-minded people" being people who don't automatically hate Barack Obama. Which, in my opinion, is actually the vast majority of the American people.

David Brooks, Fiscal Restraint, Culture Wars, and Hollywood

2009-09-29T21:07:00.000-07:00

David Brooks has a good column today about a fundamental American value: fiscal restraint. He points out that over the course of our history, our materialism has been balanced by a countervailing thrift. He points to the old WASPs, immigrant families who sacrificed for their kids, etc. Then he throws out some numbers about how in debt we are as a country, and how we are going to have to experience a major cultural shift if we are to get our fiscal house in order. He ascribes equal blame to both sides of the ideological spectrum, conveniently forgetting that it was Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and supply-side economics that have gotten in to this mess, while Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget. Other than willful blindness, I think he's basically right.

I am an eternal optimist, so it's not hard for me to find some encouraging signs; the decline and fall of the insane demand for luxury that has besotted us and driven developers to erect ever-more fabulous monuments to consumption. But I find the most encouraging sign in what may be the most unlikely, and yet the most likely, of places: Hollywood.

I say "most unlikely" because Hollywood is about the farthest from anyone's mind when looking for examples of monetary sanity; this is a community rather well known for spending lavishly.

But I saw "most likely" because Hollywood is also where many great trends get started. One trend in the box office this year has been the decline and fall of a fair number of movie stars and their potential for opening movies and making millions. So far this year, Duplicity, starring Julia Roberts, State of Play, starring Russell Crowe, and, just this past weekend, Surrogates, starring Bruce Willis, have all done much worse than expected. These people are not earning their $15-20 million paychecks.

Which raises the question: were they really worth $20 million? Presumably, yes; movie studio executives aren't that stupid, and, in fact, they tend to be fairly intellectually disciplined when calculating their bottom lines. Which is one reason Sandra Bullock starred in The Proposal, rather than Julia Roberts: Julia wouldn't cut her $20 million fee, Sandra Bullock was perfectly willing to do it for less, and wound up with the biggest hit of her career.

Movie stars are no more or less greedy than regular people; if I had the chance to make $20 million for 3-6 months of work, you damn well better believe I would take it. They are also no more or less greedy today than they were in previous generations; the nature of human greed has not changed in the last few years. Technology has, and with it certain aspects of the Hollywood business model. It's physically possible to distribute movies today in a way that wasn't possible even 30 years ago. A major studio release generally hits 3,000 screens on opening weekend; Star Wars, by contrast, opened on May 25th ,1977, on a grand total of 43 screens.

Movie stars have been making millions of dollars a movie because they could. Audiences, however, are also ever-more discriminating. The fact that Bruce Willis is in Surrogates is not a guarantee that it will be a good movie. Moviegoers are shade more conscious of what kind of value they are getting for their entertainment dollar. Studio executives are also, I hope, more conscious of the value of their budgets. There is some reason to be optimistic in the recent firing of Dick Cook from Disney. Bob Iger has made it clear that he isn't all that happy with Disney's slate of movies these days. Surrogates is a Disney movie. Bob Iger was worried that Disney is not making good movies, so he fired the head of the studio, Cook. Looks like Iger made the right call.

Money does strange things to peoples' brains: it takes a certain a certain amount of intelligence to make money, but too much money can give people the impression that they are smarter than they are, which leads them to making stupid decisions. We're in the post-stupid decisions phase in this country now. Too much money led way too many people to think that they were smarter than they are, which led them to make stupid decisions. This recession is a wake-up call. The generation that survived the Great Depression was a frugal one.

Money also has a strange way of convincing people that they are worth more than they really are. Certain movie stars seem to think that. They think of themselves as being worth vast sums of money, when their worth is really determined by that insanely fickle entity known as the audience.

What the market giveth, the market taketh away. We are seeing a certain rebalancing of the equation of inequality, at least in Hollywood. Personally, however, I think the best solution to rebalancing inequality is the old-fashioned one: tax the rich.

Ultrafast Apple Pie

2009-09-27T19:14:00.000-07:00

OMG does this look fun:

one minute Apple pie from Animi on Vimeo.

hat tip: Andrew Sullivan

Regime change in Iran?

2009-09-27T13:11:00.001-07:00

Now that we know that Iran has a weapons site dedicated to creating nuclear weapons, Republicans are upset and demanding "regime change." As Josh Marshall points out, that does not necessarily translate into military action. But don't these people ever learn? Didn't our last attempt at "regime change" in that part of the world, and, in fact, next door to Iran, not really work out so well?

Naturally, these Republicans are disdainful of diplomacy. One reason for conservative opposition to diplomacy is increasingly obvious to me: they're not very good at it.

Kyl v. Stabenow

2009-09-25T19:50:00.000-07:00

Jon Kyl, Republican senator from Arizona made a bit of a mistake today. Michael Kinsley famously said that a gaffe is what happens when a politician tells the truth. Kyl, in this case, said something that is undeniably true. Speaking of health care and requiring insurance companies to cover certain conditions, he mentioned that he does not need maternity care. So forcing him to pay for it will make his policy more expensive. Good thing he has health insurance - I think he's going to need surgery to extract his foot from his mouth. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he has to meet with his female staffers. To say nothing of his wife or daughters.

Debbie Stabenow, Democrat senator from Michigan, came right back with the perfect response: "I think your Mom probably did." Wow. She's going to be a feminist hero for the next election cycle. At least. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the next conversation she has with her campaign treasurer. I think she probably got a few clicks of the PayPal button for that line.

But other than a moment of good political theater, this illustrates a couple of things. First, it illustrates that Jon Kyl does not understand the basic principle of insurance: the point is to spread the risk. Of course he can't get pregnant. Of course, he can GET someone pregnant, and if he doesn't believe in paying for maternity care, I think we need to ask him some questions about how he feels about men being responsible fathers. But there's also almost no chance that he will get breast cancer, and there are other diseases that he can't get. There are, however, diseases that he can get that women can't - does that mean that women shouldn't pay for prostate cancer coverage? We do make adjustments for insurance coverage based on things like smoking, but that is a personal choice, not a result of genetics.

Second, it also illustrates a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. The classic liberal criticism of conservatives is that conservatives are not compassionate. I'm not sure that's the case; I've known some conservatives - notably my grandparents - who cared very deeply for their loved ones. The difference seems to me to be a matter not of compassion, but of imagination. Conservatives do not seem very good at empathizing with someone with a different point of view. This explains why conservatives are very compassionate towards people who are like them, but not so much towards people who are not like them. This is why conservatives are willing to use torture. They feel the pain of people who died on 9/11 - mostly Americans, like themselves - but they do not feel the pain of the people being tortured.

This is also why Jon Kyl doesn't want to pay for maternity care - he doesn't empathize with women who might have to go through childbirth. I have a feeling, however, that he is going to be empathizing with women on this score in short order. There are many, many women who are not going to let him forget this comment. It has to be one of the most sexist things I have heard in a long time.

It feels almost trivial to be pointing this out, but it does seem to highlight a basic difference: liberal brains are wired to empathize with people who different than they are, and conservative brains are wired to empathize with people are similar to them. This applies to "liberal" and "conservative" as we currently understand them in American political discourse; there are philosophical definitions of each that do not necessarily mesh with this distinction.

There are strengths and weaknesses of each; conservatives are more self-reliant, and forge tight bonds with each other, while liberals appreciate differences and are better at forming political allegiances across all kinds of differences. Conservatives don't deal well with people unlike themselves, but liberals can overcompensate and become hypersensitive to differences.

Fortunately for liberals, the ability to understand and empathize with people with different perspectives confers a substantial advantage in politics. Particularly when there are more and more people like that, both in this country and around the world, who are demanding to be treated as equals.

Quote of the Month

2009-09-21T22:31:00.000-07:00

"First of all, I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election."

President Obama, responding to David Letterman's question about whether or not opposition to his policies is rooted in racism.

The audience went crazy, and Letterman - to his credit - had a good follow-up: "How long have you been a black man?" Of course, the fact that he can come up with a good line is why he has this show.

One thing that continues to impress me about Obama is how comfortable he is in his own skin. He can go on Letterman, look completely relaxed, crack a great joke, and then explain how other presidents have dealt with the same kind of bitter, angry opposition, and how that is simply part of politics. This kind of equanimity, of course, is one reason he is president, and it stands in stark contrast to the rantings and ravings of the teabaggers and their demagogues.

It's also a stark contrast to George W. Bush, who, in retrospect in particular, was very uncomfortable with being president. Obama knows that he is up to the job. You have a feeling about Bush that initially he thot he was up to the job, but at some point he realized he was in over his head.

One thing that I am very much looking forward to is a video comparison of Bush at a press conference, in an interview, giving a speech, compared to Obama in the same positions. Can't wait for that.

Obama on Missile Defense

2009-09-20T07:51:00.000-07:00

President Obama is scrapping the Bush Administration plans for missile defense in central Europe, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Great move. Good for him. I remember reading about Obama's plan for missile defense during the campaign; I actually read his position paper on his Website. If I remember correctly, he was supportive of it. I was a little surprised, but that I realized that Obama was probably thinking of missile defense as a bargaining chip with the Russians. He was pretending to be in favor of it, so that he would have something to give away when negotiating with them.

But this particular missile defense program was a terrible bargaining chip with the Russians, because it pissed them off so much. Bush argued that this was designed to protect Europe against Iran. Russia didn't buy that, neither did I, and neither did almost anyone else in the world. The geography is just ludicrous; Poland is a long way from Iran. And why would the Iranians want to send missiles into any European country? Why would the Iranians want war with, say, Germany or England? Those are NATO countries, so all other NATO countries would be obligated to respond. Any attack by Iran on any European country would be completely insane. First, Iran would be toast, and second, what would Iran possibly gain from such an attack? They certainly aren't going to take any territory from Denmark.

The Russians saw this missile defense as a thinly - and poorly - disguised defense against them, and, in effect, a revival of the Cold War. This was incredibly insulting to them, and for good reason. Of course, Bush didn't care about making the Russians mad. If they yelled, it just proved that he was doing something right.

What I'm sure Obama realized is that the Russians did not want to negotiate over missile defense because to do so would have meant that they would have recognized it as legitimate. Which they absolutely did not want to do. For the Russians, putting in this missile defense was essentially an act of bullying by the US. For them to include it in any kind of bargain would have meant acknowledging that the US could threaten them with impunity, walk away, and then do it again. That's intolerable to them, because it makes them look weak.

So Obama by withdrawing this missile defense plan, Obama gave the Russians something they crave above all else in international relations: respect.

Of course, the Russians are not alone in that. Every country wants respect. It's particularly important for the Russians because Russia is still by far the largest country in the world, with vast resources. The Russians feel that they deserve respect in large part because they do.

Obama is treating the Russians like adults. He is sending the signal that he is not afraid of them, he will deal with them from a standpoint of equals, rather than out of fear, and he will not let his insecurities - or the insecurities of a few chickenhawk conservatives - determine American foreign policy.

Some will argue that Obama gave something away without getting anything in return. I disagree. Obama was never going to get anything from Russia in return for missile defense. What Obama gets - what the entire world gets out of this decision - is a world with a little less fear.

Back on the grid

2009-09-17T22:02:00.001-07:00

Well that was a great vacation. I spent a few days ignoring politics as much as I could; I didn't read a newspaper item about politics, despite subscribing to the LA Times and the Financial Times; didn't check a blog or news Website of any kind.

It lasted about three days. Maybe four. Then I started feeling the urge again.

But it was a wonderful three or four days. Really cleared my head. It was particularly useful to take a step back from the partisanship on both sides. Much as I agree with the progressive/liberal side, I also very clearly remember the political correctness of the 1980's, and sort of still have some scars from that. So I am very sensitive to liberals enforcing ideological purity, particularly with invective and sarcasm aimed at people on their side with different approaches or ideas for reaching a similar goal. Not a big fan of that.

So what did I miss? Some guy named Joe Wilson embarrassed himself and his party by heckling Obama during his speech to Congress. I still haven't watched that, but plan to. I think the House did the right thing by voting formal disapproval. I am a big fan of respecting your ideological opponents, but self-respect also demands that you stand up for yourself occasionally, and I think that's what the Democrats did. I would like to think that I would have the same position if the situation were reversed. I would like to go on record as advocating the same penalty for a Democrat if he/she heckles a Republican president.

The healthcare debate is crystallizing. Is Max Baucus a fool or a hero? Right now, it depends on the time of day, and where you stand on the public option. At the very least, Republicans cannot say that they were not given an opportunity to have their voices heard - Baucus gave them every chance to contribute. If they don't like the final product, that's fine, but they can't claim that Democrats shoved it down their throats.

But if the bill passes without some kind of public option, liberals, particularly the Kossacks, are going to crucify Baucus for giving away the store and not getting anything back. That does look like a questionable strategy.

Obama imposed tariffs on Chinese tires. My question is: was this justified by treaty and/or international law? I haven't been able to find out. I'm assuming it's a bump in the road - I have seen many other trade disputes flare up and then dissipate. My guess is that that will happen here.

Off the grid

2009-09-11T20:40:00.000-07:00

I am pulling an Andrew Sullivan and going off the grid for a few days. I'm not just not blogging; I'm trying to ignore news as much as I can. Haven't looked at TPM, Andrew Sullivan, or Daily Kos for a couple of days. I haven't even watched or read Obama's speech on health care.

I think it's been at least two years, since the summer of 2007, when I got involved in the Obama campaign, since I have really given myself a sustained break from worrying about the rest of the world. It feels really good.

It's a little late to be taking a break, since the rest of the world did so in August, but better late than never.

In other news, I was at Starbucks today and bought an album you may have heard of, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. It's amazing to realize that I actually know every single song on the album. There are damn few albums that I do not own that I can say that about. And I know every single song really well. And probably just about every person I know knows every song really well. It's a digitally remastered edition, with a mini-documentary. I haven't watched that yet.

Unfortunately, unlike Andrew Sullivan, I don't have an under-blogger to cover for me, so commentary on health care and the latest Republican idiocy will be forthcoming in a few days.

Also, tomorrow USC continues its march towards its next national title by taking on Ohio State, and that, of course, is much more important than something like health care reform. I bought a new USC t-shirt today. I also learned that the School of Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California, oldest and greatest film school in the world, got its own star today from the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. When you walk around Hollywood, there are stars in the pavement with the names of famous celebrities. Now USC has one, but it is actually on the USC film school campus. Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. would be proud - he founded the school and taught the first course. He had some pull within the industry at the time - he was the president of a new group called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Go Trojans!

Wildfires and Scrambled Eggs: Elegy for the Hidden Springs Cafe

2009-09-05T11:08:00.000-07:00

Here in LA, we're almost used to wildfires. We're surrounded by lots of dry trees that seem to burn quickly. That's one price we pay for living in a hot, sunny, dry climate. We're starting to learn to live with them, getting better at defensive construction, getting people out of the way. But there's always an element of tragedy in fires as big as the ones we have had here in LA, particularly when, like these, they burn close to large population centers. I could see smoke - lots of it - from my office in downtown LA.

For me, the great tragedy in this fire was the loss of a small building in the middle of the Angeles National Forest, the Hidden Springs Cafe. The Website is still up, but the Cafe itself is completely gone. The LA Times, to its eternal credit, had an article about the Cafe before its fate was known. They devoted a fair amount of space to it.

I discovered the Hidden Springs Cafe several years ago, driving through the Angeles National Forest. It wasn't hard to find, once you knew where it was, but it sure was hidden. To get there, you headed up the 2, into the Forest. Once there, you drove about 7 miles, and then turned left. Then another 7 miles, and it was on your left. Impossible not to notice, because it was the only building for miles. I'd go there every few months, for a mini-vacation.

I have to admit that I didn't really go there for the food, except for the chili, which was great (it was advertised as "nearly world-famous"). Most of the rest was pretty basic diner food, but very good diner food. I usually went for the grilled ham and cheese.

But what the Hidden Springs Cafe lacked in culinary flamboyance it made up for in charm and character, and it had those in spades. It was a small place, with about 8 stools around a horseshoe counter, and a couple of picnic tables outside. There was only room for one cook in the kitchen, but that was all that was needed. The cook's name was Jim, and his twin sister Janice was the waitress. Their mother Elva was usually there too, partially because she lived upstairs, partially because she owned it, and I don't think I ever remember her not smiling. Jim and Janice traded banter like nobody's business. Their older brother Otis was there occasionally. He would play banjo for the customers. He was there the last time I was there, in July, subbing for Jim. I ordered scrambled eggs for breakfast, with toast and bacon. Otis told me that he wasn't really good with scrambled eggs. I thot this was something of an odd confession for a short order cook, but it was utterly charming that this guy would share this kind of tidbit with me. The eggs were fine, they just weren't very scrambled. But they were the only scrambled eggs I've ever ordered that I remembered, and will always remember.

The family had owned it since 1971, and you could feel every day of those years on the walls. The best of those years was carefully layered on those walls, and preserved, not so much through comprehensive attempts at preservation as through constant attention to keeping the place like it always was. Ironically, one of the major decorative features was a string of Smokey The Bear posters, including the very first one. It was the kind of place where you felt very comfortable immediately, and kept feeling that way.

It wasn't just the family that ran it that made it a fun place; it always attracted people, some regulars, and some people just wandering by. You were pretty much guaranteed a good story, either from Jim, Janice, Elva, or Otis, or from someone who had been there dozens of times and was stopping by to check in and catch up. The Hidden Springs Cafe was like its very own small town, in the middle of a National Forest the size of Rhode Island, in the middle of one of the most populous counties in the world. It was a quiet little dot a few miles north of Hollywood, world capital of spectacle and glamour. The food was cheap but as good as it could be, the root beer floats were classic, and the charm was real. Just as real was the love the people there had for each other, their jobs, the lifestyle they had carved out for themselves, and the people who had discovered this little bit of magic. I will miss the Hidden Springs Cafe.

Inglorious Basterds

2009-08-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

So I saw Inglorious Basterds, because when Quentin Tarantino makes a good movie, it's hard to ignore it, because it's probably a damn good movie. Tarantino may be the only person in Hollywood who enjoys his own insecurities. Fortunately for the rest of us, his talent - and ego - are greater than his nervous tics and personality quirks, so he can actually channel his bizarre obsessions in artistically productive ways. It's also quite helpful that his tendency towards self-indulgence is matched by a dedication to the craft of filmmaking. And it doesn't hurt that he's supported by a studio executive - Harvey Weinstein - with just about the same level of talent, ego, insecurities, and dedication to the craft.

Watching Inglorious Basterds, you get the feeling that Quentin Tarantino wakes up on the wrong side of ridiculous a little more than is really healthy. But you also get the feeling that one thing that pulls him back to the sublime is his technical brilliance, and his extraordinary command of pure technique. The cinematography particularly stands out. Much as I admire most of Pulp Fiction, I found the camera work uninspired. Not so here; Tarantino knows exactly how and when to take risks, and then pulls them off. There's not really anything flashy; it is simply superb. The same can be said of the performances. There is already much discussion of an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for Christopher Waltz as the Nazi Col. Hans Landa. He's certainly my favorite so far this year. I'm reminded of that old saying that the devil can be charming, and he almost makes you forget Hannah Ahrendt's observation that evil is banal. Until Tarantino cuts to shots of Hitler.

Brad Pitt won't be getting an Oscar nom, but only because he chose to deliberately go way over the top as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds. This is one of Tarantino's riskiest bets, and it mostly pays off, but it definitely inches the film towards the absurd.

But then almost every other performance drags it back to wonderful. Melanie Laurent is a marvel as Shosanna Dreyfus, a Jew who runs a cinema in Paris. Diane Kruger shines as a German movie star. Tarantino's Promethean confidence in himself does wonders for his performers. His confidence is justified in part because he's providing them with the verbiage. One reason Brad Pitt can pull off a Tennessee accent that makes Bo and Luke Duke sound like Yankee frat boys is that he's interrogating German prisoners through the pen of Quentin Tarantino. It's not quite as memorable as Samuel L. Jackson's discourse on foot massages - which is one reason he's a movie star today - but it's still in the context of a Tarantino script.

Unfortunately for me, it's a little too much of a Quentin Tarantino script. What would a Tarantino script be without constant violence, highly choreographed gunfire, bodies everywhere? A more interesting movie, would be my guess. It's very tempting to analyze and criticize and comment and scrutinize and debate whatever message is in the movie, but I'm going to resist, not least because I don't think Tarantino himself really cares that much about a message. He's still having too much fun impressing himself and us.

Sitting in a bar afterwards, drinking a blueberry martini, I said to Peter, the friend that I had seen it with, "I'll be really impressed with Quentin Tarantino when he grows up." "But he never will," said Peter. Which with I could not help but agree.

Tarantino's technical ability as a filmmaker has progressed dramatically. He was always a brilliant writer, and he is now a craftsman of the highest order. But he is still too clever for his own good. I judge movies by their endings; whether or not everything comes together is the test, for me, of whether or not the director has had a clue what s/he is doing all along. The ending left me a little cold; the revenge fantasy felt too self-indulgent.

I can think of two reasons why Quentin Tarantino should ultimately grow up. One, because he will eventually be able to make the best movie that he possibly can, which I don't think he has done yet, and two, because then he might have a chance of winning the Oscar for Best Director.

A Difficult Hero: Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

2009-08-28T18:13:00.000-07:00

I will miss Ted Kennedy. I will miss him for many reason; his leadership on so many good liberal causes, his support of Obama, his example of lifelong dedication to public service.

But Kennedy was a man of contradictions, some of which he only really resolved late in life, and those made him a difficult hero. He was a rich populist; a politician who fought for "the people," he was never really one of them. Born into high expectations, he achieved what few other Americans ever have, a status of legend, but he never reached his highest goal, the presidency. An eloquent and passionate speaker, in almost any other family in history he would be renowned as a great orator; but compared to his brothers, he was merely excellent; there are no great quotes from him that are embedded in the American cultural consciousness.

His family embodied the idea that with great power comes great responsibility; he, John, and Robert all accepted the burden of great responsibility. But the same family also seemed to believe that the same power granted rights and privileges that normal people did not have. In this sense they avoided responsibility. If they accepted responsibility in the political realm, they seemed to feel they could avoid it in the personal realm, giving themselves license to behave erratically, licentiously. If they worked hard, they seemed to think, then they were to be excused if they played hard, as well.

Ted Kennedy lived long enough that the vices he shared with his brothers - in his case, wine and women - caught up with him in a way that it never did with John or Bobby, but only, in their cases, because they, tragically, did not live long enough. We will never know if John's dalliances would have ever become a scandal; probably not. My grandfather, a conservative Republican, used to say that the only difference between LBJ and Nixon was that Nixon got caught. That was a crucial difference between Teddy and his brothers; he got caught.

But the most important difference was that he lived long enough to outgrow the burdens, expectations, and demons that he inherited with his name and his wealth. He was never as charming as John or Bobby, despite his intellect, political instincts, and oratorical abilities. But by acknowledging his limitations, i.e. that he would, at best, only be a senator, never president, he embraced his own abilities, and became a master of his domain like few others in history.

The ability to craft legislation is a difficult skill for the populace to appreciate, not least because it is hidden so well from even the most attentive eyes. We know more about what goes on in Congress today, with constantly updating blogs, but that also builds our sense of frustration, since we can witness the legislative process, but we are limited in our ability to influence it. So we must trust those who are so intimately involved with it.

Among all the accolades to Kennedy there runs a constant stream of testimony to his ability to shape legislation. That's great and wonderful, but I have to take it on faith. I can't see direct evidence of that, like I can see a home run being smashed, or like I can watch a great performance by an actress onscreen. I can see the results of the legislation after it has passed, but it takes a fair amount of effort and attention to detail to make the connection. Until all the eulogies, I doubt I could have listed any of Kennedy's signature legislative achievements.

But if I take evidence of Kennedy's great legislative ability on faith, it is a variation on my faith in American democracy itself. Which is both constantly being tested and constantly being rewarded. Damn those Founding Fathers; why did they have to make democracy such hard work? Couldn't they have made it easy? Of course not; democracy is no easier or harder than simply living on planet earth. Ted Kennedy knew how to get the most out of democracy as he knew how to get the most out of life. It's not a facile comparison; it is at the core of who he was.

Ted Kennedy was a man who inherited from his older brothers a tradition of soaring rhetoric, but learned how and why to sweat the details of American democracy. Then he learned how to sweat the details of the details, and then to connect those details to the big picture. He was born to wealth and privilege, and enjoyed it for himself, but worked much harder than he had to for people who had so much less than he did. He was a Harvard-educated, old-fashioned northeastern liberal intellectual when that was in style, and then when it went out of style. Then he survived long enough to see another Harvard-educated liberal intellectual become president.

He was a flawed man in a flawed system. If he achieved any kind of redemption, it was because that is possible in our system. Our failures as a country are a source of our guilt, but our successes as a country are a source of our salvation. And the same is true of our failures and successes as individuals. Ted Kennedy had sources of guilt in his personal life, but he found redemption in his political life.

He was a man capable of changing himself and a man who changed the country, working in a system that simultaneously creates opportunities for reform and demands respect for tradition.

I will miss Ted Kennedy, now most of all, when his goal of universal health care is so close, and his skills are so urgently needed. Conservatives will miss him, since they are now short one iconic liberal bogeyman for their scare-tactic fundraising letters. Too bad for them!

To borrow one of his brother's great phrases, when Ted Kennedy passed the torch to a new generation, he could be justly proud that he had kept it burning so well for so long.

Healthcare Reform: The End Game Begins

2009-08-24T20:11:00.000-07:00

The healthcare reform debate has been going for a long time. Months in this Congress, years in the country at large. Negotiations are ongoing in the Senate Finance Committee, among the so-called "Gang of Six." President Obama is starting to get frustrated, and may go it alone, i.e. pass a bill without Republican support. That might be difficult, but it's possible.

Some liberals, progressives, and Democrats are nervous. Some aren't. I'm in the "not that worried" camp.

What we are watching now is equal parts flash and substance. There are strong, profound philosophical difference motivating the parties, and those differences are particularly pronounced in this debate. Government vs. free market; communal concern vs. individual rights; profit motive vs. co-ops and the "public option." Some of these are simply irreconcilable differences that come down to contrary worldviews. People like Max Baucus and Charles Grassley are trying to bridge those differences, but that is hard work.

But we are also watching a great deal of the politics, and the politics is far more interesting and obvious than the policy. For some of us, it's a game, and it's fun. Who's up, who's down, who has the better strategy, who made what mistakes?

But the politics are also far less inspiring, and far more discouraging. We are seeing compromise and gamesmanship. Most importantly, we are watching a few very powerful people bluffing.

Obama holds most of the cards, and the Republicans know it. He can pass some kind of health care reform without them; he can also pass some kind of healthcare reform with them. They, of course, want to force Obama to pass a healthcare reform with them. They want to do that because it will weaken him politically, partially by pissing off his base, but also because they honestly want some things in this bill.

What the Republicans don't know, and what terrifies them, is how Obama is going to play the end game. He is still a popular president. He is still an incredible and inspiring speaker. He is still a very charismatic leader. He has a great organization out there in the country drumming up support, gathering signatures. He still has many allies in Congress with their own organizations and teams out there fighting for their versions of the bill.

What really and truly terrifies the Republicans, so much so that many of them don't even realize it, is that they don't know which of their political weapons is going to work against Obama. They've dropped their biggest bombs, they've thrown as much mud as they can. The "death panel" claim is easily their most serious charge - the government is not only not going to help you, it's going to kill you? Some people believe that. But Democrats are not giving up fighting against it, and eventually they will win on that issue. Eventually the idea that the government is sponsoring "death panels" will be ridiculed as an absurd, extremist idea, because that's what it is.

Democrats did not take the "birther" mania seriously for a long time, but now they have spent some time and energy fighting it, and Orly Taitz was exposed as a flake and a crank.

Through all of this, Obama has looked calm and cool and collected, like he always does. Some people mistake that for lack of strategy, or aloofness, or lack of fighting spirit. But that's only in contrast to the previous administration, which worked by conniving, bullying, and subterfuge. Obama is playing it somewhat straight, because that's the way he is. He is making the strongest argument he can for the best bill he thinks he can get through Congress. Obama's problem, of course, is that he doesn't know what the best bill is that he can get through Congress.

I think Obama is going to surprise - and terrify even more - the Republicans in Congress by playing hardball at the end. He will rally the troops, like only he can. He will claim that he has been patient with Republicans, that he has listened to their concerns, that he has tried very hard to work with them, but that now is the time for decisions to be made. "Now is the time!" Imagine Obama leading a crowd with that rallying cry.

One of Obama's greatest weapons is the GOP failure to solve this problem for so many years. The absolutely last thing any Republicans want is to be reminded of is the squandered opportunities of the Bush years. Republicans do not want to be held accountable for the failures of Bush, but Obama is in a position to do exactly that. All he has to do is call the Republicans obstructionists who never offer solutions, even when they have the opportunity and the power. Obama's reputation for bipartisanship will come in very handy, because he will come across as a reluctant partisan warrior. He would much rather prefer to work with Republicans, but if he has to go it alone, so be it.

Obama is very different from the Republicans in one key respect: Obama is not afraid of his base. Obama may not agree with the Kossacks on everything, but he is perfectly comfortable using their energy and their talents. When the time comes, he will rally those troops. And he will not have to worry about whether or not rallying the base will alienate middle America. The Republicans, on the other hand, have to be scared to death of rallying their base, because they cannot control their base, and the followers of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have the potential to seriously alienate independents and the few moderate Republicans left.

So the end game begins. It's not quite a rope-a-dope; Obama is not feigning weakness. But neither is he telegraphing his strategy. Nor has he started deploying all of the weapons in his arsenal. He is keeping extraordinary strengths in reserve.

He can keep those strengths and those weapons in reserve because he is not afraid to use them. He is patient because he knows that he will know when to start the fight. He will know when to move. And then he will move very, very decisively, and very quickly. And that has the Republicans very, very afraid.

Whale Watching in Santa Barbara

2009-08-21T22:13:00.000-07:00

I'm posting this just for fun. The LA Times has an article about whale watching off the Santa Barbara coast. Apparently this is a particularly good year for whale watching, because the humpback and blue whales are here at the same time, which is unusual. Also, krill are close to the surface, so the whales can be seen opening their mouths and scooping up a bunch of krill.

I'm also posting this as part of my campaign to reward the LA Times when it does something right, particularly on its Website. There's a good video associated with the story. I've been critical of the LA Times for not doing enough with video on its Website - hello, this is the filmed entertainment capital of the world - but this time, they got it right. It's a very good video, basically a mini-documentary. Good job, LA Times. I'm not even going to post it on this Website, I am going to encourage readers to actually click on the link above and watch it at latimes.com.

Lutherans Allow Gay and Lesbian Priests

2009-08-21T21:41:00.000-07:00

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, of which I am a member, voted today to allow congregations to choose priests who are gay.

Way to go, Lutherans!

I'm a member of my Church Council, and attended a Synod Assembly in June, so I know how intense the debate over this is in the church. Conservatives are very upset about it, but liberals are thrilled. The church will undoubtedly lose some members over this, which is very unfortunate. There will be something of a schism.

But the far more important fact is that a very old wound has been healed, and much pain can now be put behind us. We aren't completely there yet: the ELCA still does not recognize gay marriages. But we can now say: Welcome one step closer to the center of the church, gay brothers and lesbian sisters.

Quote of the day

2009-08-21T18:57:00.000-07:00

"[T]here's only one list of filmmakers more prestigious than the list of the filmmakers who've won the Palme d'Or, and that's the list of directors who haven't."

-Quentin Tarantino, who won the Palme d'Or at Cannes for Pulp Fiction.

Finally, Some Substance on Health Care

2009-08-21T10:46:00.001-07:00

It has taken a while, but we finally have some substantive discussions going on about health care. A real, honest-to-goodness Canadian writes in The Denver Post about the differences between the US and Canadian health care systems (thanks to my Uncle Lenny for forwarding it to me). Bottom line: Canada spends less money for better health. She takes apart all of the myths about the Canadian system. My response is simple: ADT (About Damn Time). Most of the stories and myths about Canadian health care that I've heard are strictly anecdotal, the "I heard about this one guy who came to America because he couldn't get the surgery that he needed in Canada" variety. So it's nice to see some myths debunked.

Of course, many conservatives will dismiss this out of hand, but it will also give liberals more ammunition, make them more confident, and maybe even convince a few independents. Probably the strongest point in the piece is the one about doctors not needing any kind of pre-authorization to practice the medicine that they think is appropriate.

I have a question for conservatives about health care in Canada. Supposedly lots of Canadians are unhappy about health care in Canada, and they are coming to the United States. Where exactly are all these Canadian? Presumably they're coming across the border to Seattle, Detroit, Buffalo, and other border cities. Can we please get some statistics from conservatives proving that Canadians are coming to the US en masse for health care? Because if we can't get those statistics, I'm going to call it a myth.

Next, Patrick Appel, who is performing quite ably in the absence of his boss, Andrew Sullivan, writes a superb post about malpractice insurance and tort reform. This is another bogeyman of the right, largely derived from anecdotal evidence: there are too many frivolous lawsuits from ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the result of all those lawsuits is that malpractice insurance rates are going through the roof, which drives up health care costs. Maybe not so much.

Malpractice payments account for less than 1% of the nation's health care costs each year. Since 1987 medical malpractice insurance costs have risen just 52% despite the fact that medical costs have increased 113%. The size of malpractice damage awards has remained steady since 1991. Adjusted for inflation, the average malpractice payment has actually decreased since then. The number of payments for malpractice judgments of $1 million or more has never exceeded one-half of one percent of the annual total number of malpractice payments dating back to 1991.

The specific subject of the post is tort reform in Texas, which was supposed to solve the problem by limiting the size of malpractice awards. It hasn't, and there hasn't been the promised reduction in health care costs. The basic idea, which we also have in California, is that certain awards for damages in these suits are limited. The idea is that if the insurance company only pays out $250,000, instead of $5 million, malpractice premiums will decline. It hasn't worked out that way. The unintended consequence is that it is now more difficult for some patients to sue, because it's not worth it for the lawyers to sue, since there is a cap on how much money they can make.

I've always thot that the solution to absurdly high malpractice awards is to implement a better solution for disciplining doctors. Appel quotes a reader who wrote in with stats about how many doctors are disciplined. It's not much. Physician, heal thyself.

We owe Sarah Palin and the other wackjobs on the right a big thank you, because their ranting and raving have finally brought these arguments out of the woodwork. Rationality will eventually prevail, but it takes longer to deploy calmly constructed arguments than it does to throw out insane lies and bizarre innuendo. Palin, Glenn Beck, et al. have a slight advantage in this debate in terms of timing, because it takes them no time whatsoever to make something up and throw it out into the public discourse. Liberals, on the other hand, have to take the time to actually think and research and write. Fortunately, liberal arguments end up being much more persuasive, at least to people willing to listen to them.

Where Were the Tea-Baggers During Bush?

2009-08-20T11:59:00.000-07:00

Wendy Kaminer at The Atlantic asks a good question: "What Constitutes A Police State?" Lots of the people protesting against Obama are making the bizarre and absurd claims that he is trying to impose some kind of a police state. This would be laughable if there weren't so many of these people, and they weren't so serious. The fact that many of them are carrying guns is also a little worrisome.

But where were these people during the Bush administration?

Driving civil libertarians crazy is probably not a goal of this month's town hall protesters, but it may be one of their signal achievements. Having openly applauded, tacitly supported, or simply ignored the Bush/Cheney national security state and the unprecedented expansion of unaccountable executive power, the right wing now defends freedom against the spectre (and it is only a spectre) of universal health care?

Of course, the real threat from Obama is that he might affect their God-given right to all the health care they can get, and their right to buy and keep all the guns that they want.

How do the town hall protests define repression? Apparently it comprises any government regulation perceived as a threat to any constitutional right or federally mandated benefit that the protesters enjoy.

All of this is fairly obvious to me, but it's nice to see it all put together in one piece.

That's How It's Done

2009-08-19T07:58:00.000-07:00

Barney Frank is my hero of the day. I've always admired the fact that he is perfectly willing to use his superior intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of politics, process, and policy to just dismantle his opponents. He understands that sometimes politics is about listening, engaging your opponents, and compromise, and sometimes it is just about beating them. I'm a big fan of respectfully participating in civil dialogue, and I have been disappointed on countless occasions by my fellow liberals' refusal or inability to thoughtfully consider conservative or Republican arguments.

But there are limits to how long you can keep turning the other cheek when the other side insists on slapping you in the face. There is a time to disagree without being disagreeable. Conservatives doe not consider this to be one of those moments. So liberals are starting to recognize that there is a moment to be dismissive and argumentative, and this is one of those moments. There is a time to listen, and there is a time for flat-out ridicule. This is a time to be harsh, and call idiots what they are.

Obama himself is, as always, calm, cool, collected, and rational. I still think there are lots of Republicans and conservatives who are worth listening to, and who are capable of responding with intelligence and grace. But the inmates have taken over the asylum, and demagogues are framing the debate on the other side.

This is how it's done:

The Assholes and Idiots Theory Redux

2009-08-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

For my 1,000th post, I wrote about something I like to call the "Assholes and Idiots Theory." The original post is a little long, so I thot I would provide a condensed version.

The Assholes and Idiots Theory is quite simple, and says that in every political party, movement, coalition, or sufficiently large organization, there are a certain number of assholes and idiots, and that one of the duties of the leaders of that party/movement/organization is to contain the assholes and idiots. The Assholes and Idiots Theory makes no distinction as to ideology; there are just as likely to be assholes and idiots on the left as on the right.

Assholes are people who believe that they have the right to impose their will on other people, regardless of how those people feel about it. Assholes tend to be addicted to anger; they're usually furious about something. They also tend to blur ethical or legal lines when trying to impose their will. One reason that there seems to be so much anger on the right now is that the last administration completely failed to contain either the assholes or idiots. Of course, the reason why is not hard to figure out: Bush & Cheney didn't contain the assholes or idiots in the GOP because, of course, they were both. They didn't just not contain the assholes and idiots: they appointed them.

Idiots are people who believe that they are smarter than reality, and that their ideas about how the world should work are absolutely right, whether or not there is any empirical evidence to support it, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Assholes and idiots tend to oppose compromise. This does not mean that people who oppose compromise are automatically either assholes or idiots; far from it. There are often very good reasons of principle and policy to oppose compromise on specific issues. The trick for leaders is knowing when people are opposing compromise out of principle or for good reason, and when they are doing so because they are either assholes or idiots.

People who are assholes and/or idiots will almost never admit to it. Which is why containing them is so difficult, but also why it is so important.

There are several strategies leaders, particularly presidents, use for containing assholes and idiots. Reagan had great credibility as a conservative, so he could compromise without completely alienating his base. Also, despite my strong feelings at the time, he was a decent human being, and not all that stupid. Clinton mostly contained the assholes and idiots because he had some credibility as a liberal on social issues (particularly race and feminism), and because he was just a damn good politician. Clinton also made it clear from the beginning that he would be willing to criticize those on the left. This was why the "Sister Souljah" moment was so important. Not that Sister Souljah herself was either an asshole or an idiot. But by criticizing her, Clinton read the public right; he angered some liberals, but not enough to lose them when it came time for the election, but he also scored points with moderates.

The assholes and idiots seem to be out in force on the right these days, although I see it that way because I'm a good liberal. Obama's strategy for containing the assholes and idiots among his opponents seems to be to stay calm and collected in contrast. Not a bad strategy, when your opponents are yelling and screaming. The most effective, but most expensive, weapon against assholes and idiots is time: idiots are eventually exposed as deeply wrong and in conflict with reality, while assholes eventually alienate too many people to have a base of support. Obama doesn't have much time in the health care debate, but he does have another three years before the next election. Which is crucial, because there is one crucial ingredient in using time to contain assholes and idiots. It is not enough that they prove themselves wrong. You have to prove that you are right. Which means that you have to be right.

Health Care: Who Will Take Care Of You?

2009-08-17T21:19:00.000-07:00

One basic divide in the health care reform debate is a simple question: who will take care of you? Will it be the government, your company, your family, you, your doctor, your insurance company, or something else? How you answer that question defines where you stand on this issue. If you think government is or will be more capable of taking care of you, you're probably in favor of the "public option," and you're probably a liberal Democrat. If you think the government will completely botch your health care, and let you rot and waste away, but you trust your company or your insurance company, you're probably opposed to Obama's plan, and in favor of the status quo.

This is one thing I haven't heard from Obama, and that I wish I did: his plan is about giving you the option to choose who will take care of you. If you think your insurance company will take care of you, great, stick with them. If you think the government can do a better job of it, then we want to give you that option. Obama and his minions, like Kathleen Sebelius, do keep on repeating the line about "choice and competition," but it's starting to sound like a cliche. Here's how I would sell it: we believe in giving Americans the greatest possible freedom to choose who will take care of them. Liberals deserve their choice, conservatives deserve their choice.

The hard part of the sales job, but one of the most rewarding, would be reminding people that the reason they have any freedom in the first place is because of their government. Freedom is not something that you just wake up to every morning; it has to be fought for and won, and it has been. By the government of the United States of America. This is the same government that gives its citizens freedom of speech, of assembly, and of religion.

Conservatives like to think of freedom these days in terms of how far they can distance themselves from government; freedom means being free of regulation, of "Big Brother," etc. This would be a good time to remind them that it is government that gives them their freedom in the first place, and that doing so requires a great deal of hard work, and an equal amount of deep and difficult thinking.

Ignoring the Whole Foods Boycott

2009-08-16T21:23:00.001-07:00

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal about health care reform. Many liberals were upset about some of his ideas, and are proposing to boycott Whole Foods.

I actually agree with this right wing commentator, that a boycott of Whole Foods is ridiculous. Full disclosure: I worked at Whole Foods for several months. I was only there on probation, I was never fully hired. But I liked it, I still admire the company, and I still shop there. I realize that the prices aren't the most consumer-friendly, but I love the atmosphere, and their mac and cheese is to die for.

I object to the boycott of Whole Foods for one reason: I object to the idea of boycotting a company over the expression of ideas of one of its employees, even if it is the CEO. I make a clear distinction between the expression of ideas of one of a company's employees, and the company's practices. I have no problem boycotting a company over the practices of the corporation as a whole. For example, if I ever have an opportunity to boycott Blackwater, I'll probably do it in a heartbeat. But, then again, I seriously doubt I will ever have the opportunity to even consider spending money with Blackwater, so that's mostly besides the point.

For me, this is a test of tolerance. John Mackey is perfectly free to express his ideas. I don't agree with all of them, but some I find somewhat intriguing, like this one:

- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

That makes sense to me. One of the biggest problems with healthcare right now is the consolidation of the healthcare insurance industry. I'm all in favor of more competition here. He also endorses Medicare reform, which I might agree with if he had provided any kind of detail. His ideas mostly run to the conservative side of the argument, which is not surprising for an Op-Ed in the WSJ, but is somewhat surprising for someone many of whose customers are dyed-in-the-wool liberals. This article may be reasonable from a political perspective, or at least not extremist, but maybe not such a great idea from a marketing angle. But just on the basis of content, I don't see much worth boycotting here.

Beyond the content, boycotting Whole Foods because the CEO wrote an Op-Ed you disagree with is just childish. A boycott is the LBO (large blunt object) of a debate - it's a baseball bat as opposed to a scalpel. If you're claiming to have a superior argument, the best way to prove that is to present a better argument, which would presumably be a more nuanced one, as well. There's not much subtlety in a call for a boycott.

A boycott is also a terrible idea tactically, because it deprives you of the opportunity to engage the other in a meaningful debate. You are therefore depriving yourself of an opportunity to prove the other person wrong. A boycott should be a weapon of absolutely last resort, when all other reasonable means of persuasion have failed. It should not be the first thing that comes to mind. It is, unfortunately, a great example of a knee-jerk reaction.

I think Mackey's great mistake here is that the article just isn't very well-written. He starts out with a quote from Margaret Thatcher. Again, not surprising for the WSJ, but also again, a great way to piss off the kind of people who shop at Whole Foods. Doesn't this company employ PR people? I can see giving the man points for principle, if he's willing to alienate customers to air his true beliefs, but I also think that's a fairly stupid management practice.

He touts Whole Foods' approach to health care. All well and good, and expected from a CEO. Pat yourself on the back for treating your employees well - that's what CEOs are supposed to do: promote the company. I didn't stick around long enough to partake of the health insurance, but that's just me. I do remember that the employee stock ownership plans were quite popular.

But then he crosses the line in two places. First, he claims that there is no "right" to health care. That's a philosophical issue, not just a policy debate. Here he's opening himself up to the charge that, as someone who never has to worry about whether or not he can afford health care, he is denying to others what is available to him just as a function of his individual wealth. That makes him look heartless and cold. He writes:

A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Apparently he missed the parts about the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and the line about about how we the people came together in order to form a more perfect union to, among other things, "promote the general welfare." I'm not sure how he missed that last part if he claims that he read the Constitution closely - it is, after all, in the Preamble. Personally, I think helping our fellow citizens take care of their health, particularly when they themselves are unable to do so, is a key part of "promoting the general welfare" through a "more perfect union." Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal.

Mackey's biggest mistake, however, was in the final part of the piece, when he mixes two things he so far hasn't, and really shouldn't: marketing his own company, and articulating his own personal political philosophy. He tells us that a key part of health care reform is eating healthy and taking care of ourselves. All well and good - except that he writes it in a way that - surprise! strongly suggests we would do well to shop at Whole Foods. So we should all be free to make our own choices, but we should also be responsible, and we should make our own choices about how to be responsible in a way that directly benefits Mr. John Mackey.

Someone call Ron Paul - he now has competition for Best Libertarian. Oddly enough, however, Mr. Mackey's libertarianism has a puritanical streak - everyone should do what they want, but they should listen to my advice about how they should live their lives. It seems like Mackey really can't decide whether or not he is a free-market conservative or a do-gooder liberal. Finessing that contradiction, of course, makes perfect sense for the CEO of Whole Foods - he believes in giving people the power to do the right thing for themselves, and he believes in his right to make a profit by doing so. It works perfectly fine as the guiding principle of a corporation. It does not work as the guiding principle of government, because government exists in large part so that we may do things collectively that we cannot do as individuals, and that we cannot do collectively at a profit.

I still have a great deal of respect for John Mackey as the CEO of a company. Well, maybe a little less, now that I have reason to question his politics/marketing savvy. But this is just one episode, and Whole Foods is still a great place to shop for certain things. But if I were Mr. Mackey, I would spend some good money on a better PR firm and a political consultant who has a good grasp of how to explain libertarian concepts, particularly to liberals, without sounding like a pompous, arrogant, self-serving jerk.

Meghan Daum on John Hughes: He Made Weird Normal

2009-08-14T14:18:00.000-07:00

Meghan Daum eulogized John Hughes, the director who made several seminal 1980's movies about teenagers, including "The Breakfast Club" and "Sixteen Candles." She thinks a big part of his appeal was that he made it safe and somehow cool to be a little different, a little weird, a tad eccentric. And, of course, he talked about sex. But his movies were also about romance:

So what was Hughes' secret? Is it merely that his films offer an appealing timeout from the "Porky's"- and "American Pie"-style raciness that has since become the norm? In part, but I would venture yet another theory about their staying power and their innocence. Not only do Hughes' movies imply that teens can care as much about romance as about sex, they remind us of a time when you could be odd and be mostly left alone to deal with it. No extreme interventions or psychiatric diagnoses.

If the brooding, solitary Andie played by Ringwald in "Pretty in Pink" were in high school in 2009, it's hard to imagine she wouldn't be a candidate for anti-depression therapy. Likewise, if "The Breakfast Club," which is about five teens serving time in Saturday detention, took place in a post-Prozac, post-Columbine America, Ally Sheedy's mostly mute, kleptomaniac misfit would have undoubtedly been medicated, and Anthony Michael Hall's character would have received a lot more than detention for bringing a flare gun to school. As for Ferris Bueller, the kid obviously needed Ritalin.

Finding yourself, coming of age, figuring out who you are - eternal themes of art. But here's the thing about eternal and universal themes of the human experience: they need to be rediscovered and reworked for every generation, which thinks that it is discovering these ideas on their own. And then they go to college and realize that, no, other people have done this before. But they - and we - then have our versions of these journeys. And there ain't nothing that can take those away from us. Thanks, Mr. Hughes, and I hope your eternal day off is a good one.

Bill Clinton on DOMA and DADT

2009-08-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton is at Netroots Nation, the progressive activist conference. Good for him! I bet he's having a blast. Someone asked him about DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, anti-gay marriage legislation he signed) and DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell, the gays-in-the-military policy implemented at the beginning of his first term).

Clinton explained the politics that were going on at the time around gay rights issues, and it confirms what I have suspected, not only on this issue, but others as well: if Clinton did not advance a progressive agenda as much as some liberals would have liked (like, say, Ralph Nader), that was largely because he had to deal with a Republican Congress. If Clinton didn't make liberals happy, they should have been thankful that he was a firewall against much worse legislation being passed.

On DOMA, he makes a point I was not aware of: there was a real danger that Congress - both houses of which were, at the time, controlled by Republicans - was going to send a constitutional amendment to the states banning gay marriage. DOMA may be bad, but a constitutional amendment would have been infinitely worse, because it would have made gay marriage impossible in any state. So on gay marriage, Clinton may look like a bad guy for signing DOMA, but he was just making the best of a bad situation. Because if the Congress had sent that amendment to the states, it would have passed very quickly.

The New LATimes.com: Love The Redesign, Search Engine Still Sucks

2009-08-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times did something right. They redesigned their Website, from top to bottom. I've only been there a couple of times, but I have to say that it looks great. It may even be better than nytimes.com, and that's high praise from me. It feels comfortable but comprehensive, and it looks like I can find my way from there to anywhere in the paper. I might actually start going there just for fun. That would be a major change; I really did not like the old latimes.com. So, kudos to the LA Times. It's nice to be able to take some pride in my hometown paper.

In the print edition, the LA Times is still struggling. I like what they have done with the Op-Ed page over the last several years; they've experimented quite a bit, which is good in and of itself, and now they seem to have found a structure that works, although I miss Joel Stein. So the print edition still struggling, but some parts are getting better.

However, a caveat: I still don't like the search engine on latimes.com. I have a standard test that I run on latimes.com to see if it is working the way I want it to work. Their car critic is a guy named Dan Neil, who, for my money, is one of the best newspaper columnists in the country on any topic. He's the only car critic to win a Pulitzer. I like the fact that the LA Times has given him a second column, on general cultural topics. Good call.

My test is this: Dan Neil wrote a column on November 3, 2004, reviewing the Ducati 999R, an Italian motorcycle. I remember this because it's my birthday, and that was the day John Kerry lost the presidential election. He described the bike as evil on two wheels:

Its 150-hp V-twin motor runs on damned souls and is lubricated with the fat of unbaptized children.

I test latimes.com by trying to find that article using the search function on latimes.com. This time around, I tried several combinations. Nothing. This article is less than 5 years old - it's not exactly archivable material. But you may have noticed that I linked to it, and quoted from it. How did I find it? Simple. I Googled "Dan Neil los angeles times ducati unbaptized children," and voila! There's the article. On latimes.com. So I can find this article using Google, but not the LA Times' own search engine.

One step forward, yay! Still waiting for the next step. Newspapers complain that they can't make as much money from the Web as they can from their print editions, and some are threatening to force users to pay for content on their Websites. Here's a hint about how to make money on a newspaper Website: get the basics rights. Execute well. Make sure the damn thing works the way users want it to.

Best. Pie. Chart. Ever.

2009-08-14T10:06:00.000-07:00

Literally.

Rummage Sale Treasures

2009-08-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

I set up my church's rummage sale a couple of weeks ago, which meant a couple of things. One, it meant that I spent a Thursday with some very cool people sorting through an interesting collection of stuff to sell, wondering just exactly how much to charge for a pair of cowboy boots with a funky flower pattern, and two, it meant that I got first dibs on some good stuff. For example, I got my hands on a DVD that I think, it could be argued, is one of the coolest DVDs currently for sale on the planet earth, if not the coolest.

Yes, I am going to make you click to see it.

A Completely Unsurprising Political Development

2009-08-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

The House Judiciary Committee has released emails pertaining to the U.S. Attorney's scandal of a couple of years ago. To absolutely no one's surprise - no one, of course, except the hardest of hardcore Republicans - Karl Rove was, in fact, intimately involved in the decisions, particularly the decision to fire David Iglesias.

Rove denies it, but Karl Rove would find a way to put a positive spin on the apocalypse.

35 Years Ago: Nixon Resigns

2009-08-08T20:36:00.000-07:00

35 years ago today, Richard M. Nixon announced to the country that, because of Watergate, he would resign the presidency. Watching this video, it's amazing to see how studiously he avoided taking any kind of responsibility. He says that he doesn't have a political base in Congress, that the country needs a "full-time president," and a "full-time Congress," that he has never been a quitter. But at no point does he take any kind of responsibility. I suppose that's understandable, because admitting that he had done anything might have been tantamount to admitting guilt in a criminal trial. But he also seems to believe very thoroughly that he hasn't done anything wrong. This is from the LA Times.

A Sitcom, Venture Capital, Music, and a Piranha: Financing Woodstock

2009-08-08T19:51:00.001-07:00

Peter Aspden, who writes the Culture column at the Financial Times, takes a look back at Woodstock. Being the FT, he focuses on how it was financed. I'd never heard this, but apparently a couple of guys wanted to write a sitcom about venture capitalists, but they needed material. So they put an ad in the paper for people with crazy ideas for new businesses, and met a guy named Michael Lang who wanted to put up a recording studio in upstate New York. The rest, as they say, is the history of one hell of a party. Aspden compares Hendrix's "Star-Spangled Banner" with Guernica, which is certainly a thot-provoking idea. This, however, is my favorite part:

“We had a pretty conservative banker who was not used to lending to rock ’n’ roll festivals. Next to his desk was a fish tank containing a piranha and another tank containing goldfish, and as he put a goldfish into the piranha’s tank, he’d say, ‘Everybody repays their loans here at the National Bank of North America.’”

Not really an image you associate with the whole peace-and-love vibe at Woodstock . . .

Mel Martinez Resigns - Culture Before Ideology

2009-08-08T15:56:00.001-07:00

Mel Martinez, US Senator from Florida, resigned his seat, the day after he voted for Sonia Sotomayor to join the Supreme Court. He had already announced that he would not run for reelection in 2010. Senators don't decide to retire on the spur of the moment - this was a long time coming. Gosh, ya think maybe he stuck around just long enough to vote for Sotomayor? Hmmm, maybe.

He was elected in 2004, so he didn't even serve one term. Kind of like another Republican I can think of, from the opposite corner of the country. Simon Rosenberg has a nice capsule review of Martinez's career in the Senate (via Kos). George W. Bush appointed him as chair of the RNC to try to woo the Hispanic vote. He lasted less than a year in that job. Somehow not surprising.

John Ridley in HuffPost thinks Martinez's timing was meant to send a strong signal:

It's very, very hard not to see the timing as a statement. Not just against the Republican's attempted debasement of Sotomayor, and by association the Hispanic narrative in America. Martínez's move, too, can been seen as another accomplished person of color -- following Colin Powell -- flipping a metaphorical middle finger at all the Republicans have devolved into.

Family and culture are apparently stronger than ideology for Martinez. As they are for most people. Business ties are also presumably stronger. I know next to nothing about the man, but if he's from Florida, I can guess that that's where most of his contacts are. Many of those contacts are, presumably, Hispanic, and my guess is that he has been hearing some strong opinions from fellow Hispanics in Florida. He was probably facing ever-more pressure to make a choice between his party and his friends and family. By resigning the day after his vote for Sotomayor, he makes it as clear as possible that he was waiting for that vote to resign. Which, of course, means that he wanted to make a strong statement about where his allegiance lies. It ain't with the GOP.

Healthcare Reform: Latest Battle Of The Culture Wars

2009-08-08T10:13:00.001-07:00

I haven't been blogging much about healthcare reform because it has felt overwhelming. It's an all-or-nothing proposition. Part of my feeling has been that this healthcare reform bill will set the stage for other reform efforts. This establishes the framework, but there will be lots of opportunities for changes later on.

Now that we are in the final stages, it feels like a good time to step up to the plate. The policy details are out there and are being hashed out in Congress, mostly the Senate Finance Committee at this point.

Outside of Washington, the debate is getting nasty, with some very loud protesters from the right shouting down their opponents. The right is arguing that these people are just upset. Andrew Sullivan noted the lack of attention to detail in these protests:

Look: if these people were yelling: "End the employer tax break!" or "More Cost-Controls!" or "Malpractice Reform!" I'd be more sympathetic. But this is blind panic and rage.

The protesters don't care about the policy details of healthcare reform because for them, this is not about healthcare reform. This is the latest battle of the culture wars.

Conservatives have lost just about every battle of the culture wars since the 1960's. They lost the battle over civil rights; a black man is now president. They lost the battle over feminism; a woman was a major-party candidate for president. They are losing the battle over immigration and assimilation; a Hispanic woman was just confirmed for the Supreme Court. They have lost the battle over abortion. They have lost the battle over separation of church and state, particularly in the classroom. They have lost the battle over gay rights, and, although they have won most of the battles over gay marriage, they will lose that battle over the long term. They have lost the battle over traditional family structure and sex in general. They have lost the battle over basic cultural norms. They have lost the battle over environmentalism.

About the only battles conservatives have won have been over gun control, crime, capitalism vs. socialism/communism, taxes, and lower regulation. But Democrats have largely given up trying to win the gun control debate, crime is down, and no one has cared about the capitalism/communism divide for years. Conservatives are still winning the battle over taxes, but it's turning out to be a Pyrrhic victory, as deficits are soaring and states can't balance their budgets. Lower regulation led to a loosening of standards, which allowed financial predators to take advantage of too many consumers, and wreaked havoc with financial institutions. Conservatives lost the foreign policy culture wars - diplomacy vs. "peace through strength" when Bush & Co. completely botched Iraq. There's still free trade, but that's not popular with anyone right now.

This is why the healthcare debate is so heated. This is not about healthcare. When conservatives scream about "government," they are screaming about liberals and what they feel is liberal control of government. Of course, since liberals actually believe in making government work properly, conservatives are justified in feeling that liberals have more influence over government. Funny how that works - people who take something seriously and want to improve it tend to have more faith in it.

Conservatives feel besieged because they have lost the culture wars on so many fronts. William F. Buckley famously said that the purpose of conservatism was to stand athwart history and yell "Stop!" But of course history doesn't stop, and to pretend otherwise is to set yourself up for constant disappointment.

Several commentators have pointed out the irony of older people, who are presumably on Medicare, a successful government medical program, protesting "government takeover of healthcare." They are not protesting government takeover of healthcare. They are protesting government, period. They are channeling years of frustration at losing so much ground to liberals in so many aspects of life in general. Years and years of built-up vitriol is spewing out over this one issue.

It doesn't help that conservatives haven't had a successful president since Reagan. They're frustrated that W. was such a failure, but they can't take their frustration out on him or the GOP, so they take it out on Obama.

It also doesn't help that so many conservative policies have failed. Cutting taxes is supposed to lead to higher economic growth, which therefore makes up for the taxes lost when they are cut. That's the original justification of supply-side economics, and it has been a miserable failure. Nation-building in Iraq? Uh, no.

The one thing that might make a difference for conservatives, that might make it easier for them to be civil when engaging in the debate about healthcare, would be if they had any good alternatives. But they don't. This just adds to the feeling of helplessness. It's impossible to deny that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control, particularly when the victims are so many business owners. But who are conservatives going to use as the target for their anger? Drug companies? Insurance companies? Those are supposed to be examples of the free market at work. They can vent at lawyers, a key Democrat constituency, and their penchant for suing for malpractice, but even taking on that won't solve every part of the problem with rising healthcare costs.

So they invent reasons to be angry. Sarah Palin makes the incredibly bizarre - even for her - claim that Obama's plan will result in government bureaucrats euthanizing her Down's syndrome baby. This is beyond ludicrous, but she apparently believes it. This has no relation whatsoever to reality. None. But this debate is no longer about reality for Sarah Palin and other conservatives. It's about trying to retain some shred of dignity as liberals win yet another victory.

The solution, and I'm sure Obama knows this, is to stay calm and cool. Let them freak out. Let them make fools of themselves. At some point a healthcare reform bill will pass. It won't be perfect. Lots of liberals will bemoan the lack of some feature or other. But it will pass, it will start to change how we deal with healthcare in this country, and then we will start to debate about how to change it.

One Reason I Am Cool

2009-08-08T09:26:00.000-07:00

I can drive a stick shift.

Like Jennifer Hadley, I am grateful to my Dad for teaching me how. I am particularly grateful that he taught me how on a Porsche 944.

The Unsung Heroine of Julie & Julia - The Atlantic Food Channel

2009-08-07T14:32:00.001-07:00

The Unsung Heroine of Julie & Julia - The Atlantic Food Channel

Shared via AddThis

Oooh, Gotta love this!

More Cash For Clunkers!

2009-08-06T19:09:00.000-07:00

In a move that surprised absolutely no one, the Senate passed a bill for additional funding for the "cash for clunkers" program. Way to go, Harry Reid.

The vote was 60-37, with only 7 Republicans voting in favor of it. You would think that the Republicans would jump on board with a successful and popular program, but I guess they think scoring points by voting against Democrats and Obama is more important. That's OK, we'll take those votes.

Sotomayor is confirmed!

2009-08-06T19:02:00.000-07:00

Say hello to the new Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor.

She got some Republican votes, but that's another battle in the culture wars that the conservatives just lost. Get used to it, guys, there's a lot more where that came from. This graphic from the NY Times shows how polarized the vote was.

Bill's Excellent Adventure

2009-08-05T21:36:00.000-07:00

Talk about a sight for sore eyes. Lisa Ling, one of the journalists freed by our ex-President:

"Thirty hours ago, Euna Lee and I were prisoners in North Korea. We feared that at any moment we could be prisoners in a hard labor camp. Then suddenly we were told that we were going to a meeting. We were taken to a location and when we walked through the doors, we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton."

Bill Clinton in North Korea. That must have been a great sight. It's not an American diplomat, it's not Bill Richardson, it's not Jesse Jackson, it's not even Hillary Clinton. Seeing Bill Clinton standing there would have been the strongest possible signal that they were being released. American power has reached into the hermit kingdom and is taking care of you.

Suddenly you remember what it is like to be a citizen of the most powerful country in the world. Sometimes we get things right.

It's great to remember that Bill Clinton, for all his faults, still knows how to use power for doing good, and that that's what a President of the United States is supposed to be there for.

Once upon a time I believed very strongly in Bill Clinton, and I know that I wasn't wrong, but every now and then it's nice to get a reminder of just what I believed in.

Beautiful Balloons

2009-08-05T21:32:00.001-07:00

This may be one of the most beautiful pictures I have ever seen.

Were YOU Born In Kenya?!?!

2009-08-05T11:56:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that there is allegedly a birth certificate for Barack Obama showing that he was born in Kenya. You may have heard that there are some serious questions about that birth certificate. But now you can generate your very own Kenyan birth certificate, so you can be just like Barack Obama!

Seriously. Go here: http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

Happy Birthday!

2009-08-04T21:55:00.000-07:00

A number of years ago, I was hanging out with grandfather, when he said that he was finally ready to admit that he was "over the hill." He was finally admitting that he was an old man.

He was 89.

Why am I telling that story? Because that is the age that Helen Thomas, famous denizen of the White House press room, turned today. She shares her birthday with a more recent occupant of the White House press room, President Obama, who turned 48 today. They both had cupcakes:

One very nice birthday present came from the spouse of the President's Secretary of State. That would be ex-President Clinton, who negotiated the release of two American women reporters who were imprisoned in North Korea. This accomplished several good things: it gave Bill Clinton a bit of the spotlight, reminding the world that his North Korea policy was more successful than that of Bush's, and it made Obama look good, without doing much himself. Always nice to have those minor diplomatic victories.

No word on what Michelle got for the president, but I bet it was something very nice.

Birthers: Waiting for George Will

2009-08-03T21:31:00.001-07:00

The birther insanity seems to be reaching some kind of fever pitch. MSNBC invited Orly Taitz, one of the key people behind the madness, to give her opinion. David Shuster and his co-host (sorry, I don't know her name, but she seems good) just took her apart. I forced myself to watch all 6:57 of it, because I am a firm believer in reading/watching everything that I link to, but I had to pause it and walk away from the computer. I'm linking to it instead of embedding it because I sure as hell ain't putting that on my blog. Have to admit, I kind of wish Shuster and his co-host would have let Orly go a little longer, I'm sure her fans now see her as a little more persecuted. If I were a mainstream Republican, I would be cringing at the thot that this fruitcake is showing up on national television. As a Democrat I'm thrilled, because just watching her shreds her credibility. She's like a cross between Zsa Zsa Gabor and Lyndon LaRouche. Is that an incredibly painful combination to even contemplate? Exactly.

So far Ann Coulter has denounced the birthers (really not linking to that). Doesn't seem to have done much good, as the video from MSNBC shows.

I'm waiting to hear what George Will has to say about this, because he has to say something. This may be the one occasion I deeply miss William F. Buckley, Jr. I'm sure Will will be dismissed as an elitist who no longer represents conservatism (this despite his ardent support Ronald Reagan). But he just might provide a smidgen of cover for some normal, mainstream Republicans to start taking these people on. This is getting dangerous, because it seriously corrodes faith in the American republic to believe that the president is not a real American. Much as I hated Reagan, I never doubted even his patriotism. Someone needs to contain the assholes and idiots.

I don't know whether or not George Will has addressed this directly; I Googled a simply query and didn't find anything; I checked his recent columns for the Washington Post, nothing. I did come up with this great quote from Eugene Robinson:

Trying to analyze the "birther" phenomenon would mean taking it seriously, and taking it seriously would be like arguing about the color of unicorns.

Accountability lies at the core of democracy, but trying to hold people accountable who are completely nuts is a nightmarish process. I rarely agree with George Will, but he is a superb writer, and I respect him for his commitment to his principles. He has an extraordinarily low tolerance for fools. He's also a great fan of baseball. Please, Mr. Will, this is a moment when even those who disagree with you are asking you to serve your country: you've got to hit this one out of the park.

That's An Email You Don't Get Every Day

2009-08-03T12:47:00.000-07:00

This morning, everyone in my office here in Los Angeles got an email from our Office Administrator with this in the subject line:

Yes, It Was An Earthquake

It was down in Baja California, about 360 miles south of the border, or about 500 miles south of LA, but it was a 6.9, which is a good-sized rattling. We're all fine here, and there are no reports yet of injuries or damages.

I feel a certain responsibility to report these things, given the title of this blog.

Let's Talk About Beer

2009-08-02T09:46:00.000-07:00

Frank Rich writes today about the Beer Summit, President Obama, Sgt. Crowley, Prof. Gates, and Vice President Biden having some beers together at the White House. I agree with Rich, as I usually do. His main point is that powerful white people can't deal with the fact that this country is becoming increasingly diverse. Right.

But reading it, I realized I had read a great deal of commentary about the "Beer Summit," including some obnoxious defenses of Crowley from some right-wingers on various blog boards. What I hadn't done was read an account of the event itself. So I found the NY Times's live-blogging record of the event. The best quote of the day was from Gates:

“We hit it off right from the very beginning,” Professor Gates said. Laughing, he added, “When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy.”

Gates also looked to the future:

“I said we both had been cast as characters in other peoples’ narratives that we couldn’t control,” Professor Gates said. “If we take control of our own stories, we can take control of narrative.”

I feel an odd sense of relief reading that, because it's one of the only times in my life that an idea vaguely reminiscent of postmodern literary theory may actually prove to be useful. Gates puts it well, but he doesn't really sound like much of an elitist, Harvard professor when he says it. It's very helpful that he's right.

What would that narrative look like? It's not that hard to figure out, and Gates again explained it well:

“Through an accident of fate this guy and I are linked together,” he said, “and the question is how can he help end racial profiling and how can I help members of my community be sensitive to the concerns of the police? If we can do that, then James Crowley and I will have taken control of our lives and our peculiar experience together and move it out of a Tom Wolfe novel and into a positive impact.”

This began as a dispute, two men diametrically opposed, even violently opposed. We have heard a great deal of noise and angst and inflammatory rhetoric and denunciations of the other side (by both sides). All of that obscures a larger truth: both sides really do ultimately want the same thing. Cops, at their best, want to keep society safe. African-Americans, at their best, want to be safe.

The noise also obscures the fact that the two most powerful men involved in this drama - Gates and Obama - are African-American. This ended peacefully, almost comically. Those facts - that the powerful, elite men are black, and that it ended well - are indications of something good: there has been a great deal of progress on this front. The fact that it was a controversy at all is a positive sign, because it means that people are worried. The white cop really, really does not want to be seen as a racist. That's a good thing. The black man who was arrested was released quickly. That's a good thing. The present is painful because the past is painful. But the present is less painful than the past, and the future will be better because of the present.

But we are already in the future. The arrest took place on July 16, which is now last month. The narrative has already changed.

Naturally, there has been all kinds of discussion about what kind of beer each of them had, and the symbolism of those choices. Ta-Nehisi Coates linked to James Fallows, who linked to another post on The Atlantic Wire, which linked to an article in Slate that examined the history of beer in presidential politics.

None of which had anything to do with racial profiling.

I'm not sure if Obama intended this, but inviting Gates and Crowley to the White House had the great effect of shifting the conversation. Is it just me, or are many people looking for an excuse to talk about beer rather than racial profiling or elitist Harvard professors? Not everybody. Frank Herbert, to his eternal credit, does not let go of these topics. Talking about the beer rather is one way to talk around the history of racial profiling, rather than addressing it directly. But it's also a way to talk about what they Gates and Crowley have in common. At the very least, they both had a beer with the President and Vice President of the United States.

I'm not a big beer drinker, but I have learned a huge amount about it from my best friend from high school, who brews an incredible range of beers at a brewpub in Michigan. One thing I have learned is that there is a huge amount of - oh yeah, I'm going to use this word - diversity in beers, even more so today, with the proliferation of brew pubs and microbrews. Which diversity is appreciated by many, many Americans. Don't think I need to push that line of analysis much farther.

One fact that has been totally overlooked in this brouhaha is that there was a very significant development in this area - much, much more important than what happened in Boston - out here in LA recently. The LAPD had been operating under a consent decree, imposed by a Federal judge, which required the department to reform a number of its practices. The decree was recently lifted, because the judge decided that the LAPD had, in fact, changed for the better. It's not entirely gone; there is still some supervision, particularly on the issue of racial profiling. The ACLU is not completely convinced. But this is clear and concrete evidence that, in the country's second-largest city, the future has begun to arrive. Even without beer.

Idiotic Quote Of The Day

2009-08-01T14:48:00.001-07:00

The NY Times has a nice, human-interest article about how Malia and Sasha Obama are spending their summers. Pure fluff. Guess what - Barack and Michelle Obama took their girls with them when President Obama went to foreign countries on state visits. This is called a "family vacation." Being the serious people they are, Obamas made sure that the girls got some educational value out of, for example, seeing slave quarters in Ghana. The Obamas will also be going to Martha's Vineyard. The Times, naturally, has to look for balance, so they found a columnist, Jonathan Baer, of The Philadelphia Daily News, who isn't happy with the Obamas' plans to go to Martha's Vineyard, which is a vacation spot fairly close to Washington, DC, and is much closer, and more convenient for a president to visit, than, say, Crawford, Texas. Nonetheless, Mr. Baer tells us that

“Those who view Obama as an elitist will have new ammunition,” Mr. Baer wrote.

I have to say that I agree with Mr. Baer that the Obamas are members of the elite. Of course, I happen to think that Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama are members of the elite of our society because Barack Obama is President of the United States of America. That tends to put a person - and their immediate family! - in rarefied company.

Cash For Clunkers Wildly Successful!

2009-07-31T18:08:00.000-07:00

The Cash for Clunkers program has proven to be so successful that the money is already gone, in just a week. Ooops! And yet - voila! - Congress is already appropriating more. Funny how that was ready to go. Funny how, even though the House was about to go in recess, they managed to squeeze that in.

I like how the Democrats played this. Apparently Republicans didn't like the original amount, $4 billion, so it was reduced to $1 billion. But that money disappeared in the blink of an eye! Guess what!?!? It's a government program that has worked extremely well. Who woulda thunk it?

One great thing about this program is that no one has mentioned what it really is: welfare for white people. This is the government finding an excuse to shovel money to middle class people, the ones who are buying the cars, and people in the auto industry, from the manufacturers to the dealers. Many of those folks, particularly the ones making the cars, are middle-aged white guys. How many Latina lesbians do you think work on the line at Chevy? Not a whole lot, I'm guessing.

This is important because a subtext of much of our political debate is white resentment towards the government, based on a feeling that Democrats have been using government to redistribute wealth away from white people, particularly older white men, and towards undeserving minorities. This is one reason the "birther" movement is so bizarrely popular - people think Obama is not one of them, and that he is going to use his power as president to take things away from them, and give it to people who look like him - African Americans. That's why there is resistance to health care reform - same thing. When conservatives hear the word "government," they hear "someone who is going to take away my money, and give it to people who don't deserve it."

So this Cash for Clunkers program is a great idea as part of the battle against that idea. When someone gets a check from the government for a new car, it's a little harder for them to argue that the government isn't doing anything for them. The fact that it's wildly popular, and that Congress had to add more money, is icing on the cake, politically - it generates more publicity, and shows Congress actually doing something for the middle class in a very direct way.

One other unmentioned side benefit of this program is that it will be good for health care costs in this country. Newer cars are both more energy efficient and safer. Just about any new car has airbags all over the place, as well as better steering, handling, and braking. Someone in a crash is far more likely to survive with minimal injuries, or even to just survive, in a new car than in a car made 10 or 15 years ago. I have no idea how to calculate the benefits from fewer injuries, but, again, it's icing on the cake - a benefit that we get from this program on top of the benefits we are already getting.

And it's a great example of bipartisanship! According to the NY Times, "Over all, 239 Democrats and 77 Republicans voted in favor, while 14 Democrats and 95 Republicans voted against the measure."

All these great benefits! And only $1 billion! Of course, as Everett Dirksen may or may not have said, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." I would amend to add, a successful government program here, a successful government program there, and pretty soon you're talking about making the government work for the American people!

Quote Of The Day

2009-07-31T10:42:00.000-07:00

"Generally, films have dialogue to support the plot," Chung says. "This one has a plot to support the dialogue."

Eddie Chung, director of the "The Achievers: The Story of the Lebowski Fans," a documentary about the cult that has arisen about the Coen brothers film "The Big Lebowski."