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

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.

Purging Books

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.

Newspapers and Vice

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?

No more cupcakes for you!

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.

Sotomayor is confirmed!

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.

Let's Talk About Beer

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.

Cash For Clunkers Wildly Successful!

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!

Gay Marriage in California: 2010 vs. 2012

The NY Times looks at the politics of gay marriage in California, particularly the question of whether the movement for marriage equality should focus on trying to change the law in 2010 or 2012. My feeling is very clear: wait until 2012. One major person involved, David Bohnett, put it well:

“The only thing worse than losing in 2008,” he added, “would be to lose again in 2010.”

Which might very well happen. Nothing much will have changed over those 2 years. The only reason to try again in 2010 is that many people are still seriously pissed off about losing in 2008. But anger is a dangerous motivating factor in politics. It's occasionally useful as well, but this debate is supposed to be about love and marriage and commitment, not beating conservatives.

There is no practical or political reason to try again in 2010, and some very good political and practical reasons why not to. There may not be enough money available, which would increase the likelihood of defeat. If this cause loses in 2010, it ain't gonna happen in 2012. And probably not 2014.

Conservatives are fighting gay marriage for many reasons, but one reason in particular is unique to this time period: this is one of the few culture-war issues where conservatives have won more victories than they have lost in the last few years. Conservatives have lost most other culture-ware battles: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, abortion, separation of church and state, environmentalism, sex and marriage generally. Conservatives won the economic debate - sort of - when Soviet Union collapsed, but that's long past. About the only culture war issue conservatives have been winning consistently of late is about gun control.

As much as I would like to see gay marriage become legal in California, I don't think there's much chance of it happening in 2010. Time is on our side. That's good and bad. Good, because we know we will ultimately win. Bad, because the "ultimately" part requires patience.

Sotomayor's confirmation

Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be the next Supreme Court justice started today. TPM has her opening statement. The NY Times has detailed coverage, particularly on their Times Topic page on her. I want to take a moment here and give some serious props to the NYT for their Times Topic idea. They collect lots of relevant information and articles about a topic in one place. That's just fantastic. This is what the Web should be for. This is what innovation on a newspaper Website looks like.

OK, back to Sotomayor. There is no question that she will be confirmed. Republicans are trying to paint her as biased in favor of minorities. Good luck on that one. White guys in suits - on camera - complaining about unfair treatment for other white guys is just pathetic.

For me, what's important to note about this is that it's one of the first moments when Obama can make a clear difference. He's already done that in several areas, but this is one time when he can nail a decisive victory. It's a slam dunk. More than that, it will also be an occasion to party. It will be an occasion to fire up the troops. There are, of course, some liberals and progressives who are disillusioned with Obama for various reasons. This is utterly normal. But moments like this are opportunities for Obama to remind those whose dreams have faded a little what is at stake here. A Hispanic woman, from a poor Puerto Rican background, is about to become a Supreme Court justice.

What's most important about this is not the fact that a Hispanic woman is about to become a Supreme Court justice, but that this particular earned this, and deserves it. In her statement, she said

The progression of my life has been uniquely American.

When I was a freshman in high school, one of the first assignments in my English class was to write about the American Dream. This would be a great example. Sonia Sotomayor, by living the American Dream, by personifying an idea that absolutely refuses to become a cliche, is doing two things at once. She is living that dream for herself. But she is also doing something that is itself quintessentially American: she is expanding the definition of the American Dream to include people like her. She is staking a claim to that dream, and there ain't a damn thing the most obnoxious Republican out there can do about it. Fortunately for all of us, there are lots of Republicans who are applauding this dream come true.

And now back to Obama again. Obama himself has done very little work to bring this moment to fruition. All of his staffers did the work to select her. He hasn't had to campaign much for her - her nomination is a foregone conclusion. He won't do anything once she is sitting on the bench. But he is the reason this is happening.

As momentous as this occasion is, however, it's also important to notice that this moment itself doesn't change anything. Sotomayor is not on the Supreme Court yet, and even after her confirmation, she won't be there for a couple of months. And then she won't issue any opinions for months after that. Then those opinions won't necessarily take effect immediately. Those effects will then take a while to manifest themselves.

But the effects of her presence on the Supreme Court will, in all probability, last for decades, and effect millions. Obama has done a lot of things since becoming president that have not had much effect yet; we are still fighting two wars, debates are still raging about torture, we don't know how well the stimulus package will end up working, GM and Chrysler haven't started making money yet.

But a Hispanic woman is about to become a Supreme Court justice for three reasons: 1, because she is qualified. 2, because this is America, and this can happen here. And 3, because Barack Obama nominated her.

Ross Douthat Insults the Working Class

Ross Douthat takes on the thankless and somewhat odd job of sort-of defending Sarah Palin after her completely bizarre announcement that she will be resigning as governor of Alaska. I'm glad the New York Times believes in ideological diversity, because his argument almost sort of makes sense, but only in the funhouse that is the conservative punditry's attempts to come to terms with Sarah Palin. I'm glad he made this argument on the pages of the New York Times, because that means that many people will have an opportunity to refute it. He opens with a simple five-word sentence: "She should have said no." Meaning that she should have said no to John McCain, because then her life, both inside and outside of politics, would still be somewhat normal.

He then proceeds - let me repeat, on the pages of the New York Times - to attack liberal elites for denigrating her because of her working class roots. Taking the fight to the enemy, that's what he's doing. Sort of. He writes well, and might actually believe this argument. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible argument.

I have a five-word response: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both of them were from the working class. Neither of them were elites, until they worked their way into the social and economic stratosphere. But they both worked for it. I disagreed with Reagan on just about everything, but he did work for his success. I've also realized, long after his presidency, that he wasn't as stupid as I thot he was. I saw a video of him in the mid-1960's attacking communism, and I couldn't believe how articulate and profound he sounded. Bill Clinton was from farther down the social ladder than even Palin - he was white trash. But he went to elite universities, Georgetown, Yale Law, and Oxford, because he's smart, ambitious, competent, hard-working, and curious about the world.

Here's another two-word answer for Mr. Douthat's claim that Americans judged Sarah Palin poorly because of her social class: Abraham Lincoln.

Americans love an underdog who climbs up from poverty to success. Michelle Obama's father was a municipal employee in Chicago.

All of my grandparents started out in life as members of the working class. But they ended up solidly middle class - both of my grandparents became professionals who owned their own businesses and sent all of their kids to college. And they were thrilled when I went to an elite liberal arts college in the East. I had plans once to earn a Ph.d., and my fundamentalist grandmother's response was "We'll finally have one."

Sarah Palin's failure as a candidate, as governor, and as a politician in general had nothing to do with either her gender or her class. There are lots of very successful women politicians in this country, and many very successful politicians from the working class.

Sarah Palin failed in so many respects because she's incompetent, lazy, and irresponsible, not to mention a pathetic wimp and delusional and pathological liar. She's a whining idiot who is incapable of either admitting her mistakes or taking responsibility for her failures. None of those traits mark her either as a typical member of her gender or her class. To imply otherwise is to insult women and people who make an honest living with their hands.

My grandparents started out as members of the working class (one of my grandfathers was a coal miner at 16), and, like Sarah Palin, were conservative Republicans and devout Christians. Unlike Sarah Palin, however, they were also smart, honest, competent people who didn't complain about their lot in life, took responsibility for their decisions and actions, and finished the jobs that they took on.

Recession hitting colleges - time to challenge some assumptions

The recession is hitting starting to hit colleges and universities hard. The NY Times profiles Reed College, in Oregon, which had to deny admission to some students because the college couldn't offer them enough financial aid. Officials there are hoping that this is a temporary setback:

Reed has put off drastic measures like spending more of its endowment, closing some departments or selling some real estate near campus. Instead, college officials are counting on the economy to turn around quickly

I think that is wishful thinking at best. Delusion seems to be the order of the day here. The problem is not that the economy is in a downturn. The problem is that the business model for elite liberals arts colleges is broken. It simply is no longer sustainable to charge people $50K a year for an education, and expect to be able to continue charging ever more. It's time to challenge some assumptions.

Consider some other industries with broken business models: American car companies, and newspapers. For years, the UAW demanded, and got, job security in its contracts with the Big Three. The "jobs bank" was part of that - workers were paid to sit around factories, instead of being fired. Sound familiar? Guaranteed job security is also what tenure is about. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have had trouble adapting to new economic realities because they did not have the flexibiilty to make the changes that they needed to. And they were forced to put the interests of workers ahead of the interests of customers. Is it in the best interest of customers of American car companies for auto workers to be able to retire after 30 years? No, it's not. Running a corporation always involves balancing the interests of employees and customers, but these kinds of demands made it impossible for the Big Three to try to fine-tune that balance. Same thing with their dealers. Instead of managing change gradually, the Big Three were forced to change very drastically and very suddenly, with disastrous results for thousands of employees who had demanded job security.

Colleges are going to face the same problem with tenure. There are conflicts between the interests of students and professors. But giving professors tenure makes balancing those interests very difficult, if not impossible, for colleges and universities. That has not mattered for a very long time, in part because a college education was so valuable that it we, as a society, could afford to cut colleges some slack. For many students, it didn't really matter what they studied - a college degree was a ticket to at least a solid, middle class existence. This was particularly true for many decades, even centuries, in this country, because having a college degree was rare enough that just having it gave a person a huge advantage in the marketplace. So many people could learn something esoteric and obscure, graduate from college with a useless degree, and still get a good job. That is becoming less and less possible.

Part of the reason is that it's now no longer rare or even unusual for Americans to go to college. It's now fairly common. That means that the advantages conferred on college graduates are not as great. Supply is now more equal to demand, so the value is not what it once was. Which means that we are going to have to think much more carefully about the value of a college education.

The other industry going through wrenching changes is the newspaper industry. The parallels between higher education and newspapers are obviously much closer than between car companies and the liberal arts. The products of both are primarily in the form of the written word. There are, of course, differences. Newspapers publish quickly and almost disposably, while college professors take a long time to write essays that are supposed to last. Colleges have small, captive audiences who pay huge amounts; newspapers have diverse, widespread audiences who pay very little or, in the case of their Websites, nothing.

But creation and dissemination of intellectual property is at core of each's value proposition. The processes by which intellectual property is created, stored, and distributed are, of course, undergoing radical change. Newspapers have not adapted well, and it shows. Colleges are different in large part because of the different timelines that defines each. Students stay in college for several years, but are then alumni for the rest of their lives. The feedback loop for newspapers is virtually instantaneous; the feedback loop for colleges lasts decades.

The challenge for newspapers is blindingly obvious; news is very easy to find and distribute, which makes it very cheap. The challenge for colleges and newspapers is much more obscure; it's not clear exactly how to replicate Harvard, which has been around for centuries. That's a fairly large barrier to entry for competitors.

The competition that colleges like Reed should be most worried about, however, is not going to come from other colleges. It is going to come from completely different sources. The NY Times used to compete with the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post; now it competes with Talking Points Memo and other blogs. Reed's value proposition derives in large part from its reputation as a place where great ideas are discussed. Such a description, however, no longer applies in any kind of a unique or interesting way strictly to colleges and universities. Great ideas are being discussed in lots of places. Reed's competitors are not other colleges. Its competitors are Google, McKinsey, the NY Times, and Time Warner. As well as a million other companies delivering intellectual content.

The first step in solving a problem is acknowledging that it exists. Liberal arts colleges are far from taking even that basic step.

But no college president wants to be first to make major changes in the college experience; Reed, for example, is not abandoning plans for a new performing arts center. “If we’re going to change our ways, we’re really going to need to be pushed,” Mr. Diver said, referring to colleges generally. “It’s not going to well up from within.”

That's for damn sure. This is, in a sense, the silver lining of this deep recession; it is going to force colleges to start facing some unpleasant realities. For example, that their students are basically customers. This attitude, from Reed's president, is indicative of how much work needs to be done, how much old attitudes are in the way:

“The catering to consumer tastes — I keep trying to say, we are in the education business,” Mr. Diver said, describing the pressure to keep up with wealthier colleges and expressing a frustration rarely voiced publicly by college presidents. “The whole principle behind higher education is, we know something that you don’t. Therefore, we shouldn’t cater to them.”

I find that absurd. Yes, you know something that students don't. But they are paying you. Moreover, many of them are going into debt to pay you, which means that they are going to be paying you for years. Question for Mr. Diver: do you want your students to make donations when they are alumni? Then you should try to make sure that they are happy when they are students. Which means that you need to cater to them.

Time to challenge some assumptions.

The Idiocy of the Efficient Market Hypothesis

In the NY Times today is a great article about challenges to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), a theory of academic financial research about how the stock market operates. EMH, in this version, says that all information that is relevant to the price of a stock is always available to all parties. Therefore, the price of a stock always reflects a judgment about its worth based on this totality of information. Therefore, the markets are efficient, because the price of a stock always reflects a perfect understanding of its current situation.

I don't know why anyone takes this idea seriously, because I think it's complete nonsense. Hogwash. Garbarge. Worthless trash.

The first problem is this idea that all information about a company is always available to every investor. That's not physically possible. There is vastly more information about a company, available in a veritable cornucopia of formats, than one human being could possibly synthesize. The information that is available in an SEC report is the tiniest shred of a sliver of the totality of information about that company. And that's true of just about any company.

Even more important than the information about a company that the company can provide is the information that it cannot provide, particularly about two key groups: its competitors, and its customers. Few companies really know what their competitors are up to, until the information becomes public. Same thing with their customers.

But what really bugs me about EMH is this idea that decisions about investments are made based on information that the investor has access to. This is just an incredibly stupid idea. No one makes investment decisions based strictly on the information they have at hand. They make investment decisions based on what that information tells them about the future.

Every investment decision is a decision about the future. Will this stock go up or down? That will be determined in the future. The events that determine whether a stock goes up or down will take place in the future. It is not physically possible to have access to that information.

Every investment decision is based on a prediction, not knowledge. Investors use their knowledge to try to refine their predictions, but they are still estimates and guesses.

The last contradiction that exposes the inadequacy of EMH is the simple fact of the stock market's existence. Every time a security is traded, there are two sides to the transaction - a buyer, and a seller. Each has the exact opposite opinion of what will happen in the future. The buyer thinks the stock will go up. The seller thinks the stock will go down. That's a shade simplistic; the seller may think that the stock is going to go up, just not as much as she would like. But the point is that each has a different idea about what is going to happen to the particular security. If there were not that difference of opinion, there would not be a transaction. If information about a security were truly complete and perfect, we could not have a stock market, because everyone would agree about the value of the security, and everyone would be on the same side of the transaction. But we do have markets for financial products, because we do have differences of opinion about what will happen in the future.

I understand that there are different versions of EMH, and I may very well be attacking a straw man. But this has been bothering me for years. I heard about EMH a long time ago, and haven't really had a chance to vent about this until now. So I feel better now.

Obama's First 100 Days coming up!

President Obama will be in office for 100 days very soon. Next Wednesday! Woo hoo! Get ready to party!

Why? Why not? Any excuse for a party is a good excuse in these times. The NY Times outlines the Obama administration's strategy: pretend that it's not a big deal, but feed the press lots of pictures and quotes.

Impeach Bybee

One of the authors of the OLC memos laying down the legal justification for torture was Jay Bybee, who is now on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He was confirmed by the Senate long before anyone had any idea that he had written these memos.

A movement has been building to impeach him. Jerrold Nadler, a Representative from New York (and my old Congressman), is one of the people leading the charge. Good for him. I strongly support this. Nadler is in a position to do something about this. He is chair of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee. This is one of those moments that I am supremely thankful that the Democrats control Congress. It is also one of those moments that I am thankful that there are Democrats in Congress who are willing to disagree with the Obama administration on this. Daily Kos has, as usual, an excellent post about this, including what is being done at the grassroots level in California.

I do not know whether or not Jay Bybee should be removed from office, because he is innocent until proven guilty. I am not in a position to pass that judgment. But I believe that Congress has an obligation to investigate this issue to the fullest extent possible. The NY Times agrees with me:

After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.

One of the best things that an impeachment will provide is an opportunity to force legislators to make their positions clear: do you or do you not support the use of torture? I sincerely welcome that debate and that opportunity. There are many good Republicans and conservatives who oppose the use of torture. It needs to be made clear who in the GOP stands where on this issue, so that those who believe in the humane treatment of prisoners can separate themselves from those who believe in vengeance and despicable, unnecessary violence as a legitimate purpose of the government.

Impeach Bybee. It is the very least we can do.

Notre Dame, Obama, the Roman Catholic Church, USC, and abortion

President Obama has been invited to speak at Notre Dame at their commencement. He will be receiving an honorary degree. That's great. Very nice. Presidents speak at commencements all the time, and receive honorary degrees all the time. Perfectly normal.

Except that Obama supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, which conflicts with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. That's a bummer for some right-wing Catholics, who have stated their opposition. Unfortunately for them, 97% of the graduating class of seniors support giving Obama an honorary degree. Of course, the fact that George W. Bush supports the death penalty, which also conflicts with Catholic doctrine, didn't stop the university from inviting him and giving him an honorary degree.

My favorite part of the debate came in one of the letters to the editor in the NY Times. The letters were in response to an Op-Ed piece by Richard Allen (Reagan's National Security Advisor), who opposes giving the degree to Obama. Notre Dame gave a degree to Reagan when he spoke. Most of the letters disagreed with Allen, for the same reason I just listed. Then there was this letter, from a member of the Notre Dame class of 1958:

Next the traditionalists will want to vet the orthodoxy of Notre Dame’s quarterbacks. Well, maybe not if we’re 11 to zip and U.S.C. is coming to town.

Damn right! Orthodoxy would be out the window in a heartbeat if Notre Dame were playing like the pathetic losers they have been for the past couple of years and one of the best teams in college football were on their way (the USC-Notre Dame rivalry is one of the great rivalries in the country, because they are two of the only large private schools in the country. Neither is a state school, which is unusual for schools of their size. USC plays Notre Dame every season). Notre Dame hates losing to USC. There's a little bit of the Midwest-Southern California rivalry thing going on, too.

So I managed to get Obama, abortion, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, the NY Times, and USC football into one blog post! It's a good day.

Newspapers and the "unique content" problem

Newspapers are in trouble. This we all know. Today, Kos, in his latest post on the topic, looked at how many links to newspapers Daily Kos had over the course of a week. Maureen Dowd interviewed Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. She's a little nervous about her job.

One problem newspapers face is that they used to (emphasis on the past tense) have a semi-monopoly on news in their geographic area just by virtue of their format. Megan McArdle once pointed out (I think it was Megan) that the NY Times used to know at least two things about their customers. 1, they lived in the NY area. 2, they could afford a daily newspaper. Now the Times reader could be in Bangkok.

Newspapers used to have a huge advantage because they were the only source of news in a particular geographic area that was available almost whenever you wanted it. If you wanted to know if your team won last night, you could listen to the radio, watch TV, talk to someone else, or read the newspaper. Of those sources, newspapers are the only one that is available at any time after you picked it up. Radio and TV broadcast news at a specific time. If you missed any of that day's broadcasts, you were out of luck.

Newspapers also provided a great deal of content for a very cheap price. A newspaper has a lot of content, particularly compared to a radio or TV broadcast. And that content was not available anywhere else. Providing it gave newspapers a sort of monopoly. The only way to avoid that monopolization was for there to be multiple newspapers in a given city.

My grandfather, a small-town lawyer in the Midwest in the 1950's, used to subscribe to the Sunday NY Times. It would arrive on Thursday (even though NY was less than 1,000 miles away) because it took that long for the mail to deliver it. But he still read it, presumably because there was content in there that he couldn't get from any other source (I never talked to him about it, I heard this from my mother).

What newspapers have to do is figure out a way to provide unique content. I subscribe to the LA Times and the Financial Times. The LA Times is convenient (I can read it on the bus into work), but there isn't a lot of unique content. I like some of their columnists, particularly Meghan Daum, but I rarely read the articles on the front page, because I usually already know the story. The LA Times has done a fair amount of innovating in the last few years, but there is still much to do.

But the FT has a nice amount of unique content during the week. At least it's unique for me, because I don't subscribe to another business periodical, like the Wall Street Journal. And it's got global news, which I like.

Where the FT really shines is on the weekend (again, particularly for me), and most newspapers could learn some things about unique content from the FT Weekend. They have columnists that I can't read anywhere else, but who I read religiously. I don't have any particular interest in real estate in London, but I read Secret Agent religiously. I have learned a fair amount about wine from Jancis Robinson. On the back page is Fast Lane, by Tyler Brule, the ultimate jetsetter, and Slow Lane, by Harry Eyres, one of the few people alive who can write about Madonna and Nietzsche at the same time.

The NY Times, of course, has a fair amount of unique content, starting with its columnists. The LA Times has some unique content, like Dan Neil's car column, which is a great read. But it needs better unique content. Which, if you think about it, really should not be a problem. LA is one of the largest metropolitan areas on the planet. There are 88 cities in Los Angeles County. There are multiple mountain ranges in this county. We have a National Forest that has 650,000 acres. This is the world headquarters of the entertainment industry. There are something like 130 institutions of higher education just in LA County. There's no lack of material. Plus, there are several thousand writers who are all on a constant lookout for work.

So here's a new buzzword that will hopefully enter the zeitgest: "unique content." It's not hard to understand. Once upon a time, all newspapers provided it, just by virtue of being what they were. That is no longer the case.

Oh, and that unique content has to be in interesting formats, it can't just be text. The LA Times is doing more interesting things with photo essays, but I still don't think they're doing enough with video, particularly since some of the best cinematographers in the world (and many aspiring camerapeople) live and work here.

Obama lifts Cuba restrictions

President Obama lifted several restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba today. Good for him. It's now possible for Cuban-Americans to travel freely there. It's also possible for them to send money and gifts. And telecommunications companies can sell cellphones, computers, and satellite TVs.

"There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban-Americans.”

- Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, repeating the obvious truth that Obama articulated during his campaign.

This is pretty much a slam dunk for Obama. He satisfies multiple constituencies - farmers in the Midwest, liberals everywhere, a fair number of Cuban-Americans (at least the ones who are not obsessed with Castro) and other Hispanics. There is very little political risk, and it's a policy which will pay immediate dividends. Lots of people will be thrilled to be able to visit their relatives in Cuba. Some companies will sell more stuff there. I like the categories of things that can be sold under this order: stuff that communicates. That's the best possible way to spread freedom.

There's one minor detail about the NY Times article that I find refreshing and a little humorous. As a mainstream newspaper, they are obligated to provide some balance by acknowledging people who disagree with this policy. Which they do by quoting the two Diaz-Balart brothers, who are both Representatives from the Miami area. Here's what's funny about it: the Times devotes the last paragraph to quoting their press release. That's about the clearest statement the paper can make that it does not take their perspective seriously. It's in the last paragraph. All the Times does is quote their press release. The reporter, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, didn't even bother to call anyone. She just cut and pasted from their press release. Hee hee hee. These people are now marginalized.

GM's new two-wheeler

is working on a new kind of wheeled transport thingy with Segway. It's sort of like a Segway with a seat and a roof. Reactions to the article in the NY Times are all over the place - some people like it, some people hate it.

I like it. I think it could be great. I think it could be wonderful for parents with kids in high school. If you don't want to buy your son or daughter a new car, but you want them to be able to get to and from school without taking the bus, this might be a great solution. It would have been perfect for me and my siblings.

Lots of people do their errands at stores close to them, like grocery stores, drugstores, etc. Could be perfect for that.

It could also do wonders for parking lots. If enough people travel by this, we could reduce the need for parking in this country. That would be great. I've seen some stores, like an Office Depot in downtown LA, with parking on the roof. The problem with that is that you need a fair amount of space for a ramp. But with these, you could put it an elevator, and people could park on the roof! Solves all kinds of problems.

Finally, some good news from GM!

The crisis and law firms

The NY Times has an article about how the economic crisis is affecting law firms. As someone employed in a law firm, I have a professional interest in this. The Times points out that

The silver lining, if there is one, is that the legal world may be inspired to draw blueprints for the 21st century.

That would be a good idea. I think some of the downsizing that we have seen is going to be permanent. There simply will not be as many deals in investment banking going forward, which means less need for lawyers. I'm also in favor of reining in excessive lawyer salaries, although I don't think my own salary is excessive (I'm not a lawyer).

The Times article also points out that the crisis may force a change in law schools. Again, a welcome possibility. Law schools, like, I suspect, many professional grad schools, enjoyed some benefits from the recent economic boom times. They could charge higher tuitions, and ask for more money from alumni. All without having to rethink their fundamental value proposition.

But do students really need to stay in law school for three years? I didn't go to law school, but why should they? Isn't that just tradition? Would it be possible to start studying for a law degree as an undergrad, and continue studies in law school with just a year or two of study? Why not? My grandfather was a successful lawyer, but he didn't even have a bachelor's degree. He was working as a clerk at an insurance company after graduating from high school, when someone suggested he go to law school (this would have been the 1920's or thereabouts). He said "What's that?" because he had never heard of law school. But he found out what law school was, went to one, became a lawyer, and sent all three of his daughters to college.

Law schools haven't had much incentive to try to provide better value for their students because they haven't had to. They could charge insane tuition because students were willing to take on massive amounts of debt, knowing that they would be making good money as soon as they graduate. If your starting salary is $150,000, you don't mind debt of $80,000. But that also means that you aren't going to be taking a job that only pays $50K. Like, say, as a government prosecutor.

I suspect the layoffs we are seeing are going to result in an imbalance of supply and demand. There are a lot of laid-off lawyers out there, and a lot of them are very good. If I were one of those, I would band together with some other lawyers recently laid off, and undercut the prices charged by the higher-end firms. That would be a great silver lining for this crisis.

Obama at the G-10 summit

The G-20 summit seems to have gone well. President Obama made an excellent impression, including with reporters. Apparently they gave him a standing ovation. Reporters? A standing ovation for a politician? First time for everything, I guess. Why were they so impressed?

“He actually answered the questions he was asked,” says one startled Asian reporter.

The FT has the best coverage I've seen so far. I didn't find much about this on the normal blogs, like TPM or even Andrew Sullivan. Dan Froomkin at the WaPo has a nice rundown, with the headline "World Community Organizer."

One important thing that is already fading from view is that there was supposed to be some tension at this summit around the issue of how to handle the economic crisis. The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, want tighter regulations; the Americans and British want more stimulus. Looks like there was a little bit of both. The NY Times editorial board wasn't thrilled, but neither did they condemn the results. There were no diplomatic dustups, everyone got along fine, Obama proved his popularity has some grounding, a trillion dollars and change was committed to the IMF. Let me repeat: there were no diplomatic dustups, and everyone got along fine. For a one-day summit, that's pretty good. Maybe the crisis was not resolved to perfect satisfaction. But progress was made. It's a start.