Presidential trivia quiz for the 4th of July

The LA Times published a trivia quiz today on US presidents, in honor of the 4th of July. My favorite: who is the only president to be sworn into office by a woman? Hint: it's a Democrat, and it's question #12 on this quiz.

Kung Fu Panda

So I saw Kung Fu Panda. This review will be short, because I don't have much to say about it. It's a cross between an episode of Sesame Street and a Jackie Chan movie, with dialogue inspired by fortune cookies. There isn't really anything wrong with it, and there are several things that it does well, but it never rises above the level of a decent cartoon. The animation is beautiful, there are many scenes that are humorous or clever, the action is exciting, and then it ends fairly quickly. That was probably the best part - it was mercifully short. The kids in the theater where I saw it seemed to like it, and I'm sure it will function very effectively as an electronic babysitter for years to come. There aren't any silly pop culture references, and I'm sure that there are some references to real Chinese culture, which is nice, so four year-olds will have a bit of a multicultural experience, which is nice. The plot is interesting enough to hold a kid's attention. But not mine.

Obama on Iraq

I've heard whispers and rumors recently that Obama has somehow changed his position on Iraq. This is usually heard in connection with the idea that he is moving to the center, now that the primaries are done, in order to win the general election. I think that's ridiculously overblown, but, for this post, I'm going to focus on Iraq.

My favorite line from Obama about Iraq is that we have to be more careful getting out than we were getting in. He wants to remove troops at a rate of 1 to 2 brigades a month, and, at that pace, believes that we can get all American troops out in 16 months. That sounds reasonable to me. The point is getting them out. This is in sharp contrast with John McCain's plan, which is to stay until some undetermined time in the future.

Josh Marshall at TPM has a great post about this, where he draws a key distinction between strategy and tactics. To wit, the president sets the strategy, and then relies on his military officials to develop the tactics to achieve the strategy. Makes perfect sense to me. Josh:

I've listened to Obama's position on Iraq. He's been very clear through this year and last on the distinction between strategy and tactics. Presidents set the strategy -- which in this context means the goal or the policy. And if the policy is a military one, a President will consult closely with his military advisors on the tactics used to execute the policy.

This is an elementary distinction the current occupant in the White House has continually tried to confuse by claiming that his policies are driven and constrained by the advice he's given by his commanders on the ground. There's nothing odd or contradictory about Obama saying that he'll change the policy to one of withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq with a specific timetable but that he will consult with his military advisors about how best to execute that policy.

Josh also makes the point that political reporters can't seem to get this basic, fundamental point. TPM has a video of Obama at a press conference today, hammering home this point again and again and again.

Baby Boomer liberals retiring from academia

Good news from the NY Times. Baby Boomer liberals are starting to retire from academia.

Thank you God. Hallelujah. Hope springs eternal.

I consider myself fairly liberal, and I think Baby Boomers achieved a lot of good things in the '60's, but I am thrilled that Baby Boomer liberals are starting to leave academia. My college experience took place very much in the shadow of the '60's, and it was not healthy for me. There was a strong sense of confrontation, that our purpose was to prepare ourselves for ideological battle, rather than prepare ourselves to actually be able to make a living.

I could go on at substantial length on this topic, but I'm just going to enjoy the fact that time moves on and time heals all wounds.

WaPo on Obama's mortgage: bad journalism 101

Today the Washington Post is driving me nuts. I just blogged about a column challenging the conventional wisdom that Bush is "The Decider." I obviously liked that column because I agreed with it. But I also read an article about the Obamas' mortgage that I think is shoddy journalism. Obviously, I'm biased because they're criticizing Barack Obama. But I think I can handle that. I'm fully expecting to read criticism of Obama that I agree with.

This article, however, is riddled with innuendo and guilt by association. The basic facts are this: after he was elected to the Senate, the Obamas bought a new house. Being elected to the Senate meant that Barack got a raise, and Michelle was promoted at the University of Chicago. Together, they were making around $500,000 a year. His job is about the most secure in the country; she's got a great track record. They have no debt, and they just sold their condo for a profit. So their credit record is, presumably, damn good. Also, Barack had just signed a book deal worth over $2 million.

The problem, according to the WaPo, is that the interest rate was preferable.

He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago.

Never having applied for a mortgage, I'm not sure how good that is. But FiveThirtyEight.com takes apart the stats (via DailyKos.com). Basically, The WaPo does not have anything regarding a case. Barack and Michelle Obama were making good money, had very secure jobs, and no debt. They got a good deal on their mortgage because they deserved it. Like millions of other responsible, normal Americans. Also, the WaPo does not seem to understand the concept of "average." It means that there will be people on both sides of a number; some below, some above. There HAVE to be some people below the average, by definition of the term.

Let's repeat this central idea: The Obamas are, personally, models of financial rectitude. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that what we want in our presidents? But somehow the WaPo spins it as smelling fishy.

There are a lot of good comments at FiveThirtyEight.com, many about the bad math at the WaPo. But none of them seem to notice the slippery language in the article. The article sets out the political context: other senators, we have recently found out, got sweetheart deals from Countrywide financial. Jim Johnson, Obama's guy for vetting his VP choices, the one who resigned, was head of Fannie Mae. Of course, Johnson was head of Fannie Mae many years ago, long before any of this happened, which makes his position there utterly irrelevant.

The writer asks this question:

Driving the recent debate is concern that public officials, knowingly or unknowingly, may receive special treatment from lenders and that the discounts could constitute gifts that are prohibited by law.

That's a fair question. The next paragraph would seem to be fair, as well. It's technically accurate, after all.

"The real question is: Were congressmen getting unique treatment that others weren't getting?" associate law professor Adam J. Levitin, a credit specialist at Georgetown University Law Center, said about the Countrywide loans. "Do they do business like that for people who are not congressmen? If they don't, that's a problem."

But note that the speaker is referring to the Countrywide loans. Those were the loans made to the other senators, i.e. the ones that ARE NOT BARACK OBAMA. Obama did not receive a Countrywide loan. But this article is almost entirely about him, so it's almost impossible NOT to infer that the speaker is referring to Obama when he refers to "congressmen getting unique treatment." You have to stop and think and realize that he cannot be talking about Obama, because Obama did not get a Countrywide loan. But unless you stop and think, anyone reading this is almost invariably going to associate Obama with this practice of receiving preferential treatment.

Then there's this line:

"It's certainly safe to say that this borrower did better than average," said Keith Gumbinger, an HSH vice president, noting that consumer rates vary widely. "It's a good deal."

Given the context established, i.e. that senators have been getting sweetheart deals, the suggestion is obvious: Obama got a sweetheart deal because he's a senator. But look at the quote: "this borrower did better than average." But if Obama got a better deal than average because he's a senator, that might be because Senators are better than average. They make more money than "average" people, and they have extremely secure jobs. And maybe these borrowers did better than average because both husband and wife are graduates of Harvard Law School. Maybe they did better than average because they ARE better than average. Which, personally, is a solid part of my defining criteria for president.

Now the article gets into the details of the Obamas' income and their finances, but it is after establishing the controversy of senators getting sweetheart deals. I find this this paragraph particularly egregious:

Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loan
was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that
many high-end buyers pay cash.

Look at the line "the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large." This sounds suspiciously like it's reinforcing the "elitism" charge against the Obamas - they got a huge loan. They were doing very well financially, and so they bought a nice house. Isn't that the American dream?

And then there's the line "Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash." That's meaningless in this context. Yes, I am guessing that were Bill Gates to buy this kind of house, he would not be arranging for a mortgage, but would instead use his ATM, or whatever spare change he had lying around. Cindy McCain also presumably can afford to pay cash, which this article points out - the McCains have no mortgages on their houses. So what does that line have to do with the Obamas?

These two paragraphs towards the end also bothered me (just about everything about this article bothered me):

Unlike Countrywide, where leaked internal e-mails documented a special discount program for friends of chief executive Angelo Mozilo, Northern Trust says it has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials. Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said.

"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," said Northern Trust Vice President John O'Connell. "That would apply to anyone seeking to get a mortgage at Northern Trust." He added that the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."

This is just ridiculous. Those two paragraphs are actually exonerating Barack Obama completely. But they start out by citing Countrywide, which is becoming a code word for "corrupt mortgage lender." How about that phrase "leaked internal emails?" That's more code for "somebody doing something bad." And is there any reason to cite Angelo Mozilo, other than to bring in another mention of another shady character?

I want to walk through the logic of the phrase "Unlike Countrywide." That means the opposite of Countrywide. Countrywide is a mortgage lender that has developed a reputation for what were, at best, sloppy mortgage lending practices. So the opposite of Countrywide would be, we can assume, something good.

But that's using a double negative to establish a positive, which is confusing. The article doesn't come right out and say "Northern Trust is a responsible bank that does not engage in the kind of nefarious practices that got Countrywide in trouble." The phrase "has no formal program to provide discounts to public officials" means that they do not provide favors to politicians. Which is a good, responsible approach to mortgage lending - we don't cut special deals for our friends. But it's a rather dry, technical description, and easily misunderstood. They are saying that do not engage in legalized bribery. Good for them! Solid Midwesterners, apparently. But they are also saying that they have no "formal" program to give discounts. What about "informal" programs? Can individual bankers use their discretion to provide favors to friends? Maybe. Which might be what is suggested with the next line, "Loan officers may consider a borrower's occupation when establishing an interest rate, the bank said." So they don't technically have a program to do favors for politicians, but they can consider a person's occupation. That's technically accurate - I would assume that all loan officers consider a person's occupation when they are applying for a mortgage. But given the context established, i.e. that some senators got sweetheart deals because of their occupations, this is highly suggestive.

This article has all kinds of implied negative judgment, but when a positive judgment is called for - i.e. that this bank DOES NOT engage in questionable practices, the writer uses obfuscatory terminology and phrasing. There's no definitive statement to the effect that Obama did not get any preferential treatment because of his status as a United States senator. Given the amount of innuendo to the effect that he did get preferential treatment, the lack of clarity on this score is very disturbing.

What's almost comical about the following paragraph is that it's classic lawyerese: it's making something completely normal sound odd:

"A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration,"

Well, yeah. My guess is that roughly 100% of the mortgage applications in this country take into account a person's occupation and salary. Wouldn't it be incredibly irresponsible of a bank NOT to? And then the final line that

the rates offered to Obama were "consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time."

In other words, this is completely, utterly normal. Two highly educated, established professionals, both with good-paying jobs and excellent credit records, one with one of the most secure jobs on the planet earth, apply for a mortgage under very normal conditions, and they get it. But it's phrased in dry, bureaucratic terms, which sounds to many people sounds obfuscatory. Why can't the writer just write something along the lines of "the bank says that the Obamas got a regular deal?"

Having conclusively failed to produce any statistically damning evidence against Obama, the writer now turns to more good old innuendo, citing contributions by bank employees in federal elections and to Obama in particular. More suggestions of malfeasance without a scintilla of evidence. Perhaps employees of this bank donated money to Barack Obama because they are all from Chicago. I'm guessing you could look at any bank in Chicago and find donations to people running for federal office and to Barack Obama in particular. They also cite $739,000 in donations since 1990. That is well before Obama ran for any office, state or federal. That's a highly irresponsible number to cite; it has very little to do with Obama. "Federal" elections would presumably include all of the House and Senate races since 1990; in Illinois, that would be dozens of races. And among the people running in those races could be Denny Hastert, former Speaker of the House. I would be surprised if bankers in Chicago didn't contribute to the Speaker's campaigns. It's perfectly normal for bank employees, who are, we can guess, financially well off, to contribute to elections. More perfectly normal behavior somehow rendered suspicious.

And then of course the writer recycles the Rezko nonsense, which is so old at this point that I am not going to go into it.

Bottom line: this article is technically accurate, which is the only thing that keeps it from being a pure hit piece. But it goes to great lengths to imply that Barack Obama got a sweetheart deal on his mortgage, without providing one iota of evidence to that effect. Incredibly irresponsible journalism from the Washington Post.

What particularly bothers me, apart from the sheer irresponsibility, is the corrosive effect that this has on the public's faith in politicians. I hope many people see through this and recognize it for the sham that it is, but I know that others will buy it, and their faith in Obama, and their respect for him, will be diminished, and with it their faith in the political process. And all because Barack and Michelle Obama did exactly what millions of other successful Americans have done: they bought a nice house because they worked hard, and they could afford it.

I really don't like to criticize the "MSM." I think criticizing the press can very easily become an intellectually sloppy, knee-jerk response to bad news for your side. I think both sides practice it, and it comes from all kinds of commentators, from Noam Chomsky to Rush Limbaugh to bloggers of every ideology and degree of intellectual sophistication. The point being that I am reluctant to blame the press if my candidate doesn't seem to be doing well.

But this is ridiculous. The Obamas achieved the American dream: two African-Americans worked their way up the ladder, earning every ounce of their success. The one mistake Obama made was associating with Tony Rezko; he's admitted that, but it's a very trivial detail, and, as for buying their house, they did just about everything right, and basically nothing wrong (other than associating with Rezko).

The exact opposite, unfortunately, is true of the Washington Post.

Bush the non-Decider

The WaPo has a great column by Daniel Benjamin about how, contrary to popular myth, George W. Bush is not particularly good at making foreign policy decisions. It's packed with lots of good information.

[Y]ou can't fully comprehend the Bush record without understanding another Bush problem: a chronic failure to reach decisions or implement those that are made. On one key issue after another, from the Middle East to North Korea to the Department of Homeland Security, Bush has proven himself to be a dawdler, a foot-dragger who can't make fundamental choices or press his team to follow his commands. Call him the non-decider.

The writer was on Clinton's National Security Council staff, so he's obviously biased, but he makes a lot of great points. I hope we see more of this meme.

Obama on national and community service

Barack Obama gave a speech today in Colorado Springs about national and community service.

"I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate -- I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States," Obama said.

"This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program -- this will be a central cause of my presidency," he said. "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."

On the one hand, this sounds like about the most cliched kind of platitude a candidate can offer, a verbose version of Kennedy's "Ask not what your country cand do for you, ask what you can do for your country." But Obama has the potential to follow this up with some real action. This article has a few specifics:

Obama, an Illinois senator, touted a package of proposals he first offered in December that would expand AmeriCorps, the domestic service agency, and double the size of the Peace Corps.

He also would offer more service opportunities to retirees and set goals for middle- and high-school students to serve 50 hours a year of public service, and for college students to serve 100 hours a year.

There are a couple of reasons I am giving him credit for something more than making vague promises. First, there is an infrastructure of national and community service organizations out there. For this, Obama owes a great debt to Bill Clinton, who set up Americorps. National and community service was a very big deal around the time Clinton was elected, and he was very supportive.

Second, those organizations, governmental agencies, and their advocates are starved for attention, and desperate for the right support. "Pragmatic idealism" was a watchword when I was in DC in 92-94. There are a lot of organization which are very focused and competent. They've survived the Bush presidency, and the years of Republican control of Congress before that. They are just waiting for the right legislative action to blossom. All Obama has to do is appoint the right people and set the right priorities, and amazing things will happen.

I have a good friend who once missed a concert because he was working so hard opposing Republican efforts to cut funding for national service. It was a bummer for him, but it worked out for me, because I got his ticket, and I got to see the Rolling Stones.

One of the coolest groups that I was involved with way back then was a group called Public Allies. The Obamas know it well: Barack himself was part of the founding, and Michelle ran the Chicago office.

I've said it before, I will say it again, and I am sure I will say it again and again: The revolution started in the '60's, was kept alive by Clinton in the '90's, and will be finished by Barack Obama in the 21st century.

Onion News Network: Bush Destroys America

I am becoming a big fan of The Onion News Network, The Onion's online video series. This is just brilliant satire. This one is about how the Bush presidency has laid waste to America, and how Bush is helping Americans cope with the devastation left by his Administration.


Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Michael Palin has lunch with the FT

Michael Palin is this week's guest for Lunch with the FT. This is one of my favorite parts of the Financial Times. The guests are always interesting, and incredibly diverse. The focus of the interview with Palin is almost exclusively on his career as a TV travel guide. The interviewer, Rahul Jacob, the FT's travel editor, admits that he is not familiar with Monty Python because he grew up in Calcutta. This is fine with Palin, who admits to not being fascinated with being treated as a legend. Well, yes, humility is all well and good, and it is well in his past, but his presence in Monty Python is the reason why I am reading this interview, so couldn't we have had just one or two good anecdotes about John Cleese or Eric Idle? Or one line about A Fish Called Wanda?

Of course, he has had plenty of publicity for Python, enough, presumably, for several lifetimes, and who am I to lay down demands for Michael Palin? He deserves credit and publicity for his second career traveling around the world, and that is the focus of this lunch. Amidst the stories of the Dalai Lama and traveling with armed guards in Pakiston is this bit of common sense, which could bear repeating numerous times:

“I’m not pretending there aren’t dangers but I think saying, ‘These are the places we should not go,’ restricts communication and curiosity. I do a lot of talks and people sometimes ask you very earnest questions, ‘What do you know about the world now?’ And, God, I don’t know anything. Whoever said travel is more about questions than answers got it exactly right. I get more confused but the one thing I do feel is less afraid of the world than I would if I didn’t travel.”

It's a truism that the more people meet strangers, the less like strangers they appear. It's also a truism that the more strangers they see doing strange things in the far distance, the stranger they will appear. Modern technology at once brings us closer to people in other countries, and instills fear in us; seeing people from foreign countries up close and personal is very different from seeing them on a TV screen. Palin, most fortunately for us, has resolved this contradiction by using television to bring other countries up close and personal.

Jacob ends the column (which seems to be longer online than in print) with a cliched, but appropriate, sendoff for a comedian.

hearing the jollity prompted by Palin’s goodbyes to the staff at the front of the restaurant, I think that you can’t put a price on that ability to make people laugh.

I can think of a price: I read somewhere that Eric Clapton does not have a knighthood, while Paul McCartney does. I think "Sir Michael" has a nice ring to it.

This interview is also an opportunity for me to post some great hidden gems of Michael Palin that I found on YouTube. The first one is the Pythons receiving some terribly prestigious award from Bafta in 1988. I couldn't embed it, so just go here. Michael Palin has the best line at about 3:30.

This is part 4 (of 5) of a BBC documentary about the making of The Life of Brian. I chose this part because Michael Palin and John Cleese go on a talk show and argue with two prominent Christians (one a bishop) about whether or not the movie was blasphemous. I always knew Michael Palin was smart and funny, but in this video, he's also quite the fighter for freedom of speech. The entire documentary is fascinatnig, but this is particularly good. It's amazing that less than 30 years ago, The Life of Brian was so controversial that it there were protests against it, and that it was even banned in some places.



Long live Michael Palin.

Obama on Clark on McCain

Apparently the kerfluffle over Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain still has some people all hot and bothered. We really are in a slow news environment, aren't we? Where's a good teenybopper starlet mental breakdown when you need it? Aren't we in the middle of two wars? Has the weather done anything seriously weird recently? Isn't there ANYTHING that can distract the press from this?

Barack Obama, fortunately, has his priorities straight:



Actually, I have to make a distinction. The actual comment from Wes Clark was not that big of a deal, and Clark made it clear that he has a great deal of respect for John McCain and his record of military service. But it does touch on a larger issue, which is the relevance of John McCain's personal story for his campaign to be president. That's a serious issue, but it's gotten the rapid-fire "gotcha" treatment from the press.

This is a great reminder of Michael Kinsley's dictum that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. John McCain is clearly a courageous man, and in the interview with Bob Scheiffer, Clark made it clear that he considers McCain a personal hero. But what he said is technically true: being shot down is not a qualification for being president. Demonstrating courage while a POW and being tortured is indicative of his bravery, which is relevant for being president. But being shot down in the first place was an accident, and being the victim of an accident, however unfortunate, is not indicative of any personal qualities. You don't do anything when something happens to you.

So: being in an accident: not relevant for presidential aspirations. Surviving said accident with extraordinary courage and dignity: highly relevant.

I actually think McCain missed a great opportunity here. I think he could have said that Clark was right, and that being shot down does not qualify him to be president, and that he's not asking people to vote for him for president because of that, but because of his ideas and his character. I think McCain could have scored major points for honesty with that.

But he didn't, and that speaks to a larger dynamic within this campaign. Talking Points Memo put together a montage of right wing pundits on TV blowing this way the hell out of proportion. You can see it here; I don't want to post it on my blog. All of the right wing commentators rushed to McCain's defense, defending his aggreived sense of honor. Given that they were going to do that, McCain had no other option but to claim to be offended. I think McCain is trapped by his own story. Blowhard conservatives are going to use any excuse to claim that liberals are somehow attacking or dishonoring the troops. McCain just about has to go along. If he doesn't participate in perpetuating the idea that liberals don't support the troops, etc., etc., right wing pundits are going to be either confused or furious at him. I think McCain could have scored points not only for honesty, but also for humility, if he had made the distinction that I made above: that being shot down itself is not an act of heroism. But then no one in the press would have been able to feast on this controversy.

What's gotten lost in all of this is that Wesley Clark is one of the highest ranking military officials on the public scene. The man was Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. He was wounded in Vietnam and waged war in Yugoslavia. He's a Rhodes scholar who was valedictorian of his class at West Point. His comment was, as Obama said, "inartful," but he also went out of his way to praise McCain's record of military service. Anchors at Fox News are not going to get to him. He has an impeccable record of supporting the troops - he WAS one of the troops for most of his life. I don't think he's going to back down, and I don't think he should.

Another part of this that has gotten lost is that this is a dispute between two military men. If Clark had said this within the military, I think everyone would automatically understand that Clark respects McCain's record, but that that does not make him immune to criticism, because everyone in the military is serving their country. Clark's problem is that he did not make this comment in the mess hall at Fort Knox. He made it on national television.

This is one of the great taboo subjects of this race. To what extent does John McCain's unique status as a POW and victim of torture qualify him to be president? He's clearly a man of great personal courage, which, for many people, is reason enough to vote for him. But for others, that is not enough. American voters have the right to decide whether or not to vote for McCain based on his war hero record. They have the right to decide that that is not enough. Which is exactly what Wesley Clark was saying.