My Anger Will Last

I cannot express the anger I feel right now over today's vote in the New York State Senate on Marriage Equality. And I feel that the anger will not go away soon.

I am not going to launch an explanation for why I think gay marriage should pass. I think I have done that enough already. What I will say is that this is the one issue that I can't understand the other side. For every other issue I can think of, I can understand the other position - I think it is wrong, but I understand it. I understand libertarianism even though I dislike the individuality and selfishness that is its underpinning. I understand those who support small government and have strong faith in markets, even though I think they exaggerate the impact of taxes on businesses and do not fully understand flaws in open markets. I even understand the people who oppose affirmative action even though I think we do everyone a favor by promoting diversity.

But I do not understand opposition to gay marriage. There is no argument that is logically consistent and so any argument must be based on bigotry. Religious arguments hold no water when you consider all the other things in the Bible that so-called religious people ignore. And we don't ban all people who cannot have biological children from getting married, so that argument does not work.

I cannot understand the other side, and therefore I am enraged at how many people, many of them otherwise decent caring people, believe that it is right to deny loving adults the opportunity to the same benefits opposite-sex couples have.

I watched some of the debate today, and the most powerful argument for me came from Senator Squadron. He was married just this summer and he mentioned how emotional that experience was and how he believes everyone should be able to have a similar ceremony. I too was married this summer and like Senator Squadron the wedding was the most emotional day of my life so far. So it matters that we are denying a class of people the right to that experience, and all other benefits that come with it.

I am surprised it was so lopsided (38-24 against), and because of that, the people that oppose this - the people that stand for bigotry against equality - feel vindicated. And that is what makes the most angry. I was expecting it to pass, and I was prepared for the fight that might lie ahead if it was then pushed to referendum. I was not expecting this at all.

The only positive thing that came out of today, was the fact that there was a vote. This way, twenty years from now, when the whole country accepts gay marriage the way the country now accepts inter-racial marriages, those who voted no today will have to explain their votes. Twenty years from now, the grandchildren of the people who voted no are going to walk up to their grandparents and ask them why they stood opposed to the biggest civil rights issue of our time. Today, 38 people voted either on bigotry or short-term concerns about elections and I can take some solace in knowing that in the long-term they will have to face their choice with shame.

Public Adminstrator's Role

Arianna Huffington has written a post about why Biden should resign if Obama does not follow his advice. This view of the role of a public adminstrator - i.e. someone serving an elected official - is oversimplified and makes me think she has never served in that role.

The fact is that the role of public administrators, or civil servants, is to give the best counsel to the elected officials or political appointees they serve. And once they give that advice, their role is to implement the final decision to the best of their ability. Resignation should only occur if the decision is so egregious that the public administrator cannot bring themselves to carry out the orders.

Huffington's tone suggests that one should resign anytime they disagree with the decision of an elected official or appointee, which if everyone followed that advice there would be no civil servants.

To be fair, maybe she is not suggesting that one should resign so easily. But she does not do enough in her post to tell us why a decision to remain in Afghanistan is so wrong-headed that it would be worth resigning over. She does what many far left liberals do, which is wonder why people in government are not as irrational as they are. When you work in government, you are bound to disagree with some of their decisions. The question is, do you disagree enough that you cannot work with them, and that you are willing to significantly weaken the person you are working for.

In addition to her logic about resigning being oversimplified and definitely not objective (I wonder how she would feel if someone resigned in protest of a policy she supported), her arguments against troop increases in Afghanistan are cherry-picked. She quotes pieces of Richard Haas' arguments, but conveniently leaves off parts that do not support his argument. Haas does say Afghanistan is not a war of necessity, but she does not bother talking about wars of choice and when you do or do not commit to a war of choice.

As much as I disagree with her post, I can take some comfort in the fact that Biden is unlikely to resign. If Obama disagrees with Biden, and Biden does not change his mind that it is the wrong decision, he is likely to stay on board anyway because I don't think he, or any other rational person think that staying in Afghanistan is as bad a decision as Vietnam or even Iraq. In other words, I can sleep well knowing Biden is not going to be listening to Huffington.

How Many Died, Really?

One of the things that has bothered me the most about the Iraq War is the immense cost it has had on Iraqis. It makes it even harder when no one, least of all the American military, has been interested in quantifying the impacts on the Iraqi population. Instead, we were left with outside groups indirectly estimating the number of Iraqis killed - with one report concluding that as much as 600,000 Iraqis died.

Well, we finally have an estimate from the Iraqi government. Their report estimates that 85,000 people died, not including insurgents or foreigners. At first blush, I am tempted to trust the Iraqi government more than Johns Hopkins since they presumably have access to more information. (Then again, Johns Hopkins might be less inclined to fudge the numbers for political reasons.)

What is really frustrating about such wildly different estimates though is that it makes analyzing the impact on the Iraqis near impossible. Although 85,000 is not a small number, I could understand how that number might make the invasion worth it in the long run if Iraq becomes a democratic and stable society (not a foregone conclusion yet). But 600,000 is much bigger and seems much harder to forget.

Of course, whether the war was worth will be up to the Iraqis, who should have been the ones to call for our invasion to begin with. And when the Iraqis decide if the invasion was worth it, I imagine it will be the experiences of the people that lived through the invasion and the impacts on their lives that matter more than a statistic. People will likely judge the war by how many people close to them died, or by how many people (or themselves) were forced to flee the country during the height of the violence.

Saudi Arabi... Unbelievable

Remember this post? Well, if you thought that was outrageous, see this headline and article: Saudis Seek Payments for Any Drop in Oil Revenues

Let me get this straight, they want us to pay them if we pass climate change treaty? Somehow it is our responsibility to compensate them because they built their economy - and therefore their autocratic government's ability to rule - around one commodity that is finite and its overuse is harming our planet?

Saudi Arabia kills me.

Beautiful Graphs

This is awesome! I love the way technology is allowing us to see data in ways that make analysis and conclusions much easier.

Healthcare Markets

There have been two articles* I have read about market distortions in America's health care market. These distortions, namely the fact that consumers do not ever see or feel the costs of services, prevent cost savings and efficiencies. The arguments are compelling - certainly, the more we see and feel the costs of our care, the better we would be about choosing only the care that is likely to be effective.

However, the more we feel the costs (in other words, the more responsible we are for funding our care), the more likely it is that some people will not be able to afford certain necessary treatments. Maybe the people calling for this are right and that it would be cheaper to have a system where people pay for more of their care, and then have government support for people who cannot afford certain care that is too expensive. I still fear that people would be left out.

Once again we come back to efficiency versus fairness, the two opposing forces in economics. The question here is how inefficient are we (probably an extreme) and how fair are we (still not so fair - yet). Soon I'll have another post that looks more deeply at the health care proposal and how it does deal with the fairness and efficiency concerns.


*A side note - I do not think I am going to renew my subscription to The Atlantic. I get the feeling that they are trying too hard to be provocative and purposefully publishing articles that attempt to contradict "convention wisdom". I do not have a problem with that in general, however the articles that do have that feeling also seem to have a lot of data and arguments that are purposefully misleading - the healthcare article I linked to being one example and their recent marriage articles among other examples.

Looking for a Friend?

Robert Novak died last month and you might be surprised to learn that I am saddened by his death. Although he was probably a little more pugnacious than I really like, in general I appreciate the smart and thoughtful political commentators.

More importantly for me personally though is that in thinking about his death, I realized again my lack of conservative friends. I truly enjoy debating politics, and while I enjoy debating people farther to the left than I am, I also like debating people to the right of me (note: my definition of debate is an honest and open exchange of ideas).

So, any conservatives out there looking for a friend?

Same as it Ever Was

It is absolutely appalling that there has been no change on Wall Street. You would think that after the chaos they caused, and the huge amount of tax payer money they needed to stay solvent and prevent a major national recession, they would accept that they cannot continue as they were. But no, once again they want complete freedom in their markets, no regulation. Trust us, they say again.

This is all in their interest, because when their reckless bets pay off, they make tons of money. When they do not, they keep the money they have already won (see the graphic on where the major players are now - none seem to be hurting). As the article says, "Heads I win, tails I get bailed out."

President Obama needs to get health care passed, then move right away to implementing regulatory changes on Wall Street. The first change, and the easiest, should be requiring the derivatives to be traded on an open market.

Batteries

Apparently tonight is a learning night. I came across this really good article in the Economist on the state of electric cars.

Journal on Nuclear Power

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the current state of nuclear power. The amazing thing is that it seems really balanced and objective. The bottom line is that there are technological improvements, but some are as yet unproven and many years away. But for now, cost is a major concern, waste is still an issue and safety is less of an issue - with the exception of terrorism.

Obama Health Care Speech

Last night was Obama's speech about health care reform. I did not watch it, but I did read the text here. And here is a link to the GOP response.

It seems like the speech went over well, and I think in general he made all the right points. The only thing that stands out is the claim that we will pay for it with savings and if we cannot, the law will force the government to find the savings somewhere else. Seems to me like he is kicking the can down the road, since I find it unlikely that the savings will pay for the new costs. Although maybe it is smart politics - pass the reform now, then later make the hard choices about cutting programs or increasing taxes.

The Republican responses seem to be all over the map. Their call to start over with a new bill is absurd. Bill Kristol's thinks that this shouldn't be a priority right now - another ridiculous statement. But their concerns over the cost are accurate. We'll just have to see what resonates. In general it seems many want to just kill it, but I think enough want something to happen, which will allow a good bill to pass.

Anyway, for your information, here is the Times' version of fact-checking.

The Problem with Macroecon

The state of macroeconomics seems to be a major topic of discussion these days - mostly focusing on how macroeconomics had been unable to predict the economic meltdown and has been unable to adequately respond to it. The Freakonomics blog has had a number of posts about it. Their overall take on the situation is that there are too few economists focusing on macro issues (and too many working in finance) which has left the field under-explored as of late.

Paul Krugman has a long article in the Times Sunday Magazine on this issue. He attributes problems in macroeconomics to a shift to the right - that too many economists have forgotten about the lessons of the Great Depression because of the lack of a truly serious recession since then. For at least the last few decades, liberal and conservative economists mostly supported the rational actor underpinning to economics and believed that the lack of a serious recession supported this. Krugman also feels that macro-economists have not correctly understood the recessions that did happen and were overconfident in our ability to control them.

The article is great - it isn't nearly as wonkish as his blog posts on this issue. Be aware though that it comes from a very liberal place. That being said, I do agree with most of it. Here is the key quote:

First, many real-world investors bear little resemblance to the cool calculators of efficient-market theory: they’re all too subject to herd behavior, to bouts of irrational exuberance and unwarranted panic. Second, even those who try to base their decisions on cool calculation often find that they can’t, that problems of trust, credibility and limited collateral force them to run with the herd.

There is a lot more to the article, like discussions about unemployment and the influence of capital on the recession, so I highly advise anyone to read all of it. Overall though, I hope that Krugam is right, that economists will spend more time understanding where economic actors actually deviate from the rational actor that we study in theory. Too much of our political debate is a back and forth about whether markets work or do not work. It would be much better if we talked about when they work and when they do not.

Royal Family, Royal Pain

The former ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, has written a piece that is critical of American talk about energy independence. Of course, it is in his interest to talk us out of our search for alternative sources of energy. The less we rely on oil, and therefore Saudi Arabia, the harder it will be for the Saudi royal family to retain their authoritarian and oppressive reign.

Al-Faisal does a good job of describing all the ways Saudi helps stabilize oil prices, and I do not doubt what he says. However, he clearly ignores the other aspects of the Saudi government. He does not defend the way they have spread a violent and hateful form of Islam, one that is intolerant of Shias and western ideology. And he does not defend a government with serious human rights violations and no democracy whatsoever.

The prince says that energy independence is mirage. He clearly means complete independence, and in that he is right. However, the less oil we need, the less dependent we are. We will not completely rid ourselves of oil anytime soon. But we can find ways to insulate ourselves from oil's volatility and from the often corrupt, inhumane, and dangerous governments that export it.

We have a choice coming up. We can do as the Prince says, and remain interdependent with Saudi Arabia and all the baggage that comes with that. Or we can pursue alternatives, giving us the ability to tell Saudi Arabia the truth, and to maybe one day put pressure on the government to provide real change, even if that means having a free government that does not like the US.

Missionary Work

I have to say, I have become increasingly conflicted these days about missionary work. I find it very difficult to balance the good that is done when missionary workers are able to provide food, health care, housing, and training against the way they blithely go in trying to change the existing cultures.

The best meditation on this topic is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible deals with similar themes but is not as balanced as Achebe's book.) What is so powerful about the book is that Achebe, in showing the conflict between the existing tribal culture and religion in Nigera and the christian missionaries and colonialists that come in, does not hide either side's flaws. However, as a reader, I definitely feel that something is lost when Christianity supplants the existing culture and beliefs. (I often feel the same way about Celtic culture and practices, which were also replaced by Christianity.)

On the other side of course is the immense good that is done by missionaries. I need only read an article like this about college football star Tim Tebow or think about the work my Dad's church does in Mozambique to realize that there are a lot of people doing amazing things in the name of religion.

For now, the way I have reconciled this debate in my head is that the good that is done outweighs the bad. But we do need to realize that each culture has its own inherent beauty, and all aid workers need to respect that. There should be policies that prevent groups from requiring conversion to receive help (although I do not think many groups stoop to this). This of course does nothing about the coercion that is inherent when aid is distributed by people with a religious goal. And that I do not have any solutions for - at least at the moment.

Fan of Krugman

I have to say, I am becoming a really big fan of Paul Krugman. I really disliked him in the past because I found him to be another partisan hack lacking in objectivity. This was especially the case during the Obama / Hillary primary. In fact, so many of his columns were not about his specialty - economics - but about politics.

But ever since the economic melt-down and Obama taking office, I have found his voice to be extremely important. First, his economic perspective on the financial crisis has been invaluable. He has been able to explain what is going on as well as fight back against conservative attacks blaming the crisis on liberal policy. Second, his economic analysis of the health care debate is also extremely important since so much of the debate revolves around incentives and markets.

Finally, Krugman has been a good check on the Obama administration. While Republicans have been decrying Obama's moderately liberal solutions to the financial crisis, Krugman has reminded us that options that are farther to the left may be the even better option. This is extremely important since the tendency can be to assume that a policy is sufficiently liberal if conservatives hate it. It's good to have someone telling us that this isn't necessarily the case.

Afghanistan's Future

The news out of Afghanistan is troubling. There appears to have been some fraud in the election, Karzai has chosen to align himself with war lords and people involved in the drug trade, and the violence is not decreasing. Now, things could certainly turn around. After all, Iraq was much worse at one point and has improved significantly. The question though is what if it does not and what is our responsibility there.

I used to feel very strongly about our presence in Afghanistan, but over time I have started to have my doubts. Basically, my doubts stem from my more recent belief that real change takes a long time. I do not believe that democracy and stability can happen overnight. Instead, I believe that it requires many factors that take time to develop. I believe you need a strong middle class to be effective participants in democracy - a middle class that has enough leisure time to be involved in democracy. And debates about how democracy works in the culture that is attempting it also takes time.

If that is the case, then what should we do with Afghanistan? I still believe that we have a responsibility to help Afghanistan recover from decades of civil war - especially since we are partly responsible for the war by arming the Mujahideen and then turning our backs on the country once the USSR left. At the same time, I am not sure that our troops will really be able to pacify the country in the short term. I also think the longer our troops are there, the more they will be resented and resisted.

I think then the solution will be to keep the troops there for a while longer hoping we can improve security to some reasonable level. But more importantly we need to do more to improve the infrastructure and improve the lives of the people in the country. Granted, these two often work hand in hand, and achieving the right balance is key. However, I think in the long run our best bet will be more funding for non-military efforts and slowly decrease our troop levels.

Look Who is Back on Top

I am a little late on this, but this headline about Bank of America, Ciitgroup, and Goldman-Sachs now making significant profits gives me pause. We were told that these groups needed bailouts because without them the economy would collapse and by helping them we will help the economy get back on track. But as the banks seem to be more than back on track, the economy is still declining. I cannot help but feel angry as people who made bad decisions are again reaping huge profits because of government help yet the rest of the economy is still struggling. Maybe that bailout money would have been better spent providing a bigger cushion for those affected by the economy - those losing their jobs or having their hours cut.

Granted, I should try to be more reasonable. The bailout likely prevented a serious economic collapse. But it just feels wrong that the banks are back to doing so well while everyone else is still struggling. That those who need the money the least are once again making it, while those who need it the most have yet to get back on track.

NYS Senate - Conclusion

So the fiasco in the New York State Senate concluded itself, at least for now. What was the solution? Well, for those of you who were not paying attention to this, the person who left the Democrats to help the Republicans become the majority, came back to the Democrats as Majority Leader. Now, that title is apparently different than it is in the US Senate, as the state senate has someone different who is the conference leader and a different president of the senate. So Espada's title may be symbolic. But it is not a very good symbol. Espada is accused of ethics violations and may not actually live in his district.

I am more appalled at the way this situation was wrapped up than I was when it was ongoing. Beyond the injustice inherent in rewarding someone who tried to leave the party simply to get a better position, it is just bad politics. This makes the Democrats look bad in the short term for rewarding him. But it will make them look horrible if and when his ethical transgressions cause his downfall (the same goes for Senator Monserate, who has been given his committee chairmanship back despite facing assault charges).

There is a question about whether voters will remember all this a year from now. But if Espada's troubles come to light later on, they may not have to remember. However, this poll in the Daily News suggests that voters believe they will remember this. (By the way, the blog I linked to is now my favorite blog for up to date NYS news.)

If you think this is the end of the Senate's appalling behavior, you are wrong. After the Senate spent a month doing nothing but arguing over who really holds power, they passed the bare minimum of bills. So of course they did nothing on rent regulation reform or marriage equality. Worse though, they did nothing on Mayoral control of the NYC schools, which expired June 30. Now, I can understand people wanting to negotiate and take some power away from the Mayor (although I don't agree). But doing nothing while the bill expired, then walking away until September because you did not get what you wanted at the last minute is ridiculous.

It is just enraging that these people are adults but yet have not learned the shame that others were taught as kids. You have a responsibility to do your work in a timely manner. If you passed up on the opportunity to participate in a debate until it was too late, you lose the chance to give your input. They should feel ashamed to hold up the process because now, after having months and years to make changes, they want to make changes.

Since my senator is one of the ones now fighting for changes to the NYC school control bill (and one of the ones who welcomed back Espada), I am completely resolved not to vote for him next year. I really hope that survey was right and that everyone else does the same. Otherwise I will lose all hope in state government.

Is Religion Bad?

I have had numerous debates about whether religion in itself is bad. There are many atheist liberals that feel religion is a scourge - a source of problems that delivers few benefits. For a while, before the 2006 and 2008 elections, that group seemed to dominate the Democratic party. Thankfully, that has changed, at least for now. But those people are still out there.

In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.

The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.

The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.

Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.

I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.

One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.

In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).

You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)

What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.

Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.

Powell as Foil

I just finished reading Reputation, the next posthumous book by Marjorie Williams. This book is just a collection of her political profiles. Her ability to analyze a person and really get to their flaws and strengths - to really see the entire person - was amazing. It is one of the many qualities she had that the world is now deprived of. Unfortunately, only some of the people were really interesting, which made the book good, but not great. By far the best profile was the last one - Colin Powell. Her profile of him, before he had decided not to run for President in 1996, is probably the best analysis of him I have ever seen.

In her profile of Colin Powell, she manages to say what people see in him, but also what they don't see - things the less astute among us (myself included) are only really seeing now.

The fact is, Democrats love Colin Powell - he is the perfect foil for George Bush and the Iraq War. In fact, he is the perfect foil for all Republicans - although Neo-Cons especially. He is humble, poised, respectable and basically without any domestic policy beliefs. Most importantly, he is a prominent Republican with significant military credentials who is cautious in his use of military force. But in fact, we find him such the perfect foil that we ignore his incredible faults.

The thing Democrats most revere is probably the thing that on careful analysis should be what causes us (liberals) the greatest trouble. His belief in overwhelming force for any military operation, based on his experience in Vietnam, is a perfect contrast to Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq. However, by revering that, we ignore the box this puts us in when it comes to genocides and human rights abuses.

This same bias causes us to ignore the role he played in America's (Clinton's) decision not to get involved in Bosnia. In fact, he was more vocal on Bosnia than he was on Iraq. Think about that for a minute - Colin Powell, as Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, vocally opposed intervening in Bosnia, effectively tying the hands of his boss, President Clinton (although you could argue Clinton was unwilling to intervene anyway). But in Iraq, as Secretary of State, he loyally trumpeted the cause for war and stood by his boss until the end. Though he opposed both, in the end he was only vocal in the conflict that we should have been involved in, and remained loyal on the war we should not have.

Although liberals' love of Powell existed long before Iraq, it is interesting how Iraq has dominated liberals' judgments. This Atlantic article did a really good job of putting Donald Rumsfeld in a new light for me. While I think his decisions in Iraq showed callousness and poor judgment, I have also long claimed that his general military policy was flawed - a policy to make our armed forces smaller and more agile. The article, contrary to what I thought, shows that these forces are likely to help, not hinder, peacekeeping. More agile forces are more able to respond quickly and effectively, when / if actually called upon, to peacekeeping missions. It is unlikely that this was Rumsfeld's purpose, but it seems to be its effect.

So despite our superficial judgments, I am coming to the conclusion that Powell is no one to celebrate, and that Rumsfeld was a little better than we thought. I long wanted Powell to run for president. I am now very glad he did not.

Lost Historical Moments

For all the history geeks.

Gender Issues

The different ways people choose to respond to real problems always amazes me, especially when they are poorly thought-out and counter productive. This story of a family that is keeping the gender of their child a secret for the first few years of their life is one of these times. I definitely agree that there are extreme pressures to conform to gender stereotypes in our society. We would be much better off if we were more accepting and open to differences and uniqueness.

However, this is clearly the wrong way to respond to these pressures. Teaching your children to act in ways that make their gender unclear is only a different way of preventing people from acting in ways that are natural to them. The ideal response to these pressures is to allow your child to be themselves and constantly teaching them against the stereotypes they will find in life. Fighting stereotypes is important, but we must do it in ways that achieve the right ends.

Blame the Pollster, Not the Respondent

Remember all those articles about polling results in elections where one candidate is a person of color and another is white? Well, this post takes a very different view - namely that pollsters should not blame the respondents for inaccurate results even though it is more convenient. Instead, poor results can often be blamed on poor survey design.

Kruman on Health Care

Krugman has a really good column about health care reform. I would not advise taking it as truth without doing your own research, since Krugman is notoriously partisan and sometimes not very objective. However, it does lay out some good arguments. Check it out.

About Palin's Exit

There has been a lot of talk and analysis about Sarah Palin's sudden resignation. I think this post by Stanley Fish, someone I rarely agree with, is the best I've read. I think he is mostly right that she resigned for the reasons she stated - that the intense attacks have distracted from the normal affairs of Alaska. I am not saying this was the right decision (after all, Clinton did not resign), but I can understand it. The only caveat I would add is that she was somewhat cryptic about her future plans, which has lead to a lot of the speculation.

This post by The Politicker is similarly critical of the all the analysis and is pretty fair.

The new conservative columnist at the times also wrote about Palin. His column though makes a common false claim about the way people perceive Palin. He, and others, claim that Palin was attacked for not having the right education. I find this absurd. True, her education was frequently mentioned, but the problem was not her education itself, but her lack of competence and thoughtfulness. Her education was used as evidence of these concerns, instead of the requirements for being a good public official.

I have always believed, and I think the country mostly agrees, that there are no educational requirements for public service. But being thoughtful and smart is required.

So Few Leaders

The NY Times has a good piece on the situation in Albany:

Albany, as the spectacle of the deadlocked Senate has shown vividly over the last month, is afflicted with many problems: lawbreaking leaders, feuding factions and powerful special interests.

But for those wondering how Albany could have sunk to the level it has, with the State Senate unable to function, one good answer is the extraordinary comfort among the state’s legislators that comes with knowing that they will almost never be voted out of office.

Many people inside and outside state government agree that such a comfort level has bred a kind of arrogance among the legislators about the costs of even profound embarrassments.

This whole time I had thought there would eventually be a revolt by a group of rank and file Democrats and Republicans, forming a coalition and tossing out their leaders. After all, there has to be at least 32 senators that are tired of this nonsense and realize how bad they are looking. And there have to be 32 senators between the Republicans and Democrats that want nothing to do with Espada, that do not want Dean Skelos to be their leader because he has tied the Republicans to Espada, and that do not want Smith to be the leader because of how badly he led before and how desperately he is clinging to power now. There have to be 32 senators that want to dump these leaders and get some business done.

But there are not, as the article shows, for two reasons. First, the leaders wield too much power, so rank and file are unwilling to cross them lest their plan fails. And second, no matter how embarrassed they are, they know they will be re-elected.

I have decided to vote against my Senator no matter who is running against him in the next election. (And I am going write him a letter telling him this.) While I hope many more people do the same thing, I know that the elections are over a year off, by which time people will have forgotten. And I know most people probably do not blame their own senator.

Albany needs a change (although some of the ideas have been stupid - Lazio - and show that the person does not actually understand the problem), but it is unlikely to get it.

Some Ideas from the Atlantic

This month's Atlantic Monthly had some interesting stuff in it. They called it the ideas issue, and the first three of the "Quick Fixes" were actually pretty good (the rest, not so much): Allow foreclosed owners to stay in their homes as renters, allow the UN to pay private soldiers to act as peacekeepers, and a more flexible attitude about installing democracy in Afghanistan.

I think only the last of the three, no democracy in Afghanistan, is likely to happen. Some big lenders may allow foreclosed owners to stay on, by I think few will and there is no will to impose that.

And although I do not think it would happen, the private UN peacekeepers is an interesting idea, although not a terrible new one. In fact I think my brother might have mentioned it one time. And it is possible that I dismissed it. But now that I consider it more, I do think it makes sense. It seems to me that the private troops could be more accountable, through contract renewal, than some of the country-sent troops, which have been accused of crimes and abuses themselves. And this way, only funding would stand in the way of peacekeeper deployment, and not the lack of willingness to send troops, which is more common.

Policy Towards Iran

As the election situation in Iran continues, it is important I think to take a step back and think about how Iran fits into the Middle East. There was an interesting, although overly simplistic, article in the Atlantic this month about the interplay between Iran, Sunni Arab nations, Shiite nations, Palestine and Israel. The author of the article suggests that we can use the threat of a nuclear Iran to unite Arabs and Israelis and achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.

Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.

But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).

The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.

NYS Senate - ANGER!

Each day the situation in the NYS Senate hits a new low. I will not drag you down with me by giving you a blow-by-blow. Suffice it to say, the best thing you can do for your sanity is to tune it out until they finally come to an agreement. But do not allow your ability to ignore the situation to dispel your anger. We should be furious that the situation has devolved as far as it has - that each person participating in the drama manages to recognize how absurd it is but find ridiculous ways to blame it on somebody else. (While I have not been a fan of Paterson lately, I think he is doing a decent job of shaming the Senate - which is why they are so angry at him. Granted a more deft leader might have been able to accomplish more, but I think he has been performing fine.)

The bottom line is that each side is content to play chicken with the other - to refuse to make a deal and get to work until they are recognized as the leaders. And each side is betting that the other side looks worse (or they assume that voter apathy is enough to prevent real repercussions). To be fair, they are probably also wise to the fact that voters have a habit of giving low approval ratings to the legislature (be it US Congress or the states) while high approval ratings for their own legislator. So most if not all of these clowns will be re-elected.

What angers me the most though is the recognition that if they finally do reach an agreement, they will only deal with the real necessities and then leave for vacation. And all the serious bills that deserved consideration will be left until next term. If there ever is a next term.

Iran Elections

I am sure everyone is aware of the situation in Iran - the country has seen protests, and then violence against the protesters, following unbelievable presidential election results. There is a lot of reason for suspecting fraud, including the really short time it took the government to announce the results, the huge margin of victory for Ahmadinejad despite polling data (and previous election results) that would predict a closer election, and the fact that some districts had more votes than registered voters (not unexplainable, but definitely suspicious).

There are lots of smart analyses out there, including an article that looks at random number generation as compared to human's ability to generate random numbers. Much of the mainstream media is covering it, and the blog Informed Comment has had some really great coverage (written by the author of the new book Engaging the Muslim World).

What is interesting is seeing the way Obama has tried a new approach in responding. Unlike much of the people talking (including McCain), Obama realizes that too much (or any) US rhetoric can brand the protesters as stooges of the US. So he tried to stay out of it, although eventually caved in to pressure and commented. (There is probably no winning - you do not want to let the Iranian government - or the people themselves - think no one is watching, but you do not want protesters to look like Western agents.)

While I think most people lay their hopes on the ability of the protests to result in change, there is one other interesting possibility, mentioned on the the Times Lead blog:

A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — Iran’s savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei’s — has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Before we get carried away - either by the prospects of a new election won by Mousavi or Rafsanjani as Supreme Leader (the prospects of a complete change away from the religious democracy / theocracy are absurdly slim) - let's realize that either will still leave challenges for foreign policy. A new leader in either place will not necessarily move Iran away from seeking nuclear weapons or animosity towards Israel (in other words, we need to learn more about these two before rooting too hard for them or expecting too much).

Finally, I do want to comment on Iran in general. Before the election, I had mixed feelings about the country's form of government. While I certainly opposed the oppression that it often exerts, I was having trouble finding the same level of animosity for the government as others do (especially conservatives). First, I found it mostly hypocritical, since Iran has a more democratic system than countries like Saudi Arabia, which we rarely denounce.

But more so, I was having moments of relativism. Although western democracy calls for separation of church and state (which is sometimes even debated in the US), I wondered if there was room to tolerate a government that does ban some candidates, and ultimate control and decisions rest with unelected theocrats, but does allow for some meaningful participation.

The main question even then was how meaningful the participation was. It was unclear how much leeway the elected president had, although the previous reformer president managed to do very little. And in looking at a case of obvious voter fraud, it seems even more clear that Iranians have little power to choose their government.

But that question is still out there. The US government sets bounds for what changes will be accepted (via a constitution). An Islamic Republic in theory could do the same thing, if the bounds for change are left open so that voters can have an impact on how their government is involved in their lives. This clearly was not the case in Iran. The question is will it ever be - or are the only two options oppressive theocracy or western democracy.

State Senate Nonsense

I don't know whether the events in Iran make the situation in the New York State Senate unworthy of a post, or if the selfishness and smallness there juxtaposed to Iran mean I should highlight it. Since I have gone two weeks without writing about it, I obviously feel the latter.

First, I should admit that the first week of the gridlock in the state senate provided some terrific drama and during that time I was obsessed with tracking the developments. But now I find the whole situation disgusting. And let me be clear, everyone is to blame.

The main culprit is definitely Senator Espada. He doesn't like his district enough to make it his primary residence and he feels that he is above filing campaign finance documents. But the worse thing is that his main concern is his own power. He will stop at nothing to be state senate pro tempore. While doing so, he uses every argument he can think of to justify it - reform, promoting latino advancement, trying to get certain bills passed that wouldn't otherwise have been passed, etc. But really, he just wants leadership.

As a side note, it is interesting to see how identity politics can be both a positive force and a really negative one. Witnessing Obama's election or watching Speaker Christine Quinn speak at a pride event, you can feel the emotion when someone that represents groups that are / were repressed rises to a position of power. However, with Espada, you can see how it can be hollow and used only as a way to attempt to achieve power.

Anyway, the next culprit is the Republican leadership. They decided that they wanted to be in power so bad that they would promote someone as slimy as Espada, and then continue to stand by him even if it means turning down possible power sharing agreements that do not include Espada.

Of course, Senator Monserate has his share of the blame. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that he is clueless - not wise to what will happen when he makes decisions. Somehow he thought that as a liberal democrat he could give power to the Republicans but that would further his causes. And he thought he would be able to do so without getting beat up and likely voted out. (Maybe he figured it was okay since he is likely to be convicted of felony assault.)

Then there is Tom Golisano. All I need to say about him is that he orchestrated this mess for the sole purpose of repealing the millionaire income tax increase (despite his claims that his goal was reform of senate rules - really, a billionaire is going to spend huge sums of money to change how the senate allocates its staffing resources).

The Democratic leadership is just as guilty. I don't know what deals they struck with Espada when the session began, but it apparently did not work to satisfy him. Worse though, they have no claim on the high ground because they refused to take tough steps in the face of the investigations into Espada and Monserate, but now are acting horrified at their alleged crimes. To top it off, now they are boycotting votes with the hope of staying in power. What they could have done is simply given in at some point but used their pulpit to really beat on the Republicans for propping up such a shallow and amoral senator.

Finally, the rank and file are also to blame. The best solution for everyone would be for the rank and file of both parties to come together with a power sharing deal that would make to sure to throw all previous / current leaders out. A deal where Skelos, Malcom Smith, and Espada are given no leadership nor committee assignments. And then they could let all bills come to the floor for votes (or at least all with a certain amount of support).

This is a sign though of how broken Albany is. The solution is clear - that the split is too narrow (32-30 in favor of registered democrats, but now 31-31 for the caucus) for real party control so power sharing is necessary. But power sharing is only possible when people put aside ego. Unfortunately, those in power are unwilling to do so, and those not in power are unwilling to throw them out.

So now we look at who suffers the most. Well, of course that is the people of New York, as cliched as that sounds. Seriously though, Albany puts off most of its votes until the end of the term - and this is especially true of the closely divided state senate. Granted, many of us Democrats were especially excited about certain items on the liberal agenda that looked like they might pass, including rent regulation reform and gay marriage. But there are countless other bills that were more moderate, that are good fixes, that will not get looked at because the Senate does not have the time. Once they do finally come into session, they will likely take up only a few big issues (mayoral control, etc).

I have modest hopes going forward. First, I hope that the state senate reconvenes eventually and votes on and passes a few big things - most important to me is the marriage equality act. Second, if there is justice in the world, both Espada and Monserate will have to face their crimes (Espadas campaign finance and Monserate's domestic violence). If not, we can at least hope they get voted out next time.

(Sorry I didn't include any links - I don't have the energy right now. Plus, the stories are splashed all over the Times, Post and Daily News.)

Cheney Actually Debating Bush

The Cheney / Obama dueling press conferences got a good amount of coverage. And although I am tempted to spend more time dissecting Cheney's argument, I think moderate conservative columnist David Brooks did a better job than anyone.

The reality is that after Sept. 11, we entered a two- or three-year period of what you might call Bush-Cheney policy. The country was blindsided. Intelligence officials knew next to nothing about the threats arrayed against them. The Bush administration tried just about everything to discover and prevent threats. The Bush people believed they were operating within the law but they did things most of us now find morally offensive and counterproductive.

The Bush-Cheney period lasted maybe three years. For Dick Cheney those might be the golden years. For Democrats, it is surely the period they want to forever hang around the necks of the Republican Party. But that period ended long ago.

By 2005, what you might call the Bush-Rice-Hadley era had begun. Gradually, in fits and starts, a series of Bush administration officials — including Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Jack Goldsmith and John Bellinger — tried to rein in the excesses of the Bush-Cheney period.

[Edit]

When Cheney lambastes the change in security policy, he’s not really attacking the Obama administration. He’s attacking the Bush administration. In his speech on Thursday, he repeated in public a lot of the same arguments he had been making within the Bush White House as the policy decisions went more and more the other way.

[Edit]

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

Of course, this doesn't fit in with the media's love for conflict. But it is the more accurate assessment of the situation. If the press covered this aspect, the American public would be much better informed.

Book Report: Development as Freedom

I set out to read the popular books on development, with the goal of forming my own view on what needs to be done. At the time, Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom was not on that list. But, as can happen in New York, someone on the C train noticed I was reading The End of Poverty and told me I should read Development as Freedom also. As he explained the book, I agreed to check it out, but thought I wouldn't like it so much. I didn't see what freedoms had to do with development and I thought the book sounded too liberal for me. I was wrong.

Development as Freedom has drastically changed my world view and is now probably the book that most formed my view on development. The only book I have yet to finish in this series is Muhammad Yanus' Creating a World Without Poverty, which is good but I think its application is more narrow than the other books.

Sen's main point throughout the books is that the goal of development is to create a situation in which all people have basic freedoms / rights / capacities, among which include the freedom from starvation and malnutrition, freedom from preventable death, the right to be literate and numerate, the right to participate in your government, and the right to employment and / or a living wage.

Here is a quote from the book that sums up Sen's argument: "Poverty must be seen as a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than a lowness of income."

However, the efforts of development, and the metrics used to measure success focus almost entirely on GDP or income. While income is one way to help people achieve their basic freedoms, it is not enough, and more importantly one income level will not ensure the same freedoms for all people. Instead of focusing on one of the many means to achieve the ends of freedom for all people, we should be focusing on the ends and all the different ways we can achieve them - or conversely all the ways that people are currently deprived of these capabilities to achieve their freedoms.

This may seem obvious enough, but after reading the other books, this is actually fundamentally different than the other books out there. Now, this book was not easy to read, which is probably one reason why it isn't among the popular books on development right now. However, slogging through it pays off. Sen shows many of the ways countries can and have expanded the freedoms / rights / capacities of their people. He then shows how expanding these freedoms improves individual lives but also leads to GDP growth.

Sen shows why countries should expand access to education before GDP growth (which can then create conditions for growth). He articulates how increasing women's agency also increases money spent on the family and improves child mortality, and especially improves the treatment of girls. He articulates the importance of democracy, especially that famines do not happen in democracies. (In fact, his analysis is that famines are a result of people losing the ability to buy food more than an actual lack of food. Therefore governments can subsidize incomes to prevent famines, and democracies will do that because the politicians will want to avoid losing their jobs.)

The book also contains great analyses of human rights, markets and of social choice. He takes on arguments that human rights are pre-legal rights (and therefore meaningless) and that they do not apply in the East. In his analysis of markets, he argues that people have a basic right to trade in the market (which is denied in communist governments), but governments have a responsibility to educate people so they can participate in markets and to create a system where markets are are fair and efficient. And finally, he looks at, and tears down, the argument that we cannot improve situations through government action because there are always unintended consequences that will thwart our efforts.

As you can see, the book is thorough - and far more so than I am even showing. There is little if any argument against his case that he has left out or left standing. If you have the time and the interest, this book is a must-read. I think it will fundamentally change how you think about development (even here in the US, where Sen compares freedoms and capabilities like mortality and literacy, instead of incomes, of African-Americans and others in developing countries), as it did for me.

One Budget Lesson

So I have spent roughly six years now as a budget analyst (and have now moved away from that to work on policy). If I could teach one lesson about government budgeting, it is this: You cannot close budget gaps by eliminating waste. I understand that it sounds good - that the public eats it up. But it just isn't true. The only way to close significant budget gaps is to cut services.

I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.

And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.

At Last - Talking About Affordable Housing and Homelessness

I'm not sure who noticed, but for almost three years now, there have been two topics that I have not written about at all: affordable housing and homelessness. That would be particularly curious since during that time, those were the two policy areas I was working on at the NYC Independent Budget Office. Of course, the reason was that at that time I did not want to provide my political opinion at night on subject matters that during the day I was providing objective and non-partisan analysis (never opinions however). The reputation of the Independent Budget Office depended on people seeing us as non-partisan.

Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.

You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.

With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.

I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.

The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.

I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.

Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.

The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.

I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.

Kindergarten Education

Before I met my fiance, I completely supported standardized testing, even at early ages. Now, while I still think that in general it is useful to have broad measures to compare students and schools to each other, I have learned that these tests at an early age are misguided.

The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.

I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.

While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.

We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.

Dick Misses the Point

Torture remains in the news, and I think the debates we are finally having are healthy although they should have happened a long time ago. However, there is only one right answer - the obvious one: torture is wrong and a moral society should never practice it.

In order to justify what they did, former VP Dick Cheney has been saying recently that the methods worked, which therefore justifies their use.* If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, all interrogation techniques, whether "enhanced" or ultra-enhanced or downright evil should be employed if they garner results.

However, as a moral society, we don't believe that. Even if the methods could provide more information, we do not condone torture. Which is why Bush made up the phony name for the methods he condoned. So all of Dick Cheney's statements miss the point entirely. What matters is not their effectiveness, but whether the methods were cruel and inhumane treatment.

That answer to that argument is much more clear - it was torture. The methods we are talking about include throwing prisoners against a wall, handcuffing them to a pipe over their head to make them stand for days, and waterboarding. Throwing prisoners against a wall is no different than any other physical punishment. So if we do not condone punching someone in the stomach or face, then we should not condone this.

The handcuffs above the head is less obvious, until you consider what happens after long periods in this position. The body becomes weak and the person hangs from the handcuffs. Now, we would not actually hang a prisoner by the handcuffs, so allowing a procedure that results in that makes no sense.

Finally, waterboarding is no different to me than dunking someone's head under water or strangling them for the same amount of time. In fact, John McCain went so far to compare it to pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun against someone's head.

What is amazing is how the administration used tactics that were similar to ones that are obviously torture, hoping that the unfamiliarity of the procedure would prevent people from seeing what it really is. Further, they created new names for the procedures, knowing that they were not regular interrogation techniques, but also knowing that calling it torture would not fly. So they used the Orwellian phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in Israel they apparently used the term "moderate measure of physical pressure") when in the end, as everyone knows, it was torture.

And when it comes to torture, this quote (by the president of the Israeli Supreme Court when they were having similar debates, Aharon Barak) sums it up: "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."

*It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out about whether these methods did result in significant new information. I maintain though that torture doesn't make people tell the truth, but forces the person to say whatever will make the torture stop. Sometimes that is the truth but sometimes it is what they think the torturer wants to hear. If the prisoner doesn't know anything, they then have the incentive to make things up to get the torture to stop.

Universities Are Okay

This Opinion piece about the University system seems to be popular on the Times website, so I figured I would comment. I don't find the piece that compelling. The author seems to claim that because PhD dissertations have a tendency to be too narrowly focused and obscure, then we need to transform the whole system. I agree with what he says about dissertations. The pressure to produce something new and unique when so many topics have been covered and re-covered will lead to insane specialization. However, I do not see the same overspecialization with professors. My memory of college was that my professors were doing interesting research.

I also remember (despite underfunding by the UMass system) interesting classes that changed with the times to cover developing topics. And his point that colleges should be conducting interdisciplinary work suggests that this work isn't going on. My experience is that between the interdisciplinary work that does on at universities, along with the real-world focused work at think-tanks, and conferences sponsored by government or private groups leaves a situation that does not lack for interdisciplinary work and study.

I am not sure why this article got so much attention, but I imagine people will forget about it in a few days. The crises he imagines doesn't exist as far as I can see.

Specter Changes Parties!

Wow. This is crazy. But it definitely makes sense. He has long been a moderate Republican, and with the GOP moving to the right instead of center, it is no wonder he feels alienated.

Little known fact: When I was in graduate school we had a three week course, part of which consisted of a simulation where we all took on roles in the federal government. A female classmate from Azerbaijan was President Bush and a liberal friend of mine was VP Cheney, in case you were wondering. I was Senator Arlen Specter. This was in the Summer of 2002, so we were working on passing legislation regarding the developing War on Terror. It was good times.

Actually, someone basically changed parties in our simulation as well - although from the different side. At the time, Dems had a majority in the Senate (both real and in simulation). However, a person from the Cato Institute (played by another liberal friend of mine) convinced Senator Jay Rockefeller to vote with the GOP. We got all of our legislation through.

I had also had an agreement with senators Kennedy and Durbin to support my military tribunal bill. In the end they abstained because they couldn't vote against it (because of our agreement), but one of the liberal interest groups (ACLU I think) threatened them so they couldn't actually vote for it. It passed thanks to their abstention and Rockefeller's support.

You have to love the high drama of politics - whether it is simulated or real!

This Seems Bad

There is an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal supporting the Obama plan, but arguing that it needs to go even further. If the situation really is as bad as it is presented in this Op-Ed, than we need to drastically overhaul the banking system. The author is asking the government to use really significant resources - much more than already committed - to save the banks. If they need this much help to stay alive, then they will need lots of help (i.e. significant regulation) to prevent them from getting in this situation again.

Reading this post, you might think I did not know about the crisis. While I am well aware of the situation, this particular Op-Ed made the situation really seem dire and the banks really desperate. I feel that I am not doing a good job of articulating how this article made me feel. It sounds like the author is saying that the banks need this, this, this, this and this, in order to survive. It is appalling that banks got to this point yet feel they don't need regulation.

Maybe it is because I am writing this late at night that I am having this reaction. Or maybe my anger has finally emerged over the reckless behavior and our current situation.

Dambisa Moyo on Development

Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist who has worked for the World Bank, has published Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, a book on development that makes similar arguments as William Easterly's White Man's Burden. Both believe that government to government aid for developing countries is actually hindering development and creating dependency instead of empowerment and self-sustainability.

I had planned to attend a discussion featuring Moyo and Easterly. I did not end up going, but fortunately the organizers have posted videos of the discussion. Moyo's rhetoric is one of empowerment for Africa. She rightly criticizes how Bono and others have become spokespersons for Africa and she asks where the African leadership is. Bono's (and others) heart is in the right place. There is tremendous suffering and I think it attention to these issues is warranted. However, it is not his place to be their spokesperson. Furthermore, the tone of the celebrities and the focus only on the problems perpetuates the myth that Africans are inferior and need our help.

I remember my feeling after reading The Bottom Billion, where Paul Collier states that growth is the only answer. I felt that growth takes too long and the problems were too great and needed immediate solutions. What I am beginning to believe now is that there are no quick solutions. Growth that comes through empowerment and markets, though it may be slow, is the only way for developing countries to achieve self-sufficiency and lift their populations out of poverty. We are not Africa's saviors - Africa has to save themselves. Let's hope people start listening to Moyo.

Choice is an Intrinsic Good

Much of the focus on charter schools is on whether they do or will increase performance. While performance is important, it is not the only reason for charter schools. Charters provide something for public school students that private school students already receive: the freedom to choose.

Part of what makes choices so great is the freedom it can provide. In the private school market, parents and students have the ability to choose between traditional or progressive schools, art schools or engineering schools, single sex or co-ed schools. I do not believe that one model of school is better than the other, but that each model can be effective for certain types of students. Some children may do better in a single-sex environment. Some students will do much better in a school that supports their artistic creativity. It is only fair that public school students have this same freedom.

Some of the early studies of charter schools have shown at most modest improvements in performance. But even when there was no detectable increase in performance, parental happiness over their charter schools has been high. To me, this signifies that parents are happy that they have this option.

By giving more people the ability to choose their model of education, we give them control over their (or their child's) future. We hope this will lead to better performance. But at least we are giving them the freedom to decide for themselves what type of school they want. If we ignore this, we ignore one of the biggest reasons for charter schools.

Freeman Dyson

I have longed for intelligent critiques of global warming but until last week's Sunday Times cover story, had not really found anything. Last week's article was about Freeman Dyson, a relatively famous scientist who started out in physics but is now more of a generalist. He is noted for his ability to gain in-depth understanding of different complicated sciences.

Hearing his critiques, as they were explained by the author of the article, did not change my mind. Some I found a bit absurd, but others did provide some interesting questions.

One of his critiques that I found to be pretty absurd was his belief that we should focus on more important issues, like poverty, famine and war, and deal with global warming when we know more about it. The problem with this argument is that the effects of global warming, if predictions are true, will be borne most by those that are most vulnerable.

We already see that the Sahara desert is growing and the Sahel region of Africa is expanding north. This has caused scarcity of resources in these areas which will only increase as warming continues - leading to famine and conflict. Further, wet areas are projected to get wetter, which will again be borne by those most vulnerable. If we make progress now on poverty issues but not global warming, we'll likely have greater poverty issues in the future.

Furthermore, that critique assumes we can only accomplish one thing at a time, which I do not agree with at all. This argument comes up in many different policy areas, and it never makes sense to me.

Where he prompts good questions is his use of biology in global warming. He is right that the prediction models focus mainly on atmospheric changes and do not seem to incorporate how biological changes could interact with the changes (they track biological changes without incorporating them). In fact, he says that higher carbon may be better for plant and animal species. At one point he says how increases in plant and animal diversity came at times of much higher carbon levels.

Before I go on, I think we need some serious clarification about historical carbon levels. Al Gore and others claim that carbon levels now are far higher than they have been in the last 20,000 years. So is Dyson claiming that is wrong, or is he saying that carbon levels were higher but looking farther back? To me, this is probably the most important question of global warming.

Dyson also has interesting and optimistic proposals for ways to use biology to help decrease carbon levels, and it will definitely be worth learning more about that (trees that can capture carbon).

Finally, the article portrays the way that dissenters are treated. In some policy areas, those who dissent are dismissed not by debating their points on the merits, but by suggesting that their intentions are bad. This happens in policy on the Middle East, and comes up here too. I agree that in cases where oil companies are paying for shoddy research, it makes sense to question the motives. But Dyson seems to have no motivation other than to be contrarian and challenge people's assumptions. The world needs more, not less, of these people - even when they are wrong.

Why Only Darfur?

This book review in the Times really struck a chord with me. If I understand it, the author of the book takes exception to the public's obsession with the genocide in Darfur. He believes that it is based on a lack of real understanding of the history and dimensions in Sudan, and maybe also based on racism.

I do not disagree that the public often latches on to some issues, while ignoring other equally or more troubling situations. We rally around Darfur but pay little attention to the major tragedies in Somalia and the Congo. Actually, while the world watches Darfur, it pays little attention to the conflict in southern Sudan.

While I do think there is something particularly damaging to the fabric of humanity when one group attempts to eliminate another group, that cannot be our benchmark for when we choose to show concern. And our analysis of those situations should be done objectively, where instead we have a history of bias towards whichever side we supported.

Book Report: The End of Poverty

I posted my review of Jeffery Sach's book The End of Poverty January of 2008 at a short-lived Human Rights blog I tried to start. Here is what I said about his book:

More recently I read The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. Although he also recommends increasing growth, Sachs is inspiring and impatient. He thinks we can end extreme poverty in our generation as long as we actually follow through on promises we have already made - namely 0.7% of GDP for foreign assistance.

His proscriptions are extremely thorough, and you only wish the world would follow through. Looking at the landscape of current development movements, it seems as though at least two of his biggest recommendations are being acted on; help fighting malaria (including work on vaccines, increasing availability of bed nets, and better access to treatment), AIDS, and tropical diseases as well as debt forgiveness (he does a great job of showing why this is so important) are big issues right now. With any luck, two of his other big recommendations - drastically improving infrastructure so that landlocked countries can have access to ports and increasing agriculture production - are hopefully not far behind (and this article on Malawi shows how one country has made strides on this last point).

Overall, his analysis is even more convincing than Collier's. The countries that still experience extreme poverty do so because of tropical diseases, food scarcity caused by low agriculture output, and lack of access to ports. Each of these things can be corrected. And he really reinforces the reality that in a world with as much wealth as there is, extreme poverty is unacceptable.

If you have read my book report on Easterly's book, you'll notice that my position has changed. I am much less enamored with Sach's position, especially his lack of humility and his belief that he / we can save Africa.

Eat Less or None at All?

Someone suggested I read this article from Audubon Magazine about the effects of meat eating on global warming. The article describes the parts of the meat-raising process that increases green-house gasses. It also compares free-range and caged meat, and finds that free-range is not better for mitigating global warming (an interesting finding, but not the reason people turn to free-range).

In light of the significant effects on global warming, the author concludes that vegetarianism is the solution. But he allows that eating less meat would help. Here are the last two paragraphs from the article:

We could also, as a nation, just eat a lot less meat as an alternative to full vegetarianism. Anthony McMichael, a leading Australia-based expert on climate change and health issues, has crunched the numbers. He estimates that per capita daily meat consumption would need to drop from about 12 ounces per day in America to 3.1 ounces (with less than half of it red meat) in order to protect the climate.

I suppose I could measure out 3.1 ounces of meat per day, cook it, eat it, and still feel morally okay. But frankly I’d rather just go without. I’d rather be a vegetarian. It’s easier to explain. It’s easier to defend. And I just plain like it.

While I can understand his decision, I don't think being a vegetarian is easier to explain or defend. And although he does not get to this point, it certainly is not easier to encourage people to become vegetarians then to encourage them to eat less meat.

A few friends have followed similar plans as mine to eat less meat. They have each decided to cut back to meat once a day and then to cut back to less than once a day. None of those people would have given up meat. This movement will gain a lot more momentum focusing first on eating less meat.

Stiglitz: Not Just a Globalization Expert

I have tended to trust the Obama administration when it comes to plans to fix the financial crisis. It has been hard for me to evaluate the crisis since I do not fully understand Wall Street. I assume many of our politicians are having the same problem. Fortunately though, economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz are providing thoughtful critiques from a liberal perspective. In fact, Joseph Stiglitz's column in the NY Times may have convinced me that the Obama administration's most recent plan for the banks is a bad idea.

The plan will allow investors to buy up troubled assets with most of the money backed by the government. Here is Stiglitz's critique in his own words:

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.

[Edit]

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

My first reaction to my lack of understanding was to blame myself instead of the industry. But that was wrong; it is a major problem when the public cannot fully understand how an industry works and worse, how a solution is going to work. Without public understanding, we cannot have good policies that prevent further meltdowns. We need plans that make sense, and we need to make sure that in the future we can understand what Wall Street is doing.

Pork as a Symbol

When I posted recently about the bonuses at AIG, I did not spend any time talking about how the outrage over that issue was over the symbolic gesture of the bonuses and that the actual cost of the bonuses were low compared to the government bailout. The point I would have made is that symbols can be important, even if they are not in proportion to the actual issue itself.

Pork barrel spending is another example of this, and can be even more salient when you consider the difficult times governments are facing. Take New York State for example. The state budget just agreed on by the only three people who matter was $131.8 billion, or $79.2 billion of state operating funds (not counting federal funds). The deficit before the new budget was announced was $17 billion. Total pork spending in the budget was $170 million. Therefore, total pork spending was one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total budget, or two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) of the state funded budget, or just one percent (1%) of the previous deficit. Even though the pork spending is such a small share of overall budget numbers, it seems appalling that the state legislature would choose to allocate limited funds to special projects in their districts, and allocated there because of their power not because of need.

John McCain recognizes this at the federal level, which is why he focuses on it so much. However, one can go far, and make a symbolic issue appear to be more than a symbol. McCain seemed to present eliminating pork as a way to significantly cut government spending. As you can see in the above example, cutting the pork spending would not have helped the state get close to dealing with its budget gap, and the ratios are similar at the federal level.

The point is that symbolic issues are important in the messages they send about priorities. But exaggerating them can backfire, because people see that dealing with that issue will not solve the underlying problem. The state's pork spending is absurd, but not as big a deal as the way the budget was made (behind closed doors) and the appearance that they avoided tough choices.

Book Report: The White Man's Burden

I finished another of the popular books on international development: The White Man's Burden by William Easterly. The main point of the book is how infrequently the money we spend actually delivers results. Therefore, instead of thinking that we can / need to save the developing world, we need to do what we can to help them help themselves. Before I started reading the book, I expected that I would appreciate its position but still disagree with it. Instead, I strongly agree with his call for humility in our aid efforts.

The more one learns about development assistance, the more obvious the extreme waste becomes. Part of that waste stems from aid that is most often delivered through corrupt governments. But aid is also wasted on programs that are not evaluated and not designed with feedback from, or deep knowledge of, the people we are helping. It is when Easterly highlights these flaws that he is most convincing.

He does not have grand solutions, but what he does propose could work. Particularly, he suggests allowing the IMF and World Bank to support private institutions, particularly in countries with terrible governments. He also recommends supporting smaller proven efforts by local actors. Finally, he proposes fewer conferences and frameworks but more serious evaluations.

Where Easterly is less convincing is when he uses the argument that because a certain policy has not worked it is clear it never will work. This logical statement does not account for the fact that those policies in the past may have been implemented poorly.

A perfect example of this is military intervention. The West has a terrible history of using military intervention. Past US military interventions include supporting authoritarian governments according our own interests (particularly during the Cold War) or ineffective interventions in the face of major crises (post-Cold War). However, I would strongly argue that if done correctly and for the right reasons, military interventions could be very successful. Instability is a major obstacle to development and often creates environments of continued instability (this was a conclusion of Collier's book and Nicholas Kristof argues this point in his review of Easterly's book in the New York Review of Books). Without successful interventions, countries in conflict may end up stuck in conflict with dire consequences for civilians caught in the middle.

Before I conclude, I need to mention that Easterly is not opposed to humanitarian aid such as medical and food aid (although he argues that these programs should also be strictly evaluated and conducted with real feedback). Instead it is the development aid he thinks needs to be reconsidered.

Overall the book is well written (although I did skim through many of his anecdotes and historical examples) and convincing. Unfortunately, I think his views do not play as well politically, since he is essentially calling for more modest goals and local control over Western money. With books like Dead Aid now coming out though, maybe his views will gain traction.