Privacy and Transparency

The New York Times had an article yesterday. Seems when the police arrested demonstrators at the 2004 Republican convention there were lots of video cameras rolling. In some cases, the police testified to one thing (demonstrator resisting arrest) and the tape shows another.

Reminds me of David Brin's book, The Transparent Society. One of the paradoxes is that by depriving bureaucrats, like the police, of privacy during their work hours, we can protect values, like not convicting people of crimes they didn't do. The same principle can apply in many places. I'd argue that it could be beneficial to collect personal data, so long as the database and its use were totally transparent. More in future days.

Comments on White House Farm policy proposal

: "Comments: Morgan should have done some more homework on the White House farm policy proposals because one of them -- putting a strict and harsh limit on nonrecourse loans and thus marketing loan (loan deficiency payment) eligibility would have significant implications for commercial operators who produce around 85 percent of U.S. agricultural production. Why? If the maverick Bush-USDA proposals were in effect for the 2004 crop season, around 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop would not have qualified for nonrecourse loans and would thus not have been able to qualify for marketing loans gains. Now that is a major change in farm policy and a major assault on a farm policy program (nonrecourse loans) that has been around since the 1930s."

Great Bureaucrats in History: John Kenneth Galbraith

I need to do an honor roll of great bureaucrats in history. That thought was prompted by Brookings sponsoring a discussion of The Legacy of John Kenneth Galbraith: "new biography by Harvard professor Richard Parker entitled, John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics. Parker shows how Galbraith, from his early championing of Keynesian economics to his acerbic analysis of America's 'private wealth and public squalor,' regularly challenged prevailing theories and policies."

Galbraith walked the very halls of USDA where I worked, and even worked in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, predecessor of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. He was originally trained as an ag economist. One piece of invaluable advice I took from one of his books, an early memoir I think. It was: always volunteer to do the first draft. That way you can get your own ideas in. I tried to follow that faithfully over the years. Unfortunately, the proliferation of word processing and networking software may be diminishing the effectiveness of the strategy. But still: write, write first, is the watchword for bureaucrats.

Eugene Volokh on a Roll

Eugene Volokh is on a roll today, with three items with which I agree, of which I'll cite two

in one he cites a Burt Neuborne article in the Nation, saying that legal victories without political movements to explain and justify the victory are houses built of straw, to be blow away by the next political wind. He agrees with Neuborne from the conservative/libertarian side.

the second is a discussion of Jonathan Rauch's accusation that conservatives in the Schiavo case abandoned their allegiance to predetermined rules that they had in 2000 (Gore v Bush)

in the third he criticizes some generalizations by Jonathan Klein, Pres. of CNN, on Charlie Rose. Klein thinks Fox News appeals to irrational right-wingers who like to have their opinions reinforced, as opposed to open minded liberals. Iread the attack not as denying Klein's claims, but criticizing the "holier than thou" aspect. I'd agree we have the unreasoning partisans on the left and with this quote:
"There's a natural human tendency to see the best in people who agree with you, and the worst in people who disagree."

Liberals may believe themselves to be open minded, but it's only true if your opponents agree. Maybe when conservatives call us "wishy-washy", that's what they're getting at?

Problems in Farm Statistics

I'm not an economist, but this paper on common errors in presenting farm statistics seems good. I know the data the Environmental Working Group got from USDA and his discussion is valid. (Maybe when I get my ambition back and spring is over I'll do my own discussion of that data.)

Separation of Academia and Private Sector

The "Peace Bridge" in Kashmir started me thinking about networks and separation. Here is the border between India and Pakistan, at least an interim one, which hasn't seen any interaction in 50 years. Interaction, or the lack thereof, is important. Biologists say that the definition of a species is reproduction across group lines. Getting back to my recent obsession with the causes of the presumed liberal dominance of academia, what sort of interaction do academics and the private sector have?

Because I've no data, and haven't been on campus for 40 years, the following is speculation:

• Humanities: English professors probably have very little. I can't think of a reason for them to do business with the world of business. The visual arts may have more--contact with art galleries, appraisals, and such. History (if you count it as a humanity), very little. The occasional expert witness in a lawsuit (I maintain membership in two historical groups, and vaguely remember something), writing company histories, etc.
• Area studies: things like black history, gender studies, American studies, etc. would be similar to humanities, although the opportunity for "talking heads" on TV is greater.
  
• Social sciences: probably more than humanities, a minority of professors could be consultants, do work within private companies, organizations, consulting, etc. Economists might be most linked.
  
• Physical sciences, including life sciences: the most interaction.
• New fields: things like IT, management, etc. probably have the most--indeed, my impression is there's a regular revolving door in IT.
  

If there's any validity to the above, there might be a correlation between interaction and conservatism--the more interaction the more conservative the academic specialty. Given the lack of interaction, maybe it's no surprise academia and the private sector seem to separate worlds--they are. I suspect though they're still capable of reproducing across group lines.

Bridges and Barriers

From today's NYTimes

"On Thursday afternoon, Kashmiris took their first steps where a bridge was destroyed more than 50 years ago in a battle between their countries. As they did, they were garlanded with marigolds and offered plates of sweets. One man coming from the Pakistani side to the Indian side fell to his knees and kissed the ground.

This crossing had been closed since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and the India-Pakistan war that accompanied it. Until Thursday, it had been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Kashmiri families living on either side to get visas and to make the trip. Relatives have missed weddings and funerals and been unable to visit even though they are separated by a drive of only a couple hours."

This is heartwarming. But it raises a fascinating question: when is the cause of peace and justice aided by building bridges, as here, and when is it aided by building barriers, as on the West Bank or between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. The easy liberal answer is that bridges are always better, that we must always "take down this wall". Not necessarily. 40+ years ago this was an issue discussed by sociologists re: race relations. One study I remember said that tolerance could be built if you integrated a team and focused them on a common goal, but just bringing people together ran the risk of exacerbating tensions. Walls can mean safety--there was safety in the ghetto walls, until the pogroms came, or until the lynch mob formed. I seem to remember California lost a court case over their policy of segregating new inmates in prisons by race for the first 60 days until they figured out whether the person was a white racist, black racist, or whatever.

Takes one back to Robert Frost and "Mending Wall".

125 Years Ago on the Privacy Front

I pontificate: Current discussions often lack historical and/or comparative perspective.

The one thing I'm sure of is that most of the world is whippernappers and it gets worse everyday. Back when I was young, we had a cheap Ansco box camera. I've taken a few pictures in my time and spent an ill-fated 18 months in Rochester so I was interested in a recent biography of "George Eastman" (by Elizabeth Brayer), founder of Kodak. Just in terms of technical innovation the picture was familiar--sounds like biographies of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, et. al. and fits the generalizations of Professor Clayton Christensen ("Innovators's Dilemma). (The biography itself is fact-laden and thorough, but not a quick read) Also some parallels on charity.

But what I'm interested in here were two incidental references--one on page 71 citing a beach that prohibited cameras and one on page 91 saying the Secretary of War had revoked the ban on taking cameras up in the Washington Monument. There was also a brief discussion of the idea that smallish cameras could be used/were used? by detectives. Maybe some historian has already done a piece in this area, but I didn't see a reference.

I take it all as a reminder that new innovations have always caused concern. End of pontification.

A Fine Day in April for Clarke

Dana Milbank in the Washington Post describes a lively hearing before the House Armed Services Committee with Richard Perle and Gen. Clarke as witnesses, a repeat of a 2002 hearing,
Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune (washingtonpost.com).

See his website for his statement.

Yesterday was a glorious day in April for Washington, the weather turned warm (no sign of global warming this spring), the cherry blossoms are out, even the Nationals won their first game ever. And, reading between the lines of Milbank's piece, it must have been perfect for Clarke. What's sweeter than saying "I told you so" on such a perfect day?

[Full disclosure: I had reservations on the war but generally followed Bill Keller.]

Liberals and Academia--What's the Right Question

Awoke during the night and thought--I'm not asking the right question (am I dedicated to blogging or what). Thought of fraternities. And of the gender gap.

Iraq and WMD showed it's important to ask the right questions. With respect to liberals and academia there may be several right questions, but one is not: "why is academia liberal?" Compare the issue to the "gender gap". The question there was something like: "why are men voting more Republican than women, or vice versa?" In other words, the issue was the comparattive relationship of two groups, not the absolute character of one group.

So a right question could be: "why are people in the private for-profit sector voting more Republican than academics?"

Thinking of fraternities, say the Dekes, did they choose the party animals or did they create them? How about Americans, did the most entrepreneurial people choose to emigrate or America create them? I think the answer in both cases is: both. But separating the processes of recruitment versus culture may help the discussion.

So another right question could be: "is academia more attractive to young liberals or Democrats than the private sector or does it create liberals or Democrats from those it attracts?"

Of course neither of the right questions address Krugman's original issue of the liberalism of natural scientists. Deciding the right question there I'll save for my next sleepless night. And the job of reworking what I've gathered from blogs and my earlier attempts here and here will have to wait.