Cricket and the Fight Against Imperialism

Orlando Patterson and Jason Kaufman write in the The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Bowling for Democracy (from a forthcoming piece in The American Sociological Review on the puzzle of why cricket is a big sport in Britain and some parts of the former British Empire, but not in either Canada or the U.S. "The puzzle only deepens when one considers that cricket was once popular in both Canada and the United States. It rivaled baseball for most of the 19th century, with as many stories in the sports pages of The New York Times until 1880. Indeed, the world's first international test match was played between Canada and the United States in 1844. So the puzzle is not so much why it was never adopted in North America, but why in the early 20th century it was subsequently rejected."

They discuss factors like climate, playing space and duration of games but focus on cricket's role in affirming a native elite as opposed to egalitarian games like baseball. They also mention the role of nationalism--the former colony defeating the mother country.

Sport is an interesting subject. As a "meme", it's clear and identifiable. Does it spread more through grassroots activity, or from the top down? Is the spread a matter of evolution in the biological sense or competition in the economic? What about the linkage between sport and religion?

The big three U.S. sports seem to have spread at the grassroots, though basketball and college football had strong connections with the Protestant elite (basketball was born in a YMCA). Perhaps because sport and entertainment are meritocratic endeavors, meaning money rules, both have been routes for mobility. Boxing was big for a long time (anyone remember the Friday night fights on TV), often as a route for upward mobility by various minorities. If boxing were still big, we'd be seeing more Hispanic-American boxers than we do. Similarly track and field have lost mind share. Now corporations want to promote sports, exploiting Tiger Woods and Mia Hamm, pumping the Triple Crown races, and sponsoring every square inch of NASCAR races.

U.S. sport seems less nationalistic than (say) soccer, although the Olympics succeed in rousing our interest. Losing the basketball gold medal the first time hurt, but it wasn't that big a deal the last time. Still, I think the post-war Olympics were more nationalistic than recent events, perhaps because it was viewed as a proxy for war. Doing well at the Olympics meant demonstrating the superiority of one's social system; that was the myth that all, from Hitler to the East Germans to Soviets to Chinese bought into and we weren't far behind. It touches on the area that William James called the "moral equivalent of war". Try reading his piece. It seems to me like another time, at least if I forget the few months after 9-11.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Lesbians

Eugene Volokh at Volokh Conspiracy starts off: "I'm puzzled about how the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy -- or for that matter, any exclusion policy -- can be justified as to lesbians." He goes on to show why a rule that might make some sense applied to male homosexuals makes no sense if the same reasoning is applied to lesbians.

But his puzzlement is surely rhetorical, if effective. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one instance of a general rule of human thinking: "if it doesn't fit, you must omit" (apologies to Johnnie Cochran). For example, most generalizations about Americans implicitly omit some groups (the group might be women, children, Southerners, Hispanics, Mormons, Amish, atheists, native Americans, etc.) Once you get into an argument, often neither you nor your opponent has anything to gain by expanding your thinking. In "don't ask, don't tell" gay activists wanted acceptance, the military wanted status quo, and neither were served by a more nuanced argument.

Real Men Don't Google

A report dealing with the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on intelligence analysts in the FBI in today's Washington Post Federal Diary: FBI Analyst Jobs Remain Vacant:

"The report also documented numerous instances in which analysts were made to perform work that one called 'demeaning.' One veteran intelligence analyst who went to the bureau from another agency spent a week watching workers do a repair job, while another analyst at a small field office was required to work nights and weekends operating the telephone switchboard.

Some analysts appear to be viewed as assistants to regular FBI agents, who ask them to perform Internet searches and other basic research, the audit found. 'A lot of my job doesn't require a college education,' one analyst told investigators."

I blogged on related subjects in connection with the 9/11 commission report and the FBI's failed attempt to automate their activities. I've skimmed part of the IG report, which seems to say:

• FBI has hired new analysts in the last 5 years, including people with foreign language, military intelligence and similar backgrounds.
• But it's having problems keeping the new hires, because the training isn't good and the FBI doesn't really know how to handle them. The impression I get is that the hires see themselves as members of a profession, while the special agents who dominate the agency see them as "support".
  
• By contrast, the older analysts, those who converted over from secretarial/support specialties are less discontented and more comfortable. They have learned over time that the agents are top dog in the agency and are reconciled to that fact.
  
• The training for analysts lumps new and old analysts together, but importantly does not include special agents. Also, the analysts can't train on a computer facility that would permit sharing data with other agencies, a true indicator of how [un]important DOJ thinks data sharing is.
  

So the FBI culture of macho get-your-man continues. And its disdain for those like Robert Hansen who understand computers but isn't a "real" special agent like J. Edgar and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. continues. Assuming no more 9-11's, it's likely the culture will continue, unless an analyst captures bin Laden. Organizations are like bodies; their immune systems reject things identified as "alien". My position is supported by this from the Post piece:

"Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit said he believed that crime fighting, rather than intelligence work, "will always be dominant" in the bureau.

Although law enforcement is "easily graded and important for careers," Posner said, intelligence work is more difficult to measure. He also said the decentralized nature of the FBI does not lend itself well to battling global terrorist networks.

As a result, Posner said, there is "really a deep dog and cat incompatibility between criminal and intelligence activities."

Loose Lips Sink Ships??

In World War II we had signs warning "Loose Lips Sink Ships". People were super conscious of security (my folks were suspected of being German spies because of the lights in the henhouse --might be a signal to German bombers).

But both ends of the blogging spectrum have a casual attitude towards security today. Background: the US report on the killing of the Italian agent in Iraq was released in an edited form--classified information was blacked out. There was, however, an easy work-around, so bloggers posted the full report on the web. Kevin Drum on the left mocked the ineffectiveness of the bureaucrats; Orin Kerr on the right mocked the NPR ombudsman who expressed concern over the release.

As a former bureaucrat, I'll stipulate the release was bad and the editing quite possibly pointless. I'll also stipulate the "war on terror" is hardly a war and is not at all comparable to WWII. Although the Privacy Act may restrict releasing names, I'm skeptical that bureaucrats, including soldiers, have much right of privacy, even when they kill an innocent civilian. Finally, the Pentagon Papers established the idea that media can publish first and we'll sort out whether there's any real damage to the public interest later.

On the other hand, I question whether there isn't an ethical question here that Drum and Kerr skate over. In the broad sense I'd frame it as a decent respect for the intentions of others--sort of an application of the Golden Rule to everyday life. I'd like to think if I stumble across a laptop on the DC Metro I would only check to see if I could figure the owner from the contents. I wouldn't, I don't think, go prying into either personal or classified information. I don't think the ineptness of the bureaucrats in this case offers any justification for revealing the full document. Would we agree that Robert Hansen's spying crimes were mitigated by the fact the FBI didn't understand how to run computers?

I think anyone posting the full document should accompany it with a justification of why the publication is in the public interest. In this case the hurdle is probably very low. But surely we can imagine cases where damage is likely? Or maybe both Drum and Kerr are so libertarian that they deny the idea of a public interest to be damaged?

Ideas, III Transparency Above All

For what it's worth, when groups like EPIC and ACLU raise concerns about security cameras, why not put an Internet camera in the control room of those observing the cameras. That way, anyone fearful or interested could check up on what the observers were doing. If it's inappropriate (as in zooming in on the hottest females/males), then it could be recorded and reported.

What's Wrong With "Welfare"?

Liberals are attacking Bush's Social Security proposal as converting the program into "welfare".

Paul Krugman in the NYTimes makes the point:

"In short, [Bush's proposal] would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Beyond that, it's a good bet that benefits for the poor would eventually be cut, too.

It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts.

Mark Schmitt at the Decembrist quotes Stephen Bainbridge quoting Wilbur Cohen as the source for Krugman's adage. (A program only for the poor is ultimately a poor program.) Mark defends SS as a universal program, but starts questioning whether supporting only universal programs wouldn't put liberals behind the eight ball

"There would be real daring, real opportunity to make big changes if liberals went not necessarily for "soak the rich progressivity," but for a clear message that our well-being as a society is measured by how we treat the worst-off, and a moral agenda of targetted, rather than universal, programs. In both his 2004 campaign and in what appears to be the beginnings of its 2008 rerun, John Edwards has been the closest to this potentially liberating insight."

Edward in "ObsidianWings" post picks up on Krugman and Kevin Drum picks up on Edward and says:

[Social Security]"is a modestly progressive social insurance program that's paid for by everyone and that benefits everyone. If it ever stops being that, if it ever stops being universal, it will eventually cease to exist. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise."

A whole bunch of thoughts spring to mind, some contrarian and some just questions:

1. How'd we ever let conservatives devalue the term "welfare"? It's in the Constitution, isn't it?
2. Yes, "welfare programs" have a bad name, but they've lasted surprisingly well. I remember Reagan and his "welfare queen" in 1964 (based on earlier Reader's Digest article, I think). Should any program be immortal?
3. Targeted programs like EITC, supported by both right and left, survive. How'd that happen?
   
4. Although the roots of the food stamp program go back to the New Deal, the current program dates to JFK. It's been supported by a deal with farmers, urban Congresspeople support farm subsidies, rural ones support food stamps. That may be an artifact of the institutional structure--putting both programs under USDA and the Congressional Ag committees.
5. Is it possible to generate a rationale for SS, either modified per Bush or as it exists?
   

Economists, Analysis Wanted (Women's Clothing)

This article in the LA Times says that women's clothes don't have standard sizes.

What's With Women's Clothing Sizes? Industry Balks at Uniform Standards: "Women through the ages have griped about not being able to find clothes that fit properly. Their predicament is getting new attention as manufacturers, retailers, researchers and entrepreneurs wrestle to inject some sense into apparel sizes, the smallest of which have sunk to a mind-bendingly low 00 in some U.S. stores.

Most apparel manufacturers and retailers size clothes arbitrarily, often as a competitive tool. That makes it virtually impossible to get everybody on the same page."

I don't understand the logic here. In most cases it seems that having standards helps competition. Men's clothes don't suffer from a lack of competition, so what's the difference with women?

x

What I Don't Understand on Indexed Benefits

For years I've heard the sort of thing included in today's New York Times in James Dao's article entitled "'55 and Out' Comes Home to Roost" That is, public employees "...receive among the best, most rock-solid pensions and retirement health benefits of any workers in America. Many can retire before 65, with generous cost-of-living adjustments built into their pensions and full medical benefits for life." Now Mr. Dao is describing state and local government employees, some of whom have only their government pension and some of whom have a pension on top of Social Security. (I think the 1983 commission required all employees to be under SS.)

When conservatives talk about changing Social Security benefits to be indexed to inflation rather than wages, liberals say that's unacceptable. But Mr. Dao can describe the same COLA's as "generous" when discussing public employees.

Ideas, IV, Accountability

A TV news piece on the abuse of drivers licenses as ID, particularly DMV clerks selling licenses, raises another idea. To ensure accountability, put the name of the issuing clerk on the drivers license. (I assume that DMV's already have security measures in place for handling the blank licenses.)

Competition and Change

I see three pieces in the Washington Post today as touching on the same topic (which always interests me): how does an institution compete in a changing world? In all, the answer may be: change to be more specialized, find a competitive advantage.

The pieces:

1. The Corcoran is an art gallery near the White House that includes a variety of art. Blake Gopnik suggests that instead of trying to compete with the National Gallery of Art it change to focus on photography.
2. The mainline Protestant churches have had trouble competing with the evangelicals, so this article "Old-Time Religion For Mainline Churches" says that some are taking "a heavily devotional, even mystical approach to spirituality that often calls on ancient Christian practices" and borrowing from other traditions.
3. In a commentary on Larry Summers, this piece describes the writer's experience in trying to turn around a West Coast university by "creating a new nationally respected research institute for molecular medicine [which] would be our best path toward attracting top-notch scientists, teachers and clinicians." He encountered great resistance from his faculty, which were wedded to their specialties and wanted any new money devoted to them.
   

l