So Much for the Italians

Speaker-to-be Pelosi is attracting some attention as the first female speaker, and the highest ranking female official in government. She's not attracting attention as the first (I believe) Italian speaker (see here for a list of past speakers). Such firsts used to be noteworthy. That they no longer are seems to me a mark of progress.

Paper Trail for Voting?

Maybe I'm stuck in the past, but when I see a comment in Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly
blog saying that until we have paper trails on voting, we won't have fair elections, I get real tired. I learned to vote on lever machines. I saw JFK, LBJ, and RFK elected on lever machines. I saw RMN elected on lever machines. I never saw a paper trail on any lever machine, nor was there the prevasive questioning of the electoral mechanics we have now. People should chill out and enjoy the fall colors (currently just past their peak in Reston).

Grim Reaper and the Democratic Majority

A modest prediction--look for the grim reaper to play a hand in politics during the next 2 years. Why: with a one-vote margin, the Senate can go back to the Reps anytime Sen. Byrd has a more serious driving accident, Ted Kennedy succumbs to the Irish curse, John Kerry breaks his neck windsurfing, Frank Lautenberg gets overexcited, or [pick one] dies in a small plane accident. Or the GR may revisit the Supremes.

(Why am I so glum after the Dems finally retook Congress?)

Give Karen Hughes Some Love

The Post today provides the text of Karen Hughes (State's PR honcho) directive to embassies on doing local PR, "Karen's Rules". The accompanying analysis is rather critical--keying to the idea that Hughes, while in the White House, kept tight control on message and is not comfortable relaxing that control in her new job. Ms. Williamson quotes a couple academics on mixed messages.

I've no idea what's right, but I'd offer another analysis, looking at it as a bureaucratic message. Hughes says she's visited field offices and promised them guidance on what they could do. I've been there, done that. It's easy to forget the distance there is between DC and Bangkok or whereever. We may think that fast communications resolve issues, but people don't work like that (witness all the marriages that break down over "communications" issues). So I project my own experience into Hughes' text: she got hit with questions from the field, particularly from people who know her reputation for tight control and for being tight with Bush, so really, really don't want to get on her wrong side (and are therefore likely, in the absence of written guidance, to over react).

So Hughes gets back to DC and writes down rules, mostly to reassure people that they do have some leeway. There's also a subtle tug-of-war going on: Hughes is pushing PR, public advocacy. But she's a staff person [I assume], not in the line organization of State. Anything said in public at the local level can raise a stink, so the line organization is going to want to restrict the message to what's safe. No head of an organization (Condi or Bush) wants people making waves. But Hughes knows that safety is not the end-all. So in her directive she offers freedom from "clearance" [meaning running it up the ladder] for some things and help in getting clearance in others. The fact that she has the clout to put out such a directive is good.

(I regret the article didn't refer to the recent episode where someone at State "misspoke" (i.e., said the truth that didn't agree with the official line), I think in an interview on Al Jazeera. State pulled it back, but with support for the official.) Of course there's mixed messages, and control from the center--that's the way bureaucracy operates. But at least she gives something in writing. The able can take some initiative protected by some of the contents; the more cautious will rest easier.

Senator Webb?

I've told my sister that Webb had too much baggage for Virginia, but I may be wrong. In the hope that I am, I predict, if elected, Senator James Webb will become a cross between Sen. Coburn and Sen. McCain, i.e., a party maverick who hits some pitches and misses others.

I've read his book on the Scots-Irish, being half S-I myself (though my forebears went to New York and Illinois, not the southern Appalachians) and would give it a lukewarm recommendation. I'd suggest David Hackett Fischer's book, Albion's Seed, over Webb's, if you're only interested in the S-I.

Our Health Care System

Had another encounter with our health care system on our recent trip--my wife had to have her gallbladder removed. It was a much more positive experience than my earlier one. A major reason was that her illness was quickly identified so the medical routines and procedures went to work. Another reason was that the Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, where the surgery was done, is a newer facility with a more cheerful atmosphere. While part of the difference may be the organizational culture and the difference in patients, another part may be simply the difference in congestion. The previous hospital had two patients to a room, CMC had only one. So the ratio of patients to square footage was much lower at CMC. I believe patient care in a hospital is heavily dependent on people--you need nurses, aides, houskeepers, doctors, maintenance, etc. And each patient attracts visitors. So the lower density of patients meant a lower density of other people, resulting in less conversation and less noise, producing a more peaceful and relaxed atmosphere.

Anyway, my thanks to all of the doctors and staff, particularly Dr. Cora Foster, the surgeon, and Kathy Hauss (sp?), a nurse.

The Economics of Kerry's Words

The Post today runs a column by Uwe Reinhardt (prof at Princeton) pointing out that, whatever Kerry meant to say (and I believe his explanation of intent), some economists like Slate's Steven Landsberg would concur with what he actually said: that young people with good economic prospects through education avoid the military, those with poor prospects go into the military. It makes economic sense in a free market economy with a volunteer army.

So why the outrage? Maybe buried beneath the rhetoric and the political spinning is the feeling that it shouldn't be this way, that equality in a democracy means the burden of defending the nation should be allocated, not on economics, but on citizenship. I'd refer back to Cass Sunstein's "The Cost of Liberty" which made this argument. He said (as I remember) that a good polity needed the allegiance of all, therefore it needed to be fair and to seem fair in allocation of burdens like taxes and military service.

Noticing Change (re: Immigration)

While catching up on my newspaper reading I saw a piece saying that 1/3 of the population of Montgomery and Fairfax counties live in households where the first language is not English.

It's strange how "gradual" change comes not to be noticed. You have to get outside the frame to identify it. I spent the last week in Tompkins county, NY (Ithaca). What was very noticeable were the people who were maids in hotels, workers on construction, etc. They were almost all white (and presumably native-born Protestants). It seemed strange and not in the "natural order", as I've become used to Fairfax county where those jobs are filled by immigrants, especially Hispanics. It's a reminder that while the material culture of the country has become more uniform (witness the same chains of stores and hotels everywhere, the same cable TV channels), the people culture is not.

Reading Newspapers

First an apology--I'd intended to post a warning that I was on vacation beginning Oct. 20 so blogging was out. But I had a senior moment and posted it to a private blog instead. Sorry.

On coming home after 2 weeks I find a stack of WPosts and NYTimes, which I feel bound to read or skim, at least, before recycling. I don't know why--it's an ingrained habit since I was a child. Things like the A-bomb, H-bomb, Korean war, etc. were first reported in the paper.

I saw a report that newpaper circulation is down significantly during the last reporting period--a significant downtick from the previous slow erosion of readership. Seems to me there may be correlation between the rise of cellphones and the fall of newspapers.

I remember the old days when the paper was the source of news. Radio was just the headlines and TV wasn't available. The paper served to filter and highlight items of interest, as well as providing the detail that we needed. Now the functions are separated. I first learned of 9/11 sitting at my computer reading a brief bulletin about a plane striking the WTC--I think it may have been Yahoo picking it up. Today people are most likely to learn of interesting news through their cellphone, then the Net, then TV, so the filtering function is gone.

Atrophying Sociability? Or the Ultimate Aphrodisiac

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution links to and comments favorably on the idea that modern advances will lead us to lose social skills. I strongly disagree. Look at everyone who's using a cellphone, while walking, while driving, while watching concerts... Compare that to 20 years ago--the total social interacting going on has increased dramatically, thanks to technology.

People are, after all, the ultimate aphrodisiac.