Filling My Contrarian Quota for Today

Dan Drezner blogs about nonproliferation here .

Most striking are excerpts from an argument that we might have more to fear from democracies than rogue states--sounds reasonable to me. (Look at the list of states with nuclear weapons.) Of course, it could simply reflect the relative democratization of big and wealthy states over the past decades.

Farm Program Payment Limitations--Failure

I haven't paid attention to the farm program payment limitation issue in recent months. Senator Grassley's effort to save money by tighter limitations on farm program payments has failed:

"Grassley said he had difficulty getting a budget savings score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from his language to further reduce and modify farm program payment caps because CBO had difficulty tracing gains from generic certificates, as well as separate entities. 'There is no real system in place to track these payments,' Grassley said, adding that he had 'a problem with that' because 'there is no system to show where taxpayer dollars go' even though 'that was mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill.' Grassley said that legislation requires USDA to develop a system of tracking farm subsidy payments to people who benefit from them so there is no excuse. 'I am sending a letter to USDA asking Secretary Johanns to enforce Section 1614 of the farm bill so we know exactly who is benefiting from farm program payments,' Grassley said.

Asked why his latest effort on pay caps was defeated, Grassley acknowledged that farmers are currently getting large Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs). A Minnesota banker has calculated that it only takes around 800 acres of corn to reach the $75,000 LDP cap this year (but generic certificates would allow producers an effective end around the actual LDP pay cap, but Grassley's proposed language would have repealed the use of generic certificates)."

The implication of the last paragraph is that, because more politicians have more of their constituents who might be hit by tighter rules, rather than just the usual cotton and rice people, it's a tougher fight.

The Same Mom, On the Job or Off

Washington Post has an interesting article from a wife and mother who took a 3 month paid sabbatical and summarizes the experience thus:

The Same Mom, On the Job or Off: "I could no longer bemoan the perfect mothering, and the calm and organized household, that my kids would certainly have if only I were home with them. Because as I discovered, when I was home, I was more or less the mother that I am -- not much better, not much worse. And our household was, more or less, the household it's always been."

I'm struck by it because it fits with my retirement experience. A change of circumstance doesn't necessarily change one's life. You're the same person, your reactions and faults and virtues don't change much, and work expands to fit the time available. (That's Parkinson's Law, which the writer is much too young to recognize.)

Conservatives Dissolving the Social Compact?

Two prominent (conservatives, or maybe more accurately loudmouths) decided this week to read people out of the American community. First, Pat Robertson:

Heeere's Pat!: "On Thursday Mr. Robertson said on his daily television show, 'The 700 Club,' that because all eight Dover school board members up for reelection on Tuesday were voted out of office after trying to impose 'intelligent design' on high school students as an alternative to the theory of evolution, God is not going to show up if there's a disaster in Dover. They'd voted God out of the city, Mr. Robertson said."

Then Bill O'Reilly:

Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco - Radio - MSNBC.com: "'Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,' O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle."

"'And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead,' O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill."

The urge to put those with whom you disagree outside the pale is common. It's how we get wars and oppression. I think in America it's more usual for the right to put their opponents outside of American society, the left tends to put their opponents as outside humanity (i.e., heartless plutocrats).
(See here for a dissection of the

Althouse and France--Diversity and Political System

Ann Althouse poses this question in referring to a NYTimes article: "Should France's policy of not taking account of race, ethnicity, and religion, in light of the recent rioting, make us look more favorably on our own attention to such things?"

I had a different question when I read the article--why the difference in the two democracies? The pattern in the US seems to be that political conflict tends to cause people to build coalitions of interest, trying to attract the last few votes to put them over the top. Perhaps that's at least a major reason why the US and France differ: they are a multiparty parliamentary system while the US is a two party system. In a multiparty system I guess maybe you appeal first to your base, and then negotiate with the leaders of the other parties to attain power.

I Accept Bribes/ Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait and Switch

Am I being bribed? I mentioned Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "Bait and Switch" in an earlier blog and a representative of her publisher sent me a free copy.

Is it a bribe? I think there's enough moral fiber inherited from my Presbyterian minister forebears that I'd reject money, but free books are another thing entirely. I guess the logic is: read it, blog it, all publicity is good. If that's so, I'm corrupt, because I have read it and am now commenting on it. If you don't want to compromise your own integrity, browse another site.

Economists, particularly conservatives, talk of "creative destruction" as characteristic of the free market system. Capitalism allocates money and labor to where they can be best used, which means cutting off inefficient units and encouraging efficient ones. When Ehrenreich and I were young, Ma Bell was the biggest company and Bethlehem Steel, New York Central, Westinghouse, and Univac were all big names in the economy. Telephone operators and secretaries were big occupations and blue collar manufacturing was unionized and paid well, while retailing was dominated by local stores and regional chains. Today those companies are gone; those occupations are gone or diminished. Instead we've Microsoft and Intel, Fed Ex, McDonalds, and Walmart and everyone is her or his own secretary and phone operator.

In evaluating such changes:

• Conservatives focus on the "creative" side, all the wonderful advances in living standards over the years and the elevation of people from poverty in the East Asian countries. They tend to use absolute standards, saying that anyone with a large screen TV and indoor plumbing can't be "poor". They look at all the Microsoft millionaires and say life is grand.
  
• Liberals tend to focus on the "destructive" side, all the psychic harm suffered by those not empowered by capitalism. They tend to relative standards, saying that anyone whose life is insecure is poor. They look at all the people who lost their jobs at Enron and ATT, who lost their guaranteed pensions, and who have no health insurance and say something must be done.
  

Ehrenreich is definitely liberal, as a matter of fact she's a member of Democratic Socialists of America, not that there's anything wrong with that. However she never admits her age (according to Wikipedia a tad younger than I--i.e., 64) in the book. (Why she would want to move from Charlottesville, a town rated the most livable in the country, she never says.)

Ehrenreich is an interesting writer and this is an interesting, though frustrating, book. She says her purpose was to look at the world of the middle-class, white collar America, having documented the struggles of the low wage employees (cleaners, Walmart sales, etc.) in her previous best seller, "Nickel and Dimed". Her strategy was to make up a fake resume as a PR freelancer and proceed through the world of job searchers documenting the weird flora and fauna she found there.

In short, she fails in her quest, but the journey is interesting. She gets some opportunities in sales, but fails to get the $50K job with health benefits she desired. She encounters both the jobless and those seeking to change jobs or occupations, but the more entertaining are the entrepreneurs (French for "shark") who navigate these waters. People losing jobs and seeking jobs create their own market, a market for tests and advice, counseling and contacts, support groups and mailing lists, all sorts of supposed solutions. The whole thing reminds me of the anthropologist who wrote on the function of "magic" in "primitive" societies. Another parallel is a book called "The Witch Doctors"which discussed the gurus who try to sell solutions to management (management is as gullible as some of the people Ehrenreich runs into). It seems any time people run into a risky situation with no clear solution, magic comes to the fore, whether it is the hapless white collar job seeker, or the corporate boss. (Ehrenreich recognizes that, if she were searching for real, rather than as a subject for a book, she would feel much more desperate and, perhaps, therefore more open to some of the nostrums being peddled.)

She has great fun in mocking the people she meets and refuses to take herself too seriously. I would have preferred more open discussion of the age issue. But admitting her age would have changed the subject to age discrimination, not her topic. As I said in my earlier blog, she criticizes advisors who say a job seeker should change herself to meet the company's needs instead of joining others to change the company. But that focus on the individual goes way back in America--Ben Franklin tried to make himself acceptable to the gentry of Philadelphia when he arrived there, he didn't organize the apprentices to go on strike.

The irony is that, despite herself, Ehrenreich's book shows the genius of capitalism. There's no doubt that she's a much better and more interesting writer pointing out the faults of American society than she would have been writing corporate press releases. So, the bottom line is that capitalism is making the best and highest use of her many talents.

Fearsome Government, Part II, France

The reporting on the riots in France is interesting, but lacking context. (That's always a safe sentence to lead with.)

France is different than the US, being a unitary, not federal state. The only politicians getting in news with respect to the riots are the mayors of Paris and other cities and the national government. No state governors to interpose their authority, to decide to request (or not request) national aid, federal troops, etc. Further, the national government could invoke a national policy of curfews with no question of its authority.

For those of us who remember the urban riots of the 60's, it's a vast difference. Once again, it points up the weakness of the U.S. national government compared to those of some other countries.

AMT--How Soon We Forget

The Alternative Minimum Tax is an orphan these days, no friends at all. Allan Sloan in the Post is just the latest:

A Right and Wrong Way to Kill the AMT: "The hideously complex AMT was added to the tax code in 1969 to stop a few rich people from avoiding taxes entirely. But this year, it will afflict 3.6 million families, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Next year, 18.9 million. In 2010, 30.9 million. That's not a handful of tax dodgers; it's the masses. "

But there was a reason for the AMT, based in bureaucratic facts. The truth is that no single scheme (nod to Brits) can enmesh reality. The mind of man the rulemaker cannot encompass all possibilities, so there are ways ("loopholes") to get around every tax law. Because there are, the rich have long evaded taxes. After all, they have every incentive to act "rationally" in an economic sense, to become "freeloaders". Every tax dollar they save is a net gain. All this leads to the situation where very rich people, wealthy either in terms of income or of assets, pay no taxes. A democratic country considers that to be wrong, particularly in a time when people are dying to protect the rich. (Isn't that what our troops are doing in Iraq--dying to benefit us, including the rich?) Hence the AMT in 1986. Hence the idea of doing away with the AMT strikes me as base and immoral.

Let me offer a counter suggestion: Many discussions of the AMT point out that it was never "indexed" for rising levels of income, which brings more and more people within its scope as time goes by. Given that fact, we could "fix" AMT by retroactive indexing--jigger its parameters to gradually reduce its scope over the next 10 years until it gets back to where it was in 1990. That would solve the "freeloader" problem. It would leave the Bush problem in plain view; the Bush problem being his erosion of the tax structure to the point where it doesn't support the government, certainly not Sen. Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere".

What Fearsome Government?

Two items today that show the weakness of the government, ironically both from relatively conservative commentators:

One is Sebastian Mallaby, writing an op-ed in the Post on the problems of preparing for a flu pandemic:

A Double Dose of Failure: "Like Hurricane Katrina, the preparations for avian flu expose the weakness of American government. Pressing dilemmas get passed back and forth between executive and legislature, and between federal government and the states; lobbies get multiple chances to confuse and paralyze policy. Flood walls don't get built. Flu preparations don't get done. Government lets people down, and people don't trust government."

The other is Diane Ravitch, writing an op-ed in the Times on the problem of assessing students progress:

Every State Left Behind - New York Times: "WHILE in office, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both called for national academic standards and national tests in the public schools. In both cases, the proposals were rejected by a Congress dominated by the opposing party. The current President Bush, with a friendly Congress in hand, did not pursue that goal because it is contrary to the Republican Party philosophy of localism. Instead he adopted a strategy of '50 states, 50 standards, 50 tests' - and the evidence is growing that this approach has not improved student achievement. Americans must recognize that we need national standards, national tests and a national curriculum."

(Incidentally, GAO just did a report on the problems the Department of Education is having in standardizing data elements across the country so they can pull educational data into a national system.)

Of course, the founding fathers didn't want the government too powerful. See Federalist 10. The problem is that, if we can agree on a goal, the government can work. See the military knock off opposing military. But if we don't agree, as Ravitch and Mallaby find, the government does not work well.

Is Rational Evaluation Possible?

Read a piece in the Times yesterday that confirmed my prejudices, but which I forgot to link to. It was on conglomerates, saying that academic research says that conglomerates don't do well because the management tended to allocate capital more evenly among subsidiaries than they should, based on potential returns on investment. In other words, instead of rationally assessing the situation, these ruthless economic men {sic} tried to avoid hurt feelings and conflict by spreading the money around.

Use that as background for the ongoing controversy over performance evaluation plans in the federal government (see here for Wash Post article today). Unions and employees fear that bosses will play favorites; the other reality is that they won't bite the bullet and reward performance adequately. In my experience, the second is the reason that the Carter civil service reforms failed. (There's a notable failure by the current administration to examine those lessons.) Favoritism played a factor in the special awards but spreading the money around was the rule in handling the within-grade increase money.

Meeting and Bureaucracies and Nazis (Wannsee)

Bureaucrats are supposed to love meetings. By this criteria, Simon Ramo, a major figure in aerospace who has written a book on meetings reviewed in the LA Times is no bureaucrat.

"During his 69 years in the aerospace industry, Simon Ramo figures he's attended more than 40,000 meetings — an average of two or three per workday.

About 30,000 of those meetings could have been shorter or not held at all, he laments."

By bureaucratic criteria, the Nazi's Wannsee meeting, which is dramatized in the HBO movie "Conspiracy", which we watched last night, was very effective. Of course in a tyranny a man like Heydrich (played by Kenneth Branagh) can bribe and threaten to get a bunch of bureaucrats to agree on a course. What was interesting, and effective, in the movie was the differing perspectives brought to the movie by the various participants (the lawyer (Colin Firth) who'd done the original Nazi race laws, with their careful and bureaucratic categorizing of Jews and near-Jews, was especially interesting. What was horrible was the duality: on the one hand watching the tactics and concerns of the bureaucrats; on the other remembering the reality behind the bureaucratic language--that all of this led to 6 million dead.

Good News from Iraq--It's About Time

I learned in the 60's not to overestimate the military's intelligence. This piece in today's Post is good news (note the past tense), but it's rather late. You'd think Rummy and Victoria Clarke would have figured out that the single bit of evidence most useful to those who oppose the Iraq venture was the fact it wasn't safe to drive this highway.

Easy Sailing Along Once-Perilous Road To Baghdad Airport: "BAGHDAD -- It used to be the most dangerous highway in Iraq, five miles of bomb-blasted road between Baghdad International Airport and the capital cityscape. It was a white-knuckle ride, coming or going. To reach Baghdad or leave it, you had to survive the airport road first."

Why Does Time Switch Screw Up Traffic?

Mickey Kaus in Slate posts on the idea that:

"traffic in Los Angeles (and, perhaps, elsewhere) gets horrifically jammed every year right after the switchover from Daylight Savings Time. What's interesting is that this seems to be a purely sociological phenomenon rather than a technological one. As best as I can figure it out, what happens is roughly this: [some people get up by the clock; some by their body rhythms. That results in a changed distribution of drivers, meaning jams.]

As a retired bureaucrat who no longer drives in rush hour traffic and who lives 2500 miles away from LA, I'm well qualified to correct Kaus' answer:

It's also the strangeness. People get used to driving under certain conditions--the amount of sun in your eyes, the glare, the general ambience. Changes to and from DST upset that comfort level--all of a sudden the sun is in your eyes, you slow down as you flip the sun visor down. In near saturation traffic, it requires only the smallest disturbance in traffic flow to upset the whole deal. Change will do that.

Fat Epidemic--Challenges to Conventional Wisdom

MSNBC.com cites a study of the ratio between waist and hip, which correlates to heart risk. Buried in it is a possible indication that we aren't as fat as conventional wisdom says:

"Overall, waist measurements recorded by the researchers were about 90 percent of the hip measurements. People in China scored best at 88 percent, followed by 89 percent in southeast Asia, 90 percent in North America, 92 percent in Africa, 93 percent in the Middle East and 94 percent in South America."

LA Times has a review of a new book that also challenges the conventional wisdom. But I prefer to trust my eyes and my memory--Americans are getting heavier.

Michael Brown's Dogs

Both Times and Post report on the release of some of Michael Brown's emails yesterday, which show he was concerned about his image on and about a dogsitter (apparently for the time he was going to be in Louisiana for Katrina).

It's easy to mock, but, as a great President used to say, the easy course would be wrong. Bureaucrats are people, too, and have a private life. In other contexts people who try to balance their work life and their home life would be praised, not mocked.

Usually workers have spouses who can handle dog care, as my wife has handled cat care over the years. Brown could be criticized for not having planned ahead, or not having previously had the occasion to go out of town to a disaster (that's assuming his spouse wasn't out of pocket or that he was recently separated). Certainly the teams that FEMA and the Red Cross put in the field in response to disasters should be expected to make provision for pet care and house sitting. And true that the head of FEMA should be a model for employees. By that standard, Mr. Brown fails, but not in love for his dogs.

We Expect Republicans to Govern Well?

Jeff Birnbaum had a column in the Post on the process of filing Lobbyist Disclosure Act data with the House and Senate. It seems both places have or are moving to an all-internet process, but with incompatible requirements and software. He then had a discussion on the Post website today which included the following:

Lobbyists' Disclosures Via the Internet: "If the Senate already had a user-friendly LDA disclosure program, why didn't the House leadership confer with them and coordinate a 'joint but separate' type of system? I heard that the Senate even offered to work with the House on that very point but was rejected early on.

Don't you think that the separate filing points lend confusion to the process?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you.

I also heard that the Senate offered to work with the House to make all this right, but for whatever reason, nothing much has happened.

I don't know who's right or wrong, but I think that the lack of cooperation could lead to a breakdown in a system that already is pretty crippled."

Remember, both houses are controlled by the Republicans, which is the party that believes in efficiency in government.

The Advantages of Confusion--Greenspan

Confusion and ambiguity in the style of Chairman Greenspan has its advantages, so the forthcoming change to Dr. Bernanke with its gain in clarity, as described in the NYTimes, may not be totally advantageous.

What's the advantage to ambiguity? Perhaps several, but the one I'd point to is flexibility. One thing we can be sure of is the the Fed board is going to be wrong at some point. Unfortunately we Washingtonians, unlike the rest of the country, usually respond to error by repeating our error, by coverup and concealment. See our current (and past) President for proof. It's a human thing--in times of uncertainty (and error equals uncertainty) you (I) seek the security of the known.

Unfortunately sometimes the world gets locked in feedback cycles, in vicious circles so we need what the great liberal and bureaucrat J.K. Galbraith called "countervailing power". In sailing terms familiar to readers of Forester and O'Brian, it's "coming around on the opposite tack".

So, if a change of course is needed to break a vicious circle who is more likely to do so: someone who has staked out a clear position and rationale and committed to a model supporting the position, or someone who operates behind a smokescreen (forgive the mixed metaphors)?

Rebuilding Iraq

Dan Drezner blogs on the report of the inspector general for the Iraq Reconstruction effort here.

The report is here.

The lead to the report highlights the shortfall in the number of projects that are being done. Our great aspirations in summer 2003 are sadly trimmed in the gray October of 2005.

Dan cites the criticism of the planning for the effort. I'd like to focus on another area, one that liberals often ignore. It's true, as was cited in a Post article on Katrina reconstruction, that doing stuff for people is lots worse than having people do stuff for themselves. It's a lesson I've seen over and over, whether in the results of much foreign aid from the 1950's on or in a bureaucracy, whether building things or building software.

Why--take an example of rebuilding the Kabul/Kandahar highway in Afghanistan. Very worthwhile, successfully completed, not controversial. But. Highways require maintenance, maintenance requires money, money requires either continuing foreign aid or a functioning tax system. Maintenance also requires equipment and contractors. To the extent that the reconstruction meant developing a base of Afghani expertise and contractors, the highway can be maintained. But reports from Afghanistan don't show the development of an effective bureaucracy that can assess and collect taxes (not even a government that can do a tax law that is complied with).

Similar logic applies in Iraq, whether it's hospitals or schools. Unfortunately, maintenance is not a "sexy" subject. Politicians and political scientists put their time and thought into the policy decisions, but fail to recognize that for a long term achievement you need the supporting web of bureaucracy and resources. Even the inspector general is likely to be focussed on the building, not the maintenance.

Social Learning

Sebastian Mallaby in the Post writes a column, Do Seniors Need Saving?, that raises many questions. The theme is that with globalization and longer lives, and the decline of pensions (see NYT magazine) people should be saving more now, but instead they're saving less.

He addresses a liberal strawman--that the "hidden persuaders" of the 1950's are making people spend more and save less:

"But people managed to save back in the 1950s, so they could also save today. Indeed, the hidden persuaders are surely less insidious now than they were then: People have gotten better at zoning out their messages."

I think it's true that societies learn. Supposedly that's the case for crack: people, particularly young people, in the inner cities saw the ravages of the crack epidemic of the 1980's and decided not to use it. A similar explanation may have been offered for the decline in teenage pregnancies, crime, etc.

But another way to look at this is as an arms race between consumers and commerce, with each side searching for advantage. Advertising has been around for centuries, getting more sophisticated all the time. Consumers have been around for a while, also getting more sophisticated all the time. Unfortunately Mr. Mallaby is a whippersnapper, with no personal memory of the 40's and 50's. There's more and more choice of products, more and more personalized advertising, more and more product placement. For example, I don't remember any vending machines in my high school, nor do I remember Disney doing a lot of product tie-ins when Cinderella was released.

My bottom line: in a race between people who have a direct and immediate financial incentive [to sell] and those whose incentive [to save by not consuming]is more diffuse and more delayed, I'd place my bets on the first.

Postscript: Thomas Schelling, whom I seem to cite repeatedly these days, did work on the idea of two people in one skin--the one who craves immediate gratification versus the one who plans and saves. Rereading that work would be interesting.

Where Is the Economic Man

Economists use the concept of the "economic man", who is a rational seeker of maximum utility.

An exchange with a reader here about real estate prices reminds me of some other articles that challenge this. One was an article in the NYTimes about medical savings accounts. The idea is that of economic man--allow a person to tax shelter money to be used for medical expenses. People will use their money more wisely than if their medical expenses are covered by insurance. It's win/win: better health at a lower cost. The problem is, speaking as someone who each year for the last 30+ has had the chance to change insurance plans, people don't necessarily maximize utility. I just keep renewing my plan; it's much easier than spending the time to compare plans each year. (In that sense, I am maximizing utility.)

Similarly, Henry Blodgett in Slate looked at the investment strategy of Ben Bernanke, Greenspan's replacement as head of the Federal Reserve. Turns out he's not a rational economic man either, at least by academic standards.

The problem is, not that people aren't rational, but people are more multiudinous (see Walt Whitman) than economics, or the law, or other disciplines admit.

We See Only With Our Eyes

Today the NYTimes Editorial Page includes two pieces commenting on the indictment of Scooter Libbery that prove the point of my title--that we see only with the aid of our background and experience:

• Robert Ray, successor to Ken Starr, uses Fitzgerald to say that regular prosecutors can do the job of investigating an administration's wrongdoings.
• Lanny Davis, attorney and spin doctor for Clinton, shows sympathy for the Bush people, remembering that he never worried about the classification status of the information he used to spin the story. He says both sides are using double standards and worrying about motives instead of facts. He also sees them as falling into the same trap of covering up and spinning, as opposed to admission.

The latter point also confirms another piece of my wisdom: it's rare for people to learn from other people's experience. Back when we had coal stoves, I bet there never was a child who didn't burn him/herself on the stove, even though they'd seen someone else be burned. It's our natural egoism; we know better than others, we'll never die.

In Praise of Freecycle

I wonder if the economists in the government are taking freecycle into account? Freecycle, for those who don't know, is a no-cost classified ad concept implemented in Yahoo groups. For example, I'm in the Reston/Herndon freecycle group, so I get an e-mail digest containing "Offers" and "Wanted" postings. The Offers are of things still possibly usable but unwanted. For example, I just posted a series of offers, including an old (14 year old) PC and some homemade furniture. To my surprise, I've some interest from people.

Economically, the point is that freecycle (and craigslist.com, which operates slightly differently) lubricates the reallocation of assets, of "productive" stuff. By extending the useful life of products, it increases their value without requiring resources to produce. It's one of the rare instances where you can get something for nothing, or nearly nothing (since you do invest the time needed to coordinate the pickup).

Real Estate Bubble Ends?

I think it does. Yesterday I saw by the "for sale" sign in my townhouse cluster that they'd reduced the price on the house. Houses in the cluster have been selling for steadily climbing values since the millennium. Seems to me we started at about $100K, the most recent houses have been selling for $300+, and this house was priced for about $390K originally. It's in an area near the toll road in Reston--it's sort of on the fringe in an area with lots of townhouses and condos.

I've lived here for almost 30 years, buying back in a previous bubble in the 70's when land values and housing prices were taking off, before the crash that came with Reagan (a "crash" for ag land and office buildings, a leveling for houses). Back then the townhouses were good first homes, though there was a development of real small single family houses (like 800 sq. ft) that went for about $10K less. Over the years we've had problems with crime, lack of maintenance, renters, etc. (They seem to be over for the moment, although as people crowd multiple families into a single house and MS-13 becomes present, they may reemerge.) Prices took 25 years to double, which isn't a good return on investment, but now they've increased 200 percent more in 5 years.

It's sad--who can buy a house at $300K, much less the 900K for single family houses? It used to be a house was 2 1/2 times your gross. Today I think they're using a higher multiple, perhaps because basic living costs (food, etc.) take a smaller share of one's income. But still, a teacher who earns $50K has no hope. But with no kids I've only an academic interest in the health of the schools, but I've a greater interest in coffee. The local Safeway has big problems in hiring people for their Starbucks. Many of their clerks have worked there for a good while, so they're ensconced somewhere they can maybe afford. But Starbucks is new, takes a significant number of employees to staff, and the turnover has been tremendou. It's worrisome, because my coffee is essential to my health and sanity.

Ebbs and Flows--the Tide of Creative Destruction

The NY Times today has an article mostly on the scattering of the New Orleans labor force. However, it notes that some have migrated to New Orleans:

Its Work Force Scattered, New Orleans Wrestles With Job Crisis - New York Times: "Large numbers of workers who lived in New Orleans are now scattered throughout Louisiana or neighboring states, unable to return to flood-damaged houses and leaving hundreds of businesses unable to reopen or operating below capacity. Many are out of contact, or have settled elsewhere to enroll their children in schools.

Some positions are being filled by people from other states looking for new job opportunities in construction or, as in the case of the Five O'Clock Grille, service jobs."

One of my platitudes is that there are always tradeoffs, and it's true here. The farming way of life has changed/been destroyed in many areas, but the loss here is focussed and more visible. But, as in the case of the closing of some military bases, the new may seem better on balance than the old.

Gift That Keeps on Giving, or George Will Misleads

What is the gift that keeps on giving? For social commentators, otherwise known as the chattering class (thanks G. Will), it's the concept of the social ladder. Why? Because it works for both left and right and it's so vague you can make anything of it, as George Will does here

"America's economy is so dynamic that in any five-year period, approximately 45 percent of Americans move from one income quintile to another. Twenty percent move up from the bottom quintile in any 12-month period, and 40 to 50 percent move up over 10 to 20 years."

What are the ambiguities? Let me count the ways:

1. The distinction between "income" and "wealth/assets"--the former is more variable, due to bonuses, separation pay, lottery winnings, commissions, etc. while the latter is more stable and usually more socially significant. (I've seen reports of research that says when you compare black and whites of equal family wealth, differences in test scores evaporate.)
   
2. Using quintiles, or deciles (or whatever) means that every move up is matched by a move down which is why I say it works for both left and right. Mr. Will here uses "up"; in her recent book, Bait and Switch, Barbara Ehrenreich focuses on the "down".
3. The difference between individuals and society. The modal individual in our society has an income curve that starts low, based on entry level pay in his or her occupation, then rises to a peak, then falls, rapidly or gradually depending on retirement benefits, etc. If you could visualize society over time, it's rather like seeing a school of fish: some leaping into the air, some in the water, some unseen below the surface, lots of activity and churning.
   

Learning by Doing--Military and FEMA

One of this blog's themes is learning. Here's another example, from today's Times:

Millions Are Still Without Power and in Need of Basic Supplies - New York Times: "Across the state in Naples, just north of where the hurricane made landfall early Monday, ice and water distribution appeared to be going more smoothly. At one station, members of several National Guard units were operating with assembly line precision. By 9 a.m., hundreds of cars, from Mercedes Benzes to jalopies, had lined up on a road leading into the parking lot of Barron Collier High School.

A National Guardsman in camouflage fatigues waved cars forward, and as each rolled up to a squad of soldiers, one sang out, 'Pop the trunk.' Other soldiers stepped forward with cartons of bottled water and plastic bags of ice, putting them in the car, tapping the trunk shut and motioning the driver on. Each delivery was over in seconds.

'We've done this so much over the last two or three years that we're getting pretty good at it,' said Sgt. First Class Tim Harper of the 265th Air Defense Artillery of Sarasota."

Simple but a product of learning. My point here is that you need the bureaucracy to incorporate such lessons. As long as the Guard in Florida is called out regularly, they'll have the institutional memory of how best to organize water/ice deliveries (assuming people have cars and gas). But if there's a gap of years, it will be lost because, I strongly suspect, there's no bureaucracy in place to capture "lessons learned" and put them into circulation and no training mechanism in place to spread experience to other places.

In Defense of Bureaucracy

Though Secretary Powell's former Chief of Staff, Mr. Wilkerson, is receiving press attention for his speech at the New America Foundation which attacks the administration's foreign policy, I'd like to focus on his defense of bureaucracy, as follows:

"but fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret.

Let me tell you the practical reason – and here I’m jumping over really into both realms, the practical reasons why that’s true. You have probably all read books on leadership: “The Seven Habits of Successful People,” or whatever. If you as a member of the bureaucracy do not participate in a decision, you are not going to carry that decision out with the alacrity, the efficiency and the effectiveness you would if you have participated. When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions, more or less out of the blue, on that bureaucracy, you can’t expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well. And furthermore, if you’re not prepared to stop the feuding elements in that bureaucracy as they carry out your decision, you’re courting disaster."

It's certainly true that things go more smoothly if the bureaucracy has weighed the various policy options, sent them up to policymakers, and gets a decision back. That's the way the textbook says it should be done. But smoothness in decisionmaking and execution is not the end-all and be-all of policymaking.

It's true that human nature, and bureaucrats are mostly human, says that participation in a decision means energy in execution (assuming the decision went mostly your way). But a good leader is more than just the head of a bureaucracy. IMHO the leader needs to respect the abilities and needs of the bureaucrats, but know how to maneuver them. In other words, it's the "foist" in the above quote that is key, not the lack of participation. If you don't participate, it's easy to feel unenthusiastic, but a good leader can get acceptance. (Of course, it helps if the decision is right.) If I remember correctly, Lincoln's Cabinet opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and the Marshall Plan didn't come from the bureaucracy. In fact, they had to develop a new bureaucracy for it, which is a lesson in itself.

Perhaps the best metaphor is a lion tamer with lions? Once the bureaucrats smell weakness, they can turn on you, witness the media over the last couple weeks.

Accountability or Stooping Low?

I often wonder about our standards, compared to God's (assuming there is a god). The Old Testament God is St. Peter's patron, and a relative of Santa Claus, keeping a list of all one's sins for eternity. That implies that you are accountable for your misdeeds, no matter your age or the situation. Sometimes that's the standards endorsed by conservatives, particularly when liberals are involved. Take this bit from PowerLine, a small part of a discussion of Secretary Rice's return to Birmingham with Jack Straw, British Foreign Minister:

"I noted in the Standard column that the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963 had been the handiwork of former members of the Ku Klux Klan -- brothers under the hood to former Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle and current Democratic United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd of course opposed Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. "

Byrd has apologized for his Klan membership, though perhaps in a Clintonian manner if my memory serves. In the course of a long (too long) Senate career he's migrated leftward (or maybe Congress has moved to the right) and become much more partisan. There seems to be an inverse relationship: the more pork he's gotten for West Virginia the further from the center he finds it safe to be.

But (many) conservatives don't believe in change, or forgiveness. They don't believe in rehabilitation of prisoners or parole. Some are starting not to believe in a President who says, "when I was young and irresponsible [although older when Byrd when he left the Klan], I was young and irresponsible." Any change is dangerous to these folks, who apparently were born right and never erred, never grew, and never learned.

Personally I find Powerline's linking of Byrd and bombers to be despicable.

More on Thomas C. Schelling and the Madman Theory

I recommend the History News Network for anyone with an interest in history. I blogged before on new Nobelist Thomas Schelling. This piece, Did Thomas C. Schelling Invent the Madman Theory?: by Jeffrey Kimball" discusses his work in the context of the late 50's.

Housing Changes

The Washington Post has a column, It's a Change, Not a Conspiracy, from a black resident of Takoma on the changes he's seen over the years. Recommended, but the bit I'd like to focus on is this:

"In the 16 years that I've lived in Takoma, I've seen three houses that were, arguably, sold out from under black owners who'd been there for decades. Two of the homes had been owned by couples whose children and grandchildren developed problems with drugs and alcohol. By the time the original owners died, the properties were heavily mortgaged. The heirs were forced to let the banks take the houses."

I'd pair this observation with data from New Orleans where the lower Ninth Ward had a very high home ownership rate. We, the mobile, college-educated elite, tend to assume that home-ownership is the result of buying. Thus it's important for the government to subsidize home-ownership, by allowing mortgage interest to be deducted on tax returns. What we forget is lots of homes are acquired by inheritance. Just like lots of farms are acquired by inheritance.

The old phrase about rags to riches to rags in x generations applies. Hurricanes like Katrina and epidemics like crack both result in the loss of status, the loss of inheritance. It's my belief that such things affect the social margins and the lower classes more heavily than the upper classes--there's just less margin of error and reserves available.

USDA Flinches

It didn't take long for the Administration to back off the plan to close FSA offices. See this from House Ag Committe: News from the House Committee on Agriculture: "Goodlatte Supports Delay of FSA Office Closures "

Bureaucrats Resist Change--Wash Post

This is very predictable:

"Farmers are famously resistant to change, and that goes for a recently announced
U.S. Department of Agriculture plan to close as many as 713 of the 2,351
county offices of the Farm Service Agency. "

It's an interesting case study in what some would call pork barrel politics. Some past efforts at closing and rationalizing offices have been successful, some have failed. (One of my former bosses came to DC when the plan was to consolidate state offices in the Northeast. Why do Rhode Island and Delaware need a State office to oversee a couple county offices?) As USDA moves more operations to the Internet and the number of farmers dwindles, the infrastructure needs to adjust accordingly. But from the point of view of the small country towns, the county seats, they both need the good paying federal jobs and whatever traffic the office generates by drawing farmers to the town. See the NASCOE site for a sense of what it looks like from the other side.

This irreconciliable conflict between two goods is one reason I took early retirement.

Assessing the Significance of Attack Data in Iraq--Contrarian

Seems like I'm due to challenge conventional wisdom (warning--this is off the cuff and not based on research):

The media reports that the military reports the average number of attacks per month in Iraq has steadily increased over the years since the end of significant military operations announced by our leader.

But this may not be significant, at least not as significant as it sounds. Counting and reporting is one of the things bureaucracy does. You need a flow of information up the channels to allow decision makers to make good decisions. So the data sounds useful. But changes in the data can reflect a change in reality or a change in the reporting mechanism.

In the early days of the war, DOD did no body counts; that was too much like Nam. My impression is that Rummy and Myers ran away from statistics as fast as possible. But as time has gone on, everyone searches for data, so the attack figure is one that has come to the forefront. My guess is that the military has become more and more concerned about the accuracy of such figures. They're probably also responding to continuous pressure from the media for such information. As the military changes and learns, it inevitably changes the data reported.

Take an example: someone in the lead vehicle in a convoy hears a couple bullets fly over head. That's all, nothing more. I don't know whether that counts as an "attack" today, but I'll bet it didn't count as an attack in July 2003. As a bureaucracy, the military has probably issued instructions on what counts as an attack and probably has a form, hopefully on-line, for reporting details. I don't know when they did that, but my experience is that you refine the instructions. (Did the bullets injure anyone? Was it Iraqi or U.S? Did they cause any property damage?) As time passes, there's also less downside to reporting attacks. Everything gets easier with experience, including reporting. There could also be some perverse incentives at work--don't report attacks, it looks as if the unit is in a quiet area so they may get moved to a hotter area. Report attacks and you may attract more resources. (There was a review of a book over the weekend, possibly in NYTimes--some ex-soldier reporting that his captain ordered an artillery barrage because the captain of a nearby unit had ordered one. ) That's the sort of thinking that leads to inflation of medals.

All this is, I suspect, documented in assessments of our experience in Vietnam. Iraq may not be Vietnam, but some of the dynamics of a (military) bureaucracy never change.

Ferrets and Turtles

The New York Times has an interesting article on a bureaucracy--the Medicaid bureaucracy,
here.

I've a post in draft on Gary Becker's use of "a culture of dependency" in reference to New Orleans residents. To me, the term doesn't ring true, perhaps because I associate it with Reagan's welfare queen anecdote, which implies an active, manipulative role; people as "terrible two's". I think it's more accurate to say that many people are turtles, not good at all at manipulating their surroundings but pretty good at enduring. (Am I saying many people are Russian peasants, renowned for their endurance--perhaps.) Others are ferrets. And most of us age into turtledom.

Anyhow, many of the Medicaid patients described are turtles.

Football Bureaucray--The Tuck Rule

Piece in the WPost yesterday on the "tuck" rule. (Skins thought that Jake Plummer had fumbled into his own end zone last Sunday, but it was ruled a forward pass, hence the discussion.)

The way the rule reads now is roughly this: Once the quarterback starts his arm forward in a pass, it's an attempt to pass until he tucks the ball back to his body or starts a football move.) In the Denver game, Plummer started to pass, rather obviously changed his mind and pulled the ball down, but lost it in the process. The problem is the "obviously changed his mind"--that requires the officials to read the quarterback's mind to tell his intention. That's difficult for a bureaucrat. So the NFL doesn't want to change the rule, because what they have is based on visible moves, no mind reading required.

That's what bureaucrats like--objective evidence.

Inertia, or the Safety of the Known

Yesterday Gallup reported on CNN that, based on a poll of people who applied for relief after Katrina, of those who stayed until the hurricane hit, 45 percent (roughly, I'm going on memory) thought they could ride the storm out where only 25 percent lacked transportation and/or money to leave.

Class and America--Research Topic in the Stadia

In a WPost discussion of how the St. Louis Cardinals revamped Busch Stadium for baseball (as a lesson for DC to do a similar upgrade of RFK stadium) there was a brief mention of the need for luxury boxes. Such status symbols seem to be ubiquitous these days; almost as much as the proliferation of ways to recognize different levels of giving to colleges and cultural organizations.

It strikes me as a fertile area for some sociologist/economist to work: consider the transition from free to paid attendance, from one-class to multi-class tickets at sporting events and theater events, from "contributor" to differentiated giver. My impression is that everyone attending baseball games in the 40's wore suits and hats and paid the same prices. Today I don't know how much differentiation there is in seating, but a lot. (Of course, the attendees may all wear casual clothes these days.) I'm assuming the same forces are at work in all areas. There may be a relationship with the differentiation of culture, a subject Tyler Cowan has written on.

Black Removal (Home and Land Ownership)

Yesterday the media was reporting the return of residents to New Orleans Lower Ninth Ward to see what was left of their homes. This factoid was buried in the report: although 33 percent of the residents are below the poverty line, over 60 percent own their own homes. If memory serves, that is well above the national average for blacks, which is somewhere between 40 and 50 percent.
Let me jump into speculation. The high ownership rate is a function of the stability of the black population--people born in New Orleans stay in New Orleans. Over the generations, the working, saving blacks have built up their home ownership. Homes were cheap enough and wages high enough to make it possible for people to beome new owners. Conditions were stable enough so that existing owners didn't lost their homes.

That process may have been similar to the process in certain other cities, notably Washington, DC in mid-century. It is also similar to the progress in black land ownership in the 60 years after the Civil War. Blacks worked their way from ex-slave, to share cropper to tenant to landowner by hard work, thrift, and endurance. Land was cheap enough to make it possible.

What has happened: changes make it harder for existing owners to remain and for new people to buy.

1 In DC in the 1950's, urban renewal came along and removed many landowners. Rising housing prices, particularly recently, make it difficult for poor homeowners to stay. Unless you're in the meritocracy, there's little way to earn enough for families to buy new homes.

2 In rural America, the boom and bust of agriculture and the advent of mechanization, which lessened the advantage of large families, has meant black landowners leave for cities and the north.

3 In New Orleans, the odds are against the black homeowners being able to resume their life.

Schelling and Communication Problems

One of Nobel winner Thomas Schelling's concerns has been coordination between cooperating or competing parties. For example, if you agree to meet a party in New York City at a certain time, but forgot to specify a place, where would you go? It's a fascinating area. But Barbara Tuchman's histories remind us of the truth that software developers and parents also know--even when you're able to pass messages to the other, you may not communicate. Here's an excerpt from Joel on Software:

"Custom development is that murky world where a customer tells you what to build, and you say, 'are you sure?' and they say yes, and you make an absolutely beautiful spec, and say, 'is this what you want?' and they say yes, and you make them sign the spec in indelible ink, nay, blood, and they do, and then you build that thing they signed off on, promptly, precisely and exactly, and they see it and they are horrified and shocked, and you spend the rest of the week reading up on whether your E&O insurance is going to cover the legal fees for the lawsuit you've gotten yourself into or merely the settlement cost. Or, if you're really lucky, the customer will smile wanly and put your code in a drawer and never use it again and never call you back."

This, writ large, is the problem the FBI and many other organizations, public and private, have had in developing software.

High Housing, Low Service

We went to the movies today ("A History of Violence") in Reston Town Center. Walking back, passed a pizza place with a sign on the window--what I caught was that it's apologizing that lack of staff may result in long waits. On the radio this morning, someone in Montgomery County was pushing a proposal to require developers to include low-cost housing in their developments. "Low cost" in this case means something buyable on an income of $50-100K!!

As the spread between the top 1 percent (i.e., everyone we see on the TV) and the bottom 50 percent widens, we can expect poorer service, whether it's in restaurants or schools.

Luddites or Conservative

Daniel Drezner did not get tenure. Among the comments on his post was this:

danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: So Friday was a pretty bad day....: "Of course, its hard not to consider the blog. Even at my top-ranked and technologically progressive university, I find that the tenured faculty members in our political science dept. have a very conservative view towards new technological approaches. None ofthem use Powerpoint, listen/assign podcasts, have/read blogs, etc. And suggestions to start a departmental blog or regular podcasts of visiting speakers has been met with a genuine lack of enthusiasm."

It's hard to stay open to new things. I like to think I do, but I find myself skipping the reviews of "graphic novels" in the Post Book Review. I can't take upscale, pretentious comic books seriously; I can't take the comic books I read back in the 1950's seriously.

LaVar, the Unbureaucrat

The Washington Redskins don't have a quarterback controversy; Mark Brunell has resolved that for now. They do have a linebacker controversy. Their best athlete and highest paid defensive player, LaVar Arrington, hasn't been playing much, although he's recovered from last year's injuries.

Why? He's not bureaucratic. The defensive coaches have a highly structured defensive "scheme "(this is the only time Americans use the word in the same way the Brits do). Apparently Arrington has difficulty following the plan during the game, as well as trouble putting his heart into it in practice.

Football is a bureaucratic game--the play book is the set of instructions, the choreography for the performance. The best I can tell, there are tradeoffs among aggressiveness, free lancing, team spirit, and following the plan. Much the same in bureaucracies.

Power Line's Delusions

The folks at Power Line fall victim to an age-old myth, the distrust of the metropolis, of the ruses and schemes of those evil people at the center who entrap the poor unwary hick from the country's heart. In a discussion of the Miers nomination, and why Bush might have appointed her:

"I think that Bush is acutely aware that the Souter nomination was his father's worst and most avoidable mistake. I think that, as was widely reported, he liked John Roberts and was impressed by him during their relatively brief interview. But what grounds, really, does Bush have to trust Roberts? How does he know he won't 'grow in office'? It seems pretty obvious to me that Bush selected Miers to make damn sure that at least one of his nominees won't drift to the left. He knows Miers well enough to know that she won't be seduced by Washington Post editorials and Georgetown dinner parties, as a number of Republican appointees have been. He doesn't think Roberts will be seduced, either, but he can't know for sure. Isn't it obvious that the reason Bush chose Miers instead of a better known, objectively better qualified nominee, is that he wanted to be absolutely sure of appointing a staunch and unwavering conservative?"

Roberts was a DC lawyer and a DC justice, so if he hasn't already been seduced by the Washington Post, he should be safe. David Souter is renowned for being only slightly more sociable than Ted Kacynski, which suggests it's not DC wine and water that's seductive, it's legal ideas presented in briefs and arguments by competent lawyers.

Tom Friedman Is Right--China's National Ballet

Tom Friedman had a column Wednesday pointing to the interaction between U.S. forces (the Navy) and Iraqi and other forces. Our forces are very diverse and women are in authority. Theirs are not. Tom argues that we're educating as we go, presenting the model of a big country that handles the stresses of diversity.

Went to a performance at the Kennedy center last night by the Chinese National Ballet. Interesting, doing Giselle Act 2, and three Chinese pieces. I was struck by the nondiversity of the company. I have no idea whether it's an artifact of the pool from which they select, or whether the company directors consciously pick them, but I'd swear both sexes adhered to a pattern in terms of height. My seat wasn't the best for making judgements, but I'd swear they deviated by maybe 3 or 4 inches tops. Any American company would have a much greater deviation.

I understand that China has lots of different languages and ethnic groups. Apparently they don't do ballet yet.

Individuals Versus FEMA, Which Is Better?

The Times Oct 5 had an interesting article on an individual who did great work in reestablishing communications after Katrina, using wireless Internet networking--apparently used in rural areas using antennas and parts of the radiomagnetic spectrum. (See note below.)

The issue is why could he do so well in comparison with a bureaucracy like FEMA. I think it's related to why the Aussie's could win the Nobel in medicine by proving bacteria cause ulcers. The points are:

• some knowledge and expertise (pathology in the case of the Nobel, WISP in the case of the Katrina)
• existence outside the established networks (one's ideas aren't prestructured by being part of a job within a web of interacting people. In the case of the Nobel, the instigator was simply an observant pathologist, not an ulcer specialist. In the case of Katrina, the guy was simply an entrepreneur who had a sideline of doing wireless in rural areas.)
  
• supportive resources (the Aussies got money for their work, the Katrina guy put up his own money, then attracted support from outsiders who wanted to help).
  

FEMA probably does not have anyone whose job is to look for ways to reestablish communications. It probably does have people whose job is to work on telephones and cell phones and radio, etc. But the wireless network is new technology, so it wouldn't be incorporated into the FEMA structure (or the structure of state emergency management, either). Even if someone in FEMA had the knowledge, it didn't fit his or her job. In the aftermath of Katrina, everyone at FEMA had to do their job.



Note: This is the Times description:

In one swoop, Mr. Dearman not only connected people in crisis, but he also illustrated the power of long-distance wireless networks, an emerging technology that uses unlicensed radio-wave bandwidth to send Internet signals into rural towns and cities, where the connections are locally accessible, much like Wi-Fi hot spots. The networks typically use microwave dishes and routers to beam and distribute the information many miles in the air from an original Internet connection.

Miers Prediction

If Harriet Miers is confirmed, I predict that early results will start talking of the "Roberts twins", as in the 70's when Berger and Blackmun were appointed together. Miers will spend some time following the lead of more experienced justices, and would logically gravitate to Roberts, as they will both be newcomers to the group and probably bonded during his confirmation battle. A few years in, Miers will start to emerge as an independent voice, much as Blackmun did and Thomas has. But the conservatives should be happy--Bush is giving them a reliable conservative vote for a few years and that's all he could reasonably promise.

I observed over on Volokh.com that both Roberts and Miers seem to work well with others, which may mean they do well in attracting support for their positions on the Court. (As a nonlawyer, I'm more impressed by the small-group sociology of SCOTUS than by doctrines.)

Why I Believe in Original Sin

Why--because there's always someone who spoils things. I've just had to turn on comment verification, which requires any commenters to prove they're human by entering the correct letters in a box, because this blog was starting to get software-generated comments advertising various things/sites.

The effect is to throw sand into the machine, to slow down the interchange of ideas, and, most importantly, to diminish the likelihood of people commenting. To libertarians and free market conservatives, I suppose this is just to be expected. To me it's like tossing your trash on the ground instead of the garbage can. I'm mad.

How Do You Get to Stockholm--Keep a Certain Distance

"Network" theory says that weakly linked networks are more powerful than tight ones. For example, if you're job hunting, your casual acquaintances are more likely to come up with good leads than your close friends and family. It's the tale of the emperor's new clothes--the adults who were into the networks of power and expectations conformed to conventions, the child asked the right question.

Here's another instance--
Two Win Nobel Prize for Discovering Bacterium Tied to Stomach Ailments - New York Times:

"Dr. Marshall said that working in a 'weird' and academically obscure location aided in the discovery because he and Dr. Warren could pursue their observations without interference from the prevailing beliefs.

'If I had come up through the normal gastroenterology training schemes in the United States, I would have been so indoctrinated on the acid theory that I wouldn't have been considering anything else and might have skipped over Helicobacter, as everyone else had done,' Dr. Marshall said in a telephone interview yesterday."

Symmetry in Opposition

One of the truisms in social science is that opposites tend to mirror image each other. To put it another way: when entitities are in conflict, a change in one causes related changes in the other. When the conflict is predator/prey, or international relations, it's often called "arms race". Admiral Jackie Fisher creates the "dreadnought", all-big-gun battleship and launches an arms race with Germany that ends in millions killed. In other realms you can see a catalytic influence--add an ingredient to the mix and things start to get more organized. In the oil industry of the 1860's-80's, J.D. Rockefeller was the catalyst, organizing and rationalizing the industry, vertically integrating the flow of oil. Competitors also had to vertically integrate.

In politics, Tom DeLay may have been a similar catalyst, with impacts on both Dems and Reps, according to this analysis in the WPost:

DeLay's Influence Transcends His Title: "His take-no -prisoners style of fundraising -- in which the classic unstated bargain of access for contributions is made explicitly and without apology -- has been adopted by both parties in Congress, according to lawmakers, lobbyists and congressional scholars. Democrats, likewise, increasingly are trying to emulate DeLay-perfected methods for enforcing caucus discipline -- rewarding lawmakers who follow the dictums of party leaders and seeking retribution against those who do not."

'Virtual Card' Should Be Example for Social Security

Washington Post yesterday had an article on "virtual credit card" numbers as an antidote to credit card theft.

"Offered to holders of Citi, Discover and MBNA cards, these 'virtual credit cards,' or single-use card numbers, are designed to give some peace of mind to consumers concerned about credit card fraud. Although the system slightly differs on each card, the principle is the same: For no extra charge, consumers sign up at the credit card's Web site, often downloading software on their computers. Then, when they're ready to shop, they receive a randomly generated substitute 16-digit number that they can use at the online store. The number can be used once or, in some cases, repeatedly at the same store."

The Social Security Administration should follow this example--allow people to get one-shot SSN's that work only for a relationship with a given organization. [ed--isn't this your hobby horse for doing away with SSN's? Yes}