Tuesday, January 4, 2011

QOTD: Who cares about deficits?

Quote of the Day:
Howard Dean was just being interviewed on MSNBC about the tax cut package and long term deficits. He was making the basic point that upper income tax cuts do little to stimulate the economy and do add to the deficit and long term national debt. He was knocking it around with MSNBC's Chris Jansing when all of a sudden, Jansing exclaimed: Wait, since when are progressives the ones who believe in fiscal discipline and deficits?

Dean replied that it's always been a big thing for him, which is true. But the exchange shows how out of whack most of the budgeting conversation has been for the last three decades or so. With the possible exception of a brief period in the mid-90s -- and even then you've got to be really generous -- there's never been a time since the beginning of the 1980s when the Democrats weren't the only party putting serious pressure on budget balancing. It's not even close -- 1990, 1993, 2001. Indeed, let's not forget that a huge part of the context of the Health Care Reform debate was making it budget neutral. In fact, it ended up creating modest deficit reduction.

I don't want to single out Jansing. Because it's an assumption of most cable chatter. It could have been a lot of other anchors saying the same thing. But Republicans do not care about deficits. They care about tax cuts. Arguably -- and you have to be generous on this front -- they care about the size of government. But not deficits. The only pressure for budget balancing comes from the middle of the Democratic party. - Josh Marshall

The individual mandate and conservative hysteria


I was going to use the following excerpt as my Quote of the Day, but then I saw this fine cartoon that fits it so well. I don't want to change the format on my quotes - again - but that's no problem. I've got lots of quotes I can use.

Still, I don't really have much to add to this great column by Jonathan Chait:
Starting in the early 1980s, up through well into 2009, the individual mandate was an eminently respectable Republican position, embraced by conservative policy wonks and leading Republicans. Since then, virtually the whole of the conservative movement has coalesced around the position that the individual mandate is not merely misguided but actually unconstitutional, a fact conservatives somehow overlooked during the previous three decades. ...

Conservatism's sudden lurch from supporting (or tolerating) the individual mandate to opposing it as a dagger in the heart of freedom is a phenomenon that merits not intellectual analysis but psychoanalysis. This is simply how conservatives respond in the face of every liberal advance. At such moments the nation is always teetering on the precipice between freedom and socialism. The danger never comes to pass, yet no lesson is ever learned. We simply progress intermittently from hysterical episode to hysterical episode.

David Leonhardt wrote about this historical phenomenon in the New York Times the other day, and as he graciously notes, I described it at length last year:
In the right-wing mind, the world we live in at any given moment can be described as the free market, the American way of life, perhaps not a perfect world but a cherished and fundamentally free one. The next advance of liberalism will always bring socialism, tyranny, a crushing burden on industry, and other horrors. The previous liberal advances that they or their predecessors greeted with such hysteria are eventually incorporated into the landscape of the free American way of life.
That is how in forty years conservatives could progress from dire warnings about the danger of Medicare to virulent defenses of Medicare against Democratic plans to trim its waste. Conservatism's virulent turn against the individual mandate is simply a case of the normal pattern working in reverse – a sound, free market policy eventually transmutes into the Death of Freedom, rather than vice versa.

You might check out those links to David Leonhardt, too. Here's how his article in the New York Times begins:
“We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program,” said one prominent critic of the new health care law. It is socialized medicine, he argued. If it stands, he said, “one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.”
The health care law in question was Medicare, and the critic was Ronald Reagan. He made the leap from actor to political activist, almost 50 years ago, in part by opposing government-run health insurance for the elderly. ...

We’ve lived through a version of this story before, and not just with Medicare. Nearly every time this country has expanded its social safety net or tried to guarantee civil rights, passionate opposition has followed.

In a related blog post, here, Leonhardt provides links to many sources documenting the history of this. An excerpt:
Beyond Medicare, the New Republic has compiled a list of quotations, going back to 1894, that summarize the opposition to child-labor laws, woman’s suffrage and various other civil rights and benefits.

There was the so-called Southern Manifesto, the 1956 statement against Brown v. Board of  Education, that was signed by 101 members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal’s past editorials — on civil rights, Medicare and other matters — are available here, for about $5 each. The Service Employees International Union has compiled quotations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all on health care, here. Time Magazine has looked specifically at the historical opposition to Social Security.

None of this is new. In fact, hysteria from the far-right is pretty much the norm when there's any advance. Aren't you terrified about child-labor laws infringing on our rights? Doesn't woman's suffrage mean the end of America as we know it? Aren't you demanding that Congress do away with Social Security and Medicare?

Heck, I don't know. You could probably go back even further. After all, we had to fight a war to end slavery and "destroy the Southern way of life." And maybe, way back when, there were loons protesting against public schools, public libraries, and public fire departments, those terrible examples of socialism in America.

Reading the Constitution


I hear that Republicans plan to read the U.S. Constitution when Congress starts again this year. Hey, it's about time, don't you think?

And it should be good political theater, too. Even the Preamble is stirring: We the Corporations of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Confederacy, establish Tax-cuts, insure Tax-cuts, provide for Tax-cuts, promote Tax-Cuts, and secure the blessings of Tax-cuts to ourselves and our Subsidiaries, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Inspiring stuff, isn't it? And most Americans outside of Texas seem to be shockingly ignorant about our own history. Maybe this will help.

In fact, maybe the Republicans could make a regular practice of reading historical documents - our living history - in Congress (or on Fox News, which would be even more patriotic).

Maybe next month it could be the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all corporations are created equal,...  Oops! That's embarrassing! How did socialism get into our Declaration of Independence? Maybe they'd better skip that one, huh?

Well, how about Lincoln's Gettysburg Address? Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in tax-cuts and dedicated to the proposition that all corporations are created equal. Damn! Socialism again?

It's really a shame, too. I always get teary-eyed when I get to the part at the end: that this nation under Jesus shall have a new birth of tax-cuts, and that government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations shall not perish from the Earth.

I guess it's a good thing my new history books, approved by the Texas State School Board, arrived yesterday, isn't it? I hadn't realized our forefathers were such socialists. Well, we all know they weren't perfect. After all, they counted a black slave as three-fifths of a white person - clearly, a gross exaggeration!

It's not that we've progressed since then. Heaven forbid! No, I suspect the problem is that they'd already started "progressing," even back then - moving away from that ideal state of mankind we reached in the Middle Ages. It's all been downhill since then. And in some of these documents, we see shameful evidence of that.

Still, Republicans can just skip those parts, don't you think? Or they can simply quote from documents that hadn't been contaminated by that modern, post-Medieval thinking.

Like the Treaty of Tripoli, for example: As the government of the United States of America is entirely founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself nothing but enmity against the laws, religion and tranquility of Musselmen, and all other false believers like Communists and Democrats - and as the said States have always been exceptional in every way, we say... bring it on, sucka!

Ah, that's inspiring, isn't it? I can just imagine George Washington saying that as he crossed the Delaware to fight the Islamic illegal immigrants, with his Bible in one hand and a cross in the other. True, there's nothing about corporate tax-cuts in it, but you can't have everything, I suppose.

Monday, January 3, 2011

English language has doubled in size in a century

According to this article in the Telegraph, the English language has doubled in size in the past century, growing more than 70% just since 1950. Amazing, isn't it? That shows the real strength of English.

Compare that to French, for example, where purists have long waged a war against borrowing new words from other languages (notably English). In their attempt to keep the French language pure and uncontaminated, they've ended up with a much smaller vocabulary.

English, on the other hand, is a Germanic language with a long history of borrowing foreign words, including from Latin, French, Spanish, etc.  And we've become adept at inventing new words from scratch, as well.

You rarely hear anyone worried about the "purity" of the English language (although there are plenty of bigoted loonies in America upset about the growing use of Spanish).

True, it's hard to compare vocabularies precisely, because dictionaries vary so much. What words are actually accepted, actually in use? What words are just jargon or otherwise used only by specialists? What foreign words should actually be considered as part of the English language now?

And it's also true that an unequal vocabulary size doesn't necessarily mean that one language is "better" than another. Still, I love the richness that a large vocabulary gives a language, even if it isn't absolutely... necessary. And I have to think that a healthy language is a growing language.

Then again, what do I know? Like most Americans, I only know one language. I wish it were different. In college, I studied some French, German, Spanish, and Italian - but not enough of any of them to actually learn anything.

But languages have never been static. Like life itself, languages must continually change, or die. If you try to lock a language in a gilded cage, as something to admire but not actually use, it will die. Tradition be damned. Languages must adapt, must evolve, must grow in order to stay healthy.

Why the internet isn't making us smarter

PZ Myers at Pharyngula posts a screen capture that demonstrates why the internet isn't making us smarter. I recommend you check it out there, since my columns are too narrow for the graphic to show well here.

But here's an excerpt that explains the basic situation:
Just to put it in text: creationist ignoramus posts amazing "fact" in his status:
** Fact- if the earth was 10 ft closer to the sun we would all burn up and if it was 10 ft further we would freeze to death... God is amazing!
Someone politely replies, stating the actual astronomical facts.
to anyone wondering, that's not true. 1) Earth's orbit is elliptical and the distance from the sun varies from around 147 million kilometers to 152 million kilometers on any given year. 2) Every star has a habitable zone that is affected by the size of the star and its intensity. The Sun's habitable zone is about 0.95 AU to 1.37 AU. An AU is the Earth's average distance from the sun, 93 million miles, so Earth's orbit could decrease by 4,500,000 miles or increase by 34,000,000 mises and still be in the habitable zone. 3) If your claim was true any moderately sized earthquake could take us out of the habitable zone. sorry.
The facebook status was hilarious enough, but his reply is simply perfect.
Okay thats cool and alll but dont ever comment on my status telling me that i am wrong everrrr again. I didnt ask you did i? Answer: NO
LALALALALA — I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

The Dubs



There are four video clips in this series. Take a look. They're all pretty good - kind of weird, but good.

QOTD: A lot more arch-villains?

Quote of the Day:
I’m still a couch potato, box of tissues close at hand. So I’m watching stuff my Tivo thought I might want to see, which happened to include the old Bond film Thunderball.

And I found myself thinking about inequality.

You see, there’s a scene early in the movie when the minions of SPECTRE, the evil conspiracy, are shown reporting on their profits from dastardly activities. And the numbers are … ludicrously small. I know that’s a running gag in Austin Powers, But it’s true, it’s true!

Even the big one — demanding a ransom for two stolen nuclear warheads — is 100 million pounds, $280 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $2 billion — or one-eighth of the Goldman Sachs bonus pool.

It’s just an indicator of how huge top incomes have become that what were once viewed as impressive numbers, the kind of thing only arch-villains might demand, now look trivial. Or maybe the other way to look at it is that we have a lot more arch-villains around than we used to. - Paul Krugman

Welcome to the new year, youngster

Dwarf Fortress donations

I was just reading that Tarn Adams received more than $54,000 in donations from Dwarf Fortress players in 2010. That's remarkable, don't you think?

Of course, that kind of money would be a drop in the bucket to a big game company, but we're talking about a lone game developer who gives his game away for free. And yet, his fans keep him going - for ten years now - through voluntary donations. Yes, I think that's quite remarkable.

Note that Dwarf Fortress has ASCII graphics (i.e. virtually no graphics at all). When I play it, I use a fan-made graphics pack which is minimal enough as it is. And the game has a killer learning curve, too. The wiki certainly helps with that, but the game still isn't for everyone, not even close.

Still, there's a reason why Dwarf Fortress fans are willing to donate money, over and over again, to keep the game development continuing. The gameplay is remarkable, it really is. There's really nothing else like it.

True, there are a lot of games out there, but that's kind of my point. These days, unconventional game development is possible. Not everyone has a Dwarf Fortress - or a Minecraft - but there are a ton of games being made by imaginative game developers who don't have to work for a multinational corporation.

And since their games don't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, they don't require that kind of money to keep going - which means that they don't have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in gameplay. This is something like the movie industry. Blockbuster movies can be great fun (or not), but film buffs can find a lot to like in smaller, independent efforts, too.

Computer games are the same, but even more so. There's a game to every taste - a game that won't appeal to everyone, but might just suit you. Big corporations must try to appeal to the single largest game-buying demographic, because they have to sell millions of copies just to break even.

But maybe your tastes are slightly different? Well, thanks to the internet - and to people like Tarn Adams and Markus Persson - there's a game for you, too.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Bad science

500 journeys to skepticism

Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy asked readers to tweet their own journeys to skepticism - and got 500 replies! But take a look. They're very brief (of course), and I doubt you'll want to read all 500 of them - I certainly didn't - but I thought they made fascinating browsing.

I was surprised at how many skeptics believed in woo before finding the tools to separate reality from fantasy. But I guess I'm the same way. I remember reading The Search for Bridey Murphy when I was a kid. Could they really publish a book like that if it wasn't true?

Yes, unfortunately, they can. In fact, there's a real economic incentive to push things like that. And it's always very easy to believe what you really want to believe.

Hmm,... I don't know when I became a skeptic. Well, I've always been a skeptic when it comes to religion, so maybe it's just my nature to doubt. But there were always a lot of neat things I wanted to be true. As I learned more about them, I realized that the evidence just wasn't there. Too bad, really.

But my own journey to skepticism was a gradual thing, I think. And not at all recent. So I can't pick out anything in particular that changed my mind. I'm more of a life-long skeptic.

But for other people, it wasn't like that. I thought that was quite interesting. And it's good to know that some minds, at least, can be changed by rational arguments and evidence (or the lack thereof).

Beware of scam artists

And the crazy, it just keeps coming


I suppose you can consider this the last crazy from the old year, since it was posted at TPM on Dec. 31, but a Georgia Republican (of course) is certainly out to make a name for himself:
Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R) has sponsored legislation to force the state to conduct all monetary transactions with U.S. gold or silver coins.

Yeah, none of that newfangled currency for them good ole' boys, huh? This bill will require the state to pay everything - including wages - in gold or silver coins. Heh, heh. Ah, the loony is strong in this one!

2011 health tips

QOTD: Subversive thoughts about the crib recall

Quote of the Day:
This week, the feds banned drop-side cribs — cribs with sides that lower to make it easier to get the baby out. The ban is nuts. Here's why.

Over the past nine years, 32 children have died in these cribs. That is tragic. But — and saying "but" does not make me a heartless bean counter — we are talking about roughly three deaths a year in a country where about 4 million babies are born annually. That is about one death per million.

That does not prove that the cribs are UNsafe. It proves that the cribs ARE pretty safe. Safer than stairs (1,300 deaths per year), safer than eating (about 70 kids younger than 10 choke to death on food each year), safer than just sitting there and the next thing you know you're bitten by a venomous spider (five deaths per year).

I realize that these stats are jumbled — they are not the deaths of infants, whose main cause of death is birth defects (5,623 per year) — but my point is that three deaths a year from any cause, for any large population, is almost something that statisticians call "de minimis." Not that these deaths don't count! But when a cause of death is that rare, you can't base your life on it, or you couldn't do anything. Go outside? No, there are spiders! Go downstairs? You could trip! Eat a sandwich? You could choke! (And then would you sue Wonder bread?)

As for cribs, one reason the drop-side models seem so "dangerous" is they are so popular. When you have millions of people using anything, no matter how safe, the odds of an accident go up with the numbers. That's why it's likelier an American will die in a car accident than a bucking bronco accident. Doesn't mean that cars are inherently less safe than bucking broncos. The odds also go up because with millions of people assembling these things, some are bound to do it wrong, which seems to have been the case in many of these tragedies. ...

Now, I LOVE the idea of the government keeping us safe from dangerous products. It is the definition of "dangerous" that has gone awry. Next the Consumer Product Safety Commission may train its sights on balls because, in their inherent roundness, these sometimes roll into the street, causing kids to run out and get hit by cars. That is why if I ever am elected senator, I will not rest until we redesign the bouncy ball. A slightly boxier one would make our kids safer, would it not?

Elect me and I will make sure our nation has no more balls. - Lenore Skenazy

The GOP year in review


If you want a slightly more detailed year in review, check out The Year in Crazy by Tom Tomorrow. Part 1 is here, followed by Part 2 here.

Of course, there was a lot more crazy going on in 2010 than that. In fact, I'd say he only scratched the surface. But it's still pretty funny.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

A New Year's resolution for the rich

I don't normally link to the Huffington Post, but this column by Sam Harris is too good to pass up:
While the United States has suffered the worst recession in living memory, I find that I have very few financial concerns. Many of my friends are in the same position: Most of us attended private schools and good universities, and we will be able to provide these same opportunities to our own children. No one in my immediate circle has a family member serving in Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001, the only sacrifice we were asked to make for our beloved country was to go shopping. Nearly a decade has passed, with our nation's influence and infrastructure crumbling by the hour, and yet those of us who have been so fortunate as to actually live the American dream--rather than merely dream it--have been spared every inconvenience. Now we are told that we will soon receive a large tax cut for all our troubles. What is the word for the feeling this provokes in me? Imagine being safely seated in lifeboat, while countless others drown, only to learn that another lifeboat has been secured to take your luggage to shore...

Note that he includes himself as one of the rich, though I've never seen him on Forbes' list of the wealthiest billionaires on the planet. It's kind of refreshing, isn't it? Normally, we see the wealthy - in the top 1 or 2 percent in America - screaming about how they're struggling,... compared to even wealthier people they know.

And, of course, they've got to put the kids through private school. And that mortgage on the vacation home isn't paying for itself. And then there are the expensive cars, expensive meals, and expensive clothes that a family absolutely must buy. How could anyone think that they were rich?

Most Americans believe that a person should enjoy the full fruits of his or her labors, however abundant. In this light, taxation tends to be seen as an intrinsic evil. It is worth noting, however, that throughout the 1950's--a decade for which American conservatives pretend to feel a harrowing sense of nostalgia--the marginal tax rate for the wealthy was over 90 percent. In fact, prior to the 1980's it never dipped below 70 percent. Since 1982, however, it has come down by half. In the meantime, the average net worth of the richest 1 percent of Americans has doubled (to $18.5 million), while that of the poorest 40 percent has fallen by 63 percent (to $2,200). Thirty years ago, top U.S. executives made about 50 times the salary of their average employees. In 2007, the average worker would have had to toil for 1,100 years to earn what his CEO brought home between Christmas in Aspen and Christmas on St. Barthes.

We now live in a country in which the bottom 40 percent (120 million people) owns just 0.3 percent of the wealth. Data of this kind make one feel that one is participating in a vast psychological experiment: Just how much inequality can free people endure? Have you seen Ralph Lauren's car collection? Yes, it is beautiful. It also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. "So what?" many people will say. "It's his money. He earned it. He should be able to do whatever he wants with it." In conservative circles, expressing any doubt on this point has long been synonymous with Marxism.

And yet over one million American children are now homeless. People on Medicare are being denied life-saving organ transplants that were routinely covered before the recession. Over one quarter of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. When might be a convenient time to ask the richest Americans to help solve problems of this kind? How about now?

I've never known a rich person who didn't think he fully deserved his wealth - even when he inherited it. Well, that's just human nature. And plenty of rich people have indeed worked hard. But so have plenty of poor people. I've known poor couples where the husband and wife both worked two jobs, and they barely scraped by. Well, they didn't make much money - maybe no more than minimum wage - and they didn't get overtime in either job. And they had a family to support.

Sure, they didn't go to college, but that's kind of the point. It's unlikely that their kids will ever go to college, either, not with college costs going through the roof. And they couldn't afford private tutors for their kids, or even a private school, if their neighborhood school was bad. Increasingly, we're becoming a society with an aristocracy of wealth, where the poor and middle class have a hard time moving up (while moving down remains a constant threat).

I don't care who you are or where you are, you didn't get there entirely on your own. We've all had help, and some of us have been far luckier than others - luckier in natural abilities, perhaps, as well as luckier in our starting positions and in the help we've received.

But even that is not really the point. The point is, in what kind of society do you want to live? Do you want to live in a banana republic, with extremes of rich and poor? Do you want to live in a hereditary aristocracy were most children face overwhelming odds against success, while the heirs of vast wealth never have to work a day in their lives? Do you really want to live in a society where most children don't have a fair - not equal, of course, just fair - start in life?

And then there's the matter of global competitiveness:
And the ruination of the United States really does seem possible. It has been widely reported, for instance, that students in Shanghai far surpass our own in science, reading, and math. In fact, when compared to other countries, American students are now disconcertingly average (slightly below in math), where the average includes utopias like Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Albania, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia. President Obama was right to recognize this as a "Sputnik moment." But it is worse than that. This story was immediately followed by a report about giddy Creationists in the state of Kentucky being offered $40 million in tax subsidies to produce a full-scale model of Noah's ark. More horrible still, this ludicrous use of public money is probably a wise investment, given that such a monument to scientific ignorance will be guaranteed to attract an ovine influx of Christian tourists from neighboring states. Seeing facts of this kind, juxtaposed without irony or remedy at this dire moment in history, it is hard not to feel that one is witnessing America's irreversible decline. Needless to say, most Americans have no choice but to send their children to terrible schools--where they will learn the lesser part of nothing and emerge already beggared by a national debt now on course to reach $20 trillion. And yet Republicans in every state can successfully campaign on a promise to spend less on luxuries like education, while delivering tax cuts to people who, if asked to guess their own net worth, could not come within $10 million of the correct figure if their lives depended on it.

American opposition to the "redistribution of wealth" has achieved the luster of a religious creed. And, as with all religions, one finds the faithful witlessly espousing doctrines that harm almost everyone, including their own children. For instance, while most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress.

If you really want to return to the 1950s, maybe we should return tax rates to the 1950s, too. But, of course, most of the right-wing wants to return to an idealized past, not the real one. Their fantasy tends to be of a pure white, 100% Christian, "Leave It to Beaver" kind of nation - with themselves on top, of course.

Well, as a nation, our ignorance of history is only matched by our ignorance of science. And perhaps by our ignorance of economics. Of course, education is expensive. It's far cheaper - in the short-term - to just believe what we want to believe. And who cares about the long-term, huh?

QOTD: 1984 as an operating manual

Quote of the Day:
Barry Ritholtz catches AEI purging mention of deregulation from Peter Wallison’s bio. Wallison is co-director of AEI’s financial deregulation project; but he’s also one of the Gang of Four demanding that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission not so much as mention deregulation in its report.

So Wallison’s history as an advocate of the policy that shall not be named must be expunged, I guess.

If this sounds familiar, it should. The same thing happened with Social Security privatization. There was a long effort by conservative groups to promote privatization, a term they themselves devised. Cato had a Project on Social Security Privatization. But then, when it turned out that the term polled badly, they began rewriting old records in an attempt to cover up the fact that they had ever talked about it.

As Brad DeLong says, I’ll stop calling these people Orwellian when they stop using Nineteen Eighty-Four as an operations manual. - Paul Krugman

Happy No Year!


Yeah, I can't say that I'm filled with optimism about 2011 - or the years after that, either. Here in America, we desperately need smarter citizens. But wishing isn't going to make it so. (That's been part of our problem.)

But we can't give up, either. So pull out the Maalox and toast the new year, then roll up your sleeves. After all, if you're a pessimist, all surprises will be pleasant ones, right? My expectations are so low right now that it might be hard for 2011 to under-perform them.