Matthew Yglesias describes my own puzzlement as well.

My mostly unhelpful take, which echoes some of the comments on Matt's page (especially mine), is that the counterpoint to the conventional wisdom about Watergate ("it's not the crime that brings you down, it's the coverup"), the unconventional wisdom if you will, is that you can get away with murder if you really stick to the coverup story.

Empirically, Bush & company saw this work with Iran-Contra (which gave birth to "plausible deniability"), and just took that ball and ran with it.

More abstractly, the whole idea of adversarial debate (political parties, litigation, etc.) is that there's some arbiter that'll decide that one side or the other has the better argument, or makes the valid point. In politics, this role might be filled by the rationality of the opponent (who concedes the point), or the media (the journalists report the point with supporting facts), or the elites (the pundits concede the point), or "the people" (the opinion polls convince the politicians to concede the point).

If all those potential arbiters are impugned, indecisive, or unwise, whoever's in power can do whatever they want. Any outcry or opposition can be met with sheer stubbornness, and there's no authority to make you submit to reason or punish your transgressions.

The first and last potential arbiters (the opponent's fair thinking and the public) are pretty idealistic concepts, and have been ignored routinely by politicians throughout history, usually without repercussion. (Note, however, that even though he knew it would be disastrous, Nixon <i>didn't</i> burn the tapes. Maybe even <i>his</i> understanding that there <i>was</i> the rule of law, or at least no justifiable reason not to turn over the tapes, was what led to the truth coming out and the requisite consequences. Have some politicians concluded from this that they need to ignore their reason in the pursuit of power?)

In my opinion, a large part of the "difference" between 1974 and now is due to the failures of the other two arbiters (reporters and pundits). If every news network were running McClatchy's stories, and Broder and his peers were agitating for impeachment...

The failures of the media (reportage and commentary) are ample fodder for the blogosphere, but my notions about <i>why</i> they're failing so spectacularly <i>now</i> are ill-formed and naive. Clearly the qualification process for punditry (and journalism) has broken down, and most importantly, wrongheaded thinking and/or meaningless coverage isn't resulting in loss of audience, at least not enough to provide economic pressure to get rid of lousy news & opinion.

But I don't know why that is, or why it hasn't been such a problem until now. Maybe James Watt put stupid juice in the water supply under Reagan, and their brilliant plan has finally come to fruition. (I did say "ill-formed and naive", right?)

Click here to see the rest of this post...

Kids These Days

I offer this claim: "young people are skeptical of the traditional
political ideologies, and even more skeptical of ideological claims and
arguments." Not only do I believe it, I believe it ties together many
of the insights offered here, which I will shamelessly plagiarize
forthwith. Seriously -- if you don't read the posts over there then you're an accomplice.

Obama's not a radical, and therefore pundits seem
confused as to what the young people see in him. But "young people"
aren't hippies or beatniks or yuppies or neocons anymore -- they've
seen (or heard about) those "isms" and have no desire to be the victim
of still more broken promises. Most recently, they've seen huge
deficits, violations of civil liberties, and an unprovoked war passed
off as "conservative" and they ain't buyin' whatever the next snake oil
guy is sellin'. (Or as Dr. S put it, they [and we] are starved for the
truth.)

But Obama's not offering suspect promises -- he's
offering "a voice for the truth." Young people (maybe us too?) want to
get off the fruitless swinging pendulum and do indeed yearn for
normalcy. The pundits have not realized (and some may not be able to)
that this is the new radicalism.

Of course, there's a
hidden ideology in what you think "normal" is. And in this sense
Obama's vision (as articulated by LTG) of a "post-racial, post-conflict
America at peace" is indeed pretty radical, and I think precisely in
line with what "the young people" think of as the ideal "normal".

But
it's not a particularly political ideology -- there isn't some broad
ideal scheme for how we should get from here to there. Instead, there
are plenty of "obvious" incremental steps toward that particular
utopia. Elect a black president. Base diplomacy on something more than
macho posturing. Get the heck out of Iraq. Stop torturing people.

It
is perhaps sad that we have sunk so low that there's a long list of
obvious problems (maybe a presidential term's worth) that can be fixed
before you run out of low-hanging fruit and actually have to consult an
overarching political perspective to guide your next move. But it does
give us the rare opportunity to try the radical experiment of
"rationality" for a while.

Or, alternatively, we could elect McCain.

Change is not an option, it is THE option.

(via Atrios)

This is horrific. Read it. Because you need to know.

Seriously, this the sort of scene science fiction writers put into stories to let you know it's set in a dystopia.

Oh, but there's more. (Here's a summary in case the NYT wants you to log in.)

You know, about 81.3% of the country think we're headed in the wrong direction. And 15% think we're headed in the right direction.

You 15% need to get on the freakin' bus.

It's broken. We need to fix it.

Really, always true

Another excellent rule from the blogosphere: when the media generates its description of you...

clipped from gofugyourself.typepad.com you don't want to add the word "incontinent" in there anywhere.

Indirect posting from Rebecca

(2:59:01 PM) me (Goog): Rebecca just sent me http://www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com/
(3:01:21 PM) Sarah: LOL!
(3:01:32 PM) Sarah: She must post it to the blog. She must!!!
(3:01:38 PM) Sarah: I love ageism!

I don't care if Hillary drops out or not

(This is basically a comment I made to this post over at the Citizens. I figured it was long enough that I might as well post it here too.)

Unfortunately, it seems that the "electability" argument the Clinton campaign has emphasized is being interpreted as racism by some, and that seems to be a root of the deep division in the party.

Fortunately, I have a solution!

All the hootin' and hollerin' about Hillary needing to drop out is based on one fear: that she really is in contention. If it came down to near-even pledged delegates, and backroom wrangling of superdelegates, it would be unseemly, unDemocratic, and characteristic of the chaotic big-tent can't-get-it-together narrative associated with the Dems. Even if you think she can't win, you must think that she can make it close, or you wouldn't care whether she was running or not.

But if, as Dr. S indicates, you think Hillary has no chance, then it's no big deal. Jerry Brown ran all the way through on principle, as many others have done, and it didn't sunder the party because it didn't really matter. But he made his point, and I'm sure his supporters appreciated his continuing to the end.

Hillary's saying she appeals to the working-class whites that might otherwise vote for McCain? Okay, we should listen to what her appeal to them is, maybe even put something in the party platform from her policy proposals -- heck, offer her some appropriate cabinet position or blue-ribbon panel to chair. Because that's what you do with also-ran candidates to re-unify them and their constituency to the party.

The only people claiming that the Clinton campaign has a chance is the Clinton campaign. If the rest of the world (starting with the Obama campaign, since the media is physically unable to admit the horse race is over) just takes that with the salt it deserves, very quickly the statements of the Clinton campaign are filtered through that lens, and I think they appear very different and much less threatening.

More on Harvard donations

Go look at it over on Gnomicon. (I know, I was lazy and didn't cross-post.)

A brilliant post update

"I thank the pernicious commentators for giving me an opportunity to shed more light on this issue."

From a brilliant post explaining that in fact Obama isn't a Muslim. Because extreme obtuseness is a very popular trend right now.

Assuming I had a can opener...

Sarah's brought up the issue of who to give your money to
before, and even though it's comparatively late, we should give credit to Brad DeLong for addressing the topic and arguing that Harvard doesn't actually need any more money.

Which I suppose raises a good point. Frankly, the two charities that have me wrapped around their finger are the local NPR station and PEA and I don't know why. I don't think those are the causes I care the most about. Are they the experiences I liked the most? Do they just run the better fundraising campaigns?

On a related note, my current employer is very keen on me donating money to them. As a cause, I'm somewhat sympathetic, but the whole scheme rankles greatly. What, my pay isn't paltry enough, I'm supposed to give some back? And then you can go to other donors and say "look what suckers our faculty are, we've exploited every atom of their generous nature" and that'll make them give you money too?

Hmf. Looks like Scribefire is putting unclosed em tags at the end of Blogger posts.

Follow the link for references to the tyrant king porn dragon

So, anyone near Indiana, is this a real person? Is this getting a lot of Indiana press, or is he an ultrafringe loon who is mostly ignored?

I'm not kidding about the tyrant king porn dragon. Apparently it's pulling Jews into sex slavery, according to Zirkle. (See, now you HAVE to follow the link, don't you?)

clipped from thinkprogress.org Tony Zirkle, a GOP congressional candidate in Indiana, recently came under heavy criticism for speaking to the American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP) on the 119th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s birth. At the event, Zirkle “stood in front of a painting of Hitler, next to people wearing swastika armbands and with a swastika flag in the background.” On his website, Zirkle has responded to the criticisms by railing against Jews and prostitution:

At least 3 people care about prisons

This is for Sarah, who is one of the above 3. Some interesting posts in the comments (if you ignore mine), but no direct discussion of _why_ prison reform is a political third rail.

I suppose indirectly there's some evidence however: many people say our massive imprisonment gets results, and the fact that the rest of the world isn't as unique as us explains why we need to imprison 1 out of every hundred adults. So what's to reform?

clipped from matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com Yikes: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners." Needless to say, we lead the world in imprisonment. This seems like a serious problem, especially when you consider Tyler Cowen's point that our prisoners face unusually dire circumstances by developed world standards.

Bike lanes

True other places too. I'm not a big biker, but I'd be far more tempted if it didn't involve chicken contests with cars.

clipped from matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com For example, the city fathers of Washington, DC should consider that though it's nice that they've established some bike lanes, the key thing would be for the lanes to connect with one another and go into the downtown area so they'd be helpful for people trying to get from where they live to where the bulk of the stuff is. It's like how the roads for cars don't just stop arbitrarily.

Why Matt Yglesias is my blogdude

This is the kind of sarcasm I look for in my daily reading. Sadly, I wish he had fewer soft targets to aim his righteous biting wit at...

clipped from matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com Michael O'Hanlon gets a Washington Post op-ed to lay out his surprising view that the surge is awesome and, indeed, is working so well that we can expect to start taking troops out of Iraq in early 2010 if everything continues to be so awesome. In essence, thanks to the super-duper success of the surge, all we need now is several years of additional war and for all of Iraq's problems to solve themselves. Mission accomplished!

Bob's Innumeracy watch

Apologies to Ms. Beard for posting the whole article, but hey, if your math wasn't deceptive I wouldn't be forced to do this.

The percentages cited for other cities use a middle-cost scenario, while the Phoenix range of costs for owning is the low-cost and high-cost scenarios. So even if you knew better, you'd need to read the article to find the apples-to-apples comparison, which is this: the cost of ownership in Phoenix exceeds the cost of renting by 78%.

That's what those percentages mean, by the way: the article drops some critical words -- it should be "...when ownership costs exceed rental costs by 50 percent or more, it indicates a bubble."

Oh, and that "47 to 64 percent"? That's dividing the cost of renting by the (low and high scenario) cost of owning, which isn't directly comparable to any of the other results. Also, since that result isn't particularly meaningful, it's NOT in the original report, as opposed to all the other numbers in the article.

clipped from www.azcentral.com Betty Beard The Arizona Republic Apr. 6, 2008 09:05 PM The recent rise in Phoenix's housing prices means that in some cases the cost of owning a house grew too high compared with the cost of renting one, says a new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. Based on 2006 housing costs, the cost of renting in the Phoenix area averages $862 while the average cost of owning can range from $1,343 to $1,804, depending on interest rates, the report said. That means that Phoenix rental costs can range from 47 to 64 percent of ownership costs. The report says that when ownership costs exceed 50 percent, it indicates a bubble. Some "extraordinary" gaps include New York City, where it costs 109 percent more to own a home than to rent; San Diego, 133 percent; San Francisco, 161 percent; and Los Angeles, 168 percent.

more mortgage deduction

(shoulda been clipped in previous)

clipped from www.theatlantic.com What it does promote, studies show, is spending on housing—that is, people who would have been owners anyway pay more for their houses. Prices are higher than they would otherwise have been, and mortgages are bigger. As many owners have learned abruptly, this can worsen economic insecurity.

Mortgage deduction silliness

Via Matt Yglesias

clipped from www.theatlantic.com The mortgage-interest deduction is the backbone of American housing policy. It exists, ostensibly, to encourage widespread homeownership. In its favor, it doesn’t actually do that. But it does have consequences: It’s been one of the quieter causes of the housing bubble. The mortgage-interest deduction deserves special recognition for the stupidity with which it subsidizes something that should not be subsidized in the first place. I challenge you to design a subsidy for homeownership that is as wasteful, as unfair, and as harmful to the economy in the long run.

Inequality/tax progressiveness

This harkens back to the schem of tax progressiveness I was talking about over on thecitizens oh so long ago.

clipped from economistsview.typepad.com Fair Taxes? Depends What You Mean by ‘Fair', by Greg Mankiw, Economic View, NY Times: The C.B.O.’s most recent calculations of federal tax rates show a highly progressive system. ... The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent. The best source for objective data on the distribution of the tax burden is the Congressional Budget Office. The C.B.O. goes beyond anecdotes and bald assertions to provide hard data on who pays taxes. ... At the very top of the income distribution, the C.B.O. reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government. The fancy economics term for this is distributional equity. Here's an editorial I wrote awhile back on the same topic:

another econ graph

Title kinda contains the point.

clipped from economistsview.typepad.com Social Spending and GDP per Capita

Follow up to previous

mmm...linear fit...

clipped from economistsview.typepad.com