On February 12, 1809, both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born. I was unaware of this historical coincidence until I saw Adam Gopnik talking about it on Charlie Rose. Mr. Gopnik has written a book called Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life that I am sure I will read eventually.
My first introduction to Darwin happened in a high school biology class in 1967. Evolution was not actually taught, as we were preoccupied with dissecting frogs and learning the Krebs cycle. However, evolution was discussed in the textbook in one of the final chapters and I found it curious that we skipped it. Later it dawned on me that teaching evolution in a Texas high school in 1967 was controversial.
As a biology major at Harvard in the early 70s, I saw no one questioning natural selection, the differential reproduction of genotypes, which implies that living things are not static, but change over time. Our job was to work out the details.
There was not much talk about Darwin. I read On the Origin of Species and found it persuasive and detailed, but only useful for a historical understanding of my field.
My appreciation is now increased. As was pointed out on a recent NPR broadcast, the genius of Darwin lay in his ability to observe what was in plain sight, to formulate a theory based on easily confirmed facts, and to persuade others by detailed explication of what most know to be true. Kind of hard to argue with that, even if the theory was at odds with a competing theory that relied solely upon authority.
Funny how certain things become obvious, once they are pointed out.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Catastrophe
In President Obama's weekly video address of February 7, 2009, he said
What our president is saying is that a national catastrophe happens when unemployment reaches reaches a certain number, or foreclosures or rent evictions rise to a certain level, or some number of people cannot afford heath insurance. The common denominator is loss of income necessary to maintain the basic necessities of life. Note that this is a quantitative argument, as we have always had citizens without jobs, homes, or health insurance.
What is scary about our current economic predicament is that other types of catastrophes are looming. The one that Obama mentioned is the usual catastrophe brought on by the usual business cycle of recession, recovery, and expansion.
The other catastrophes include
(1) bank failure, where the ATMs and credit cards stop working
(2) hyperinflation, where greenbacks lose their value, absolving all dollar-based debt and wiping out all savings
(3) stock market crash, where equity-based retirement accounts get wiped out and old people must depend on the kindness of strangers and/or their families
(4) economic loss due to global climate change, that is, more devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and wintry weather
(5) a haves vs. have-nots scenario, where ownership of assets is concentrated in the hands of a few percent of the population and everyone else is impoverished
(6) Jim Kunstler's Long Emergency scenario, where our way of life becomes unsustainable due to the depletion of energy resources and the organization of American homes and buildings around automobiles.
As to the probability of any of these other catastrophes occurring, I have no idea. One must imagine that the transactional functions of the banking system would be maintained at all costs, as this is the circulatory system of the economic body. The fed is supposed to be keeping inflation in check. The stock market is more of a symptom than a cause, that is, when the business cycle recovers, the market should recover. A consensus on the economic effects of climate change is undeveloped.
The last two catastrophes may be the same and both concern our nation's energy policy. Breaking us of our oil addiction is the key policy we must embrace. Kudos to Mankiw for suggesting a Pigovian tax on gas but it seems not to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting enacted by a politician.
Because if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care. Millions more will have to put their dreams on hold.
What our president is saying is that a national catastrophe happens when unemployment reaches reaches a certain number, or foreclosures or rent evictions rise to a certain level, or some number of people cannot afford heath insurance. The common denominator is loss of income necessary to maintain the basic necessities of life. Note that this is a quantitative argument, as we have always had citizens without jobs, homes, or health insurance.
What is scary about our current economic predicament is that other types of catastrophes are looming. The one that Obama mentioned is the usual catastrophe brought on by the usual business cycle of recession, recovery, and expansion.
The other catastrophes include
(1) bank failure, where the ATMs and credit cards stop working
(2) hyperinflation, where greenbacks lose their value, absolving all dollar-based debt and wiping out all savings
(3) stock market crash, where equity-based retirement accounts get wiped out and old people must depend on the kindness of strangers and/or their families
(4) economic loss due to global climate change, that is, more devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and wintry weather
(5) a haves vs. have-nots scenario, where ownership of assets is concentrated in the hands of a few percent of the population and everyone else is impoverished
(6) Jim Kunstler's Long Emergency scenario, where our way of life becomes unsustainable due to the depletion of energy resources and the organization of American homes and buildings around automobiles.
As to the probability of any of these other catastrophes occurring, I have no idea. One must imagine that the transactional functions of the banking system would be maintained at all costs, as this is the circulatory system of the economic body. The fed is supposed to be keeping inflation in check. The stock market is more of a symptom than a cause, that is, when the business cycle recovers, the market should recover. A consensus on the economic effects of climate change is undeveloped.
The last two catastrophes may be the same and both concern our nation's energy policy. Breaking us of our oil addiction is the key policy we must embrace. Kudos to Mankiw for suggesting a Pigovian tax on gas but it seems not to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting enacted by a politician.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
DeMint Amendment Fails
Today the Senate is debating the economic stimulus bill (HR1) that came over from the House and voting on amendments. One was proposed by Senator DeMint (R South Carolina). HR1 contains the following language:
Senator DeMint's amendment is to strike section (C) above, which makes it illegal to use stimulus money to fix up buildings used for religious activities. Note that if the religious use of the facility is not "substantial", stimulus funds may be used.
I listened to part of Senator DeMint's argument for his amendment on C-SPAN (perhaps doubling it's viewership). His main concern is that a person's right to exercise their religion, for example by praying or discussing religion in a public speech or offering an invocation before graduation, will be compromised should the place of this expression be an institution that received stimulus money. Are not the restrictions on stimulus spending simply restrictions on spending? Does anyone think that if the University of Texas receives stimulus money, then the Longhorns can no longer play football in their stadium because the stimulus money cannot be spent on the stadium?
DeMint also appeared to give an argument against his own amendment. He stated that the courts have held that religious groups have the same rights as non-religious groups, which might mean that the fellowship of christian athletes has the same right to use a meeting room as the coed rugby team. The stimulus bill does not change this.
The vote on the amendment was 43 ayes and 50 something nays, which looks like it followed party lines. If the Republicans in Exile are to come back, they first need to shed their theocratic tendencies.
(3) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—
(A) the maintenance of systems, equipment, or facilities, including maintenance associated with any permissible uses of funds described in paragraph (1);
(B) modernization, renovation, or repair of stadiums or other facilities primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which admission is charged to the general public;
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or
(D) construction of new facilities.
Senator DeMint's amendment is to strike section (C) above, which makes it illegal to use stimulus money to fix up buildings used for religious activities. Note that if the religious use of the facility is not "substantial", stimulus funds may be used.
I listened to part of Senator DeMint's argument for his amendment on C-SPAN (perhaps doubling it's viewership). His main concern is that a person's right to exercise their religion, for example by praying or discussing religion in a public speech or offering an invocation before graduation, will be compromised should the place of this expression be an institution that received stimulus money. Are not the restrictions on stimulus spending simply restrictions on spending? Does anyone think that if the University of Texas receives stimulus money, then the Longhorns can no longer play football in their stadium because the stimulus money cannot be spent on the stadium?
DeMint also appeared to give an argument against his own amendment. He stated that the courts have held that religious groups have the same rights as non-religious groups, which might mean that the fellowship of christian athletes has the same right to use a meeting room as the coed rugby team. The stimulus bill does not change this.
The vote on the amendment was 43 ayes and 50 something nays, which looks like it followed party lines. If the Republicans in Exile are to come back, they first need to shed their theocratic tendencies.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Frosty Nixon
When Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency in August of 1974, I was 21 years old and residing in Tincup, Colorado at a boys camp. People my age hated Nixon. His resignation was convenient for me as I had vowed not to reenter the real world as long as he was still in office. This was not much of a threat as the economy was down then and job prospects for a newly-minted Harvard graduate were not overflowing.
Why did we hate him? He was a crook. When a president stands before TV cameras and says "I'm not a crook", that's pretty much a tip off that he is a crook. Anyway, the evidence would eventually emerge.
By 1977, when the Frost/Nixon interviews first aired, the country had moved on. Nixon's hand-picked successor, Gerald Ford, had given him a full and complete pardon, then paid the price in the '76 election as Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The 1970's were a return to bad economic times, as the prosperity of the post-war economy withered under the burden of the Vietnam War, expanded social programs, and the oil crisis. People had other things to think about than justice for Richard Nixon.
When the interviews started, everyone wanted to watch, not so much for closure, but because we wanted to see him squirm. It was entertainment, not totally unlike today's reality TV shows.
The performance by Frank Langella, portraying Richard Nixon, in the movie Frost/Nixon was one of the best I have ever seen. Much of it is done in close-up, and here Langella speaks Nixon's mind, without saying a word. Nixon was a strange character, awkward in social contexts, driven by ancient demons, and never confident in his success. His immense vulnerability is perhaps his only endearing quality.
Frost is played Michael Sheen, who is good enough, but does not physically resemble the Frost that I recall from those days. It was nice to see Rebecca Hall playing Frost's girlfriend-of-the-month, Caroline Cushing. Nixon was mildly obsessed with Frost's personal life and fornicating ways. Director Ron Howard left us to wonder exactly what went on between Frost and Cushing, a Nixonian perspective.
The movie itself is well paced and full of suspense, much like Rocky or A Few Good Men (another Kevin Bacon movie). In summary, I say "well done, Opie." Nixon's legacy got polished a bit with the truth.
Why did we hate him? He was a crook. When a president stands before TV cameras and says "I'm not a crook", that's pretty much a tip off that he is a crook. Anyway, the evidence would eventually emerge.
By 1977, when the Frost/Nixon interviews first aired, the country had moved on. Nixon's hand-picked successor, Gerald Ford, had given him a full and complete pardon, then paid the price in the '76 election as Jimmy Carter won the presidency. The 1970's were a return to bad economic times, as the prosperity of the post-war economy withered under the burden of the Vietnam War, expanded social programs, and the oil crisis. People had other things to think about than justice for Richard Nixon.
When the interviews started, everyone wanted to watch, not so much for closure, but because we wanted to see him squirm. It was entertainment, not totally unlike today's reality TV shows.
The performance by Frank Langella, portraying Richard Nixon, in the movie Frost/Nixon was one of the best I have ever seen. Much of it is done in close-up, and here Langella speaks Nixon's mind, without saying a word. Nixon was a strange character, awkward in social contexts, driven by ancient demons, and never confident in his success. His immense vulnerability is perhaps his only endearing quality.
Frost is played Michael Sheen, who is good enough, but does not physically resemble the Frost that I recall from those days. It was nice to see Rebecca Hall playing Frost's girlfriend-of-the-month, Caroline Cushing. Nixon was mildly obsessed with Frost's personal life and fornicating ways. Director Ron Howard left us to wonder exactly what went on between Frost and Cushing, a Nixonian perspective.
The movie itself is well paced and full of suspense, much like Rocky or A Few Good Men (another Kevin Bacon movie). In summary, I say "well done, Opie." Nixon's legacy got polished a bit with the truth.
Daschle Dashed
The TV machine reports that this NYT op ed piece was the final straw that sunk the nomination of Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services. It was not just his tax problems; the NYT believed that "financial ties to major players in the health care industry may prove to be even more troublesome." If Obama is to walk-the-walk of shutting down the lobbyist/government revolving door, then he needs to waive the waivers.
Back to the tax issue, I have always been under the assumption that if you don't report taxable income or if you list bogus deductions, you are committing a crime, not an honest mistake. If the reporting is accurate, Mr. Daschle only came clean because he anticipated that his financial records might come under scrutiny. There was no smoking-gun 1099 from his employer, so had he been headed to retirement, he might never had amended his taxes.
But he did amend his taxes and pay off the IRS, without further allegation of wrong-doing, so what's the big deal? That would be perception, that is, the perception that change has not really come to Washington and the rules get changed for special people.
Daschle did the right thing by withdrawing. Nancy Killefer, the almost chief performance officer, also did the right thing. Timothy F. Geithner, our treasury secretary, not so much.
Obama went on the TV machine and admitted to Katie Couric that he had made a mistake concerning the Daschle nomination. Point to Obama.
Back to the tax issue, I have always been under the assumption that if you don't report taxable income or if you list bogus deductions, you are committing a crime, not an honest mistake. If the reporting is accurate, Mr. Daschle only came clean because he anticipated that his financial records might come under scrutiny. There was no smoking-gun 1099 from his employer, so had he been headed to retirement, he might never had amended his taxes.
But he did amend his taxes and pay off the IRS, without further allegation of wrong-doing, so what's the big deal? That would be perception, that is, the perception that change has not really come to Washington and the rules get changed for special people.
Daschle did the right thing by withdrawing. Nancy Killefer, the almost chief performance officer, also did the right thing. Timothy F. Geithner, our treasury secretary, not so much.
Obama went on the TV machine and admitted to Katie Couric that he had made a mistake concerning the Daschle nomination. Point to Obama.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
No Way Out
Today I saw Bethany McLean on PBS NOW talking about the current financial crisis. Recall that she is the Fortune reporter, now working for Vanity Fair, that initiated the exposure of Enron and wrote a book about it. She points out that the big problem we face is who pays for this mess. There are no easy answers, but once government gets involved, it gets even harder. In the real financial world that most Americans live in, if you start a business and make bad decisions and run out of money, you lose along with your stockholders. Not so if the government decides to keep you afloat, however, you are now subject to scrutiny that "the market" is not usually concerned about. If your stock portfolio is soaring, it matters little if execs got obscene bonuses.
The stimulus now be worked on by Congress is a political event, not financial. Few expect that anything can be done to save 2009 and most expect that the global economy will eventually improve. The key thing for politicians is to be perceived as doing something. What we must hope for is that Obama will go beyond that and construct a compelling vision for the future.
Martin Wolf of the Financial Times provides as good an analysis as anybody. I saw him recently on Charlie Rose and he said that we do not want to return to the way things were, that is, with the US and a few European countries driving the global economy with mass consumption and mass debt. Add to that our self-defeating energy policies and you at least have a great vision of where we don't want to be.
The stimulus now be worked on by Congress is a political event, not financial. Few expect that anything can be done to save 2009 and most expect that the global economy will eventually improve. The key thing for politicians is to be perceived as doing something. What we must hope for is that Obama will go beyond that and construct a compelling vision for the future.
Martin Wolf of the Financial Times provides as good an analysis as anybody. I saw him recently on Charlie Rose and he said that we do not want to return to the way things were, that is, with the US and a few European countries driving the global economy with mass consumption and mass debt. Add to that our self-defeating energy policies and you at least have a great vision of where we don't want to be.
Super Boooooooooooooooooowl
Super Bowl Sunday is, of course, the uniquely American holiday tradition that emerged in my lifetime, evolving into a cross between Halloween and Thanksgiving. Like Halloween, it is totally opt-in and allows participation with varying degrees of intensity. Like Thanksgiving, it is food-based but replacing extended family with friends. For the record, Clare and I had our own party with turkey hot dogs, deviled eggs (mmmmm), cole slaw, baked beans, and brownies.
The game was pretty good for a Super Bowl, but the best moments were the national anthem by Jennifer Hudson, making her first appearance since her family tragedy. The worst moment was when #92 of the Steelers mugged a Cardinal following a 4th quarter punt. John Madden, the dean of sportscasters, commented that he should have been ejected from the game. #92 is the same guy that set a Super Bowl record by returning an interception 100 yards for a touchdown on the last play of the first half. How quickly we go from hero to chump.
There were no great commercials this year but a few awful ones. The worst was by teleflora, a flower seller, in which a woman's happiness at receiving flowers in a box turns to horror when the flowers start spewing personal insults. Many commercials inflict cartoon physical violence on live action humans, but emotional abuse crosses the line in my book. The commercial was successful in that I do remember the name teleflora, however, the result will be a life long boycott.
The Budweiser horse ads were a little sad. In one, a horse tries to act like a dog my fetching a tree branch. His human oppressor is not impressed. In another, a horse escapes his barn and journeys to a distant circus to see his girlfriend. Chaos follows and you know it's going to end badly.
The most popular ad, as reported on my TV machine, was the Doritos crystal ball. A man believes it makes predictions and predicts free Doritos. After vandalizing a vending machine by throwing the ball and breaking the glass, the prediction comes true. Cut to a second man throwing the ball after predicting a job promotion. The ball hits his boss in the crotch... ut oh. People eat this stuff up.
The most inappropriate ad was by an internet job site, which showed small snippets of people being dissatisfied at work, over and over and over again. So the message is, in the middle of the worst recession in 60 years, find a new job if your boss/coworkers annoy you. Perhaps I missed the point. They were trying to be humorous, not realistic. But they failed because I don't even remember who ran the ad.
My favorite ad was the godaddy.com Danica Patrick shower ad, which was a take off on the American Pie webcam scene. The ad was riveting if you are a nerd and/or a huge Danica Patrick fan. (Advice to IndyCar... fire the other drivers and just have Danica drive around the track by herself.)
Coincidentally, my drenaud.com domain registration is expiring and I am transferring it from Network Solutions to Go Daddy. Was it Danica or their lower prices that motivated me?
Back when Walter Cronkite was America's news anchor, he ended a broadcast by reporting the previous day's Super Bowl score, and then added "an event which has no significance".
The game was pretty good for a Super Bowl, but the best moments were the national anthem by Jennifer Hudson, making her first appearance since her family tragedy. The worst moment was when #92 of the Steelers mugged a Cardinal following a 4th quarter punt. John Madden, the dean of sportscasters, commented that he should have been ejected from the game. #92 is the same guy that set a Super Bowl record by returning an interception 100 yards for a touchdown on the last play of the first half. How quickly we go from hero to chump.
There were no great commercials this year but a few awful ones. The worst was by teleflora, a flower seller, in which a woman's happiness at receiving flowers in a box turns to horror when the flowers start spewing personal insults. Many commercials inflict cartoon physical violence on live action humans, but emotional abuse crosses the line in my book. The commercial was successful in that I do remember the name teleflora, however, the result will be a life long boycott.
The Budweiser horse ads were a little sad. In one, a horse tries to act like a dog my fetching a tree branch. His human oppressor is not impressed. In another, a horse escapes his barn and journeys to a distant circus to see his girlfriend. Chaos follows and you know it's going to end badly.
The most popular ad, as reported on my TV machine, was the Doritos crystal ball. A man believes it makes predictions and predicts free Doritos. After vandalizing a vending machine by throwing the ball and breaking the glass, the prediction comes true. Cut to a second man throwing the ball after predicting a job promotion. The ball hits his boss in the crotch... ut oh. People eat this stuff up.
The most inappropriate ad was by an internet job site, which showed small snippets of people being dissatisfied at work, over and over and over again. So the message is, in the middle of the worst recession in 60 years, find a new job if your boss/coworkers annoy you. Perhaps I missed the point. They were trying to be humorous, not realistic. But they failed because I don't even remember who ran the ad.
My favorite ad was the godaddy.com Danica Patrick shower ad, which was a take off on the American Pie webcam scene. The ad was riveting if you are a nerd and/or a huge Danica Patrick fan. (Advice to IndyCar... fire the other drivers and just have Danica drive around the track by herself.)
Coincidentally, my drenaud.com domain registration is expiring and I am transferring it from Network Solutions to Go Daddy. Was it Danica or their lower prices that motivated me?
Back when Walter Cronkite was America's news anchor, he ended a broadcast by reporting the previous day's Super Bowl score, and then added "an event which has no significance".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
