Hitler on the GOP victory in Massachusetts

Downfall parodies never get old. This is the funniest yet.



BTW, I caught the last hour or so of Downfall on satellite a few years ago. It was quite good. Looks like Bruno Ganz won the German equivalent of a best actor Oscar for his turn as Hitler. Deservedly so.

Christie FTW

Former Goldman chief Jon Corzine loses despite outspending former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie by $12 million: Republican Christie captures NJ governor's seat.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder writes,

The Republican wins in New Jersey and Virginia and the close race in New York City tells us...
...self-financers, people affiliated with Big Wall Street, the Old Money Crowd, the establishment, the party leadership... are being put on notice. Not a Democratic or Republican thing...but a gun, fired by the political regulars -- not the newer Obama turnout cohort but the regular off-year cohort -- at the heart of those who protect those in power, at bailouts, at spending.

Also: very easy alternate explanation: the economy sucks. States are really hurting. Governors are very unpopular. Their support is going to crater.

Richard Posner on the Goldman Sachs Bonuses

Judge Posner, who in addition to being the co-author, with his Nobel Laureate friend, of the Becker-Posner blog is an Atlantic correspondent, has this piece today on the Atlantic's website about the Goldman bonuses. Worth reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:

Goldman Sachs, we learned earlier this month, may end up paying more than $20 billion in bonuses to its employees in 2009. The controversial bonuses that American Insurance Group (AIG) had wanted to pay had been intended to reward performance before the company collapsed, and most of the recipients appear to have had no involvement in the decisions that precipitated the collapse.

The Goldman bonuses, in contrast, were intended to reward Goldman's employees for their outstanding performance during the economic crisis. The performance was made possible by the government's having bailed out Goldman in September 2008, when it is believed that, upon Lehman's declaring bankruptcy, Morgan Stanley was 24 hours away from following suit--and Goldman Sachs 72 hours. It was saved by receipt of bailout money and, more important, by being permitted to convert from a broker-dealer to a bank holding company. That entitled it to borrow from the Federal Reserve -- unlike Lehman Brothers, which was denied a Fed loan because it was a non-bank. That was not a sound basis for denying it a loan, but Goldman would have been in the same boat, had it not converted.

So the argument goes: Without government aid then, no $20 billion-plus in bonuses for Goldman Sachs's employees in 2009? Maybe zero in bonuses, maybe indeed, no Goldman Sachs at all. Against that background, the bonuses seem egregious. It seems that the government drove a bad bargain when it bailed out Goldman, that it should have demanded a big chunk of Goldman's future profits.

Posner goes on to note that the majority of the firm's profits in the last year came from proprietary trading, an activity, he argues, that is of limited societal value. Posner posits some negative political and economic consequences of this.

The image above accompanied Posner's Atlantic essay and was credited to Chris Hondros/Getty Images.

A David Brooks column worth reading

His effort from yesterday's New York Times: "The Reality Moment". Brooks wrote about the UK's likely next Prime Minister Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Conservative Party Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, whose party is rising in the polls in Britain not by promising tax cuts or more transfer payments but by being honest about its country's fiscal condition and the austerity measures needed to remedy it. There are other lessons American conservatives can learn from Osborne and his party. Worth reading.

Incidentally, Bloomberg TV featured a profile of Osborne recently, who has had something of a meteoric political career so far (he's still in his thirties).

The FT on the Nobel Peace Prize

Beautiful day here in North Jersey. The sun's out, and the Giants just routed the Raiders. Here's the Financial Times on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, from yesterday, "Urgency of Now?". Excerpt:

The Norwegian Nobel committee has made odd decisions before. Awarding this year’s peace prize to Barack Obama, however, is not merely bizarre but bad: for Mr Obama, for the prize, and for the cause of peace itself.

[...]

This is the first time the prize is given for what remain, for now, mere aspirations.

[...]

Despite Mr Obama’s undeniable diplomatic ambitions for a more peaceful world, there has simply been no time for him either to realise or betray them. So – to borrow from his own rhetoric – why the fierce urgency of now?

The answer is a Nobel Committee trapped in an adolescent adulation of Mr Obama that, if once shared by many, most have put behind them. Its continuing desire to flatter a particular tendency in US politics – Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are recent laureates – risks painting it as an annex to the left wing of the US Democratic party. Hoping the prize will strengthen Mr Obama domestically is deeply misguided: it will embarrass his allies and egg on his detractors.

Elsewhere, it will come to be seen as awarded for wishful thinking, not hard work. Peace is not served by devaluing the moral force of the prize, whose greatest impact has always been the moral support it can give those who fight oppression with their lives – a von Ossietzky, a King or a Walesa – or leaders who make heavy concessions needed for peace. Mr Obama has done neither. It is, however, in his hands to rescue the prize from itself – by declining it in deference to those more worthy than he.

Quip of the Day

The Louisiana attorney general subpoenaed ACORN for documents related to an embezzlement case, according to an article this morning on Nola.com. The article quoted ACORN board member Vanessa Gueringer on the subpoena:

"I believe it is another lie, another witch hunt, " Gueringer said.

In the comment thread of Megan McCardle's post about this, a commenter named Thorley Winston quipped:

People afraid of witch hunts should probably refrain from flying around on broomsticks.

Running Against Wall Street

In post back in June ("Lessons from the European Parliament Elections") I wrote,

A third area where (some) Republicans may be able to draw a favorable contrast with Democrats, if they are willing to do so, is by running against Wall Street, or more accurately, running against the incestuous relationship between some major Wall Street firms and Washington. I suspect New Jersey's GOP gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie will try a version of this while running against our incumbent governor, former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine.

Today I got an e-mail from the Christie campaign which included this video:

The Management Leisure Suit

The Yes Men are anti-capitalist provocateurs and pranksters (or, "culture jammers"). According to Wikipedia, their real names are Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos. Vamos is an associate professor at Rensselaer, and Servin is, I assume, independently wealthy. They can be pretty funny though. I was reminded of them by a review of their new movie in the Financial Times earlier this week. Here's an example of one of the Yes Men's pranks from a few years ago, while impersonating WTO officials at a conference in Finland. If you are impatient and want to skip the set-up, the management leisure suit makes its first appearance around 6:24. From there, well... you'll see.

Dean Kamen on Health Care

From an interview with the prolific inventor in Popular Mechanics (HT: Megan McCardle):

Popular Mechanics: Yet health-care costs do keep rising. Is there a point at which we simply can't afford the most advanced treatments?

Kamen: Diabetes alone, if you include all of the long-term, insidious consequences of a lifetime of diabetes, is responsible for about 30 percent of the federal reimbursement for healthcare. Taking care of the diabetic every day is a small piece of it. But what if tomorrow we could wipe out diabetes, suddenly everybody takes a pill and it cures the people that have it, and it inoculates the other people so they'll never have it? Forgetting what a great life that would give people and their families, you take care of 30 percent of what now we project as this insurmountable problem of healthcare, which they project is going to kill us.

Well, it would kill us if we look at the 30-year actuarial data based on our 19th century confidence in technology. But I'm sure in 1920 if you asked actuaries to say what percentage of our GDP are we going to spend taking care of people with polio, they'd say: "They get polio, it goes to their lungs, they sit in iron lung machines, they could live a whole lifetime with three people watching over them. We can't support them all."

But what did it cost to deal with everybody with polio? Oh, $2 apiece. We gave them the Salk vaccine. But in the 1920s Salk wasn't around yet.

I'm with Kamen on the importance of market incentives in spurring innovation in health care, but I don't know if the Polio vaccine was the best example for him to use here: Salk refused to patent it¹. Nevertheless, even if he had patented it, the cost of the vaccine could still have been far less than the cost of keeping people alive in iron lungs, so Kamen's point still stands. He could have used a better example though to support his point. Back to the interview:

PM: In other words, R&D spending now may save money later?

Kamen: If you project forward these horrific costs of treating everybody and you want to assume we are not going to respond to that by making the therapies better, simpler and cheaper and in some cases completely wiping out the [diseases], well you know what? We might actually get to that situation—if we stop investing in technology, if we stop believing that the future ought to be better than the past.

If we want to sit here and keep assuming we should be fighting, and that we should be striving to spend less of our intellectual power and our money on great achievements to come in healthcare—that we should be fighting to make it a smaller piece of our economy—I want to know what you want to make a bigger piece of our economy. What do you want to see the future look like?

I think this debate shows a fundamental lack of vision, a lack of confidence, a lack of understanding of what's possible.

Coincidentally, Tim Ferriss blogged about Kamen today, and in the comment thread I mentioned that Kamen was featured on an episode of the Sundance Channel series Iconoclasts (he was paired with Isabella Rossellini). Kamen is a fascinating character, which made this a fascinating episode to watch. Here is a brief clip from that episode.

The photo above of Dean Kamen accompanied the Popular Mechanics article.

¹If Salk's research weren't funded by the University of Pittsburgh and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis -- if, say, he had been the founder of a start-up pharma company -- he would have had to patent the vaccine in order to recoup his and his investors' investment in the drug's development.

The Top Earning Degrees

A CNN Money article today lists the most lucrative undergraduate degrees (see the graphic above) and notes that, unsurprisingly, they all require math skills. A couple of thoughts on this. First, take a look at the first and third highest-paying degrees (petroleum and mining engineering, respectively). I've argued in the past for the economic benefits of facilitating more domestic natural resources production (e.g., here and here). One of the benefits I've noted is that natural resources extraction tends to create a lot of high-paying blue collar jobs. As this CNN article notes, it also creates high-paying professional jobs, which is another benefit.

Consider the benefits to California, for example, if it dropped its opposition to expanding offshore drilling. For one thing, it might improve the state's environment by reducing natural oil seepage. It would also generate much-needed royalty revenue for the state (in fact, the state could capture that revenue up front by issuing revenue bonds backed by those future royalty income streams). In addition, how many jobs would it create for petroleum engineers and oil rig workers? Couldn't California use the additional net tax payers and potential home buyers these workers would represent?

Another thought: given that the fifteen most lucrative college majors require math aptitude, does it make sense that the SAT has reduced the relative weight of its math section in the total SAT score from one half to one third (by adding an equal-weighed essay section to the math and verbal sections)?

Six Wasted Syllables (for Paul Price)

On the Atlantic's Business Channel, Chris Good posts about the return of Bobby Jindal, noting that, given his expertise in health care policy, Jindal has taken advantage of the current debate over President Obama's proposed health care reform to tiptoe back into the national spotlight, now that memories of his awful response to the President's speech have faded. Good also links to Jindal's op/ed about health care policy in today's Wall Street Journal, "How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan". One paragraph from Jindal's op/ed prompted the title of this post:

•Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.

What would William Strunk, Jr. have called "refundable tax credits", if such a thing existed in his time? I'm guessing he'd call them what they are: "grants". I'm not sure why Jindal and other conservatives persist in wasting an additional six syllables on the longer euphemism. Perhaps it's so they can characterize government spending on such grants as tax relief instead of government spending, but, if so, this bit of obfuscation just plays into liberals' rhetoric on progressive tax policy. Most liberals are happy to characterize transfer payments to low-income Americans as tax relief, and to characterize tax cuts for the wealthy as a form of government spending. There doesn't seem to be much benefit to conservatives in conceding the rhetorical and policy ground on this, particularly since, as some smart centrists (e.g., Clive Crook) and even at least one smart liberal (Matt Yglesias) acknowledge, we are approaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to increasing the progressivity of our tax system.

As both men have noted, if American liberals want to expand the welfare state raising taxes on the rich, by itself, won't be enough to pay for it; they'll have to raise taxes (by at least a modest amount) on everyone else. Yglesias has noted that countries such as Sweden, which have social safety nets envied by American liberals, also have much more regressive taxes than we do.

Apathy Check

I started writing a post yesterday about Bobby Jindal, his recent op/ed on health care policy in the WSJ, and the folly of conservatives calling grants "refundable tax credits". Is anyone interested in reading that post? I'm on the fence about it myself, and I was the one writing it. You decide. If this post gets no comments, I'll take that as a "no".

Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin

From Noonan's Wall Street Journal column today ("A Farewell to Harms"):

Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.

[...]

To wit, "I love her because she's so working-class."

[...]

What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.

[...]

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.

"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.

Noonan's mostly on-target here, I think, but it would be interesting to see some introspection from her on why so many in the Republican base might have embraced a candidate who hunts, fishes, lives in a rural area, etc. I'd expect a little more thought on this from a former Reagan speechwriter. The GOP has spent the last few decades mythologizing blue collar Americans in an attempt to woo them, going back at least as far as Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign, and continuing through the second Bush administration. We went from a plaid-shirted Reagan clearing brush on his ranch in California, to a plaid-shirted Bush clearing brush on his ranch in Texas. Noonan, of all people, shouldn't be surprised that when a candidate fits this image as well as Palin does, she will be popular among the base.

Noonan claims that Palin isn't working class because her father was a teacher and her mother was a school secretary, but this seems like splitting hairs. Okay, Palin's father didn't work in a coal mine. But neither was he the commander of the Pacific Fleet (as McCain's father was), or the CEO of an auto company (as Romney's father was), or the President of the United States (as Bush's father was). Palin may have her limitations, but she is savvy enough to run with her blue collar authenticity, such as it is, given how GOP image crafters such as Peggy Noonan have long made a fetish of it.

The Hispanic New Haven Firefighter Plaintiff Speaks

Tucked away on p. A-20 of Friday's New York Times was a profile of Lieutenant Ben Vargas (pictured above, with his wife and one of his sons), the lone Hispanic fireman among the 18 plaintiffs in the Ricci case, "Bias Suit a Test of Resolve for Hispanic Man". Below are some excerpts.

NEW HAVEN — The two dozen firefighters who packed into Humphrey’s East Restaurant were celebrating a coming marriage, drinking and jawboning in the boisterous style of large men with risky jobs, but Lt. Ben Vargas spent the evening trying to escape the tension surrounding his presence.

During a trip to the bathroom, he found himself facing another man. Without warning, the first punch landed. When Lieutenant Vargas awoke, bloodied and splayed on the grimy floor, he was taken to the hospital.

Lieutenant Vargas believes the attack, five years ago, was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retaliation for his having joined a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city over its tossing out of an exam for promotion that few minority firefighters passed. (No arrests were made in the attack, and the black firefighter vigorously denies having been involved.)

When the Hispanic firefighters’ association and its members — including Lieutenant Vargas’s brother — refused to publicly stand behind him, he quit the organization.

Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.”

When the United States Supreme Court ruled this week in the firefighters’ favor, Lieutenant Vargas, 40, the son of Puerto Rican parents, found himself celebrating amid an awkward racial dynamic: As the lone Hispanic among the 18 plaintiffs who had challenged an affirmative action policy, he had also challenged an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.

“She’s from Puerto Rico, and I’m from Puerto Rico,” he said. “She obviously feels differently than I do.”

[...]

“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

[...]

Lieutenant Vargas decided to follow the path of an older friend, John Marquez, whom he looked up to. Mr. Marquez had worked his way out of the neighborhood by joining the Fire Department.

“I used to tell him, ‘You know where I came from — if I can make it, anyone can,’ ” Mr. Marquez, now a deputy chief in the department, said in an interview. “ ‘But don’t expect anything to be handed to you. Work for it.’ ”

But Lieutenant Vargas’s aspirations were stymied by a 1988 lawsuit, filed by black firefighters, that shut down hiring for years. The lawsuit challenged a written test that relatively few nonwhites passed. In 1994, the city agreed to disregard the test, over union complaints, and hire 40 firefighters — 20 white, 10 black and 10 Hispanic, according to The New Haven Register.

Lieutenant Vargas was among those hired. That later led some people to criticize him as trying to shut the door that welcomed him, though he maintained that it was impossible to know how he would have done under the old hiring process.

[...]

In 2003, Lieutenant Vargas was one of 56 people in the department who passed a test for promotion; 15 were black or Hispanic. When city officials discovered that only two of those were likely to be immediately promoted, they decided to throw out the test, citing concerns that minority candidates might again sue, alleging discrimination.

Instead, a group of white firefighters sued. The results had been posted by race, without names, and when Lieutenant Vargas learned that a Hispanic firefighter had scored sixth among 41 lieutenants on the test to become a captain, he joined the suit. Only later did he discover that the score was his.

“I would have carried the load all by myself,” he said of filing the suit. “Luckily there were enough people out there who felt like I did that we could stand together.”

But Lieutenant Vargas bore more than his share of the criticism, said Lt. Matthew Marcarelli, who was among the plaintiffs and has known Lieutenant Vargas since they were classmates at the fire academy. “Why the other guys viewed him as a turncoat I really don’t understand. He did it because he’s principled and he thought it was the right thing to do. Benny’s nobody’s token.”

Chief Marquez said his old protégé was “an easy target because he didn’t fall in line.”

“It seems that if you’re not the right type of minority, you get hammered,” he said.

The president of the black firefighters’ group in New Haven did not return calls seeking comment.

[...]

[Lt. Vargas noted] that the Hispanic firefighters’ association reversed course in February, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and publicly endorsed his position.

Gesturing toward his three young sons, Lieutenant Vargas explained why he had no regrets. “I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota,” he said. “What a lousy way to live.”

If there's anyone in the Connecticut GOP with two brain cells to rub together, they will have already invited Lieutenant Vargas and his family to a Fourth of July barbecue this weekend and they'll encourage him to run for elective office -- maybe city council in New Haven, for starters.

The photo above, of Lt. Vargas and his wife and son, was credited to Christopher Capozziello of the New York Times.

Sarah Palin to Resign from Alaska Governorship?

Apparently so (Hat Tip: Alyssa Rosenberg, subbing on Ta-Nehisi Coates's Atlantic blog). From KTUU.com:

WASILLA, Alaska -- In a stunning announcement, Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday morning she will resign her office in a few weeks.

Speculation has swirled for weeks, perhaps months that Palin would not seek re-election in 2010 as she pursues a political career on the national stage. The former vice presidential candidate has long been rumored to be considering a run at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Palin did not address those rumors at the press conference at her Wasilla home, during which she did not take questions from reporters.

The Atlantic's Fifteen Ideas to Fix the World

The July/August Atlantic magazine offers this modest collection of brief essays, on ideas that range from reasonable to stupid, "15 Ways to Fix the World". One of the reasonable ones comes from Andrew Bacevich¹, "Give Up on Democracy in Afghanistan". Here's the key excerpt:

[T]he attempt to create a cohesive nation-state governed from Kabul (something that has never existed in modern times) is a fool’s errand. Better to acknowledge and build on the Afghan tradition of decentralized governance. Let tribal chiefs rule: just provide them with incentives to keep jihadists out. Where incentives don’t work, punitive action—U.S. air strikes in neighboring Pakistan provide an illustrative example—can serve as a backup. Denying terrorists sanctuary in Afghanistan does not require pacification—and leaving Afghans to manage their own affairs as they always have will reduce internal instability, while freeing up the resources to allow our own country to tackle other challenges more pressing than the quixotic quest to modernize Afghanistan.

A couple of the stupider ideas come from Thomas Toch, co-director of a think tank called Education Sector, and Kerry Howley, a contributing editor at the libertarian magazine Reason. In Toch's essay, "Tell the Truth About Colleges", he offers these revelations,

Tuition has been skyrocketing for years, with little evidence that education has improved. Universities typically favor research and publishing over teaching. And influential college rankings like the one published by U.S. News & World Report measure mostly wealth and status (alumni giving rates, school reputation, incoming students’ SAT scores); they reveal next to nothing about what students learn.

Shocking, no? Toch must be wracking his brain wondering why so many students are desperate to apply to elite schools such as Harvard, which favor research and publishing over teaching. Apparently, no one has explained to Toch the signaling value of a diploma from an elite school.

On to Kerry's howler, "Welcome Guest Workers",

Say you’re a Bangladeshi taxi driver struggling to survive on your daily wage in Dhaka. A couple of nongovernmental organizations have offered you help, but you can pick only one form of assistance: access to microcredit^[2], or a chance to work in the United States. What’s the better deal? According to a recent analysis by the Center for Global Development, microcredit loans might net you an extra $700 over the course of a lifetime. Working stateside, you’re likely to make the same amount in a month.

Howley goes on to describe a grand plan by Harvard economist Lant Pritchett to achieve "economic justice"³ by having every rich country "hand out enough work visas to increase its labor force by 3 percent" so that Bangladeshi taxi drivers can work as taxi drivers and such in developed countries such as the United States. It's tough to decide where to begin in responding to this one. The first thought that comes to mind is how politically tone-deaf Howley is to bring this plan up when the unemployment rate here is the highest it's been in a quarter century (Howley at least admits in her essay that the timing for implementing this plan would be a tad inauspicious now). That political tone-deafness must be common among libertarians, which may help explain why they never seem to win any elections. My next thought is to wonder whether Howley has ever considered why countries such as Bangladesh are poor in the first place. Is it really because not enough of their citizens have gotten guest worker visas to drive taxis in the U.S.? Has there ever been a country that pulled itself up to affluence by cashing in on the remittances of its citizens working as guest workers in rich countries?

If Kerry Howley cares about Bangladesh, she ought to donate some of her own money to WaterAid, the charity mentioned in this Financial Times article from last year, "How toilets transformed a Bangladeshi village". An excerpt from this article will demonstrate, I think, that Bangladesh has bigger fish to fry before worrying about getting its taxi drivers a temporary raise overseas:

It was 16 days since the chairman of the local council had been murdered by militants who swept in under the cover of a travelling circus to erase one of their political enemies. Now, as the Professor sat in his dried-mud dining area, eating a breakfast of last night’s rice, he was told that a group of strangers had arrived.

He headed to Mosmoil’s sole strip of asphalt, a road bisecting the riot of vegetation that has otherwise recolonised the village’s 63 iron-roofed homes in a tangle of crawling stalks and fat leaves.

The strangers had arrived on a motorcycle rickshaw. They carried documents and pens. They did not wear coloured lungis – the dress of men in rural Bangladesh – but the dark trousers of city dwellers.

“I suspected that because the murder had taken place, they were either government spies or members of a terrorist group,” the Professor recalls. Instead, they pursued an unexpected line of questioning. “Where do you defecate?” they asked him.

“It was the first time I’d heard such a thing,” he says. Overcoming his surprise at the question, he forgot his initial fears, allowed his curiosity to be tweaked, and gave an honest answer.

He told them that sometimes he used a “hanging toilet”, a metre-high bamboo structure built on the banks of a pond, where users climbed up a rickety ladder to a squat hole that was shielded imperfectly from view by a sack cloth cubicle. Other times he ventured into the paddy fields and betel groves that surround the villages of west Bangladesh and squatted, preferably out of the sight of others, over the soil.

“Do you know that you eat this goo?” one of the strangers asked, using a Bengali word for human waste, which spans the English spectrum of social acceptability from the scientific right through to “shit”. “If it rains now, it will wash some of the goo into the pond,” the stranger continued. “Then you bathe there, you wash your dishes there, and you wash your food with water from the pond, so you are eating it.”

The Professor was stunned. “That was the first time we realised we were eating our own goo and I felt something very strange inside,” he recalls. “Not hatred but disgust.”

That article goes on to explain that the "Professor" is, as you may have already suspected, not a real professor; he earned the honorific "Professor Goo" (i.e., "Professor Shit") by becoming an evangelist for the use of the composting toilets introduced by the NGO WaterAid. A nation that shits where it eats has some remedial work to do before it can waste time worrying about any of Kerry Howley's or Lant Pritchett's grand plans. Would Bangladesh be better off if Professor Goo were driving in a taxi in New York instead of teaching his countrymen how to safely and profitably⁴ dispose of their waste?

¹Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, former Army officer, and Vietnam War veteran, had a son who was an Army officer as well. His son was killed in action in Iraq two years ago. Bacevich, who opposed the war in Iraq, wrote this Washington Post op/ed about it at the time, "I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty."

^[2]This is more commonly called microfinance. We've blogged about its limitations in the past, e.g., here.

³I've long been skeptical of any phrase in which "justice" is modified by an adjective. "Justice" should stand alone. Once you put an adjective such as "economic" or "social" in front of it, you're really talking about a form of redistribution. If justice demanded redistribution, there would be no need to call for "economic justice"; it would be implicit in the term "justice". Since it isn't, it's up to the advocate of redistribution to demonstrate that redistribution is just. Saying it doesn't make it so.

⁴The article notes that the compost derived from human waste increases the villagers' vegetable yields, earning them more money at the market.

What the Iranian Government Could Use Now

A U.S. embassy to sic 'students' on, to distract the attention of Iranian anti-government protesters. If only the ayatollahs didn't shoot their bolt with that strategy 30 years ago. Here are a few tweets from Iranian protesters, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic blog (the photo above is from his blog as well):

- reports of large pro-Gov Baseej militia in front of UK embassy Tehran

- Khamenei indicate in last Friday prayers that Gov relationship with UK will become bad

- we expect that Gov will arrange for demo outside UK embassy to become serious - maybe cut diplomatic ties with UK

- Gov demos outside UK embassy in Tehran today shouting 'death to England' - 'death to BBC'

"Death to England"? "Death to the BBC"? What red-blooded Iranian Islamic revolutionary can get excited about that? Another Iranian Twitterer notes,

- Today is aniversary of raiding of USA embassy in Tehran 1979 - #Iranelection - today Gov planning anti UK demo outside UK embassy!!!!

Somehow, I doubt that stirring up the pot with the U.K. is going to help the Iranian establishment much. At this late date, using the U.K. to stir up revolutionary, anti-Western, or anti-imperialist sentiment sounds as archaic as cries of "Perfidious Albion" -- probably, even to Iranians, who seem especially sensitive about past perceived slights to their national honor. In any case, the U.K. has already started to evacuate the families of its diplomats. What happens if it evacuates its embassy too? What's Khamenei going to do, have his 'students' lay siege to the Canadian embassy? I doubt even the most zealous Islamic revolutionary would get excited about that. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would be better off hoping that the Stratfor's George Friedman is right, and that the anti-government protesters represent only a vocal minority, with the current Iranian establishment enjoying broader popular support. Time will tell, I guess.

Senate Apologizes for Slavery

On his Atlantic blog, Ta-Nehisi Coates notes that the Senate passed a resolution apologizing for slavery. The comment thread below this post included the following exchange:

Stacy:

Apparently, a lot of members of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] aren't happy with the verbiage. They say it allows the State to dip out of any further responsibility. My hometown's Rep was quoted...

"The language is unacceptable," said Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., "I'm a reparations man — how else do you repair the damage?"

I have to admit that this made me shudder a bit.

Juba:

Yeah I was hoping there'd be a legal opening for civil action also.

Stacy:

No, this makes me shudder for St. Louis. The town is ass backwards when it comes to race relations. Gotta be one of the worst in the country. That comment is not going to go over well, but Clay doesn't need the white vote to win...

SV:

I aint payin a dime for 'reparations' and I'd say the same thing if I was white.

Juba:

Well you're not sitting on the Board of Directors for companies like Aetna which has direct ties to slavery and still exists today, either. If you were, I'd be putting your company in the crosshairs and rightfully so.

After reading that last comment by Juba, curiosity prompted me to look up the board of directors of Aetna. Aetna's board includes three African American directors -- one of whom, Ronald A. Williams, is the company's CEO. Pictured above are, from left, Mr. Williams, and Aetna's other two African American directors, Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison, and Earl Graves, the publisher of Black Enterprise magazine.

Lesson's from The European Parliament Elections

I meant to post a link to this earlier this week, but didn't get around to it. From Salon, here is Michael Lind's take on the victory of rightist parties across Europe in the European Parliament elections last week: "A warning for Democrats? The right just won all across Europe, thanks to nationalism, populism and recession. It could happen here too.".

Below is an excerpt from Lind's essay, followed by a few thoughts by me.

[I]t has become something of an orthodoxy among bien pensant progressives on both sides of the Atlantic that territorial nation-states are immoral because they privilege the identity of one cultural nation over others (the nation part) and because they favor the well-being of their citizens over foreigners who may be poorer (the territorial state part). Most progressives favor ending agricultural subsidies in Europe and the U.S., claiming that this would help poor peasant farmers in the global South export their way to prosperity (of course this would really benefit multinational agribusiness, not romanticized peasant farmers, but never mind). In debates about immigration, as in debates about trade, elite progressives whose own positions and incomes are secure frequently demonstrate their altruism by suggesting that it is acceptable if immigration somewhat lowers the wages of their less-fortunate fellow nationals, as long as poor foreign immigrants and receivers of remittances are thereby made better off. How generous of them!

The new pro-capitalist, anti-nationalist center-left finds allies in investment banks and college campuses but has little to offer ordinary people who view the nation-state as their agent and protector in a dangerous world. Nobody should be surprised when, in a period of economic crisis, significant parts of the population should turn to unabashed nationalists of the right, as opposed to progressives who fret that helping out their fellow citizens might be a form of discrimination against more deserving foreigners. It's true that toxic forms of racism and illiberal nationalism drive the anti-immigrant politics of the far-right parties that have benefited from protest voting in Europe. But the economic case for limiting the inflow of new workers into an economy at a time of mass unemployment is likely to seem commonsensical to many non-racist voters who do not share the new center-left's unease with national patriotism.

Lind makes some astute observations here, and Republicans can draw some lessons from this if they are willing to part company with Democrats on some of their shared orthodoxies (e.g., embrace of large scale unskilled immigration). The way to do this would be to acknowledge the challenges posed by globalization to the American middle class and offer some constructive solutions. In a recent post ("How Not to Create Broad-Based Prosperity"), we mentioned one Democrat (Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress) who acknowledged these challenges but didn't offer constructive solutions to them (e.g., Miller's proposed replacement for manufacturing jobs lost to outsourcing was to replace them with service jobs such as hospice aids; Miller proposed this without acknowledging the extent to which these jobs are currently filled by immigrant workers). I've made these points before, but two specific areas where Republicans can draw a contrast with Democrats are on immigration policy and energy policy.

On immigration policy, Republicans would be smart to buck the Chamber of Commerce's demands for cheap unskilled immigrant labor and advocate a transition to an immigration system similar to those of Australia or Canada, one that selects for immigrants with high levels of human capital. While unemployment is high, immigration should perhaps be further limited to foreign entrepreneurs who have the capital and intent to start businesses here and create jobs for American workers. To counter the inevitable accusations that anyone advocating an economically rational immigration policy is advocating it because of racism, Republicans ought to do two things. First, they ought to scrupulously distance themselves from anyone who advocates restricting immigration based on race. Racist immigration restrictionists may win elections in Europe, but they will be the kiss of death to any plans to institute a Canadian- or Australian-style immigration policy in America. Second, Republicans ought to point out that it is often minorities who are most harmed by the effects of our current immigration system. Let Democrats explain why we should import more unskilled immigrant laborers when, for example, 39.4% of African American teens are unemployed (Hat tip to Dr. Mark Perry for the chart below).



On energy policy, Republicans would be smart to continue advocating efforts to develop more domestic sources of oil, gas, and coal, while advocating an increase in nuclear power as well. Increasing domestic supplies of energy would create more high-paying jobs in the energy sector, and ensuring a large supply of relatively inexpensive energy would facilitate the creation of jobs in energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing (we noted the effect of lower energy prices on employment in a post last fall, "A Tale of Two States: Utah versus Rhode Island").

A third area where (some) Republicans may be able to draw a favorable contrast with Democrats, if they are willing to do so, is by running against Wall Street, or more accurately, running against the incestuous relationship between some major Wall Street firms and Washington. I suspect New Jersey's GOP gubernatorial nominee Chris Christie will try a version of this while running against our incumbent governor, former Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine. Republicans would be smart to look for economic advisers from among the smart bankers and investors who haven't required government rescues. I don't know what John Hussman's politics are, but to the extent his policy prescriptions (e.g., making big banks eat some losses) have been ignored by the current administration, I bet Dr. Hussman would welcome a chance to advise a Republican candidate willing to listen to him. Another potential economic adviser might be Andy Beal, the self-made billionaire Texas banker who successfully navigated the credit bust.

On the Value Added by Excellent Salesmen

A conversation elsewhere about sales reminded me of this essay written a couple of years ago by Thomas Lifson of American Thinker. Below is the relevant excerpt.

When I entered the business world and actually got to know not only some really excellent salesmen (and women) and developed an appreciation for the ways they contribute not just to the bottom line but to their customers' operations, my respect for the sales profession grew and grew. The best sales professionals have a bit of nobility to them, doing what's right for the customer, even if it costs them or their employers in the short run. They build trust and personal bonds and actively help their customers succeed, bringing far more than a shoeshine and a smile. The best sales professionals are all problem-solvers and dedicated to their customers. They deserve the big bucks they earn.

I will never forget a conversation with a former colleague of mine at Columbia University who left teaching to take a job in business, where he was in charge of marketing certain big ticket products for a major company whose name you would instantly recognize. He spoke movingly of his deep admiration for the dealers of his company's products, many of whom were self-made millionaires. "They created entire businesses out of nothing," he said with awe in his voice, selling and servicing important tools that made life better for millions. We commiserated over the deeply flawed views of business and entrepreneurs (and life itself) so common in the academic world he left and from which I was departing. Both of us quite voluntarily, I might add.