Posted 10:48 AM by Robert

Gallup Poll - Greatest President

"Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"

...........................................................11/03................................2/99
...............................................................%.....................................%
John Kennedy.........................................17....................................12
Abraham Lincoln.....................................17....................................18
Ronald Reagan........................................13....................................12
Franklin Roosevelt...................................11.....................................9
Bill Clinton.................................................9.....................................12
George Washington..................................7.....................................12

How important is it that the first three presidents on this list were the victims of successful or unsuccessful assassination attempts? ("Victims" in the sense of serious physical harm. An astute reader e-mails that all of these presidents were targets of assassination attempts - in Washington's case, during the Revolutionary War, before he became president. )

Posted 2:27 PM by Robert

Kudos And Congrats

To David Hogberg, cornfield blogger extraordinaire.

Posted 2:09 PM by Robert

Carnage In Istanbul

The photos tell a lot.

Posted 3:00 PM by Robert

Such Setbacks III

The recent controversial ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts dealing a setback to traditional marriage appears to conflict directly with the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

In 1996 Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, which provides, "No state shall be required to give effect" to a marriage "between persons of the same sex."

In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples the "benefits and protections that flow from marriage" but did not say gays must be allowed to marry. The Vermont Legislature created "civil unions" to give similar rights and responsibilities to gay couples, an idea that has been adopted in California and elsewhere.

But in its recent controversial ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts said nothing about civil unions. Instead, that court declared that Massachusetts may not exclude "qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage." "[B]arring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," the state court said in its 4-3 ruling. It gave the state 180 days to comply.

That holding seems to directly conflict with the federal law.

But is the Defense of Marriage Act Constitutional? And, if not, could it be made Constitutional? Recent United States Supreme Court decisions limiting the sweep of the Commerce Clause prevent an easy answer in the form of an appeal to that particular Congressional power.

The very features of this Massachusetts holding that could give it a national impact could also validate the Defense of Marriage Act and therefore overturn the holding. Specifically, couples who wed in Boston are married just the same in every other state - immediately while the couple lives in Boston and later if they move to Los Angeles. Arguably, that's because under the "full faith and credit" principle of the U.S. Constitution, judicial decisions - and therefore valid contracts - made in one state are automatically honored in another. The Defense of Marriage Act is intended to head off the possibility of a "full faith and credit" extension of decisions such as the one in Massachusetts by declaring as a matter of federal law that same-sex marriage is an invalid contract that would not be honored even in Massachusetts. If the "full faith and credit" argument is right, then the Massachusetts decision would automatically have a huge effect on "interstate commerce" - which allows Congress to legislate on the matter, and validates the Defense of Marriage Act and overturns the Massachusetts holding. Got that? But none of this reasoning has been accepted or tried - the issue has never before come up.

Interestingly, if the Supreme Court had not overturned its own decision in National League of Cities v. Usery, that case might have prohibited Congress from legislating on marriage through the Commerce Clause because marriage is traditionally a state exclusive. But that's so much history.

Congress also has the right to enforce 14th Amendment rights - but recent United States Supreme Court cases have held that Congress can't create or define rights under the 14th Amendent, as the Court held the Congress had tried to do with its statute "restoring" putative First Amendment religious liberties the Court had held were not, in fact, included in the First Amendment.

Some people say they think that the Defense of Marriage Act is Constitutional as written: "I disagree with the [Massachusetts] decision," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.). "I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act we passed in the Congress is constitutional, and I think that will be borne out."

Why is Tom Daschle saying such things? Aren't the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who voted for this decision just the kind of people he's demanding that the President put on the federal courts? Of course they are! Isn't this the kind of activist, fashion-forward decision most Democratic Senators want courts to make? Of course it is! Tom Daschle has spent years working to move the federal courts in just the same direction as this Massachusetts court. His statement is completely inconsistent with his career of actions. The image of Senator Daschle repudiating a state court decision in which the overwhelming majority of the people he desires to put on the federal courts would heartily concur is exquisite.

But Tom Daschle wants to extend that career - and he is up for re-election next year in South Dakota, a pretty conservative state on such matters. He relies on presenting himself as quite a different person to his South Dakota suckers (er, I mean constituents) than the person who flashes by under the Capitol Dome in those expensive suits. [How many suits does Senator Daschle own that could never be worn in South Dakota, in any circumstances or on any occassion, without his being hopelessly overdressed? More than a few, from his Washington television appearances.] And he's already got lots of other problems - including from his suggesting that President Bush knew a lot about the planned 9-11 attacks (an accusation the Senator later retracted and denied having made).

All of which - and so much more - makes the suggestion in this Adam Nagourney article from the New York Times a real hoot to the extent it suggests that the Massachusetts decision is also a 2004 problem for Republicans. Coccooning? Mr. Nagourney has sealed himself in a huge granite pyramid.

Posted 12:16 PM by Robert

If Leading Indicators Go Up And Jobless Claims Dip, But The Media Pay Little Attention...

... does it all have a political impact anyway?

Yes. But the ever-more-willfully coccooning mainstream media will be the last to know. A few weeks ago, when the economic news was bad - or, rather, when the mainstream media thought the news was was bad - it appeared in the front page headlines many days. Not now. Now we're lucky if the news shows up on the front of the business section.

In today's under-reported news from the Associated Press (news for which the New York Times, for example, has no space - even on its Business Page - because it's busy running articles on currency trading fraud and a $13 million mutual fund irregularity - yes, that is million, not billion):

The Conference Board reported that its closely watched Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose 0.4 percent in October, suggesting stronger economic activity in the coming year.

The Labor Department said that for the week ending Nov. 15, new claims for jobless benefits declined by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 355,000. For seven straight weeks claims have been below the 400,000 mark, suggesting that the job market is turning a corner. Fewer than 400,000 new claims is generally thought to lead to a lower unemployment rate, and 355,000 is for these purposes well below 400,000. Also, the 355,000 number was stronger than the forecast fall to 366,000 - a fact that the AP itself does not even bother to report (but you can find in the Financial Times, or the Wall Street Journal, for example).

The October rise in the Conference Board index was twice the 0.2 percent increase most analysts had been forecasting. The upticks in the employment news and the Conference Board index continue a recent string of forecasts that have proved to be less optimistic than the economy's actual results. The U.S. economy is estimated to have grown at a 7.2 % annual rate in the third quarter of this year, and most economists believe growth will be a respectable 4 percent in the October-December period. But in the third quarter unexpectedly depleted and unrestored inventories knocked quite a bit off that 7.2% growth rate. If inventories had been restored, the estimated rate of third quarter growth would have about 8.1%. I wouldn't take that 4% fourth quarter forecast too seriously just yet.

"There's been a steady stream — rather than a trickle — of good news," said Tim O'Neill, chief economist for the Bank of Montreal and Harris Bank in Chicago. "We're probably headed toward a torrent over the next few months."

In which case perhaps the mainstream media can choose to ignore the torrent on the theory that it's not "news" because its become just more of the same.

Posted 6:14 PM by Robert

About That Mustache

With respect to the bizarrely anti-American cover of the UK edition of Paul Krugman's book, Mickey Kaus notes this about the little mustache painted on Dick Cheney's face:

Alert kf readers have pointed out it's almost certainly not a Hitler mustache, but rather a parody of the "Got Milk?" mustache. [Duh!-ed]

Really? If it is a parody of the "Got Milk?" mustache, then it seems to be one of the stranger publishing decisions recently made anywhere in the world.

The National Milk Mustache "got milk?"® Campaign is jointly funded by America's milk processors and dairy farmers: the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) in Washington, D.C., and Dairy Management Inc., Chicago. The tagline "got milk?"® was created for the California Milk Processor Board (CMPB) by Goodby Silverstein & Partners and is licensed by the national milk processor and dairy producer groups.

There is no mention on the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) site of any use of the "Got Milk?" campaign in Europe, nor is there such a mention on the IDFA International page. Nor is there mention on the CMPB news site of any use of the "Got Milk?" campaign outside the United States. The UK Dairy Council site doesn't mention a "got milk?" campaign - and using its "keyword search" button to search for "got milk?" or "got milk" comes up dry. It is possible that there has been European use of this campaign, but it is not mentioned by these organizations - but that seems odd.

So why use a "Got Milk mustache" on Cheney in the UK - but not the US - edition of a book? How are Europeans supposed to understand that image if they've never been exposed to the ads? Won't they assume it's a Hitler mustache anyway - since that they've seen?

Or, just maybe, the mustache featured on the Krugman book jacket is supposed to be the kind of mustache germanic professors used to wear around the university? The kind the students respectfully called Herr Doktorprofessor - at least to their faces?

UPDATE: One clever e-mailing wag points out that in this case it's really Hair Doktorprofessor. And, if I'm right in this hirsuit encounter, could that [Duh!-ed] Mickey got count as The Case Against Editors, Part III ...? Just asking.

FURTHER UPDATE: An astute e-mailer points out that Cheney's image comes from a "Got Oil?" poster by adbusters.org. But the Man Without Qualities has neither received nor discovered evidence that the "Got Milk?" campaign was used anywhere in Europe - including Britain. My e-mailers suggestion that the image may be familiar to British people anyway, since it's so famous in the US, I pass along.

That the adbusters.org image is part of a "Got Oil?" parody of the "Got Milk?" campaign doesn't settle the issue of whether the Cheney mustache is even intended by adbusters.org (never mind the British publishers of Krugman's book) to be Hitleresque. The point of the adbusters.org copy accompanying its "Got Oil?" picture seems to be that Mr. Cheney is led to fascistic activities by his supposed obsession with oil - although Hitler is not mentioned. The "double meaning" of the mustache seems intentional - and, as adbuster.org's "defacement" of President Bush indicates here, the organization is perfectly prepared to visually suggest the Hitler connection.

All that being said, some of the adbuster.org efforts are pretty damn funny.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Verities argues vigorously that the British audience will understand the "Got Milk?" reference, even if the campaign has not been used there. The reader is invited to evaluate the Verities arguments and make her own decisions.

One detail: When I noted above that: The UK Dairy Council site doesn't mention a "got milk?" campaign, I was refering to use of a "got milk?" campaign in the UK. That the Dairy Council has a press release that mentions the campaign in the US, but makes no mention of its use in the UK, suggests that the campaign has not been used in the UK.

Do famous, long-lived ad campaigns in the US necessarilly percolate into minds of many Europeans - or at least the British? Sometimes that happens to some extent. But enough to sell books and displace images of Hitler?

The UK apparently has its own milk campaign that uses people with white mustaches - but not the "Got Milk?" tag line. Would that campaign cause the British to see the mustached image of Cheney as an oil drinker, but not Hitleresque? That seems unlikely to the Man Without Qualities - but others may differ.

The reader should make up her own mind.

MORE: The Times waddles in!

Posted 1:37 PM by Robert

Paying For Howard Dean II: Feeding The Beast

Howard Dean's recent midnight confidence that he would like to re-regulate vast portions of the American economy even as he sweepingly repudiates his prior support for its free trade agreements should be juxaposed with what is, and probably will remain for some time, a major feature of the federal government: it's large deficits - or at least its large debt.

One now-standard explanation for Republican/Conservative acceptance of the large federal deficits that lead to large federal debt is the "starve the beast" theory. A reasonable explanation is provided by Holman Jenkins, for example:

What Republicans have understood ... is that the only effective long-term form of fiscal discipline is tax cuts.

Republicans have become the Party of Tax Cuts: that is, the party that lets you keep your own money, the party that protects the private sector from being smothered by big government. In a more sophisticated audience's eyes, it means a second thing: the party that restrains the growth of government by keeping it on the only fiscal leash that works--a k a the deficit, which maintains a constant tension between forgoing new spending or borrowing to pay for it.

Admittedly, this involves Republicans in a certain amount of self-duplicity (We don't mean this in a bad way; every party has to keep its big tent together.) Not only do Republicans take as given that Congress will spend every dime it can tax and then every dime it can borrow, until it runs up against its effective credit limit. Republicans also accept that they will behave exactly like Democrats in this matter.

The deficit has become the Repubocrat/Demolican equivalent of using adhesive tape as a diet aid. It's not subtle. It doesn't demonstrate a high degree of willpower or self-control. But it works, sort of.

But even if this theory is correct, the deficit restrains only federal spending and the public's loathing of taxes only restrains tax revenues. So suppose the theory is correct, and big deficits leading to big debt combined with tax-animus effectively restrain both federal spending and federal tax revenues. Whay happens then?

Well, the appetite of the "beast" - the desire of various constituencies to shift wealth their way through the federal government - doesn't abate. If it can't be slaked through direct federal taxes and spending, then it will seek satisfaction through indirect federal tax and spending equivalents. Nothing in the existence of a large deficit, large debt or tax animus directly stops the federal government from shifting real wealth through regulation. Put another way: if the federal government can't tax you and spend your tax money on its favored constituencies, then it might instead be able to instruct you to spend your own money on its favored constituencies through regulation. Indeed, to the extent any strategy (including "starve-the-beast") effectively blocks the direct tax-and-spend route of wealth shifting, one would expect pressure to exploit the indirect shift-wealth-through-regulation approach to build.

And that's just what Dr. Dean is proposing to do. With his re-regulation program he is suggesting another means to feed the beast.

But increased regulation is not the only way the federal government - or any sovereign - can disguise a tax-and-spend wealth shifting ploy.

There is also inflation. Inflation has not been an issue much in the United States recently - to some extent because some time ago the Fed demonstrated its willingness to squeeze the economy into a recession rather than allow much inflation. [The trade deficit and increased productivity have a lot to do with that, too, for example.] Some canny analysts suggest that the Fed's current easy money, low interest rate policies have created a monetary bubble waiting to explode into serious inflation. If that were to happen, the Fed would again be called upon to take recessionary actions.

But would the same President Dean who proposes to re-regulate the economy as an indirect tax-and-spend ploy be likely to appoint Fed board members willing to take recessionary action to snuff out yet another indirect tax-and-spend ploy? Would a Democratic Party now chanting that President Bush should be cast out for failing to maintain employment at the level of the last bubble be willing to accept recessionary actions necessary to constrain the next bubble? Dr. Dean represents an attempt to return to an older model of regulatory state - but last time that model crashed in an inflationary cloud, which is largely what occassioned Ronald Reagan's ascent.

And let's not forget a third indirect tax-and-spend ploy: tort judgments. Given Dr, Dean's recent musings on re-regulation, it would not be surprising if he is also contemplating some major expansions in federal tort liability law.

[An aside: Herr Doktorprofessor Paul Von Krugman often complains about tax cuts, and argues that they will lead to Argentina-like inflationary results in this country. But Argentina actually had very high tax rates. Illegal tax evasion was a prominant result of a confiscatory tax system. So the Argentine government, unable to raise money through direct taxes, imposed the indirect tax of inflation. For some reason Herr Doktorprofessor doesn't mention that much in his anti-tax-cut rants.]

Posted 12:16 PM by Robert

Paying For Howard Dean

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law. ....

Dean said in the interview that "re-regulation" is a key tool for restoring trust. In doing so, he drew a sharp distinction with Bush, an outspoken advocate of free markets who wants to further deregulate media companies and other key sectors of the economy.

Dean also continued his clear break from Clinton's "New Democrat" philosophy of trying to appease both business and workers with centrist policies. Earlier in the campaign, Dean reversed his prior support for Clinton's free-trade agreements with Mexico, Canada and China. ....

Voters are clearly hungry for government efforts to force better corporate behavior, especially with scandals hitting such industries as mutual funds and accounting, pollsters say. At the same time, they are unlikely to accept the price spikes that Republicans and some Democrats warn could accompany some new regulations.

Yes, yes, there is that little imperfection in this quasi-socialist image from Dr. Dean's fever dream. But it is interesting that even the Washington Post reporter - one of that small group of reporters who got to snuggle with Dr. Dean on his campaign plane as he spoke his fantasies - at least dimly sensed that perhaps running a hugely enlarged part of the process of allocating real resources in the United States through the discretion of politicians and unelected government regulators might actually cost something.

I suppose we will have to wait to see if the Post and its reporter ever catch on to the fact that regulation not only costs a lot, but also often - even usually - doesn't accomplish what the regulators say they are trying to do, and, in fact, often exacerbates the very problems the regulators say they are trying to solve. It isn't necessary to read analyses of the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law that mostly show it is accomplishing nothing of its supposed intents while boosting costs quite a bit. One might have thought that Dr. Dean himself - who has just opted out of the federal public campaign finance system on the grounds that remaining in it would have exacerbated the very campaign fairness problems that the federal election regulators say they are trying to solve - might have had a clue on this. No such luck.

"If the regulations we've got are useless, expensive and counterproductive, then the answer must be more regulation - and lots of it!" Dr. Dean seems to say as he waves around that stethoscope he almost never used in his practice as a specialist in internal medicine.

Posted 11:35 AM by Robert

Tim Noah Has His Finger On The Pulse Of America! II

How could I have missed this juxaposition from within comments collected by Howard Fineman from one of Senator Clinton's closest friends and advisers, a hard-boiled insider:

Then Hillary could come in, well in advance of the convention, and say, ‘Look, somebody has to save the party’.”... Party and elected officials—the so-called superdelegates—are free to shift allegiance, and could form an instant core of Clinton support. Should she make a dramatic entrance next summer ...

The Democratic convention starts July 26, 2004. The summer solstice marks the first day of the season of summer (near June 22) when the Sun is farthest north.

So this closest friend, adviser and hard-boiled insider thinks that Hillary Clinton could come in and make a dramatic entrance next summer (after June 22) but still well in advance of the July 26 convention.

I guess that all depands on what your meaning of well in advance is. The management of Yosemite's Ahwahnee Hotel would probably have to struggle to suppress a laugh at someone who thought a few weeks constituted an attempt to reserve a room there well in advance. But if what you're after is just the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States and not a room at a swank hotel in a national park - making your dramatic entrance three weeks ahead of time might be considered by some people to be well in advance of the convention. At least that might be the way the words are defined by those hard boiled insiders who are the so-called superdelegates you largely helped to appoint, the ones who are free to shift allegiance and could form an instant core of your support.

It's all so ... so ... so ... Clintonian!

Posted 5:00 AM by Robert

Surfing On History?

Since the presidential primary system became influential in 1952, an incumbent president has never lost a reelection bid if he did not face significant opposition in the primaries.

Posted 9:03 PM by Robert

Consumer Comfort Index

The Consumer Comfort Index uses a scale of +100 to -100 and is based on a rolling four-week sample of approximately 1,000 adults nationwide.

End Date.................................. Consumer Comfort Index

11/16/03................................................-17
11/9/03..................................................-18
11/2/03..................................................-18
10/26/03................................................-18
10/19/03................................................-19
10/12/03................................................-19
10/5/03...................................................-20

Apparently, gradually improving comfort.

Posted 8:52 PM by Robert

Krugmania Deranged

Don Luskin appropriately asks whether Paul Krugman approved the UK jacket art for his new book - as featured on Amazon (UK).

Posted 2:56 PM by Robert

X(3872) Is Trouble For The Standard Model

Made in Japan:

Scientists have found a sub-atomic particle they cannot explain using current theories of energy and matter.
The discovery was made by researchers based at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation in Tsukuba.

Classified as X(3872), the particle was seen fleetingly in an atom smasher and has been dubbed the "mystery meson".

The Japanese team says understanding its existence may require a change to the Standard Model, the accepted theory of the way the Universe is constructed.

Posted 11:50 AM by Robert

Copyright Erosion

Could any sensible person look at these kitchen cutting boards incorporating Monet's Water Lilies (Price: $16.95), Van Gogh's Irises (Price: $16.95) and New! Cezanne's Oranges (Price: $16.95) and not realize that each of of these artists would have preferred, say, pulling out all of his fingernails with a pair of plyers to licensing his painting to appear in this form and on this product?

Could any sensible person not understand that a main reason these artists would not have permitted such licensing is that it degrades the value of the original - and all copies - in favor of the marginal benefit to the product vendor?

Could any sensible person look at these products and fail to understand that copyright is not a "public good?"
No. No sensible person could.

Order yours now. It's not too late!

May we also suggest Art Soap Sets - 3 Artists.

Posted 9:41 AM by Robert

Who's Worrying?

To look at the polls, Howard Dean doesn't seem to do all that badly against George Bush:

"If [see below] were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for: [see below], the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican?" If undecided: "As of today, do you lean more toward [see below], the Democrat, or Bush, the Republican?" Names rotated

........................................................George W. Bush...........................Howard Dean
....................................................................%................................................%
11/03..........................................................53..............................................44
9/03............................................................49..............................................46

Indeed, Dr. Dean does just slightly worse than the "electable" General Clark in the same polling question - and General Clark is widely perceived as now losing a lot of steam:

.......................................................George W. Bush............................Wesley Clark
...................................................................%...............................................%
11/03..........................................................50..............................................47
9/03............................................................46..............................................49

So, since Dr. Dean is doing so well with Democrats and not really materially worse than General Clark among the general electorate, why the heck does the media keep running all those "the Democratic Party is so worried about Dr. Dean" stories:

In the wider Democratic universe, however, the prospect of a Dean nomination has sent some party members into paroxysms of private hand-wringing. Not only do they see him losing badly to Bush, they also see Dean hurting Democratic candidates further down on the ticket - rippling into congressional races, and possibly even boosting Republican control of the 100-seat Senate close to the crucial threshold of 60 seats, which would make it filibuster-proof.

"We could come perilously close to a one-party state," says a longtime Democratic activist with no formal ties to any campaign. "We could wind up with two more Antonin Scalias [on the Supreme Court]," he adds, referring to one of the most conservative justices.

Some big-name Democrats have begun to speak openly about Dean's vulnerabilities as a potential nominee. In a Washington Post interview published Monday, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D), who has not endorsed any candidate, says if Dean is nominated, he will have to work hard to show that he's as tough as Bush in handling the war on terrorism. Of the leading Democratic candidates, Dean is the only one to oppose the war with Iraq - the issue that energized his candidacy in the first place. He also has less experience in defense and foreign policy.

Setting aside the issue of whether Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is a "big name Democrat," perhaps this passage from the same Monitor article offers some insight into the apparent Democratic results/anxiety disconnect:

Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst ... adds that this sense of unease probably mirrors some concern in the Democratic establishment that Dean is too much of an outsider, that he's too angry and can be painted as too far left. .... [O]ne discouraged outpost of the Democratic Party is the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the breeding ground for many of the centrist ideas that President Clinton and Vice President Gore espoused and which appear, in this cycle, to be out of sync with what Democratic base voters are looking for - a clear contrast with a president they cannot abide. Will Marshall, the DLC president, speaks of the "myth of inevitability" that the "Dean propaganda machine" has skillfully cultivated.

So big sources of this anti-Dean anxiety seem to be the Democratic establishment and the Democratic Leadership Council. That Democratic establishment presumably includes a nice big serving of the Clinton-appointed and dominated Democratic National Committee - which Dr. Dean says he wants to sweep clean of Clintonian influence. The Democratic Leadership Council has been the traditional source of Clinton influence - which Deanmania is said to show is now "out of sync." And, of course, the more-electable-but-only-on-paper Wesley Clark is the Clintons' darling.

Clintons, Clintons, Clintons. Those names and connections just keep coming up when its time to start putting Dr. Dean down.

But the Clintons surely wouldn't be encouraging these Dean-anxiety messages by using their influence with a Democratic establishment they largely installed, and with the wide portion of the media that willingly caters to them. Would they? No. No. No. Unthinkable. No doubt that famously selfless couple just wants to be sure that there is someone there to save the Democratic party if Dr. Dean "fades."

[And what the heck is "a longtime Democratic activist with no formal ties to any campaign" supposed to tell us? Couldn't, say, Senator Lieberman's best friend since childhood and current weekly poker partner satisfy this description? Are we to assume that this "longtime Democratic activist" who for some reason won't speak on the record has some informal ties to one of the campaigns? Wouldn't an informal tie bias the opinion in just the way the Monitor reporter is attempting to reassure the reader isn't occurring? Are there no Democratic insiders who are willing to say such things and also be named? If not, why not?]

UPDATE: An astute and knowledgeable reader e-mails a note explaining why these polls are frightening Democrats more than the results might seem to warrant:

These CNN polls showing the Dem candidates close to or even ahead of Bush are bogus media hypes, and the real, electoral numbers show a much wider distance between Bush and the Dems. And the politicians know that.

There are a few reasons for the disparity. One, all the CNN/Gallup polls have a sample of around 1000 adults (not registered or likely voters), which does not give a true picture of electoral strength. Second, if you look at the details behind the headlines, you will find that these samples contain an inordinate proportion of Democrats (in a poll about a month ago, CNN-Gallup had 480 Democrats in a total sample of 1004 adults. I have not checked the make up of the current poll. This is unrepresentative of the general population, where Republicans, Democrats and Independents are about evenly divided.) This oversampling obviously skews the results against Bush.

Another great example of the skewed results was the LA Times poll before the California recall election, which showed Bustamante leading Arnold by about 6 points.

That all sounds about right to me.

Posted 4:26 PM by Robert

Herr Doktorprofessor, Heal Thyself II

It seems that the "deal" cut in Congress does include some kind of premium support (that is, vouchers) - and AARP is supporting the deal:

WILLIAM NOVELLI, CEO of the AARP, said his group would “pull out all the stops” to pass the legislation, including a three-day television advertising campaign this week. The bill is not perfect, he conceded, “but the country can’t afford to wait for perfect. On balance, it’s the right thing for seniors in America and their families.” ....

The legislation creates a $12 billion fund to help managed-care plans take hold among the Medicare population.

So Mr. Novelli seems to be interested in whether the bill would generally improve medical care for seniors - exactly the question that Herr Doktorprofessor Paul Von Krugman is inclined to leave aside. Herr Doktorprofessor seems to be standing together with the senior Congressional Democrats, who are focusing on the political aspects of the bill - not whether it improves medical care.

Is Herr Doktorprofessor going to argue that AARP has developed a bad case of "false consciousness?" Doesn't AARP realize that Herr Doktorprofessor has been sounding the clarion call that this legislation is intended to "undermine" Medicare?

Dear me. Dear me. Why aren't people listening to Herr Doktorprofessor?

Posted 2:35 PM by Robert

Gallup Poll and CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll


Reason for Hillary Clinton to jump in ...?

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

..............................................Approve....................Disapprove
..................................................%..................................%

11/14-16/03..............................50.................................47
11/10-12/03..............................51.................................45
11/3-5/03..................................54.................................43
10/24-26/03..............................53.................................42
10/10-12/03..............................56.................................40
10/6-8/03..................................55.................................42

Maybe not.

Posted 11:01 AM by Robert

Not Disneyland

Last night the Man Without Qualities and spouse attended the first concert and gala dinner of the Los Angeles Master Chorale at the new Disney Hall. (Mr. Five Per Cent had to be left at home, to his great disappointment. School night.)

It would be hard to imagine a more exceptional evening. The Master Chorale is moving a bit more into modern music under the guidance of Grant Gershon, who took over from Paul Salamunovich a couple of years ago, and last night's program reflected that shift. After a cocktail party peopled by appealingly gowned ladies and their penguin squires in an architecturally interesting backstage indoor-outdoor niche, the concert began with the plainchant hymn Veni creator spiritus (Come, creative spirit) and Johann Sebastian Bach's Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Sing to the Lord a New Song).

Then there were some new songs.

Specifically, there were world premiers of two works composed jointly by Bobby McFerrin and Roger Treece: Brief Eternity and Messages Yes, he's the Bobby McFerrin of "Don't Worry, Be Happy." I have heard Mr. McFerrin conduct the Los Angeles philharmonic previously, and I was impressed by him then, although he did not then conduct his own music. Mr. McFerrin bridges the Classical/Popular divide very well - to my ears, a lot better than Leonard Bernstein did. I don't know anything about Mr. Teech except that he was there last night in the role of an engaging and talented and apparently very young man. The scores were just wonderful. Balanced, unintimidated, good humored, unpretentious, approachable, subtle and very well crafted. Very good music that wants very much to be liked.

The concert ended with the shimmering efflorescence of John Adams' "Harmonium" - first presented at the opening of Davies Hall in San Francisco twenty years ago. Well worth the detour.

Of course the Hall itself was also very much on the premiere program. Everyone seemed to love it. Just confusing enough to make you respect its personality without being maddening. Most importantly, the acoustics are really superb and the auditorium space is amazingly intimate. Spectacular. In its entire 1,000 years of life, Veni creator spiritus surely never had a better performance or hearing. The smell of douglas fir - of which virtually every interior surface in the auditorium is faced - was strong and remarkably comforting and appropriate.

The Man Without Qualities cannot wait to hear the Master Chorale perform Spem in Allium at Disney Hall - Thomas Tallis' forty part choral harmony from religiously confused Tudor England. Not scheduled, but inevitable.

That so little West Los Angeles money is in this Hall - Eli Broad being a wonderful exception, as he is in so many things - is just a disgrace. Nobody wants to say that out loud and spoil the festivities. But it's true. On the other hand, you West Siders: IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO OPEN THOSE CHECKBOOKS!!! A musician is waiting!

[Note to Disney Hall management: Check with industrial perfumeries to replicate that douglas fir scent for injection through the ventilation system once the real thing fades. Warning: Don't try this at home - severe risk of entire house smelling like kitchen floor cleaner.]

If one were to have gone by the publicity attending the Hall's opening, one could have been forgiven for concluding that Disney Hall was entirely created by its genius architect on his computer (what he termed his "magic pen"), then passed to the genius acoustic designer for refinement (construction of the building was actually finished six months early to permit the acoustics to be worked out before the opening), and then - with the stroke of a well-finance and expensive Star Ship Enterprise transporter just materialized on its site. That is, there was almost no mention in that opening publicity literature of Mortensen Construction, the company that actually built the Hall.

But during the period of those opening festivities (none of which was attended by the Man Without Qualities) I was able to break bread at an excellent Silverlake Indian restaurant with a senior representative of Mortensen Construction - and I can assure you it is no accident that even with all the fur, accusations and charges flying during the Hall's construction nobody pointed a finger at Mortensen Construction. Keep this in mind: If you build a controversial Quarter-Billion Dollar public building and nobody thinks to talk about you in public before or when it opens you've done a superb job.

Among other amazing, poetic and unreported aspects of the Disney Hall construction process, Mortensen Construction used "4-D" construction sequencing software that was developed with a good amount of help from the animators at Walt Disney Company.

One imagines that notwithstanding the lack of publicity people who in the future need to build huge, high-style public spaces using tricky engineering and technology will somehow find out about Mortensen Construction - and that the Disney Hall administration will amply express it's gratitude and admiration at that time.

Posted 5:09 PM by Robert

A Note To Conrad Black, Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein

From Jim Powell.

Mr. Powell has some very interesting things to say. But he doesn't really focus on Mr. Black's assignment of only a "passing" grade to the economics of the New Deal.

Mr. Black is much more enthusiastic about the New Deal and FDR as political phenomenons.

Economic success is already very hard to pin down and quantify. But capturing notions of political success objectively - within a commonly accpted framework? Sometimes it can be done.

But often: How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you catch a moon beam in your hand? How do you hold a wave upon the sand?

How do you find a word that means FDR? A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown! A chameleon on plaid!

UPDATE: Of course, Conrad Black has more on his mind now than old musicals and even older presidents.

In fact, Conrad Black may now feel that he's all too close to meeting Joe Black.

Posted 3:54 PM by Robert

Tim Noah Has His Finger On The Pulse Of America!

... or something.

In response to a lot of thoroughly irresponsible chatter, Mr. Noah instructed us all:

There's a powerful political movement afoot to draft Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for president in 2004. Its partisans are committed almost to the point of fanaticism, and their number is growing by the hour. This thing is an absolute juggernaut. Even so, the Draft Hillary '04 forces probably won't secure their candidate's Democratic nomination. Why not? Because they're all Republicans!

Yep. They're all Republicans.

So maybe Mr. Noah can explain to Howard Fineman that it just cannot be true that one of Senator Clinton's closest friends and advisers, someone who is no less than a hard-boiled insider, actually let fly with some thoroughly irresponsible chattering interview that justifies - even remotely - Mr. Fineman's preposterous statement:

Some dreams never die, including one clung to by loyal Clintonistas: that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democrats’ presidential nominee next year. Is there a chance she would get into the race? “That depends on what you mean by ‘get into the race’,” one of her closest friends and advisers explained to NEWSWEEK. ... “You’d have to have Howard Dean not wrapping it up, and being an angry, wounded front runner,” this adviser said. “You’d have to have two of the other challengers tearing each other apart in primary after primary. Then Hillary could come in, well in advance of the convention, and say, ‘Look, somebody has to save the party’.”...

Party and elected officials—the so-called superdelegates—are free to shift allegiance, and could form an instant core of Clinton support. Should she make a dramatic entrance next summer, the senator might be able to draw on the help of some savvy campaign veterans (and Clinton loyalists) now in the employ of other candidates. If Sen. Joe Lieberman’s campaign fades, for example, she might recruit his top pros, media handler Mandy Grunwald and pollster Mark Penn.


Gee, aren't those "party officials" included in the so-called superdelegates mostly people who have their jobs because of the Clintons? You know, the same people that Howard Dean says he wants to get rid of?

And, let's see if I understand this reasoning. We know that if Sen. Joe Lieberman’s campaign fades, for example, she might recruit his top pros, media handler Mandy Grunwald and pollster Mark Penn.

So if General Clark's campaign "fades," for example? What happens then?

UPDATE: More people who must all be Republicans, even though they're cooling their buns in the Iowa. That zany Adam Nagourney writes: Parts of her speech directly echoed what President Clinton said in a speech to Iowa Democrats here over the summer.

"Directly echoed?" The Times is boldly going where no English speaker has ever gone before! "Directly echoed?"

Posted 10:02 AM by Robert

Herr Doktorprofessor, Heal Thyself

Herr Doktorprofessor Paul Von Krugman has been cherry picked.

He says that he has enough money to count himself as very comfortable. So he can probably afford to purchase private medical insurance. He also works for Princeton University, and the faculties of most such universities are amply provided with medical insurance and are notoriously long-lived.

In short, like most people with sufficient incomes and good statistical health profiles, he will never have to rely on Medicare. He has been cherry picked.

But Herr Doktorprofessor Paul Von Krugman thinks that it would be an absolutely terrible idea - indeed, the dreaded "cherry picking" - if the government were to provide subsidies allowing people with less money than he has to purchase private medical insurance. He's in quite a huff over it - even to the point of referring to the idea as a "Trojan horse" and a "bait-and-switch," an illegal retail practice:

Meanwhile, another proposal - to force Medicare to compete with private insurers - seems intended to undermine the whole system.

This proposal goes under the name of "premium support." Medicare would no longer cover whatever medical costs an individual faced; instead, retirees would receive a lump sum to buy private insurance. (Those who opted to remain with the traditional system would have to pay extra premiums.) The ostensible rationale for this change is the claim that private insurers can provide better, cheaper medical care.

But many studies predict that private insurers would cherry-pick the best (healthiest) prospects, leaving traditional Medicare with retirees who are likely to have high medical costs. These higher costs would then be reflected in the extra payments required to stay in traditional fee-for-service coverage. The effect would be to put health care out of reach for many older Americans. As a 2002 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation judiciously put it, "Difficulties in adjusting for beneficiary health status . . . could make the traditional Medicare FFS program unaffordable to a large portion of beneficiaries."

These objections, together with Herr Doktorprofessor's willingness to accept his own privileged position accompanied by his outrage, alarm and quasi-paranoid suggestion that the proposal seems intended to undermine the whole system should be familiar to the reader. Indeed, the passage could have been created with a rapid cut-and-paste from Herr Doktorprofessor's objections to school vouchers. That makes sense, because the "premium support" idea is simply a kind of medical insurance voucher. Indeed, he had directly and expressly linked the two areas, as when he complained that the administration continues to believe that "financialization" is the way to go on just about everything, from school vouchers to Social Security. Here are some representative Krugmaniacal passages on school vouchers:

[P]roposals for school vouchers should be critiqued not only on educational or cost-efficiency grounds but also because they raise the risk of a collapse in the political support for public education. (If upper-middle-class families are allowed to "top up" their vouchers with their own money, they will soon realize that it is in their interest to cut the size of the vouchers as much as possible). And-dare we say it?-we should in general oppose privatization plans if they are likely to destroy public sector unions. After all, people on the right tend to favor privatization for exactly the same reason.

Many conservatives and even a few liberals are in favor of issuing educational vouchers and allowing parents to choose among competing schools. Let's leave aside the question of what this might do to education and ask what its political implications might be. Initially, we might imagine, the government would prohibit parents from "topping up" vouchers to buy higher-priced education. But once the program was established, conservatives would insist such a restriction is unfair, maybe even unconstitutional, arguing that parents should have the freedom to spend their money as they wish. Thus, a voucher would become a ticket you could supplement freely. Upper-income families would realize that a reduction in the voucher is to their benefit: They will save more in lowered taxes than they will lose in a decreased education subsidy. So they will press to reduce public spending on education, leading to ever- deteriorating quality for those who cannot afford to spend extra. In the end, the quintessential American tradition of public education for all could collapse.

These two Krugmaniacal samples appear to date from the mid-1990's - before publicly financed school vouchers programs had got started. Such publicly financed school voucher programs have now existed for a while in several places - and the evidence so far is that those programs have benefited education generally in the places where they have been tried. But then, didn't Herr Doktorprofessor build himself an escape hatch for this objection? Why, yes, he does build an escape hatch. He comforts us: Let's leave aside the question of what this might do to education and ask what its political implications might be.

Isn't it nice of Herr Doktorprofessor to spend all that intellectual energy on a putative analysis of an education proposal that "leaves aside" the most overwhelmingly important question - in fact, the only really important question: what this might do to education? I leave it to the reader to determine for herself whether this is a little intellectual "bait-and-switch" on Herr Doktorprofessor's part.

In his most recent column, Herr Doktorprofessor also seems inclined to leave aside the question of what vouchers (or "premium support") might do to medical care and instead asks what its political implications might be. (Answer: Medicare, "undermined.")

As is so often the case with Herr Doktorprofessor's rants, he buries most of his sources even as he purports to rely on their august credentials:

But many studies predict that private insurers would cherry-pick the best (healthiest) prospects, leaving traditional Medicare with retirees who are likely to have high medical costs.

Yes, and many studies predict that private schools would cherry-pick the best (smartest, best behaved) prospects, leaving traditional public schools with less talented, emotionally impaired children who are likely to have high educational costs and low performance. So far, those educational studies appear to have been wildly wrong. That is not too surprising, since many of those many studies were prepared by people with seriously vested interests in maintaining the status quo and there were also many studies saying the opposite and even arguing that "cherry picking" is a cost worth paying. Do we order Stanford University to close because it's "cherry picking" from the University of California or "undermining" public support for the public university system? Of course not - because what we care about is the general quality of education. The competition between the public and private sectors benefits the public - it is not important that a particular competitor is benefited either in education or medical care.

Similarly, that "traditional Medicare" might be "undermined" by some reform is completely irrelevant if the net effect is an increase in the quality of medical care. And it appears to be no problem for Herr Doktorprofessor that the government already provides huge subsidies through the tax system to employers to offer medical insurance to their employees.

But Herr Doktorprofessor spends not a word on those topics. He would prefer to - and does - leave aside the question. He's once again too eager to get down to the ephemera of Bush-and-Republican bashing to actually address any really important questions. In fact, his political biases are so urgent for him that they again seem to preclude him from even asking or thinking of the right questions.

Steve Antler has a word on the bias evident in the work of Kaiser Family Foundation, the outfit that produced the one study Herr Doktorprofessor almost (but not quite) actually identifies - and from which he quotes (Incompletely? Out of context? How could anyone tell?). And even that lonely quote from that suspect source does not really support the position that Herr Doktorprofessor says it supports. The quote is: "Difficulties in adjusting for beneficiary health status . . . could make the traditional Medicare FFS program unaffordable to a large portion of beneficiaries." Yes, they could ... and, then again, they might not ... and "traditional Medicare" could become unsustainable if it is not reformed, harming everyone who depends on it ... - and the earth could be struck by a meteor next week! If that KFF quote represents the strongest position his "many studies" have taken against "premium support," then Herr Doktorprofessor has proved that Congress would be well advised to enact such a program right away.

UPDATE: Herr Doktorprofessor's objection to the bill he discusses (I do not know if this proposed bill is included in or consistent with the deal Congress has reportedly just reached on Medicare), that Congress in 2003 is somehow "ruling out" possible responses by the Congress in 2010 or 2011, frankly just seemed too ridiculous (and too obviously column inch-filler), to even warrant an answer. But I was wrong. Kausfiles provides a good answer - one really worth reading.

MORE