I agree with the Washington Post Editorial Board
Conflict of interest notice: My father's income was reduced significantly by the ethics rules criticized by the editorial.
I'm a twit notice: I am mainly thrilled that something which has to do with my very onw dad's finances is getting so much attention.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Matt gets around. One post on John Paul II and then one on Karl Marx.
This one is serious because I really should know about "The hedonics literature suggests that in international comparisons, greater national wealth stops reaping dividends in terms of happiness at an average income level about one third of this -- $12,000 per person, or so." I only know about physical quality of life and stuff.
Now in the post Yglesias criticises Brad DeLong for criticizing the Marxian theory of exploitation. The criticism is unfair. Matt claims that Brad claimed that Marx thought that any world without exploitation was better than any world with exploitation. A simpler proof that this is false is that Marx would not have been pleased by the extermination of humanity. Brad, however, wrote no such thing. He wrote only that Marx would have perceived exploitation in a case where Brad thinks there was none and where Brad challenges the reader to try to agree with Marx ... OK I tried... can't do it.
Matt's post is every interesting even aside from the literature which I really should know about and why does he always know things I don't know.
He argues roughly that in the US it would be an improvement if income were distributed perfectly equally and there was no further economic growth. This is a pure hypothetical. Even for a hypothetical it is extreme. If one required perfect equality, GNP would not only stop growing but fall to probably close to zero (you know that OP curve Matt ?). But it is just hypothetical.
It doesn't have much to do with Marx except that Marx and Yglesias agree that such equality is a pipe dream for the forseeable future "it is not until work ceases to be a burden on life and becomes its chief aim and pleasure that we can inscribe on our banner 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" Note the word "not" which is always removed from the quote and rather changes the meaning wouldn't you say ?
It seems to me to that Matt make the obviously right choice to make in the extremely hypothetical case where we had to decide which was better equality or further economic growth. Yet it also seems to me that his view places him out of the US main stream. I wish I thought it was just that most people can't imagine highly counterfactual hypotheticals, but I am afraid that the vast majority of Americans are totally confused about how much happiness they could derive from further growth and don't value equality enough.
This one is serious because I really should know about "The hedonics literature suggests that in international comparisons, greater national wealth stops reaping dividends in terms of happiness at an average income level about one third of this -- $12,000 per person, or so." I only know about physical quality of life and stuff.
Now in the post Yglesias criticises Brad DeLong for criticizing the Marxian theory of exploitation. The criticism is unfair. Matt claims that Brad claimed that Marx thought that any world without exploitation was better than any world with exploitation. A simpler proof that this is false is that Marx would not have been pleased by the extermination of humanity. Brad, however, wrote no such thing. He wrote only that Marx would have perceived exploitation in a case where Brad thinks there was none and where Brad challenges the reader to try to agree with Marx ... OK I tried... can't do it.
Matt's post is every interesting even aside from the literature which I really should know about and why does he always know things I don't know.
He argues roughly that in the US it would be an improvement if income were distributed perfectly equally and there was no further economic growth. This is a pure hypothetical. Even for a hypothetical it is extreme. If one required perfect equality, GNP would not only stop growing but fall to probably close to zero (you know that OP curve Matt ?). But it is just hypothetical.
It doesn't have much to do with Marx except that Marx and Yglesias agree that such equality is a pipe dream for the forseeable future "it is not until work ceases to be a burden on life and becomes its chief aim and pleasure that we can inscribe on our banner 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" Note the word "not" which is always removed from the quote and rather changes the meaning wouldn't you say ?
It seems to me to that Matt make the obviously right choice to make in the extremely hypothetical case where we had to decide which was better equality or further economic growth. Yet it also seems to me that his view places him out of the US main stream. I wish I thought it was just that most people can't imagine highly counterfactual hypotheticals, but I am afraid that the vast majority of Americans are totally confused about how much happiness they could derive from further growth and don't value equality enough.
I often kick my self and ask "why didn't I write what Matthew Yglesias just wrote ?"
Often I have thought of it and noticed that no jounalist seems to be saying it, so why ?
Now it is "American weirdness about religion [snip] some kind of inability to comprehend religion as falling within the large domain of serious subjects that serious people have serious disagreements about." In the specific case Yglesias notes that (almost) no one in America will say anything bad about John Paul II but some people are upset that flags are flying at half mast. I note Kevin Drum is, politely and moderately as always, one of those people.
Yglesias sure has a point there. I'm not so sure about the example. I am not surprised that almost no one is criticizing John Paul II. I mean he is not buried yet. Also his death is like a death in the family to some catholics, which means that respect for their feelings requires a pause in criticism. Finally John Paul II's views don't fit American ideological categories. This is odd, since he was a consistently traditional catholic. I don't think many Americans disagreed with him about every one of his controversial views. Also few agreed with him on all of them.
The half mast issue is a bit half baked. I think many people are very rigid about the separation of church and state, because they fear the Christian extremists who want to over-rule the constitution, science and well everything. I think this is bad strategy, since such rigidity irritates people who don't have a firm view on the separation of church and state and makes them more likely to accept extreme actions by the theocrats. I notice that Matthew Yglesias tends to argue that something is bad policy, when he thinks it is bad politics (consider gun control). To be rude, I suspect that he might say "this is a losing issue lets give the red ne... staters their way on it" in private. However his blog is public given the traffic he gets.
His line on this "If Bush thinks he's an admirable man and wants to honor his life with half-mast flags, I have no real objection to that. [snip] he's the President and he has every right to honor the people he deems worthy of honoring." doesn't seem serious. George Bush can honor whoever he deems worthy, but the President can't do something unconstitutional with our flags. On the issue, I agree with Matt that it doesn't raise a separation of church and state issue at all and that Bush acted well within his authority. Still, the quick brush off which delights me when I am glad to agree, doesn't thrill me in this case where I agree without enthusiasm.
There is an interesting issue that many Americans seem to think religious toleration forbids debate about religious issues. It is very odd. I think this is the reason that many religious Americans feel that they are oppressed by secular humanism. It is true that expressions of religious belief are often followed by embarrassed pauses in conversation (usually in the circles I frequented but such expressions were very rare). However the thing which is really off bounds is any criticism of religion. Look at the comments to Brad DeLong's's thoughts on St Paul. I often have the impression that it is considered rude to for me to simply say that I am an atheist. Oddly the only time I can remember debating religion in the past two decades or so was with a Dutch Catholic woman in Italy.
I think this is a real problem. People are just refusing to communicate.
While both Christian extremism and the principle of separation church and state are unusually strong in the USA, the weirdness isn't completely US specific. Italians are strangely reticenta about religion too. I have known co workers for years before discovering that they were religious. Now on my part, the silence has a rationale. I think all religious beliefs are false, but I don't think it is always best to believe the truth. I don't follow Christ and I sure don't think that the truth will set us free. If there were a heaven would that it forfend that I convince one person that his departed loved ones do not have immortal souls.
Often I have thought of it and noticed that no jounalist seems to be saying it, so why ?
Now it is "American weirdness about religion [snip] some kind of inability to comprehend religion as falling within the large domain of serious subjects that serious people have serious disagreements about." In the specific case Yglesias notes that (almost) no one in America will say anything bad about John Paul II but some people are upset that flags are flying at half mast. I note Kevin Drum is, politely and moderately as always, one of those people.
Yglesias sure has a point there. I'm not so sure about the example. I am not surprised that almost no one is criticizing John Paul II. I mean he is not buried yet. Also his death is like a death in the family to some catholics, which means that respect for their feelings requires a pause in criticism. Finally John Paul II's views don't fit American ideological categories. This is odd, since he was a consistently traditional catholic. I don't think many Americans disagreed with him about every one of his controversial views. Also few agreed with him on all of them.
The half mast issue is a bit half baked. I think many people are very rigid about the separation of church and state, because they fear the Christian extremists who want to over-rule the constitution, science and well everything. I think this is bad strategy, since such rigidity irritates people who don't have a firm view on the separation of church and state and makes them more likely to accept extreme actions by the theocrats. I notice that Matthew Yglesias tends to argue that something is bad policy, when he thinks it is bad politics (consider gun control). To be rude, I suspect that he might say "this is a losing issue lets give the red ne... staters their way on it" in private. However his blog is public given the traffic he gets.
His line on this "If Bush thinks he's an admirable man and wants to honor his life with half-mast flags, I have no real objection to that. [snip] he's the President and he has every right to honor the people he deems worthy of honoring." doesn't seem serious. George Bush can honor whoever he deems worthy, but the President can't do something unconstitutional with our flags. On the issue, I agree with Matt that it doesn't raise a separation of church and state issue at all and that Bush acted well within his authority. Still, the quick brush off which delights me when I am glad to agree, doesn't thrill me in this case where I agree without enthusiasm.
There is an interesting issue that many Americans seem to think religious toleration forbids debate about religious issues. It is very odd. I think this is the reason that many religious Americans feel that they are oppressed by secular humanism. It is true that expressions of religious belief are often followed by embarrassed pauses in conversation (usually in the circles I frequented but such expressions were very rare). However the thing which is really off bounds is any criticism of religion. Look at the comments to Brad DeLong's's thoughts on St Paul. I often have the impression that it is considered rude to for me to simply say that I am an atheist. Oddly the only time I can remember debating religion in the past two decades or so was with a Dutch Catholic woman in Italy.
I think this is a real problem. People are just refusing to communicate.
While both Christian extremism and the principle of separation church and state are unusually strong in the USA, the weirdness isn't completely US specific. Italians are strangely reticenta about religion too. I have known co workers for years before discovering that they were religious. Now on my part, the silence has a rationale. I think all religious beliefs are false, but I don't think it is always best to believe the truth. I don't follow Christ and I sure don't think that the truth will set us free. If there were a heaven would that it forfend that I convince one person that his departed loved ones do not have immortal souls.
Matthew Yglesias has a policy of linking to every article Jonathan Chait writes. I do not do not do not have a policy of linking to every post Yglesias writes. Also I am not addicted. I can quite any time I want to. Finally please please don't remind me that he posts more on TAPPED and The American Prospect on line that on his own site.
I mentioned in the post below that Paul Krugman and David Brooks made especially odd company on the op ed page yesterday.
Briefly Brooks argues that conservatives debate public philosophy while liberals talk about policy, so conservatives are intellectuals and liberals are technicians.
Krugman argues that few professors are Republicans because no few people who cares about logic , evidence or consistency can stand the Republican party. A striking difference is that Krugman refers to polling data and Brooks hints at anecdotes. Needless to say, I find Brooks very unconvincing and Krugman very convincing (although Ezra Klein made the same point). The odd thing is that they have something in common. Both are contributing to a discussion which recently appeared in blogs.
Now In the past week I haven't had any contact with current US political discussion except reading blogs and talking to my parents and my sister, so I might be missing something, but I almost suspect that NY Times columnists are getting ideas for columns by surfing blogs.
I dumped on Brooks in the post below, but I can't stop. He pretends to believe that the intellectuals grouped around the original National Review are a major intellectual and political force. He must know that the conservative movement which is currently in power and influences the thought of a huge number of people is rooted elsewhere. Oh and he must also know that the energy of conservative think tanks and upper middle brow magazines has something to do with generous donations from a few rich conservatives as well as (presumably) intellectual ferment.
Briefly Brooks argues that conservatives debate public philosophy while liberals talk about policy, so conservatives are intellectuals and liberals are technicians.
Krugman argues that few professors are Republicans because no few people who cares about logic , evidence or consistency can stand the Republican party. A striking difference is that Krugman refers to polling data and Brooks hints at anecdotes. Needless to say, I find Brooks very unconvincing and Krugman very convincing (although Ezra Klein made the same point). The odd thing is that they have something in common. Both are contributing to a discussion which recently appeared in blogs.
Now In the past week I haven't had any contact with current US political discussion except reading blogs and talking to my parents and my sister, so I might be missing something, but I almost suspect that NY Times columnists are getting ideas for columns by surfing blogs.
I dumped on Brooks in the post below, but I can't stop. He pretends to believe that the intellectuals grouped around the original National Review are a major intellectual and political force. He must know that the conservative movement which is currently in power and influences the thought of a huge number of people is rooted elsewhere. Oh and he must also know that the energy of conservative think tanks and upper middle brow magazines has something to do with generous donations from a few rich conservatives as well as (presumably) intellectual ferment.
What do Liberal Bloggers really think of David Brooks ?
I do not think that David Brooks is dismissed as uninteresting, unintelligent and insincere by many liberal bloggers just because of partisanship. Given that impression (unsupported by links) I am surprised by two things. First that Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum repeatedly comment on Brooks' articles and second that I find their posts very interesting. Actually interesting enough that I intend to read his latest "A House Divided."
OK that's over.
I note with relief that some of the 700 words were devoted to a correction.
I think the explanation is simple. In essays, it is often convenient to set up a straw man. It is even more convenient to debate a real man with straw man quality arguments.
Brooks argues that conservativism is thriving because conservatives debate with each other and especially because they debate fundamental matters
In short conservatives are philosophers and liberals are technocrats and that is why conservativism is flourishing. This forms an amusing contrast with the Krugman column in the same issue. They are litereally but not figuratively on the same page.
I think I will get back to Brooks because I find Drum's critique more interesting than the original column
Drum's point is that Brooks is explaining a shift which has not occured. One might argue that polls are crude indicators and especially that the number of people who identify themselves as conservative does not correctly measure the intellectual vibrancy of conservativism. For example, I might argue that, since I think that, at the moment, conservative thought is sterile, while many Americans call themselves conservatives. Nonetheless, I find Drum's analysis convincing. Brooks was talking about people joining a movement and not about the quality of the intellectual product of that movement. I agree with Drum that Brooks is explaining a trend which does not exist.
I also think the simple graphs Drum posts explain why liberals do not debate public philosophy in public. There is little to be gained politically by arguing that one's beliefs are true liberalism, since the public doesn't like the word. I could honestly argue that I am a genuine atheist theologian and the first true Manichean. Even I won't bother (although I am getting tempted). The prize isn't worth the pixels.
In fact, if you put Brooks and Drum together, you explain a lot. Many Americans consider themselves conservatives. No one can explain what that means, that is, no one can find a common thread in the many meanings of the word. People are desperate to find out what conservativism is and are willing to give great prominence to people who are willing to try to explain, even if they are ... well you know who I am talking about. In particular, politicians pay attention to people who claim to know what conservatives think, because there are a lot of conservative votes.
This also leads right to Matthew Yglesias' post which concludes and then reconcludes
I think that it is clear (and has been pointed out by many people) that the reason that Democrats don't display vision is that they are terrified of convincing people that they have the liberal egalitarian vision, which, they believe, is unpopular. That is the point about strategy is that Democrats have convinced voters that they are soul less, insincere and motivated only by the desire to win by carefully hiding any vision they might have. In the analysis of the last election, this is described as "Bush won the center by running on the right." Notice, in particular that the Republicans were not laughed down when they argued both that Kerry is a flip flopper and that he is the most liberal senator. The line was clear. He is lying in order to hide his true ideaology which is way to the left of his stated positions. Hell they convinced me, that was why I was delighted to vote for Kerry.
I agree with Yglesias that Democrats are hurt by their efforts to hide their ideology , vision, and views in public philosophy. Even if these are less popular than the Democrats detailed policy proposals, it has to be better to explain your vision than to leave the explaining to your opponent. I further think that the winning left of center ideology is soak the rich, class war populism. I also think that this would be excellent policy.
Also the kid is smart. The second sentence in the update is Drum's point made concise (my post is Drum's point made into a manifold). The kid is also very young. He wasn't around back liberals had vision not to mention when they had violent quarrels with leftists and progressives and etc etc (OK not all that young I can barely remember).
OK now to Brooks himself. He is partisan in a very unconvincing way.
and
The thing that seemed outrageously blatant in the quotes above is that Brooks lists Jefferson as an inspiration to conservatives and not to liberals. This is either crazy or dishonest (my bet dishonest). Now Jefferson was, of course, in key ways far to the right of contemporary conservatives. However, his intellectual legacy is of no use to contemporary conservatives and is central to the ideology of many liberals.
For example, he cut the defence budget by two thirds and ordered the US nave to stay in port. He opposed industrialisation and considered the wage system inconsistent with Democracy. He refused to identify himself as a Christian because of his belief in the separation of church and state (and also quite likely because his religeous beliefs did not amount to Christianity). He proposed (in private to Madison) that all debts should be cancelled every 20 years. By the way, he did not say "the government that governs least is the government that governs best". Brooks may be right that contemporary conservatives are diverse, but I think it is obvious that Jefferson could not be one of them. The idea is laughable. The idea that liberals do not look to Jefferson is frankly dishonest.
Another irritating conservative affectation is the claim that conservatives were far from power when the movement became self aware. Conservatives love to praise their courage as a lonely minority, but Eisenhower was no lefty. I don't know how they manage to convince themselves of such nonsense. If anyone reads this far (unlikely) and can help me, please explain.
The strangest thing is that Brooks suggests that there is more interesting non-technical thought on the right than on the left and yet, as is so common with conservatives, he is commenting on the debate among liberals. I suppose I am probably missing conservative thought because I don't bother to look for it, but I really haven't noticed any original "public philosophy" or any coherent thoughts on "the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order."
[dangling paragraph which I deleted for space and stuck here at the end but at least I'm honest about it]
In further praise of Drum's claim I note that in other posts Drum has commented on trends in public opinion on issues not labels. I personally have not noticed any clear trends other than decreased homophobia. Choices favored by the majority of poll respondents are currently generally to the left of those made by current policy makers. The opposite was true in the 60s and 70s. The choices favored by the majority of poll respondents have changed little and, of course, the policy makers are different.
I do not think that David Brooks is dismissed as uninteresting, unintelligent and insincere by many liberal bloggers just because of partisanship. Given that impression (unsupported by links) I am surprised by two things. First that Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum repeatedly comment on Brooks' articles and second that I find their posts very interesting. Actually interesting enough that I intend to read his latest "A House Divided."
OK that's over.
I note with relief that some of the 700 words were devoted to a correction.
I think the explanation is simple. In essays, it is often convenient to set up a straw man. It is even more convenient to debate a real man with straw man quality arguments.
Brooks argues that conservativism is thriving because conservatives debate with each other and especially because they debate fundamental matters
Conservatives fell into the habit of being acutely conscious of their intellectual forebears and had big debates about public philosophy. That turned out to be important: nobody joins a movement because of admiration for its entitlement reform plan. People join up because they think that movement's views about human nature and society are true.
Liberals have not had a comparable public philosophy debate.
In short conservatives are philosophers and liberals are technocrats and that is why conservativism is flourishing. This forms an amusing contrast with the Krugman column in the same issue. They are litereally but not figuratively on the same page.
I think I will get back to Brooks because I find Drum's critique more interesting than the original column
any essay about the triumph of conservatism is bankrupt unless it takes into account the two charts above. What they show is simple:
Conservatives have outnumbered liberals for a long time, and that hasn't changed much in the past three decades. In 1976, they were ahead 31% to 18%. Today they're ahead 33% to 18%.
At the same time, Southern conservatives have left the Democratic party in droves. In 1976 Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 23 points. Today they lead by only 5 points.
Drum's point is that Brooks is explaining a shift which has not occured. One might argue that polls are crude indicators and especially that the number of people who identify themselves as conservative does not correctly measure the intellectual vibrancy of conservativism. For example, I might argue that, since I think that, at the moment, conservative thought is sterile, while many Americans call themselves conservatives. Nonetheless, I find Drum's analysis convincing. Brooks was talking about people joining a movement and not about the quality of the intellectual product of that movement. I agree with Drum that Brooks is explaining a trend which does not exist.
I also think the simple graphs Drum posts explain why liberals do not debate public philosophy in public. There is little to be gained politically by arguing that one's beliefs are true liberalism, since the public doesn't like the word. I could honestly argue that I am a genuine atheist theologian and the first true Manichean. Even I won't bother (although I am getting tempted). The prize isn't worth the pixels.
In fact, if you put Brooks and Drum together, you explain a lot. Many Americans consider themselves conservatives. No one can explain what that means, that is, no one can find a common thread in the many meanings of the word. People are desperate to find out what conservativism is and are willing to give great prominence to people who are willing to try to explain, even if they are ... well you know who I am talking about. In particular, politicians pay attention to people who claim to know what conservatives think, because there are a lot of conservative votes.
This also leads right to Matthew Yglesias' post which concludes and then reconcludes
But Brooks is probably right to say that this sort of disinclination to discuss the big, airy philosophical questions is a problem for liberals at the polls. It goes to "the vision thing" or, rather, the perception that liberals don't have one.
UPDATE: Mark Schmitt has a different take. It also occurs to me to point out that there's a difference between partisan success and ideological success. I also think there are structural assymetries in American politics that make it unwise for liberals to try and mimmick conservatives in a knee-jerk kind of way. What works for one side may not work for the other.
I think that it is clear (and has been pointed out by many people) that the reason that Democrats don't display vision is that they are terrified of convincing people that they have the liberal egalitarian vision, which, they believe, is unpopular. That is the point about strategy is that Democrats have convinced voters that they are soul less, insincere and motivated only by the desire to win by carefully hiding any vision they might have. In the analysis of the last election, this is described as "Bush won the center by running on the right." Notice, in particular that the Republicans were not laughed down when they argued both that Kerry is a flip flopper and that he is the most liberal senator. The line was clear. He is lying in order to hide his true ideaology which is way to the left of his stated positions. Hell they convinced me, that was why I was delighted to vote for Kerry.
I agree with Yglesias that Democrats are hurt by their efforts to hide their ideology , vision, and views in public philosophy. Even if these are less popular than the Democrats detailed policy proposals, it has to be better to explain your vision than to leave the explaining to your opponent. I further think that the winning left of center ideology is soak the rich, class war populism. I also think that this would be excellent policy.
Also the kid is smart. The second sentence in the update is Drum's point made concise (my post is Drum's point made into a manifold). The kid is also very young. He wasn't around back liberals had vision not to mention when they had violent quarrels with leftists and progressives and etc etc (OK not all that young I can barely remember).
OK now to Brooks himself. He is partisan in a very unconvincing way.
When modern conservatism became aware of itself, conservatives were so far out of power it wasn't even worth thinking about policy prescriptions. They argued about the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order. Different factions looked back to different philosophers - Burke, Aquinas, Hayek, Hamilton, Jefferson - to define what a just society should look like.
and
If I were a liberal, which I used to be, I wouldn't want message discipline. I'd take this opportunity to have a big debate about the things Thomas Paine, Herbert Croly, Isaiah Berlin, R. H. Tawney and John Dewey were writing about.
The thing that seemed outrageously blatant in the quotes above is that Brooks lists Jefferson as an inspiration to conservatives and not to liberals. This is either crazy or dishonest (my bet dishonest). Now Jefferson was, of course, in key ways far to the right of contemporary conservatives. However, his intellectual legacy is of no use to contemporary conservatives and is central to the ideology of many liberals.
For example, he cut the defence budget by two thirds and ordered the US nave to stay in port. He opposed industrialisation and considered the wage system inconsistent with Democracy. He refused to identify himself as a Christian because of his belief in the separation of church and state (and also quite likely because his religeous beliefs did not amount to Christianity). He proposed (in private to Madison) that all debts should be cancelled every 20 years. By the way, he did not say "the government that governs least is the government that governs best". Brooks may be right that contemporary conservatives are diverse, but I think it is obvious that Jefferson could not be one of them. The idea is laughable. The idea that liberals do not look to Jefferson is frankly dishonest.
Another irritating conservative affectation is the claim that conservatives were far from power when the movement became self aware. Conservatives love to praise their courage as a lonely minority, but Eisenhower was no lefty. I don't know how they manage to convince themselves of such nonsense. If anyone reads this far (unlikely) and can help me, please explain.
The strangest thing is that Brooks suggests that there is more interesting non-technical thought on the right than on the left and yet, as is so common with conservatives, he is commenting on the debate among liberals. I suppose I am probably missing conservative thought because I don't bother to look for it, but I really haven't noticed any original "public philosophy" or any coherent thoughts on "the order of the universe, and how the social order should reflect the moral order."
[dangling paragraph which I deleted for space and stuck here at the end but at least I'm honest about it]
In further praise of Drum's claim I note that in other posts Drum has commented on trends in public opinion on issues not labels. I personally have not noticed any clear trends other than decreased homophobia. Choices favored by the majority of poll respondents are currently generally to the left of those made by current policy makers. The opposite was true in the 60s and 70s. The choices favored by the majority of poll respondents have changed little and, of course, the policy makers are different.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Nexus and The Olive Tree II
Nexus does exit polls and projections for Italian state television (RAI). This is one example of Berlusconi being well Berlusconian, since before they became neutral journalists the guys at Nexus worked for Berlusconi's campaigns. Last election, I noted that Nexus projections Looked better for the center right than the actual vote.
They've done it again. The 4th Nexus projection showed a tiny lead of 0.4% for Marrazzo (center left) over Storace (center right) in Lazio. The 4th Nexus projection showed a dead heat in Puglia.
Now the 9th projection shows Marrazzo ahead by 3.7 % and Vendola (center left) ahead by 1.9 %. At this point, most precincts have reported so the projection will be close to the actual vote.
That's two rounds of elections with early projections way wrong in the way one would guess given Nexus' past political affiliation.
Nexus does exit polls and projections for Italian state television (RAI). This is one example of Berlusconi being well Berlusconian, since before they became neutral journalists the guys at Nexus worked for Berlusconi's campaigns. Last election, I noted that Nexus projections Looked better for the center right than the actual vote.
They've done it again. The 4th Nexus projection showed a tiny lead of 0.4% for Marrazzo (center left) over Storace (center right) in Lazio. The 4th Nexus projection showed a dead heat in Puglia.
Now the 9th projection shows Marrazzo ahead by 3.7 % and Vendola (center left) ahead by 1.9 %. At this point, most precincts have reported so the projection will be close to the actual vote.
That's two rounds of elections with early projections way wrong in the way one would guess given Nexus' past political affiliation.
Huge victory for the center left opposition in Italian regional elections.
In spite of campaign genius in reverse (such as changing their name *again* to L'Unione) the opposition won 11 of the 13 regional elections held Sunday and Monday. 6 of the regions had center right presidenti before this elections. The center left received 53% of votes cast which is about 8% more than the center right. The coalition in power tends to be penalised in regional elections, but nobody expected such a blowout.
Berlusconi will, of course, deny that this is a crushing defeat for him. No one will believe him.
Key results include Lazio where the massively financed campaign (approaching a cult of personality) of the outgoing "post" fascist Presidente Storace was undermined by the spoiler candidacy of Mussolini (no joke) enabling the center left candidate Marrazzo to win. This was untypical. The more general pattern was a huge shift to the left.
The new presidente of Puglia (heel of the boot extreme South should be traditional and very Catholic) is Nicky Vendola an openly gay communist. When Vendola won a L'Unione primary (the only primary election this round I think) the word was that they were fools to hold primaries in Italy and that they had shot themselves in the foot.
Bucking the trend Roberto Formigoni was re-elected president of Lombardy in spite of my efforts to confince people that he is the Roberto Frimigoni who got money from Saddam Hussein. I just don't understand those frigging Lombard Frimigoni supporters.
The center right also kept Veneto the region where the left has historically been weakest.
Regioni are the largest political units smaller than the whole country. They are no where near as important as U.S. states of course, but regional governments do have an important, indeed leading, role in health care. The power of regional governments is (was ?) to be much increased in a major constitutional reform following pressure from the Lega Nord. The center right might suddenly discover the disadvantages of federalism.
An important effect of the surprisingly huge opposition victory is to strengthen the position of Romano Prodi as presumptive opposition candidate for Prime Minister. He was the symbolic leader of the national campaign for the center left in the regional elections so he wins points. This makes it more possible that the opposition will manage to avoid fighting over the spoils of their victory in the next national election until, you know, the election is actually over.
Speaking of genius in reverse, Fausto Bertinotti head of the still communists saw the risk of a center left victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections. He announced that he would not be willing to be a cabinet minister (not that anyone has asked him and, as mentioned above, the parliamentary elections haven't technically been held yet).
I don't think that people who aren't resident in Italy and haven't been uhm entertained by Berlusconi for four years can possibly understand how he managed to get squashed by a coalition that never coalesces.
Been a while since I had fun on an election night.
Update: Big corrected to huge and 55% corrected to 53% and 10 % to 8%.
In spite of campaign genius in reverse (such as changing their name *again* to L'Unione) the opposition won 11 of the 13 regional elections held Sunday and Monday. 6 of the regions had center right presidenti before this elections. The center left received 53% of votes cast which is about 8% more than the center right. The coalition in power tends to be penalised in regional elections, but nobody expected such a blowout.
Berlusconi will, of course, deny that this is a crushing defeat for him. No one will believe him.
Key results include Lazio where the massively financed campaign (approaching a cult of personality) of the outgoing "post" fascist Presidente Storace was undermined by the spoiler candidacy of Mussolini (no joke) enabling the center left candidate Marrazzo to win. This was untypical. The more general pattern was a huge shift to the left.
The new presidente of Puglia (heel of the boot extreme South should be traditional and very Catholic) is Nicky Vendola an openly gay communist. When Vendola won a L'Unione primary (the only primary election this round I think) the word was that they were fools to hold primaries in Italy and that they had shot themselves in the foot.
Bucking the trend Roberto Formigoni was re-elected president of Lombardy in spite of my efforts to confince people that he is the Roberto Frimigoni who got money from Saddam Hussein. I just don't understand those frigging Lombard Frimigoni supporters.
The center right also kept Veneto the region where the left has historically been weakest.
Regioni are the largest political units smaller than the whole country. They are no where near as important as U.S. states of course, but regional governments do have an important, indeed leading, role in health care. The power of regional governments is (was ?) to be much increased in a major constitutional reform following pressure from the Lega Nord. The center right might suddenly discover the disadvantages of federalism.
An important effect of the surprisingly huge opposition victory is to strengthen the position of Romano Prodi as presumptive opposition candidate for Prime Minister. He was the symbolic leader of the national campaign for the center left in the regional elections so he wins points. This makes it more possible that the opposition will manage to avoid fighting over the spoils of their victory in the next national election until, you know, the election is actually over.
Speaking of genius in reverse, Fausto Bertinotti head of the still communists saw the risk of a center left victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections. He announced that he would not be willing to be a cabinet minister (not that anyone has asked him and, as mentioned above, the parliamentary elections haven't technically been held yet).
I don't think that people who aren't resident in Italy and haven't been uhm entertained by Berlusconi for four years can possibly understand how he managed to get squashed by a coalition that never coalesces.
Been a while since I had fun on an election night.
Update: Big corrected to huge and 55% corrected to 53% and 10 % to 8%.
Monday, April 04, 2005
The Third Meaning of "First Order"
Formally a function g(x) is a valid first order approximation of another function f(x) around x0 if the limit as a goes to zero of (g(x0+a)-f(x0+a))/a is zero. This does not mean that g(x) is a good approximation. For example 0 is a valid first order approximation for x squared around zero. This does not mean that 0 is a good approximation for one million squared.
However, economists, who like to play with math but don't always take it seriously, use "is true to first order" to mean "is a useful approximation to the truth". Similarly, economists use "second order" to mean economically insignificant.
This is not how the concepts are presented in first year graduate courses (I took only one undergraduate economics course so I don't know about them). Instead it is stressed that nth order approximations are valid only locally. I recall a professor presenting a quadratic loss function saying it was arbitrary. I raised my hand and said something like "Over in the physics department they have an argument which they admit is bogus. It is that, at a maximum, the derivative is zero so the second order Taylor series approximation to any smooth function is proportional to the square of the distance to the x which maximimizes (note I hadn't heard of the notation argmax). The professor said "sure but there is no way of knowing how close is close enough, The loss function could looke like this (drawing)" I was chastened at the time, but pleased when he said my comment was good.
Recently reading this, I noticed a third meaning of "first order" which is "according to the first neoclassical model of the phenomenon (that is the first model which featured rational optimization)." Note that this third usage is much further from the formal mathematical usage than the second is. No one could possibly believe that the first neoclassical model of something must be a good approximation.
The rules of theoretical debate among economists often require great deference to simplifying assumptions which no one has ever believed to be approximately correct. Roughly, the rule seems to be "according first neoclassical model" must be accepted as meaning "true to first order" which much be interpreted as "a useful approximation." I really don't know why.
The professor who wouldn't let me elide the difference was named N. Gregory Mankiw.
Formally a function g(x) is a valid first order approximation of another function f(x) around x0 if the limit as a goes to zero of (g(x0+a)-f(x0+a))/a is zero. This does not mean that g(x) is a good approximation. For example 0 is a valid first order approximation for x squared around zero. This does not mean that 0 is a good approximation for one million squared.
However, economists, who like to play with math but don't always take it seriously, use "is true to first order" to mean "is a useful approximation to the truth". Similarly, economists use "second order" to mean economically insignificant.
This is not how the concepts are presented in first year graduate courses (I took only one undergraduate economics course so I don't know about them). Instead it is stressed that nth order approximations are valid only locally. I recall a professor presenting a quadratic loss function saying it was arbitrary. I raised my hand and said something like "Over in the physics department they have an argument which they admit is bogus. It is that, at a maximum, the derivative is zero so the second order Taylor series approximation to any smooth function is proportional to the square of the distance to the x which maximimizes (note I hadn't heard of the notation argmax). The professor said "sure but there is no way of knowing how close is close enough, The loss function could looke like this (drawing)" I was chastened at the time, but pleased when he said my comment was good.
Recently reading this, I noticed a third meaning of "first order" which is "according to the first neoclassical model of the phenomenon (that is the first model which featured rational optimization)." Note that this third usage is much further from the formal mathematical usage than the second is. No one could possibly believe that the first neoclassical model of something must be a good approximation.
The rules of theoretical debate among economists often require great deference to simplifying assumptions which no one has ever believed to be approximately correct. Roughly, the rule seems to be "according first neoclassical model" must be accepted as meaning "true to first order" which much be interpreted as "a useful approximation." I really don't know why.
The professor who wouldn't let me elide the difference was named N. Gregory Mankiw.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
More Good News From Iraq
The poltical gridlock appears to have eased up some allowing the Iraqi Parliament to elect a speaker and two deputy speakers (although some members missed the vote because they were held up by plain old gridlock plus security).
I have only two problems with this. First I am a bit bummed that Hussain al-Shahristani was elected to the symbolic and powerless post of deputy speaker. I am a big fan of Hussain al-Shahristani.
Second I can no longer avoid being optimistic about Iraq. This is worrying because my predictions are always wrong. However, I am pleased to read this prediction by the absolutely brilliant Matthew Yglesias.
The poltical gridlock appears to have eased up some allowing the Iraqi Parliament to elect a speaker and two deputy speakers (although some members missed the vote because they were held up by plain old gridlock plus security).
I have only two problems with this. First I am a bit bummed that Hussain al-Shahristani was elected to the symbolic and powerless post of deputy speaker. I am a big fan of Hussain al-Shahristani.
Second I can no longer avoid being optimistic about Iraq. This is worrying because my predictions are always wrong. However, I am pleased to read this prediction by the absolutely brilliant Matthew Yglesias.
I agree with the scientists quoted in this article who criticise the NIH ethics rules.
I don't think that it is such a huge problem that the National Institutes of Health have trouble recruiting people so long as they do research somewhere. However, I think that many "outside activities" including collaboration with and advising of for profit biotech companies are extremely socially useful. Like Universties the NIH does research not development and, by discouraging collaboration with firms (including collaboration motivated by NIH scientists desire for money) a barrier is established between science and patients who would benefit.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
My father Thomas Waldmann works at the NIH and the new NIH ethics rules have cost him a considerable sum of money.
Confession:
I wrote this post just so I could disclose a conflict of interest as an expression of my view of blogging ethics and the fact that I am thrilled that the Washington Post has a story on a matter of direct interest to my personal family (although they mentioned Synagis® (palivizumab) not zenapax® (daiclixumab)).
I don't think that it is such a huge problem that the National Institutes of Health have trouble recruiting people so long as they do research somewhere. However, I think that many "outside activities" including collaboration with and advising of for profit biotech companies are extremely socially useful. Like Universties the NIH does research not development and, by discouraging collaboration with firms (including collaboration motivated by NIH scientists desire for money) a barrier is established between science and patients who would benefit.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
My father Thomas Waldmann works at the NIH and the new NIH ethics rules have cost him a considerable sum of money.
Confession:
I wrote this post just so I could disclose a conflict of interest as an expression of my view of blogging ethics and the fact that I am thrilled that the Washington Post has a story on a matter of direct interest to my personal family (although they mentioned Synagis® (palivizumab) not zenapax® (daiclixumab)).
Saturday, April 02, 2005
More extremely bad policy
I know that cool people are fighting this idiocy with mockery (good strategy) but I am too outraged to laugh. Here is propaganda from the US government to parents
"I heard a commercial on the radio about always being prepared by having condoms. Do you or your friends think that condoms really make sex safe?"
The message to US parents is clear. It is made much clearer by the context of other entries on the same page. For example
"That song has a good beat, but the song makes it seem like having sex makes you a man (or woman). Do you think that's true?"
It is clear that US public money is being spent to promote the view that talking about "always being prepared by having condoms" is like saying "having sex makes you a man (or woman)." The proposed question "Do you or your friends think that condoms really make sex safe?" conflates "absolutely safe" and "safer" and "enough safer that people who insult condoms are enemies of humanity" (my answers no yes and yes).
How about this one "I hear that over at the Bush administration their proposal for avoiding AIDS is to save it till the wedding night and then have sex only with your spouse. Do you think that at least one monogamous person has cought HIV from his or (more likely) her spouse ? Do you think that sex with your spouse is totally safe ? Do you know what he/she is doing all the time ?"
The same argument that sex with condoms is not totally safe (true) implies that sex is never totally safe (no real world probability is 100%).
Notice I didn't bother with "so, junior, do you think that there is a chance in hell you will follow this advice, or should we just ignore that stupid web site?"
I award the authors of the site the Thabo Mbeki award for almost making me wish that DARPA hadn't invented the internet.
I know that cool people are fighting this idiocy with mockery (good strategy) but I am too outraged to laugh. Here is propaganda from the US government to parents
"I heard a commercial on the radio about always being prepared by having condoms. Do you or your friends think that condoms really make sex safe?"
The message to US parents is clear. It is made much clearer by the context of other entries on the same page. For example
"That song has a good beat, but the song makes it seem like having sex makes you a man (or woman). Do you think that's true?"
It is clear that US public money is being spent to promote the view that talking about "always being prepared by having condoms" is like saying "having sex makes you a man (or woman)." The proposed question "Do you or your friends think that condoms really make sex safe?" conflates "absolutely safe" and "safer" and "enough safer that people who insult condoms are enemies of humanity" (my answers no yes and yes).
How about this one "I hear that over at the Bush administration their proposal for avoiding AIDS is to save it till the wedding night and then have sex only with your spouse. Do you think that at least one monogamous person has cought HIV from his or (more likely) her spouse ? Do you think that sex with your spouse is totally safe ? Do you know what he/she is doing all the time ?"
The same argument that sex with condoms is not totally safe (true) implies that sex is never totally safe (no real world probability is 100%).
Notice I didn't bother with "so, junior, do you think that there is a chance in hell you will follow this advice, or should we just ignore that stupid web site?"
I award the authors of the site the Thabo Mbeki award for almost making me wish that DARPA hadn't invented the internet.
Very bad news Here
Not my problem. I only use DARPA products all the time (slightly less when I am asleep). But hey Al Gore claimed he invented the internet so it's OK.
Seriously, I wonder how many people who work at DARPA or do research financed by DARPA voted for Bush in 2000, because they didn't mind that Bush assumed (correctly) that he could make a joke about his opponents support for their work. Any second thoughts guys and gals ?
I think that DARPA is (was?) one of the critical engines of world economic growth. I think that the present value of the lost economic growth due to this change in focus is more likely to be in the trillions than in the hundreds of billions. Maybe I'm wrong by a factor of one hundred or so, but this is certainly aweful news. I think part of the problem is that the Bush administration refuses to admit that the public sector might have a useful role in wealth creation, so they can't admit that blue sky research financed by DARPA is useful.
Darpa officials acknowledged for the first time a shift in focus. They revealed that within a relatively steady budget for computer science research that rose slightly from $546 million in 2001 to $583 million last year, the portion going to university researchers has fallen from $214 million to $123 million.
Not my problem. I only use DARPA products all the time (slightly less when I am asleep). But hey Al Gore claimed he invented the internet so it's OK.
Seriously, I wonder how many people who work at DARPA or do research financed by DARPA voted for Bush in 2000, because they didn't mind that Bush assumed (correctly) that he could make a joke about his opponents support for their work. Any second thoughts guys and gals ?
I think that DARPA is (was?) one of the critical engines of world economic growth. I think that the present value of the lost economic growth due to this change in focus is more likely to be in the trillions than in the hundreds of billions. Maybe I'm wrong by a factor of one hundred or so, but this is certainly aweful news. I think part of the problem is that the Bush administration refuses to admit that the public sector might have a useful role in wealth creation, so they can't admit that blue sky research financed by DARPA is useful.
Very good News Here
I do think that the possible prime ministers (Ibrahim al Jaffari and Adel Abdul Mahdi) might want to say something specific and definite about the duration of the welcome for coalition troops, in order to get Sheik Harith al-Dari on board. I guess they are understandably all focused on the issue of which of them is going to be Prime Minister.
I do think that the possible prime ministers (Ibrahim al Jaffari and Adel Abdul Mahdi) might want to say something specific and definite about the duration of the welcome for coalition troops, in order to get Sheik Harith al-Dari on board. I guess they are understandably all focused on the issue of which of them is going to be Prime Minister.
Friday, April 01, 2005
George Orwell might think rather highly of this bit of parody by
General J.C. Christian (heterosexual)
Orwell might write "It derives much of its force from the final sentence [snip] drives home the idiocy of the activities described, like the final tap to a nail"
"Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels"
In "In Front of Your Nose"
General Christian makes me recall Orwell's praise of Swift.
By the way, I had some trouble finding the exact quote (got to get Orwell on disk so I can stop pawing through pages). Actually I had trouble finding the volume on my bookshelf muttering where is that book, until I noticed that it was right there declaring itself to be, in its own words, "In Front of Your Nose"
General J.C. Christian (heterosexual)
Let's talk journalism [Jeff Gannon]
I won't let the liberals ruin me. My career is back on track. Here are a couple of paragraphs from a story I'm writing for the prestigious electronic newsmagazine, Free Republic:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Pretty good, huh. It took a long time for me to get it just right.
It's about ducks.
Orwell might write "It derives much of its force from the final sentence [snip] drives home the idiocy of the activities described, like the final tap to a nail"
"Politics vs Literature: An Examination of Gulliver's Travels"
In "In Front of Your Nose"
General Christian makes me recall Orwell's praise of Swift.
By the way, I had some trouble finding the exact quote (got to get Orwell on disk so I can stop pawing through pages). Actually I had trouble finding the volume on my bookshelf muttering where is that book, until I noticed that it was right there declaring itself to be, in its own words, "In Front of Your Nose"
If Military Intelligence is an oxymoron what is
Defence Intelligence Agency ?
Of course, not so long ago, over at the CIA DCI and former provost of MIT John Deutch was downloading top secret documents using his AOL account.
Defence Intelligence Agency ?
The defense intelligence division chief who received the CIA e-mail forwarded it to a subordinate in an e-mail that was inadvertently copied back to the sender. In it, the division chief expressed shock at the CIA's suggestion that Curveball might be unreliable. The "CIA is up to their old tricks" and did not "have a clue" about how the source had been handled, the division chief wrote.
Of course, not so long ago, over at the CIA DCI and former provost of MIT John Deutch was downloading top secret documents using his AOL account.
Max also told me about this nice regression.
but now I've linked to him twice in two posts so I guess he won't respect me in the morning.
but now I've linked to him twice in two posts so I guess he won't respect me in the morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)