Month: September 2010

Nate Silver analyzes:

[O]ne fundamental Republican problem that the Tea Party has not resolved: the brand remains extremely unpopular among large segments of the public. In fact, the Tea Party is in some ways a reaction to this: particularly after Delaware, we should probably take the Tea Party at its word that stands in opposition to the Republican and Democratic establishments alike.

How loyal will voters who were inspired by the Tea Party remain to the Republican Party -– and how loyal will Republicans remain to the Tea Party?

Joel Wing points to a new Amnesty International report:

Amnesty’s September report is just the latest on abuses going on within Iraq. Human Rights Watch, the United Nations, and the State Department have all made similar findings. As soon as an interim government was created in Iraq in mid-2004 stories (1) of abuse and torture began to emerge. As ever, the main causes have been the drive for a confession, the isolation many prisoners are held in, and the absence of lawyers and judges. Amnesty International called for a number of reforms by the Iraqis, and for the United States to exert pressure on Baghdad to solve these problems. The on-going insurgency, which leads to a constant flow of prisoners being rounded up, the country’s history of abuse that dates back to the Saddam era, and the lack of interest by three Iraqi administrations since the 2003 invasion points to little progress being made on this issue.

A reader writes:

I go to a small, expensive liberal arts college in the Midwest. It was really interesting seeing the series about recruiting from Ivy schools and noting the significant differences between East Coast Ivies and the school I go to, which is one of the top schools in the Midwest.

When I started attending this school, my parents had saved up enough money in a 529 to last me four years, approximately. Due to the market crash, those four years became three years, which itself was only possible by combining the 529 with federal loans. As a current senior, I was faced with a decision my parents never expected me to face. If I did my senior year with a full schedule, I would basically be more than tripling my loans. If I took only one semester and graduated a semester early, I would double my loans. So instead, I decided to finish up by taking only the couple classes I needed, which at the part-time tuition rate, I only added a little bit to my loans.

Graduating in just over three years was not something I planned on back in high school. Yet it's only possible because of the AP classes I took (I took ten of them) plus a couple transfer credits from a J-term class (when you take only one class during the entire month of January). I'm sure there are some students in high school who stock up on AP credits in order to graduate early, though I believe that's becoming more likely as the cost of tuition continues to increase at around 7% (depending on the school) while jobs and income are deflated. In my view, the recession is the catalyst for a growing number of students, including myself, to graduate early to save money.

I don't have the specific numbers, so I can only speak about the people I've talked to. My closest friend from high school is graduating early. One housemate is graduating early. I know personally at least five more graduating early. According to the administration at my school, typically around 20 students graduate early, but this year they are expecting around 30. A 50% increase during a recession says something to me.

For the school, this creates problems. At the full rate, those 30 students are going to cost the school over half a million dollars in potential revenue (not counting any financial aid they may be receiving). A school faces three options: let the students go (current option), reduce tuition in order to keep more students around (possible, though I believe unlikely), or it can change the graduation requirements so that fewer students are able to graduate early. I don't know what I would have done if the last option were made reality.

Back to my story: I'm currently unemployed. Being a part-time student, and only in the last week securing a part-time job, qualifies me as unemployed. The part of the healthcare law that allows children to stay on their parents' health care plan doesn't go in effect until January 1, according to my parent's insurance company. Therefore, I don't have health insurance. Just as I thought was saving money by taking fewer classes, I'm now on my own for insurance.

One other thought I've had: although I don't qualify for unemployment benefits – as far as I can tell, graduating college to become unemployed doesn't qualify one for unemployment benefits – I've come to think of unemployment benefits as a salary for those doing the job of job searching. I work as hard to find a job as I did in college, though emotionally the job search is much more draining.

As I prepare to graduate in December, I'm somewhat hopeful. After all, I have a five-month head start on the job search over my peers.

Today on the Dish, O'Donnell was a bit of a flake; Palin urged CQ Politics to "print truth;" Tea Partiers weren't quite libertarians; and a review of the full O'Donnell files can be found here. A majority of Americans were for marriage equality , even if the National Review thought marriage was only for mating and we reiterated that DADT isn't just about parades.

Andrew fired back at the Krauthammer dissent, defending his Malkin award; and Newt was today's inductee for his Sebelius "in the spirit of Soviet tyranny" remarks. We mined history for the roots of Marty's mistakes; and while the American right was scary, it still didn't hold a candle to the Taliban. Graeme Wood wondered about the Medal of Honor; Ta-Nehisi grappled with compassion and the Civl War; and Buckley got real on the Boomers.

The Life Sack saved lives; hype trumped security in Haystack; and Fidel Castro helped create the gay rights movement in the U.S. Pope protestors created quite the signage; the killing continued in Iraq and even journalists weren't immune from PTSD. Weed got crowd-sourced; essay mills weren't worth the money; and Rachel Laudan wrote in defense of processed foods. Jeff McMahan wondered whether all meat-eaters on the planet could be evolved into herbivores; green jobs were made to move abroad; and the war on Christmas came early this year. You can find the VFYW here; MHB here; and FOTD here. Ira Glass read the New York Times; Livejournal remained timeless; we gazed at shrooms and capitalism killed Prep.

–Z.P.

Thoreau argues with liberal friends about legalizing pot:

If I say that the drug war enriches criminals, I am suggesting that without the drug war the criminals would make less money.  I have no illusion that organized crime would vanish, but at least they’d have fewer revenue streams, and riskier revenue streams.  If they get money by selling drugs, the people that they get their money from will not call the cops.  If they get their money by identity theft, somebody will most definitely call the cops.  Even if they get their money by trafficking sex slaves, at the very least there’s a person who wants to call the cops, and now and then somebody will get away and call the cops.  But nobody calls the cops to report “Officer, that guy just sold me a joint.”  (At least not before getting stoned.  Once he’s sufficiently stoned, well, I suppose anything’s possible.)

My friends, however, do not believe that legalization will have any effect on crime, or at least no significant effect in the long run.  I think it requires a great deal of cynicism to believe that organized crime will not be hurt at all if a major revenue stream is eliminated.

Bonus thoughts on the public health argument against legalization here. Pete Guither explains why Thoreau's friends are mistaken.

Christopher Buckley contributes a dash of realism:

Michael's idea is an admirable one, and my hat is off to him for trying to get us to focus, but let's get real: his dog ain't gonna hunt.  

So many bright people come forward with good ideas–and nothing ever happens.  And nothing will.  In a 24/7 news cycle, with all the shrieking, howling voices and rapid-response and instant spinning and Soviet-style disinformation-mongering, a good idea has a shelf life of about, um, six seconds.  

Meanwhile, we deficit bores will continue to go on ruining dinner parties.  Nothing will happen–until we actually drive off the cliff.  At which point we Boomers, or more likely, our successor Gens (X, Y, and Z?) will have their shot at becoming the Greatest Generation 2.0. 

Joanne McNeil considers the timelessness of Livejournal:

Without looking at the time stamp of some posts on that site, there’s no way to discern what year, what decade this is. So long as precocious teenagers discover things like Valerie and Her Week of Wonders and the Velvet Underground, there will be blogs like this.

She argues that anonymity is an important aspect of the platform:

It’s the same reason I blogged anonymously as a teenager, and still sometimes post in forums under fake names. Nineteen is a tender age, one is in constant discovery mode. Trying on different faces, making friends that might not feel right, figuring out the core of one’s identity. I took comfort in anonymity. Anyone who does not see the value in these communities misses out on a pretty essential experience.

The host of This American Life talked to New York Magazine:

NY MAG: Times, Post, or Daily News?

Ira Glass: Times. Please. I'm a cliché. Did I mention I work in public broadcasting?

Asked to describe what he does all day he says, "I try to make things fascinatinger." Last week's episode was a success: Act one is a story about how a bad experience at The Apple Store ended in a SWAT team invading a man's apartment, and Act two is a gripping look at illegal acts inside the NYPD. I never – and I mean never – listen to radio of any kind, but everyone I know and respect thinks he's a genius. And NPR sure has been on a ratings roll. For the most part, anyway.

Tim Lee applauds Yglesias:

Matt Yglesias has had a series of excellent posts about the anti-competitive effects of regulations on barbers, dental hygienists, tour guides, and various other industries. And each post has been greeted by a chorus of condemnation from his readers, who accuse him of being a libertarian sellout. Now obviously, as a libertarian I think Matt is right on the merits. But I also think Matt’s critics are wrong about the ideological valence of these issues…

If you look back to the work of early liberals who are the common intellectual ancestors of both liberals and libertarians, you’ll find a lot of concern about interest groups using the power of the state to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public. Early European liberals strongly opposed the state practice of selling state-enforced monopolies as a way of raising revenue and rewarding political supporters. The free-market and free-trade arguments of 19th Century liberals often took a populist, anti-business cast precisely because government interventions of the time were often such blatant attempts to benefit entrenched interests at the expense of the general public.