Month: August 2011

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett – a Republican – thinks it's time to ban scientific research on great apes:

The mere confinement in laboratory cages deprives chimpanzees of basic physical, social and emotional sustenance. Numerous peer-reviewed studies of chimpanzees in sanctuaries who had previously been confined in laboratories have documented behavioral symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Chronic and traumatic stress harms chimpanzees’ health and compromises the results of experiments conducted on them. There is no question that chimpanzees experience pain, stress and social isolation in ways strikingly similar to the way humans do.

More on those similarities here.

Via Yglesias, who asks for an explanation. James Joyner floats the idea that rich people buy really nice booze. Kevin Drum finds some supporting evidence.

A reader branches off the restaurant thread:

From my perspective, as a web programmer, if you really want to see some reliably lousy websites, then look no further than those that artists (painters, sculptors and the like) put up for themselves. They may not have the "discoey" music gaudiness of some restaurant websites, but as far as everything one shouldn't do when making a website goes, they hit all the major notes:

Using a 10 different fonts on one web page?  Check.

Having a bunch of broken links on the front page?  Check.

Gaudy color schemes (you know, because the website is an "extension of their work")?  Check.

Uploading image files that are way too large, thereby causing any visitor to the website to have to wait ten minutes for a page to come up because each work sample is 4 megabytes?  Check.

Updating the website once every six years?  Check.

Putting their personal Hotmail address on the front page of the website, thereby contributing to the world-wide junk mail scourge (and not to mention making themselves look like a hack)?  Check.

Forgetting to pay their web hosting fees, so that half the time their website is "down for maintenance"?  Check.

Oh, and this might be the worst … taking their visitors' emails and including them in large, un-blind-copied show announcement emails?  Great big check.

The list goes on, but aside from the bad aesthetic and bad internet manners, they're lousy as customers – a lot of micro-managing, obsessive-compulsive attention to every unimportant detail (I had a woman once call me and complain that a line break was 2 millimeters lower than where it should have been … she was holding a ruler up to her computer screen), fickleness, and of course the lack of ability to pay for any of the work they've just demanded too much of your time for.

I learned these lessons long ago and don't service many artists anymore. Unless they pay in advance and have a day job.

The Varyag, a former Soviet carrier that China bought from Ukraine in 1998, just launched on its first training exercise. Bonnie S. Glaser and Brittany Billingsley explain China's motivation:

The acquisition of an aircraft carrier is driven in part by China’s desire for international prestige. The United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Spain, Italy, India, Brazil, and Thailand operate a total of 21 active-service aircraft carriers (the United States alone operates 11). An aircraft carrier is widely viewed by Chinese as a symbol of national power and prestige. PLA officers often remind foreigners that China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council without a carrier. At the same time, however, the procurement of the carrier is a consequence of an improved continental threat environment that has imposed constraints on China’s ability to develop sea power.

Yglesias thinks the move only shows how far behind China is militarily. But Raymond Pritchett sees it as the latest example of our inability to think strategically the way China does:

The Chinese intentionally frame their narrative in a way so that the rise of their national seapower is perceived as part of a larger system of broad Chinese advancement, not unlike the way the US looked upon sea and space achievements before the end of the cold war.  I find the contrast in outlook stark in comparison. As the Chinese set near term, small goals at the political level and strive to meet those goals, the intention is to continuously inspire their population with advancement through otherwise insignificant small steps. They basically apply very simple political visions forwarded with reasonable expectations for scientific achievement that reinforces national confidence when those stated goals are achieved. Their current model of modest steps that allows for maximum political benefit in an information age is good governance 101. 

In the US today our political leaders do not outline national goals that inspire confidence in our political leadership, in our people, or in our countries future.

(Photo: An aircraft carrier, known as the Varyag, is docked at Dalian Shipyard on June 14, 2011 in Dalian, Liaoning Province of China. The Varyag will be used for scientific research, experiment and training, according to the China's National Defense Ministry on July 27, 2011. By ChinaFotoPress/Getty Images)

That's the name of a new blog by an anonymous law professor. It's pretty unsparing:

Most law faculty have had literally no classroom teaching experience before they become "law professors," that they get no training or real guidance in regard to what they're doing in the classroom at any point in their careers, and that many of the traditional methods of law school teaching, in particular cold-calling students in order to require them to participate in a pseudo-Socratic dialogue, are simply idiotic (if research into education methods has established anything, it has proven that fear is a powerful impediment to learning). All these things combine to make the typical law school classroom experience a fantastically inefficient misuse of social resources.

Via Orin Kerr, who thinks the author overstates his case.

RJ Evans provides a tour of the war-torn country.

(Photo by Tom Vogler)

More readers sound off on the popular thread:

Our HOA is run by our developer until we sell more houses, and he uses an inept property management company for the day-to-day. At our annual meeting, we were all complaining to our developer about the shoddy work of the management company. An Iraq vet stood up to complain that while he was overseas, the management company had given his wife the runaround and wouldn't take into account that the husband was too far away to deal with endless paperwork. When it was time for the developer to answer, he said, "First of all, I'd like to thank you for your service," and got us all to applaud for the guy. That enabled him to completely dodge the question and move on.

I often think that the thanking has more to do with the person thanking ("I feel awkward in your presence because you are more of a badass than me") and in this case, was really used in a vile way to deflect from criticism. I'd kinda liked our developer before that, but I found that disgusting.

Another writes:

I'm flabbergasted by the hostility some readers have shown to people offering a simple "thank you" to those in the military.

Just a personal anecdote: I met a guy at a bar who brought up the fact that he had just gotten back from Afghanistan. I said "thank you," and he was totally floored. He gave me a hug and said I was the only person who had thanked him, and he felt that nobody gave a shit about people in the military.

I don't care, frankly, whether your readers "want" or "need" my thanks; I will continue to thank those who deserve it. If I hold the door open for you, and you thank me, I don't interpret that as you suggesting that the only reason I held the door was for your thanks. I'm not saying, "I know you only served so I would say thank you," I'm saying, "thank you." If you're such a self-righteous jerk that you can't accept a kind gesture from a stranger, then the problem is with YOU, whether or not you bravely served your country.

One more:

I was on the honor guard at my last base. For a few years it seemed we were doing 4 or 5 funerals a week, mostly WWII vets. During the second funeral, one 100 degree plus Saturday, one of our flag folders was stung by a bee right beneath his eye. I was standing across from him. He was facing the funeral party. I watched his face swell beyond what I thought possible. He never broke his bearing. We folded the flag. I did the handoff to the spouse instead of him; I wasn't sure he could speak.

We marched back to our van. A guy walked up to us as we loaded our gear. He handed us an address to his brother's bar. Said drinks were on the house. That he'd never seen anything like what my buddy did. In truth, I never had either. After we got him to a doctor, we made a bee-line for that bar.

"Thanks" wouldn't have cut it. But does it ever? It's quite literally the least anyone could do. I have to agree with my fellow vets. The thank yous get pretty annoying. It's just uncomfortable. I never knew how to respond. "You're welcome?" It's just awkward. But once while waiting to deploy at BWI, someone picked up our check at the bar. He was an old vet. He just came up, shook our hands, told us to "be safe", and left. That, we appreciated.

Today on the Dish, Andrew live-blogged the most entertaining GOP debate in a long time and reconsidered Christianism in light of Martin Luther King Jr. Andrew noted Romney's former run-in with fiscal conservatism and the S&P but couldn't get over his plastic demeanor. We assessed Romney's defense of corporations as people, and readers didn't think Obama would attack his Mormonism. Pareene sunk his teeth into Rick Perry as a neo-Confederate sympathizer, the Bush comparisons continued, while the neocons lined up to drool. Bachmann looked nuts in other Newsweek photos, and Seth Mandel hyped Perry's popularity over Palin, while she careened her bus tour towards Iowa.

In national affairs, Andrew fisked Santorum's abstract paper towel/ napkin analogy, GOProud bowed to Queen Coulter, the radical homosexual activist agenda marched on, and marriage equality seemed sturdy in New York. Chait defended the Wisconsin recall election, and one black Limbaugh listener got fed up with his exploitation of racial stereotypes. Liberals continued to harp on Obama's faults, Fareed defended Obama's common sense fiscal approach, and Sen. DeMint earned a Hewitt award for calling Obama's administration the most anti-American in memory. Drezner feared a global Depression, independents would axe infrastructure spending but Brian Fung argued we need better polls to truly judge what people want. 

On the international front, Andrew addressed cries from the anti-war left, Syria's political system was forever changed by the protests, and Ahmed never mentioned beards. Celeste Ward Gventer attacked US interventionism run amok, and the US is complicit in the fighting in Somalia. In the UK, some rioters had tried to march peacefully without a word from the press, a reader returned to a 2006 Cameron speech, and apparently austerity makes riots more likely.

Some readers tried to live without cash, and another accused credits cards of being rigged. Alan Jacobs argued our real life personas are easier to track than we think, a former Wikipedia editor examined conflicts on the site, and Norm Geras critiqued Terry Eagleton's definition of evil. Selfish elites should learn a lesson from past fiscal crises, male infertility was kept quiet, and Southerners encouraged their fellow liberals to confront the occasional bigotry of family and friends. Restaurant websites may suck because menus are delivered in PDFs for the actual dining experience, and Angry Birds flung themselves at hockey masks.

Creepy ad watch here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

–Z.P.

10 pm. The winners tonight were the Fox interviewers, Baier and Wallace, who pulled no punches in this battle and asked some very tart and tough questions of the various candidates.

I think Bachmann is the current front-runner in Iowa and the debate tonight will cement her status. T-Paw was better; Romney came across as even shiftier than usual; Huntsman let his nerves get the better of him; Ron Paul's freshness has waned; Herman Cain was hopeless; Gingrich was very very angry; and Santorum is so exercized about Iran he even wandered into a defense of gays! Awesome.

9.58 pm. Huntsman actually opposes the irresponsibility of allowing the US to default, when we could also make some incremental progress toward reducing the debt. Imagine.

9.53 pm. Wow. Santorum sounds responsible on the debt ceiling. Compared with the others anyway. "Showmanship not leadership" seems to be the way some candidates are going to tackle Bachmann (and, if they dare) Palin.

9.51 pm. Newt and Ron bond on the Fed. If you live long enough …

9.49 pm. Readers still reeling:

Admittedly I've had a few pops, but I think I just heard Santorum say Iran "tramples the rights of gays", and even made it sound like a bad thing … reading the Sierra Nevada label now to see if hallucinations are a possible side effect.

9.46 pm. Bachmann defends her opposition to raising the debt ceiling. She has no answer on what the impact would have been if she had forced us to leap over that cliff, though. I really think this debt ceiling indifference is going to hurt these candidates. People want to cut spending, but they don't want to seek national default on purpose. The current GOP doctrine is not conservatism, it's anti-government radicalism. And that is not a winner in a nervous electorate in hard times.

9.45 pm. Huntsman hasn't loosened up. And the EPA's "reign of terror"? Please.

9.43 pm. Romney refuses (twice!) to say whether he'd support extending unemployment benefits for those caught in the current recession. He'd prefer "savings accounts" for the unemployed. No, I'm not kidding.

9.36 pm. Wow. Huntsman defends civil unions as "subordinate" to civil marriage but vital to "equality." Oookaaay. Then he runs away from it substantively. I'm immensely grateful that someone on that stage does not regard gay relationships as evil, and that gay citizens have a claim on equality. But he needs to be more convincing.

9.34 pm. Romney – who was a tenth amendment enthusiast when it came to healthcare – now backs a federal constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. Just total incoherence.

9.33 pm. Bachmann says "submission" to her husband means "respect" for him. Great question. I have to say Fox has done well tonight in asking provocative but fair questions.

9.31 pm. Cain on Mormonism. Oh, great. He wasn't casting "dispersions" against Mormons. He's become "documented" on that.

9.30 pm. Gingrich backs loyalty oaths – especially for proud liars. Applies to Catholics as well, apparently. Ineffective and disgusting. Truly, deeply disgusting.

9.29 pm. Social issues. Gulp.

9.27 pm. A reader writes:

Did your head just explode, Andrew? Mine did… Suddenly Santorum gives a crap about women and gays? Seriously?

I think he supports our right to vote.

9.25 pm. Ron Paul yells "It's time to quit these wars!" The crowd erupts. Totally loving this debate. Easily the most entertaining I've sat through in a long time.

9.24 pm. Santorum attacks Iran on removing rights for gays. Which rights for gays does Santorum support in America?

9.21 pm. Bachmann says that the intelligence that got Osama bin Laden came from Gitmo. Really? Bachmann also essentially says she'll declare war on Iran to save Israel. She sees no distinction between a terror suspect and a convicted terrorist.

9.19 pm. Great to see Paul and Santorum go at it over Iran. Great comeback from Ron Paul on who started this conflict: the US did. The first real smackdown of neocon nonsense in the debate so far. So just as I thought he was wobbly, he got his mojo back.

9.16 pm. Ron Paul is having a bad night. He seems more meandering, more out of it, more rambling old man than usual. And I say that as a fan of his non-interventionist courage. Loved the line about Cuba, though. Same principle as Israel.

9.14 pm. Pawlenty just described assassinations of scientists as "good work". He also says there should be "no daylight" between US policy and Israeli policy. Between his own president and the prime minister of a foreign country, Pawlenty is with the foreign power.

9.13 pm. Huntsman has equated possible cyber-hacking by foreign powers with an act of warfare.

9.08 pm. Romney gets caught in another flip-flop on Afghanistan. His reasoning is that we should build nations and democracies abroad – but only for a decade or so. After that, outta there. I notice that both he and Pawlenty want to attack Obama for an allegedly precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

9.05 pm. Bachmann doesn't get back in time for the resumption of the debate. Huntsman has a great line about prayers – and job-creation. His best moment yet. Bachmann handles the Palin rivalry very deftly. No one is going to say anything bad about Palin. Not yet, anyway.

9.04 pm. A correction: it's Minnesota Nice not Wisconsin Nice. A reader tells me it's Wisconsin drunk. And I'll get another bunch of emails for that. But my bad.

9 pm. Santorum is arguing that morality should take precedence over the tenth amendment. His morality, of course. Gives him some cojones in this context to challenge federalism in this way. and it reveals an intellectual honesty. Freedom does not mean the freedom to violate the eternal, unchanging "laws of nature", as defined by the Catholic church. At least you know where you are with him.

8.57 pm. Bachmann again repeats her red meat argument against any mandate anywhere. She does so calmly, clearly and sincerely. So far, she's in a league of her own on this stage.

8.55 pm. Romney repeats his usual response to his endorsement of a state-level version of Obamacare by bringing up the tenth amendment. Then he ducks a basic issue of the individual mandate. With the current GOP, defending a state's ability to force children to go to school is not such a great idea.

Gingrich, meanwhile, just seems very very angry.

8.50 pm. Santorum is actually saying you can compromise in politics! The line on Bachmann: we need leadership, not showmanship. But Santorum would still not compromise an inch on taxes. In fact, every single one of them would walk away from a compromise that cut the debt by a combination of 10 – 1 spending cuts to tax hikes. That's how extreme this party is. And when two-thirds of the public want some increase in taxes on the wealthy, you are pitted against a huge amount of the American middle.

8.45 pm. The one thing they cannot possibly admit is any increase in government revenues. You can't even raise taxes on cigarettes! Bachmann uses the question to Pawlenty on cigarette taxes to brag her pro-life credentials. And her basic position is: everything she wants to achieve is non-negotiable. If you want a human incarnation of the current GOP's extremism, she is easily your woman. I'd say she's winning this debate by a mile.

8.43 pm. Romney defends his support for tax increases as a way to upgrade his state's credit rating. It's a good line in the general, not such a great defense in a primary. Romney sure doesn't seem the commanding figure on this stage.

8.39 pm. "High fences and wide doors" is a great formulation for immigration policy. But it's a slogan, not a policy. Ron Paul pivots toward foreign policy, with a muffed but good line about more concern about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the border between the US and Mexico.

8.36 pm. On illegal immigration, Huntsman stands on border security first and only. Romney, mercifully, backs legal immigration enthusiastically, especially the talented and qualified. It really is a relief to hear a Republican say something positive about immigrants. It's been so long.

8.35 pm. Cain says he has now been "documented" on the Palestinian right of return. Big cheers on sharia law.

8.33 pm. The questions are tough as hell: good for Fox. Huntsman gives a rather superb answer to the notion that he shouldn't have been Obama's ambassador. Then he launches into a defense of his Utah record. There's still a nervous quiver in his voice, and the applause was close to impossible to hear, but his Utah record is impressive. But no real breakthrough for him.

8.32 pm. Gingrich attacks Chris Wallace, and the mob backs Gingrich. Newt wins. Quite an impressive, and angry tirade against the press.

8.31 pm. So far, the most entertaining brawl since the Obama-Clinton battles last time around. But notice one thing: no policy answers to any policy questions. The only specific one so far: lowering the corporate tax rate for manufacturing. It's still all they've got: tax cuts. I'd do a shot for every policy proposal, but I doubt I'd get a buzz on.

8.30 pm. Wow. This T-Paw-Bachmann brawl is awesome. Essentially, Pawlenty is calling her useless; she's calling him Obama-lite. I'll tell what I find great: the inclusion of a woman candidate without the slightest deference, condescension, or squeamishness. Bachmann has already proved she's better than Palin, and T-Paw looks like a hairball a cat just coughed up.

8.25 pm. Bachmann looks right at Pawlenty and basically calls him a commie because he once backed "cap and trade" and the "individual mandate". The eyes are still staring and, to my mind, she just knocked T-Paw off his modest pedestal. She's boasting about every purist position she ahs ever taken.

8.21 pm. Pawlenty is much better tonight. A pretty great dig at how many lawns Romney has, and a refusal to duck on his criticism of Bachmann. To say her Congressional record is "non-existent" is not exactly Wisconsin-nice.

8.15 pm. Huntsman comes off nervous, trips over his unready website, and then launches into a defense of his Utah governorship. That'll be his message, I suppose: that his governorship proves his competence. That will require elaboration. But so far, not a fantastic start.

8.07 pm CST. One thing I was watching for tonight is just how far out there these candidates would be. So far, Michele Bachmann offered not a single policy and Mitt Romney had a seven-point seminar. Both would have refused to raise the debt ceiling last week.

(Photo: Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) delivers a speech and answers employees' questions while visiting Competitive Edge, an advertising and promotion product manufacturer, August 10, 2011 in Clive, Iowa. Bachmann is campaigning all over the state ahead of the all important Iowa Straw Poll Saturday. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

A reader writes:

If you haven't seen the Frontline program about the credit card industry, I highly recommend it.  It has to be one of the most predatory industries in modern times – a sort of sanctioned loan-sharking.  Do you know what they call customers who pay off their balances every month?  Deadbeats.  Financially responsible, prudent individuals who don't carry a month-to-month balance are deadbeats. Why?  Because they don't make the CC companies any money in interest, fees, and any other miscellaneous rent-seeking they can dream up. 

Do you know what happens to the credit scores of deadbeats?  They stay low.  Why?  These are people who are demonstrating incredible financial responsibility – they pay their bills, for crying out loud.  So why do they have lower credit scores than people who maintain a rotating balance?  Because they are UNPROFITABLE.

The whole financial industry is coercive in that staying in perpetual debt – but just the right amount of debt – while making timely payments, is the only way to ensure good credit because it guarantees corporate profits. If you don't want to be caught in that trap and choose not to have credit cards (or even if you do have plastic but pay it off monthly), you are, in a sense, blacklisted from major loan opportunities like mortgages and auto loans – at least at favorable rates, and therein lies the coercion.

The CC industry has far, far too much power over people's entire financial history and financial health in spite of recent legislation. Consumers have nothing close to the lobbying power of the CC industry, and when even a global financial meltdown doesn't result in major pro-consumer legislation, it's clear it will never happen.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form trying to convince you or anyone else to get on plastic merry-go-round.  Far from it.  I wish I was in your position to some extent.  Revolving debt is brutal.  I just want to point out how fucked up the incentives are if the goal is getting people to live within their means and exercise personal, fiscal responsibility.  The entire financial industry profits from keeping individuals in a state of perpetual debt.

I understood and supported (with nose tightly held) TARP, but part of me wishes the whole system imploded because things like this are too entrenched to be unwound without a catastrophe to force the hand.

Another:

The reader who wrote this:

I don't know how many credit cards I actually even have at this point, but I only use one of them really (the one with the best benefits), use it for everything I possibly can and pay it off IN FULL every month.  No downside, all of the upside.  And every year there are new deals on cards (recently there was a Chase card that gave you 50k Southwest points for signing up)"

… could have been me. I have probably a dozen cards, but use maybe two of them depending on which one has the best rewards. I even just applied for that Southwest Airlines card. But there IS a downside he didn't mention. Retailers who accept credit cards have to pay fees in order to do so. Fees that go to Visa, MC and Discover, fees that go to the issuing bank (Chase, Citi, etc), fees to rent the card readers, and more. From what I hear, they are pretty substantial. The businesses make up the fees by charging everyone higher prices (since it is illegal to change prices based on the form of payment).

If everyone used cash, prices for everything would go down. But since that's not going to happen, I'll keep earning some of those fees back with my rewards. (Wired had an interesting article on the subject about a year and a half ago.)