Month: January 2012

The always-interesting Francis Fukuyama has a great interview on the financial crisis. Money quote:

What I thought was most interesting about Michael Lewis's book, "The Big Short," was that there is, to this day, a view about the whole pathology of collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) – these highly complex, packaged mortgage securities – as well as the credit default swaps – the insurance contracts written on those securities – that Wall Street created them and they simply got out of hand. They didn’t anticipate it would be hard to value them, how they would be misused, and so forth. What Michael Lewis points out very forcefully is that they were deliberately created by Wall Street banks in order to produce non-transparent securities that could not be adequately evaluated by the rating agencies, which then could be sold to less sophisticated investors, who would buy the idea that this junk debt actually had triple A ratings. So what this book does quite brilliantly is show that there was actually a high degree of intentionality in creating the crisis.

The worst of all these securities are the so-called synthetic CDOs. A CDO is a bond that represents maybe a couple of thousand mortgages; a synthetic CDO is a group of hundreds of CDOs, all packaged into a single security. When you get to that level of complexity, no one can evaluate what this thing is worth. You can come up with sophisticated rationales for why this might actually follow some kind of market logic, but I think Lewis shows that the reason this happened is that they didn’t want anyone to be able to rate it.

In the wake of a controversial radio appearance, the blogosphere has not looked kindly on Caitlin Flanagan's new book, Girl Land, which aims to shield adolescent girls from a sexualized mass culture. Irin Carmon, who debated Flanagan in the segment, recaps her experience:

Specifically, she tried to use me as an example of the perils of having the Internet in your room as an adolescent, because I didn’t happen to meet a great guy to date in high school. The remedy? More princess movies.

Meghan O'Rourke thinks Flanagan is naive:

One waits in vain for Flanagan to get to the most interesting fact about the sex lives of teenage girls: that sexual vulnerability goes hand in hand with their own burgeoning desire—and the means to act on it. Instead, she informs us that "obviously" most adolescent girls would never type the word "porn" into a search engine (has she actually ever met a teenage girl?) and suggests that one reason girls can be so voluble is that they’re afraid of male attention. But is there any reason to think that girls don’t feel the same electric sexual charges—the same careless, intoxicated desire—boys do?

What’s most disheartening about all this alarmist rhetoric about girls is also what’s most predictable: It continues to define them as the objects of their erotic experience rather than as the agents of it.

Heather Havrilesky offers a qualified defense of the lightning rod:

… Flanagan’s central premise is not only worthwhile, it’s exactly the sort of argument that so few in media dare to make, butting up against both liberal notions about freedom of speech and pornography and the free-to-be-you-and-me universe that most middle-class feminists of a certain age grew up in. And that makes it all the more disappointing—and bizarre—when Flanagan lets herself off the hook, yet again.

If I were to learn that my children had engaged in oral sex—outside a romantic relationship, and as young adolescents—I would be sad. But I wouldn’t think that they had been damaged by the experience; I wouldn’t think I had failed catastrophically as a mother, or that they would need therapy. Because I don’t have daughters, I have sons.

That’s right, folks: Mothers fretting over the sexual precocity of their sons can just sit back and relax.

Maria Bustillos and David Roth stoke the debate further.

(Image: "Alice Just A Trap" by Thomas Czarnecki, part of his series on fallen Disney princesses)

By not swallowing:

The term is a bit of a misnomer, since swallowing is actually the last thing you want to do with a sharp blade, since it involves contraction of numerous muscles; instead, the idea is to completely relax the throat and turn it into one long "living scabbard."

Essentially, sword swallowers have to figure out how to carefully align a sword with their upper esophageal sphincter — a ring of muscle at the top end of the throat– and straighten the pharynx, commonly achieved by hyper-extending the neck by tipping the head waaay back. The practitioner must then move his tongue out of the way and consciously relax his throat as he "swallows" — not an easy thing to do because of our involuntary gag reflex, the body’s defense mechanism against swallowing foreign objects.

David Wheeler shows how antiquated the written signature is:

While signatures remain America's chosen method of authorization, PIN-code transactions are much less susceptible to fraud. "Fraud rates on credit or debit cards that are signature-based are much higher than on cards with PIN protection," notes Chris Hawkins in his book A History of Signatures: From Cave Paintings to Robo-Signings. In 2005, a consulting firm found that signature-based debit card fraud rates were 15 times higher than PIN-based fraud rates.

If PIN codes work better, why are we still using signatures? Many retailers are asking the same question. "U.S. electronic payment technology is antiquated," says Brian Dodge, a senior vice president at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents nine of the 10 largest American retailers. "Stronger fraud prevention technology — chip and PIN — is deployed in nearly every other industrialized nation except the U.S." 

Cathy Erway ponders meat:

[E]ating meat in small doses — around once a week — gives me a deep sense of appreciation for it, too. I doubt this would be the case if my palate were weakened by its constant presence in my meals. Absence makes the taste buds grow fonder.  Studies have been showing that Americans are eating less and less meat today, and while there are differing takes on why this might be, there is a growing indifference about the necessity of meat on every plate. This is surely good news for the environment. But what about the average household? Maybe they’re also rediscovering a simple rule: We appreciate meat more when we can’t have it all the time.

(Image by Maira Kalman)

A new study presented liberals and conservatives with a variety of positive and negative images (i.e. kittens, car wrecks):

Our evolution as human beings has programmed all of us to pay heightened attention to threatening or frightening stimuli. But conservatives were drawn to the negative images almost twice as fast as the liberals were. And they fixated there longer, too. This suggests that there exists not only a physiological difference, but also a cognitive one in how political partisans react to such pictures. …

"I figured because conservatives reacted more strongly to negative things, they’d be more likely to avoid them," said Mike Dodd, an assistant professor of psychology and the study’s lead author. "That ended up not being the case. They ended up locking onto them quicker and taking more time on them, which makes sense from a policy perspective. Oftentimes they end up confronting things that they think of as threats."

Shadi Hamid seconds Slaughter's case:

What made Libya a "pure" intervention was that we acted not because our vital interests were threatened but in spite of the fact that they were not. For me, this was yet one more reason to laud it. Libya provided us an opportunity to begin the difficult work of re-orienting U.S. foreign policy, to align ourselves, finally, with our own ideals.

For me, Syria is part of this bigger debate; what role does the United States seek for itself in a rapidly changing world, a world in which activists and rebels still long for an America that will recognize the struggle and come to the aid of their revolutions? The rising democracies of Brazil and India cannot offer this. Russia and China certainly cannot.

A foreign policy that has no relationship toward national interests is not a foreign policy. The United States should always support, encourage, trade with, talk to, and buoy democratizng countries. But if we haven't learned by now that sending bombs and tanks is unaffordable, given our debt, and inherently compromised, given our lack of control over what happens next, then we have learned nothing.

(Photo: Syrian soldiers who defected join protesters in the al-Khaldiya neighborhood of the restive city of Homs on January 26, 2012. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the army launched an offensive on Thursday evening in the Karm al-Zeitoun district of Homs, killing 26 civilians, including nine children, and wounding dozens. By STR/AFP/Getty Images.)

The full version of "Blood Money," funded by the pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future:

Ben Johnson wonders if the web ad will have an impact: 

While Romney was never personally implicated in the scandal that embroiled Damon Corp, fact-checking site PolitiFact has rated a separate ad drawing the same connections as “Mostly True.” Will the seven-minute negative ad do damage? After what pundits are calling his best debate performances thus far, Romney is ahead of Gingrich in the latest Florida polling. But national polls have Gingrich pulling ahead as far as 10 points. The sunshine state may not be the end, and it could still get bloodier. 

The latest from Newt's own campaign, which we previewed earlier today, is below:

Huckabee has been quick to distance himself from the ad. The DNC is taking roughly the same approach ("he'll say anything to get elected"): 

Meanwhile, Romney is vastly outdoing Newt on the airwaves (total breakdown of the $41 million in Super PAC spending this cycle here): 

The Romney campaign and a super PAC supporting him is spending nearly quadruple the amount that Gingrich and the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, has spent to air television and radio ads ahead of the state’s Jan. 31 primary. So far, Romney has bought $5.6 million worth of airtime and the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, has shelled out a whopping $8.2 million, according to a Republican media buyer who is tracking ad spending in the state. Compare that to $837,000 spent by the Gingrich campaign and the nearly $3 million of airtime bought by Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting the former House speaker, and it’s easy to understand one reason why Gingrich has slipped in the most recent polls.

Alex Leary provides a good primer on the ad landscape in Florida. Money quote: 

It's the latest salvo from a "super PAC," the political action committees that are dramatically reshaping campaigns and providing an outsized role for the wealthy, corporations and unions to influence the outcome. "They're terrible," said political strategist Rick Tyler, an especially startling admission from the man who leads Winning Our Future, the super PAC behind the $6 million anti-Romney TV ad.

Previous Ad War Updates here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

Friday on the Dish, Andrew pinpointed Romney's achilles heel on taxes, pronounced the primary "not yet over," and reacted to the bombshell report that Paul edited his racist newsletters (follow-up here). He also excoriated Grover's plan to impeach Obama over taxes, lauded Corey Booker's defense of marriage equality, explained the sense in sexuality was like religion, inveighed against circumcision, and opened up about his first theatrical role.

Newt appeared to be gearing up for a vicious ad campaign, got defended on the bucket weirdness, continued to employ Alinksyite tactics, wanted to legalize medical pot (in 1982), and might have been suffering from narcissism-induced stress. Romney lied about "blind" investments and may well have packed the debate audience, Santorum appeared to have supported the individual mandate, Obama polled well enough on clean energy that it ought to be a campaign issue, and SuperPACs were arguably not all that scary.

We collected reax to the meh GDP numbers, decided manufacturing jobs were gone for good, debated the US-to-Europe comparison on social mobility, worried the government couldn't fix the housing market, and found a Grand Bargain inevitable if the US wanted to fix its deficit woes. Many of the uninsured were the unemployed, the mandate's unpopularity theoretically rested on the possibility it might be undone, Israel wasn't America, and defense wonks had an obligation to explain the truth about defense cuts. Mickey D's was chichi in France, American elites were culturally out of touch, a new photo of Earth amazed, and "Pink Triangle" was super ironic. Readers debated JoePa's legacy and race in Hollywood. Correction of the Day here, Von Hoffman nominee here, Yglesias nominee here, Cool Ad here, Ad War update here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

By Patrik Stollarz/AFP/Getty Images

Thursday on the Dish, Andrew liveblogged Romney's triumph at the Jacksonville debate (insta-fact check here and reax here), explained why it was so critical to the primary, named something he would appreciate about a Romney presidency, picked out Dole and Drudge's parts in the establishment anti-Newt backlash, pitted Newt's cultural populism againt Obama's economic populism, and demolished Mitt's "Obama is a European socialist" line. Andrew also hoped Obama could buck his party on tax reform, loved his defense against the class warfare canard, saw his economic fortunes rising, examined homosociality, and found former RNC chair Ken Mehlman out-front on the marriage equality debate.

Debates might have been a bad way to vet candidates while tonight's was heavily anticipated. Romney retook the lead in Florida, Frum issued an apologia for Mitt's lying, and corporate taxes likely didn't up his tax rate to 50%. Gingrich took us to the moon (twice), obsessed over Saul Alinsky (despite their similarities), owed his success to Citizens United (and the press), terrified GOP elites (though they might not be able to stop him) engaged on the Reagan debate, and looked EXACTLY like Dwight Schrute. The GOP was whitewashing the 50s and the general shaped up to be nasty.

Calls for intervention in Syria kept coming, brinksmanship with China was (possibly) counterproductve, and the internet spread lies. A man married a lesbian and the origins of heterosexuality were uncovered. A venture capitalist (quixotically) went after Hollywood, an industry that condescended on race. Finally, readers sounded off over Paterno's legacy and the morality of the 1%. Yglesias Nominee here, Malkin Nominee here, Quote for the Day here, Ad War Updates here and here, MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

Wednesday on the Dish, Andrew reexplained his disappointment with Obama's failure to tackle tax reform and still didn't like the tax breaks that were in the State of the Union, but took back his harsh broader characterization from last night and recognized that he got meep-meeped. Andrew also agreed with the RNC about the SOTU, defended the claim that male and female sexuality were different, "enjoyed" the life of the one percent, and posted his Colbert appearance with a bonus spot the underbloggers game. Bloggers had more to say about the SOTU, got angry about the speech's moral blindness, and noticed a distinct lack of health care discussion as compared to previous years. Readers hated Daniels' response but loved seeing Andrew think and write in real time. Roundup of last night's coverage here.

Newt was the narrow 538 favorite in Florida, pushed for the Hispanic vote there, had some absurd ideas (a shock, I know) about the debate schedule, seemed likely to produce great TV in the general, faced ballot access issues, and constantly invoked Reagan even though he trashed the president when he was in office. The myth of a Mitch Daniels candidacy was – again – debunked, it wouldn't have mattered much even if someone like Daniels had been running, self-deportation got explained, and the February debate schedule was mercifully light. Obama's record was defended on both libertarian and pro-Israel grounds.

America failed to decline and our moral understanding of war crime failed to be clear. The 1% found a champion, reblogging had market value, and the future of cars was considered. Readers debated the SAT and teacher intelligence, homeless shelters with alcohol succeeded, and science accounted for night terrors. Ad War Update here, Tweet of the Day here, FOTD here, VYFW here, and MHB here.

Tuesday on the Dish, Andrew developed a blueprint for Obama to attack Romney and save the country in the State of the Union (hint: tax reform), expanded on its political importance, prepared for disappointment in the actual speech after a chat with the White House, liveblogged it, preferred Daniels' response to Obama's speech, and clarified his disappointment. Your take on SOTU here, here and here. Blogger reax here.

Earlier in the day, Andrew knew hope about the future of marriage equality, flagged a particularly incisive piece on Romney's taxes, heralded a small victory for beards at Disney, spotted a gayer YouTubed version of his Newsweek piece, and recapped coverage of last night's debate. We grabbed blogger reax to Romney's 13.9% tax rate, scored some hits on Romney's electability argument, noted Mitt's vulnerability to free market populism, found out his tax rate depended on the election results, and fact-checked him on the size of the Navy. Newt's campaign was a book tour gone wrong, the man had grandiose albeit totally silly ideas, and today's candidates seemed to be calling Adam Smith a socialist. Pundits guessed at the SOTU message (occasionally by parsing the guest list), prepared for a lackluster address, wondered if Daniels' response would wreck his "fantasy candidate" status,  thought the speech was worthless. Also, the campaign got awesomely autotuned.

Hamas' purported moderation was questionable at best and defense spending (protected by the GOP) retarded strategic growth. Readers sounded off on Obama's birth control decision, Chris Christie seemed afrad to veto marriage equality, baby-kissing went way back in American politics, Paterno's tarnished legacy cast a new light on our own lives, and church groups took the largest chunk of charity. Dating shifted spending habits, regulations upped the rent, small colleges handled diversity better than big state schools, and some kinds of teachers were (debatably) smarter than others. Fantasy novels put women in absurd positions, the relationship between intelligence and alien life was complex, and a chart broke down the streaming/DVD availability of 2011's top films.

Chart of the Day here, FOTD here, Hewitt Nominee here, Yglesias Nominee here, VFYW here, VFYW contest winner here, MHB here, Quote for the Day here, and Correction of the Day here.

Havana, Cuba, 8 am

Monday on the Dish, Andrew pronounced Gingrich the favorite in Florida, liveblogged the (somewhat off-kilter, no?) Republican debate with reax here, diagnosed the ailment in the GOP that allows Newt to flourish, blasted the politics of his bankroller Sheldon Adelson, and advised him to grow a beard. Andrew also defended the Newsweek piece against Hot Air's critiques on taxes and health care, flagged some criticism from the left, ran down the article's readership, continued to emphasize Bain's importance to the campaign, didn't think the tax issue was played out, and enjoyed the Romney meltdown.

We compiled reax to the South Carolina victory (weekend coverage here), saw evidence of a lead in Florida, tracked another two rounds of "full unconcealed panic" about Newt in the GOP, thought Romney's blitz could kill Newt in Florida, pinpointed Newt's appeal, marvelled at his chutzpah, wondered why he didn't call Bush a "food stamp president," and dug up his crazy views about pot and Iran. Romney was given free advice, people disliked him for reasons other than his wealth, the GOP was not and will not be saved by a late entry, its current candidates ran for President of red America, and managed to alienate hispanic America in the process.

Beyond the campaign, Egypt's new parliament began working, Bosnia pulled itself apart in its educational system, and morality didn't sink with the Titanic. Gabby Giffords retired with class, Obama pushed for birth control coverage, the defeat of SOPA had interesting political implications, and the construction industry needed fixing. Animals trained people, our conception of what people in stories are created the uncanny valley, and we also liked to smell each other. Reality check here, Quotes for the Day here and here, Ad War update here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

– Z.B.

Mounted by Nick Gillespie:

E.D. Kain makes related points while countering Chait:

[W]hy should we be more concerned with the influence of one billionaire over the decisions of a hypothetical president Newt Gingrich than with the amassed influence of corporations over the Republican party itself? After all, if Gingrich did anything explicitly to help Sheldon Adelson we’d know about it rather quickly. Everyone would be paying close attention. But the machinations of the Republican party itself and the money which keeps the back-scratching mutual between the party and its benefactors is largely opaque – a perpetual process that, like breathing, we barely notice at all.