Hodak Value

Politics is about finding meaning. That's probably why I have such a difficult time with politics. For instance, I have no idea what this means (from an AP story about Hillary's reaction to a McCain comment):

"I fundamentally disagree," Clinton said, reading from prepared remarks that aides said she wrote.

I'm assuming there are actually editors working at the AP. If this is edited copy, one must assume there is something more to this statement beyond the nominal quote. Someone, please help me out, here.

I'm always amazed by the naivete of people willing to concentrate more power into the hands of politicians for "altruistic" reasons. This is always coupled with the expectation that the "right person" will wield that power in the "right way."

But look at the evidence. Politicians use their power for reasons they and their supporters believe in, and sometimes for parochial, petty, and sometimes nefarious reasons. But they almost always exercise their power in such a way as to keep it, or get more. Power is a kind of currency that is rarely wasted or left unspent.

So, if a political leader's choice were to (a) give up power versus (b) keep it, even after 28 years of rule, even if keeping it caused widespread pain, suffering or bloodshed, what do you think the choice would be?

Peggy Noonan, among the finest writers alive, laments the treatment of middle-aged women by the TSA.

All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday.

It isn't, Mr. President. It's a war against your own people. Osama bin Laden created only few hundred criminals. You created a nation of criminals. As Noonan points out:

But America knows not to ask. America is guilty until proved innocent, and no one wants to draw undue attention.

"Polls show voters favor Democrats on most issues except the war on terrorism."

That means that I am probably on the opposite side of the average American voter on every single issue .

This is about the ffffunniest thing I have ever seen.

Warning: If you're squeamish about language, you'll still laugh your a** off, but you won't feel good about it.

via Perrin

Finally, a well-told story about what's behind the cameras:

A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

BTW, we all know where she learned the "point and wave" trick. Some people can pull it off brilliantly.

Some can't.

Don Boudreaux had the best depiction of the what drives a person to such ignominy.

In an article entitled Obama, Clinton campaigning in different races, Obama is quoted as follows:

"(The high rate of foreclosures) is a serious problem all across Las Vegas, all across Nevada, all across the nation," the Illinois senator said. "A lot of this wouldn't have happened if we would have done a better job regulating banks."

Later, talking to supporters here at the College of Southern Nevada, Obama returned to the theme, noting that McCain said early in the campaign that "economics is not something I've understood as well as I should have."

Economics is about relationships between X and Y. For instance, it might be economically true that greater regulation of banks would have led to fewer foreclosures. On the other hand, it's at least as possible that the degree of bank regulation had no net impact on foreclosures, or that the regulation that existed may have enhanced the likelihood of foreclosures. I can 100 percent guarantee that Obama doesn't know which is true. He is only asserting something that sounds good to his audience. That's politics, an area in which Obama is clearly strong. McCain at least admits he is ignorant about economics, which may or may not be good politics.

Politics is about government intervention in private decisions. Such intervention has economic consequences, but it is not itself "economics." For instance, let's assume that Obama is right that better bank regulation might have forestalled the mortgage crisis; two questions remain about the wisdom of such regulation. First, all government interventions--like treatments for an ill patient--have central effects and side effects. The side effects of government intervention are generally known as unintended consequences. Assuming they are known, however, it's a reasonable question to ask if the side effects will be worse than the central effects in this instance. Second, all government action is subject to non-economic considerations. So, what makes Obama so certain that better regulation in this instance will even create the intended central effects? Maybe that's what he means by the audacity of hope.

Examination of a Witch, Thompkins H. Matteson, 1853

The government's witch hunt for those behind the surge in oil prices continues. The CFTC, a regulatory agency, began its own investigation:

"The Commission is taking the extraordinary step of disclosing this investigation because of today's unprecedented market conditions,'' CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said in the statement. The Washington-based regulator, which generally conducts inquiries on a confidential basis, didn't say when the probe will end. The CFTC did not name any companies being targeted and said details of the investigation were confidential.

Of course, this new phase of the witch hunt won't be costless:

The regulator will require traders to give monthly reports about their index-based trading and it plans further reviews of how these traders are classified, how they report their trading activity and how they behave, according to the statement.

Barack Obama had flatly rejected the idea of being Clinton's VP during the primaries. I don't recall that Clinton has ever rejected the idea of being Obama's VP nominee, though most people had assumed during their battle that she wouldn't condescend to be anyone's VP.

In game theory, Obama's position would be considered to border on brinkmanship. "If you want me, you'd better vote me to the top of the ticket." Clinton's position would be considered as hedging. "I want to be the presidential nominee, but I won't rule out the second spot, just in case." In a sense, Clinton's position doesn't seem as strong; her hedge opened up the possibility of voters who are on the fence going for Obama; that way, they might get both.

On the other hand, Clinton has known for a while now that she was likely to lose the presidential nomination. She has been arguably playing for "rebound position" since Super Tuesday, where if the shot doesn't go into the basket, i.e., Obama has a serious slip up, or worse, she's ready with her sharp elbows to catch the rebound. Angling for the VP slot might simply be a continuation of the rebound positioning, which could continue right through an Obama presidency.

That might work better for Bill, too. I never believed that Bill was rooting for his wife in this campaign, no matter what he said or did. His multi-million dollar earning power would be lost for the most productive period of his life. Screw that. Bill would probably find being second-husband far less constraining than first-husband.

I think a McCain-Obama roadshow is a great idea. The media will hate it because it greatly reduces their starring role, wherein they shake the candidates around and upside down in order to collect any sound-bites or "gotcha" moments that might fall out. What we'll get, instead, is a discussion. Heck, the networks may not even show up for that.

If they somehow end up in 10 traditional debates/sound-bite war, I will begin to campaign for choosing our president by lot. Seriously.

That was pretty much the bitter rejoinder on the Irish EU vote from the former Belgian prime minister, who helped draft the original EU constitution that went down in France and Holland.

The defeat of the original constitution led to the newer, slightly stripped down version that the Irish rejected on Friday. The main differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the previously rejected EU constitution appeared to be (a) changing the name from a "constitution" to a "treaty," and (b) preventing as best as possible its submission to a popular vote.

Unfortunately for the Eurocrats, the Irish constitution required such a vote, so at least their people had a voice in the matter.

Let's be clear about why the Lisbon Treaty went down in flames: The people couldn't understand it. The treaty comprised 356 amendments to the existing EU charter, as well as various other protocols, declarations, and other gobbledygook that made sense to no one outside of Brussels. So, the Irish people were forced to look to their leaders for an indication. But they couldn't--or wouldn't--explain what it meant. In fact, their leaders had not read it either. Instead, the people got an earful from their elected officials, and those from the rest of Europe, telling them how they had to vote. The people weighed their trust in these endorsements, and voted "No."

The vanity of politicians is that since the people vote for them, the people must like them and believe in them. They forget that most people regard elections as an unpalatable choice.

Those were the words of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) yesterday regarding the XM-Sirius plan to lease 4 percent of their radio spectrums, or 12 channels, for programming run by minorities and women. Congressman Cummings and the rest of the Black Caucus believes that number should be 20 percent. And where did they get that 20 percent figure from? The WaPo reporter helpfully explains:

[Rep. G.K.] Butterfield [(D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus's working group on satellite radio] said he got the idea for the 20 percent set-aside for minority-owned companies from Georgetown Partners, a minority-run private-equity firm based in Bethesda, and its managing director, Chester Davenport.

The firm, which has invested in wireless and media companies, objected last year to the merger, arguing that a monopoly could limit opportunities for minority programming.

But Davenport said that if regulators give the marriage a green light, the combined company should be required to turn over some channels to a minority-controlled entity. He said he hoped Georgetown Partners would fill that role, making it a competitor to the merged company.

Lest anyone is naive enough to believe that Georgetown Partners is patiently waiting to jump on a major investment opportunity, grow up. Georgetown has already invested $420,000 where it counts-- in lobbying. Shortly after the XM-Sirius merger was announced, Georgetown began to ramp up its spending. They were the largest campaign donor to Cummings's Maryland colleague on the Black Caucus, Albert Wynn. Chester Davenport has personally spread $5,600 among Black Caucus members, including Chairman Butterfield, as well as over $28,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, all in the last year.

Butterfield said that black caucus members planned to meet today with Karmazin and Nate Davis, chief executive of XM. "We're going to close the door and have a very honest and open dialogue about the merger," Butterfield said.

In coming out against the Anheuser-Busch takeover by Belgian-based InBev, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) clearly illustrated certain lessons about what it takes to be a Senator:

1) Homework is unnecessary:

Asked what specifically she could do to stop the sale, McCaskill said she wasn't sure yet.

2) Don't worry about giving shareholders the finger:

We have family visiting New York this long weekend. Yesterday they visited the World Trade Center site, just day after an interesting editorial in yesterday's New York Sun.

Across New York City, there is a visible divide between development projects built by the private sector and those built by the public sector.

In stark contrast, public projects being managed by various governmental agencies are, so to speak, stuck in the mud. Ground zero has become a symbol of political paralysis. A picture of the original design for the Fulton Street station should be in the dictionary under "boondogle."

Liberal New Yorkers (redundant, I know) look upon these differences with a curious mixture of cynicism and hopefulness. So, here is a little quiz to separate the liberals from the deluded liberals.

The reason that public projects are typically so much more costly and delayed than equivalent private projects is:

a) Because the private projects are run by smarter people. If only we could get better people in the public sector to run those projects, they could be managed just as well.

b) Because the public projects are hampered by funds. If they had more money, they could get more done more quickly.

c) Because the public sector operates under a very different set of incentives and constraints than the private sector. No one should expect better of public management than what they've done in the past.

Some liberals choose (b), but that's plain nonsense. Many public projects waste more money than private projects use. And they often do so, by the way, with fewer environmental and other constraints, and far fewer liability concerns, than those faced by private developers.

Naturally, I would choose (c), but would be open to additional possibilities not encountered in this list of choices.

The point here is that there is no reason to blame public officials for incompetence. True, they are an easy target of ridicule, which may be a subtle reason why the media seems to have a strong bias toward public management. The point is that competence shouldn't be expected to begin with. It would be far more productive to question the credulity of the people who, against all evidence to the contrary, expect public officials to effectively manage big projects.

OK, I know I said I would lay off the purely political comments, but I actually have a more-than-academic interest in Turkey.

The Turkish High Court has been deliberating the banning of the Justice and Development Party party currently in power. The ruling party is pro-Islamic, though they are nominally willing to abide by Turkey's constitutional secularism. The flash point of the instant controversy was Justice and Development desire to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves at the universities. They saw this as a matter of personal freedom. This secularists went ballistic, seeing this as the camel's nose under the tent, so to speak, i.e., the first step toward overthrowing the secular foundations of modern Turkey.

The Court decided against banning the J&D party, but instead cut off half their funding. I have no idea what their laws are--this ruling would seem quite arbitrary by American standards--but the outcome seems right. I think secularism is great, and countries with a populist instinct to the contrary need to be wary of encroachments on secular freedoms. On the other hand, I like a strict separation of church and state and freedom of speech, both of which seem in line with allowing women to wear head scarves if they wish. Furthermore, I would be wary of overthrowing an elected government. Democracy is not my highest ideal--if one could have expansive personal freedom without a democracy, I'd be fine with that. However, democracy serves as a safety valve for the majority when they're feeling oppressed. If the majority feels it has lost its voice via the ballots, they will eventually, invariably resort to bullets.

This ruling seems to cut the baby in half. It allows the elected government to remain in power, thus validating the will of the people, while putting J&D on notice to watch itself. My assent, however, is based entirely on the premise that the court--clearly dominated by secularists-- defended the law as it's written. Both expansive personal freedom and democracy rely upon the rule of law.

I'm not sure that My Turkish partner, and one of my best friends in this life, would agree. He's a pretty hard line secularist, and may claim that I am not well attuned to the slippery slope represented by the head scarves issue, and he may be right. Politics always seems easier from five thousand miles away. My friend, a somewhat conservative soul (in the American sense), loves Obama.

Thomas Frank can't even argue well against a faux conservative.

What chance would he have against a real one?

U.S. Constitution:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Pennsylvania state Sen. Jeffrey Piccola has said

he plans to introduce legislation that would allow authorities to keep potentially dangerous sex offenders in prison after they have finished serving their sentences.

For those of you who couldn't listen to the whole thing because you were looking for nickels in your sofa cushions, here's a summary:

"I was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania. It doesn't get more blue collar than that. My parents believed in the American dream. My dad fell on hard times, but we bounced back. He said to me, "Champ, when you get knocked down, get up. Get up." My mother told me, "Joey, God sends no cross you cannot bear." She taught us to have faith and be tough, and to face down every challenge. Our family has seen more than it's share of adversity. We did what we had to do, and I am so proud of what we achieved.

So, now that I see so many people struggling, I have to ask, "Why isn't the government helping all these people?"

"I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper."

Me, too, Barack. But I'm not your brother. We don't know each other. I'd rather that you choose who to help with your resources than with mine.

Unfortunately, I'll probably be making the same plaint to McCain.

Regarding Hurricane Gustav, Obama said:

I've instructed my Senate staff to monitor the situation closely, make sure we've contacted both FEMA but also private relief organizations just to make sure that whatever happens people are prepared.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

While catching a glimpse of the conventions, I came across this wonderful exchange between Don Boudreaux and a plaintive writer:

Dr. Boudreaux,

Why are you so bitter about politics? Why so cynical? Why don't you give candidates and office holders the benefit of the doubt when they say they want to help others?

Sara