Crazy Talk

Drudge links:

The little guy appears to be losing out on the General Motors initial public offering. Trading shops like E*Trade, TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab aren't getting access to the GM public offering, expected to occur next week. Despite 35 underwriters and at least 365 million shares, there isn't enough to distribute to online brokers that cater to small, retail investors.

As the powers that be are certainly aware of the political sensitivity surrounding the GM IPO, this exclusion seems tone-deaf. That said, a bigger political risk may lie in the pricing of the IPO: an under-priced IPO profits politically connected financial institutions -- having excluded retail investors -- at the expense of taxpayers. If the IPO turns out to have been overpriced, such that those in on the IPO lose money initially, excluding small investors will turn out to have been politically fortunate.

As to why politically connected financial institutions might collectively overprice the GM IPO...

Less conspiratorially, its reasonable to observe (conflictingly) that retail investors represent a more uncontrollable/unpredictable element in the mix, and that excluding people from the initial offering may serve to build-in immediate demand for the stock in the markets.

The Land Which I Will Show You

And G-d said to Avram: Take yourself (Lech Lecha) from your nation, your community and your father’s house towards the land which I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, bless you and exalt your name; it will be for a blessing. And those who bless you shall themselves be blessed, those who curse you shall themselves be cursed and, through you, all the nations of the world shall be blessed.

These three verses-- the first in which G-d addresses a Jew -- may well, on that account, be the most critical in the Bible. In them, G-d presents to Avram, and, one presumes, his descendents, the mission and purpose that G-d has in store.

The precise nature of G-d’s command may be hard to grasp. One complication is the odd, double, phrase Lech Lecha. Rashi understands it as “Go, for yourself, for your benefit”, as if G-d was not appealing to the better angels of Avram’s nature. Another, easy, observation is that the command is ordered backwards. One must first leave his parent’s home before leaving his community, and his community before leaving his nation. This can be understood, then, as a psychological, rather then geographical, command. If so, however, it could lead to its being understood as more generally applicable. In any case, as Rashi notes, Avram had already left his homeland, taken by his father, and was en-route to Canaan, which, lo and behold, turns out to be just the land G-d had in mind. While Avram would hardly be the last to hear G-d sanctify an undertaking anyways underway, one would like to imagine that there was more at play here.

It is tempting – one cannot but question whether the land we call Israel is indeed what is here promised – but probably ultimately foolish to read the “I will show you” as forever in the future. Rashi, more modestly, explains that the term was used to make the Promised Land more desirable. This explanation is far from innocent. Something fundamentally undesirable may become desirable when mystery and tension are added, but something fundamentally desirable needs, wants, no such artifice.

Parenthetically, the command of the Posuk is the conceit of the Scientist: A scientist must separate himself from the biases of one’s own and follow the truth where-ever it leads. That Avram is portrayed in the Midrash as a natural philosopher is then not irrelevant. Nor is it irrelevant that the where-ever-it-leads winds up being the original destination and the separation from one’s own in this Posuk, becomes the creation of a new nation – a new subjectivity – in the next.

The blessings of the second verse – fecundity, wealth and fame – are not, Rashi points out, blessings in their own right, rather they are compensations for the rigors of travel. One can go farther then Rashi and note that the three blessings roughly map to the three goings-out in the first Posuk.

Be that as it may, it leaves the third verse as, ultimately, the explanation of the purpose of Avram’s mission. The verse appears not entirely self-consistant – if nations are cursing Avram and, thus, themselves, cursed, then all the nations of the world are not blessed. Perhaps the first two clauses can be understood as a historical process through which the final one will come about.

Strauss writes the following: “The emergence of nations made it possible that Noah’s Ark floating alone on the waters covering the whole earth be replaced by a whole, numerous, nation living in the midst of the nations covering the whole earth.” The limit of that comparison is precisely the difference between Noah – the Tzadik im Peltz – and Avram.

Politics And Culture

In David Brooks' latest column, he observes the pointed disagreement between the German and American Governments in how to approach the economic crisis. American leaders argued... governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued... what was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence. He notes that the early returns seem to favor the Germans. Recycling Von Hayek, he believes this is because

The economy can’t be played like a piano — press a fiscal key here and the right job creation notes come out over there. Instead, economic management is more like parenting. If you instill good values and create a secure climate then, through some mysterious process you will never understand, things will probably end well.

The crucial issue is getting the fundamentals right. The Germans are doing better because during the past decade, they took care of their fundamentals and the Americans didn’t.

He believes the underlying reason the Germans have done better is because they "inherited a certain consensus-based economic model", while Americans have inherited an economic model that "fosters disruptive innovation (of the sort useful in Silicon Valley)" but has "a penchant for over-consumption and short term thinking." Recycling Moynihan, he believes it all reduces to:

Nations rise and fall on the intertwined strength of their cultures and governing institutions...  German governing institutions have functioned reasonably well...  The U.S. has a phenomenally creative culture, but right now it’s an institutional weakling... [where] political division frustrates long-range thinking.

To blame irresponsible government on "political division", is simply to re-frame the question: Assuming this is, in fact, so (and I am not convinced): Why is American politics more divisive than German politics?

What seems evident to me -- and perhaps implicit in Brooks' argument -- is that the divisiveness in American politics is a reflection of the divided-ness in American society. We lack the ethnic ties that bind other societies, and -- as illustrated by the WTC Mosque debate -- we lack any unifying conception of American Ideals/Values.

One the other hand, it is not clear that the cause of institutional irresponsibility is political divisiveness. For example, in Von Hayek's teaching, the values the "parenting model" calls for instilling, are the context-specific product of an evolutionary trial and error process. In other words, much clearer with-in a consensus-based context than a disruptively innovative one.

The ultimate argument contra-Brooks is Japan, consensus-based and not particularly politically divisive, in whose economic footsteps, America is now following. In contrasting Japan and Germany, what sticks out is the resistance the Japanese have towards accepting responsibility for WWII war crimes against the willingness of Germans to do so. It should not be surprising that being a society which generally accepts responsibility is related to having a government that acts responsibly. What is reflexively somewhat more surprising is what this indicates of American society.

Political Meta-Cognition

Polls that indicate many Americans believe Obama to be a Muslim have the media agitated and self-critiquing, in a way that similar polls indicating larger numbers of Americans believed W Bush complicit in 9/11 never did.

Lapsed conservative, David Brooks, a-historically, sees contemporary culture as the problem:

...[contemporary] culture places less emphasis on the need to struggle against one’s own mental feebleness. Today’s culture is better in most ways, but in this way it is worse.

The ensuing mental flabbiness is most evident in politics. Many conservatives declare that Barack Obama is a Muslim because it feels so good to say so... Issues like tax cuts and the size of government, which should be shaped by circumstances (often it’s good to cut taxes; sometimes it’s necessary to raise them), are now treated as inflexible tests of tribal purity.

To use a fancy word, there’s a metacognition deficit... Of the problems that afflict the country, this is the underlying one.

Strauss taught that there is a natural friction between philosophy (or "metacognition") and -- in particular, but not exclusively, democratic -- politics, ultimately symbolized by the political death of Socrates, the first philosopher. He was skeptical of liberalism on precisely this point: its faith in -- actually, its bet on -- the real possibility, or even the inevitability, of a rational, "enlightened", (democratic) politics. To his critics, this is evidence of his anti-democratic project.

On the other hand, there is no shortage of evidence -- these sorts of polls included -- of the correctness of Strauss' critique. Confronted like this, liberal commitment to democracy wavers:

Churchill said: 'The best argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.' That was England back in the 1940's. Tragically -in the USA of 2010 - that conversation would only need to be 30 seconds.....

Read carefully, Strauss provides an approach towards upholding democracy as it apparently is, and not as one may wish it would be.

Do You

The season premiere of the Jersey Shore made mild (forgive me) waves, when America's Sweetheart Snooki, took on the President:

"I don’t go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning. [Sen. John] McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning. Because he’s pale and would probably want to be tan... Obama doesn’t have that problem. Obviously

Obama made even milder waves, previously, when evidence surfaced contradicting his claim he did not know who Snooki was.

A more interesting bit of zeitgeist may be found in the cast's (in particular Paul Delvecchio's), use of the phrase "Do You." Urban Dictionary, defines the phrase as "following your heart" and "acting in a way that satisfies you, not caring at all about what others think." This also appears to be the sense intended by Media Mogal Russell Simmons in his book of that title.

As employed by America's (or at least MIA's) MVPs, "Do you" instead conveys "stay out of my business," which, according to pollster Scott Rasmussen is the primary message ordinary voters are now trying to send to Washington.

Net Neutrality

The political debate around Net Neutrality provides a illustration of the difficulty of little-l liberal politics.

As generally framed, one side argues government ought to ban internet providers from differentiating service based on "kind of traffic or level of traffic", while the other side argues government interference will do more harm then good.

Proponents, rightfully, fear a landscape in which a few companies control information and stifle innovation. Critics, rightfully, fear regulatory capture as just as sure a path to that landscape and mock the concept of content-agnosticism:

A woman gets a pacemaker that "will wirelessly contact the hospital if she suffers from cardiac arrhythmia. Are you telling me that it would be illegal to prioritize that traffic over a video of a squirrel on water skis?"

On one side there are likely companies that dream of parlaying control of the (metaphorical) rails into control of the cargo. On the other, some Net Neutrality advocates recognize that their cause is being co-opted by groups whose agenda entails  "nationalization of everything from the communications and broadcast infrastructure to the failing newspaper business."

Within a rational politics, we would be able to adopt reasonable rules: Providers would have to treat similar content from different vendors agnostic-ally, but could prioritize certain sorts of traffic (eg: emergency medical), and sensibly manage levels of traffic.  Almost no-one in this debate believe that outcome at all likely.

He Taketh Away, Giveth

The Times describes the administrations thinking on mortgage finance

The Obama administration has been barraged with ideas for reworking the government’s role in housing finance... Mr. Geithner said continued government support was important... The absence of such support... would deepen future recessions because unsubsidized private companies would curtail lending...

The Journal reports that mortgage markets are being knocked.

The market for mortgage-backed securities has... taken a hit in recent days on growing talk of a "mega-refi" program... lots of refis would be bad for mortgage-backed securities investors.

It goes without saying that a government truly concerned that private companies not curtail lending, would not be pursuing policies that punished private lenders.

To me, this is emblematic of this administration's general economic approach: With one hand, use private sector inaction to justify expensive government intervention/expansion, while, with the other, punish/freeze private sector actors.

Rational Basis

Unsurprisingly, the district court judge found no rational basis behind denying gay marriages state sanction.

Douthat, acknowledges the weakness of the general conservative apologia in attempting his own, which, when stripped of pretension, amounts to little.

Von Hayek would suggest an indirect defense. He taught it was wholly rational to respect our cultural inheritance -- which he viewed as the product of a complicated evolutionary process -- as such. In his frame, to argue that a, for example, commonly-held traditional moral view is without rational basis, one has to assert deep understanding of the complicated interconnections binding us together as a society, and therefore the consequences that flow from upholding or rejecting that view. No person can rationally make that assertion.

That said, Judge Walker was not simply disregarding tradition. After all, our founding fathers envisioned a politics in which reason displaced passion.

Torat Chaim

Five Towns Jewish Times columnist and pulpit Rabbi Aryeh Ginzberg, caused local controversy, when, in a column aptly self-described as "painful", he asserted that a synagogue's invitation to Sara Hurwitz as a scholar in residence was cause for crying on Tisha b'Av.

Responding to similarly foolish comments by YU Rosh Yeshiva Hershel Schachter, Rabbi Shai Held made the following argument:

One can... be grateful to him for drawing an absolute line in the sand. The world of Jews committed to serving God through a life of Torah and mitzvot is divided between those who believe that gender roles are eternally fixed and immutable, and those who believe that new faces of Torah and halacha are revealed in every generation—as they must, if Torah is to remain a Torat Chaim, a Torah of life, dynamic and alive in every generation... I wish to make one very fundamental point: the time is long past for Jews to assume that the forces of reaction are somehow “more authentic” or “more religious” than the forces of dynamism, responsiveness, and creativity.

This dichotomy ignores the historical reality -- the mantra of "Hadash Assur Min haTorah" notwithstanding -- of a radically evolving American Orthodox Jewish community and the social reality of the Modern Orthodox Jewish community, which, while resistant to Rabbi Held's views on Halachic innovation, is inching slowly but decisively towards an egalitarian Rabbinate.

More fundamentally, the re-interpretation of Torat Chaim, to me, mirrors the manner in which Rabbi Held undercuts himself. Traditionally, "Torat Chaim" refers to Torah as the relationship between the Jewish People and their Living G-d. Something meaningful is lost in this de-sanctification/re-imagining along lines we more familiarly describe our constitution. It is only in the shadow of, in opposition to, "Hadash Assur Min haTorah" -- itself an (a-halachic and) a-historical re-interpretation -- that this new conception achieves richness and power.

[To be sure, the traditional meaning of Torat Chaim is difficult to uphold in our secular, scientistic, world. But de-sanctifying Judaism as a response to modernity is a cheap trick played by mediocre Rabbis. Rabbi Held can do better.]

In the end, the authoritative traditional teaching on Halachic innovation stands opposed -- and is, to my mind, superior -- to both these dueling modern concepts ("Torat Chaim" and "Hadash Assur Min haTorah"):

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, When Moses ascended on high he found [G-d]... affixing coronets to the letters. Said Moses, ‘Lord of the Universe, Who stays Thy hand?’ He answered, ‘There will arise a man, at the end of many generations, Akiba b. Joseph... who will expound upon each tittle heaps... of laws’. ‘Lord of the Universe’, said Moses; ‘permit me to see him’. He replied, ‘Turn thee round’. Moses went and sat down behind eight rows. Not being able to follow their arguments he was ill at ease, but when they came to a certain subject and the disciples said to the master ‘Whence do you know it?’ and the latter replied ‘It is a law given unto Moses at Sinai’ he was comforted.

In reading this text, one can be certain that what discomforted, and then comforted, our Law-Giver, was not personal embarrassment, and then pride.

Myths

This blog is not in the habit of agreeing, even mildly, with Krugman, however, he opens a recent column with an insight similar to one of the underlying themes here:

When I was young and naïve, I believed that important people took positions based on careful consideration of the options. Now I know better. Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis. And these prejudices are subject to fads and fashions.

The column illustrates this by arguing that the fear of "bond vigilantes" attacking the US sovereign debt that is currently driving policymakers is the fundamentally irrational product of prejudice, not analysis.

A different analysis -- one that better understood that the quantitative risk of an event is the probability of occurrence times the cost, and one one which still remembered the previous unthinkable-ness of the "bond vigilante" attack on Wall Street -- might view Krugman as providing a self-referential representation of a Serious Person whose beliefs rest on prejudices (or [in this case] material interests), not analysis.

Of deeper interest is the consequence of the -- agreed upon -- insight. Krugman advises his readers to be on guard for the "foundation of fantasy" in-, and therefore not be fooled by-, opposing arguments. This is likely be a rhetorical ploy: Krugman surely recognizes that if Princeton professors can rise above the natural prejudice that otherwise ensnares Serious People, his readership largely cannot. He is, then, intentionally strengthening their own prejudices by discouraging them from taking seriously -- analyzing -- opposing political arguments.

Properly analyzed, Krugman's column provides illustration that the true distinction is not between people/arguments guided by rational analysis vs those grounded in prejudice, rather between those which recognize the intrinsic limit/locality of rationality vs those which do-, or can-, not: There is, in the end, always a "foundation of fantasy" to be found beneath most any rational analysis; the question is what one does with it.

Fair Reading

Linda Greenhouse positively gushes over the commencement address David Souter delivered at Harvard.

As she describes it, his argument is as follows: Judges ought go beyond any "fair-reading model" and "make choices among the competing values embedded in the Constitution." The American people want "to have things both ways" and so the "court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim." Those who limit themselves to fairly reading the law "'egregiously' miss the point" driven by longing "for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchanging in human institutions." He, on the other has come to "embrace the 'indeterminate world'" and to understand that "meaning comes from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page." As evidence/illustration he cited the Pentagon papers, which required the court to weigh national security against the First Amendment, and Brown v. Board, in which the "meaning of facts" and therefore decision, but not the facts themselves, changed from the earlier Plessy case.

An op-ed in the Journal, critiques Souter's argument by noting that Plessy went every bit as much as Brown beyond a fair reading. This critique misses its target because Souter's argument -- shockingly, but inarguably -- hinges on Plessy being correctly decided (one can only guess his view of Dred Scott).

Souter is certainly right to this degree: Justices cannot hide underneath a text to escape responsibility for their decisions; Ultimately, they have the power.

On the other hand, his application of the banal liberal conceit that Conservatives are afraid to boldly go is the opposite of profound. Prudence dictates that an unelected Court in a Democratic system -- even one that recognizes, with Souter, the ultimate difficulty of fairly reading -- operate roughly within the parameters of public expectation (which it can, in turn, help to set). The American people plainly want their Court fairly-reading, not approving/deciding-amongst our desires -- we put obscure lawyers skilled at reading legal texts, not revered philosophers or trusted teachers, on the court.

Put slightly differently, the difference between Souter and Scalia is that not, as Greenhouse would have it, a sort of existential bad faith on Scalia's part. Rather, Scalia is more conscious, or conscientious, than Souter of the context in which Judges operate. While to Souter, the common notions of what Judges ought do are something to be overcome, to Scalia, they form the basis of Judicial authority in a Democratic society.

Uncomfortable Zionism

Peter Brienart caused a bit of a stir with his article The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment. Stated clearly, his argument is, on its face, horrifyingly bizarre:

His main thesis is that American Jewish leaders, who advocate support for Israeli government policies as the product of a democratic process are wrong morally and pragmatically. They are wrong morally, because, he says, Democracy in Israel is slipping away -- he approvingly quotes Israelis proclaiming "Israel has not been democratic for some time now" and comparing their government to "Franco’s Spain." They are wrong pragmatically, because supporting this illiberal system is, he believes, alienating a generation of American Jews. Instead, he suggests American Jewish Leaders ought be promoting authentically liberal democracy in Israel, what Avraham Burg calls an "uncomfortable Zionism."

To respond to this with rational argument or fact would largely miss the point, although it is of some interest that while, to some, the rise of Likud has meant Israel is now a more representative, truly competitive multi-party democracy, to others, Israel was more truly democratic under narrower rule. Brienart makes his position clear in lamenting the political influence of the "Russian immigrant community" and the party representing "Jews of North African and Middle Eastern descent."

Which is not to say he should be dismissed: Underneath lies a clear threat -- the asymmetrical relationship between Israel and the diaspora. Israel needs Liberal Diaspora Jews far more (or at least more directly), than Liberal Diaspora Jews need Israel; Israel's existence is jeopardized by the loss of a generation of diaspora Jews. Brienart's implication is accurate: Might, in this instance, makes right and so the onus is on Israel, and its supporters, to pander to these enfant terribles.

Brienart also gets one (somewhat tangential) point right when he argues that Zionism needs more positive ("based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets") and less negative (e.g.: victimhood-driven) content. On this, he takes the opposite side of Michael Chabon. Brienart's unstated critique of Orthodox parochialism is particularly on-target: They, above all, should understand that The Hope of Two Thousand Years can not be a state like any other.

Truth and Consequences

Supporters of Israel are speaking a clear truth when they argue that "the mob that assaulted Israeli special forces on the deck of the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara on Monday was not motivated by peace." Best one can tell, by and large, the flotilla was populated by people who empathize with Palestinians and de-humanize Israelis:  As far as Israelis are concerned, this was no Love Boat.

Critics of Israel (e.g.) speak with less truth -- the general line of argument being that the the Gaza blockade is a failed Israeli policy designed to overthrow Hamas and immorally collectively punish the Gaza population.

The collective punishment argument is revealing. Few would argue that, for example, the global boycott of apartheid South Africa was an immoral policy designed to collectively punish a civilian population. In fact, many of those horrified by collective punishment targeted at Gaza, would eagerly impose it on Tel Aviv. Obviously a blockade is more onerous then a boycott, but the difference is in degree, not principle. Ultimately, those who oppose the blockade on the collective punishment basis take less seriously then do Israelis, Hamas' stated genocidal intent.

The "failed Israeli policy argument" is willfully ignorant. Critics point to the problems it has not solved while ignoring its achievements. If Hamas is in no danger of being overthrown in Gaza, neither does it -- as it did in 2006 -- pose a meaningful challenge to Fatah's over-all leadership. If it is not un-armed, it is at least, not armed like Hezbollah. It also is likely not simple co-incidence that where Fatah once strove to out-Hamas Hamas, they are now, apparently, moving in a more peaceful direction.

Further, and for that reason, it was hardly Israel's policy alone: Hamas/Gaza was locked down -- with broad international support -- as much, if not more, for Fatah's benefit than Israel's.

The most likely outcome now appears to be a revised policy that preserves Israel's key interest -- weapons inspection -- but frees Hamas to, again, compete more vigorously with Fatah.

This may prove a blessing in disguise. Ultimately, Fatah may understand that it cannot win by out-Hamasing Hamas, that its only real path to continued relevance is a negotiated peace, that the longer it takes to reach that peace, the more powerful Hamas will become, and therefore the more difficult it will be. For the first time in memory, we may now have a Palestinian leadership which sees its self-interest tied to a quickly negotiated peace. Similarly, the President may finally be finished giving the parties reasons to not negotiate.

Despite themselves, and beyond their bigoted understanding, the blockade runners may have actually given peace a chance.

All Politics is Local

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, never a friend of Israel's, has been the most vigorous voice condemning the Israeli raid on the Turkish Flotilla. His strong position neatly matches his domestic political calculus. Only three years ago, one million Turks protested against his government:

As many as one million people rallied... accusing the government of planning an Islamist state...  denouncing... Erdogan... as a threat to a secular order separating state and religion...

Only 10 years ago the army, with public support, hounded out of office a democratically elected Islamist government...  The army General Staff raised the stakes on Friday... with a threat to intervene in the election.  The Istanbul protesters said they backed the army, long viewed here as the ultimate guardian of the secular republic.

In the context of the historically close ties between the Israeli and Turkish militaries, Israel is, for Erdogan, likely a convenient proxy through which to attack/undermine his domestic secular/military political enemies.  Along the same lines, Israel's attempt to link the flotilla organizers to Islamic extremists, while galling to the American-left-of-center, is, in part, directed towards Turkish secularists.

The Israeli response will most likely prove Pyrrhic.  It will be all the harder for them, now, to maintain the blockade.  On the other hand, few Israelis believe Hamas ought not be blockaded and watching the videos, few Israelis see humanitarianism at work.  The greater the international condemnation/isolation, the more likely Israelis will be to rally round the flag.

Obama faces, perhaps, the toughest political dilemma. A big part of his base -- one which till now has had strong influence on his Israel policy -- would like to see Israel further under the bus. Especially after signing the NPT resolution singling out Israel, but not Iran, any hint of that here risks further decay in his support amongst Jewish-Americans.

On the other hand, Obama now has an opportunity to validate his diplomatic approach. The administration, in an attempt to please all its constituents, is advocating an "Israeli investigation" with "international participation." If Obama can get Israel and the international community to productively co-operate, he will have earned his Nobel prize.

Orlok, Shylock and Blankfein

Michael Kinsley asked the question out loud: Is Criticism Of Goldman Really Anti-Semitism?

Then there is this oft-quoted passage ... in Rolling Stone: "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." This sentence, many have charged, goes beyond stereotypes about Jews and money, touches other classic anti-Semitic themes about Jews as foreign or inhuman elements poisoning humanity and society... 

Taibbi claims to have been utterly blindsided by accusations that his article was anti-Semitic...  His critics find this impossible to believe. Could such a sophisticated writer... not know about the stereotypes and ancient lies that this passage echoes...  It may be possible to call Goldman Sachs a bloodsucker without being an anti-Semite. But is it possible to call Goldman Sachs a bloodsucker and then be surprised when you're called an anti-Semite?

Kinsley's analysis, seems to me, simply correct. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Goldman having nothing to do with antisemitism. There are also plenty of memes historically entwined with antisemitism whether or not applied to Goldman.

The current cover of New York Magazine, asks the same question, perhaps less innocently.  It doctors an image of Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein in a manner that seems to me plainly inspired-by/drawing-on Shylock and Count Orlok -- the most classical of all classical anti-semitic imagery.

Take a look and decide for yourself:

(from left to right: Al Pacino as Shylock, Max Shreck as Count Orlok, the first two images morphed using MorphThing, the New York Magazine stylized Blankfein, Blankfein un-doctored)

Culturalism

The standard, if intellectually lazy, political conservative position on the Civil Rights Act is, as Ross Douthat describes:

No ideology survives the collision with real-world politics perfectly intact. General principles have to bend to accommodate the complexities of history, and justice is sometimes better served by compromise than by zealous intellectual consistency.

This was all that Rand Paul needed to admit...

A more full throated, conservative/libertarian defense is possible: To believe in Freedom is to believe that discrimination, by itself, without government support, cannot stand. If you and I have competing firms and you are unwilling to employ or serve a particular minority, that gives me sustainable competitive advantages -- wider access to talent and markets. In a truly free market, given those advantages, over time, my firm will crush yours. That, in practice, it does not always seem to play out this way, points to market warping Government intervention (today in the form of a failing monopolistic education bureaucracy and regulation-as-barriers-to-entry) sustaining discriminatory inequality, not to the limits of Freedom.

This argument, to me, seems politically viable as it re-frames the question from "Do you support discrimination or not?" (we all here agree not), to "Do you believe in Freedom?" It is naturally resisted by progressives for whom freedom is not found in, rather from, free and fair markets, and by politicians, for whom the sacrifice of principle is second-nature, but should be naturally embraced by, for example, conservative columnists.

That it is not, I think, reflects an increasingly unhealthy infatuation with an overly fixed view of culture. In their heart, I suspect, they believe that racial discrimination will persist even in free and fair markets, because, they believe, disadvantaged minorities posses and perpetuate an inferior culture.

The concept of "culture" is most properly politically employed to trace the limits of anyone's ability to meaningfully understand the deeply complicated webs that structure a society, and by extension, point to the dangers of hubristic government policy. But to believe in Freedom is to see in American history ample evidence of how malleable and ever-changing "culture" can be and how people, left to their own devices, lift themselves up.

The Glass Closet

Gawker weighs the evidence and concludes that Elana Kagan is lesbian. If true, it certainly is disheartening that in 2010, Ms. Kagan feels the need to cover it up in order to advance professionally.

Previously, attentively reading the President's statements on the matter, I argued that his call for empathetic judges was, in particular, a call for "someone who will discover a constitutional right to Gay Marriage". He also succeeded in meeting his goal of a choice being someone who could create majorities, if not in general, at least in this particular.

If Roe (among others) is any guide, the coming Supreme Court discovery of a constitutional right to Gay Marriage (as opposed to letting the political process play out) rather than settling the issue, will serve, above all, to harden hearts, intensify the political combat and push farther into the future the day when a nominee's sexual orientation is understood to be a non-issue.

On Immigration

The immigration debate is a frustrating illustration that American politics is now played in the red zone. Between the forty yard lines we (should) all agree that America is both a nation of immigrants and a nation governed by law.

In one red zone, any attempt to enforce any immigration law is protested as racist, even, nazi-esque. (It [should] go without saying that such rhetoric is wildly overblown: there is a meaningful distinction between the consequence of being caught w/o papers in Arizona 2010 and in Germany 1942).

In the other end, there is a shocking lack of racial sensitivity. To compare and contrast: Opponents have accused the Tea Party of racism. As far-fetched as the smear is, Tea Party activists are conscientiously working to counter it. There is precious little mirror effort -- to articulate a clear differentiation between anti-illegal-immigrant and anti-Latino -- from anti-illegal immigration activists.

This is likely, in part, due to there being a distinct racial edge to anti-illegal-immigration advocacy. One illustration is Ross Douthat's otherwise unintelligible argument that immigration policy ought counter the natural forces of geography. Another illustration is the near radio-silence maintained regarding the meaningful Asian component to illegal immigration.

The reason that illegal immigration from Asia, drives less opposition than that from Mexico is less simple racism as much as Asian immigrants do not raise the specter of Reconquista -- a fear that, perhaps, could be more sensitively treated by some Mexican-Americans, but that will inevitably be inflamed by the assertion that Americans are wrong to regulate entry into their country.

To the degree that opposition to unfettered Mexican immigration is driven by a desire to maintain a certain vision of this country, conservatives would do well to remember that illegal Mexican immigrants are often cultural conservatives -- hard working, G-d fearing, and, by definition believers in limited government. If anti-immigration conservatives, ultimately, want to live in the US, not Mexico, they would do well to remember that the same is true, by definition, of immigrants.

Parents and Paternalism

According to the Times report, charter schools have not worked quite as designed:

Some advocates concede that the intellectual premise behind school choice — that in a free market for education, parents will remove students from bad schools in favor of good ones — has not proved true.

For example:

Even though the school did worse on the Ohio math and English exams than the average Cleveland public school, families did not flee Arts and Social Sciences Academy. On the contrary, enrollment has doubled in each of the past two years. It is a phenomenon often seen in academically failing charter schools when parents perceive them as having better discipline than district schools.

To some, this argues that "you need government accreditation to drive quality."

As switching schools is taxing on children, caring parents cannot be expected to do so for marginal improvement (eg: from one bad school to a slightly less bad school). On the other hand, it would be surprising if there really was data indicating that, presented the option between failing and succeeding schools, parents would not choose the latter for their children.

The case for Government paternalism, in the article, insinuates just that. While it finds these "almost all poor minority" parents generally unwilling to return children in floundering charter schools to public schools, they increasingly flee, the article implies, better public schools for charter schools. Parents like this cannot be trusted to make educational decisions for their children without oversight.

In truth, the evidence presented by the article is very questionable. For example, if the average Cleveland public school does better on exams than Arts and Social Sciences Academy, there are certainly still plenty of well below average public schools to drive A&S Academy's increasing enrollment.

More fundamentally, the evidence that parents are making improper decisions rests entirely on standardized tests. But, as educators are quick to remind us when applied to public schools -- standardized tests are flawed, if better than nothing, measures. In this case, there is a reasonable alternative measure: The judgement of parents, who have a deep abiding concern, and 360 view of the product, certainly embeds significant information standardized tests cannot capture.

Accusations of racism are too cheaply thrown around by all sides, but one cannot help but wonder if the views+choices of demographically different parents would be so casually disregarded.

Educating Educators

The Times reports "Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools Is Mixed".

...one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

Although “charter schools have become a rallying cry for education reformers,” the report, by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, warned, “this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well” as students in traditional schools.

The Stanford conclusions, to me, betray a deep lack of understanding on two related fronts:

For one, quality of education is not sensibly understood -- as the Stanford researchers appear to -- as simply linear. The space, I would think, is more clearly a sort of s-curve: Children are either empowered and propelled by their education, or they are held back -- failed -- by it. We have a crisis because too many American children are in the latter category, the proper measure of success is, ultimately, whether or not charter schools are failing fewer students than traditional public schools.

Secondly, all but the most radical free market fundamentalist acknowledges that Government directed bureaucracies are generally better than free markets at meeting clear, static targets. Free markets naturally create volatility and waste along with innovation and adaptability. If there were easy or obvious answers to our educational crisis, there would be less momentum for free market solutions.

The true value of charter schools is as laboratories in which a variety of educational approaches can be tried, evaluated and the best ones propagated. For example: charter schools have finally (at least for the moment) mainstreamed the notion that educators fail children when they make excuses:

...Perry White, a former social worker who founded the Citizens’ Academy charter school... and has overseen its climb from an F on its state report card in 2003 to an A last year. “It took us a while to understand we needed a no-excuses culture,” he said, one of “really sweating the small stuff.”

Synthetics

One emerging consensus is that congress ban "synthetic" derivatives. As Senator Levin explains it:

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to eliminate the damn synthetics. To me, they don't serve any real purpose at all. They're just betting on something where they don't have a stake, they're not hedging legitimate risk. With other things, there's a limit. There's a finite amount of corn and wheat and mortgages. But these synthetics have no finite limit. So you literally have a gambling hall and the bets are unlimited. I'd get rid of them, and there will be an effort to get rid of them, and I will vote for it

While appealing, this argument is not true in full. Synthetic derivatives served some real purpose as real firms created demand for them. Even if they only served to encourage speculators, in doing so, they may well have served to decrease costs of hedgers of "legitimate risk". On the other hand, its easy to imagine that at some degree of abstraction, the synthetic derivatives do more harm than good and it, therefore, makes sense to have rules which, at least loosely, tie derivative trading to productive economic activity.

It must be said in all this that the idea that if the government doesn't understand the economic value of some activity, that value does not exist, is characteristic of command-, not free-, economies. In more free economies, private economic activity is not proscribed on the basis of perceived social value, rather it is regulated to the degree it threatens others. Trading in synthetic derivatives was only made threatening by the risk it posed to too big to fail/too big to manage firms. If Congress is, in fact, doing away with too big to fail, our traditional economic conceptions would argue for leaving synthetics alone.

Common Sense Reform

In contrast to the President's faith-based Financial Services Reform package, sensible Financial Services reform would be ground in steps that would have clearly been helpful if in place over the past few years. Such reform would likely contain the following five elements:

• Too Big to Fail is Too Big: No single company ought be allowed to control more than a few percentage points of GDP. No single company ought be allowed to control more than a fraction of a percentage of any government insurance program. (Including the PBGC, which may well be the next bubble a burstin'). I continue to believe that the FDIC no longer serves any earthly good, but that is a more radical sell. At the least, there should be strict transparency requirements around all government insured institutions and those they who do business with them, and clearly defined limitations around aggregating, and leveraging, taxpayer risk.
• Regulating the Regulators:If we must create a new Government agency, it ought to monitor, evaluate and report on the costs, benefits, risks and consequences of existing regulatory policies.
• Derivative Ducktyping: Labelling any particular activity as a "derivative" ought not change its tax or regulatory profile. Selling CDS is selling insurance, buying TRS is buying on margin, etc.
• Protecting Vulnerable Investors: In deference to Senator Snowe's concern, market participants ought be allowed to self-identify as vulnerable. Self-identified vulnerable investors would be required to hire Brokers to represent their interests in transactions with Dealers.
• Educated Consumers: A licensing process, analogous to a driver's license, should be required of anyone who would like to participate in financial markets, whether by buying stocks or taking mortgages, etc.

These five elements -- preserving fairness, transparency and competition -- embrace the traditional spirit of regulation in our economy. The five elements proposed by the President, reflect a very different spirit.

Leap Of Faith

The President, at Cooper Union, declared five elements crucial to financial services reform:

* Instituting a system to ensure that "American taxpayers are protected in the event that a large firm begins to fail."
* Imposing the so-called Volcker Rule... limits on the freewheeling trading and risks taken by banks.
* Setting new transparency rules for derivatives "and other complicated financial instruments."
* Assuring "strong consumer financial protections."
* Instituting "pay reforms" to give investors and pension holders "a stronger role in determining who manages the companies in which they’ve placed their savings."

The logic behind the proposed mechanisms are, to a certain way of thinking, very straightforward: To protect American taxpayers from the failure of these Leviathan firms, regulators need to be empowered, in the first instance, to reduce the likelihood of failure and, in the second, to manage an orderly unwinding. Reducing the likelyhood of failure argues for the Volcker rule, pay reform, as well as greater transparency rules, so that regulators have an easier time understanding market interdependency. Finally, and certainly, ordinary customers have to be protected from predatory practices.

Ultimately, this logic demands large leaps of faith: It is simply irrational to believe that large Leviathan firms, representing double digit percentages of GDP, can be orderly unwound without requiring heavy taxpayer subsidy. The belief that, left to broad politician-regulator discretion, they can be fairly unwound, defies recent experience.

The bill itself calls into question the belief that a new, more complicated, patchwork of super-empowered regulators will reduce risk. The Volcker rule, premised as it is on the nonsensical notion that holding a loan is entirely different and less risky then buying a bond, and the politically popular, but economically misguided, "Pay Reform", are embedded evidence that this reform, will serve not to limit, rather -- in the now tried and true form of creating distorting market inefficiencies / regulatory arbitrage opportunities -- create risk.

Finally, if Madoff passed SEC scrutiny, and repo 105 passed muster with Fed employees placed at Lehman, how can Mom and Pop investors rationally expect to be reasonably protected by yet-another-agency?

Of Fiduciaries

One recurring line of questioning in yesterday's Goldman testimony, involved the notion that that market makers ought have a fiduciary obligation towards their customers. Olympia Snowe has taken a rather stark position:

10. Fiduciary Duty: Swaps dealers should have a special duty of care to pension funds, endowments, retirement funds, and state and local governments to protect vulnerable market participants from being taken advantage of by dealers.

Putting aside logistical questions about how such a duty could be coherently structured -- can dealers really be required to only buy what they want to sell and only sell what they want to buy? -- Ms Snowe's characterization of pension funds, endowments, retirement funds, and state and local government investors as being "vulnerable market participants" is jarring.

If she is correct, then Pension Fund managers who advertise themselves to their own clients as being -- and are paid to be -- savvy and sophisticated, not vulnerable and out-of-their-depth, investors appear guilty of fraud / misrepresentation.

Of Wall Street, Casinos and Derivatives

One common way of explaining "what went wrong", involves differentiating the Wall Street Casino, personified by excessive derivative trading, from the "productive economy".

This explanation fundamentally misunderstands the nature of free markets. Properly understood, free markets are Casinos. Every economic choice one makes -- of school, profession, employer, etc... -- is a bet. Above all, entrepreneurial activity -- the engine of a free market economy -- is bet-driven.

Imagine, for example, believing that parents in a particular city will increasingly demand environmentally friendly toys and therefore thinking about opening an environmentally friendly toy store. To do so would bundle a number of bets, first of all on the evolving demand for environmentally friendly toys, but also on demand for toys in general, on the real-estate, demographics and economy of a particular geographic area, on your ability to recruit, retain and motivate a staff, and so forth.

Underneath all the obfuscating mumbo-jumbo, derivatives are tools that allow free market actors to hedge their bets, which, by itself, facilitates economic activity.

To the environmentally friendly toys store example: If you believed strongly that demand for environmentally friendly toys will increase relative to toys in general, but are afraid that the market for toys in general may be about to collapse, you would choose not to open the toy store. On the other hand, if you were able to purchase a derivative that allowed your store to make money even if the market for toys in general collapsed, so long as the market for environmentally friendly toys collapsed less, you might choose to open that store.

Derivatives, like any security, are rendered dangerous when employees of institutions both too big to fail and too big to manage bet the house with them.

While no one, in our political arena, would claim to be opposed to free markets, one can see in various proposals, a frightening ignorance on the part of many, from both parties, who would "regulate" them.

How Dat

Saint coach Sean Payton wanted to win badly enough to take a pay cut to facilitate the hiring of Greg Williams.

Williams preaches aggressiveness, but not mindlessly so. He teaches players not to simply roll the dice, but to take advantage of being prepared -- "believe in what you see". On his game sealing interception -- the Saints' second in two games -- Tracy Porter said: "All week, we watched it on film... They went to it a lot. And when that route came, it was just like I was watching it on film."

This approach rubbed off on Payton. His signature call, the aptly named Ambush, was pure preparation-driven aggression.

Earlier in the season I contrasted one approach -- attributed to Belicheck's supporters -- of making coaching descisions according to a logic deaf to effect on players, with one that is first of all concerned with player and team development.

The former camp would have supported Jim Caldwell's choice to throw the last two games of the season. But that descision sent a clear message to his team that they were good enough to be champions without giving their best through every minute of every game. In some way it was also the message Bill Polian sent the team when he replaced a Hall of Fame coach with an unproven one.

There is justice, then, in the Saints victory. The tragedy is that Peyton Manning, who unlike the organization he plays for, takes nothing for granted, was not able to impose his values on his team.

J-Street @ PENN


----------------------------------------
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 9:46 PM
Subject: FW: Hillel and JStreet

Dear Rabbis Alpert and Brochin,

While I have a great deal of respect and affinity for yourselves and PENN Hillel generally, I have to stand on my own principles and will not be donating to PENN Hillel this calendar year.

The principles at stake, for me, are two-fold. The first is, as, Gabe describes, J- Street does not, to my mind, conform to the criteria Hillel itself has laid out. I am not aware of any position that J-Street has staked out to differentiate itself as being more supportive than Fatah of Israel.

The second is more fundamental. Your stated “concern is keeping college students around the Jewish table, engaged in the Jewish conversation.” I have to stand for the principle that Jewish-ness is not completely devoid of content. If there is to be any minimal boundary to “Jewish conversation” then Hillel is not the place for J-Street.

Finally, it would be very disheartening to me were it true that the only way to not Jewishly alienate these many students is to give platform to these “morally deficient” views. These students are surely no more one dimensional than is our heritage. Would it really not be possible, or effective, to communicate respectful, sympathetic, but firm disagreement with these sort of views, while finding other, authentically and richly Jewish avenues to engage and embrace these students?

Respectfully,

Marc

If there is a comment to make here, it is regarding the tragedy of today's leaders, having experienced, in the 60s, the communal costs of being too insecure to allow meaningful diversity of opinion, leading, instead, towards a community too insecure to minimally stand up for its values. What is it that makes the common-sense middle ground so difficult to uphold?

State of the Union

Whatever else the president is an enrapturing speaker. The irritating smug demeanor he stepped to the podium with mesmerizing-ly melted away as he got into the speech.

His over-arching theme -- I, like you, am decent and resilient; identify your struggles with mine -- was brilliant.

There were two incongruous moments that undermined his intended message.

The first -- shades of "guns and religion" -- he mentioned global warming, and, with his party, took the opportunity to laugh at the expense of the nearly half of independents who are skeptical of the science (Republicans laughed as well, but with different reason). One doesn't appeal to independent voters by deriding their beliefs.

The second was both more subtle and more damning. Discussing healthcare reform:

... And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

This sentence placed in stark contrast the fundamental decency of the American people -- who were revolted by the depth of the horse trading, not their lack of participation -- and the fundamental corruption of the man they elected President.

Budget Deficit Commission

The President now, wisely, seeks to pivot towards fiscal responsibility. His strategy is proposing a bipartisan budget deficit commission.

Republicans are rightly skeptical of being used as political cover for tax raises to pay for the Democratic spending binge (relatedly: Rove contrasts the profit the taxpayer made on W bailouts vs the steep losses being incurred by O).

Their politically deaf response, however, creates headlines portraying Obama as deficit-concerned and Republicans as partisan obstructionists. Their stance -- requiring a mandated up/down Congressional vote -- is undermined by the reality that such a mandate could pass was there unified Republican support. If such a mandate does pass, Republicans will be faced with the no-win situation of voting for meaningful increase in taxes (presumably including a VAT) or deficits.

Congressional Republicans have two savvier strategies:

They can demand true bi-partisanship. The Obama proposal is stacked 10D - 8R. An effective response would ridicule Obama for proposing to appoint 25% of the panel's Republicans himself (!)

Even better, they could insist that a minority recommendation issued by the commission also be guaranteed an up/down vote should the majority's be voted down. This would, at least, allow Republicans to clearly present their position that we should cut spending more and raise taxes less.

Boston Tea Party

Watching her concession speech, there is certainly some truth to the Democratic spin that Coakley was a horrible candidate. Watching Brown's acceptance speech, he is certainly a talented politician.

On the other hand, Democrats are certainly fooling themselves when they proclaim that results, not process matter to the American people. To blame Coakley for over-confidently taking Christmas off when up by 20 points, is to blissfully ignore what else hit the news then.

While it does seem, from the exit polls, that health care was important to voters, it did not seem central to Brown's messaging. More central was the appeal to Reagan Republicans: "our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them". Brown was even supportive of waterboarding. His competitiveness amongst union members is a big part of the story.

That said, in the end, those who disregard the nationalization of the race, argue Coakley lost because the campaign was slow to respond to Brown's increasing competitiveness. Politico reports, that the DSCC Chairman "learned that the race was tightening... when independent pollsters returned results showing the race much tighter than Democratic polls had been portraying." In other words, the Democrat lost largely because Democratic pollsters saw their job as framing perceptions instead of providing timely and reliable information to their team.

The notion of professional politicians being fooled by their own spin, is off-putting if entirely consistent with the self-destructive path the Congressional majorities have chosen for themselves.

The Consequence of Mary Poppins

I was dragged, last night, to the Broadway production of Mary Poppins. While I can't complain too much -- it was all, or rather mostly, good, nostalgic, fun -- its financial/economic teachings are insipid.

The financial/economic teaching, of the classic movie appear mostly harmless. Bankers extolling the virtues of disciplined long term investing, and responsibly building credit, are mocked, but not central to the plot -- Mr Banks loses his job because he puts it before his family, and regains it when he shifts priorities.

The musical attempts to be sharper in its financial commentary. The central plot element illustrates that smart investing stems from focus on the human aspect and not the strength of the idea, or plan. The character of "the Holy Terror" is introduced (or rather resurrected from the books) to cast rigor and discipline as a traditional Disney villain.

The musical is consistent with the under-informed liberal narrative of the current financial crisis caused, to this view, by a self-involved financial world, wrapped in paper profits and complex derivatives, that lost touch with the real, "human" world around it.

The reality, of course, is that the most direct cause -- government policies promoting the illusion of home ownership by encouraging loose lending -- was a focus on the narrow human aspect at the expense of the rigor of the plan.

More fundamentally, I have previously posted my view:

In the end, the strength of an economy boils down to the aggregate willingness and ability of people to do things valued by other people. And underneath all the awful decisions made by all sorts of economic actors, lies a culture that increasingly devalues the painstaking work that goes with ordinary productivity.

This devaluation is something the writers of musical -- and to a somewhat lesser degree the movie -- strangely sought to encourage.

The good news is that there does appear to be some growing recognition, that parents hurt their children when they withhold discipline.

Opposite Marriage on Trial

In his opening statement, Ted Olson promised to prove:

1. The importance of marriage.
2. The "grievous harm" worked by denying the right to marry.
3. There is "no good reason" to deny homosexuals this right.

The first two items are red herrings. Whatever the tangible benefits of marriage, they certainly come far more from the commitment of the couple than the tax implications. The notion -- suggested by Olson -- that a couple cannot fully "share their dreams" with each other without state sanction is silly (and mildly ironic given his backers).

The true injury caused by Prop 8 is symbolic. As well described by Olson:

All it does is label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal, and disfavored. And it brands their relationships as not the same, and less-approved than those enjoyed by opposite sex couples. It stigmatizes gays and lesbians, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation and humiliation.

On the other hand, state sanctioning of gay marriage causes similar symbolic injury (stigmatization) to adherents of traditional religion. Decision via judicial rather than political process aggravates the injury as one's voice is, at least, more fully heard in a political process.

Reading Olson's statement more carefully, the injury he describes is inflicted less by the denial of state sanction as much as by the societal mores that support the status quo. The majority of Americans, as expressed by their votes, consider homosexual "relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity," a view that, if Roe v Wade is any guide, judicial interference will only harden. In the end, then, what plaintiffs seek is not to remedy their injury as much as the compensatory satisfaction of asserting their political power over the majority that dis-respect them.

In a prior post, I expressed agreement in principle with the third item. Or rather, that there appears no rational reason to oppose sanctioning gay marriage. Opposition is rooted in accepted tradition.

What is on trial, then, appears to be whether or not, in the eyes of the law, traditional values constitute a "good reason".

The Ladies and the Tiger

Tiger "mistress", Jaimee Grubbs is not without a conscience. In a conversation with extra TV, she "couldn't describe how remorseful" she was to have hurt Elin the children. None-the-less, she does not feel all that bad as, she says, "If it wasn't me, it was going to be other girls."

Traditional teachers advanced standards of behavior -- classical virtue, religious righteousness -- to be adhered to for their own sake. Von Hayek observes that this traditionally morality is everywhere being replaced by "social conscience" -- being guided by awareness of the effect of our actions on others.

Von Hayek critiques this new thinking on its own terms. He argues that traditional moral rules are, themselves, social phenomenon -- evolving societal understandings, required as people cannot possibly fully understand the complex consequences flowing from their own actions. To Von Hayek, true social conscience demands respect for traditional rules.

Pragmatically -- as illustrated by the Prisoner's Dilemma -- any consequence-driven social morality seems unlikely to be ultimately upheld. In the end, whatever we do, other people will pollute, deal arms, sell predatory mortgages, mislead on their mortgage applications, separate fools and their money, sleep with married billionaires, etc, so why should we abstain? The Obama Administration has, in fact, played to this lesser angel, in the stimulus debate, suggesting critics opt out.

Tiger, of course, has no similar excuse for his choices. He has, thankfully, not yet attempted to justify them. That said, it is hard for us to simply condemn him, knowing that few men could withstand the temptations he faced. By some measure, his sin, so to speak, was not being a saint. Or, perhaps, his true mistake, given his place in life, was aspiring to-, thinking he could-, be a father and a husband.