Tebow Time

Tim Tebow presents an interesting rorschach test. To his detractors, he lacks the basic skills his job demands and why can't he curb the Jesus. To his defenders, his faith is a virtue, his character compensates for lack of skill, and, besides, the only true demand of the job is winning.

Those who question whether a team can win a super bowl with Tebow at QB willfully ignore the statistics. Consider the following total yardage season stats, the first three by recent super bowl winning QBs, the fourth Tebow's year to date:

 
 Year Ply/Gm Yds/Gm Yds/Ply TO/Game
 2000 33.6 180.3 5.4 1.6
 2007 36.6 199.3 5.4 1.7
 2008 34.3 194.9 5.7 1.4
 2011 34.4 187.7 5.5 0.4

Those who insist that Denver's rational way forward is drafting a "franchise" QB also disregard history. There are only 6 current super-bowl winning quarterbacks, and two of them, E. Manning and Roethlisberger did so with mediocre season stats displayed above. Of the remaining 4, only 2 -- P. Manning and Rodgers -- won for the team which drafted him as its the QB of the future. Brees was acquired as an unwanted-elsewhere free agent and Brady was drafted well past "of the future" territory. Similarly, looking historically at QBs taken in the first round, about a quarter developed into stars and more then half, more or less, bust. In other words, drafting a franchise QB is easier said than done.

Finally, to those those who would credit Von Miller, rather than Tebow, for Denver's surge, that Denver started winning only when Tebow started starting is dumb luck. More attentive observers would note, whatever else, the affect a QB tougher than Chuck Norris has on his team-mates play.

Just Saying

Moral high ground? nah...

The Politics of Steve Jobs

Judging from Steve Job's final advice to Obama -- "that the administration needed to be more business-friendly", that "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult to build factories in the United States and, crucially, that "until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform" -- his personal opinions were far more at home on the WSJ op-ed page, than that of the NY Times.

On the other hand, Apple customers are understood to be predominately Democratic. This is, in part, due to -- as Jobs critiqued -- Microsoft and Google being "pure technology" companies that "never had the humanities and the liberal arts in the DNA". While techies may love their gadgets infinitely customize-able, non-geeks can be confused, or even scared, by over-configure-ability, and, so, prefer technology that works simply. In other words, Apple's appeal lay, largely, in enabling -- for a premium -- the tech-phobic to pose as tech-savvy. One frequent implicit claim of this blog, is that there is an direct analogy in this to the appeal of Democratic politics.

On a darker note, there is more then a touch of nihilism, in the sense of beauty mixed with cruelty, surrounding Jobs, his products and, perhaps, his customers.

Sexual McCarthyism

After a number of anonymous, and unspecific, allegations of sexual harassment, were leveled against Herman Cain, one Sharon Bialek has come forward with a specific allegation. Her claim contains a corroborated un-serious allegation and an un-corroborated serious one.

The un-serious claim is that Cain made an "unwanted physical advance." As she relays it, he telegraphed his intent clearly and well in advance -- "upgrading her room at the Capital Hilton to a grandiose suite" and rather than, as initially suggested, meeting for coffee, taking her out to dinner and drinks -- and she chose to not clarify her intent. As soon as she did, in her own telling, he stopped and took her back to her hotel.

More serious is the implication that he would have given her a job had she slept with him. While she provided no corroboration, if true, it is unlikely an isolated incident. It will inevitably come out if there are other women to whom Cain made similar offers. Perhaps Politico will now dig up every woman hired during Cain's tenure at the NRA, and ask if they slept with him.

Cain's talk of "lynching", and comparison with Justice Thomas, is not entirely off-base. Was Cain not conservative, the responsible media would be reminding us -- justly -- of the legacy of racism with which this sort of sexual McCarthyism resonates.

Cultural Capital

David Brooks, I suppose, fancies himself conservative for writing things like:

it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. But the fact is... it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent... If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.

He is certainly correct up to a point: cultural capital matters -- big government policies that disregard that are doomed to fail. He, and others, however, imagine that there are other, smarter, big government policies which can, taking cultural capital into account, succeed.

Structurally, these arguments take some factor which is correlated to cultural capital (e.g.: home ownership, college education), latch on to any tenuous rationale arguing the relationship is causal (People take better care of things they own! College graduates have wider social networks!), push expensive government programs with inevitable unintended consequences that, equally inevitably, fail because wishful thinking cannot turn correlation into causation.

Von Hayek taught that the natural, evolutionary, processes of free societies tend to increase cultural capital. More traditional conservative teaching would accentuate the role played by community. In either case: A government which governs least expands opportunity best.

Economic Interests

In the Times Room for Debate, Ilyana Kuziemko and Michael Norton, proffessors at Princeton and Harvard respectively, argue that the "recurring tendency of lower-income Americans to vote against their own economic interests" -- defined as "redistributive policies" -- has three explanations.  First, "Erroneous beliefs about the current degree of wealth inequality" -- Americans believe the richest 20% amongst us own only 59% of total wealth rather than, as the currently estimated, as much as 85% . Second, "Americans show a robust pattern of overestimating the probability that they will one day be rich." Finally, "individuals near the bottom of the income distribution may be wary of redistribution because it could help those just below them leapfrog above them." This is illustrated by data which shows that Americans making the closest to minimum wage are "the least likely to support increasing the current minimum wage."

It is hard to take this with any seriousness. The notion that the difference between 59% and 85% has any meaningful impact on political-economic opinions is dumb. The suggestions that the poor prefer to be exploited in that hope that they will one day get to exploit and that they would cut off their hands to spite the very poor, are both stupid and nasty.

The simple truth is that most people -- excluding, perhaps, Ivy League professors -- prefer the dignity of earning their keep.  Lower-skilled jobs are, far more than others, absolutely dependent on the strength of the economy. In other words, lower income Americans correctly understand their economic interests lie more in pro-growth, rather than redistributive, policies.

Republicans are often condemned as being anti-intellectual. In their defense, it is worth remembering the distinction -- opposition really -- illustrated here, between intellectual and intelligent.

Reading the Torah

Writing in Haaretz, Rabbi Shai Held divides the world "between those who acknowledge that they read selectively, and those who do not - or who, given their assumptions, simply cannot." He believes the Torah can be just as well read advocating "universal humanism" as "radically particularistic chauvinism." Given that we "have to decide" the manner in which we read, the most "urgent religious question" is: "How do we build religious lives in which our care for others is intensified rather than attenuated?"

Rabbi Held's philosophy undermines his intention. Religion which acknowledges it reads selectively subverts itself. The statement "The Torah can justly be understood advocating chauvinistic nationalism, but I prefer to read it humanistically," simply does not carry the power of "Those who read the Torah as advocating chauvinistic nationalism pervert it's teaching." As Rabbi Held does acknowledge that "no religious thinker could embrace" a view which puts "human beings rather than God at the center of the universe," it is hard to see how he understands otherwise his view that the fundamental teaching of the Torah -- Revelation -- is whatever a human being decides it is.

Better is the traditional teaching, amplified by Strauss, that we have to choose between Reason and Revelation.

Why Stimulus Cannot Work

A Journal Op-Ed presents research from George Mason economists Garett Jones and Daniel Rothschild, that shows stimulus didn't work, in part, because it was implemented poorly and wastefully.  The truth is readily apparent upon any reflection that even an efficiently executed stimulus program could never have worked.

As explained by the President, stimulus is meant to "break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.".  Stimulus is meant to work by creating a virtuous cycle where stimulus payments lead to people spending more money, which leads to more hiring, which leads to even more spending.  This will only work to the degree that businesses confuse stimulus-driven spending with actual economic signals and hire.  The more aware businesses are of what the government is doing, the more they will inevitably hold off hiring until they perceive it to actually be working.  The more managers hold of hiring, of course, the less effective the stimulus.

Further, stimulus is more effective the more the economy is being impacted by the vicious cycle, when people are spending less because they fear working less, and will spend more when they expect to work more.  Stimulus will necessarily be less effective if people are saving more for other reasons independent of job prospects.  In this particular, people are saving more and spending less because they are fearful for their retirements.  American's largest investment tends to be their homes which are not, now, worth what they were.  In addition, policies debasing the currency debase also people's savings.  Finally, people are recognizing that government may not be able to fulfill its social security and pension commitments.

In other words, sensible entitlement reform and bringing the deficit under control to restore confidence in the government's ability to keep its commitments, strengthening the currency and allowing the housing markets to work themselves out stand to work where keynsian stimulus will simply not.

An Ivy's Worth

A column in the Journal recently argued that Americans "hate" [macro-]economics because it over turns common sense (for example that paying people to not work leads to less working) and -- unlike, for example, physics which can be equally counter-intuitive -- does not, generally, work.

The counter-claim that macro-economic conclusions are strongly data-driven, is easy to call into question.

For example, the President's nominated Chief Economist is, in part, known for research showing there is no economic benefit to elite undergraduate education. This conclusion is only superficially data-driven. It turns out -- unsurprisingly -- that, controlling for objective academic measures, elite college grads do economically better. In other words, Penn alumni with 1400 SAT scores tend to make more money then Penn St. alumni with the same scores.

To get around this, Krueger suggests there are un-observed material variables -- such as "motivation and creativity." In an initial paper, he modeled these factors by schools a student was accepted to. He found that students accepted to, for example, Penn with equivalent SAT scores were likely to make equivalent money even if they chose to attend Penn St. In a later paper, he found "quality of schools applied to" a more precise proxy.

This is, of course, crazy-talk. Common sense dictates the following: A Wharton finance major is likely to make a lot more then a Penn St finance major; Concentrating on women's and religious studies is not a recipe for economic success whether from Penn or Penn St; A C student has better prospects from Penn than Penn St.; Some students are better served by Penn St. and, knowing who they are, more likely than others to turn down Penn; Quality of school applied to says more about social resources and expectations than intrinsic motivation or creativity (which are, in any case, likely the stronger factors).

Which is all to say: Students ought think twice before dumbly following what Dr. Krueger (B.S. Cornell '83, Ph.D. Harvard '87) says. And Conservatives are absolutely right to be skeptical of the "data-driven" conclusions of macro-economic models.

Galuth

"Galuth" is, perhaps, the most powerful and contemporary Jewish conception. We are taught that it was not only the Jews who were exiled with the destruction of their Temple -- G-d, Himself, was as well. Where some see a world in which "God is dead," the Jewish tradition teaches that He is merely in exile. And not because we, today, do not believe in Him faithfully enough. Rather, because, we have not been good enough to each other.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

In the high stakes poker game, they were playing, Boehner folded.

As described by the President, the new deal is staged:

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years... the second part... establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit... To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act.

The threatened tough cuts would be to defense and medicare providers.

The President made absolutely clear in his statement that the substance of the negotiations -- tax raises vs spending cuts -- weren't going to change. In effect, what this deal does is switch the "hostage" from the debt limit to defense and seniors. Which is to say from a hostage many in the GOP -- who believe smaller government leads to economic growth -- would be happy to sacrifice. The committee it sets up will give equal weight to House Democrats and Republicans despite the 2010 elections that gave republicans an almost 2-1 edge.

Finally, and above all, there is absolutely nothing in this deal that would motivate Democrats to compromise. Should the committee come back empty handed, they would gleefully look forward to arguing to voters that crazy Republicans skewered Defense and Seniors to protect "the rich".

In other words, politically, Republicans would be well advised to trash this deal -- argue that Obama's insistence on playing politics with Defense spending renders him an unfit Commander-In-Chief -- and roll the dice on default.

Obama's Rhetoric

While it would be a mistake to take the President's political rhetoric more seriously than it ought be, two observations from his address last night.

The President appears fond of his professor moments. He likes saying things like "I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around..." and "something known as the debt ceiling -- a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before." He even felt the need to explain that should we default, "we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills" One imagines that liberals find such rhetoric smugly self-affirming whereas conservatives bristle.

He also repeated his now oft-used line about asking "hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries." This argument is somewhat ambiguous.

The term "Hedge Fund Managers" can refer to the companies that manage hedge funds. A big portion of their revenue is proportional to the returns they generate and allowed to be taxed as capital gains (~15%), rather than ordinary income (~35%). While there are good arguments for taxing this revenue at the higher rate, doing so will certainly reduce employee compensation, including for secretaries. In other words, raising taxes on fund management firms will indirectly, but surely, raise taxes on those firm's secretaries.

"Hedge Fund Manager" may also refer to the fund's principles, many of whom earn staggering figures by investing their own money. This return is absolutely investment income and taxed appropriately. An attempt to better discriminate, to have different classes of investors pay wildly divergent tax rates would very much appear confiscatory.

Debt Politics

The President, in his speech tonight, reached out to the sort of independent who likes "balance" and "compromise". In his, Boehner spoke to the sort of independents who, back in the day, supported Perot. In that the latter are more likely voters, Boehner played the stronger card.

The founding fathers dealt Boehner perhaps the strongest card in preventing the Senate from initiating a revenue bill (i.e.: A bill the Republican house would not support). The proposed Senate bill very much works to the G.O.P.'s political favor. Accepting it, in the last minute will take some air out of the claim they are un-compromising extremists, they will honestly take home to their base the best deal they could get, and it will put real teeth into the 2012 election.

Boehner's proposed two-step process is likely less politically advantageous. It will give the Democrats, before the election, another opportunity to frame Republicans as stooges of the very-wealthy and, most dangerously, it will give the President another chance to finally appear a strong and effective leader.

NFL Settlement

From: ...
To: 
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:04 PM
Subject: Have No Fear....

Degenerate Football Fans-

The league, the NFLPA and myself have reached a 
settlement, and there will be the Confidence/Rank Em pool 
for the 2011/2012 season.  A more detailed email will be 
forthcoming, but it will be comparable in format to past 
years (weekly winners, cumulative winners, etc.)
 
As spots often go quickly, please let me know if you are 
interested.  Also, if you know others that may be 
interested, please let me know.
 
Thanks, and I hope you are all enjoying your summer.
________________________________________
From: [ME]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:43 PM
To: ...
Subject: Re: Have No Fear....

I'm interested.  But I believe we should cap the potential
winnings of new entrants for the first five years they are
in the pool at 30% of the stated prizes, and divide any 
excess amongst those of us who have been in the pool the 
longest (and thus have contributed the most to the pool 
pots over the years).   Just to be fair.  And we should 
set some of that money taken from the new entrants aside 
for people who used to be, but are no longer, in the pool.
To compensate them for their sacrifices and contributions 
to the success  of the pool.

The Debt Limit

A WSJ op-ed argues that "The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic... Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play." According to the op-ed:

The polls that now find that voters oppose a debt-limit increase will turn on a dime when Americans start learning that they won't get Social Security checks. Republicans will then run like they're fleeing the Pamplona bulls, and chaotic retreats are the ugliest kind. By then they might end up having to vote for a debt-limit increase and a tax increase.

The Journal is correct only in that if the Republicans do not have the courage of their convictions, bluffing will end badly.

In a separate column, Rove argues that the Government has sufficient revenue for debt payments, Social Security benefits, Medicaid and Medicare, active duty military pay, Department of Defense vendors and IRS refunds. In other words, that the political consequences of not raising the limit are bearable. As not raising the debt limit will set a hard cap on Federal spending and give the President, in effect, a line item veto to enforce, why would fiscal conservatives support raising it? The President will be politically constrained in his spending choices -- imagine the blow-back if he continued to pay six figure salaries to political appointees while cutting social security.

While Republicans have no political -- or principled -- interest in a debt limit deal, they would be wise to offer proposals that framed "Spending as a percent of GDP" as the issue. Failing that, they may have difficulty countering the President's intended claim that he "offered" the largest deficit cuts.

Social Science Bubbles

In his latest column, David Brooks acknowledges that 50 years worth of gigantic policies driven by flawed social science has produced disappointing results. He is, however -- like those perpetually convinced that the latest financial bubble is not a bubble at all -- absolutely convinced that the latest social science, this time, can produce effective policies.

At the center of his argument is research by Eldar Shafir of Princeton and Sendhil Mullainathan of Harvard that finds "scarcity produces its own cognitive traits." For example, if you are poor, you are more likely to know the starting taxi fare or make complicated trade-offs involving milk and orange juice. This imposes enormous cognitive demands, crowding out other cognitive function. He doesn't explain what policies follow from this insight, but the most obvious would be those freeing poor people from these difficult choices. He does re-iterate his belief that "we need to design policies around" the knowledge that "we each have multiple selves" that "emerge or don’t emerge" in specific contexts.

It is worth noting that generations of folk lore would contradict any policy conclusions of scarcity research: Those we celebrate as having lifted themselves from poverty, do so, largely, because, not in spite, of their acute -- even obsessive -- attention to the kind of questions Brooks is convinced are obstacles.

Above all, as previously argued, pre-scientific teachers well understood our complex and divided natures. For that reason, they encouraged beliefs -- in particular: virtue and personal responsibility -- that supported our better angels. There is no evidence that social "science" ever has, or will, improve on what it displaced.

Golden Shield

We usually read stories regarding, for example, the Great Firewall of China, with the confidence that our contentious, open society is immune from that sort of control. It is, therefore, un-nerving -- in a Matrix-y way -- when we bump up against an apparently American analogue.

Bill Simmons, explaining Lebron's latest meltdown, writes:

Remember when Wade tore into LeBron with three-plus minutes remaining in Game 3? When he yelled at him for eight solid seconds? When there was genuine anger in his eyes? When he did it right on the court, right in front of the other players, right in front of 20,000 fans and 10 million TV viewers?

The answer is, strangely, "no". 20,000 fans may have seen it, but it was not televised and not to be found on Youtube.

While there are certainly many people who would enjoy that video, its absence doesn't threaten our civilization. But it does raise the question of what else are we missing...

Circumcision

San Franciscans have stirred controversy by putting an anti-circumcision ordinance on the ballot. Adorably named "intactivists" argue that infant boys have a right to keep their foreskins intact.

The debate is not quite much ado about nothing. Circumcision is not, simply, an old tradition or the sign of our covenant. It has a clear symbolic meaning: We are created imperfect. As such, it stands clearly against that contemporary theology that teaches "God makes no mistakes."

The opposition to tradition, in this instance, is also an opposition to science. For example, Russell Crowe's tweets argue "Who are you to correct nature?" and "'human' science has caused too much damage" (they also argue: "Why don't you sew up your @$$?").

In the end, the contemporary assertion is tied to the understanding that we are the best -- or primary -- judge of ourselves. We can easily experience ourselves as "on the right track" -- if you do not then "just love yourself and you're set" -- but we are often not experienced by others in that way. The (hard) scientific and religious traditions command us to confront the world outside our heads.

Israel and The Arab Spring

Drudge headlines: Obama, Cameron compare themselves to Reagan, Thatcher for over-seeing the Arab Spring.

USA Today reports that Israelis are wary of the Arab Spring for good reason:

Tarek Khouly, a coordinator for the April 6th youth movement in Cairo... says "We're not at a situation now where we can confront Israel... Once Egypt is strong... Israel will choose to go away."

Netanyahu, in his adress to Congress, warned that the democratic "hopes could be snuffed out, as they were in Tehran in 1979... [and] Lebanon’s democratic Cedar Revolution.". Ben Stein argues they were a fraud to start with.

The simple truth is this: The Arab world has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-ground their societies in liberty and democracy. Whether -- or to what degree -- they succeed, or whether they condemn themselves to another generation of tyranny, will be a strong function of whether they -- paraphrasing Golda Meir -- love their own more than they hate the other. It is most straightforwardly so in Syria, where Assad would long ago been overthrown if Alawites didn't reasonably fear massacre, but it is equally true in Egypt where both the Army and Muslim Brotherhood will happily manipulate passions to thwart liberty and democracy.

Obama's Audacious AIPAC Speech

The President, in his address to AIPAC, argued that "the march to isolate Israel internationally — and the impulse of the Palestinians to abandon negotiations" has gained "momentum in the absence of a credible peace process". Heading this off demanded he state explicitly the "1967 border" formula. In truth, the current absence of negotiations is largely due to an administration policy which, of all the complex and difficult issues, decided to focus on kitchen renovations in Efrat, strengthening the Palestinian "impulse" to abandon negotiations. More to the point, there are fundamental issues raised if the "march to isolate Israel internationally" is strengthened, not weakened, by Palestinians abandoning negotiations, and hard to see how the presidents policy speaks to those issues.

He then clarified that "'1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps' means... a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." He implied that those who criticized him where of bad faith, or limited English comprehension. In this he misses (willfully?), the point. There is a clear difference -- in framing negotiations -- between stating that the final borders will look something like the 1967 borders adjusted for demographic realities and security needs -- what "everyone knows" and he clarified himself as having meant -- and that the 1967 borders represent the basis for negotiation -- what it easily sounded like he said.

More to the point, this maneuvering is taking place under the shadow of the Palestinian determination to seek statehood at the UN in September. A determination which, itself, the President inspired. It would certainly further "the march to isolate Israel internationally" should it entail recognition of the 1967 borders without reference to demographics or security. Supporters of Israel are right to fear that the President's speech will be easily, predictably, used to further that cause.

Obama's Middle East Speech

In his latest speech, the President layed out his view of the middle east negotiations.

Upon any reflection, his layout is as coherent as the sound of one hand clapping. Or rather, he manages to be on two sides of the fence at once. On one hand, he grants Israel military presence in the Jordan River valley ("Israel must be able defend itself - by itself - against any threat"), one the other hand he precludes it ("The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps"). On one hand, he closes off any right of return of Palestinians to Israel ("Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people"), on the other hand he leaves it open ("two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees"). Ultimately, he asserts, the only thing "America and the international community can do is state [this all] frankly."

Netanyahu's response appears childishly imperious. A savvier diplomatic response would be to accentuate the hand that defended Israel's position, and ignore the other hand. On the other hand, Netanyahu's response reflects the seriousness of the stakes -- millions of lives in balance -- where-as Obama's empty speech reflects less world-concerned foreign policy, and more re-election concerned, domestic political posturing.

The Female Rabbinate

This blog has previously taken the position that opposition to an egalitarian Orthodox Rabbinate is foolish.  Rationally, it certainly seems the case: It is hard to see the direct, Halachic, arguments against as being, today, compelling. 

I was enthusiastic, then, when my congregation welcomed a “congregational intern”, who while not titular-ly on the rabbinic staff serves, for-all-intents-and-purposes, a rabbinic function. 

Unfortunately – and, given her relatively mainstream background and the synagogue's prominence, surprisingly – in each the three speeches I have heard her present, she made a distinct point of delivering apiquorsic lessons, that – for good reason – one would never hear from the male Rabbinic staff.

One wonders, when she was selected, was there no more orthodox option available? 

In the end, perhaps it is only realistic to expect that prospective Rabbanits will naturally/largely seek to fundamentally subvert, or overcome, and not uphold or conserve.  Perhaps opponents of an egalitarian Orthodox Rabbinate are, almost despite themselves, correct in their view of the stakes.  Above all, perhaps wise promoters of an egalitarian Rabbinate ought more closely follow Branch Rickey .