Thoughts on Stimulus

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has a piece in the Washington Post this morning entitled, Why I Support the Stimulus. Beside the rather boring title, I think -- in general -- I agree. There has been much machination about how the Obama administration failed to play this properly, but I think that's wrong... both in function and form.

Functionally, this is a stimulus bill (though, I prefer the term recovery bill, not sure why that language isn't used more frequently) whose primary purpose is to get the economy moving through a large scale injection of government spending. Period, full stop. It is not a green energy bill, or a universal health care bill, or an education reform bill. Those partisans who saw the stimulus as an opportunity to attach their personal pet project, regardless of how meretricious the idea might be, are guilty of the same sin as when the Republicans used September 11th to push through only tangentially related policy objectives through a hurried congressional approval process.

Specter, a moderate Republican, has joined with other Senate moderates to trim many of these programs. The folks over at Think Progress' Wonk Room would have you believe the sky is falling and that these Senators oppose the programs they are either eliminating or reducing. But there is little evidence of that, and Specter admits that many of the programs being cut are "worthy in themselves." But his point is that we have an appropriations process for this sort of thing, and with that process comes deliberation, transparency, and accountability. Just as anti-war activists were angered by the Bush Administration's refusal to fund the Iraq War through the normal appropriations in an effort to hide the real cost, so too should we be angry when any other administration tries to go through the back door.

Which brings us to form. This isn't a game! Do you hear me Nate Silver. Obama did not run -- and he did not win -- on the argument that he was going to get his way every time. He was elected on the premise that government is broken because we treat it like a game. There is this great story, which I can't seem to find online now, that I first heard reported on the Daily Show. Leading up to the 2006 midterm elections, where the polls suggested the Democrats where going to seize power in the House (the Senate was still too close to call), a White House official was asked how Bush was going to work together with the new Democratic Committee Chairs. The official responded with a glib response about how, "we are playing this game to win it," implying the Administration wasn't going to entertain the idea that the Republicans would lose their majority. Then, in a moment of absolute political honesty, a reporter gave a follow up... "It isn't a game. The American people want to know how you are going to govern."

And the dude was absolutely right. I've been in politics, I know it's easy to treat the whole thing like a game, with pieces you move around the board and objectives achieved. But this is real life, it has real consequences, and developing strategies based on the philosophy that this is a game, and not governing, is exactly what Obama ran against. He is governing, best he knows how, and helping forge a stimulus bill he believes will get America moving again. The rest of the Congress, they are governing too, in their own way and with their own priorities. But we shouldn't treat this as a game, and we shouldn't say anyone played anything right or wrong. It's not about winning and losing, it's about the our lives.

A Bad Day for American Health Care Reform?

Today Sen. Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota, asked President Obama to withdraw his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. I will admit that when Daschle was first nominated, I was very excited. I thought, here was a man who knows the Senate better than most, is a passionate advocate for change in health care, and may be the one guy who can shepherd universal health care through the Congress. I honestly don't know how he would perform as an administrator, but you can solve that with a good Deputy Secretary. But this guy, this guy was going to make the politics happen.

However, I cannot agree with Sen. Kerry's comment following today's announcement.

I wish Tom Daschle had not decided to withdraw his nomination... While Tom’s decision is a reminder of his loyalty to President Obama and his determination not to be a distraction, this was no ordinary appointment and today is not a good day for the cause of health care reform.

With all due respect to Sen. Kerry, today is not the bad day for the cause of health care reform. The bad day was when Sen. Daschle, a man who served on the Finance Committee of the United State Senate (they write the tax code), failed in his basic obligation to pay his taxes. This isn't the sort of difficult to understand tax situation, like with Sec. Geithner, this is an obvious case of either gross negligence or willful evasion.

If you had asked me before last year's tax season, I might have had a different feeling. Last year I fretted extensively about my taxes because so much of my income was as an independent contractor. As I had failed to make quarterly installments, I had a significant tax burden to pay... and I had to save and scrimp for months to come up with the money by April 15. I didn't have to do that -- a lot of what I earned never got reported as 1099 income -- but I reported it anyway because the law is clear. The law was equally clear for Sen. Daschle, as it is for rest American upper class who seems to be engaging in massive and widespread tax fraud. I wonder, how many people making over a million dollars annually in this country would pass through this kind of scrutiny? It sort of make sense, if you think about it... try and skim off as much off your taxes as you can and bet that if you do get caught, you'll get the mess cleared up through lawyers. It's a win-win... unless you are the average tax payer who can't afford tax lawyers and whose only real option is to pay to the best of their ability and pray they aren't audited.

Yes, I too wish Sen. Daschle could have served as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, but I wish even more that he had shown a basic level of respect to his fellow citizens and the law and shouldered his share of the burden, instead of trying to get away with tax evasion until suddenly it became a political issue.

It's just like John Stewart said on the Daily Show.... "pay your f*cking taxes."

Frost/Nixon

This afternoon Sarah and I took in a matinée at the local two screen cineplex, finally seeing Frost/Nixon. If you are a fan of political biographies, I highly recommend it. The movie centers around a series of interviews between David Frost, a British talk show personality, and Richard M. Nixon, the 37th President of the United States.

Two things really struck me about the movie...

First, what would it take for a modern day politician to agree to a series of interviews on such a broad range of subjects with no editorial control? Where are the interviews with Roland Regan, George H. W. Bush, or Bill Clinton? Sure, they have memoirs -- tightly controller spin jobs designed to white-wash the record for the sake of legacy -- but where is the inquisitor? Who forces our political leaders to see beyond their own self-image and face the facts of their administration? Say what you will about Richard Nixon, but it took guts to agree to that interview, and it showed a nature of his character you don't often see.

Second, I think my young age takes me out of the target demo for this movie. Viewers are supposed to be rooting against Nixon, or at least rooting for his eventual admission... which is not to saw I wasn't. But I found I was doing it more out of a desire for a NASCAR crash than for some sort of political reckoning. Perhaps if I were of the Watergate generation, I would feel an attachment... but Nixon was so long ago for me that the movie could have just as easily been about Ulysses S. Grant. Which begs the question: what will future generations think of our rage towards the Bush Administration?

Reflections on the new Administration

As I watch the Obamas dance in, what I am told, is their fifth ball of the evening, I can't help but pen some thoughts on the new Administration and what it means to me. CNN reports a crowd of 2.2 million were on hand to see the speech in person and there were predictions that the TV viewership would surpass any other TV event in history. Polling indicates that President Obama enjoys higher approval ratings than any incoming President. Globally... well, all I can is my Aunt -- my Aunt who lives in Nicaragua and has more or less dedicated her life to fighting U.S. policy in Latin America -- is genuinely proud of her country's President, and may even, one day, call him her President.

Obama is now at the Western Ball, which includes not only my home state of Washington, but my adopted state of California. Seems like a good time to think about what this all means for me. I already wrote a few words about transitioning from the Loyal Opposition to the Party in Power. But there are other personal implications. For example, this is the very first time I have voted for a winning presidential candidate. It's also the first time I gave any serious money to a candidate... like, got fancy high donor letters thanking me sort of serious. It's the first time I feel like I contributed, both morally and materially, to a campaign that mattered.

It's also a great honor to know people who are preparing to join the White House staff. For the first time my generation is in a position to contribute in a very direct way to our nation. They may not be the most high level jobs ever, but they are in the halls of power and they begin the process of training to, one day, run the nation. My hat is off to them, for their sacrifice (those jobs don't pay well, or offer much in the way of rest and relaxation) and for accepting the heavy burden that comes with being the future. I hope some day I can join them.

To the Administration as a whole, I have but a few words. I told one of my friends who is starting a new White House job that they will have the unique opportunity to make the world a better place, and not just in the metaphorical sense... they could actually go into the office in the morning, and thanks to their work, come out that evening the world would actually be a better place. After saying it, I realized I had transfered my unrealistic expectations of Obama onto his team... which I suppose is only natural, if a tad unfair.

My words then, are this... it's okay to fail in meeting our soaring expectations. But it is not okay to fail alone. The government of America is powerful and can do great things, but the people of America are more powerful yet and we are your greatest resource. If you try to carry the burden alone, and fail, you will not only have squandered an opportunity, you will have turned against the ideals of the campaign you work for. Have enough humility to understand your limitations and seek the wisdom of your fellow countrymen as you seek to fulfill our greatest destiny.

With that I say, good luck America. We've done a great thing today but much remains to be done. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

No Longer the Loyal Opposition

Obama won... yay! But wait, wasn't that like two weeks ago? Why am I just posting this now? Well, in part because I had wanted to wait until we had a solid electoral count against which I could compare my predictions, and silly Missouri is too close to call and the Obama campaign won't just concede it, so folks who call things things are unwilling to put their ass on the line. Which is fine, except there are other things I want to write about, but not before my loyal opposition piece I've been writing in my head the past two weeks. So, here we are...

First, predictions. Let us first assume that Obama will not win Missouri, because the vote count is heading that way and it hasn't changed since election night. Which gives McCain 173 electoral votes and Obama a whopping 365. I had predicted a 355/183 split, so I was only off by 10 votes... also known as Indiana. Silly Lake County broke more for Obama then I had expected. It was actually very surreal, after Ohio was called for Obama and the race was essentially over, that I started rooting for McCain in Indiana, because that was the one state that my prediction was heading the wrong direction. But, I suppose if I have to be wrong on a state, I prefer to be wrong in the way that gets more votes for my guy. Also, bonus points for having called the electoral vote coming out of Omaha, Nebraska for Obama.

Next, a little ethnographic film about that fateful moment when the polls on the west coast closed and the election was called.

Yes, that's me in the white shirt and the American Flag tie. Exact same outfit as 2004. I think we have the start of a good little tradition.

And now, a special comment. I realized the day after the election that my relationship with my government had radically changed. Since my political inception, there has either been a Republican President or a Republican Congress... and for five years we had both! (And one crazy year we had a Republican President and a Republican House with a Democratic Senate.) This is the first time when my party is truly, and unapologetically in power.

That really changes how you relate to what's going on in Washington. Until now, if something bad happened it was all too easy to say, yup, that's bad... silly Republicans. It also meant that ideals I supported were generally in opposition to the majority ideals. In such instances you take up the mantle of the loyal opposition. You may object to the outcome, but as a loyal American you recognize the political process for what it is. Obama's election and growth of Democratic majorities in the House and Senate change everything.

Now it's not enough to just say, "silly Republicans", because they aren't the ones doing the bad things. It's going to be us. And don't give me the line about the Senate filibuster... by the time Alaska and Minnesota are resolved, I fully expect a 59 vote majority in the Senate. Even if we fail to pickup the runoff in GA, as I expect will be the case, it should be trivial to pick up a single republican vote on all manner of issues, assuming we have unity among the caucus.

And that's the whole issue. Now that the Democrats are in charge, will be have unity? I'm not talking about the sort of unity where we all go jump off a bridge together, but the kind of unity where members vote as a governing coalition for the betterment of America, not just their own personal political prospects. What of us rank and file Democrats? Are we going to become the ditto heads of the Democratic party, walking around as if our newly elected leaders can do no wrong? Maybe we'll swing the other way, and demonstrate that liberals really are never satisfied.

I honestly don't know what happens next. I'm excited for change and I'm excited to have a voice that matters. But there's a lot of scary stuff out there, and it will take more than just a really smart president (though that's certainly a prerequisite). I don't doubt Obama will rise to the task... but will we?

Predictions: 37 Hours Out

Just spent some time on the Washington Post "Pick Your President" tool and put together my final predictions for tomorrow. Final tally: 354 for Obama / 184 for McCain.

<p><strong>><a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/">2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election.</p>

Should be a fun night of watching the results come in.

These Voters

During the end of the Democratic Primary, as Obama was narrowly loosing states to Hillary Clinton after a series of victories that put him so far in the lead it was virtually impossible for Clinton to catch up, the talking heads had a lot of fun declaring Obama was having difficulties with these voters. These voters were generally poor working white voters in West Virgina, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, but sometimes these voters referred to women, seemingly, in general. The "proof" behind these assertions was that Clinton had done better in those demographics, often by as much as 10 whole points! And so the conventional wisdom went that someone who supported Clinton must not like Obama... and thus electoral doom awaited him come the general election.

Here we are, less than a month away from November 4th, and Obama is leading nearly every contested state and in every demographic--except racists and the deeply conservative--and is on his way to an electoral landslide of 340+. Obviously all these voters didn't end up having as many reservations about Obama as original prognosticated. Could it have been these voters just generally liked Clinton more, but in a race between Obama and McCain there really is no contest? Did anyone actually expect those traditional democratic voters to switch party? Honestly?

What strikes me is that for all the punditry's willingness to advise the Obama campaign about these voters, you don't ever hear similar advice directed at the McCain campaign? Where are the commentators mentioning that Obama has a mortal lock on voters with a college education and that McCain just isn't connecting with smart people? Or that Obama has a huge lead among those worried about the economy, implying McCain doesn't resonate with working people? How about his inability to persuade those who live by major bodies of water? (McCain's message just isn't hitting home with people who understand what it means to be really wet!) Why isn't anyone being so blatantly condescending to McCain as was so in vogue with Obama just three months ago?

Truer Words Never Spoken

I read a lot of Washington Post stories, in particular their editorials, which is really the only way to get analysis these days since reporters are so afraid of being called biased they can't just come out and say "so and so is telling a lie". Today I read the first editorial I've seen of one Anne Applebaum, who is a native Washingtonian (not of the state variety) talking about the supposed "Washington" that we hear politicians claiming to represent middle America are always railing against. She's got an all-star list of politicians who (a) run Washington and (b) are from middle American... and yet, Washington still seems to be this thing that middle America hates. She brings her editorial to a finish with the following paragraph that every one should read.

Washington, however stuffy it may once have been, is no longer in need of "a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street." Washington is in need of expertise, management experience, long-term thinking and more political courage -- from wherever in the country it happens to come. More to the point, Washington needs people who think like national politicians and not like spokesmen for the local business executives who fill their reelection coffers and the local party hacks who plan their campaigns. Let's be frank: The "bailout" bill was passed last week not because members of Congress decided it would work but because it was stuffed with the pork, perks and tax breaks without which no piece of legislation, however important to the nation as a whole, can now pass. Maybe it's unfair to call that "small-town" thinking, but it sure is small-minded. And small-mindedness, not snobbery, is the dominant mind-set of 21st-century Washington.

I wish I could write like that.

Marked-to-Market

While I wait for the Vice Presidential Debacle--I mean, Debate--to start, I figured I'd drop a quick post about Marked-to-Market, for those trying to make heads or tails of the bailout business up on the Hill this week. Let me start by saying I have not made up my mind about the bailout, and one of the big advantages about not being being a member of Congress is that I'm not required to. I once heard a Congressional Chief of Staff observe that Congress people are paid to have incredibly well informed opinions. And it's true, with a staff of at least six people and all the time in the world to think about issues, I should expect their opinions to be infinitely more informed than my own... not that this makes them right.

Anyway, as everyone knows, the House Republicans killed the bailout bill on Monday saying that government intervention into the market is (a) always bad and (b) unneeded. I don't buy (a), and that certainly makes me wonder about (b), but they seemed so darn certain... and seeing as how these are the people that Wall Street Fat Cats got elected for their "pro-growth" policies and thus should be first in line to give money to their corporate overlords, I wanted to know more about (b) before I dismissed it out of hand.

Members of the Republican Study Committee argue there are a set of non-interventionist options available to unfreeze the currently frozen credit markets. Besides ever popular policies like more tax cuts, their chief proposal is to abolish the Securities Exchange Commission's Marked-to-Market rule. Here's the rule in jist form:

When reporting assets, as all publicly traded companies do, assets must be valued at what they would fetch on the open market

Which is to say, if I have 10 head of cattle which I could sell today for $1000, then I report $1000 worth of cattle as my assets. It also means that even if I believe the cattle will be worth $10,000 in two months time, I cannot state that today... because it's not the current fair market value.

The RSC argues that the Marked-to-Market policy is what has frozen the credit markets because there are no buyers, of any kind, for the toxic securities backed by foreclosed mortgages that started this mess. As a result, financial institutions holding these assets must report them as being worth ZERO dollars. Which, if you think about it, is absurd. Even if the mortgages are in foreclosure, there is a house underneath all that paperwork that is worth something. It may not be worth what it was originally sold for, but it's sure worth more than zero. However, because the SEC requires assets be marked to the current market value, and no one is buying the securities, that's exactly how it is valued.

So, the RSC has a point... maybe if we eliminated the Marked-to-Market rule, the banks could post healthier looking balance sheets, with higher capitalization, and things could start getting better. It just might work... but lest we forget, there was a reason the Marked-to-Market rule exists at all. If estimating the value of something based on some potential future sounds familiar, that's good--means you are paying attention--because that is what Enron did. They valued their various energy trading deals based on a projected value of assets that didn't exist. As a result, Enron looked great on paper, but in reality, it had nothing.

The question then for our well informed Congress people is this... how do you allow holders of these toxic securities to estimate their true value while avoiding Enron type behavior?

Blood Money

The past couple of weeks have been a real eye-opener for ardent believers in the infallibility of market investment. It's not that stocks of actual companies are in trouble, it's that the so called financial sector appears to be in the state of some sort of meltdown. I'm no economist, and I don't follow the market like I follow other things, but I certainly can't say I'm surprised at the situation. For me this goes back to human nature and the basic concepts on which capitalism is based.

Capitalism, as opposed to say, socialism, seems based on the notion that humans are self-interest maximizers. Given the option we will always do what's in our own best interest. Which is a really positive way of saying we are all selfish bastards. In my limited travel of the world, I think that's fairly accurate. But capitalism had the brilliant idea of saying that so long as everyone is acting in their own self-interest, the outcome will be beneficial for everyone. Again, put more brutally by famed economist John Maynard Keynes, "[c]apitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men, will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."

Underlying all of the market economy is the notion of risk, and in it's purist form, the individual who takes on the most risk has the greatest potential for profit. I borrow $50,000 to start a business, I've now taken a risk, but if it pays off I'll be much better for it. Of course, if it fails, I'm out $50K. This concept supposedly scales all the way up to the Fortune 500 companies who routinely borrow billions of dollars in the name of investment. At that high level of play it's called leveraging. A company may have $5 billion in fixed assets, but only 10 million excess cash with which to invest. But, it can borrow against those fixed assets and leverage the company millions more. As long as the return on investment is higher than the interest rate on the loan, then it's a profitable deal for the company.

What the past few weeks have demonstrated rather clearly is that the above concept of risk is simply not operative. When a bank buys securities backed by junk mortgages, on the hope that the risk will pay off, the bank is not the the only actor taking on risk, they are just the only one doing so voluntarily. Turns out that the entire financial system takes on risk, from the lowest bank depositor, up to the federal government, all the way back down to the lowest taxpayer.

The result is that risk takers are not, in fact, risk takers... they are risk distributors, with the added bonus that all of the benefits of the risk flow to just to them, while the negative fall out will be distributed. This creates a perverse incentive for risk takers to assume more risk than the profit margins would suggest, because the full weight of the risk is not theirs to shoulder. Suddenly the idea of buying complex securities with shoddy accounting backed by junk mortgages doesn't sound so bad. Suddenly the idea of over-leveraging your company begins to make market sense. Suddenly approving mortgages to risky borrowers in order to cash in on the soaring housing market is the best way to meet quarterly earning projections. The next thing you know we've got a system stuffed full of so much unwise risk that it simply cannot hold under its own weight... and that brings us to today.

I entitled this post Blood Money not in reference to the funds these risk takers extract from us as depositors, pensioners, and tax payers, but rather as a proposal for the reverse. We often hear pure market advocates say taxes on the rich--though, generally in this context they are referred to as "risk takers"--should be cut to encourage investment. The thought goes that these rich folks won't be sufficiently self-interested if they know the government is going to tax their income. I've never really been convinced by this argument, seeing as how if I have the opportunity to make $100, and in one universe the government is going to take $40 and in the other the government is going to take $45, I will still go for the $100, because in both universes the residual earnings is still greater than zero. The only situation where I wouldn't act is one where the risk of failing is so great that the $5 profit margin is actually determinative. But I digress :)

The point is that lowering taxes on the highest tax bracket has always been justified because these folks are the so called wealth creators, through their clever risk taking strategies, and that if we tax them, we will destroy their ingenuity. But now we find ourselves in a situation where the rich are asking for a $700 billion bailout, financed by taxes, because they assumed too much risk... and we, as tax payers, are probably going to give them an amount in that neighborhood because the risk takers figured out a away to ensure that we already bear the risk, even though we were never in line for any of the profits.

Students of history will note a bit of a cycle here... whether with the Savings & Loan bailout, or the auto industry bailout, risk takers are always figuring out ways to trap us regular Joes with the risk, while pocketing the profits during good times. My suggestion then, is that it's time for us to claim our share of the profits. Here are a few ideas just off the top of my head: we could go back to treating profits from investment just like normal income, ending the preferential tax treatment of those whose entire earnings come from their own existing wealth; we could enact windfall taxes on industry in boom cycles (I'm looking at you, oil sector) which has the added bonus of cooling off those boom industries so they don't overextend and then crash out, leaving us holding the bag; we could even revisit the assumed knowledge that lower taxes on the high income bracket somehow benefits us all. That way, when times are good and the risk takers are rolling in the dough, so are we... and when times are tough and the risk takers come groveling for a bailout, there won't have to be a discussion about Wall Street vs. Main Street, because we will have the money on hand and know that by helping the risk takers out today, we will be getting all that money back from them tomorrow.

Pushing Algebra

Today I was going to write about market stabilization, moral hazard, and top bracket taxation... or maybe I was finally going to say something about Sarah Palin... or maybe just a quick post about Nginx to follow up on my much maligned posting from some months ago. But all of that is going to have to take a back seat because today's Washington Post has brought to my attention a new crises in American schools... the rush to teach algebra.

First, a bit about my experience with math. I was privately schooled through seventh grade, where I excelled in math... and a good thing to, because I was awful at spelling at the time... for that matter, I still am awful at spelling. When I transfered to public school in 8th grade I was placed in a remedial math class, which is to say it was behind what was traditionally taught to 8th graders and even more behind what was taught in the advanced 8th grade math class. After a few weeks of acing every test and answering every question in class, I was given an aptitude test where I did well enough to advance not just to the traditional class, not just to the advanced 8th grade class, but all the way to the advanced 9th grade class... the highest level of math offered at my junior high. (I often wonder why this test was not administered before school even started...)

I chose to go into the advance 8th grade class (quit frankly, I was having enough social integration issues as it was, the last thing I needed to do was take a math class with a bunch of folks a grade above me). This began my journey through public school math. As I said, I was good at math, and got either As or high Bs in Algebra I and Geometry (which I eventually became a 9th grader). I also did quite well in Algebra II / Trigonometry in 10th grade. But by 11th grade the ranks of advanced math were getting pretty thin. We still had enough students to support two full classes of advanced math, but that was down from four full classes at the junior high level. 11th grade advanced math, known as Pre-Calculus, changed everything. This class was extraordinarily challenging. In the one class I can truthfully say I always did my homework and always studied for tests, I also received the only C in my entire high school career. The number of people competing for valedictorian dropped to one, and the eventual saluditorian would only be eligible because she was not even at Woodinville High School in 11th grade to have her GPA washed up against the rocks like the rest of us. In 12th grade I excelled once again, getting straight As through Calculus and doing very well on the practice AP tests (though I never actually took them).

The point of retelling this story is that I was good at math, one of the best in my class of 400 or so students, and yet even I struggled through the Algebra to Calculus track that one begins by taking Algebra in 8th grade. Students who took Algebra in 9th grade, which was the norm at my school, had a much easier time and a more gradual progression into advanced mathematics. So I'm left wondering why, in God's name, are we pushing algebra on every 8th grade student? Is this some new arbitrary standard we have decided to push because it sounds catchy? Has anyone figured out what we are going to do with all of these students when they get to Calculus, having left a trail of Cs behind them? I'm all for having a system that pushes students to excel, but math is a foundation based learning experience, and advanced math in junior high and high school requires
mastery of advanced math in elementary, not happy wishes and talk of the "new civil right."

Seriously folks, America has always resisted tracks as anathema to our egalitarian sense of education, and I generally agree. But the response shouldn't be an arbitrary decision that this particular level of math is right for everyone just because it makes for good headlines.

Netroots Nation 2008: The Good Side

I'm still drafting a post about the Bad Side of Netroots Nation--and trust me, there's lots to say--but I wanted to post about a very positive experience I just had, and it's name is Lawrence Lessig. Regular readers already know about my love affair with Prof. Lessig, and I told my company (who paid to send me here) that I was attending for the sole purpose of declaring my undying love to the professor. I just left his keynote speech and it was so good that I plumb forgot to prostrate myself before the entire liberal blogger community. But that's okay, because his speech was just damn good. I'm hoping he will post the slides and audio, but (a) he probably won't for months and, (b) you probably won't take the time to watch it. But that's okay, because I'm going to summarize his point, which is both simple and powerful.

He argues that the recent 9% job performance rating for Congress is a product of trust, or a lack thereof. Which stands in contrast to the claim that the rating is a product of policy outcomes. If you had asked me yesterday why Congress rating is so low, I would have pointed to their failure to end the Iraq War. But that answer never really seemed to be complete to me. Every vote has winners and losers, and there is no way that Congress is voting such that 91% of the entire country is losing. There's something more fundamental than policy outcome going on here, and whatever it is, it crosses the the isle to include an ultra-super-majority of the American population. Trust, it seems to me, fills in the gap. I buy the idea that 91% of the American people simply don't trust the product coming out of Congress, regardless of which side they fall on a particular issue.

Which isn't to say that Congress deserved our trust back when the rating was higher... more likely, we simply didn't have the needed information to "build" our lack of trust. But with the advent of blogging and increased political access of all stripes, it's becoming all too painfully obvious.

What I found most compelling about Lessig's presentation about trust was not that members of Congress are undeserving of our trust. In fact, he went so far as to say that this decade's Congress is far more deserving of our trust than any Congress before... not that this Congress is good, but that the past was so bad. What he pointed out is that there is culture in Washington, an accepted culture, whose byproduct is untrustworthiness. As an example he pointed to the bankruptcy bill, which in the late 90s First Lady Hillary Clinton opposed... but then in 2004 Senator Hillary Clinton supported. Clinton received significant donations from credit card companies during that time, leading to the claim that her vote was bought. She says the money isn't responsible for her changed position, and as Lessig said, "I believe her." The problem, he says, is that it creates the appearance of being bought and lessens trustworthiness. Hence the 9%.

He went on to pitch a new organization, change-congress.org, which has become his new passion, having put his free-culture crusade on hold. Which is not to say the free-culture fight isn't important, or that so many other issues aren't important. In fact, he's willing to say all these other issues are more important than the issue of trustworthiness. What makes trustworthiness worth his time, and I agree everyone's time, is not that it's the most important problem, but that it's the first problem. It is a pipeline problem that must be overcome before anything else can be really solved.

So, to Prof. Lessig, I was originally very disappointed when I heard you were leaving the free-culture fight, but now that I've heard your argument and see your direction, I applaud your decision, and I'm excited to start working on this, the first problem.

Political Roundup

Lots of stuff in the news recently that I wanted to offer my two cents on in the interest of totally destroying my political credibility when I seek political office in 20 years.

2nd Amendment Ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller

I will come right out and say it that the Court got this right. The traditional theory to explain gun control in light of the 2nd Amendment is that the right is a collective right given form through state militias (or what we might call today, the State Guard). I've been searching for words to help describe why I feel this just didn't cut it for me, because it runs counter to the usual liberal song and dance that, in general, I subscribe to. Thankfully, I found those words today in an OpEd by Eugene Robinson.

I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion.

Makes you think... what if the 4th Amendment (restrictions against unlawful search and seizure) had been interpreted as a collective right... or Freedom of Speech? I may not agree with the 2nd Amendment, but it's on the books and it deserves the same constitutional force as all the other amendments.

Obama Campaign Pledges

There are three at issue... a commitment to stay in the Public Campaign Finance program, a commitment to engage in a different kind of politics vis-a-vis the general election, and a commitment to filibuster any FISA amendments that included retroactive immunity for telcoms. I give a thumbs up to getting out of public financing. Obama is raising tons of money across the spectrum of donors and he should continue to do so. The Republicans have fought dirty in the past and I see no reason to believe 2008 will be any different. I give a thumbs down to the Obama campaign's refusal to engage in Town Hall meetings with John McCain. I don't care if they are McCain's best format... they are formats where you have actual discussion and are tons better than traditional debates found in previous Presidential elections. And as for FISA... well, I suppose that's politics and everyone can changes their mind sometimes, which brings us to...

Telecommunications Immunity in FISA

I've thought long and hard about this since it became apparent that immunity for the telecommunication company's involvement in the Bush Administration surveillance program was all but a sure thing. For a long time, I was really upset. I even watched most of Sen. Dodd's floor speech where he railed against the decent from the Rule of Law into the Rule of Man. In theory, I agree... but in politics, I think theory must give way to the practical.

So I asked myself to try a little thought experiment... what would I do if I was an executive of a major telecommunications company? Lets assume I'm your standard executive whose primary concern is the financial well-being of my company, it's shortly after September 11th and representatives of the President of the United States shows up in my office saying "for the good of the country, we need your help." I, of course, ask the question any good executive worried about the financial well-being of my company would ask, "what are the legal implications?" to which the representatives say, "the President has authorized this under his Article II powers to defend the country as Commander & Chief." What, realistically, is the chance that my follow up is going to be, "you know, I think we should go to Congress and get explicit approval" or "how about we draft up a brief and ask the Courts to weigh in?" No, I think the most realistic response is going to be, "if you provide my company with a legal document from the President authorizing this activity, then we will provide assistance." To do otherwise is to tempt the wrath of the President and the ire of the American people just after the largest terrorist attack in the country's history.

Now, of course, I don't agree with the President or his advisers. The program itself goes too far and the President lacks the authority to authorize the violation of the law. But there are specifically delineated tools at the disposal of the Congress and the American people to restrain, and if necessary remove, the President for such violations of the law. The telcoms, in my view, are less-than-innocent bystanders in this case. Did they break the law? Probably, yes. Did they do so under what amounts to duress under Presidential order? Seems like, yes. Is the one who we should be going after sitting in the Oval Office? Absolutely, yes. Which is why the immunity provision in the FISA amendments is actually a sort of poetic justice. Every time one of the telcoms gets a suit against them dropped, they must produce documented proof, in open court, that the President specifically authorized the activity in question... every time the public will hear, the President told us to break the law. Whether or not that leads to any legal ramifications for the suits against the government, I'm unsure. But I think in the political/historical context, it will mean a lot to have the world hear, over and over again, that the Rule of Law was put aside because the President said so.

So now we will turn to the proper tools, whether that is individual suits against the government or political actions by the Congress, is up to those who wield those tools. But I think these sorts of approaches go after the true villains of the piece and are preferred over attacking the middlemen.

On Citzenship, the 14th Amendment, and Political Discourse

Unless you live in a some sort of political cave, by now you know the United States Supreme Court ruled that the denial of Habeas Corpus to detainees held in Guantanamo Bay by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unconstitutional. It was a 5-4 split decision with the dissenters saying some very nasty things that makes one think they were not talking to the legal world at large, but rather trading in fear mongering so often employed by those convinced of the "Islamofascist" threat. However, it is not my intent to quibble with either side of the decision... I think it's pretty clear I support the majority's approach here. No, my problem is with the political discourse that has emerged since the decisions announcement.

Republicans in Congress, in particular Senators who have enough personal clout to actually matter, have declared they will do whatever it takes to undo this "harmful" decision. John McCain and Lindsay Graham have both spoken of legislative efforts to narrow the scope of the decision. This, in of itself, is fine. In fact, it's what is supposed to happen. The political branches make a law, the Court review the law with facts, rules whether it passes Constitutional muster, and if it doesn't, the political branches go and give it another try. The problem is when these Senators craft their words as combative... that they will fight for the little guy to see justice done in the face of an evil, overbearing Supreme Court. It makes it sound as if the Senators are white knights out to rectify deep wrongs inflicted upon the helpless, regardless of the consequences. Passing over the obvious fact that it is the Courts, not the Congress, that is trying to grant some small level of humanity to the helpless, this sort of dialog only serves to tarnish the view of the Court in the public eye. The long term consequences of that tarnishing is no worse that the presidential reputation destroying effects of the last eight years of the Bush Administration. The Courts are our courts, and when we tear them down, we do ourselves no service.

This, however, is just a minor quibble... my real objection is to the language used to vilify not the Court itself, but the decision they rendered. Here is a typical example from John McCain, "[the detainees] are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens." This is a true statement. The detainees are not citizens, and ergo do not have the rights of citizenship. So what?

Implicit in Sen. McCain's language is that the rights granted by the Constitution are to be enjoyed by citizens, and citizens alone. Three interesting observations emerge from the language.

First, a simple word frequency analysis (a common tool of political scientist) of the United States Constitution reveals that the drafters and subsequent amenders were not very interested in the concept of citizenship beyond the right to vote. The term appears in the Constitution (including amendments) a grand total of of nine times. Five instances are in relation to the federal and state privileges and immunities clauses (more on that in a moment) and the other four times relate to voting rights or apportionment of representatives.

Second, the Constitution is not a positive rights document. Meaning the rights are not granted to citizens... the First Amendment does not say "you have the right to say whatever", it says (paraphrasing) "the government does not have the right to stop you from saying whatever." Our Constitution is a negative rights document, by which power is taken away from the government, not granted to the people. You can read through nearly every clause and you'll find they are all phrased as "the government can or cannot do X". So going back to the first point, when we talk about "privileges and immunities", there really aren't any constitutional privileges or immunities beyond the right to vote, most are defined by statute.

So, let's take a look at the language of the Constitution that relates to Habeas Corpus:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

And here we find yet another negative right... "shall not be suspended." The clause is found in Section 8 of Article I, which is a big list of the things Congress is forbidden from doing. In other words, Congress may not suspend Habeas Corpus, except under specific circumstances (which the court, in other cases stemming from the Civil War, has made clear cannot be a case-by-case basis... either the writ is entirely suspended for everyone, or it is not). Note there is no mention of citizenship, simply that the Congress may not suspend. I admit I'm glossing over some interesting bits of Federal Con Law here... like could the Congress abolish the writ altogether forever? Many suggest that the Congress could do that, but that's different from denying the writ to just a subset of the population.

Finally, conservatives have been increasingly pushing this notion of citizenship. It is part of the dialog surrounding immigration rights and so called "illegals." The concept of citizenship infers a right to be here, and all others walk a fine line... heaven help you if you upset us, or we will deport you in a flash. The next step in that project seems to be to redefine the what it means to be a citizen. As I already demonstrated, the Constitution is primarily concerned with the right to vote... but now we see state legislation stripping illegal immigrants of their right to access social benefits, deny access to state colleges, even attempts to discriminate against their children. Some have gone so far as to propose altering the Constitution such that being born in the United States is not enough to establish citizenship.

So far these efforts are targeted at those who come to the States illegally... but it seems only a matter of time before the citizenship discourse gets to the point where we turn a suspicious eye to the legal immigrants who are not citizens. What then? Will John McCain declare that the First Amendment only applies to citizens?

Voters' Intent Vindicated

Time for a political posting, boys and girls... I actually have a second political post in the works, but I'm still waiting for all the facts to trickle in on that one.

Today I was excited to read in the Seattle Times that Washington State's top-two primary system is going to produce as many as a dozen single-party races in the general election. Huzzah! This is great news for many districts who would generally face a very boring general election. First, here's a little history.

• Washington used to be the home of the Blanket Primary where voters could vote for whichever candidate they wanted in each race regardless of party alignment... so, they could vote in the Democratic Primary for governor, while voting in the Republican Primary for their local legislative races. Everyone was happy.
• In the late 90s (I think), California adopts a similar system, which is then challenged in court by the state parties. The suit goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled the Blanket Primary is a violation of the 1st Amendment Right of association... in this case, the Party's right of association.
• Washington State parties, realizing an opportunity to gain more control over their own nomination process, launch a similar lawsuit, which inevitably leads to the invalidation of Washington's long practiced Blanked Primary.
• In 2004 Washington State voters adopt I-872, an initiative that institutes a "top-two" primary, where the top two vote getters in an essentially non-partisan primary advance to the general election... meaning in liberal Seattle, two Democrats could appear on the general election ballot, and in conservative Eastern Washington, two Republicans could appear on the general election ballot.
• Washington State parties again sue, and win, in Federal District and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, blocking the rules from going into effect.
• The U.S. Supreme Court overturns the lower court's ruling, reinstating the top-two system... this is something I had totally missed, as I guess I'm not as plugged into the Washington State political machine as I once was.
• Now, in 2008, Washington State will have it's first top-two primary vote!

So why am I, an avowed Democrat, excited about the prospects of a top-two primary system?! First, lets address the sole remaining challenge to the top-two system, that voters have a right to vote for their chosen party in the general election. I don't see how anyone has the right to vote for someone specific... I didn't have the right to vote for Bill Clinton for President in 2000, nor did I have the right to vote for Barack Obama in 2004. I get to vote for who appears on the ballot as determined by fair and open rules. Anyone can run in the primary and try to get on the final ballot, so I don't see that as a valid criticism.

On the positive side, for the first time in a very long time, there will be actual general election challenges in what would otherwise be considered "safe" seats. Take, for example, Frank Chopp of the 43rd District (my old district). He's a good man, and Speaker of the House, and I was always happy to vote for him. But if he were to go off the deep end, there would be nothing I could do about it, because as the Speaker of the House he would dominate any primary challenge by local Democrats attempting to replace him. But, with a top-two system, come the general election a centrist democrat challenger has a legitimate chance against an entrenched force because conservatives, who would normally rally around a doomed Republican challenger, now have the opportunity to vote for the centrist Democrat in the general election. If a majority of the voters back Chopp, then clearly he didn't go off the deep end after all, but in the previous closed primary system, voters would have the dubious choice between an "off the deep end Democrat" and whatever crazy Republican had decided to mount a quixotic challenge in one of the bluest districts in the State.

Good luck to those candidates who find themselves in a one-party race come the general, I know it won't be easy... but it's for the best when you consider the alternative we see in places like Chicago. Don't get me wrong, parties are good, but not an absolute good.

In Defence of our Nomination Process

Seems this presidential election cycle has uncovered a new American past-time: complaining about the nomination process. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a blogger, newspaper editorialist, or relative who has a beef with the rules that govern this process. Mind you, their complaints are not directed at the candidates themselves, the ire is reserved for the cold and impersonal regulations that govern the candidates' behavior.

I'm going to pretty much ignore the Republican process here, because this is about "our" process, not "their" process. Let their own youthful rules wonks defend that momentum obsessed coronation processes. This is a rebuttal to the critiques of the Democratic party. There are four major complaints I've heard leveled this cycle, so allow me to take them one at a time:

Caucuses are Out-Dated

I read this one just today at my alma-mater's newspaper. Yes, I still read The Daily... old habits die hard. Of course, this argument is also being implicitly made by the Clinton campaign because the scheduling of the caucuses, one hour on a weekend, tend to be unfavorable to working class voters that Clinton believed she had wrapped up (c.f. Potomac Primary exit polls). Folks also like to throw in absentee voters, especially military folks, who are simply unable to participate. These aren't bad points, but they make a fundamental assumption about the nomination process that is not, and never has been, true.

It seems caucus nay-sayers are under the mistaken impression they have an unalienable right to participate in the nomination process. Well, I suggest everyone break out your pocket constitution and see if you can find any reference to such a right... while you're there, check to see if there is any mention of nominations at all. None? That's because nominations are a construction of political parties, a way for party members to decide who to place the party's resources behind. Turns out, for practical reasons, you cannot get elected to the office of President in a nation of America's size without the resources of either the Democratic or Republican party, but it's not a Constitutional requirement, and no one has an inalienable right to participate in that decision.

Starting from that understanding, the decision to caucus instead of hold a primary is really a matter of regional and historical preference. Primaries are impersonal but efficient, caucuses are more home-town but unwieldy. But the decision to use either one is made by members of the party, not the states and not the general electorate. The Washington State Democratic Party is responsible for deciding how it is going to allocate its delegates based on shared objectives and values. This ensures that the party faithful have their say in the process, because being a member of the faithful comes with a cost...

Consider, in 2004 I caucused for Howard Dean... but John Kerry ended up with the nomination. And like a good party faithful, I voted for Mr. Kerry. I didn't vote Nader, Bush, or just stay home. I accepted my party's nominee because the party faithful had decided to back Kerry... but more importantly, because in the general election I really had no other choice. The caucus was my one chance to cast a meaningful ballot.

Super Delegates are Non-Democratic

This is a long identified "flaw" in the Democratic nomination process.. nearly 25% of the delegates are individuals who are not pledged going into the convention. But it's simply incorrect to consider them "unelected" or "unaccountable." Super Delegates are elected representatives, DNC committee members, and interest group representatives (like union leaders). These are the folks who make decisions for us ALL the time, because they were elected to do so. Being a part of the nomination process is a natural role for them to hold.

What really gets me about this argument is the claim that Super Delegates could "make the difference"... the difference?! Depending on the margin between the two candidates, Wyoming could make the difference. Any block of votes can tip any election, there is nothing special about the Super Delegates. That doesn't stop pundits from assigning near super levels of coordination to these elected representatives. There is an assumption that if Clinton and Obama show up in Denver with only a few hundred delegates gap between them, then the Super Delegates will simply "chose" the winner. I'd just like to see that actually happen! Can you imagine all the Democratic members of Congress, State governors, DNC committee members, and interest groups going into a room and deciding "let's all vote for so and so." These folks can't agree on a response to the war, were they stand on fiscal discipline, or just how much spying the government should be allowed to do on it's own people... why do we think they'll be able to agree on a single candidate for president? The only shared criteria I've been able to decipher is that the candidate not be named George W. Bush, but beyond that, I think these Super Delegates are going to behave like the independent rational actors we elected them to be. If the state's cannot figure it out between now and Denver, I can think of no better group of people to act as a tie breaker than our elected leaders.

Proportional Representation is Unfair

I don't even get this... but a Washington Post editorialist who shall remain nameless (*cough* Ruth Marcus *cough*) seems to be making the argument. The core point seems to be, Clinton won California, so why doesn't she have a HUGE lead? That's how it works in the General, darn it! Yeah, well, your complaints ought to be directed at the General Election, not the primaries. Winner-take-all only makes sense if your objective is to have a coronation like the Republicans have. But, if your intention is to reflect the subtleties of the Democratic party, then you've got to do the proportional thing. Having said that, there is some strange math with congressional districts that have an odd number of delegates. I can't really defend that, except to say that electoral math is a long held tradition in this country, and you've got to be willing to play the game.

It's All Too Confusing

Good! It's supposed to be confusing. Systems that are fair often are, because an "easy" system is also one that can be manipulated and controlled in scary ways (see the discussion about winner-takes-all). But, let's address a common critique that confusing means non-transparent. Transparency has become a big buzzword this decade, and for good reason. I'm all for transparency. But that something is confusing does not mean it's not transparent. Perhaps it takes some knowledge and a little research to understand, but as long as the information is there for anyone to examine, then it's transparent.

Great example... our judicial system. Amazingly transparent. All of the briefs, court records, and decisions are right there for anyone to look at. It's way more transparent then the legislative branch (let's not even get started about the executive branch). Trouble is, all those documents are complicated and require training to understand... which is to say, it's complicated. But the fact that I can follow a judicial decision from the very start of the incident all the way to the final determination is the kind of transparency we can only dream of in the other branches.

So, to those who complain they don't understand the nomination process... check out Wikipedia or ask someone involved with your local state political party. No one is trying to hide the ball here, we're just making sure the rules ensure a fair resolution to the single most important question facing Democrats today: who will represent our party in the race for the President of the United States.

Someone Has to Win? Really?

One of my favorite political blogs is The Fix, a regular feature of www.washingtonpost.com, written by Chris Cillizza. On Fridays The Fix has a special feature called The Line where he gives a rundown of the horserace as he sees it. Today's The Line is entitled, "Someone Has to Win the GOP Nomination." So far, I'm willing to accept that someone must eventually win the GOP Nomination. Where I disagree with the esteemed political writer is:

What gets lost in all of the negativity about the Republican field is that in less than two months, someone will be the party nominee. Put simply: Someone has to win this thing.

Less than two months?! That's just a bald-face lie.

Yes, it is true that a majority of delegates will be decided within the next two months, but if things go as they have been, there is no certainty that any one candidate will have amassed the number of delegates necessary to win the nomination. Granted, it's been many a year since this has happened, but there used to be a time when the nominee was chosen at the convention by elected delegates doing more than just waving signs and clapping their hands. If a clear winner does not emerge from the pack to claim a majority, then the convention will once again reign supreme. All the political commentary about the split nomination race seems to miss the actual process of the nomination and how it functions in reality. The nomination is not chosen by an election where a plurality is enough. Strict rules govern the processes, and fifty years of not needing to use them doesn't make them any less relevant.

This has an interesting impact on the decisions of the national party to strips delegates from states violating the nominating calendar, namely Florida and Michigan. Conventional wisdom says this is all positioning because the eventual nominee, who will control the Rules Committee, will seat the delegates anyway. But what if the Rules Committee seats are split among the candidates and thus lack the majority votes to change the rules? What then?

So no, no one has to win anything in the next two months. But if someone doesn't, well, then we are in for some interesting times come convention time.

The Court & The Public

In the past week I have read no fewer than three different editorials about the need for the Supreme Court to allow cameras into oral arguments, or at a minimum release same day tapes of the proceedings. Most recently I read this anemic editorial by the Washington Post. The outcry is the same... people deserve the right to see the proceedings of the court because it's a public institution. I couldn't agree more with the objective, transparency of public institutions is paramount to good decision making... even courts, who are the least participatory of our political institutions.

Where these critics go wrong is in thinking that cameras make a difference... or that oral arguments are someone the "functioning" of the court. The events leading up to a legal decision are a complex web of filings and briefs, of which oral arguments is but one tiny piece. Lawyers generally agree that cases are won and lost on the brief... oral argument is just an chance to run through the briefs and address questions raised by the justices. But it's not like the questions are unexpected and no Supreme Court practitioner worth their salt leaves an unanswered question in hopes the topic comes up during orals. It's all there, in the brief, which are publicly available.

Yet, this isn't even the most amazing part about how incredibly transparent our legal process really is. Consider for a moment the House of Representatives. On a given day the 425 members cast votes on a number of different issues. Now imagine if each of those members had to write down why they voted the way the did, had to cite previous votes by themselves and those who held the seat before them as justification, and had to provide a detailed step-by-step analysis of their thinking. Wouldn't that be something? If the members of Congress had to publicly justify every single one of their votes! How would constituents feel if their member wrote they voted for a particular provision because they got a fat donation check!

Of course, House members don't have to justify their votes... nor do Senators... nor do Presidents (except in the case of a Veto, which is a whole other can of worms). Two out of three branches of government may exercise their constitution powers without a single word of explanation and routinely do so. The Court, in shocking contrast, explains everything. Complete with citations, justifications, historical narratives, transcripts, finds of fact, depositions, and the decisions of the District and Appellate Court from which the appeal originated. It's an overwhelming amount of information and quite frankly more transparency than your average Joe is really interested in. But, it's the law, and the law isn't easy... the law is complex, and no matter how simplistic campaigns may make governing seem, we should never allow the law to become a sound-byte.

So why then fixate on oral arguments? It is but one small (some might argue insignificant) part of the process. When a whole world of records is available to analyze, why are we getting all worked up over this? Lawyers, who have the most to gain from a transparent court, have never demanded it... so why suddenly is everyone else?

I don't have an answer, but I fear it's part of a larger trend to treat the court (federal or state, doesn't seem to matter) as just another political body, whose officials should be subject to the whim of the electorate and the twenty-four hour media machine. It's a bad trend that strikes a blow at yet another of our critical institutions designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What I do know is that someday I want to attend an oral argument, not for the knowledge, but for the singular experience. If I ever want to know what actually happened in a case, I'll crack open a book.

A New Playbook in Dealing with the Internet

Some of you may have read about the number which must not be named incident a few weeks back. For those who didn't, there is this number that certain powers that be wish to keep secret. In so doing, issues various cease and desist orders which caused quite a stir and increased the spread of the number far more than if they had never done anything. A classic case of misunderstanding the reality in which you find yourself.

Today the Washington Post brings a story of a young girl from California who has found herself in the middle of a media storm. Due to her excellence in sports and attractive looks, her photo has spread across the internet on blogs and messages boards. Someone even setup a fake Facebook account under her name. The attention has often been sexual in nature and cause grief for the girl and her family.

What impresses me about her story is that she, or at least those who are advising her, have rejected the misguided approach of the copyright maximalists. Instead of sending out cease and desist letters to anyone who ever touched the photo, instead of threaten slander suits against those who speak her name, instead of crying to the media about how unfair it all is, this young girl has chosen to embrace the media storm. Not in the Brittany Spears, "It'll make me famous" sort of way, but in the "okay, if you're really interested, here's my story" sort of way. I predict that by opening up, embracing the storm instead of fighting against it, the frenzy will die down much quicker than otherwise.

Of course, I could be wrong and this may end up stoking the fires, but my gut says that now that she's obtainable, in that her life is not clouded in mystery, she'll be far less of a target for those who obsess about the impossible. Nothing destroys a fantasy like a healthy dose of real life.

A Tough Spot

Recently Circuit City fired 3,400 employees who were earning above the defined pay range for the associate position at the big red store. Before I go any further, let me say that I know a guy who manages a department in the local Santa Cruz Circuit City, and I've had the opportunity to talk business with him on several occasions... so I have some sense of the nature of their business.

Stores like BestBuy, Walmart, Costco and Circuit City are in a all hands on deck battle for big ticket sales. The margins on computers and gadgets isn't enough to warrant those big buildings and the flashy adds... it's all about moving those TVs. And at the end of the day, a slick salesman only goes so far. You have to keep cost low if you want to compete. Consider Costco... I can't say I've ever seen a salesman on their TV floor, but maybe I wasn't looking. Certainly not as many as at Circuit City. So, when faced with the prospect of posting huge quarterly loses, Circuit City let thousands go, hired new younger workers with low pay, and told the old workers they could reapply 10 weeks down the road (at lower pay).

Not only were they upfront about the situation with the associates, they were upfront with the public. According to the Seattle Times, in exchange for their openness they are getting a boycott.

Which makes me confused as to what Circuit City should have done here? According to my manager friend, the best Circuit Cities are near colleges and have a healthy churn of college kids who take the associate jobs for a few years, work their way up the pay scale, then leave to make room for a new salesman. The churn ensures the pay never gets too high. But not every town that needs a Circuit City has a college, so some salesmen stick around for longer than is desirable. Strikes me as they have three options:

1) do nothing, post huge loses and file for bankruptcy
2) do what they did, get hit with a boycott
3) do what they did, but keep it private so the public never finds out

Now, of course, #3 is rife with risks for the company. Should they be found out, they would be vilified in the press and likely become the target of... of a... of a boycott?! Wait, isn't that what happens under #2? Guess that makes it worth the risk then, wouldn't you say? Is that what we want? I don't think that having corporations make wide scale employment decisions without any public explanation is a very good idea, but we leave them little choice if this is the response they can expect for their frankness.

It's just like the politician who lies to his constituency. If telling the truth leads to an assured electoral defeat, what possible reason would they have to be honest?

I don't know if there is an easy solution to the problem. We could criminalize the lack of disclosure, I suppose. But that's certainly pretty extreme. We could turn a blind eye to corporate mistreatment of workers... not much of an ideal situation either. I think, ultimately, the best idea is to accept that some stores opporate on a low pay worker model, and if we don't like that we should avoid those companies all together, not just become morally indignant when they have to be a little more ruthless than normal.