Here's a thought: in 5 hours and 15 minutes, my portfolio will be breaking even, YTD (Year to Date).

It's all in the spin.

As a parting gift for 2008, I present to you, reader, The Periodic Table of Awesoments.

(Personally, I think it should just be called The Periodic Table of Awesome, and that #5 should be replaced with Yoo-Hoo Chocolate Drink, but that's just me.)

My 2008

So as 2008 winds down, I'm left wondering, how will it be remembered? In some ways it was monumental, in others, not a lot happened.

It will most certainly be remembered for the election. A huge pivotal point for the world, whose new most powerful person would have been not even allowed to vote a few generations ago, and could have even been owned as property a few generations before that. This may be the first time in millennia that the most powerful person in the world was black, and it was all decided in 2008 (though the transition won't happen for a few weeks). I still remember watching the returns from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary like it was yesterday (January 3rd and 8th, 2008).

2008 will also be remembered for China's reemergence. After centuries of diminishing self-imposed isolation, China finally pulled back a curtain--not an iron one, but a cultural one at least--and hosted the world this summer when they put on the Olympic games. The opening ceremony was a beautiful work of art of unprecedented magnitude, and as much as HALF the world's population saw at least some part of it. China and the world welcomed each other back as billions of people participated in some small way.

To me, and to many current and former Philadelphians, 2008 will be remembered as the year our city once again became a world champion, as the Philadelphia Phillies won baseball's World Series. Ending a city-wide drought of 100 consecutive major sports seasons without a championship, in a way our city too stepped back onto the world stage (or at least the national one). Pride of Philadelphians grew in many forms this year, as 2008 was also the first year of Mayor Michael Nutter's first term. In a city in constant need of a miracle, this year may be seen the same way Rendell's first term was seen: the beginning of an answer to collective prayers. Already half the battle may have been won, as even in the face of a hobbled economy and potentially crippling deficits on the horizon, Philadelphians are certainly more hopeful and optimistic than they were a year ago.

Surely 2008 will be remembered for the collapse of the financial system and the havoc created by short-sighted, short-term incentives. Entire schools of economic thought may grow out of the events of this year (which one could argue started in August of 2007). It would be nice if the crisis were remembered as a footnote to the Age of Obama, but I think it will unfortunately stand on its own in the eyes of history.

What else will 2008 be remembered for?

(If you were planning on making history worthy of the list, you've got 15 hours. Good luck.)

Harper's Magazine has compiled a list of statistics (though most of them not the kind you typically see statisticians worrying about) that are supposed to represent the Bush era. Though one-sided and decidedly anti-Bush, it does give the reader a lot to think about. And it makes me a little hopeful about the next administration; even your average Chicago politician can't be this bad. And I think Obama's a good deal better than your average Chicago politician.

The list can be found here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/0082319

(PS - It's from the January, 2009 issue...so you're looking into the future.)

My CIA Tactic

When it comes to the battle for public support in this country, the CIA is in the difficult position of having their successes private and classified, and some of their failures public and well-known. They generally do great work, and make mistakes like any group of humans would doing complicated tasks with incomplete information, but generally speaking, we're talking about a group of dedicated individuals who have given up any possibility of public glory to protect what they believe in.

That said, here's an amusing human interest story about a successful CIA tactic. The story was written by the Washington Post and has been cited by Reuters, MSNBC, and the Wall Street Journal (among other news outlets covering the Post's coverage). Apparently, Viagra is a fantastic item to have in your pocket when bartering with warlords. It's a rare commodity that can't be easily bought, traded for, or stolen in rural Afghanistan, and it provides a benefit to the Warlord that doesn't tag him as an informer (as a sudden windfall of visible wealth would). It's also completely non-dangerous to American operatives (not necessarily the case with money or weapons).

I think this is a fairly ingenious solution, and a great example of how differing interests and utility functions can result in a HUGELY beneficial trade. The Warlord gets something that seems like magic, and gives up virtually nothing. All he has to do is tell some American some of the things he's seen and heard and let American operatives walk through his land. It costs him nothing but a little bit of his time. From the perspective of the CIA, they get hugely valuable intelligence and access to passages and alternative routes through a hostile country. These things save American lives, and help the CIA do their job much more effectively. In return, they give up some pills that cost less than the price of a one-way airplane ticket to the country in which they're negotiating. Both sides get something hugely valuable and give up something negligible. This kind of extremely productive trade is so fundamental that it's the first step in both the study of economics and the evolution of economies.

Does anyone think I'd be good at writing sketch comedy?

It's Erev Christmas tonight, so to all my Christian readers, Merry Christmas.

Also: Happy Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, Jew Movie and Chinese Food Day, and Festivus.

Happy Hanukkah to my readers.

I went back to my family's house for candlelighting and Eagles watching tonight. During the game, DeluxX, itching to spend a gift card he received, said "I'm sick of TV. Let's go shopping." I'm not saying he's a woman, but what dude wants to turn off football to go shopping?

Sheba one-upped him though. After DeluxX confused an Inuit villager with a Chinese villager in a Burger King commercial, and was informed out loud for all to hear by me, that Inuits lived in Alaska, Sheba said "I guess every non-American looks the same to him." Though you wouldn't be able to tell from listening to their Governor talk, Alaskans are in fact Americans.

My Cash

I just read a stupid article about good and bad places to hide massive amounts of cash you have lying around the house. Bad is in a purse or under the mattress. Good is in a fake electrical outlet or a tennis ball you've cut open, put money into, resealed, and stuck in a can with 2 other tennis balls. Seemingly good, but bad because of movies and the number of websites recommending it, is a secret hiding place in a toilet tank.

My problem with this isn't that it's obvious, but it's also wrong. You know what the best place to hide lots of excess cash is? A BANK. Or a money market fund that only invests in US Treasury securities, or another money market fund participating in the fed's money market insurance program. Even if you're worried about your bank, your deposits are insured by the federal government up to $250,000 right now. Anyone who for some reason feels the need to hide MORE cash than that, can just get a bank account at another bank, and stash another $250,000 there! It's not that complicated! Also, you know what you usually get with all the options I just mentioned (you know, besides massively better security)? INTEREST.

That's right, people will pay you for your deposits (kind of like, you know, a LOAN to a bank or the federal government, guaranteed by the best credit on Earth). Now, I'm not an expert in banking, but to the guy who's hiding massive amounts of cash in a tennis ball or toilet tank, I can confidently say that there are people who will pay you for the privilege of keeping your money SAFER than you ever could at home.

And, once again, to all you fearful, blog-surfing, cash-hoarding, burgeoning economics students: the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will personally guarantee the safety of the money you deposit or "loan" in all of the cases I mentioned above. And yes, they're a better bet than a tennis ball.

My Library Idea

As many people know, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has proposed, among MANY other things, closing down 11 branches of Philly's Free Library system. This is in the face of huge current and looming budget deficits, projected to exceed a billion dollars in the next five years.

Mayor Nutter has always been a HUGE supporter of libraries, so I have no doubt he deems them necessary, but he's still taking a lot of heat for this particular part of his cost-cutting/revenue-increasing proposal. He's especially taking heat for removing reliable, free access to the internet from poor neighborhoods, and people are (correctly) making the argument that the elimination of modern libraries makes the digital divide harder to overcome. Furthermore, people use library computers to do everything from attaining some technological literacy to searching for jobs.

What's interesting is that most of the arguments against the library closures are about the computers, not the books (Nutter has said he will increase bookmobile service to neighborhoods losing libraries, though bookmobiles, while better than nothing, are more suited for sparse rural areas than dense urban ones in my opinion). I'm wondering if there isn't another halfway compromise the city could make:

Free internet cafes. What if the library opened up a branch with NO BOOKS? What if there were smaller branches of the Free Library of Philadelphia that were essentially public internet cafes? They would be smaller and less expensive to run, and still provide what seems to me to be the majority of the benefits that protesters are worried about losing in these branch closings.

Now, I'm a big fan of books too, but during what must be a relentlessly pragmatic period (in a city that already has more libraries per capita than almost any other major American city, by the way), maybe library-based free internet cafes (heck, you don't even need the cafe part) would work well as a compromise.

Thoughts?

My Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

For those of you who don't know, the US Armed Forces have a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the various branches. This means they can serve, as long as they don't tell anyone they're homosexuals. If they're openly gay, they can't serve in the military. That's current policy.

It's taken a lot of heat (and it's in the news as the Obama administration might eventually try to change it). Sure, allowing gays to serve openly would be a mild disruption, but so was allowing blacks and women to serve in any capacity. OK, so the military isn't an agent for social change, but that doesn't mean it can't keep up with the times and contemporary values. Yes, the military is a conservative institution, but you can't use that as a cloak for being intolerant. And why does being gay mean you can't control yourself?

Well, let me ask my readers this: does having separate male and female facilities make sense? If the rational, tolerant and enlightened answer is yes, then I submit it may be rational, tolerant and enlightened to not let gays serve in the military at all. This may be a shocking statement coming from a guy with a gay best friend, but hear me out--it's not prejudice. IF we accept that coed everything is unacceptable in the military, the question is, why? Presumably because you don't want certain shared facilities among people who could possibly be sexually attracted to each other. It would cause problems beyond what letting blacks in the military caused. Not just a disruption you get used to, but a permanent tension and distraction among soldiers (after all, how many young men and women in good health and of fighting age get used to people their sexually attracted to enough that they can treat them as members of the opposite gender invariably without hesitation? We wouldn't last very long as a species if that happened). With letting women serve, there was a simple solution: separate facilities. But with homosexuals, it presents a problem. With 2 separate facilities, you can have all the straight men in one area and all the straight women in another without risking a sexual attraction. BUT, once you start dealing with homosexuals instead of heterosexuals, you can never have more than TWO PEOPLE in a room without someone falling into another person's gender preference.

So by saying gays should serve openly--or at all--we're not just saying that homosexuals are every bit as restrained and professional as heterosexuals (I don't think many people would have a problem with that, and people could get over their discomfort with homosexuality in general), we're also saying that homosexuals are MORE restrained and professional than heterosexuals, a position for which there is no evidence.

So I say, if we let gays serve openly in the military, and I'm not necessarily against it, why not allow coed everything? If it's OK for two homosexuals of the same gender to shower together, why not a straight man and a woman? Or are there more double standards than we want to admit in our push for equality everywhere?

Here's a fun and easy logic game based on elementary geometric topology. I thought my readers might enjoy it:

http://www.freeworldgroup.com/games6/gameindex/lilly-hop.htm

It's no Hyperframe, though. For those of you who haven't beaten all 40 levels of Hyperframe, go do it now. It's amazingly fun, and I'm fairly sure people who beat it are smarter afterwards. I know I felt smarter:

http://www.addictinggames.com/hyperframe.html

My New Treat

And now for something completely different:

http://foodproof.com/photos/full/bacon-cheese-roll-1290

[This has to be the least healthy and least kosher thing ever invented.]

My Elephant Watching

A seriously flawed study recently came out, which, despite not being well done, nevertheless came out with some shocking results. Elephants in zoos live DRAMATICALLY shorter lives than elephants completely in the wild or in large parks. Now, the study has enough problems with it that you can't really assign specific causality, but just the average lives of the elephants say it all. Both African and Asian elephants live less than 20 years on average in zoos and over 40 years on average in the wild. I think we can assign SOME causality to the zoos, even if we can't identify the specific mechanism.

[Note: I know correlation doesn't mean causality. If A and B are correlated, and it's not a coincidence, then either A causes B, B causes A or C causes B and A. In this case it's too prevalent and stark to be a coincidence. I don't see how living shorter lives would cause an elephant to be in a zoo, except the thin argument that years ago the elephants captured for zoos were the least healthy and therefore the most easily captured. That argument has some validity, but it wouldn't more than HALVE the lifespan. Finally, given that the populations studied had oceans between them, it's hard to believe C is causing both A and B, and even if it is something like the weather, our putting the animals in zoos is exposing them to whatever "C" is.]

This raises a tough question: what do we do with the information? There's a good argument to be made that not keeping elephants in zoos endangers the whole species. Elephants aren't exactly numerous, and animals get much more sympathetic treatment from private groups and governments alike when people can SEE the animals. The ability of humans to observe an animal is the second best way to preserve a species (the best way being to eat enough of the animal to encourage farmers to create giant herds of it, but as much as I want to eat an elephant, there probably aren't enough right now for that to work, so we're left with preserving visitation rights). Human compassion often stems from personal experience, and elephants need people to see them and admire them in order to save them. But we more than halve the lives of every animal we make easily available to the public. So do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? And who are we to decide which of the few get shafted? Most zoo elephants are born in zoos, so I guess that's a convenient filter, but we're creating a subspecies of unhealthy short-lived versions of African and Asian elephants.

And I guess a final point is that elephants aren't humans and have very few rights in this country, but since we're talking about zoos in many countries and over long periods of time, I want to talk about it philosophically and on principle only. So what do we do with the elephants? Cripple dozens or hundreds to aide thousands? Let them all go free? Try to fix the problem and not allow elephants in certain zoos that can't meet their needs while insisting the ones that keep them take steps to replicate conditions proven to keep them alive longer? I favor further study and a middle-of-the-road solution. But maybe that's because I'm a sissy on the issue, or because I don't know enough, or because I'm falling into the trap of seeing two seemingly good opposing arguments and assuming the truth lies somewhere in the middle (a HUGE human flaw if you ask me, though not a bad way to manage the risk of unbridled stupidity).

All I know is that it seems wrong to essentially torture or cripple or harm animals for our own viewing pleasure.

My Line

Every Senator has traded a vote on one thing for a vote on another thing.

Plenty of people have offered political support in exchange for at least being put on the short list for jobs.

Campaign contributions give you access, put a politician in your network, and can lead to sympathetic hearings on issues, or even jobs (especially in the case of the Bush administration).

Where's the line? Putting a Senate seat on eBay certainly is over it, which is more or less what Governor Blagojevich of Illinois did, but how much worse is it than what happens in politics every day?

I think the worst part is the circumvention of the democratic process. All public officials have the public trust to act on behalf of their constituents, and they almost invariably look out for their own interests. But what we're looking at in Illinois was more than failing to fairly represent the electorate, this was failing to faithfully ACT as the electorate. The Governor is supposed to singlehandedly choose a Senator to replace President-elect Obama, and he does with the appointment the same thing a Congressman might do with a vote he didn't care much about: see what he can get for it. That crossed a line, but what line? Where is it? I'm having trouble identifying it.

It also makes me wonder, is the law a little bit to blame? When the President makes a big appointment, the Senate* has to confirm the choice. Maybe these appointments should be state-legislature confirmable? I'm not excusing what he did, and I consider this an egregious breach of public trust, but shouldn't this have been predictable? Why think that in this one case a politician would rise to the occasion and faithfully execute his responsibility on behalf of those he serves? Politicians are ALWAYS trying to get something for what they do, which is what makes a lot of them good politicians. The great ones trade for stuff their constituents need; the corrupt ones trade for stuff for them. Most politicians, I suspect, fall somewhere in between. But given the huge conflict of interest the Illinois governor gets when a Senator vacates his seat (and that one state is hardly alone in this respect), shouldn't there be some safeguards? If not a special election, then at least an election among the state house and senate? Or at the VERY least, a confirmation process to prevent cronyism?

Again, I'm not excusing what he did, but the system isn't entirely blameless. It creates bad incentive structures, and who knows how many times this has already happened, undetected. Governor Blagojevich was especially stupid to make a move like this while he was already under scrutiny for corruption. But what about the governors who aren't under such scrutiny? State legislatures all over the country should move to reform these rules, to prevent something like this from happening again.

My Review of Obama's Economic Team

[So I haven't been able to come up with anything new on the x^x = y^y problem. I'm still stuck at an infinite number of pairs--with an unknown number of rational pairs--made up of one number between 0 and 1/e and another between 1/e and 1. Haven't found any more other than my original 1/2 and 1/4.

My thoughts have been turning back to politics, lately, and I thought I'd answer a common question I've been getting.]

A lot of people have been asking me what I think of Obama's economic team. I'm going to give him pretty high marks. I already think Bernanke is a pretty good person to have as Fed Chair (which is good, because he'll be around for a while).

I think Geithner is EXACTLY what we need at Treasury Secretary, and he would have been one of my top choices (if not my top choice). I think Paulson has been limited in his abilities to help the country weather the crisis, because he's so much of a practitioner. He's a finance guy more than an economist, and he's essentially using a toolbag of applied economics based on assumptions that turned out not to be quite true. As a result he's been not-quite-right every step of the way. Geithner, if anything, has the opposite problem. The only thing he's lacking is high level experience with a financial services company. And I'm not sure that's a weakness right now.

Volcker is a strong choice, and Obama created a position for which he'll be especially well suited. He's too old to run a big department, and he's not a PhD economist (his doctorates are honorary). But he's an experienced former Fed Chairman with a lot of wisdom to provide to a relatively young team of geniuses, and his voice will be an important one. Furthermore, he has international street cred the likes of which no twenty people in the Bush adminsitration have put together. His actions under President Reagan (he essentially made "Reaganomics" work by keeping his word in the face of political and popular pressure to do otherwise) brought credibility both to himself and the U.S. Central Bank.

I'm also going to stick up for Larry Summers here. The former president of Harvard University got into trouble when he made some observations about the differences in men and women in the sciences. You know what? It doesn't matter. Also, he was grossly misrepresented. I'm going to stick up for him in two ways: as an economist, and in his argument about men and women. That's right, I'm throwing my hat in the ring on the side of Dr. Summers in the gender debate. And here's why: all he did was suggest that men might have a higher standard deviation of IQs than women. IQ measures a particular type of intelligence that makes one suited for math and science. I believe women, on average, are smarter than men, in almost every respect. Your average woman is smarter than your average men. But there's a lot more variation in the men. Meaning on the tails of the distribution, you see more men. Most of the dumbest people in the world are men, but at the same time, most of the people most capable of doing math and physics are also men. It's just the way the distributions break out. We're not talking about all men and all women here, Dr. Summers was talking about tenured Ivy League scientists and their peers, basically, some of the smartest people in the world. Women on average can be better at science, but at the very top you see more men, because there's a larger variation in their intelligence. OK? All the data actually suggest he UNDERSTATED the effect, so lay off him.

And finally, from what I gather he's a skilled evidence-based economist with a disposition many of the top theoretical economists in politics seem to be lacking. So he gets a spot on the team, and I'm happy about it. If you don't like what he had to say about women in the sciences, well, that's just hard cheese. Suck it up, because it doesn't affect his ability to make policy recommendations. Jefferson fathered illegitimate children with a woman he legally owned; Churchill was a raging alcoholic; Ty Cobb and Henry Ford were horrible human beings who hated Jews; and for all you know, Jesus was racist. It didn't affect any of their exemplary job performances, and I'm not condemning Dr. Summers for making an impolitic observation.

And the rest of Obama's economic team seems pretty good, though I don't have anything I need to get off my chest about anyone else. My only worry about the team comes in the form a book title about the collapse of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund started by some of the smartest laureates ever to win a nobel prize in economics: "When Genius Failed." But if the economic team manages to conduct regular reality checks, as well as keep in mind fundmantals like supply and demand and basic incentive structures (the lack of attention paid to those two things probably did more than anything else to facilitate our current crisis), they should do just fine. It's certainly the best economic team any President has assembled in my lifetime. Maybe even since the days of Alexander Hamilton.

Some updates: Rhyno, a quite successful math major, is correct. I did make an assumption of continuity, which, though warranted, is easily demonstrated through proof of differentiability. Thank you for adding to the proofiness of my proof (with a vocabulary like mine, I'm gonna be the next Colbert).

And thank you, Katharine, for pointing out the VERY interesting fact that the minimum value for f(x) = x^x (between x=0 and x=1) occurs at x = 1/e. I wonder why that is. How did you figure that out?

I'm starting to wonder, even if there are infinite pairs of x and y such that x^x = y^y and x=/=y, how many of those pairs are rational? Is there a finite number of rational values for which it holds true? What is that number? How does one find them?

My Math Puzzle Update

So I think I've proven that there are an infinite number of pairs of values for which x^x = y^y such that x =/= y. I haven't taken a math class since 12th grade, and I haven't taken a good one since 10th, so bear with me as I'll have to be more imprecise than I'd like. The proof goes something like this:
f(x) = x^x
as x --> 0, f(x) --> 1 (from the lower side)
as x --> 1, f(x) --> 1 (from the lower side)
Therefore, there must be some minimum value of f(x) in between x=0 and x=1
[Editor's Note: I think that value occurs somewhere within a thousandth of x = 0.368]
The curve of f(x) = x^x must be at least somewhat bowl-shaped in between x=0 and x=1
[Editor's Note: I graphed it in Excel, below, y-axis is x^x, x-axis is just x]
So imagine drawing a horizontal line at f(x) = 1 and sweeping it down. You would pass through literally an infinite number of f(x) values that could be produced by 2 values of x.

OK, so now that I've proven there are lots more of those numbers, a few questions remain: what are they? How do we find them? What else do they have in common? What else makes them interesting?

I'll do more work on it later; I'm hoping I'll be back at my desk at work tomorrow (which means sleep for now). Good luck, fellow nerds!

PS - If this turns out to be a thing, I reserve naming rights. Don't worry, I'll pick something totally awesome for it.

My Air Force One

So I'm on my third consecutive sick day right now, and I've had a lot of time to do nothing. I'm now caught up on all the TV shows I like, plus, with the exception of 3 episodes, I went through the entire series of Entourage (to date) on the recommendation of DeluxX.

I also finally got to see Air Force One, the 1997 Harrison Ford thriller that my parents wouldn't let me see when it came out. It felt good. Take that, Mom! Only took me 11 years to thwart that particular "no."

I now have the syndrome Jim Gaffigan identified in his comedy, in which I just saw a movie everyone else I know (with any interest in it) saw years ago. "But I wanna talk about it now!" Thank you, blogosphere!

President Marshall is totally badass. And it got me thinking, how would other presidents, real and fictional, perform in the situation? First thing I did was start with George Washington. Then I realized his first reaction would have been, "Why am I in a giant metal box and what's with all these bright things that have no fire?" THEN I decided to NOT start with George Washington.

I don't think W would do too well in a hijacking. He'd just take the escape pod. That said, no one in their right mind would hijack W's plane to get a general released from another country's prison. World leaders don't really care what he has to say.

That said, it does beg the question: why bother hijacking Air Force One in the first place? It's much easier to break a guy out of any jail in the world than to hijack Air Force One. Seriously, the 10 most secure prisons in the world combined wouldn't come close to the security that surrounds the President of the United States (I'm talking about quality and difficulty to penetrate, not number of guards or total firepower).

OK, so acknowledging the movie plot is pretty stupid, I went from the current president to my favorite fictional president, President Bartlet from the West Wing. It wasn't a hard leap since they shared so many cast members (CIA Agent Eric Frost/National Security Advisor; Judge Evelyn Baker Lang/Vice President; Senator Hunt/AG; even that guy trying to write a constitution/that thug hijacker). I'm a huge fan of economists, but I don't think even Jed Bartlet would have done much good on that plane. That said, he had a much smarter staff and more capable security.

Speaking of West Wing parallels, it was interesting the way both that series and the movie dealt with the question of how to make federal decisions without an alive but absent president.

I think maybe Obama would have done the worst in that situation, but mostly by virtue of the fact that he has no military experience and has TWO young daughters, which means the hijackers could...hm...I was about to say "shoot one and still have a hostage" (in comparison to President Marshall who, in the movie, has only one daughter)...but then I thought to myself "Wow, if I blog that, will the CIA or NSA or FBI come knocking? Will it be seen as a threat against the president-elect and be investigated by the secret service? Will it prevent me from ever getting a job with the federal government?" I think I'd be in the clear, mostly because nobody actually READS this blog, but at the same time I think it's a sad state of affairs for free speech when I have to worry about such things while writing a hypothetical in which I compare how real and fictional presidents would fare if inserted into a horrible movie plot (by which I mean the plot was horrible and full of holes, I actually liked the movie).

Speaking of horrible plot points, though, how dumb do you have to be to give a press conference announcing that Air Force One has been hijacked? Back to the West Wing for a minute, they didn't even let a peep slip to the public when the landing gear indicator light went out on Air Force One, which is much closer to how anyone with a brain would actually behave in the real world. You don't ANNOUNCE to an entire world full of enemies that the president's plane has been hijacked, refuse to answer any questions about him except to say "he's still president" (but obviously not present), and then walk off. Seriously, if the people who run White Houses actually think at that level, I'd be a shoe-in for Obama's Communications Director (if the feds are reading, I'm available if you want to offer me a job as a senior counselor to the president).

Finally, I don't think I'd do very will in such a situation, personally. But that's mostly because I get motion sick.

Well, glad I got that off my chest. What did people do when they wanted to talk about a movie everyone else had seen years ago before there was blogging?

So apparently a fair number of my high school friends read this blog. Hi, High School Friends! Nice seeing you at the reunion an hour ago (now that's responsive blogging!).

For those of you who missed it, the food was good and there was an open bar.

If you read my blog and I know you but don't know you read my blog, say hi sometime. It was great catching up with old friends tonight, and I hope not to be as remiss at keeping in touch in the future (I think we all do). So take the leap and say hi; if you don't want to do it first, consider this post a heartfelt "hello."

Happy Thanksgiving!

How are you guys doing on those puzzles?

My Math Puzzles

So I've been missing academia lately. I've discovered something interesting, a set of values for which x^x = y^y. I wonder how many there are.

I also came across some old favorites, "proofs" that clearly aren't true, but seem like they work. For a fun puzzle, can you find the "mistake" in each one that makes the fake-proof work?

          a = b
        a^2 = ab
    a^2-b^2 = ab-b^2
 (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
        a+b = b
         2b = b
          2 = 1


          x = (Pi+3)/2
         2x = Pi+3
   2x(Pi-3) = (Pi+3)(Pi-3)
    2Pix-6x = Pi^2-9
       9-6x = Pi^2-2Pix
   9-6x+x^2 = Pi^2-2Pix+x^2
    (3-x)^2 = (Pi-x)^2
        3-x = Pi-x
         Pi = 3


         -1 = -1
       -1/1 = -1/1
       -1/1 = 1/-1
 sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
        i/1 = 1/i
          i = 1/i
      i * i = 1
         -1 = 1

Some clever photographs. Makes me miss my days as a photograph student. Chuck, the ones with the sunsets are better than ours, especially that first one. We gotta go back and try again.

My Problem with Menus

You know what really grinds my gears? When a menu lists many, but not all, of the ingredients of an item. It's one thing to say "Turkey sandwich." Then you know to ask.

But some places they don't give you relevant information, while pretending to. Even at my beloved Quizno's, which for some reason fails to mention they put MAYO on a cheesesteak. Epic fail. Or when the Harrisburg Hilton lists the type of cheese, the type of bacon, even the type of roll they serve a grilled chicken sandwich on, but doesn't mention they serve mayo, which I hate. It's one thing to not mention the lettuce; I can take that off. But mayo? Come on, people. A little notice would be nice. Especially late at night.

Some nights the difference between "suicide watch" and "contently asleep" is Wawa. OK, so usually it's a good friend, but you'd be surprised how often Wawa factors into it.

Tip of the Hat to Chicago, for being in the same awesome-ballpark as Philadelphia.

Wag of the Finger to Chicago weather and Weather.com for not warning me it would be 30 degrees colder today than the rest of my trip until it was too late to pack a sweatshirt.

I'd just like to use this post to tell people to go read My Abortion Question (posted November 11th, 2 posts down) and reply if you have any insights. Just because I'm posting other stuff doesn't mean I feel like we've finally settled the abortion question once and for all.

Why is abortion in the case of incest more OK than abortion as an alternative to having a child out of wedlock? If you believe it's a human life, shouldn't it be the same?

My Chicago Hotel

I am in the weirdest hotel right now. At times it goes above and beyond the nicest resorts I've ever seen, and at other times it's less functional than a Motel 6. Overall, though, I like it.

When I arrived, I had to take stairs up to the lobby. Not totally odd, but usually there's an elevator or escalator for second floor lobbies. Turns out there is an elevator, but it's carefully concealed. When I checked in they asked if I'd like to partake in the wine reception. I looked around. Turns out, every night there's a wine reception for all the guests, no extra charge! All you can drink! Good wines too. Between delays and horrible cab rides, my 2 hour flight was the center of a trip that took 7 hours door to door. I hadn't eaten in even longer than that, and apparently I got drunk on I-forget-how-many glasses. Pretty swanky for a hotel though. Then, I got a free hand massage! They had a professional at the reception. My hands still smell great, and this was hours ago. Pretty ritzy so far.

Then I went upstairs to check out my room. On the left as I walked in, I saw double-doors with the kind of handles that don't move relative to the doors in which they're embedded. On the right was a single door with a turn-knob. I had to go to the bathroom, so I turned to the right. Almost made a mess of the closet. That's right, the closet doors led to the bathroom, and the normal door led to the closet.

In the closet, where one would expect to find extra towels or sheets or pillows or a bathrobe, is a set of leopard-print boxers and camisole (of matching pattern). I'm going to repeat that. My hotel room contains A LEOPARD PRINT CAMI AND BOXERS.

The room is quite nice. Big comfortable bed, free fast internet, and a giant flatscreen HD TV. Temperature control works great. But then there's no outlet. There are no fewer than 4 phone/cable jacks in the room, but I couldn't find an electrical outlet. I know there has to be one, because lamps are on and the clock works, but I can't find it. Turns out there's one behind the bed and one behind the dresser with the TV on top. Drunk as I was, I rearranged all the furniture in my room. Now everything is back where it was, and my laptop is plugged in. I just realized I'm going to have to do it again to recharge my cell phone, and once more before I leave.

Sitting next to me is a wonderfully functional and beautiful set of glasses on a silver tray with matching ice bucket. I've been up and down every hallway on my floor, and I can say with certainty that there is no ice machine. OK then.

So I'm sitting here in my swanky PoMo hotel room, next to an eternally empty ice bucket, staring at a wall with enough repeating ovals and rectangles to make me consider taking LSD so I'll hallucinate something a little more down to earth. I'm drunk on free wine and relaxed from a fantastic hand massage, confused about the bathroom doors and the contents of my closet, and feeling Chuck's perpetual longing for ice. I see the "charging" icon in the corner of my laptop's screen, and I feel an overwhelming sense of accomplishment. The free bottled water the front desk gave me is of exceptionally high quality, and I find it quite tasty. Sobriety can't be far away now.

People really like Obama out here.

(Special thanks to Cookie, who made my night by having Chicago-style pizza with me.)

My Abortion Question

Abortion is a tricky issue, and I'm not going to get into it in a lot of breadth here, but I wanted to ask a question: why is abortion of fetuses created through incest more acceptable than fetuses created by two unrelated persons? I very much understand exceptions carved out for when the mother's life is in danger; I find opposition to such abortions unconscionable. Even if the fetus is a human life, why force two to die when you could instead have only one death on your hands? Through inaction, you become twice the murderer.

Then after that, there's another tier of exceptions people cite, the "rape or incest." While I understand incest is not often consensual, I believe those cases would also fall under "rape." Rape I understand slightly less, but there is a choice argument to be made. A woman should bear less responsibility for a choice forced upon her than one she made willingly. If you think it's a human life though...let me ask you this, would killing an infant left on your doorstep be any better than killing a 2-month-old of your own genetic material?

But then there's incest, which is the subject of my question. Perhaps someone out there can explain this to me. If a child is created consensually out of incest, how can an otherwise pro-life person be OK with its destruction? How can someone who believes it to be a human life say its socially taboo origin warrants its destruction? We have more of a revulsion to the action that created it, which helps it slip by under the emotional radar, but logically, how is it any less of a human life? If you're pro-life, how is it any less a murder? The only difference I can think of is that it's much more likely to have genetic abnormalities and mental deficiencies. But if that's the difference, then how can someone think the following things: (A) A fetus is a human life, and killing it is murder (B) It is immoral to kill people with downs syndrome or other mental deficiencies and abnormalities (C) It is not immoral to kill a fetus who simply has a higher probability than normal of developing such aberrations.

The logic with rape to some extent, and to a much greater extent with incest, implies that even among many pro-life people, a fetus is given less than full-human status. It implies that it's on a gradient...more than just a part of a woman's body, but still not a full person. Maybe a 0.6, and a few circumstances regarding HOW it was created could push it down to 0.4 which rounds down? How does it work? How can someone believe with every fiber of their being that a fetus is a human life and be OK with abortion in the case of rape or incest? How is rape or incest the fetus's, how is it the BABY'S, fault?

[NOTE: I think the comments are interesting enough to warrant reading here, and please, participate if you have the urge. I'm not sure of my personal position on this issue, and I'm mainly arguing as devil's advocate (no horribly existential pun intended) both from and against the perspective of a pro-lifer to attempt to better understand a position I find contradictory.]

I just saw an advertisement for a television show featuring a guest appearance by Mary-Kate Olsen. I remarked to Chuck, "You know, this is the first time I've ever heard of an Olsen twin doing something without the other." Then about ten seconds later, "Well, this and rehab."

Then ten seconds later "I think I'll blog that thought."

This is all by way of introducing a new Despair.com poster I thought was appropriate: Blogging.

In honor of DeluxX's favorite commercial ever:

http://comics.com/f_minus/2008-10-20/

My Nine-Year-Old Heroine

Watching the news the past few days, it would be easy to believe that Obama's victory is the only important story right now, and that it is the biggest gain for the civil rights movement since Martin Luther King Jr. and racially-indifferent suffrage.

But there's another story that trumps it, and it takes place in a land almost on the other side of the world, a land where you'd never see women running for president and vice president, or even running down the street alone outside their house.

This story's heroine has no staff, no volunteers, no chanting crowds, no international pedigree, no experience, no speeches at the crossroads of destiny, and she has no Ivy League degrees, though she might someday. It's hard to tell; she's only nine years old. Her name is Arwa, named for a Queen of her country, Yemen, who reigned almost a millennium ago.

Women in Arwa's country have made quite a bit of negative progress over the last 900 years. Human Rights Watch has reported on the often violent discrimination against and mistreatment of women in the country, including the elimination of the minimum age to marry. Previously set at fifteen, a subjective standard of puberty is now the soonest a father can lawfully force his daughter into marriage with any man. This anachronistic injustice was inflicted upon Arwa, at the age of nine.

For $150 (US) and the promise of around 2,000 more later, Arwa's father, struggling to make ends meet and support a family, agreed to marry off his youngest daughter to a forty-something man who first passed on Arwa's fifteen-year-old sister.

For seven months, Arwa was a wife and a slave, routinely beaten for rebuffing her "husband's" advances. Her father tried to stand up for her, but it was she who went from neighbor to neighbor asking for a small loan (she had no share of the marriage's resources). She sought the money so that she might travel, not to run away, but to make a stand. Inspired by the story of another girl, a year her senior, she did not go and hide, but she went to court, and sued for her freedom.

And she won. In a country which treats women as property, which practices censorship by intimidation and violence, which is intolerant of any race, religion or viewpoint other than the state's, Arwa's compelling tale and young age persuaded a judge to grant her freedom.

Yemen may be approaching a tipping point. A judge took compassion, and, through the creation of such common law, has set an inspiring precedent that most Americans safely take for granted. But in Yemen, it's dramatic progress. A line in the sand, one that says even men can go too far when dealing with women, or at the very least, girls. A line a judge can say should not be crossed. This is how it starts. I'd implore the Yemeni people to not waste this opportunity, to take steps to safeguard a full half of their population, to gain the respect of the world and the strength and prosperity that comes with investing in human capital and allowing men and women to contribute to society to the best of their abilities (I would implore such things, though I doubt I have many Yemeni readers). Still, I think this story should resonate with Americans, who can appreciate what they have a little more, who can appreciate what Barack Obama's victory means not just to us but to the world, who can appreciate the context of civil rights and the desperate and desperately important struggle for equality. And I think our lawsuit-happy culture can appreciate our heroine's methods; a nine-year-old girl had her day in court, and kicked ass.

Now, proud to be a nine-year-old divorcee, Arwa can go back to being a little girl, as she and her country help each other grow up.

My Election Statistic

Here's something absolutely remarkable about Obama's victory: he got people to vote against their economic interests, for him. Now, the Republicans have been doing that for a long time by appealing to social issues and not admitting how bad their policies are for the poor rural conservatives whose votes they almost invariably get (and repay with very little help, economic or otherwise). But this time the Democrats got people to vote against their interests.

George W. Bush won the demographic of people making over $200,000 a year by somewhere around a 2:1 margin. Huge 30-point blowout. But not only was Obama competitive in that demographic, he WON by 6 points. People making over $200,000 a year voted for Obama 53-47. And that's after Obama EXPLICITLY promised to tax them more. He campaigned on raising their taxes, and won their votes. They voted for a better leader, not a better personal tax-deal. Maybe Joe Biden was right, and paying higher taxes is, in this one case, patriotic. I know this little piece of trivia makes me a little prouder to be an American, that Obama inspired people to look long term, not short term, to put their country above themselves, and to prosper from a better nation instead of from tax breaks that favor the wealthy.

CNN.com: "Change has Come" and "Obama beats McCain"
MSNBC.com: "HISTORIC CHOICE" and "Shattering racial barriers, Americans send Barack Obama to the White House"
NYTimes.com: "OBAMA" and "Racial Barrier Falls as Voters Embrace Call for Change"
ABC News: "Mr. President" [Next to picture of Obama] and "Barack Obama makes history, John McCain concedes."
CBS News: "Barack Obama makes history"

Fox News: "FACING A 'STEEP' CLIMB" and "President-elect Barack Obama will inherit on Jan. 20 the worst financial crisis in 70 years and two wars."

Way to be gracious.

A little speechless, though that may be the combination of relief and fatigue.

I have a good feeling about this.

I'm going to miss my little election command center. I should get into politics...further into politics than bad commentary at least.

What's striking to me about this moment is that it will be noted in history for the changes marked by and at this time, on this day. But we didn't vote for Obama for the changes that happened tonight, but for the changes that have been promised. Despite what candidates say, campaigns are about voters, about connecting, about fights over questions, wedge issues, and whom the electorate trusts and likes. But this one really was about ideas and ideals. We followed an inspirational leader, but tonight is not the triumph, but the victory which allows all future triumphs to come. Today we sent a message; tomorrow we go to work.

11:16PM - Obama declared victor by every major news source.

Saw it coming.

InTrade has Obama at 98.7% to win. Iowa and New Mexico are breaking for Obama, meaning he could even lose Oregon or Washington. And, like I said, if he wins California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington (or now California plus two of the remaining three), he's got the presidency.

So this blog is now calling the election! I am predicting that Barack Obama will be the forty-fourth President of the United States! I'm sure my endorsement helped, so you're welcome, and congratulations, Senator, soon to be President Elect, Obama.

New Futurama movie will be watched tomorrow.

Want to know how other candidates are doing? Check it out here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/

Bob Barr is beating Nader. Ouch.

Also, CNN just spent a long time doing EXACTLY the analysis I did in my last post, about Obama needing those 4 states which he has almost no chance of losing. They slowly tried to theorize a McCain victory by turning states red, and eventually got to all non-called states red except the 4 I picked out immediately. Then they realized that Obama was almost definitely going to win them, and mentioned McCain would need a huge upset in one to become President (or an already called state would need to go the other way). These people at CNN are kind of slow. Maybe I should apply for a job as a political analyst.

PS - The "Phillies" candidate is not the Philadelphia Phillies, as I had hoped. It's Libertarian candidate George Phillies. Yeah, I know, boo-urns.

NBC just called Ohio for Obama. By their projections, Obama needs 75 more votes to clinch. California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii would do it for him. Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Indiana could all be made irrelevant. As I've typed this, I just saw ABC, CBS and Fox have also called Ohio for Obama.

Addendum made a minute later: those 4 states would clinch for Obama under projections by NBC, ABC and CBS right now.

So NBC and ABC have just called Pennsylvania for Obama. Meanwhile CNN, Fox News, CBS, and non-TV organizations like the AP and NYTimes (as well as RealClearPolitics, which, while not as mainstream, I respect a lot) have not. At this stage in the election I'm looking for the fullest map, the most filled in projection, all the while realizing I'm part of the problem. They call states too early (like in 2000) because of people like me. I understand the tug, and how it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's best for society if no one makes premature calls, and in the long run it's the best for everyone, but for any state at any moment, it's best to make the call as soon as possible, regardless of what the other networks do. If they don't, you get some of their viewers/readers. If they do, you need to keep up so they don't get yours. That said, over time, if you're inaccurate, people stop relying on you (and in terms of personal incentives, not organizations, you could lose your job for being that embarrassingly wrong). Sorry the analysis is a little more superficial than I usually provide; it's a busy night. Any thoughts on the incentive structures at play, and what kind of behavior is "best"?

Me personally, I'm watching CNN, have the NYTimes dashboard up which tracks projections from NYTimes, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and AP. Plus I have the RCP map and data tables up, along with a NYTimes map and a window I use to flip between major news network maps. I'm also in contact with others, and blogging.

You know what I don't like about the election? I'm beginning to suspect it might take some thunder away from my Phillies.

That said, they've got a woman on CNN being brought into the New York studio from Chicago by a series of cameras generating an image that looks like a hologram. Jessica Yellin is the on-site journalist reporting to Wolf via this cool technology, and she just referenced Princess Leia. I'm either in love with the technology, Ms. Yellin, Star Wars, or some combination therein, but regardless, it's very exciting. Oh yeah, that and the election.

I may post further real-time reactions as the night goes on.

PS - New Futurama movie came out today, Bender's Game. Haven't watched it yet, but it's sitting next to the TV waiting for a winner to be called.

My Reminder to Vote

Vote. And vote for Obama.

You know what I'm sick of? People who say it doesn't matter who you vote for. It does matter. I'll concede there's some small advantage to having people vote at all; it could make them more likely to participate in other ways, be more engaged, or at least increase civic awareness.

But if I encourage people to vote no matter who they vote for, isn't it kind of a wash? Vote for Obama. If you're going to vote for McCain, I encourage you to stay home. Stay home...that's such a contrary and unusual statement this time of year, it's practically taboo! And why? One fewer vote for the guy I don't think should win is as good as one extra vote for the guy I think should. Getting someone to switch their vote is a swing of two votes. So if you don't know for whom to vote, I'm not going to tell you it doesn't matter, or even to vote regardless. And I don't care if that seems "undemocratic" (how un-American of me to support a candidate, participate in the process, try to convince people based on issues, encourage others to do likewise in a manner I consider constructive and beneficial, and discourage them from taking actions I would consider detrimental to the country! How horrible!).

So screw this non-partisan support for democracy in which we encourage everyone with no opinion, no information, nothing to add, to go in and cast a completely arbitrary ballot adding randomness to the process. It does matter how you cast your ballot; the future of the world is at stake (we are, after all, choosing its most powerful person).

In that spirit, I'd like to reiterate this blog's endorsement for Barack Obama, who has a superior healthcare plan (McCain's is terrible), a better ability to represent us to the rest of the world (the President's primary responsibility), a better Vice President (as well as a lower chance of needing one), more economic sense (by McCain's own hastily retracted admission), a better philosophy regarding Iraq (spend the money here), a better philosophy regarding every other country (talking, collaboration, all that sissy stuff which saves lives, costs less money, and results in net increases in prosperity), a better energy policy (McCain has a similar stated policy, though in 26 years in Congress, he has voted in accordance with in only a tiny fraction of the time), a better economic plan (McCain's stops at "stay the course with more tax cuts slanted towards rich people"), better advisors (more policy experts, fewer political disciples of the likes of Rove), and a far superior ability to get people to work together, along with a knack for making carefully considered and thoughtful decisions. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more so. We need a leader looking to the future, not the past. We need someone who's willing to keep an open mind, to have all kinds of discussions with legislators, world leaders, and experts. We need Barack Obama to win this election.

So please, remember to vote, and to vote for Obama.

My New Poll

It came out this weekend, when discussing the election, that Lord Henry is of the opinion that on a PURELY PHYSICAL basis, Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin is more attractive than writer/producer/actress Tina Fey, who has on occasion portrayed Mrs. Palin quite expertly (I believe his exact words were "way hotter").

The new poll on this blog (see right column) is to test whether Lord Henry is correct, as he adamantly maintains, or if in fact the overwhelming opposition his declaration met is an accurate representation of the majority opinion (and ergo the correct answer, as hotness is a relative cultural standard). Vote now.

In the interest of fairness, I am including a few more representative pictures. The two above show from head to just below the shoulders. Here are two more close-ups:
Tina Fey
Sarah Palin
And here are two which show a more zoomed-out view:
Tina Fey
Sarah Palin

Go vote. Oh, yeah, and remember to vote on election day too. This blog recommends and endorses voting against Palin in both elections.

Usually the #1 theme for Halloween costumes downtown is "slut." Not true this year. This year, the #1 theme for Halloween costumes was "Philadelphia Phillies." Way to go, Phillies; that's two miracles in one week. If you guys can make the stock market go up, you'd have a trifecta.

If any of you former Dungeons and Dragons players would like to better understand the election through a short vignette in which the major players are all playing D&D, I present this script by a blogger who unwittingly became an overnight internet sensation among huge dorks.

Courtesy of Sergeant Trouser.

So how about that local sports team?

It was nice being able to scream as loud as I wanted while walking down the streets last night. I can't do that anymore. I also liked being able to high-five anyone I wanted, whenever I wanted, and have them be perfectly OK with that (hugs too, though under ever so slightly more limited circumstances). Sports bring people together.

Also, DeluxX's Facebook account got hacked by some woman named Patricia who has taken over his page for some reason. That said, the history is still up with only minor editing. I especially like this status message from October 10th: "Patricia has the apt to himself this weekend and can finally watch gay porn without all those judgemental eyes." I wonder which one of them spelled judgmental wrong.

My Championship

Words fail me.

The curse is broken (beating the next leading curse by 14 seasons).

I can't describe what this means for Philadelphia. I was just at City Hall, on South Broad Street, at the Ben Franklin Parkway, where group hugs are starting at 3 and growing into the thousands, if not tens of thousands. In a city ravaged by crime, hit with working-class job losses and budgetary nightmares, in a city which, after 100 consecutive losing major sports seasons, has come to expect losses, in the City of Brotherly Love in which racial and socioeconomic tensions threaten to tear neighborhoods apart, in a city held together by threads, from Eagles fandom to inspired mayors, in a city that went from being the nation's political capitol to the world's industrial capitol, to a drifting former flagship from a different time looking for its place in the fabric of urban America, in a city both simultaneously great and teetering on the brink, in this city are the World Series Champions, the best, the winners, the conquerers in a sport that has the distinction of being our national pastime.

Tonight I have a hundred thousand brothers, a hundred thousand sisters, with open arms all over the city. Tonight will see hundreds of thousands of Philadelphians connecting to others in their neighborhoods, hugging strangers, and celebrating that which we have in common instead of fearing our differences. Tonight we all have unconditional acceptance and open invitations. Tonight has the power to bestow renewed feelings of camraderie, a renewed sense of civic pride, and renewed brotherly love.

And tomorrow we'll wake up in a better Philadelphia, one which had the experience of coming together for a common cause, however manufactured by man; cheering on our representatives, the Philadelphia Phillies; and celebrating together, as World Champions.

My Harrisburg Halloween?

So apparently in Harrisburg they do Halloween on the Thursday before actual Halloween. All the kids are going trick-or-treating on Thursday, the 30th. This just seems wrong. I don't mean to be a snob, but I think if I tried just a little, I could become personally offended by this quaint central Pennsylvanian custom. My question is: if you're going to standardize it to a day, why not standardize it on a non-school night?

Someone told me the rationale is that on Fridays, Saturdays, and Halloween, there are too many drunks out. I think anyone spending more than a few days in Harrisburg can debunk that. It's not exactly a party town. You need a car to get anywhere except in the immediate downtown area, and that area is dead at night. You don't exactly have drunken masses out walking, or rather, stumbling, the streets at night. I wonder how this got started, and why it persists. Luckily for me, I'll be in Philly for MY holiday tradition of eating authentic Szechuan cuisine with at least one of my families.

"I'm a hockey mom...soon to be an illegitimate hockey grandmom." -Lisa Ann, portrayer of "Sarah Paylin" in the new hit porno movie "Who's Nailin' Paylin."

The journalist/blogger in me is urging me to provide some links and more information...but I think I'd rather not.

That said, from what I gather, in filming this movie, Ms. Ann accumulated more experience than the real Vice Presidential nominee in foreign relations (wait for it...).

Finally, I think it's great that she not only studied the real Sarah Palin in preparing for her role, but also Tina Fey to learn how to excellently impersonate Mrs. Palin.

My Mad Cow Test

The Bush White House has taken a lot of heat, among other things, for supporting and enforcing (and perhaps making) a decision to NOT ALLOW ranchers to test their cattle for mad cow disease. I was among the critics, but tonight, for some reason, I rethought my position. It took me a while, mostly because I was presented with lots of arguments against the decision and had to come up with my own in favor of it. On top of that, I'm naturally suspicious of the most evil White House administration of my life; they have a well-earned reputation for incompetence; and it seems like such a bad idea.

Why not allow ranchers to test their cattle? For starters, it's a free country. You shouldn't need a reason NOT to ban something; you should need a very good reason TO ban something. Especially if you're a Republican. Secondly, it only promotes public health and confidence in our beef. If there's nothing to fear, why ban the tests? Finally, it's hurting us economically! Some countries won't accept imports unless we increase our testing, and if the government won't do it, why not let ranchers do so for a profit? Why not let them be responsible businessmen and grow our nation's economy?

I think I've figured out the logic, the reason for the ban. It seems so un-American, so anti-business, so anti-public that it's hard to believe Americans support it, much less a staunchly conservative Republican administration. But then something Lord Henry told me recently helped me connect the dots. He said, cynically, that a true conservative believes that humans are inferior creatures. An idealistic liberal believes in the best of humanity, while the very conservative stewards seek to limit the damage we can cause by the worst within us. And then it hit me.

Our leaders don't want to stand in our way of being responsible, upstanding businessmen. But they do have a valid concern that ranchers are NOT responsible, competent scientists, publicists, or macroeconomic thinkers. And they'd have to be to be giving mad cow tests. Think what would happen with one false positive. Or even a "presumptive positive" (which means "maybe, it'll take a few days to know for sure"). What if one rancher screws up the test, or uses a cheap testing kit, or a testing kit actually fails (even with a low false positive rate, if everyone's testing, we'll wind up with a few)? Mass hysteria. Widespread panic. Beef pulled off the shelves. Suspicions of a coverup. An entire generation of ranchers lose their livelihood. Restaurants shut down all across America. McDonald's makes Morgan Stanley look like a bulwark of stability. A low probability event crushes the beef market, and we see an entire industry disappear in a way that would make even one of today's bankers go white. A national food crisis, fueling a global food crisis, has us thinking of the 2008 floods and inflation and shortages and credit crunch as the "good old days."

It's a policy that thwarts modest improvements to stave off, to quote Tim Curry as King Arthur, "a total bloody disaster."

Rick Blaine and I got to see Henry Kissinger and Robert Rubin talk tonight. I thought it wasn't fair the focus was on foreign policy without much about economics, but both former Secretaries were quite insightful (Kissinger a little more so given the field of discussion). I thought it admirable that with an election coming up, both men emphasized the need for nuance and the complexity of situations. There were no 10-word-answers, no campaign slogans, no X-point plans. There was an honest and frank discussion about the increasingly interconnected nature of the world, and the inability to isolate global problems into silos the way we do in campaigns. They both stressed our need for engagement, investment, and a full-picture view of global issues. Their conversation covered the necessity and importance of diplomacy, the impact investment in our nation (and lack thereof) could have, America's "moral authority," trade policy, and comprehensive approaches for everything from education (domestic and abroad) to foreign aid and providing proper incentives for other countries without letting innocents suffer. Sometimes they debated, other times they clarified and elaborated on each others' points. It was refreshing to see such an intellectual and high level policy discussion where the merits of an argument outweighed politics. I really admire both public servants more now than I did before the evening began.

I was also excited to see Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell speak before and after the keynote 2-person panel. Mayor Nutter spoke about cities' struggles through the current economic crisis, while Rendell passionately made the case for investment in infrastructure and education (both for early childhood and secondary education in math and science).

All in all, a very inspiring and intellectually stimulating night, and even worth missing the start of the Phillies' first World Series game in 15 years. Here's hoping this one ends differently. It would be nice if the first sports team in North America to 10,000 losses would also be the one to snap Philadelphia's streak of 100 consecutive professional sports seasons without a major championship.

I'm back, and jetlagged. In the absence of my ability to be original and creative, I'm posting a link to a really short, beautiful online game which will take my place for the moment when it comes to making you think. I know it made me think when I first encountered it. I give it nine thumbs up.

Growcube.

Sorry I haven't posted lately, I've been busy. A few notes about San Fran:

-There are more Subways here than there are Starbucks in any other place I've ever been. There are plenty of Starbucks too. My boss told me there are more Subways than any other fast food restaurant on the planet, including McDonald's. Is that true?
-The city grid here could be a little more grid-like. I miss my Philly grid.
-The weather is fantastic.
-This city is expensive.
-I got told today that I know a lot about vegetables. I suppose that's better than eating a lot of vegetables.
-Seafood's good. So is the ethnic food. You'd have a hard time paying me to set foot in the cheesesteak place I passed.
-It's good to see old friends.

I'm in San Francisco for the week, on business. I was going to post a well-written personal essay about my trip out here and my first day, but then Lord Henry called and I still have half a post. Maybe I'll finish it some day. Anyway, San Fran is a nice place; it's one of the few cities I could see myself living. And it's great to see Lord Henry again.

I thought people might be interested in this tax calculator, in which you input some basic information and it spits out an estimate of what would happen to your tax bill under the Obama-Biden plan (and if you'd be getting a cut, compares it to the cut you'd get under McCain's plan). They don't tell you how much better McCain would be if you make over 250,000 dollars a year, but that's because it's on the barackobama.com site. Despite the bias in what gets reported, the numbers seem fairly accurate (good ballparks) to me based on what I know about both tax plans.

Courtesy of an elementary school classmate via Facebook's new StalkerPro 2.0 (or whatever they're calling it now), I present a short video said to explain everything you need to know about Sarah Palin in 4 minutes and 34 seconds. I'm not sure it's everything, but it's definitely a good primer.

My Murals

I've always been a big fan of Philadelphia's Mural Arts Program. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the Mural Arts Program is a city-wide non-profit project which matches artists and small Philly communities, and together they create a meaningful mural. Enlisting the help of people in neighborhood of all ages, the Mural Arts Program has produced over 2,800 murals all over the city, often with a special meaning to the community that helped paint it (murals depicting neighborhood heroes, for example).

The Mural Arts Program has inspired Philadelphians and visitors, brought communities together, helped overcome racial divides and tensions, given "at-risk youth" and lifelong residents alike a renewed sense of neighborhood pride and connection to a community, and become a national model and a local treasure. That plus a dramatic reduction in graffiti and ongoing art education programs for almost 2,000 at-risk youth.

Recently the New York Times published a story about the project, which one night was even the top front-page headline on their website. I can't think of a more deserving human interest story to spotlight, and I wanted to share it with my readers.

In a broader context, I think the Mural Arts Program is important because it highlights the extraordinary impact local communities and civic pride have on the urban landscape, which is, unfortunately, deteriorating all across America. Problems can't just be solved at the top. The best kind of city leadership is the kind that inspires the citizenry to take action themselves, as happened in Philadelphia under Ed Rendell and is happening again under Michael Nutter. You can't hire a fixer for a city in any election, but the residents themselves can "take back the streets" and reclaim a city. The Mural Arts Program is a wonderful archetype of how to turn weaknesses into strengths, occupants into citizens, urban blight and graffiti into hope and art.

So I was wondering...what would people think about a debate between aspiring First Ladies?

Also, this comes courtesy of Lilly. If I saw one of these, I'd definitely believe that change was coming.

Finally, back to the Jew-theme, I wish an easy fast to those of you atoning out there. Also, the Colbert Report stole my "brethren and sistren" joke almost verbatim when talking about the Jewish High Holidays. Dear Colbert Writer, I'm on to you.

My Response to McCain's Attacks

I understand.

People are criticizing McCain's decision (or his approval of his strategists' decision) to turn the campaign full-tilt negative. They say it's not what the country needs or wants; it will alienate voters; it's the wrong tone given the times; it won't help the country with the current mess, and it might hurt, regardless of who wins. They're right.

But they're also wrong. From a strategic point of view, McCain has to go negative. Here's why: For the first time in the campaign, a candidate is polling above 50% with some consistency. And that candidate is Barack Obama (Gallup has him above 50%, as do Rasmussen and CNN). This means it's no longer enough to win undecideds. If every undecided broke for McCain, he still might lose. They need to bring people over from the Obama camp. And they can't do it just by making McCain look good; the economic situation has seen to that. They have to introduce negatives about Obama, worries about him, to counter the various reasons (mostly economic I suspect) people will cite as cause for their recent decision to vote for him.

It's a logical tactical decision, but very conventional (perhaps not what is needed). Once someone has made up their mind, especially after delaying doing so for so long, you can't just be better, the other guy has to be worse. So McCain needs to pin his hopes on fear and aversion, the notion that Obama is too risky a choice. So we get attack ads and scare tactics, a last ditch attempt to coerce an electorate that is in the process of making up its mind. More than ever in my lifetime, America wants a change, and McCain is out of new ideas--for the campaign, and for the country.

My Blog's First Award

No, I didn't win one. I'm giving one. I've noticed that blogs give awards sometimes, as do columnists and other people with too much time on their hand and an inflated sense of their opinion's value to society. Well, I'm in Harrisburg (former? check) and I've had and overheard one too many conversations with people in the hotel bar (latter? check)...and since I have a blog, I fit the bill.

This award goes to Artemis, a new character in my list of anonymous friends, many of whom are not imaginary. Artemis is a dear friend of mine from middle and high school. I'd say she's like a sister to me, but we don't talk or see each other enough for that, so she's kind of like that weird quirky cousin you don't know what to make of but always look forward to seeing at weddings and bar mitzvahs.

And since she is the first recipient of this award, which, by the way, will be awarded whenever I feel like it, the award shall thusly be named for her, in recognition of her surpassing extremism in the attribute her namesake web-award recognizes. In this case, the Artemisy shall be awarded for great and entertaining hypocrisy. I shall now present the award:

The winner of this first Artemisy is a high school history teacher, more a case of destiny than choice as this didactic heroine has been propelled by twin forces of fate, her 8th Grade History Prize and her aspirations for a small and manageable position as a minor dictator.

The following two sentences were typed to me by this winner a scant 54 seconds apart, when lamenting her inevitable departure for greener pastures. And by greener I mean full of grading papers of what I gathered must be less than interesting prose:
"High school kids need to right more interesting essays."
And then less than a minute later:
"I take off for spelling."

The winner of this week's/month's/year's/decade's Artemisy Award is...

The eponymous Artemis! Congratulations, mazal tov, and welcome to the blog. I hope this writing was interesting enough for you (I threw in a few big words just for your enjoyment). Enjoy the papers.

My Fellow (sort of) Blogger

I just found out that McCain's 23-year old daughter has a blog about the campaign. I checked it out. Three things jumped out at me, all of which are probably connected. (1) Her blog is much more popular than mine; (2) she's much more attractive than I am; and (3) after 15 minutes of searching I couldn't find ANYTHING of substance on the entire blog. No opinions, no analysis, nothing but photo ops, letters, and anecdotes. If you took out the photos and blurred out the names, you wouldn't even be able to tell which candidate she supports. But I guess when you're that cute, you don't need to know or say anything to get people to vote for your dad.

That said, from a political perspective, the campaign seems to be using her well. I'm just glad I'm not in that position. I don't think I'd be able to take a nation-wide tour of grip-and-grin without saying anything other than canned sound bites, and without saying what I think and trying to convince people, change minds, and make my case.

That said, Meghan and I are both socially liberal (according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, I couldn't figure that out from the blog) but otherwise conservative political bloggers of the same age...I wonder if she'd go out with me. I am from one of the three most important swing states.

[If anyone is up for a contest among readers, try to find her most substantive post and post a link in the comments...you can find her blog at www.mccainblogette.com.]

Sarah Palin winked at me. Twice. During the debate.

Words fail me.

Some loose ends I've been meaning to post:

I know at least a few of my readers will enjoy this comic. Especially if you have some historical awareness.

For the Mac users.

For people who remember playing Worms. Like all those nights we should have been studying for exams instead.

Also, I don't know how to broach this topic sensitively, but let me say that the following observation is the result of pure capitalism. I was driving through North Philly this week, and it jumped out at me that the area has a LOT more fried chicken distributors (KFC, Church's, Crown, etc.) per square foot of real estate than anywhere I've ever spent a lot of time. What's up with that?

Finally, a belated Happy New Year to my Chosen Readers.

I'm not sure how long this link is going to work, but it's a 1 minute SNL sketch that pretty much sums up the way I've been viewing advertising from financial companies these days:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/reliable-investments/698541/

Also, is anyone else amused by all the commercials for bankrupt companies? Like the WaMu free checking accounts...

The Center for Economic and Policy Research published a short table comparing how we're doing in 2008 with how we were doing in 2000. It's worth a quick once-over, especially since the possibility of continuing the economic policies of the past 8 years is at the forefront of the current election.

I haven't decided if I should post anything about the first debate.

My Helpful Reader

Special thanks to a watchful reader, who, agreeing with my critique of the media, brought the following pair of supporting details to my attention:

First, on the subject of financial reporting that's more ridiculous than informative, a CNN.com article compared $8 billion to the following things:
"– A little over four years of domestic sales of Doritos.
– Approximately two-thirds of the annual gambling revenues in the state of Nevada.
– About three days of US oil imports.
– About a month’s worth of US cigarette sales.
– About ten months’ worth of US lung cancer treatment costs. (A worthy effort to be sure, but one that wouldn’t be nearly as costly if it weren’t for the cigarette numbers above.)"

I especially like the last two. Well played, CNN. You've moved from apple pies on the air to Doritos and a complete tangent in print.

Secondly, at one point during this financial meltdown, ALL TEN "Top 10" news stories on CNN.com had something to do with one or more celebrities (this has been uncorroborated by me, and would be hard to do so--even if it were 8 out of 10, I still think it would strongly support my arguments).

Hackery, thy name is American media! And thanks to my helpful reader for giving me more credibility on top of what I can only assume was an already prodigious amount.

My Dissatisfaction with the Media

The media clearly doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to the economy. They never did, but it's becoming painfully obvious. I've observed the following headlines/clips/quotes in the past week (note: may not be 100% accurate as I'm doing this from memory):

"Buffet's $5B investment in Goldman Sachs could pay off." Wowzers. The world's premiere investor puts a whopping five billion dollars into a single company's preferred stock and there's actually a chance one of the greatest financial geniuses of our time could MAKE money on such a deal? Jimminy-Gee Willikers!

"Buffet's $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs is good for Goldman Sachs." Thanks. No, really, thank YOU.

"It's as American as apple pie. McDonald's apple pie that is. 2,000 of them. That's how much 700 billion dollars would buy for every single American." All right, CNN. Several questions. How is that relevant? How is that a remotely good comparison? What does it have to do with the situation? Who's going to understand anything better than they did before that? Do enough people think in terms of thousands of tiny pies to make that an accessible analogy? And finally, how does the fact that money CAN purchase apple pies--though in this case the money in question won't--make the situation, the bailout plan, or even the sum more "American"? Lizmonster, I want an answer to at least that last one.

"Bush: U.S. in midst of serious financial crisis." I suppose the fact that this is news to the president makes it news, but I'm pretty sure even Bush was told to say it was a crisis before tonight, when that headline was posted. If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything at all.

Which actually brings me to another disturbing media trend: celebrity news. I've noticed a lot more celebrity news creeping into my regular news, in part because most of the real news is economic, and not enough reporters think they can fake looking like they know something about economics. So we get celebrity gossip, which I suppose might also be a marketing decision to make readers feel better ("I don't understand any of these current event headlines, but I totally get that Lindsay Lohan's dad is pissed off his daughter's dating a lesbian stripper.")

Yeah, I figured I'd mention Lindsay Lohan, since her name seems to generate a lot of hits for me. Maybe I should work the word "nude" into this post too. Hey look at that, just did. Anyway, the following celebrity news is almost equally stunning:

From the FRONT PAGE of USA Today: "America loves New York" (actual headline). Now, it turns out they meant America the actress (from the show Ugly Betty), who is apparently filming there and seems to find most aspects of the city acceptable or better. Front page? Really? You couldn't just show a graph of corporate credit spreads to treasuries or a cartoon of Hank Paulson's old Wall Street buddies leaving a bag of flaming poo on his front porch in the middle of the night (you could depict them snickering behind bushes as the bathrobe-clad Treasury Secretary yells at no one in particular--I seriously think this would be a great political cartoon, by the way).

Also, yes, Lindsay Lohan is having a homosexual relationship with a stripper. I expect this to make the news, because it's (a) Lindsay Lohan (b) a stripper and (c) another gay celebrity. But Lindsay Lohan's dad (whose name I couldn't conjure if my life depended on it) is getting as much coverage as the celebrity would get under normal circumstances. First, who cares, and second, how is it news that overprotective fathers might not be thrilled about their daughters dating lesbian strippers.

In other gay celebrity news, American Idol runner up Clay Aiken has announced that he's a gay father--claiming he didn't want his 8-month old son to grow up with a father who wasn't completely honest. Thanks for the update, Clay, but everyone knew you were a gay father from the minute they found out you were a father.

And in further celebrity news, Sarah Palin has met with several world leaders, and is planning on meeting several more, for a total of 9 this week at the UN. This brings the total number of foreign leaders with whom she's exchanged a few words up to 9, and the total number of Americans with more foreign policy experience than she has down to several million.

So I just got back from a ridiculous night of drinking and bar hopping with a Managing Director of a mutual fund company and a State Representative, who gave us an awesome nighttime tour of the capital. My favorite moment came as we were all yelling about national economic policy to a bar-provided soundtrack of Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'." The people you meet in a Harrisburg.

I also can't wait to be home in what I hope is 18 hours.

My Take on the Bailout

So Treasury Secretary Paulson is asking for 700 billion dollars to buy troubled assets from struggling financial corporations. The process of figuring out if this is good or bad is very much like an ogre, in that there are many layers.

At first, this seems like a huge waste of tax-payer money. Why should public funds to to help private corporations, and worse, taxpayers? Paul Krugman, an economist I respect a lot, takes this view. Especially if we're paying good money and getting junk in return.

But once I delved into it, I started to support the plan. The companies holding the bad assets need liquidity, that is, they need cash they can do stuff with. Their bad assets, while not worth nearly what we thought they were, still will pay out SOMETHING in the long run. If the U.S. Government buys them cheap enough, we'll help the companies while also getting a great return on investment (and it incentivizes leaders to help struggling home-owners, since their plan looks better if not-rich people get to keep their homes). And the US Government doesn't care as much about liquidity...it can borrow quite easily (people love treasury securities these days). We can get a good long term return. And will it drive up the deficit? In this case, I--a deficit hawk--can proudly say, "Who cares?" If we borrow at 5% and invest at 11% (maybe 8% after you adjust for the risk and the defaults we don't expect), we're turning a profit. Sure we have more debt, but it's offset by a good investment. If it's done right, this could be a great for the taxpayers financially in the short run (more solid financial sector) and the long run (a profitable investment that helps offset debt).

But then I read another editorial, by William Kristol, one of the most conservative people in all of media. He actually agreed with his colleague, Krugman, a bleeding heart liberal (well, for an economist) about this plan. So I took a closer look.

Note that I said the plan could be great IF IT'S DONE RIGHT. What Paulson is asking for is nowhere in the ballpark of "done right." There's absolutely NO transparency, NO accountability, and he wants the plan to be subject to the review of no court, no congressional committee, and no government agency. Basically, he's asking for immunity up front so he doesn't have the rush of trying to get it once he screws everything up! He can dole out contracts to private investment managers, play favorites and give fees to Republican party cronies, even purchase the securities for more than they're worth (in which case we'd be propping up shareholder value--the only way this makes sense is if we're buying the securities for LESS than they're worth, since we're also providing much needed liquidity)!

Congress needs to stop and think. I've heard a few interesting ideas. They range from the predictable ("Put in some oversight") to the incentive-based, which I like (such as "No company participating may compensate any officer or employee more than is made by the President of the United States"--a move which should help confine the participants to actually struggling companies, assuming the amendment also bans non-salary non-bonus forms of compensation).

But I don't like a plan that boils down to "trust me," especially when it involves a guy who repeatedly said that the worst is over and the system is "stable" (for over a year now Paulson's been saying stuff like that on and off). I don't trust him; this whole thing happened on his sleepy, deregulating, CEO-friendly, dogmatic watch. I'm being a little unfair to him to make a point, but we seem to have a choice between passing a good bill in a few weeks or passing the bad one that's been asked for quickly. I think the weeks working on a good plan would be well spent, that the markets are resilient enough not to completely collapse or do anything irreversible.

And isn't it suspicious that the ones demanding speed are the same ones who have touted the efficiency and resiliency of markets all along? I wonder why they're in such a hurry now...and that alone is enough to make me question the bailout. Though the plan and/or my analysis may change, right now I think that it's potentially a very good idea that they want to do very badly, and very quickly.

My Conveyance of an Interesting Column

NYTimes columnist Maureen Dowd gave her column inches away to writer Aaron Sorkin (of A Few Good Men and Studio 60 fame) so he could write a hypothetical conversation in which Obama seeks advice from fictional former president Jed Bartlet from Sorkin's The West Wing (which he created, and whose first four seasons he wrote). It has a flare of Dowd in it too (he knows her well enough to adapt her style, perhaps to appeal to her regular readers?), so it doesn't quite have the drama and eloquence of a Sam Seaborn crafted speech, but it's still quite interesting. Especially the advice President Bartlet gives in rant form near the end.

Don't know if there are any West Wing fans in my readership other than First Tiger, but I found this pretty interesting. And I definitely like Sorkin better than Dowd.

Feel free to comment here.

PS - It may interest some readers to learn that Sorkin actually made fun of Dowd in an episode. Karen Cahill, a feared NYTimes columnist who takes shoes way too seriously, was a thinly veiled parody of Maureen.

My Arkansas Question (also, something about the economy)

For anyone confused by some of the recent events that have been wreaking havoc with the economy and markets, I highly recommend reading this post, made by two University of Chicago economists on the NYTimes' Freakonomics blog. It covers events through September 17th or so, and is more accurate--and easier to understand--than at least 99% of the stuff being churned out by confused journalists.

Also, on politics, can anyone explain what's up with Arkansas to me? They've got a Democratic Governor, two Democratic Senators, 3 Democratic Representatives (out of 4 reps allotted to the state), and the Democrats have 75% (or better) control of both the State Senate and the State House of Representatives. And yet, McCain is probably going to win the state by 10 to 15 points. What gives? Do they hate their public officials? Did something change since the last round of elections? Are there a ton of racists in the state? What gives?

My Survey of Economists

OK, so it's not MY survey. Interestingly enough, it was commissioned by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. He wanted to do an anonymous survey of respected economists to find out what they thought of the presidential candidates, experts who couldn't be grilled or ridiculed for their beliefs and opinions. So he hired a company to do it right, and a Wharton professor I respect seems to think it was done well enough to report on the NYTimes Freakonomics blog, so I feel pretty comfortable reporting what I feel are the salient details here on mine.

Economists think Obama's plans would be better for the economy than McCain's by a margin of 59 to 31 (with 10% thinking there wouldn't be a significant difference between the candidates). Now, if you only look at economists registered as independents, the numbers come a little closer. Which begs the question, do some of them think what they do because they're a member of the candidate's party, or are they a member of the party because they believe in the party's current economic policies and proposals (I have to think that economic policy is among the top issues for most economists)? Either way, Obama seems to have an advantage.

While they were at it, they asked the economists what the most important issues were, and who would do a better job on those issues. Not surprisingly, they were all pretty economics-related (which supports my above-mentioned theory): education, healthcare, energy policy, and trade. Obama won 3 out of 4 of these. McCain edged out his opponent on trade, but Obama wins on healthcare, education, and energy policy.

So there you have it, 59 out of 100 economists agree, Obama is clearly better for America than McCain.

My Tax Policy Analysis

OK, back to issues. It's time to move away from Sarah Palin's meteoric rise from inexperienced backwater mayor to inexperienced backwater vice presidential candidate. Though she'd be a lot more likely to see action in the Oval than Biden would be, it's not likely either presidential candidate will need to call on a VP (that said, a fair number of Presidents have left office mid-term, two died of illness, one resignation, and four assassinations come to mind). And McCain would be the oldest president ever sworn in, and by all indications he's already started slipping mentally on the campaign trail.

ANYWAY, back to issues. Specifically, tax policy. No one really pays close attention to it, but it's important. According to the non-partisan and well-respected (even by economists) Tax Policy Center, both McCain's and Obama's tax plans would increase the deficit. McCain's would increase it by around 4.2 trillion dollars over 10 years, while Obama's would increase it by 2.9 trillion over the same period. That's 1.3 trillion dollars worse for McCain.

These projections hold a lot of things constant and make a lot of assumptions, but the biggest one is that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010. Now, Obama has said he wants to keep those cuts for lower-income people, which won't have too big an impact since those cuts don't really affect low-income people all that much (they were targeted at the rich). But Obama wants those Bush cuts gone for the most parts. McCain wants to make them permanent. Which would increase the deficit gap between the plans.

I was going to stop there, but a conversation I had yesterday convinced me to to mention one more thing, and it's probably going to be a common response to my points about the tax plans: there's an argument out there that McCain's going to cut programs to pay for his expensive tax cuts.

McCain has certainly hinted that he'd like to do something in the vague ballpark of that, and he's railed against excess spending, but consider this: researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania (among the world experts in political communication and certainly at least as engaged with a presidential election as anyone) can't find a single example of a program McCain has said he would cut. Not once has he said "If I were president, I'd eliminate (blank)." For all of the out of control spending, there isn't any of it McCain would undo. So basically, he just wants to drive up a huge deficit. Even Obama has mentioned more expenditures he'd like to roll back on (like the hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq, or Bush tax cuts for those making over 603,000 dollars a year that we can't afford).

It's also worth noting that even though McCain hasn't named a single program he plans to eliminate should he become president, he has said he'd favor the elimination of the Departments of Education and Energy, which handle what will surely be two of the most vital issues of the next fifty years.

When it comes to tax policy (not to mention budget policy), McCain is lost in the woods and has no idea what the macroeconomic ramifications of his dogmatically bad plan would be.