My New Blog

Well, it's official. I'm shutting down this blog. The 11 months without a post was probably clue to any readers I still have left. Anyway, today I launched a new blog. This one is going to be more focused on issues of policy, politics, science, technology, and the shaping of the future (which means you can get the good stuff without having to sift through my rants, inside jokes, and self-indulgence). The blog will also serve as the new home for the BurgerMap. So here are the relevant links.

The blog: Policy, Science Burgers
The BurgerMap: BurgerMap Philly
My first bizarrely popular post: A Missed Connection (why is this one getting more hits than all the others combined?)

I've had a lot of fun with this blog, but it's been mostly a "play-blog." I like to think of myself as graduating to a real blog. I won't say goodbye; hopefully I'll see you on the new site. Thanks for everything, readers,

-Matt

My Few Thoughts

Been a while since I posted. Busy busy. Anyway, a few thoughts I'd like to share:

1.) Is it me, or is every website trying to become just like every other website? What's up with that? (Evidence: Facebook overhaul, Google Buzz, I heard Twitter is becoming more social-networky...)

2.) If I'm ordering a Papa John's pizza online, don't you think they should tell you the expected delivery time is 90 minutes BEFORE they bill your credit card? What do people consider acceptable maximum pizza wait times? I think 20-30 minutes is normal, 45 minutes to 50 if they're super busy. 90? Really? For shame.

3.) Tomorrow is Valentine's Day and Chinese New Year. How come I'm celebrating Chinese New Year, but all my Chinese friends are celebrating Valentine's Day? (Disclosure: I'm not Chinese, but compared to some of the people who are, boy do I feel like I am.)

4.) Why is it when the Republicans are in the majority, it's 51 votes to get something done, but when the Democrats are in the majority, it's 60? The obvious answer is because the Democrats don't threaten to filibuster as much...but my theory is a little different: the Democrats are more afraid of the filibuster. Filibustering is hard...the Republicans can't filibuster EVERYTHING, and if they did, it'd be political suicide to appear CONSTANTLY intransigent in the face of widely popular bills (with which the Democrats would lead, if they were smart). Call their bluff, or if it's not a bluff, use it to win some desperately points going into the midterms. I'm not professional political strategist, but when your enemy is announcing their intended strategy--and it isn't that great a plan to begin with--why be afraid of it? Lose a few battles, win a few wars. It shouldn't be that complicated. Am I missing something...or are they?

Is it me, or does it seem like the Philadelphia unions (or at least their leaders) don't care how bad things get, as long as they don't get the blame?

Healthcare, Stick Figures and Analogies

This YouTube video (found by Lilly) not only spells out the case for universal healthcare, including a public option, but ends with a great analogy that will help people struggling with the complexities of the current system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A

(I had it embedded, but the dimensions of the video exceed the space allotted and I'm too lazy to recode the main page. It's 4:37, well worth it, amusing, and not a Rick-Roll.)

My Census Question

OK, so the Census is coming up next year. Hypothetical situation: I think my state is great. By and large, I love the Congressmen it elects, and I love the presidential candidates for whom it casts its electoral votes. Furthermore, I think when federal money comes its way, it spends it more responsibly in ways that create more jobs and help more people than most other states.

In this situation, I have one heck of an incentive to lie when the Census people come a-knocking or a-calling or a-mailing or, G-d forbid, a-Tweeting or a-Facebook poking, or however they do it these days. Because if I say I live with my roommate, his girlfriend, both of my girlfriends, and a family of 14 recently arrived (but perfectly legal!) immigrants, I'm doing my part to help my state, and through its superior voting and fiscal responsibility, the country. After all, Congressional representation and allotted electoral votes are directly related to the population of a state as calculated by the decannual (if that's not a word it is now) US Census. Furthermore, federal funding that gets divided up among states will sometimes be at least in part allocated according to relative population figures.

So if I want to have increased influence in steering my country in the right direction (not to mention preventing more Department of Education funds from finding their way to Kansas high schools where they'll be used to purchase periodic tables beginning with Jesus, Oxygen, and Abstinence and biology and history textbooks which both begin exactly 6,000 years ago), shouldn't I do my patriotic duty and generously round up the number of free persons residing in my domicile?

The Safer Side of Bonds?

I had an idea today, and the logic goes as follows:
America's massive debt to China makes us safer. Why? There's reasonably high correlation between the following: really evil people, people who hate America, people who rely on China's economic engagement and/or tacit political support.

During the Korean War, China got involved solidly on the side of North Korea. Since then, a lot of our problems with North Korea are compounded by China's lack of willingness to play ball. But now that we owe China hundreds of billions of dollars, they can't really take sides against us in an armed conflict, and today, the Wall Street Journal reported that China may be willing to consider sanctions as North Korea pursues nuclear weapons. I think China is waking up to their new incentive structure, and we'll be seeing them take steps, if necessary, to safeguard what is essentially their investment in our future.

Alexander Hamilton said "a national debt is a national blessing," and I think we're going to start seeing it in action.

(That said, this huge debt burden may prove crippling, lead to high interest rates, rampant inflation, increased rates of corporate bankruptcy, and rollbacks in services and government programs. But at least China will help keep the nukes away.)

More Credit Card Law Analysis

So I did a little more research, here's an update on a few specific provisions relating to students:

PROVISION: Students may not be offered gifts in exchange for completing credit card applications.
RATING: Don't like it, but probably a net gain.
ANALYSIS: This seems like it hurts the responsible people and helps the irresponsible people. There are probably a lot more irresponsible students than knowledgeable and fiscally responsible students, so I think it might be a net societal gain by making it harder to get the irresponsible students addicted to debt, as they say. That said, I don't like the idea of punishing the responsible at the expense of the irresponsible. Just as it's easier for a credit card company to take advantage of a student, it's also easier for a responsible and cunning student to take advantage of credit card companies--by getting free stuff in exchange for what they were going to do anyway (that is, get a credit card and be responsible about it). It also restricts freedom and limits consumer choice. So from a philosophical standpoint I'm opposed to it, and it does hurt people like me, but I think I have to admit that even I expect this provision to produce some slight net benefit for the country.

PROVISION: Universities will now be required to disclose marketing agreements made with credit card issuers. Credit card companies will likewise be required to report donations and other financial transactions with universities and alumni associations.
RATING: Good
ANALYSIS: If a student's school is in a business relationship with the company offering credit cards on campus, disclosing that may take away what a student sees as an implicit endorsement. It reveals conflicts of interest, does nothing to restrict freedom or choice, and provides information to consumers. I think there are great principles involved here, and the only reason I didn't rate it higher than "Good" is because I'm not sure how big a difference this will make. But there's no downside, so it's worth a shot.

PROVISION: "Calls on" the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the impact of university/credit card company business relationships on student credit card debt.
RATING: Good
ANALYSIS: No "thou shalt not..." regulation in this part. It just asks the GAO to look into how big a factor these currently unseen deals are when it comes to helping and hurting students with credit, credit cards and debt. The disclosure requirements should make the studies easier to do, and it might provide some insights that make future regulation and legislation better. I'll upgrade this to a "Great" if we also use the opportunity to learn about financial education needs and how to improve that education in this country.

My Credit Card Law Analysis

So Congress is passing new credit card legislation. Some of the ideas in it are good, and some of them are bad. Some of them will help lots of people. Some won't. A few provisions will help some poor people and hurt some rich people. Other provisions will protect some poor people and hurt some other poor people. Here's PiFry's Guide to Congress's Credit Card Legislation Rush Job. Whether you're trying to form your own opinions or sound impressive at the watercooler, this primer of a few salient points should help. Feel free to add your own ideas in the comments.

PROVISION: Banks must send out credit card bills no later than 21 days before payment is due.
RATING: Pretty Good
ANALYSIS: This prevents the old trick of mailing a bill late in the hopes of being able to charge late fee. That trick is unethical and abusive, and 21 days builds in enough time to account for two envelopes making their way through the postal system, plus ample time for the bill payer to get the money together to pay it. Ideally Congress would just outlaw the unethical tactics, but intent is so hard to prove and even harder to monitor, so a day count is the best way to go. I'm not crazy about such a stiff and inflexible regulation, but I honestly can't think of a better way to do it.

PROVISION: Banks generally must wait until a payment is 60 days late before charging the higher penalty rate on outstanding balances.
RATING: Unnecessary, annoying, and too restrictive
ANALYSIS: Why 60 days? Why not 2 months, which would be anywhere from 59 to 62 days? Why not 59 days? Why not 49 days? This is an arbitrary and unnecessary cutoff. If a payment is late, the previous provision kind of ensures the person is actually delinquent and not caught in some trick. I understand allowing some grace period for something like a medical emergency or being stuck in an airport someplace, but 60 days seems excessive. A 30 day limit might help people who need it, but a long 60 limit just lends a helping hand not to the poor, but to the irresponsible. Credit card companies may try to make up the profits elsewhere at the expense of more creditworthy customers, which violates a fairness principle I think most Americans hold when it comes to markets. (As an aside, this regulation could also be bypassed by a penalty scheme that's still legal and yet more complicated and esoteric--kind of the exact opposite of the direction in which this bill is trying to push things.)

PROVISION: 45 days mandatory notice for an interest rate change
RATING: Often good, sometimes annoying
ANALYSIS: It makes sense to require enough notice of changing rates to allow them to plan accordingly. This prevents some abuse. That said, it also rules out cards for consumers who might WANT a frequently-changing rate. If a bank wants to issue a card with a fluctuating but lower-on-average variable rate (or a consumer is willing to trade a fluctuating rate for something more important to them about the card), this will restrict consumer choice. I don't like that, and it potentially costs society some real value. I think there should be some exceptions in the final draft of the bill (I'm not sure if they're talking about it or not).

PROVISION: If a consumer's payment is received by 5PM on the due date, the payment is on time.
RATING: Awesome
ANALYSIS: The only thing this does is prevent a company from screwing with customers by putting a mid-day or early-morning deadline in the fine print. No more charging late fees for having a payment arrive with an afternoon mail delivery, and no more late fees for the postman getting caught in traffic.

PROVISION: Banks will now require customer permission before charging that customer a fee for exceeding their credit limit.
RATING: Very good
ANALYSIS: Currently, a bank can automatically charge a high fee every time a consumer goes over his or her limit (accepting the new charge). From now on, the default will be for limits to be actual limits, and charges will be declined unless the customer gives the bank permission to charge an outrageous fee for a temporary bump of the credit limit. Only downside is for the consumers who don't know they're at their limit, haven't authorized such a fee, and really really really need to charge whatever they're trying to put on their card. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

PROVISION: When carrying multiple types of balances on the same card (with different rates), banks must apply payments to the highest interest portion of the balance first.
RATING: Very good
ANALYSIS: It was an old trick to say "0% interest for balance transfers!" and let someone put $6,000 on a new card that had a 24.99% rate for everything else. Then even if the customer was responsible and spent $100 the first month while paying $200 on the bill, the credit card company would say "OK, you now have $5,800 outstanding on the balance transfer and $100 outstanding on which you owe 24.99% interest." It was basically a trap to roll all the new spending into a very high interest loan until they paid for the balance transfer. There were tons of these tricks, and now they'll be illegal. Good for consumers--especially less savvy ones--and bad for credit card companies (who will probably take it out on customers like me who always pay off everything). The downside to this comes up when a consumer would want to pay the lower-rate balance off first, though such situations are hard to think of outside of contrived examples.

PROVISION: Promotional rates must last at least 6 months.
RATING: Terrible
ANALYSIS: Promotional rates are marketing. As long as the duration of the promotional rate is made clear from the beginning, we shouldn't force companies into using specific types of marketing offers. This kind of invasive micromanaging helps very little and bans (or makes more difficult to provide) all sorts of offers which could, if used correctly, be very beneficial to consumers. A plain-English disclosure requirement would work much better here.

PROVISION: Issuers can't raise the base (non-promotional non-penalty rate) for a year after issuance.
RATING: Meh, whatever
ANALYSIS: This one probably isn't a big deal in the long run; it does offer some protection; and the above regulation allows the effective rate to change once (promotional to non-promotional), but seriously, let the market decide this kind of thing. If we're requiring 45 days written notice for a rate change, how necessary is this? On the other hand, it could prevent someone from having to change credit cards a lot, which would reflect negatively on their credit rating...in analyzing this I reach an indifference point.

PROVISION: Certain pieces of information will have to be disclosed in plain English and written in 10-point font or bigger.
RATING: Awesome
ANALYSIS: Disclosure regulations are good. Disclosure regulations which mandate important information be presented in a legible and understandable format are even better. These kinds of information include everything from expiration dates on gift cards (and similar devices) to how much it would cost to pay off a balance making the minimum payments. Useful information for consumers presented clearly. Fantastic. Nine thumbs up.

Finally:
PROVISIONS: Young people and students are going to see a very different landscape in a lot of ways. I'm getting conflicting information on what this will entail.
RATING: Hard to say right now, but it's looking worriesome
ANALYSIS: I've heard a lot of reports floating around, but generally it seems like the little ideas are good and the big ideas are bad. Little ideas include more disclosure on relationships between colleges and card issuers and banning certain marketing practices like a university-endorsed booth offering frat boys a free slice of pizza if they sign up for a credit card. Big ideas include forcing parental cosigners for young people, and parental consent for increases in credit limit. My big problem with this: how are young people supposed to develop good credit on their own? Having a credit card was very helpful to me in college in developing a credit history, and it's saved me a lot of money over the years. Those who have their own income can apply for a waiver, but the cutoff age being talked about is 21. This means for 3 years a full American citizen who isn't a minor will be treated like a second class citizen. 21 is a rare age limit, and we use it for things like drinking due to all the extra drunk driving deaths. Is a credit card really that dangerous? Some would argue yes, but they'd be equivocating, and this doesn't sit right with me. This could help protect some, but also hurt and inconvenience a lot of people.

That's the end of my primer; I have to go do other things now. Hope it helped. One last note: I'm hearing a lot of talk about how the credit card companies will jack up fees and cut benefits for responsible card holders to make up the difference...I'm not sure how true that is though. I'm sure we'll see a little bit of that, but at the same time, if credit card companies have to make more money on regular business and less on fees, they may be competing even more vigorously for the big-spenders (after all, the companies do get a percentage of EVERY TRANSACTION that takes place on the credit card as well). I think the effects may cancel each other out, by and large.

My Bag Tax?

The City Council in Philadelphia is proposing a 25 cent charge per-plastic-bag used at a store...small businesses would get to keep the revenue for themselves, larger ones would have to give some of it back to the city as taxes. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I've been asked by a few readers to share some thoughts, so here's my first-cut analysis.

Some people are asking "why not just ban it?" On principle, government should intervene and ban really harmful stuff, but there's a whole category of other things which provide value, but which people tend to over-consume due to a market failure (a negative externality). This occurs when someone gets most or all of the benefit of an action, but only incurs a small portion (or none) of the cost of that action. The government doesn't want to ban a helpful activity altogether, but it needs a way to keep it in check, lest people hurt society for their own benefit. Governments cap emissions on cars, for example (if cars could pollute more, they'd be cheaper, and drivers would get all the benefit while passing most of the cost onto everyone else who has an equal stake in having clean air). Taxation is a powerful market-adjusting tool if applied correctly...one of the greatest public health measures of the century in this country has been the cigarette tax.

A tax also makes sense because it helps generate money that can be used to help offset the harm caused by the thing being taxed...helping to negate the initial wrongdoing. If Philadelphia put the revenue towards city beautification, cleanup projects, and creating green jobs, it may be better than a ban, which would eliminate consumer choice. I'd rather have the option of bringing my own bag or paying 25 cents for one as opposed to being forced to bring my own bag. A tax is no WORSE than a ban from an individual consumer's perspective...unless a store under a ban would switch to free paper bags and under the tax will just charge for the bags...and now I'll get into the real problem I have with the tax:

It's extremely regressive. Poor people will end up paying a higher percentage of their income, and generally be more shafted, for several reasons. One, they'll be less well prepared for the switch, as they don't read my blog (and other factors). Two, avoiding the charge is an expense and hassle more easily managed by wealthier people: buying good reusable bags would be a substantial one-time expense, and it's a lot easier to use such bags once acquired if you have a car and don't have to take a bus (they'll be bulkier, and must be carried both ways). Third, and most importantly, it's a flat fee tax, that is, everyone pays the same. It won't rise or fall with income or even the value of the items purchased, making it more regressive than even a sales tax, which at least goes down as you buy cheaper stuff. This tax is proportional to the amount of stuff bought, and when it comes to groceries, poor people buy cheaper, but they still need to eat the same amount of food as anyone else. If passed, this may be one of the most necessarily regressive taxes in history. (I say "necessarily regressive" because there are more regressive taxes that target products preferred by poor people, like the cigarette tax actually. But poor people at least have a choice not to smoke; they don't have a choice not to buy groceries, making it necessary to choose between paying the charge or paying to avoid it.)

(OK, now that I've made some good points, I'll go back to being wishy-washy.) The only thing I can think of to mitigate the regressive problem is to require that any place offering plastic bags also offer paper ones, which won't be subject to a city-mandated charge. It's not a perfect solution, and I generally hate the idea of government micromanaging business like that. The whole thing doesn't sit right with me...that said, it is a step in the right direction environmentally speaking and people will adapt to it. On a macro-level, though, I think a national gasoline tax would be a lot better than widespread plastic bag bans or taxes, and I do love my Wawa bags.

Now I want a Wawa sandwich. Who's surprised?

My Bonus Policy

Companies are currently coming under fire for giving out bonuses while laying people off, and the ones who are giving out big bonuses while laying people off and accepting public money to stay afloat are downright reviled. In most cases, rightfully so, but I want to make a brief argument IN FAVOR of giving out bonuses to certain kinds of people, and those people are the ones who helped company performance by predicting the downturn, the bursting of the real estate bubble, and the credit crunch and the people who took steps to mitigate the risk. If companies don’t reward those people, or aren’t allowed to, then it creates a massive disincentive in the future for people to tell the truth, especially when it’s bad news. People already don’t like making bad predictions or giving bad news to superiors, but we’re on the verge of creating an incentive structure in which people ONLY make money by predicting good things and then having them happen.

•If an analyst predicts good things and he’s wrong, low compensation, less job security.

•If an analyst predicts bad things and he’s wrong, low compensation, seen as a pessimist/downer/disloyal.

•If an analyst predicts good things and he’s right, big bonus for being right and helping the company prepare.

•If an analyst predicts bad things and he’s right…low compensation and less job security? Really?

OK, now pretend you’re an analyst and the CEO says “Hey, we’ve got all these subprime mortgage loans on the books. Do you think we should buy more?” If you say yes, your fortunes are tied to those loans. But if you say no, even if you’re right you’re screwed because the company’s so heavily exposed to them anyway, the bad year causes you to get a crappy bonus anyway! So less risk for you means more risk for the financial system.

We should find a way to reward those most prescient, and send a message to future generations of economists, bankers, financiers and analysts that good work will be rewarded, because the difference between getting good analysis and having people game the system for their own benefit is exponentially greater than the hit companies and taxpayers take giving out bonuses even in the worst of times.

I’m not saying we should be paying for multi-million dollar office redecorations, but some people actually deserve bonuses, and for the sake of our future economy, they should get them.

My "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"

So a big deal has been made about Rush Limbaugh lately. I never really paid the guy much attention--there hasn't been anything I could get from him that I don't already get from at least one of the three homeless people I pass on my way to work (the religious nut, the mean lady, and the crazy bird-man). Together those three beggars really are like listening to Rush on a drive to work...except I get to walk.

But lately he's been getting a lot of press, mostly about the Democrats painting him as the new face of the Republican party and his being stupid enough to accept that (or smart enough if he doesn't actually care about his party and just wants to cash in). So I thought I'd listen to a few of his comments from that famous speech he gave recently.

I didn't last very long.

At one point in his diatribe against President Obama, he decried our intrepid leader and attacked him for the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), which he unequivocally described as unconstitutional.

OK, now I'm no historian, but wasn't the TARP plan created, enacted, and pushed through Congress by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Henry Paulson? Wasn't half the TARP money spent or committed before Obama's inauguration?

Heckuva job with that speech, Rushie.

My Takeaways (from Obama's non-State of the Union)

There are a few things I think are important to take away from Obama's speech last night. I think he did a good job, and was generally pleased with what I heard. I wanted to extricate a couple of points from the rhetoric and applause breaks as being particularly poignant.

1) Obama clearly stated that a cause of our economic problems was the placement of short-term rewards over long-term prosperity. I think even he doesn't know how right he is. This is an important distinction not because recognition will fix things, but because it means they're looking at things the right way when it comes to patching up the system and putting in place safeguards to ward off similar types of market failures, market crashes, and economic implosions (and a bit of market psychology may also come into play, as the mere feeling that our leadership is doing things right will restore confidence needed to bolster credit markets and investment).

2) Obama made a great point with his already much-quoted insistence that dropping out of school isn't just quitting on yourself, but quitting on the country. He followed it up by saying America needs all of its human resources working to as close to their potential as we can get them, and he's right. Combine that with other parts of his speech in which he implored Americans to invest in themselves through college or trade school or apprenticeships or graduate school, plus the part in which he insisted that research, invention, innovation and discovery will help lead us out of our economic hardship, and we have the beginning of a clear vision, a realistic look at ourselves and what we need to do. I think he couldn't be more right, and his challenge to restore America's place as having the highest proportion of college gruadates by 2020 attests to his long-term thinking, which is exactly what we need (note that 2020 is even after his second term would end, a horizon to which not many politicians often look).

3) Healthcare, energy, and education. These were his three priorities, and they should be three of the five places we invest our public money (the other two being resurrecting our financial services industry and investing in scientific research, discovery and innovation--at least that's the PiFry Plan). We can get better healthcare for less money; most other industrialized nations get similar healthcare for less money, and we have better resources to work with here. We can lead the world again in green energy technology, and we should. Green technology is going to revolutionize the way we generate, transport, and even use electricity, and it will likely open the doors to all sorts of new frontiers we can't even imagine now. China and Denmark shouldn't be given global leadership by our complacence, and there's huge returns on investment to be had. Education can be silver bullet, and it's the way we bring up a workforce able to compete in a globalized economy, able to hold the jobs we create in healthcare and green energy, able to invent the next solar panel, the next iPod, the next microprocessor, start the next Google or Intel or Microsoft. Obama, being as clear and correct as a president ever was, pointed out that those who out-teach today will out-compete tomorrow.

And finally, I'd just like to laugh about one more thing. That thing being how Bobby shot himself in the political foot afterwards by failing to adequately deliver a largely well-written speech, and also by invoking the federal government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina as a reason to espouse Republican philosophies (touting how well leaving people to fend for themselves in a disaster works...I guess there wasn't THAT much looting, so who needs a stimulus package).

My Banking System

I think policy makers are currently making the same mistakes about banking that the bankers who got us into this mess made.

No, I don't think Rahm and Larry are writing bad mortgages, but I DO think they're getting so deep in theory and math, nuance and ideology, that they're missing the fundamentals. Here's how I see it:

1) Many big banks are currently being called "Zombie banks" accurately. As awesome as a Zombie Bank would be to blog about, what the term means is that they're still standing--albeit on crutches--but lack the capital to extend credit very far into the economy. They're big, but they can't act like a big bank.

2) Any recapitalization of the banks that would allow them to achieve their former prowess (And I'm thinking of banks like Citi and Bank of America right now) would not only be so large as to be impossible without public assistance for the time being, but the sum of money would also be larger than the net worth of the banks themselves, a net worth which, mind you, is being pushed up right now (talking about market capitalization, the price per share times outstanding shares) by some probability that the government will give a huge gift to the current shareholders, bringing me to point three:

3) Any rescue plan that allows the banks to lubricate our economy the way they once did and facilitate a recovery would either (A) have to come with SOME public ownership of a bank or (B) give a HUGE gift to shareholders and allow them to enjoy most of the upside potential while the taxpayers are left with most of the downside risk.

So I see three options: (1) Don't help the banks (2) Give a huge gift to shareholders and in the process mess up economic incentive structures even more or (3) Have some public ownership of banks.

People are fighting against #1 saying we need to do something, that we're capitalists and we need our banks. People are fighting against #2 saying in capitalism, the losers die out and it is SUPREMELY unfair to lay what might be a ticking time bomb at the taxpayer's feet when any good capitalist would allow for "creative destruction" right about now. And people are fighting against #3 by saying that amounts to communism and nationalization, which isn't very capitalist and any red blooded American should be against it.

Well, they're all right, but they're all wrong. Capitalism screwed up. Ask about the causes and you get everything from poor regulation and greed to messed up incentive structures and lack of understanding of man-made systems and devices. We're going to have to do something that appears at least a little "uncapitalistic" (I'm coining the phrase).

Personally I think from a political fairness principle, Option 3 is the best, though every criticism against it is pretty accurate. But we can't do nothing, and we can't take the risk associated with Option 2. The question should be how to manage public ownership and get it back to private as soon as possible, but we need our banks. To fund innovation, new businesses, infrastructure investment, and put investors and creators together. Without our banks, recovery will be a lot slower, so instead of coming up with half-measures that won't work (odd and sophisticated loan structures, caps on pay which will just send the smartest people fleeing to other industries, "bad banks" and "stress tests"...to name a few), let's start thinking about how to fix the big problems. Let's focus on using taxpayer money and the money we borrow from our children to invest in their future; let's figure out an exit strategy for public bank ownership (there are plenty of good ones); let's figure out how to let the people who take on the risk share in the rewards; and let's stop with the small-potatoes finger pointing, half-measures and PhD level minutiae that's standing in our way.

Que Sarah Sarah

Today's Word of the Day is: SarahPac!

SarahPac is Sarah Palin's new PAC, or Political Action Committee (I'm almost positive that's what it stands for, but in the spirit of discussing Sarah Palin I've decided to do no extra research whatsoever...you know, out of solidarity).

What this means ostensibly is that Sarah Palin now has a vehicle for both accepting and making campaign contributions. She can raise money for herself, and take money from the PAC and direct it strategically, probably to support candidates fighting for things she believes in all over the country, from Iowa to New Hampshire, from Florida to Ohio...

Slightly less ostensibly, but no less obvious, is that this keeps Sarah Palin in the spotlight and help set up her primary run in 2012. She's also begun keying in on her #1 issue: energy independence. This is good for her, because she seemed fairly competent talking about the issues involved in the campaign, and coming from Alaska, she actually has credibility when she says "drill, baby, drill." (Plus, isn't it adorable when she says "baby"?)

I was thrilled to hear this news. And not because I'm a huge fan of clever names for PACs (though I am). I was happy because it means I get more Sarah Palin news without the stress of worrying if she might actually hold high constitutional office next year (as was true in the campaign). I miss her, but not the way I'll miss Ed Rendell or the way people miss Ronald Reagan. I miss Sarah Palin the same way we all miss Aaron Sorkin, who should come back and write another awesome TV show. She's so gosh darn adorable and entertaining, and I'm glad to see her back on the public stage with no hope of winning a high-ranking position in the federal government.

Our Inauguration

January 20th, 2009. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Inauguration day.

Today I saw a man promise to preserve, protect and defend a living document that counted him as three-fifths of a person until an amendment was added in the back.

Today I saw a man take the reins of leadership of a country in which he could have once been owned as property two centuries ago, in which he couldn't have voted one century ago, in which he wouldn't even have been served in some restaurants or been allowed to sit next to me on the bus half a century ago. I saw him become the most powerful person in the world.

Today I saw a great mind become president as the clock struck noon, as he listened to perhaps the most talented quartet of musicians the world has ever seen--a Jew, an Asian, a Christian and a black man--playing a variation of "Simple Gifts," a Shaker melody whose almost-forgotten lyrics declare that it is a gift to be free.

Today I saw a man offer patent honesty about the challenges face by a nation when offered unadulterated devotion and jubilation by the masses. I saw him redirect our attention from the afterglow of an election to the real work that lies ahead.

Today I saw a man captivate the world by raising his right hand, by becoming not just the head but the real face of a nation that leads the world into prosperity and crisis alike, whose relationships with its global neighbors define the destiny of a planet. Today as tears fell, as leaders and peasants held their breath, as humanity watched a transition and a transformation from over 240 nations and territories, we all heard a man say to world leaders--and really to the whole world--that we will be judged by what we can build, not by what we destroy. Leaders will be judged by their people, citizens will be judged by their peers, and nations will be judged by history on the basis of what we create, what we leave behind, and how well we fulfill humanity's pledge to leave for our children better than that which we ourselves received.

Today I saw a man ready to lead, and a nation willing to follow.

More on Nth-hand Smoking

It seems like the debate as to the dangers of secondhand smoke are over, and now doctors and scientists are investigating the dangers of thirdhand smoke, as reported by the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Thirdhand smoke is what's left behind by secondhand smoke. Just because you can't see the smoke in the air doesn't mean there aren't toxins and carcinogens left behind. Basically, if something smells like cigarette smoke, it's probably toxically unhealthful.

As an aside, I'd like to pose a few questions to the people still saying secondhand smoke isn't dangerous: if we have proof that inhaling certain things increases the risk of cancer and heart disease, and we have proof that those things are in secondhand smoke, why is it so hard to believe that secondhand smoke is dangerous?

Also, there's a certain disconnect, at least for me: most of the studies showing that smoke and secondhand smoke aren't that bad are funded directly by tobacco companies. Proponents of the minority opinion shoot back that the other studies are funded by the ACS (American Cancer Society) and similar groups. How the heck is that a relevant comparison? Tobacco companies have a bias towards smoking because they're pro-tobacco by definition, by the very nature and mission of the organization. The American Cancer Society has a bias because...what? Because it's AGAINST CANCER? To me, that's a pretty darn good motive for doing independent research, if they're consistently biased against things that cause cancer. I'm fine with that. It's not like they're secretly a militant group trying to take down harmless tobacco companies posing as a public health organization. They're legitimately against cancer. Also, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association...they're pro-hearts and pro-lungs. And I've got three vital organs that fall into at least one of those two categories. I recognize that people get emotionally attached to opinions, and it's hard to change peoples' minds, but why are non-profits trying to save lives just as suspect on the subject of smoking as companies trying to sell cigarettes? If smoking was really harmless, you'd think at least a few of their leading members would catch on eventually and say "hey, let's get back to our mission and focus on stuff that actually kills people." If they say secondhand smoke kills you, and the basic science says it kills you, I don't need to nitpick every little study, finding flaws (which will always exist) in any one that disagrees with me before I avoid the stuff.

My Smoking Ban Dilemma

I don't think I have a single reader who is in the dark about my feelings regarding Philadelphia's smoking ban (I think one reader put it best, observing that, "If it were a woman, [I'd] marry her."). But now that over 99% of the places I'd ever want to go are in compliance with the ban, what do I do when I encounter a place that is non-compliant? (Bear in mind, when I say "non-compliant" I don't mean just "allows smoking" but "allows illegal smoking").

This dilemma hit me the other day. I was out with some friends at a dive bar, my first time there, and halfway through the meal, a nearby person lit up. The person next to him saw this, and lit a cigarette as well. Then the bartender came over. I was relieved, expecting him to enforce the "no smoking" sign hanging in the window (a requirement under the ban). Instead he bummed a smoke. I had finished eating, but hadn't paid yet. Part of me wanted to walk out, get stopped, explain I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and I'd be happy to sit back down and pay in accordance with the law as soon as they showed any sign that they cared what the law said. While witty, effective, and snotty, I decided that (a) two wrongs don't make a right and (b) it's not worth the risk to me--if they didn't realize I was making a point and had no intention of not paying under any circumstances, I could face criminal charges while they'd just get a small fine.

So I got the check, paid, and left. My coat now smells of smoke, and I wish I had some legal recourse to send them the dry-cleaning bill, but getting and enforcing such a court order would cost way more than the cleaning service. I brooded back at home, a little ticked off.

I liked this place. The food was decent, extremely cheap, before the cigarette incident, I was planning on coming back. Now my dilemma is: do I report the bar for the violation? Part me says to be the bigger man and simply never come back. Part of me wants to fire an anonymous warning shot, and maybe try coming back there. Part of me wants to stick it to them for causing me such discomfort and inconvenience. And part of me thinks the law is the law.

I was very close to just forgetting about it, and writing a bad review for the bar. But then I realized something else: Philadelphia has a billion+ dollar 5-year fiscal deficit. That bar owes the City some money. Not enough to make a dent, but just on principle. Furthermore, the bar is a poor representative of Philadelphia to any tourists, and discourages people from trying new places and going out. Beyond the fine, that's a lot of economic activity the city loses out on if such flagrant disregard continues. It's one thing to be gracious and nice to people, even if they're breaking the law. I'm not a law enforcement officer; they weren't hurting anyone (oh, wait, actually they were, but anyway...); and in the spirit of individual liberties, I was just going to let it slide. But I can't let it slide if doing so means siding with those people against my own city.

So after my own internal struggle, not only am I going to report the violation, but I'd like to encourage readers to do the same should the situation arise. Cities thrive when the citizenry actively protects it, and urban America needs the help these days. If the smoking ban is good for the city (and all the evidence suggests that smoking bans are great for cities), let's make it a real one, not just a piece of paper to whoever chooses to disregard it. Let's give visitors a good impression, and our fellow residents a cleaner, safer set of choices for going out, spending money, and having a good time. I'm siding with my city.

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 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?