Minor Thoughts from me to you

Kyle Baxter, with some great ideas on how to create a newspaper for the web, that can survive and thrive.

The newspaper’s value, then, is by slowing down when everything else has sped up. The web has a nearly unlimited number of sources publishing new news every second, and the result is that there is no understanding. We scan what’s new, move on to what’s then new after that, but we don’t stop and consider what any one event means. The newspaper solves that. It turns the torrential stream into a regular, daily update of what’s new in a realistic portion. There’s a finite amount of articles within each day’s edition, and because we know there’s an end, we can take the time to actually read and digest each article. The newspaper is a sort of daily review where you can take some time, relax and consider events. That’s incredibly powerful. It’s a sort of counterbalance to the web’s always-on, always-new, always-moving nature.

∞

The Passage of Power by Robert A. Caro

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I've been looking forward to this book, ever since I read Master of the Senate two years ago. I knew it would involve the Johnson presidency but not the entire thing. So, I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I finally picked it up.

The book covers Johnson's flawed and failed candidacy for the 1960 Democrat Presidential nomination and Johnson's experience on the Kennedy-Johnson ticket. It covers his 3 years, as Kennedy's Vice-President, and then his succession to the Presidency itself and what he did during his first 7 weeks in office—the time from Kennedy's assassination to the 1964 State of the Union address.

Telling you that doesn't really convey what the book is about though. Here, in Caro's words, is the center of the book.

[T]he succession of Lyndon Johnson deserves a better fate in history. For had it not been for his accomplishments during the transition, history might have been different. Because the headlines in that first blizzard of news—PRISONER LINKED TO CASTRO GROUP; SUSPECT LIVED IN SOVIET UNION—have long been proven false or exaggerated, it has been easy to forget that for several days after the assassination America was reading those headlines, easy to forget the extent of the suspicions that existed during those days not only about a conspiracy but about a conspiracy hatched in Cuba or Russia, two nations with whom, barely a year before, America had been on the brink of nuclear war.

... Nor should other aspects of the transition be passed over as lightly as they have been. Because he moved so swiftly and successfully to create the image of continuity that reassured the nation, it has been easy to overlook how the Kennedy men might simply have resigned. It has been easy to overlook the obstacles—the shock and mystery of the assassination, the mushroom cloud fears, the deep divisions in the country over his predecessor’s policies—that stood in the way of unifying America behind his Administration; easy to overlook how difficult to unify even his own party: to rally into line behind his Administration’s banner labor leaders, black leaders, liberals, many of whom had, for years, been deeply suspicious of him and who would have needed little excuse to fall irrevocably into line behind another, more familiar banner, the brother’s banner, that could so readily have been raised within party ranks; to fall into line behind a leader they knew, and were quickly beginning to love.

This book is the story of that transition. Everything else in the book is designed to set the stage for the transition. Caro wants you to understand, the man, the times, the place, and the history leading up to that transition.

In true Caro style, we get a mini-biography of President John F. Kennedy. We're treated to an up-close look at how Johnson lost his opportunity and 1960 and what he endured as Vice-President. But all of that is window dressing, to set the stage for the transition. Caro's focus on the transition is truly illuminating of both President Johnson and of how power is wielded in America.

This book was a shorter read than Master of the Senate and was truly engaging. I had trouble putting it down, once I started it, and was once again drawn into Caro's portrayal of this era of American history. Once again, I have to highly recommend Caro's work on Johnson. You won't regret reading it and you'll definitely learn from it.

Change.edu: Rebooting for the New Talent Economy by Andrew S. Rosen

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Andrew Rosen is the CEO of Kaplan, Inc. Most people know of Kaplan through their SAT test preparation materials. Kaplan has been busy diversifying beyond test prep and is now also running Kaplan University, home to 50,000 online students. Andrew has written Change.Edu as an explanation of what he sees wrong with the traditional college experience and what he hopes to accomplish with Kaplan University. He also answers the most common criticisms of for-profit universities.

This is a book that I highly recommend, if you're interested in where higher education is going and how we can improve educational quality while increasing the number of college graduates, while dealing with bloated government budgets.

The book is clearly laid out, with six main ideas.

1. Harvard Envy. Rosen calls this the "Ivory Tower Playbook" and says that most universities feel that "the only permissible strategy is to climb the prestige ladder". Schools are competing with each other to gain prestige, not to deliver an education. This strategy makes sense for the schools but not for society.

   Schools spend ever larger amounts of money on buildings, on attracting faculty, and on building better sports teams. Schools also compete for the best and brightest students. The result is that the school itself becomes more prestigious but doesn't increase the number of students receiving an education and doesn't even necessarily increase the quality of the education that the lucky students receive.

   The end result is that most schools are competing for the best and the brightest students. But no one is competing for the poor student or for the middle-class student that just wants to learn something, without breaking the bank.

2. Club College. In many ways, this chapter is a continuation of the criticisms of the first chapter. Many universities are focusing their attention—and their budgets—on non-academic areas. In this chapter, Rosen examines the lavish lifestyle that many universities offer to students. From dining options, to living options, to fitness facilities, to sports teams and more, many universities are competing to offer incoming students the most entertaining 4 years possible.

   All of these expenditures have nothing to do with academics and everything to do with attracting the most desirable students. Then, after those students graduate, the school can bask in the glow of their famous and accomplished alumni. The alumni, in turn, will look back on their college years with favor, leading to donations, prestige, and word of mouth marketing.

   Rosen is careful to point out that there's nothing wrong with schools wanting to be prestigious or wanting to attract top students. The problem is that schools are spending large amounts of federal, state, and local tax dollars to do so. American taxpayers are paying hundreds of billions of dollars annual to subsidize expenses that have nothing to do with actual learning.

3. Community Colleges. Theoretically, community colleges are supposed to be the solution to status obsessed or entertainment obsessed schools. They're supposed to be a low-cost alternative for the masses. Unfortunately, Rosen concludes, they're failing in their mission.

   They run their institutions based on a very different set of conventions—one I think of as the All-Access Playbook: They see their mission as providing an opportunity for everyone.

   ... Part of the problem with community colleges is the wide variety of goals and missions they are attempting to tackle. “If you visit a four-year college, you can predict what sort of student you are going to bump into,” writes New York Times columnist David Brooks. “If you visit a community college, you have no idea. You might see an immigrant kid hoping eventually to get a PhD, or another kid who messed up in high school and is looking for a second chance. You might meet a 35-year-old former meth addict trying to get some job training or a 50-year-old taking classes for fun.”

   The problem is that community colleges are dependent on state and local funding. Often, when students most want access to classes, funding is limited. Many governments can't afford to increase funding and most community colleges are unable or unwilling to raise tuition to compensate. As a result, community colleges are unable to meet the demand and students are left without options. The "All Access Model" has noble goals but is often unable to meet them.

4. Private Universities. Rosen presents private, for-profit, universities as the answer to America's education dilemma. ("How do we educate a large segment of the population efficiently and without bankrupting the nation?") Private universities are often mocked, but it's clear that they meet a need for a large number of students.

   The largest of the private-sector schools, the University of Phoenix, counted more than four hundred thousand students in 2010, an enrollment larger than the undergraduate enrollment of the entire Big Ten.

   He talks about why these schools are popular with both students and employers.

   Private-sector schools tend to align their curriculum around those skills that are most needed in the workforce. Many of these institutions have advisory boards that consult with employers to get feedback on what employers want from prospective employees in a given area, and they regularly update their curricula to teach to those skills.

   If a school is giving students the knowledge that employers most want to see, employers benefit by having an appropriately skilled workforce available and students benefit by being able to quickly and easily find jobs that utilize their new skills.

   He points out that for-profit schools are not a new institution, driven by modern greed.

   “The earliest universities in late medieval times were profit-making corporate associations, and the black gowns that professors still wear at graduations and special events have deep pockets into which students in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries deposited their fees,” writes George Keller, an educational historian.

   ... Viewed in this light, the surge of private-sector colleges over the last generation can be seen less as a new phenomenon taking hold, and more as a long-standing and successful educational model enjoying a renaissance—largely as a result of the unsustainable funding model relied upon by the public institutions that became dominant over the last century.

   He points out that for-profit schools receive all of their revenue from student tuition. The only way they can grow, thrive, and survive is to offer students a benefit that's worth the direct tuition cost. By contrast, "at public universities, where taxpayers bear most of the costs, money from students can account for only 13 percent of the revenue." As a result, private universities are very responsive to the direct needs of students while public universities can give the impression of being contemptuous of the needs of undergraduate students.

   He talks, at length, about the culture and characteristics of private universities. Example: they don't live on donations, so you'll never have to worry about being hassled for alumni donations. For another: they don't focus on the educational inputs (teachers, buildings, libraries, etc). Instead, they focus on the educational outputs (percentage of students who graduate, percentage of graduating students who find work in their major, etc). The result is a university that feels far more focused on education than most public universities do.

   He also talks about how the private universities work to standardize their curricula, to ensure that all students receive the same quality education. As a result, their able to identify which teachers need additional help, which teachers need to be fired, and which teachers need raises. They're also able to quickly identify which students need additional help and how they can best be helped. They can also see when the curriculum itself needs to be revised, in order to better meet the needs of the students and to teach the concepts more clearly.

   By standardizing the curriculum, it is possible to measure outcomes and make continuous improvements that will ensure that each term of students is getting a better learning experience than the term before it. Over time, the compounding effect of these steady improvements will be enormous.

5. Answering the Critics. This chapter was the main reason why I bought this book. Rosen offers an extremely compelling answer to all of the criticisms of for-profit education.

   Do for-profit schools waste taxpayer money by encouraging students to sign up for lots of financial aid dollars?

   Perhaps the biggest fallacy in the debate over proprietary schools is the argument that the private sector is “wasting” taxpayer money because most of its students make use of federal financial aid programs. In fact, the truth is precisely the reverse: analyses show that private-sector colleges use substantially fewer taxpayer dollars per student than traditional institutions, a gap that widens even further when you measure them apples to apples based on the number of demographically comparable students who actually make it through to graduation. Only by comparing use of federal Title IV student aid dollars in isolation, and ignoring all other governmental contributions to higher education, can one plausibly make the case that private-sector colleges over consume taxpayer dollars.

   Do for-profit schools suck up large amounts of taxpayer money?

   ... And when it comes to direct support—government money contributed directly to institutions, as opposed to student financial aid that is based on where an individual student goes to school—the difference is even starker. “For every $1 in direct support for private for-profit institutions, per student, at federal, state and local levels, private not-for-profit institutions receive $8.69 per student and public institutions receive $19.38 per student.”

   Do for-profit schools lead students to amass large debts and then default on them?

   ... [S]tudies have shown that nonprofit schools that also serve nontraditional student populations have nearly identical default rates, and that students’ socioeconomic level is by far the dominant driver of defaults. There is a very high (91 percent) correlation between institutional default rates and the percentage of low-income, Pell Grant students at an institution.

   Do for-profit schools sucker students into taking classes that they won't benefit from?

   At Kaplan, we’ve gone a step further by making the first weeks of school “risk free.” Kaplan assesses students during the first month of each program and determines whether they evidence the ability and rigor to succeed; if not, they are asked to withdraw, without any tuition owed or debt incurred. And any student who finds that the real experience during that period does not match his or her expectations for any reason can choose to withdraw, similarly without tuition obligation. A large percentage of those who drop out do so in the first term; the “Kaplan Commitment” leaves most of these students with no debt at all.

6. The Learning Playbook. Rosen concludes with a look at how standardized curricula, online learning, and the lack of prestigious campuses could transform the face of American education. More students could receive a better education, at a lower cost. If he's right, the future is very bright. And I think he's right.

Fuzzy Nation by John Scalzi

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Personal Enthusiasm: Loads of Fun

I really should know better than to underestimate John Scalzi. After all, I still think Old Man's War was one of the best books I've read in the past 7 years. But, I did. I didn't expect Fuzzy Nation to be all that good.

I had my reasons too. Fuzzy Nation is a remake of H. Beam Piper's book Little Fuzzy. Movies are remade all of the time in Hollywood. And most of those remakes are poor imitations of the original. How often are books remade? Never? I should have taken a clue from Tyler Cowen and realized if something is done that's never done, that's likely to mean it's of higher than average quality. And, boy, is that ever true here.

Scalzi took a good but dated 1950's story and updated it into a very good, and fresh, story for the 2010's. The broad, general, structure of the original is still here. Jack Holloway is a prospector working on Zarathustra XXXIII, looking for sunstone gems. He discovers an immense cache of them, enough to make his fortune several times over. Then he meets a small, fuzzy (of course), cute creature. Then he meets the creature's family. Soon, he's involved in determining whether these cute creatures are super smart animals or sentient people.

Scalzi modifies the story a good bit too. His book is every bit as much of a page turner as the original was, just in different ways. He manages to make a series of court cases far more interesting than the original did. But I find the most interesting changes to be the way that the story revolves around Jack Holloway.

Scalzi's version of Little Fuzzy is really about Holloway. The fuzzys are there and central to that story, but Holloway is the focus. He's a complex character and Scalzi progressively reveals him to us. Is he merely the galaxy's biggest jerk? Or is there more to him than that? Scalzi continually gives us more insight into him as the story moves along, but still manages to keep his character ambiguous until the end. It's not character development, exactly, but it's character revelation, which I find just as interesting.

After reading this book, I've very definitely moved from "I'll read it because it's from Scalzi" to "I'd definitely recommend this book". If you're looking for an entertaining read, pick this up. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I read this in Jonah Goldberg's emailed newsletter, the "Goldberg File", last week. I thought it was really good.

The other day Mary Katharine Hamm tweeted a link to one of those utterly predictable stories about how corporations with more lobbyists pay lower taxes or some such. She also remarked "complexity is a subsidy" -- and that really stuck with me. In many respects those four words distill vast swaths of scholarship from everyone from Friedrich Hayek to Charles Murray.

Again, it's not a new idea, but I think it's an extremely useful and pithy description of a very complex argument. The more that financial success depends on high IQ; the more demand there is for lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants; the more onerous regulations become for men-with-strong-backs to find work or for entrepreneurs to start businesses -- then the more we move towards a society where the government rewards people based on their ability to navigate paperwork or fulfill quotas on a political to-do list. Complexity benefits statists because increasing complexity allows statists to claim we need more government to help people navigate through these complex times. In the process of helping, they make the government more complicated, creating new services for "fixers" of all stripes to solve problems the statists created in the first place.

The more you look around at spots where society and government intersect, the more you can see how pervasive and pernicious this dynamic is. The more rules you have, the more power you bequeath to the people well-suited to make or manipulate the rules.

Sir Dominic Flandry: The Last Knight of Terra by Poul Anderson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book contains three complete Flandry novels. (Books were a lot shorter, in decades past.) Here, collected in one volume for the first time, is The Plague of Masters (aka Earthman, Go Home), Hunters of the Sky Cave and A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows.

The Plague of Masters had an enjoyable setup. Flandry lands on a planet where the air itself is deadly and prolonged exposure will lead to a torturous death. The only hope of a survival is to take a specific drug, every 30 days. It's not even enough to flee the planet—without a final dose of the drug, you'll die from the delayed effects of the air. Of course, the planet is under the thumb of a dictatorial group of scientists, who tightly control access to the drug. Anyone whoever stops playing along, stops getting doses. The setup and development of the story is wonderful. The ending is almost confusingly abrupt, lessening what would have otherwise been a very good story.

Hunters of the Sky Cave has Flandry confronting some invaders that he finds personally likable. Unfortunately, in order to complete his mission he has to smash not only their invasion but also their societal structure, just to keep the Terran Empire alive for a few more years. This was a well told story that showed Flandry doing what he does best but also recognizing that his efforts would have limited impact on the larger picture.

A Knight of Ghosts and Shadows is the best story of the bunch. Flandry finds the son he didn't know he had as well as a woman he can actually love. In the end, he completes his mission but at a staggering personal cost. As the story ends, you know the Empire will live on but you wonder if Flandry, personally, sees any point to it anymore.

These stories are uniformly good because they feature an older, wiser Flandry. He still cracks wise, he still dresses well and loves fine women. He's still a staunch defender of the Terran Empire. However, he's increasingly more aware of how decadent, corrupt, and unworthy that Empire is. It's the best thing going, but it's failing fast and not even he can keep it together much longer. He does everything he can to push back the arrival of The Long Night, even knowing that everything he does will ultimately prove futile.

That underlying emotional tension drives the stories and forced me to sympathize with Flandry to a much greater degree than I have previously.

SF author Charlie Stross.

Last week's blog entry on Amazon's ebook strategy went around the net like a dose of rotavirus. And, as we can now see from Tor's ground-breaking announcement I was only just ahead of the curve: people at executive level inside Macmillan were already asking whether dropping DRM would be a good move. Last week they asked me to explain, in detail, just why I thought abandoning DRM on ebooks was a sensible strategy for a publisher. Turns out my blog entry on Amazon's business strategy didn't actually explain my full reasoning on DRM, so here it is.

Note that I am not responsible for Macmillan's change of policy. An internal debate was already in progress; this move was already on the cards. I caught their attention and was given a chance to offer some input: that's all. The final decision to drop DRM on ebooks from Tor/Forge was taken by John Sargent, CEO of Macmillan, who ultimately has to account for his actions to the shareholders.

Along the way, he explains why I may be shopping somewhere other than Amazon, for my SF reading material.

[C]urrently Amazon have swamped the midlist among ebooks in a sea of self-published rubbish. It's impossible to find anything worth reading in the Kindle store that isn't a very obvious bestseller. This offers an opportunity for specialist bookstores to offer a curatorial role. I believe the voracious genre consumers are picky enough about what they read that they dislike Amazon's slushpile approach, and will preferentially shop in better organized outlets.

I just hope he's wrong about e-ink readers disappearing within 5 years. I vastly prefer my non-backlit e-ink display to any backlit LCD display.

∞

Yesterday, Tor Books announced that they were going to go entirely DRM-free, by early July, 2012. This is huge news and I'm excited to hear it. "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen."

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the name for a software lock that publishers apply to movies and e-books that you've purchased. When something is "protected" by DRM, the publisher is protected from the risk that you'll copy it or use it in any way that they don't like.

DRM prohibits you from doing bad things, like distributing something to 1 million of your closest friends. It also prohibits you from doing good things, like copying your new DVD to your iPad or loading your Kindle e-book into your Barnes & Noble Nook.

It's worse than that though. It gives the publisher veto control over your devices—if you can't transfer your existing library to a new device, you'll be much less likely to buy it. With DRM, your e-books last only as long as the publisher does. If the publisher goes out of business (or leaves the market, as Wal-Mart did with digital music), you'll lose the ability to load your DRM files onto new devices. For the customer, there's absolutely nothing to like about a DRM lock.

With Tor's announcement, the e-book industry finally begins a move that I've been predicting for a couple of years now.

It's a move I've been predicting because of what I observed with digital music. In 2003, when the music publishers first made songs legally available through iTunes, they insisted that Apple wrap each track in a DRM lock. Their goal was to prevent widespread music piracy. Given the overwhelming popularity of the iPod, they succeeded in making Apple's store practically the only legal source of music for most customers.

For six years Apple gobbled up an increasing share of the music market. The music labels finally realized that their insistence on DRM was making them dangerously dependent on Apple. In January of 2009, the publishers agreed to let Apple—and other online retailers—sell music tracks without any DRM wrapper whatsoever.

For the first time, customers were able to legally buy digital music from Apple and play it on a non-Apple device. And, for the first time, Apple customers were able to legally buy digital music from Amazon and play it on their iPods. It took six years but the music labels finally realized that digital music without a DRM lock was better both for them and for their customers.

A similar situation has been playing out in the e-book market. Amazon was the first company to produce a mass-market e-book reader, introducing the Kindle in 2007. Publishers were slow to embrace the new platform but gradually began putting more of their catalog into Kindle format. As they released Kindle versions of each book, they insisted that Amazon wrap the e-books with a DRM lock.

The firs true competitor, the Nook from Barnes & Noble, wasn't introduced until 2009. At this point, digital music had already been DRM free for most of a year. E-books, however, were still DRM locked. As a result, Amazon was able to leverage their early start, large customer base, and solid hardware into a commanding market lead.

As Amazon grew, the publishers grew increasingly dependent on sales from Amazon. Each Kindle customer had a library that was locked to their Kindle device, through DRM. As long as those customers were locked to the Kindle hardware, they were also locked to the Kindle bookstore, making it hard to grow sales elsewhere. Amazon continued to grow Kindle and Kindle e-book sales, through aggressive pricing and discounting of e-books.

The publishers were aware of the trap that the music labels had fallen into with Apple. They were determined to avoid it but they were equally determined to ship e-books with DRM locks. The publishers decided to neuter some of Amazon's advantages by removing Amazon's ability to compete on price. In April, 2010 the publishers forced Amazon to purchase e-books through an "agency model". Amazon would no longer be free to price e-books as it saw fit. Instead, the publisher would set the price and Amazon would get to keep a flat 30% fee.

From now on, e-books would be priced at $7.99, $9.99, $12.99, $14.99, $16.99, or even $19.99, as the publisher dictated. These prices would apply identically across all stores (Apple iBooks, B&N; Nook, Amazon Kindle). The publishers hoped that by removing Amazon's price advantages, they could entice customers into other stores and prevent Amazon from gaining an effective monopoly over the e-book market.

It was an interesting tactic but one that I didn't expect to succeed, long term. Eventually one publisher would undercut another and the lock step pricing would fall apart. I continued to predict that publishers would eventually be forced to remove their DRM locks, if they wanted to have an open market with lots of sellers.

The agency model gambit hung together for 2 years and largely worked, until the publishers got sued. On April 12, the Department of Justice sued five publishers, under anti-trust law, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices. The DoJ sued HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, Macmillan, and Penguin. All but Macmillan and Penguin immediately settled and agreed to stop using the agency model.

Macmillan, one of the two holdouts, is the parent to Tor Books. Tor publishes science fiction books. These books are written and purchased by tech-savvy people. Both groups have been begging for DRM free e-books for years. Tor has wanted to oblige them, but Macmillan has always set the rules and Macmillan has always said no.

Yesterday, watching the agency model go down in flames, Macmillan apparently relented, and Tor announced that, by early July, their entire catalog would be available DRM free. They'll continue to sell e-books through Amazon and B&N; but those e-books will now be DRM free. In addition, Tor will look to expand their reach by selling through additional retailers. (Until now, those other retailers have been off-limits because they only sell DRM free e-books.)

This policy shift will open up new opportunities for Tor. Because I believe it signals the beginning of an industry wide shift, it will also open up new opportunities for customers as well. No longer will you be locked into one e-book reader or one e-book store. You'll have the freedom to buy e-books from any store and read them on any reader. You'll have the freedom to switch readers, without needing the publishers to approve of your new device. You'll have the freedom to loan the e-book to a friend, without that friend needing to use the same device as you.

I'm excited about the shift and I'm excited about what it means for the future growth of the e-book industry.

Now, when is the movie industry going to finally going to catch up and quit putting DRM locks all over their DVD and Blu-Ray discs? Are we going to have to wait another 3 years for that shift to occur? Or another 10?

Heather Mac Donald takes on the ridiculous idea that you can be "too poor to marry". I'm pretty sure that this take also works for the equally ridiculous idea that "we can't get married until older and more established".

The most idiotic reason that single mothers give for not marrying is: “I’m too poor to get married!” Evidently these women believe they’re not too poor to educate, house, feed, clothe, and provide a stable home and an enriching moral and cultural environment for a child on their own. The “I’m too poor” defense, documented by researchers such as Kathryn Edin, refers not simply to the cost of a wedding (which of course is avoidable through a City Hall ceremony), but to the day-to-day institution of marriage itself.

...Well, yes, “well-educated Americans” can offer “more” financial support to their spouses than less affluent Americans. But a married spouse at whatever income level is almost always going to improve the economy of a household over a lifetime, whether that spouse is adding the proceeds of a minimum-wage job or the inestimable value of being a stay-at-home parent while the other one works. But the notion that being a married parent requires more financial resources than being a single one is wrong not just as a matter of economic arithmetic but, more importantly, in terms of what married biological parents bring to their child — not money, but a 24/7 partnership in the extraordinarily difficult task of child-rearing. Household wealth is the least important reason to form a two-parent family; the idea that raising children as a single mother is on average in any sense easier than doing so as a couple, even in the stormiest of marital relationships, is absurd, and ignores the enormous strains of being both the sole bread-winner (or even welfare-collector) and the sole source of authority for your child. A second parent in the home provides back-up support in discipline when the other is at the breaking point, and a doubling of the emotional, intellectual, and moral resources that a child can draw on. You don’t need to be wealthy to offer that complementarity; poor married parents have raised stable, successful children for millennia.

∞

George Will offers a strong defense of campaign funding and points out that spending doesn't buy elections.

The Post, dismayed about super PACs, reports “a rarefied group of millionaires and billionaires acting as kingmakers in the GOP contest, often helping to decide, with a simple transfer of money, which candidate might survive another day.” Kingmakers? Where’s the king?

If kingmaking refers to, say, Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino owner, keeping Newt Gingrich’s candidacy afloat with large infusions to the super PAC supporting Gingrich, then kingmaking isn’t what it used to be.

He also defends the constitutionality of campaign funding.

... The court’s unremarkable logic was that individuals do not forfeit their First Amendment speech rights when they come together in corporate entities or unions to speak collectively. What is the constitutional basis for saying otherwise?

... Actually, Citizens United has nothing to do with Adelson and others who are spending their own money, not any corporation’s. People have done this throughout the nation’s life, and doing so was affirmed as a constitutional right in the court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision.

And he defends the right of relative outsiders to influence the political process.

Critics of super PACs — critics who were remarkably reticent in 2004 when George Soros was lavishing his own money on liberal advocacy — often refer to them as “outside groups,” much as Southern sheriffs used to denounce civil rights workers as “outside agitators.”

Pray tell: Super PACs are outside of what? Is the political process a private club with the parties and candidates controlling membership?

It might be more wholesome for the speech-financing money that is flowing to super PACs to go instead to the parties and candidates’ campaigns. But the very liberals who are horrified by super PACs (other than Barack Obama’s) have celebrated the laws that place unreasonable restrictions on such giving.

The whole thing is worth reading and pondering.

∞

This is a super cool piece of technology.

The instrument uses a near-infrared light that penetrates just below the skin and reflects off blood vessels. VeinViewer senses hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component in blood, which an onboard computer uses to distinguish veins from arteries. It then projects an image of veins on the skin surface in a green light.

It's especially useful on dark-skinned patients, whose blue veins aren't readily visible, and overweight patients, whose veins tend to be deeper. It also highlights the tiny veins of infants.

"It's a great tool to reduce a baby's stress," Ginny Johnson, director of women's services at North Hills, said as she demonstrated the instrument on 1-day-old Zoey White. Helped by a little rubbing of her wrist, VeinViewer traced Zoey's threadlike veins as she awoke from a nap.

It costs $17,000 but the patient satisfaction with these things has to be off the charts. If I was spending my own money on healthcare, this would definitely be something that I'd be looking for in the hospital or doctor's office.

∞

Forbes published a pretty decent profile of both Epic (the company I work for) and our CEO, Judy Faulkner.

This story, which I hadn't heard before, is pure Judy. Fantastic.

Leonard Mattioli, an Epic board member, recalls chiding Faulkner for driving an old Volvo. “I told her next time you buy a car, take a man with you,” says Mattioli, the founder of American, a midwestern retailer of appliances and electronics. A few years later, Mattioli introduced his fiancée to Faulkner. [Judy] proceeded to pepper her with questions Epic typically asks prospective employees: “How many square yards of astroturf are there in the U.S.? Which person, dead or alive, would you most like to have lunch with?” Turning to a bewildered Mattioli, she said “next time you take a wife, take a woman with you [for advice].”

∞

The Democratic Senate has not adopted a budget in three years. This is not only flagrantly irresponsible, it is a violation of federal law. Outgoing Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, who is retiring at the end of the year, apparently felt pangs of conscience, because he decided it was finally time for his committee to mark up a budget. He announced that the committee would do so, starting tomorrow.

A standard markup process begins with the committee chairman laying out a proposal, with the chairman and the ranking minority member giving opening statements. This is followed by an amendment process, in which amendments to the proposed legislation (here, the budget resolution) are offered and voted on. The markup process concludes with a committee vote on the bill or resolution as amended. In this case, Conrad assured ranking Republican Jeff Sessions that amendments would be allowed, and as recently as a few hours ago, Conrad’s and Sessions’s staffs were working out details of the amendment process.

Then, earlier this afternoon, Conrad gave a press conference in which he made the stunning announcement that there will be no budget markup after all. Instead, he will present a budget to the Budget Committee tomorrow. There will be no amendments and there will be no votes; not, at least, until after the election. Apparently Conrad had been proceeding on his own initiative, and at the 11th hour Harry Reid–supported by members of his caucus who do not want to have to go on record in favor of any budget–shut down the process.

Even though Republicans are more than happy to vote "on the record about" budgets, never fear. It's Republican obstructionism and a "do nothing" Republican Congress that's keeping Washington paralyzed.

∞

The portrait of "Ensign Chuck Hord," a Navy man lost at sea in 1908, may be the greatest—or perhaps only—prank in Pentagon art history.

∞

I've listened to the weekly Presidential radio addresses, since at least 2005. (Yes, I know that makes me something of a masochist.) Which means that I've heard the last 3 or 4, from President Obama, on the subject of taxes and the Buffet Rule. I've been irritated by them and have wanted to do a take down of them. Thankfully, Reason magazine did it for me.

If there were some kind of award for the most misleading statements in a single four-minute speech, President Obama would have earned it with his weekly address this weekend, timed for tax day.

“We can’t afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” Mr. Obama said.

This is really something. First of all, who is the “we” in that sentence? The many Americans who don’t pay any income taxes at all, or who take more from the government in welfare or entitlement benefits than they pay in taxes? Second, it’s great to see Mr. Obama start to crack down on unaffordable government spending. But it’s hard to define tax cuts as spending unless you start from the concept that all money belongs to the government to begin with. It’s one thing to conceive of some special tax break as a “tax expenditure.” But it’s not “spending” for the government to allow an individual to keep money that the individual earned or owned in the first place.

∞

L.A. Chinatown residents want a Wal-Mart. L.A. won't let Wal-Mart in to serve them.

While Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) has decried Wal-Mart’s “ability to…drive all other competitors away” with rock-bottom prices, many Chinatown residents, suffering for years from gouging by the local markets, would probably say “good riddance.” In what must frustrate the unions most, the typical argument that products “Made in China” are inherently inferior doesn’t work in Chinatown. “I come from China, too!” one of the old Chinese ladies protesting in favor of Wal-Mart said. “We Chinese are cheap!” another pro-Wal-Mart elderly lady told me.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Wal-Mart does more to help poor people than anything of the anti-Wal-Mart crowd could ever dream of doing.

∞

The evidence that Romney is lagging in the polls because voters are upset about a “war on women” -- rather than because of a bruisingly negative primary campaign or the recovering economy -- is pretty thin. But Republicans are responding not just to the polls but to the persistent mythology of the gender gap.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post recently fell prey to this conventional wisdom, writing that “the GOP has suffered from a gender gap in every presidential election since 1980.” Suffered? Of the eight presidential elections from 1980 to 2008, Republicans won five four if you exclude 2000. Republicans carried women, albeit narrowly, three times; Democrats carried men twice. Republicans can lose even while winning men, as in 1996. Democrats can lose while winning women, as in 2004.

The evidence suggests that women are more inclined than men to vote for Democrats, but this gap doesn’t consistently help either party. It isn’t the case that the larger the gender gap, the worse Republicans do. Republicans did seven points better among men than women in 2004, when they won. They did five points better in 2008, when they lost.

Obama barely won men in 2008. If this race is at all competitive, he will lose them this time. And that’s not all we can predict. Romney will win among large subgroups of women: those who are married, those who are white, those who go to church regularly. Gender isn’t the principal determinant of women’s votes any more than it is of men’s.

I love reading about the inside baseball of politics.

∞

How could members of the Supreme Court possibly seriously consider the argument that ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unprecedented and unconstitutional? The quality of the arguments? The presence of a genuine legal debate? No, if you ask the law’s liberal cheerleaders, there can only be one answer: pure partisan politics.

From the beginning, ObamaCare’s backers presumed that the nation’s legal institutions would be on their side—and wouldn’t require much effort to convince. Going into this week’s Supreme Court arguments over the fate of the 2010 health care overhaul, liberal analysts were supremely confident. Since the law’s passage, they’d been predicting that the law would pass constitutional muster with ease. In February 2011, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe reassured readers of The New York Times that even conservative justices would not buy the challengers’ arguments, insisting upon the “clear case for the law’s constitutionality.” Andrew Koppelman, writing in The Yale Law Journal Online, declared the mandate’s constitutionality “obvious.”

Liberal analysts maintained their enthusiasm even after multiple losses in the lower courts. The case against the mandate is “analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection. There’s just no there there,” wrote former New York Times legal correspondent Linda Greenhouse a few days before the arguments began.

What can explain liberals’ widespread failure to anticipate the Court’s wariness of the mandate? Research conducted by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests one possible answer: Liberals just aren’t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think. Haidt helped conduct research that asked respondents to fill out questionnaires about political narratives—first responding based on their own beliefs, but then responding as if trying to mimic the beliefs of their political opponents. “The results,” he writes in the May issue of Reason, “were clear and consistent.” Moderates and conservatives were the most able to think like their liberal political opponents. “Liberals,” he reports, “were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’”

Anecdotally, this mirrors my experiences in Madison and at the University of Pittsburgh (two very liberal environments). I've found some liberals that I can have rational, political discussions with. On the whole though, most liberals in Madison seem unable to accept that conservatives (or libertarians) act from any motive other than greed, hate, stupidity, or pure evil.

Many of them seem unable to understand conservative rationales or arguments, so they act as though conservatives have no rationales or arguments. It can make for a toxic atmosphere, where the easiest road to peace is the one where you just keep quiet.

But what fun would that be?

∞

David Autor of MIT talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. SSDI has grown dramatically in recent years and now costs about $200 billion a year. Autor explains how the program works, why the growth has been so dramatic, and the consequences for the stability of the program in the future. This is an illuminated look at the interaction between politics and economics and reveals an activity of government that is relatively ignored today but will not be able to be ignored in the future.

Some interesting facts.

• Disability insurance includes both a monthly cash payment as well as access to Medicare.
• The disability rolls have more than doubled in in the last 13 years, from 1.2 million people to 2.9 million people.
• Divided by the number of U.S. households, we're spending more than $1500 per U.S. household, on disability insurance.
• By law, the program is biased on favor of people making disability claims. It's comparatively easy to get disability and very, very hard to prove that someone either no longer needs disability or that they made a fraudulent claim in the first place.
• Law firms helping people get disability are entitled to 25% of the disability back benefits. Each year, the Social Security Administration pays out more than $1 billion to these law firms.
• In 1984, SSDI consumed 5% of all Social Security revenues. In 2004, SSDI consumed 10% of all Social Security revenues. It now consumes all of the dedicated SSDI revenue and is cutting into the general Social Security revenue. At the current rate of expenditure, the SSDI trust fund will be exhausted within 5 years.

It looks like SSDI is something that we need to start thinking about reforming as well, as it grows increasingly more expensive to maintain.

∞

I find discussions of the per-pupil funding level of different types of Milwaukee schools usually turns into a debate on how to make a true apples-to-apples comparison of per-pupil support for the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP).  While basic differences in MPS and MPCP schools and their cost-drivers make any comparison imperfect, the following is what you might call a green apples to red apples comparison.

...Though not perfect, I think $13,063 (MPS) and $7,126 (MPCP) are reasonably comparative per-pupil public support numbers for MPS and the MPCP.

∞