"Change for the Sake of Promotion"

Panel 1
Dogbert: You will appear to be a visionary planner if you decentralize everything which is centralized and centralize everything which is decentralized.

Panel 2—centralized org. chart in the back
Boss: We've got to decentralize to remove the bottlenecks.

Panel 3—decentralized org. chart in the back
Boss: We've got to centralize to be more efficient.
Dilbert (thought bubble): The man is a management genius.

I think USA Today's unnamed analysts (and Justine Adamec) are generally right. At least, that's the way it feels. It's hard to deny that the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election had a polarizing effect on the electorate. The counts and recounts, the litigation, and the constant back-and-forth tended to put voters on one side or the other--even more than the election that had preceded it. September 11, 2001 put these feelings on hold, but not indefinitely. Eventually, the response to 9/11 has become a political issue, just like any other, with both sides lining up to choose sides and lay blame. Now, almost three years later, this country is back politically to where it was in the winter of 2001.

My own hypothesis about Kerry's lack of a bump is a modified version of that provided above. Not only are voters polarized, but the partisans and their surrogates have become more efficient and effective earlier in the election than in years past. Kerry won a fairly easy battle for the nomination, giving him plenty of time to shift his attention to the general election. Some of Kerry's work in rallying the troops was accomplished already by Michael Moore when the success of Fahrenheit 9/11 became a national news story. Moore didn't just steal the spotlight from Kerry, he also stole his thunder; those who might have waited until the convention to get excited about the election got their groove on a month early at the local cineplex.

I'm not sure if it's typical for incumbents to receive a bump following their parties convention, but I suspect that Bush can expect the same sort of non-effect. Some on the right seem to be saying that Kerry's lack of a bump make this Bush's election to win at this point. I'm not sure I agree. If the election is a dead heat, it's because it has been all along.

UPDATE: USA Today now has a more detailed analysis of the missing bounce exploring several possible explanations.

UPDATE: Browsing through Google News, I came across this article at Gallup discussing the impact of Kerry's speech, written before the event. It's one of those cover-all-bases pieces of writing, but props to Gallup for these lines:

We know that voters this year are more interested in this election than usual, and many -- particularly Democrats -- say they are more enthusiastic about voting. That could mean, on the one hand, that voters are already so involved that they are less susceptible to being swayed by the events of the convention -- and thus less susceptible to a convention bounce.

Here's another one that caught my eye, though:

It's also important to realize that the size of the bounce coming out of this convention to a significant degree may depend on what actually happens. If voters perceive that Kerry's speech was extremely effective, it would mean a higher bounce, while perceptions of a dull or poorly received speech, on the other hand, could mean a more minimal bounce. And of course, the size of the bounce is partly determined by where the candidate starts before the convention. Clinton had very low support going into the Democratic convention in 1992, giving him more room to go up. Prior to the Democratic convention this year, 49% of likely voters are supporting Kerry, so there may be less available room for Kerry's support to grow.

Delegates at the convention seemed to enjoy Kerry's speech. To me--someone who is anything but a Kerry supporter--it seemed canned and silly. Perhaps Kerry's lack of bounce means that the speech was simply adequate; supporters liked it, but undecideds shrugged it off.

As I nosed around their web site, two things stood out to me. First, I read the text of the debate between Kerry and John O'Neill from 1971. O'Neill was a veteran that took great offense at Kerry's antiwar activity. After reading all the text of the debate, I had a much more positive impression of Kerry, which is probably the opposite conclusion that the SBVT intended.

The second thing that stood out was the case the SBVT made that two of Kerry's three purple hearts were awarded under questionable circumstances. A look into the depth of these accusations leads me to believe that they're unfounded. A number of Kerry's crew mates have disputed SBVT's account (subscription required). Salon maintains that none of the people that run SBVT served under Kerry and don't have any first hand information to support their version of the story.

Even if you believe SBVT's story, they still don't have much of a case. Their logic for questioning Kerry's first purple heart is as follows:

Military regulations state that to qualify for a Purple Heart, an injury must come "from an outside force or agent," and treatment for the wound must "have been made a matter of official record." While John Kerry managed to satisfy the second criterion by insisting that an amused Dr. Letson provide an official Band-Aid, nicking himself with a fragment from his own poorly-aimed grenade fails to meet the first qualification.

SBVT maintains that if Kerry's wound was self-inflicted, it would disqualify his purple heart. Even if I bought their case that the wound was self-inflicted, which the above links would argue is doubtful, the conclusion appears to be incorrect. The language from the military's purple heart regulations states:

Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows...:
(h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence. [emphasis added]

Even if (and that's a very big if) Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted, that would not disqualify him from receiving the purple heart, as the SBVT maintains. I find it curious that a veterans group isn't aware of the award regulations and further criticizes a fellow veteran without understanding that the critique is invalid.

Even more interesting to me is their case for Kerry's second and third purple hearts being questionable. The links aren't there any more. If I input what the links used to be, I see, "Access to this page is denied. Either the page has been moved/removed or you do not have sufficient permissions."

Matt Drudge made a big deal about SBVT last week, and it will be interesting to see if there is any follow through. The questionable thing is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth rather than Kerry's purple hearts. The more the GOP or the 527 groups that support the GOP try to question Kerry's military service, the more they'll highlight that they don't have a case. All it will do is highlight Kerry's edge over Bush in this area.

Given the lack of specifics in this area, the candidates must be required to respond to three simple questions about the war on terror, and civil liberties at home. GW already has a track record in this area, being chief executive for the last four years. Kerry, being only a senator, doesn’t have much more than bare policy that he can espouse. (But see, e.g., here.) Nevertheless, these are critical questions:

(1) in what three most important ways does the Act, or any other legislation passed in the last four years or proposed by you, facilitate the war on terror;

(2) how does this provision or provisions or laws adequately strike the balance between the sacrifice of civil liberties and security, and how exactly did you arrive at this balance–describe the reasoning process; and

(3) provide an example or two of (1).

p.s. bonus negative points for a response that passes this question off to an attorney general or claims lack of expertise as a justification for not being able to answer. I'm always interested to hear what Vance 04 has to say, either on this, or on his stance on the war on terror in general.

• A report by the National Academy of Sciences released earlier this week tells us that genetically modified foods are no less safe than organic foods. And here I thought I would mutate into the creature from the Blue Lagoon after eating GM foods.

• Thomas L. McPhail, a professor of journalism at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, sent this note to Jay Rosen (hat tip: Jeff Jarvis):

  Jay: Do you tell your j students that they are wasting their time getting a j degree, rather they should just run out and become bloogers and pretend journalists with no commitment to ethics, laws, fairness etc. Tom McPhail ps how are the bloogers at the DNC? I am afraid that in the charge to get the scoop of the conference, that they may send out unedited or unchecked rumours as if it/they were fact. Thanks

  Would this be the same journalistic ethics that demands that President Bush should do everything possible to find out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame—but insists that he can't ask the one person, Robert Novak, who knows for sure who the leaker is? And the same journalistic fairness that causes Newsweek editor Thomas Evans to say that the media wants Kerry to win? Just wondering.

• Here's another professor, George Loewenstein, who teaches economics at Carnegie-Mellon, on happiness and political affiliations (hat tip: Bryan Caplan):

  While walking in Pittsburgh one afternoon, Loewenstein tells me that he doesn't see how anybody could study happiness and not find himself leaning left politically; the data make it all too clear that boosting the living standards of those already comfortable, such as through lower taxes, does little to improve their levels of well-being, whereas raising the living standards of the impoverished makes an enormous difference. Nevertheless, he and Gilbert (who once declared in an academic paper, ''Windfalls are better than pratfalls, A's are better than C's, December 25 is better than April 15, and everything is better than a Republican administration'') seem to lean libertarian in regard to pushing any kind of prescriptive agenda. ''We're very, very nervous about overapplying the research,'' Loewenstein says. ''Just because we figure out that X makes people happy and they're choosing Y, we don't want to impose X on them. I have a discomfort with paternalism and with using the results coming out of our field to impose decisions on people.''

  Research also shows that religious people are happier than non-religious people. Does this mean professor Loewenstein favors higher church attendance?

  And as Caplan points out, egalitarian politics usually focus on what people aren't getting that they deserve, resulting in perpetual unhappiness because one is never satisfied with what one has.

• It looks as if Ralph Fiennes will play Voldemort in the next Harry Potter movie. I'm sure this means more to women than to me.

Further thoughts on Susan Estrich: Is there a more professional talking-head? I really can't stand listening to her, her pack a day voice makes my skin crawl, but she usually has pretty interesting things to say.

Also, someone in the Fox booth last night was being creative and jumping around from camera to camera while different cast members spoke. These long side angle shots revealed the extent that Ms. Estrich's has internalized her TV pundit status. The moment she finished speaking and saw her red light go dim the shot would change and you would see her in the background throw up this frightening joker smile, which was held as she looked unceasingly into her camera, waiting for her turn to speak again.

Talk about late on the draw.... [via Instapundit.]

And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

Edwards also challenged his party to refrain from negative campaigning:

You know, for the last few months, John's been traveling around the country talking about his positive, optimistic vision for America, talking about his plan to move this country in the right direction.

But what have we seen? Relentless negative attacks against John. So in the weeks ahead, we know what's coming, don't we?

More negative attacks -- aren't you sick of it?

They are doing all they can to take the campaign for the highest office in the land down the lowest possible road.

But this is where you come in: Between now and November, you, the American people, you can reject the tired, old, hateful, negative politics of the past. And instead you can embrace the politics of hope, the politics of what's possible because this is America, where everything is possible.

I will not hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to abandon "hateful, negative politics," but if John Edwards sincerely desires to get the ball rolling, he should send the memo to these folks:

Al Gore: The Bush administration works with "a network of 'rapid response' digital Brown Shirts.''

Nancy Pelosi: "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon."

Ted Kennedy: "This president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon. He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people. He's the problem, not the solution. Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam, and this country needs a new president."

Dick Gephardt: "This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy and on the economy and he's got to be replaced."

A few choice lines:

I suggest to you tonight that if George Bush had selected the court in '54, Clarence Thomas would have never got to law school.

This is perhaps the only context in which Sharpton would cast Justice Thomas's legal career in a positive light.

The promise of America is that government does not seek to regulate your behavior in the bedroom, but to guarantee your right to provide food in the kitchen.

The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen.

Huh? The second line, which does not appear in the prepared text, is essentially repetitive of the first. Perhaps Sharpton was thrown off by the nonsensical implication that anyone seeks to abrogate the "right to provide food" and thus felt it necessary to clarify.

The promise of America is one immigration policy for all who seek to enter our shores, whether they come from Mexico, Haiti or Canada, there must be one set of rules for everybody.

We cannot welcome those to come and then try and act as though any culture will not be respected or treated inferior. We cannot look at the Latino community and preach one language. No one gave them an English test before they sent them to Iraq to fight for America.

Again, the second line appears to be an improvised embellishment. Forget the tortured syntax - is it possibly true that Latino soldiers who cannot speak English were sent to fight in Iraq? I'm really asking - I do not know.

Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African- American voters. And you asked the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.

You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.

That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.

We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us.

This line brought the house down. Sharpton was clearly a highlight of the evening - you have to feel sorry for Bob Graham, who took the stage next. It was all so entertaining and fun, almost enough to make you forget what Al Sharpton is really like.

On the band's website, lead guitarist Ken Bethea explains the sound of new album like this:

I think we’ve settled in with what we do best on Drag It Up - solid writing and performances, with enough bells and whistles to make things interesting. It reminds me of our earlier recordings, we mix bluegrass, surf, country, rock, folk and some good old-fashioned psychedelia.

The intro to "Won't be Home," the album's opening song, with Philip Peeples' driving drum beat, like a train about to go off the rails, combined with Ken's howling guitar leads are a sure signpost that the band is indeed back to doing what it does best on this album. (As Ken puts it "somehow [tying] together the music of Elvis Costello, Hank Williams, X, The Clash, Johnny Cash, David Bowie and Camper Van Beethoven.") This song, as well as a few others, could easily fit on the album they recorded in 1995 for Bloodshot Records, Wreck Your Life. (The new album is released by New West, the label that's now home to Slobberbone, Drive-By Truckers, and Vic Chesnutt.) But just because it sounds familiar doesn't mean it all sounds the same. There's a broad range of styles and sounds on Drag it Up, from the rollicking piano on "Borrowed Bride" to the fuzzy bass on "The New Kid" to the lovely acoustic harmonies on "Adelaide," one of the most beautiful songs since "Salome" on Too Far to Care--at least until the album's closer "Your Mother," comes around.

The album includes an excellent song each from bassist Murry Hammond ("The Smokers") and Ken Bethea ("Coahila"). Murry's "Smokers" is a highlight, a dark little rocker from which the album takes its name. Ken, who sings lead for the first time on an Old 97's recording, narrates a fun Tex-Mex-flavored tune about drinking and dancing ("My Momma always seems to sing the same song/You'll never meet no decent girls at Dallas honkytonks"). Of course, the thing that has always set The Old 97's apart is the clever songwriting and wordplay of lead singer Rhett Miller. Unlike the songs on Rhett's recent solo album, The Instigator, the songwriting here feels natural and effortless, but still smart and witty. "Friends Forever" sounds like a tribute to geeky schoolboys, and Rhett nails it:

I was a debater
Was not a stoner or an in-line skater
Was not a player or a player-hater
I was just a bookworm on a respirator
Whose to say that's wrong?

Absolutely. Much like the album itself, it's a joyous celebration of doing what you like and what you do well, and not trying to be something else.

Now Heather Wilhelm (via Spoons) points out that the Syrian Wayne Newton doesn't just sing sappy ballads:

Mr. Mehana has a nice little song on his recent CD, by the way. I's called "Um El Shaheed."

In English, that's "Mother of a Martyr."

I noticed "Um El Shaheed" on Nour Mehana's web site. "Shaheed," I knew, meant "martyr," but that was as far as my Arabic could go. Since martyrdom seemed an odd topic for a casino crooner, I called the Middle East Media Research Institute. I spoke with Aluma Dankowtiz, who is fluent in Arabic, to find out exactly what Mr. Mehana has to say.

"Mother of a Martyr" glorifies the death of a young Palestinian. Mehana sings to a grieving mother that she should not be sad, because her son, who died as a martyr, is a hero. She should be happy that her son is gone, Mehana croons,
because freeing Palestine and the Golan Heights are heroic goals. The song, which starts slow and solemn, ends with a triumphant chorus, celebrating the martyr's glorious death: "Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar...Allahu Akbar!"

Unlike "Sunday, Bloody Sunday," to paraphrase Bono, apparently this song is a rebel song. Of course, "Allahu Akbar" is a common Muslim prayer (and, as Wikipedia points out, probably the most common spoken phrase on the planet). But it's also the phrase being chanted by Nick Berg's captors chanted during his decapitation. In the context of this song, it certainly doesn't reassure me that Northwest flight #327 wasn't, in fact, a terrorist dry run. And I'm slightly less reassured than I was before that Mr. Mehana kind of looks like a famous Vegas lounge singer.

I'm starting to believe I'll never be confident I know what happened. But I continue to maintain that Annie Jacobsen raised some important issues, and I hope that they are being followed up on by those in our government who are responsible for keeping air travel safe.

Obama drove two main themes of the Democratic party (question as to whether Kerry adequately reflects or embodies these?) that previous speakers touched on, but didn’t nail: (1) diversity and (2) the collective--i.e., the notion that everyone else's problems are our problems. Obama started off with his multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multinational background and humble economic roots (father who is African, born and raised in a small village in Kenya who grew up herding goats and whose father was a domestic servant to the British, and mother who is "white American," from Kansas, whose father was a WWII veteran) ("a common dream borne of two continents"). He talked about the fact that his parents dreamed that he would succeed despite his peculiar name, and attend the best schools despite their lack of economic clout. He acknowledged that his life track would not be possible in any other country in the world. In so doing, he also acknowledged his debt to those who came before him. He made clear that the trajectory of his life would only be possible in a world imbued with Democratic values.

While Obama did not stress any specifics, and understandably so, the combination of his poise, handsomeness, eloquence, and energy just drove the point home that superstars come in all shapes, sizes and colors. By implication–by his very presence–he made the point that this belief in diversity is something that the Democratic party holds core. (Not that this means anything but MSNBC focused on Jesse Jackson standing up at one seemingly crucial point. There has been some recent ink on the lack of diversity in the Kerry campaign and the fact that GW could be possibly doing a good job of wooing swing minority voters.)

I can see why people may throw out a thought saying to look for him in 2012. I'm too savvy to have this reaction, but it’s a predictable one.

p.s. I especially liked the bit about his name. As someone whose name was, for a long time, somewhat of a social albatross, I appreciated his treatment of this issue.

I also caught Theresa Heinz-Kerry’s speech. One quick note. Tres internationale, and in some ways the companion speech to Obama’s. I recently read a Vanity Fair article profiling JFK’s wife. That article talked about her proficiency in other languages and culture, and her use of that proficiency to help JFK connect with voters or statespeople who spoke those languages. While I don’t think many would disagree that she’s no Jackie Kennedy, I liked her use of her international, multilingual background. Will middle America buy it? I’m not sure.

To illustrate this, first I'll return to one of my favorite issues, executive stock options. While there are situation that stock options are an excellent way to compensate executive management, there are certain situations that stock options can cause an executive to make sub optimal decisions for his firm. For example, take a situation where an executive is awarded stock options with a five year maturity and a $10 per share strike price, the market price at the time. Over the next four years, hard times hit the firm, and the stock price declines to $1 per share. Going forward, though, things are looking up for business. Indeed, all appearances are that the firm's business will provide a future return on equity of 15% for quite some time.

This doesn't help the executive, though. Even with a 15% return, his options will expire worthless. And given the company's poor performance for the past four years, the Board has been reluctant to award the executive more options. In fact, they've given him a mandate that if things don't turn around sharply, he'll be out of a job next year. The executive in question has another option, though. There is a brand new technology that has a million to one chance of succeeding. If it works, the stock will increase ten fold, and our executive friend's stock options will once again have value. It is in his own best interest to take on the high risk project, since it is the only way that his options will have value. Given the long odds against success, though, it is in the firm's best interest to take the long view and generate the highly assured 15% return, an excellent ROE for any business.

Back to the lottery issue, imagine that a lottery ticket is the same thing as a call option on being rich. For an average middle class individual, owning this option doesn't make sense. The odds are poor that the bet will succeed. The old fashioned way of getting rich, namely a march through the employment hierarchy, provides much better odds of success. Individuals in the lower economic classes don't face the same decision, though. Moving up through a corporate hierarchy isn't a valid option for getting rich. If they don't possess entrepreneurial skills, getting rich really isn't an option at all. The lottery thus provides an option for poor people that doesn't otherwise exist, namely the possibility of getting rich. Yes, the odds of success are small, but it provides for an economic alternative that otherwise wouldn't exist at all. From that perspective, poor people are making a rational economic choice.

Don't be swayed by the constant pleas by the pro lottery crowd that a lottery will improve education. That argument is a red herring. If more funds are needed to fund education in the state, then the legislature should make the difficult choices and cut sufficient spending to adequately fund education. In the highly unlikely case that there aren't opportunities to cut spending, taxes should be increased, and those taxes shouldn't be the regressive taxes that lotteries are. The state shouldn't be in the lottery business. Further, nobody should be in the lottery business.