Categories
The Current Situation

“Because ‘White Male’ Equals Default Human ‘Normal’, See?”

Sonia SotomayorMichael Tomasky nails the real issue of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings perfectly:

Greg Sargent makes a great point about Jeff Sessions getting his knickers all in a twist about the "wise Latina" comment. Sessions said to Sotomayor this morning:

You have evidenced, I think it’s quite clear, a philosophy of the law that suggests that the judge’s background and experiences can and should and naturally will impact their decision — what I think goes against the American ideal…

Now read what Samuel Alito said at his confirmation hearing in 2006:

[W]hen a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors.…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Sessions voted for Alito of course. So it’s all right if you’re a white man, because as we all know, white men don’t have prejudices. Just amazing

Barbara O’Brien does a good job summarizing things in her article Senate Republicans, Sonia Sotomayor and the Default Norm, reminding us:

However, we can see plainly from the hearings yesterday that they can put on public displays of flaming racism and still hang on to their jobs. And, anyway, they don’t have to explicitly proclaim their superior virtues as white men, because it is implicitly assumed.  As Mo Dowd said, “After all, these guys have never needed to speak inspirational words to others like them, as Sotomayor has done. They’ve had codes, handshakes and clubs to do that.”

Categories
Life The Current Situation

Where Does the Money Go?

Here’s a chart that shows where the average American’s money goes (click to see it at full size):

Where Does the Money Go?

Categories
Life The Current Situation

Iran is Taking Marc Stiegler’s Final Exam

Here’s another article that would normally just stay in my tech blog, Global Nerdy. However, it covers the intersection of life, politics and technology, which I think would also appeal to non-techies, which is why I’ve reposted it here. Enjoy!

Marc Stiegler

earthweb I met science fiction author, software developer and computer security guy Marc Stiegler at the first incarnation of O’Reilly’s Emerging Technology Conference in 2002, but I’d been acquainted with his work prior to that. I’d heard of his programming language called E and had read his science fiction novel Earthweb, whose plot could be grossly oversimplified down to the summary “Twitter saves the world” (it’s a little bit more than that, but I think it conveys the idea nicely).

Marc’s Final Exam

However, when I think of Marc, what comes to mind first is the final exam that he gave to students at his “Future of Computing” course and published online in 1999. In it, he posed a set of problems and asked them how a specific set of proposed web technologies could be used to solve them. The course and exam have a very strong sense of “technology trumps legislation”, an idea that was surfacing in the late 1990s.

In the exam, students had to pick 5 out of 11 problems that Marc posed and then explain how any combination of the following technologies could be used to solve them:

  • Unforgeable pseudonymous identities
  • Bidirectional, typed, filterable links
  • Arbitration agents
  • Bonding agents
  • Escrow agents
  • Digital Cash
  • Capability Based Security with Strong Encryption

(If some of these ideas are unfamiliar to you, don’t worry. They’re not important in the context of this article, and you can always Bing them.)

Here’s a selection of the problems posed in the exam. Remember, this exam is from ten years ago!

1) Searching for a decision analysis tool on the Web, you find a review in which the reviewer raves about a particular product. You buy the product and discover it just doesn’t work. You desire to prevent this person’s ravings from harming anyone else–and you desire to prevent the product from disappointing anyone else.

4) You start receiving thousands of emails from organizations you don’t know, all hawking their wares. You want it to stop, just stop!

5) You wish to play poker with your friends. They live in Tampa Florida, you live in Kingman. This is illegal in the nation where you happen to be a citizen. You want to do it anyway.

6) You hear a joke that someone, somewhere, would probably find offensive. You wish to tell your precocious 17-year-old daughter, who is a student at Yale. The Common Decency Act Version 2 has just passed; it is a $100,000 offense to send such material electronically to a minor. You want to send it anyway–it is a very funny joke.

7) Someone claiming to be you starts roaming the Web making wild claims. You want to make sure people know it isn’t really you.

The Final Question

The most compelling question on the exam is the final one. It required a far more extensive answer than the other ten – so much more extensive that Marc actually suggested that it might be better not to answer the question in the exam, but to at least think about it:

But…if you can answer Question 11 in your own mind, even though you choose not to write up that answer for this examination, then a most remarkable thing will happen: you will walk out of this class with something profoundly worth knowing.

Here’s that final question:

11) You live in North Korea. Three days ago the soldiers came to your tiny patch of farmland and took the few scraps of food they hadn’t taken the week before. You have just boiled the last of your shoes and fed the softened leather to your 3-year-old child. She coughs, a sickly sound that cannot last much longer. Overhead you hear the drone of massive engines. You look into the sky, and thousands of tiny packages float down. You pick one up. It is made of plastic; you cannot feed it to your daughter. But the device talks to you, is solar powered, and teaches you how to use it to link to the Web. You have all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips; you can talk to thousands of others who share your desperate fate. The time has come to solve your problem in the most fundamental sense, and save the life of your daughter.

The final question really stands out. Unlike the other questions in the exam, this one really pulls at the heartstrings, and it sparked a lot of discussion among geeks back around 1999 and 2000, in settings both online and real-life.

Iran and the Final Question

If you follow the American news cycle, the mental distance between North Korea and Iran is a short one; both are countries in the “Axis of Evil” (a term invented by a Toronto guy, by the way) run by repressive regimes and working on their nuclear weapons capabilities. What if we changed the final question’s setting from North Korea to Iran?

Unlike North Korea, Iran’s people have access to technology and communications with the outside world (there’s a recent Daily Show segment in which Jason Jones finds people in Iran who know Jon Stewart’s George Bush “I’m the decider” schtick). They don’t need to have Marc’s hypothetical iPhones delivered to them in care packages; they have things like Twitter and YouTube at their disposal. So I propose another slight modification to the final question: What if we changed the hypothetical hardware into actual working software like Twitter and YouTube?

(It’s another “software, not hardware, is really the trick” situation. Just as we found out in Terminator 3 that SkyNet was really software, it turns out that what might save Iran was social networking software, not portable internet-accessing hardware dropped by parachute.)

With my two suggested changes, it becomes very apparent that we’ve moved from theory to practice. The people of Iran are taking Marc Stiegler’s final exam, and they’ve picked its most difficult question.

Let’s hope they pass.

Categories
The Current Situation

FOX News’ Democratizing Effect

When missing Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford turned up – he went missing last week, and it was thought he might be hiking the Appalachian Trail – he held a press conference in which he announced that he had been cheating on his wife. FOX News, when covering the story, did what it often does when a Republican does something embarrassing: it mislabelled Sanford’s party affiliation as Democratic in the “lower third” of the screen:

mark_sanford_fox_news

Republican Congressman Mark Foley left in disgrace after being caught sending explicit emails to teenage boys serving as congressional pages. Guess the party affiliation the FOX News chyron assigns to him:

FOX News showing Mark Foley as a Democrat

Here’s a FOX News display of the opinion poll results for an upcoming senate race between Democratic candidate Sheldon Whitehouse and Republican candidate Lincoln Chafee. Of course, when a poll showed that the Democratic candidate had an 11-point lead, FOX News “conveniently” mixed up the parties and numbers:

FOX News display showing Whitehouse as Republican and Chaffe as Democrat (it's the opposite)

At this point, I feel required to remind you of the titular character’s line from Goldfinger (the novel): “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, it’s enemy action.” 

Many conservatives felt that John McCain was a little too liberal prior to his landing the presidential nomination, and there may have been a remnant of that feeling in this chyron blooper identifying him as a Democrat. Or perhaps FOX was trying to convince Democratic voters to vote for him:

John McCain - "Democrat", according to FOX News

Here’s Arlen Specter, in 2007, back when he was a Republican. In this shot, he’s questioning Alberto Gonzales about the firings of U.S. attorneys who weren’t “Bushy” enough:

arlen_specter_fox_news

Intershame had the idea for this article a day ahead of me, and they have more FOX News “Democrat” misattributions. How long before FOX News starts referring to people as “Adolf Hitler (D-Germany)”, “Joseph Stalin (D-Russia)” and “Darth Vader (D-Coruscant)”?

Categories
It Happened to Me The Current Situation

Ben Bernanke’s Commencement Speech for the 2009 Boston College Law Graduates

Ben_Bernanke

First, a quick “congratulations!” to my brother-in-law on graduating from Boston College’s School of Law! Law School ain’t easy, and graduating cum laude is even tougher. Well done – I salute you with a filet mignon on a flaming sword!

The graduation ceremony took place on the Boston College campus. BC has considerable “juice”, and as such, they were able to land an pretty high-up commencement speaker: Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve (a.k.a. “The Fed”) and “Fourth Most Powerful Person in the World” according to Newsweek. It’s the first commencement ceremony I’ve ever been to that had the Secret Service (or whatever federal cops get assigned to high-ranking non-Executive Branch people) present.

There were no great revelations in Bernanke’s speech; I was hoping that he’d reveal some plan for saving the economy by decoding the hints hidden in the U.S. Constitution that would lead us to a hidden stash of gold, a la the National Treasure movies, but no such thing happened. If he has new ideas for bringing about economic recovery, he didn’t give them away – in fact, he told the business reports that they might as well go get some coffee, as he wasn’t going to cover them.

bernanke_looks_on Instead, his speech has the usual platitudes and advice – you’re at the start of a great journey, be flexible. embrace change, don’t be afraid to go outside your comfort zone – modified to suit the times, including the obligatory reference to the current state of the economy, stating that it has ‘dominated my waking hours” for the past twenty-one months. He also talked about how he went from a South Carolina boy with no expectations to move far away from home to his current position, providing some biographical information which I didn’t know before. It wasn’t a bad speech – I’ve heard longer and less interesting ones at other commencements – but aside from a J.K. Rowling joke, it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary.

Here’s the complete transcript of his speech, which you can also find at The Fed’s Board of Governors site:


I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the graduates of the Boston College Law School today.  I realized with some chagrin that this is the third year in a row that I have given a commencement address here in the First Federal Reserve District, which is headquartered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.  This part of the country certainly has a remarkable number of fine universities.  I will have to make it up to the other 11 Districts somehow.

Along those lines, last spring I was nearby in Cambridge, speaking at Harvard University’s Class Day.  The speaker at the main event, the Harvard graduation the next day, was J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books.  Before my remarks, the student who introduced me took note of the fact that the senior class had chosen as their speakers Ben Bernanke and J. K. Rowling, or, as he put it, "two of the great masters of children’s fantasy fiction."  I will say that I am perfectly happy to be associated, even in such a tenuous way, with Ms. Rowling, who has done more for children’s literacy than any government program I know of.

I get a number of invitations to speak at commencements, which I find a bit puzzling.  A practitioner, like me, of the dismal science of economics–and it is even more dismal than usual these days–is not usually the first choice for providing inspiration and uplift.  I will do my best, though, and in that spirit I will take a more personal perspective than usual in my remarks today.  The business reporters should go get coffee or something, because I am not going to say anything about the markets or monetary policy.

Instead, I’d like to offer a few thoughts today about the inherent unpredictability of our individual lives and how one might go about dealing with that reality.  As an economist and policymaker, I have plenty of experience in trying to foretell the future, because policy decisions inevitably involve projections of how alternative policy choices will influence the future course of the economy.  The Federal Reserve, therefore, devotes substantial resources to economic forecasting.  Likewise, individual investors and businesses have strong financial incentives to try to anticipate how the economy will evolve.  With so much at stake, you will not be surprised to know that, over the years, many very smart people have applied the most sophisticated statistical and modeling tools available to try to better divine the economic future.  But the results, unfortunately, have more often than not been underwhelming.  Like weather forecasters, economic forecasters must deal with a system that is extraordinarily complex, that is subject to random shocks, and about which our data and understanding will always be imperfect.  In some ways, predicting the economy is even more difficult than forecasting the weather, because an economy is not made up of molecules whose behavior is subject to the laws of physics, but rather of human beings who are themselves thinking about the future and whose behavior may be influenced by the forecasts that they or others make.  To be sure, historical relationships and regularities can help economists, as well as weather forecasters, gain some insight into the future, but these must be used with considerable caution and healthy skepticism.

In planning our own individual lives, we all have a strong psychological need to believe that we can control, or at least anticipate, much of what will happen to us.  But the social and physical environments in which we live, and indeed, we ourselves, are complex systems, if you will, subject to diverse and unforeseen influences.  Scientists and mathematicians have discussed the so-called butterfly effect, which holds that, in a sufficiently complex system, a small cause–the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil–might conceivably have a disproportionately large effect–a typhoon in the Pacific.  All this is to put a scientific gloss on what you probably know from everyday life or from reading good literature:  Life is much less predictable than we would wish.  As John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans."

Our lack of control over what happens to us might be grounds for an attitude of resignation or fatalism, but I would urge you to take a very different lesson.  You may have limited control over the challenges and opportunities you will face, or the good fortune and trials that you will experience.  You have considerably more control, however, over how well prepared and open you are, personally and professionally, to make the most of the opportunities that life provides you.  Any time that you challenge yourself to undertake something worthwhile but difficult, a little out of your comfort zone–or any time that you put yourself in a position that challenges your preconceived sense of your own limits–you increase your capacity to make the most of the unexpected opportunities with which you will inevitably be presented.  Or, to borrow another aphorism, this one from Louis Pasteur:  "Chance favors the prepared mind."

When I look back at my own life, at least from one perspective, I see a sequence of accidents and unforeseeable events.  I grew up in a small town in South Carolina and went to the public schools there.  My father and my uncle were the town pharmacists, and my mother, who had been a teacher, worked part-time in the store.  I was a good student in high school and expected to go to college, but I didn’t see myself going very far from home, and I had little notion of what I wanted to do in the future.

Chance intervened, however, as it so often does.  I had a slightly older friend named Ken Manning, whom I knew because his family shopped regularly at our drugstore.  Ken’s story is quite interesting, and a bit improbable, in itself.  An African American, raised in a small Southern town during the days of racial segregation, Ken nevertheless found his way to Harvard for both a B.A. and a Ph.D., and he is now a professor at MIT, not too far from here.  Needless to say, he is an exceptional individual, in his character and determination as well as his remarkable intellectual gifts.

Anyway, for reasons that have never been entirely clear to me, Ken made it his personal mission to get me to come to Harvard also.  I had never even considered such a possibility–where was Harvard, exactly?  Up North, I thought–but Ken’s example and arguments were persuasive, and I was (finally) persuaded.  Fortunately, I got in.  It probably helped that Harvard was not at the time getting lots of applications from South Carolina.

We all have moments we will never forget.  One of mine occurred when I entered Harvard Yard for the first time, a 17-year-old freshman.  It was late on Saturday night, I had had a grueling trip, and as I entered the Yard, I put down my two suitcases with a thump.  I looked around at the historic old brick buildings, covered with ivy.  Parties were going on, students were calling to each other across the Yard, stereos were blasting out of dorm windows.  I took in the scene, so foreign to my experience, and I said to myself, "What have I done?"

At some level, I really had no idea what I had done, or what the consequences would be.  All I knew was that I had chosen to abandon the known and comfortable for the unknown and challenging.  But for me, at least, the expansion of horizons was exactly what I needed at that time in my life.  I suspect that, for many of you, matriculation at the Boston College law school represented something similar–a leap into the unknown and new, with consequences and opportunities that you could hardly have guessed in advance.  But, in some important ways, leaving the known and comfortable was exactly the point of the exercise.  Each of you is a different person than you were three years ago, not only more knowledgeable in the law, but also possessing a greater understanding of who you are–your weaknesses and strengths, your goals and aspirations.  You will be learning more about the fundamental question of who you really are for the rest of your life.

After I arrived at college, unpredictable factors continued to shape my future.  In college I chose to major in economics as a compromise between math and English, and because a senior economics professor liked a paper I wrote and offered me a summer job.  In graduate school at MIT, I became interested in monetary and financial history when a professor gave me several books to read on the subject.  I found historical accounts of financial crises particularly fascinating.  I determined that I would learn more about the causes of financial crises, their effects on economic performance, and methods of addressing them.  Little did I realize then how relevant that subject would become one day.  Later I met my wife Anna, to whom I have been married now for 31 years, on a blind date.

After finishing graduate school, I began a career as an economics professor and researcher.  I pursued my interests from graduate school by delving deeply into the causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s, along with many other topics in macroeconomics, monetary policy, and finance.  During my time as a professor, I tried to resist the powerful forces pushing scholars to greater and greater specialization and instead did my best to keep as broad a perspective as possible.  I read outside my field.  I did empirical research, studied history, wrote theoretical papers, and established connections, usually in a research or advisory role, with the Fed and other central banks. 

In the spring of 2002, I was asked by the Administration whether I might be interested in being appointed to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.  I was not at all sure that I wanted to take the time from teaching and research.  But this was soon after 9/11, and I felt keenly that I owed my country my service.  Moreover, I told myself, the experience would be useful for my research when I returned to my post at Princeton.  I decided to take a two-year leave to go to Washington.  Well, once again, so much for foresight.  I have now been in Washington nearly seven years, serving first as a Fed governor, then chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.  In the fall of 2005, President Bush appointed me to be Chairman of the Fed, effective with the retirement of Alan Greenspan at the end of January 2006.

You will not be surprised to hear that events since January 2006 have not been precisely as I anticipated, either.  My colleague, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, has said that the object of central banks should be to make monetary policy as boring as possible.  Unfortunately, by that metric we have not been successful.  The financial crisis that began in August 2007 is the most severe since the Great Depression, and it has been the principal cause of the global recession that began last fall.  Battling that crisis and trying to mitigate its effect on the U.S. and global economies has dominated my waking hours now for some 21 months.  My colleagues at the Fed and I have been called on to take many tough decisions, including adopting extraordinary and unprecedented policy measures to address the crisis.

I think you will agree that the chain of events that began with my decision to go far from home for college and has culminated–so far–with the role I am playing today in U.S. economic policymaking is so unlikely that we could have safely ruled it out of consideration.  Nevertheless, of course, it happened.  Although I never could have prepared in advance for the specific events of the past 21 months, I believe that my efforts throughout my life to expand my horizons and to keep a broad perspective–for example, to study and write about economic and financial history, as well as more conventional topics in macroeconomics and monetary economics–have helped me better meet the challenges that have come my way.  At the same time, because I appreciate the role of chance and contingency in human events, I try to be appropriately realistic about my own capabilities.  I know there is much that I don’t know.  I consequently try to be attentive to all points of view, to work collaboratively, and to involve as many smart people in policy decisions as possible.  Fortunately, my colleagues and the staff at the Federal Reserve are outstanding.  And indeed, many of them have demonstrated their own breadth and flexibility, moving well beyond their previous training and experience to tackle a wide range of novel and daunting issues, usually with great success.

Law is like economics in that, although it has its own esoterica known only to initiates, it is at bottom a craft whose value lies primarily in its practical application.  You cannot know today what problems or challenges you will face in the course of your professional lives.  Thus, I hope that, even as you continue to acquire expertise in specific and sometimes narrow aspects of the law, you will continue to maintain a broad perspective and willingness, indeed an eagerness, to expand the range of your knowledge and experience.

I have spoken a bit about the economic and financial challenges that we face.  How do these challenges bear on the prospects of the graduates of 2009?  The economic situation is a trying one, as you know.  We are in a recession, and the labor market is weak.  Many of you may not have gotten the job you wanted; some may have had offers rescinded or the start of employment delayed.  I do not minimize those constraints and disappointments in any way.  Restoring economic prosperity and maximizing economic opportunity are the central focus of our efforts at the Fed.

Nevertheless, you are in some ways very lucky.  You have been trained in a field, law, that is exceptionally broad in its compass.  At the Federal Reserve, lawyers are involved in every aspect of our policies and operations–not just because they know the legal niceties, but because they possess analytical tools that bear on almost any problem.  In law school you have honed your skills in reasoning, reading, and writing.  Many of you have work experience or bring backgrounds to bear ranging from history to political science to the humanities to science.  There will always be a need for people with your abilities and talents.

So, my advice to you is to stay optimistic.  Things usually have a way of working out.  My second piece of advice is to be flexible, even adventurous as you begin your careers.  As I have tried to illustrate today, you are much less able than you think to foresee how your life, both professional and personal, will play out.  The world changes too fast, and too many accidents and unpredictable events occur.  It will pay, therefore, to be creative and open-minded as you search for and consider professional opportunities.  Look most carefully at those options that will give you a chance to learn new things, explore new areas, and grow as a person.  Think of every job as a potential investment in yourself.  Will it prepare your mind for the opportunities that chance will provide?

You are lucky also to be living and studying in the United States.  There is a lot of pessimistic talk now about the future of America’s economy and its role in the world.  Such talk accompanies every period of economic weakness.  The United States endured a decade-long Great Depression and returned to prosperity and global leadership.  When I graduated from college in 1975, and from graduate school in 1979, the economy was sputtering, gas prices and inflation were high, and  pessimism–malaise, President Carter called it–was rampant.  The U.S. economy subsequently entered more than two decades of growth and prosperity.  The economy will recover–it has too many fundamental strengths to be kept down for too long–and the mood will brighten.

This is not to ignore real challenges.  Our society is aging, implying higher health-care costs and fiscal burdens.  We need to save more as a country, to reduce global imbalances in saving and investment, and to set the stage for continued growth.  Our educational system is strong in some areas, including our university system, but does not serve everyone equally well, contributing to slower growth and greater income disparities.  In the diverse capacities for which your training has prepared you, many of you will play a vital role in addressing these problems, both in the public and private spheres.

I conclude with congratulations to the graduates, your families, and friends.  You have worked hard and accomplished much.  You have a great deal to look forward to, as many interesting and gratifying opportunities await you.  I hope that as you enter or re-enter the working world, you make sure to stay flexible and open-minded and to learn whenever you can.  That’s the best way to deal with the unpredictabilities that are inherent in life.  I wish you the best of luck, with the proviso that luck is what you make of it.

And perhaps you will advise next year’s class to invite J. K. Rowling.

Categories
The Current Situation

Then and Now

1999 logos: Louis Vuitton, Four Season, Cipriani, Carnegie Hall, Jaguar / 2009 logos:  H&M, Holiday Inn, McDonald's, Netflix, Greyhound

Categories
The Current Situation

Party Schools and Media Training

Forget whether or not you think Arizona State University’s decision not to give President Obama an honourary degree because he hasn’t achieved enough yet was a mistake. The real lesson to learn from the whole affair is that you should never do an interview with a journalist, even a “fake news show” journo, unless:

  1. You’ve given a lot of thought to the one message you want to get across
  2. You are sober
  3. You have an IQ of at least 100

It would appear from this Daily Show clip that very few people from Arizona State (they call it “the Harvard of Date Rape”, which is probably a reference to this recent case) would be able to meet conditions 2 and 3:

The video above isn’t available to Canadian readers, but here’s the same video, as hosted on Canada’s Comedy network.

(In case you were wondering, no, Alexander Hamilton was not a President.)

Even people with three-digit IQs from real universities, such as my alma mater Crazy Go Nuts University, have fallen prey to this trap. I remember a student couple who complained about being featured in a “Sex on Campus” article in Macleans magazine even though they were interviewed about sex on campus (the young woman even boasted of her “European attitude towards sex”, which probably made her quite popular at the pub) and consented to being photographed together in a bed.

Young coed in skimpy halter top: "Party pics of Playboy's Top 10 Party Schools 2009"

Getting back to Arizona State: although it looks like a great party school, it still failed to earn a place in Playboy’s 2009 Top Party Schools list, as featured in COED magazine.

michael_oconnor_clarke

As for dealing with the media, I would recommend that at the very least, you should read a book like Media Training 101. If you have a little more money and you’re in the Accordion City area, I would also suggest taking some training from someone like my friend Michael O’Connor Clarke, who’s forgotten more about dealing with the media than most people have learned.