Quiet Declarations

Look, I’m not a journalist by trade, but bear with me here. I fully recognize that an editorial page is an opportunity to toss in whatever you feel you must say using whatever tone you want to you. However, if making a coherent point that attempts to sway skeptics is one of the goals of writing in the first place, does it not make sense to try to avoid backslapping one’s potential dissenters at every turn?

For a prime example, I turn to one of today’s Times editorials, available here. This particular piece argues that the contraints placed on the President’s tax reform committee by Bush at the onset doomed the effectiveness of any possible recommendations. They do a fair job of outlining their argument, and then they arrive at the concluding paragraphs:

What damns this particular effort are the constraints placed on it from the outset. Mr. Bush directed the panel to assume that the temporary tax cuts passed during his first term - which mainly benefit the wealthy - would be made permanent, rather than expiring as scheduled in the next two to four years. The president also told the panel that a reformed tax code should raise the same amount of revenue that would be raised by a tax system in which his tax cuts had been made permanent.

Those assumptions build in a huge cut in future revenuesthat would ensure never-ending deficits and, with them, either tax increases to narrow the gap or sharp reductions in vital government programs like Medicare and Social Security. In fact, the cost of making the tax cuts permanent is three times as large as the long-term shortfall in Social Security.

The country needs a better tax system. But the president’s insistence on making his tax cuts permanent has undermined his panel’s efforts to address long-term needs.

The short-term answer, however, is simple: Congress must stop the bleeding from this administration’s reckless tax-cutting agenda.

(emphasis added)

Now, what have we here? “Which mainly benefit the wealthy” is at best a red herring — or worse, a pithy trite ad hominem — designed to send rabid anti-Bushites into the trademark visceral consensus nod without actually adding to the overall argument. But if your conclusion is already going to appeal to them, how about trying not to alienate the entire body of on-the-fence conservatives and libertarians with a cheap shot?

Second, it’s extremely narrow given the ever-changing political climate and the myriad of possibilities for future government reform for anyone to ever say “ensure never-ending deficits”, and the Times isn’t the only culprit here though they are a frequent one. Few people believe the “permanent” tax cuts (i.e. permanent until the next vote making them un-permanent) will make it to 2010 even if they manage to make it till 2008. More importantly, it assumes there are absolutely no other options except raising tax revenues, when in fact there are plenty of options for reforming major line items. In fact, the false assumption that tax cuts can become institutionalized and equal permanent deficits is fueled by the false assumption that large government programs can become institutionalized to the point that speaking of reform becomes impossible, in effect a cyclical double-fallacy and the very type of ignorant statement that leads people to believe the mainstream media (not to mention the professoriate) is biased beyond the capability to self-correct.

The word “vital” placed before “government programs like Medicare and Social Security” also implies what I was just saying: that assumptions like these take options off the table and are consequently no better than the President’s preconditions that the article is trying to attack! This, of course, leads the authors to take an editorial that could have ended more naturally and tack on a totally random and uneducated final conclusion — it’s almost as if the Times got to the end and realized they didn’t have an economist in the room so they called the DNC for help and the DNC said “sure, we’ll send someone right over!”

So, here are the new concluding paragraphs with my simple edits:

What damns this particular effort are the constraints placed on it from the outset. Mr. Bush directed the panel to assume that the temporary tax cuts passed during his first term would be made permanent, rather than expiring as scheduled in the next two to four years. The president also told the panel that a reformed tax code should raise the same amount of revenue that would be raised by a tax system in which his tax cuts had been made permanent.

Those assumptions build in a huge cut in future revenues that would ensure either tax increases to narrow the gap or sharp reductions in government programs like Medicare and Social Security. In fact, the cost of making the tax cuts permanent is three times as large as the long-term shortfall in Social Security.

The country needs a better tax system. But the president’s insistence on making his tax cuts permanent has undermined his panel’s efforts to address long-term needs.

It’s not so bad, is it, without so much of the biased language? Shorter, more to the point, draws the eyes more toward the facts, still makes the editorial’s original case without sending anybody in a new direction. It could still be better, in my opinion, but this at least is a start.

It shouldn’t be profound to assert that every word has meaning and every word matters. Not everybody can put their finger on why, but people react emotionally to the tone of certain phrases and it’s not always a nod in agreement. Real persuasion in a 500-word editorial requires a real appeal to reason; anything less than that is merely rounding up your prior supporters, leading them into the echo chamber, then putting up a sign at the door that says “undecided idiots welcome”.

And by the way, I used to pick on the Times columnists and leave the editorial board to its childishness, but the unintended consequences of making their columnists subscription-only include reducing my options of clumns to abuse and giving me added motive to chose theirs.

Caught a good couple of articles this morning regarding the plight of women’s self-esteem. I found them particularly interested because they mirror closely what I observed at a reasonably socially competitive high school and extraordinarily socially competitive university. The first describes the pervasive quest for “effortless perfection” that causes college women at elite institutions to compete with (and judge) each other on every detail, creating a culture in which women who enter college with high self-confidence watch it systematically broken down over the course of their four years. The second article focuses on the escalating stress level of high school girls as a result of the number of things they feel they must accomplish to get into a good college.

One professional quoted in the college article talks about the unique plight of women, while the high school article considers the possibility that men may deal with this as well. It is absurd to suggest that men don’t face similar levels of anxiety as a result of social competition. My hypothesis is that men are subject to reverse social pressures — look cool and confident, appear in command and control, and don’t appear to sweat the small stuff, for example. And with different social expectations come different responses to those stresses (e.g. less likely to develop eating disorders but more likely to develop an alcohol problem) that reflect their roles. So I concede that there are gender roles at play here but not necessarily a gender bias — in fact, the nature of male social pressures probably leads to a greater underrepresentation of those facing more serious problems.

This reminds me of a piece on the history of Harvard’s admissions practices, published in The New Yorker, that floated around my office a few weeks ago. There’s a lot to talk about in this lengthy article — the birth of modern-day admissions practices from anti-semitism, the followership attitude of Ivy League colleges, and the extremely fascinating discussion on treatment and selection effects on collegiate success, for example. But in the context of the rest of this post, let me just point out that the author does an excellent job of detailing all the components that make up the admissions process at an elite institution and consequently all the things a high school student must now to well to gain entry (and continue to do well to compete with one’s peers once enrolled).

It’s rumored that there was once a time when college was something rare that you worked to be a part of. Correct me if you disagree, but it seems that now that college at large is taking on the perception of an entitlement, and that there is an increasing concentration of the brightest minds (or, if you prefer, fiercest competitors) at a handful of schols. It’s therefore unsurprising that students today feel they have to make excellent grades, get superb test scores, participate in as much as possible and excel in all of it, and figure out how to be socially adept as well, just in order to get into “college”, by which they mean a college acceptable to their high expectations of themselves given how much effort they’ve put into building their credentials. In fact, now that I think about it, it’s a wonder if there are any sane people in top 20 schools at all!

From their staff editorial page today:

There’s no serious disagreement that two major crises of our time are terrorism and global warming. And there’s no disputing that America’s oil consumption fosters both.

Those are the first two sentences in an editorial entitled “Gas Taxes: Lesser Evil, Greater Good”. Look, I’m not going to categorically deny any of these hypotheses without facts, but they aren’t exactly making their case simply by labeling me a non-serious dissenter if I wanted to do so. Isn’t this the tactic one uses in a fifth-grade persuasive essay?

On to a closely related topic… since I started paying more attention to the news and reading more blogs, I’ve always heard about this supposed left-wing media bias at the Times and Post. I started subscribing to their daily headlines and for the most part did not find this to be true in my own experience. Sure, the opinion columnists are all exploiting their areas of expertise (read: Paul Krugman) to argue cases that seethe with a thinly-veiled hatred and disdain for their political opponents, but at least (a) they’re the opinions of individuals, not necessarily the paper, and (b) there are at least a couple of people espousing both sides. The main headlines tended to be investigative and critical but not particularly biased to the point of legitimate complaint.

It was right around the 2004 election that I realized my problem, as I was researching to write two entries addressing the Times and Post presidential endorsements. I had somehow not signed up for the staff editorials in my daily e-blasts. The staff editorial is supposed to be the only section of the paper that directly reflects the opinion of the paper — sometimes through a staff vote, sometimes through the decision of the editor-in-chief, and sometimes (rumor has it) via the edict of the owner.

My assessment since then is as follows. The Post ultimately comes down on the “left” (arguments against traditional left-right divisions notwithstanding) on most of the major issues, but it deserves credit for consistently addressing many sides of the issue in question and seems to place a focus on the issues over the parties in using its page to challenge the status quo. The Times, conversely, appears to pick a few pet issues (that are eerily similar to the Democratic Party platform) and use them to mount unwavering lambastations of their opposition. Their editorials rarely address the arguments of both sides and frequently distract from their main points with red herrings that closely border outright ad hominem attacks.

Admittedly, the above article isn’t exclusive evidence of my case — my criticism in this instance is more with its unsubstantiated (and, as far as the U.N. is concerned, flatly incorrect) premise. Nor is my premise supported by two endorsements this week that I want to briefly mention: the Times endorsement of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg that so blows the mind it raises questions of motive, and the Post endorsement of every Democrat on the Virginia ballot that critic Mark the Pundit finds unsurprising.

(My response to Mark: I would have interpreted it as “We support all the Democrats in Virginia not because they’re particularly good candidates or have particularly motivating platforms, but because all the others are rank-and-file conservatives and therefore disqualified from our endorsement according to the staff handbook”. Except I’ve just criticized the Times for the ad hominem, so just pretend I didn’t say anything.)

Anyway, I recommend reading the staff editorials of both papers for a few days and letting me know if you disagree with me. I promise to keep my response from being ad hominem, red herring, transparently strategic role reversal, or outright partisan hatefest. Okay, maybe one or two totally unsubstantiated cheap shots amounting to partisan hackery masquerading as comic relief (read: Maureen Dowd).

I’m not a beer pong enthusiast, or even much of an afficionado really, but that won’t prevent me from fighting for its right to exist if a private owner elects to offer it. It’s for this reason that I didn’t hesitate to accept an interview request from Chris Shott of the Washington City Paper for a recent piece on the demise of beer pong at Dr. Dremo’s.

My quote is brief, but at least he flattered me. The piece also features Jacob, whose ABC bashing was what caught the reporter’s eye in the first place. Overall the article was more of a detatched exposition than I personally would have liked, taking more of a “alcohol laws are weird” position instead of examining the actual costs and benefits of such restrictions. Nonetheless, I recommend giving it a read.

By the way, in case the links above didn’t clear it up, I side strongly with Dr. Dremo’s in this argument. I happen to believe a thorough analysis will reveal that the people who play beer pong get no more intoxicated on average than if they were in any number of other situations, such as attending keg parties or drinking hard liquor (which Dremo’s does not sell) or even drinking pitchers of higher quality beer with a greater alcohol content. And more broadly speaking, I’m going to oppose any restriction that is created (a) arbitrarily to the severe detriment of one particular business or party, (b) summarily as a product of the opinions of a select few, or (c) ignorantly, without taking into account either direct or opportunity costs that are in this case particularly relevant.

Disagree with me? Feel free to say so — I’ll be happy to state my case in greater detail if it’s so desired.

Vanderbilt is now 4-3 after two well-played yet unrewarding losses to LSU and Georgia, who are now ranked #7 and #4 respectively. To become bowl eligible for the first time since 1982 the Commodores must win two of their final four games against the following slate: at Steve Spurrier’s South Carolina, at #18 Florida, at home vs. ailing Kentucky, and at #17 Tennessee. Or, to be more concise, they’re looking at an uphill battle.

The Titans, whose average team age probably isn’t too far from Vandy’s, now sit at 2-4 after a demoralizing loss to the surging (or, just as precisely, insurgent) Cincinnati Bengals. Credit goes to the Cincinnati defense, who added to their league-best turnover margin by forcing three against the Titans, including two in the final five minutes to take the lead and seal the victory. The Titans are playing better than their age, but obviously worse than anyone in Tennesse would like. Fortunately, the (relatively) weaker part of their schedule is still ahead of them, so they have a chance to not completely embarrass themselves before the year is up.

(And by the way, Chad Johnson is an asshole.)

I reckon I might send Lizzie (Queen Elizabeth II) a bill for back rent, the old girl’s family have been living in my bloody castle for the last 500 years.

Australian forklift operator Mike Hastings, upon being told by genealogists that he may be the rightful heir to the British throne.

If you’ve happened by in the last few days you may have noticed the site was down. Turns out my host’s server was invaded by a rather destructive hacker, but the problem has been resolved and the backups appear to have worked beautifully.

To those of you who have emailed me via a cwilcox.com address in the last few days, your emails were temporarily blocked and are returning as your mail servers realize I’m back. I’ll get back to you soon.

(On the bright side, hopefully being down for five days fooled at least a few spambots into thinking this site no longer exists.)

More meaningful posts forthcoming….

Corruption and bribery in Chicago City Hall, say the feds. Mayor Daley? Corruption? Unbelievable….

Lindsay Lohan — a spoiled teenage female driver with a hot car in downtown Los Angeles — in a car wreck? Inconceivable….

Yep, Nashville’s one of them, according to Kiplinger’s [via the City Paper]. Incidentally, the other six are Athens, Ga., Atlanta, Austin, Denver, Minneapolis and Raleigh.

I personally like the $11,335 “Not-in-NYC bonus”. I suspect a “Not-in-DC” bonus would be fairly high as well, as I’m discovering as a new resident in a county so affluent/inflated that an annual income below $51,250 qualifies for government housing assistance.

And by “don’t disappoint” I mean make it a perfect weekend, for the masochistic and misery-loving among us. At least this defeat was expected.

I should point out that the game stats were mostly even, minus those four Peyton Manning touchdowns :) I’m also proud I got to see the weirdest interception ever (watch SportsCenter tonight).

Titans (1-3) at Texans (0-3) next weekend, where we separate the men from the boys.

People who should be happy today:

Employees of Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Bi-Lo, and K-Mart
Students of MTSU

People who should not be happy today:

Students of Vanderbilt

Students of a top-20 university. Students who know there’s far, far more to life than football but who, just once, wanted to say “for those of you that don’t believe that, we’ll play on your turf just once. Just once, we’ll show you that we deserve to be the subject of water cooler talk, not just the ones buying the water cooler. Just once, we’ll be the ones the nationally-syndicated TV shows cut into, not just a blip on the scrollbar once every 30 minutes.” Students who had a rare chance to be more than that blip.

Well, they blew it.

Yes, ESPN-2 cut into their national broadcast to show the last 2 minutes of their game, only to watch Vanderbilt inexplicably decline to call a time-out with 3 seconds remaining and then have MTSU block a potential game-winning field goal to clinch victory. I don’t fault MTSU for celebrating even as I refuse to credit them for the win: they are a terrible, terrible team. If I went to MTSU I don’t know what I would have to live for, but it certainly shouldn’t be football; their team has lost to such powerhouses as Akron and North Texas. But somehow, somehow, 4-0 Vanderbilt managed to conjour up its past demons and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It was a truly heartbreaking loss, not because it was close — it never should have been, given the mediocre [insert adjective here] caliber of the opponent in question — but because it should have been a 40-point game. But long-time Vanderbilt fans saw the writing on the wall, and as usual, ignored it and senselessly elevated their hopes. It wasn’t a 40-point game, and it wasn’t even a win, because Vanderbilt apparently doesn’t deserve to escape ridicule even in their home state. Apparently their students don’t deserve to live in a town that actually roots for them instead of their opponents, who wants them to succeed in order to show the world that Tennessee is willing to be something more complete than a backwoods know-nothing dueling banjos state, who would actually enjoy a victory over a commuter strip-town with little to its name and even less worth mentioning.

A few somber ruminations — no, lamentations:

For more essential information about the Vandy-MTSU game, feel free to visit here (warning: sensitive MTSU course materials may be revealed).

Go ‘Dores! Good luck next Saturday!

[Update 10/2/05: Amended significantly. The first version was much more bitter.]