Quiet Declarations

A brief story about last night’s Memorial Magic, followed by a few things everyone ought to know about Tennessee…

Q: Why do the Tennessee Vol fans wear orange as their school color?
A: They can wear it to the game on Saturday, they can wear it hunting on Sunday, and they can wear it to work on Monday when they’re picking up garbage during work release.

Q: What do you call a Tennessee grad wearing a suit and tie?
A: The defendant.

Q: If you have a car containing a Vol wide receiver, a Vol linebacker, and a Vol defensive back, who is driving the car?
A: The cop.

Q: What is the difference between a porcupine and Tennessee’s football stadium?
A: A porcupine has 108,000 pricks on the outside.

Q: What do tornadoes and Tennessee grads have in common?
A: They both always end up in trailer parks.

Q: Did you hear about the power outage at the University of Tennessee library?
A: Forty students were stuck on the escalator for three hours.

Q: How do you get a University of Tennessee grad off of your front porch?
A: Pay him for the pizza.

Q: Did you hear about the fire in the University of Tennessee dorm that destroyed 20 books?
A: The real tragedy was that 15 hadn’t been colored yet.

Q: Why do University of Tennessee fans keep their diplomas on their dashboards?
A: So they can park in handicap spaces.

Q: How many University of Tennessee freshman does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, it’s a sophomore course.

Q: What’s the only sign of intelligent life in Knoxville?
A: “Nashville: 187 Miles”

Q. What did the Tennessee graduate say to the Vanderbilt graduate?
A. “Welcome to McDonald’s. May I take your order, please?”

Q: What do you call a Tennessee graduate surrounded by 100 Vanderbilt graduates?
A: Waiter.

Q: What do you call a Vanderbilt graduate surrounded by 100 Tennessee graduates?
A: Warden.

A Vanderbilt fan in a bar leans over to the guy next to him and says, “Wanna hear a good Tennessee joke?”

The guy next to him replies, “Well before you tell that joke, you should know something. I’m 6′ tall, 200 lbs., and I am a Tennessee grad. The guy sitting next to me is 6′2″ tall, weighs 225, and he’s a Tennessee grad. And the fella next to him is 6′5″ tall, weighs 250, and he’s a Tennessee grad. Now, you still wanna tell that joke?”

The Vanderbilt fan says, “Naw, not if I’m gonna have to explain it three times.”

Although it doesn’t seem like a particularly original idea, I found this comparison of conservative and liberal search terms absolutely fascinating. In short, Google searches for “archconservative,” “ultraconservative,” and “extremely conservative” (as well as a few others) generate significantly higher results than their liberal counterparts.

Reading through the comments, three plausible theories seem to have emerged about the disparity:

1. Conservatives are more likely to proudly embrace the label than liberals, forcing liberals to augment the word to cast an insult.
2. Conservatives have succeeded in making liberal an insult in and of itself, rendering qualifiers unnecessary.
3. Nobody uses alterations of liberal to indicate an extreme because extreme liberals are instead referred to as progressives, socialists, Marxists, etc.

I’m not sure whether #3 holds up considering that extreme conservatives are called fascists — though on the other hand, it’s almost purely an insult whereas there are still proud progressives and Marxists. The problem I have with #1 and #2 is that the rest of the world uses Google too, and globally there are tons of proud self-identified liberals (of the non-American variety) and not all that many conservatives. I dunno, what do you think?

Unfortunately, even coming up with plausible explanations is not very satisfying, because they still all beg the question “how did that happen?”

This is technically a holiday, but since I don’t plan on honoring any dead presidents today, I’ll instead make my semi-annual plug for my organization (as well as a few others). If you or someone you know are looking for summer educational seminars, summer internships in DC, or a one-year stint getting experience in a DC nonprofit, you should read to the end.

As you may know, I work for the Institute for Humane Studies, which offers educational programs and career development opportunities for students who are interested in the ideas of liberty. A cursory description of my role is that I’m a professional networker charged with connecting interested people and opportunities, with a particular emphasis on the DC area. So, wearing that hat, I figured I’d take a moment and list a few of my favorite summer opportunities with upcoming deadlines.

IHS Summer Seminars

My organization’s signature program is our Summer Seminars, now in their 31st year if I’m counting correctly. These weeklong interdisciplinary seminars, held throughout the country, provide an intensive weeklong experience that addresses questions such as:

• What is the proper role of government?
• How much liberty is good for the individual?
• What conditions foster peace and prosperity?
• What is the relationship between liberty and globalization, and how is globalization reshaping our world?
• How can we protect the environment and still protect freedom of choice and opportunity?
• What tools can help us solve social and economic problems most effectively?

The seminars are appropriate for undergraduates, graduate students, and young professionals. And in case you’re wondering, this summer I’ll be directing Liberty & Current Issues, which will be held in the DC area in late July. The deadline to apply to all seminars is March 31.

Koch Associate Program

The Koch Associate Program is the only one of its kind that I’m aware of: a one-year paid gig in DC that helps you break into the policy/nonprofit scene and gives you management training as well. Here’s their plug:

The Koch Associate Program is a year-long, paid program designed to develop promising leaders and entrepreneurs interested in liberty and a career in the non-profit arena. Associates range in experience level from recent graduates to those with up to a decade of work experience, and come from many diverse fields and academic majors.

The non-profit assignments cover fascinating fields such as:

• Policy Research and Analysis
• Marketing and Communications
• Development and Donor Relations
• Non-Profit Operations and Project Management

They are already making placements on a rolling deadline, and the final date to apply is April 1.

Other Opportunities

Internships with The Fund for American Studies are not free, but you do receive college credit from Georgetown! Deadline: February 25

The Koch Internship Program is a 3-month paid internship in DC that includes the leadership skills training of the associate program. Deadline: March 31

Various seminars and internships are offered by the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. Deadline: April 1

If you’re interested in how to build a think tank, either in the U.S. or abroad, consider a paid internship with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Deadline: April 6

Reseach I’ve seen suggests that people who can figure out what they are (or aren’t) interested in at an early age, and who can build professionally advantageous connections before their competitors, have a significantly higher likelihood of professional success. I really wish I knew about all this cool stuff when I was younger, and I hope you’ll pass it along to those who might be interested.

Terminus of plug.

I have a major pet peeve: work colleagues who organize information in Excel spreadsheets by highlighted rows.  You can’t sort by highlighted color, people!  Do not use Excel if you have not reached a level of competency to understand this.

I understand that some of Megan’s commenters just plain don’t like her, but she seems to be taking a lot of flak for a fairly obvious yet incredibly relevant claim:

What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we’d give the money to charity.

Sure it’s snarky, but it’s worth reflection.  We could do a great deal for the needy in our communities through charity alone — and I would argue that charity already helps the poor significantly more than government.  More importantly, if helping the poor is my primary objective the last thing I would do is voluntarily hand my money to the government because I have absolutely no idea what batshit crazy thing they would use it for.

Helping the poor isn’t really the issue that requires forced taxation.  What’s really hard to voluntarily collect money for is a product or service that we benefit greatly from but could probably live without (or find private alternatives for) such as a road system or a military.  The free rider problem is particularly relevant here, and forced taxation is a way around this.

Note that I believe the salient issue is free riders, not collective action.  There are simple voluntary workarounds to collective action problems, like having contributors sign a contract that requires them to pay for the project only if enough contributors sign on to the contract to disperse the costs sufficiently.  The issue is that people get pissed when they think something is unfair, which they perceive occurs when someone doesn’t pay for a publicly accessible good.

In summary, I agree with Megan but one of her commentators actually phrases it better.  Taxation is only necessary to force collective contribution for purposes of fairness, and so it follows that taxation is only a means to extract money from others.

And though it should go without saying, I will nonetheless add as one final addendum that if fairness is not one of your first principles, you probably should have very uneasy feelings about taxation.

As far as economics is concerned, not nearly as much as we think, according to Tyler Cowen’s NYT column today.  An excerpt:

This election is certainly important. But based on the historical record, it isn’t likely to result in a major swing in economic policy. Fundamentally, democracy is not a finely tuned mechanism that can be used to direct economic policy as a lever might lift a pulley. The connection between what voters want, or think they want, and what ultimately happens in the economy, is far less direct.

He also links to a response from Mark Thoma that I found interesting.  I certainly agree with Tyler that presidents usually don’t affect the economy as much as people think they will, but I think we should pay far more attention to the fact that they have and that they could again, for better or for worse.

I also disagree with both Tyler and Mark’s characterization that President Bush’s economic policies were ineffective.  One could argue that certain policies were bad, but has everyone who calls Bush an ineffective president forgotten that Bush got absolutely everything he wanted his first four years in office?  I’m not sure I would call four major tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and a trillion-dollar increase the annual federal budget the products of ineffectiveness with respect to economic policy.

David Climer sums it up well:

With 6:12 remaining in the first half on Tuesday night, Kentucky Coach Billy Gillispie called a timeout.  Wonder if he was looking for the keys to the bus?  By then, Vanderbilt had scored 11 straight points and led Kentucky 28-6.  Yes, 28-6.  Welcome to Memorial Gym, Billy. Tell your friends about it.

ESPN’s wrapup was also decent:

The Wildcats finished with more fouls (26) than made shots (17).  By the time Crawford scored on a drive to get the Wildcats to 10 points with 2:21 left in the first half, fans serenaded Kentucky by chanting “Double digits.”  The second half only got worse.  Crawford was called for a charge, negating a bucket with 16:31 to go. Kentucky coach Billy Gillespie grabbed the ball and started toward the bench, picking up a technical foul.

Final score: 93-52, the worst SEC loss in Kentucky history!

If you’ve been in job search mode anytime lately and have had an experience similar to Jennifer Krimm’s, you’re probably pretty frustrated.  I felt this way in early 2004, when six months of searching for every possible job in my desired field resulted in precisely zero interviews, to say nothing of offers.

But then I benefited from something that I now teach college students in my current role: networking.  It’s been turned into a much dirtier word than it actually represents, unfortunately.  It’s not the same thing as nepotism, and it doesn’t even mean that a person gets a job exclusively by knowing someone.  What is does mean is that employers don’t like to take chances and so they would rather rely to some degree on personal knowledge.  This is particularly true in DC, where how a person relates to others is highly relevant for actual job performance in many of the local industries.  Nearly every person I know who’s gotten a job in DC got a foot in the door — at least an interview, or a resume in the right place — because someone vouched for them.

Again, it’s not nepotism and it’s not a slight on someone’s body of work, as I thought it was when I was looking for jobs.  It’s simply more efficient and a safer bet on the part of employers to interview someone that comes with at least one credible advance recommendation.  To go a step further, I might contend that only modern-day arrogance and/or bad advice on the part of career counselors causes anyone to think that people get ahead otherwise.

Maybe that’s fine and maybe that’s tragic, but either way it’s true.  I networked my way into my current job long before I even realized that I’d done so — but now that I have more awareness of what it takes to get a decent job I wouldn’t recommend doing it any other way.

Here’s one plausible way.  Just another reminder that, while the delegates representing state elections and caucuses do matter, superdelegates matter too – a lot.  And even if they didn’t, the methods politicians use to solicit public votes remain pretty consistent with this meme.

Have you ever used the “Compare People” application on Facebook, or visited hotornot.com?  Both of these employ a dichotomous method to help you (or everyone else) discover your true preferences.  It’s really difficult to compare lots of different options at the same time, but by comparing just two options over and over again you can generally arrive at an accurate preference assessment.

I’ve long believed that we should find a way to incorporate the dichotomous method to help people see their true preferences on issues.  I suspect it wouldn’t be too hard to come up with dozens of choices people make every day — many of which they probably don’t even realize — in supporting certain issues or habits over others.  They’d almost never be perfect choices or perfect opposites; in life those rarely exist.  The point is that most people can probably choose one or the other, and over time a preference set emerges.

One of the easiest dichotomies to create is, of course, voting preferences.  For example:

Q1: John Edwards OR Mitt Romney?
Q2: Barack Obama OR Ron Paul?
Q3: John McCain OR Bill Richardson?
Q4: Hillary Clinton OR Mike Huckabee?
Q5: John Edwards OR Fred Thompson?
Q6: Ron Paul OR Bill Richardson?

And so on — the point being that over time you’d get a ranking of your true preferences.  What if somebody asked one of those picketers with the ”Impeach Bush” signs whether they prefer George W. Bush OR Dick Cheney?  Often people spend a lot of energy defending a bunch of ideal choices when in fact the more telling move is what people do faced with a series of dichotomous choices.

Since campaign finance reform makes it more difficult then ever to express strong preferences by “voting with our dollars,” it seems like we should be looking for creative ways to help people express their true preferences more effectively.  Just think about the potential uses — in the age of electronic voting this method could even be employed in an election with relative ease, if we wanted it to be.

So, maybe this is a voter reform just waiting to happen… or if not, then a new Facebook application at least!

Steve Horwitz links to a provocative, albeit intuitive, column laying out the case that Wal-Mart is as deserving as any of the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, “if we are concerned about consequences and not just intentions, doesn’t Wal-Mart deserve the peace prize?”

It’s not an unreasonable claim by any stretch. Regardless of your opinions of what Wal-Mart ought to be doing in addition to their current practices, can anyone articulate a reasonable argument that the world would be better off if Wal-Mart had never existed?

[Update 2/11/08: Link fixed.]

David Brooks has a weird column this morning, comparing the Democratic candidates to consumer providers.  This part, however, was amusing:

Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer. In the last Pew Research national survey, he led among people with college degrees by 22 points. Educated people get all emotional when they shop and vote. They want an uplifting experience so they can persuade themselves that they’re not engaging in a grubby self-interested transaction. They fall for all that zero-carbon footprint, locally grown, community-enhancing Third Place hype. They want cultural signifiers that enrich their lives with meaning.

Obama offers to defeat cynicism with hope. Apparently he’s going to turn politics into a form of sharing. Have you noticed that he’s actually carried into his rallies by a flock of cherubs while the heavens open up with the Hallelujah Chorus? I wonder how he does that.

Neither an indicator of my support nor lack thereof.  But if I do decide to vote for him, and someone asks me why, probably my answer will involve cherubs.

[Update 2/8/08: Here’s another strange comparison — this time it’s Latte Liberals vs. Dunkin Donut Democrats.  And I’ll throw in one from today’s Onion as well.]

Quick update on the DC gun ban case, now bound for the Supreme Court.  The brief for Petitioners and the brief for Respondent have been filed — you can access them via here.  Oral arguments have been set for March 18 at 10:00 am.

I’ve been asked for my opinion on the presidential race so far, so naturally I looked to other people first.  For specific takes on the candidates, I will refer you to E. J. Dionne in today’s Post and Nicholas Kristoff in today’s Times, and frame my own assessment a little differently.

I’ve never felt that selecting a particular candidate, or even a particular party, ought to be the first decision one makes.  I think the first question you have to ask yourself is “what kind of presidency do I want?”  Do you want a strong advocate for an ambitious legislative agenda full of the correct (which presumably means your) policies and views?  Do you want a skilled diplomat who will restore the world’s faith in America?  Do you want someone who’s three pet issues are your three pet issues, and you could care less about the rest of his agenda?  Do you want a moral compass?  Do you want a skilled diplomat?  Do you want someone who defends your constitutional rights?  Are you voting for gridlock?  Perhaps you’re trying to vote strategically to kill a particular party or a faction in hopes that a new one will emerge?  Or do you just want a president that you can tolerate seeing on TV for four or eight years?

This sort of thought process is important, I think, because it’s very likely that your preferred candidate can’t do it all.  To be president means: you’re the CEO of a company with 2.5 million employees, you’re the commander-in-chief of an army so powerful it could plausably defeat all the other armies combined (plus you’re the guy with the nuclear launch codes), you’re the chief ambassador to 192 nations, and your daily activities are giving speeches, hearing poll numbers about your strengths and weaknesses, and making decisions with a direct impact on billions of dollars and millions of lives based on 15-minute briefings.

And yet, if you’re president, to get anything done (or undone) you have to select your advisers based on a politically-charged appointment process, navigate a byzantine set of regulations concerning federal employees, deal with the personal legislative interests of 535 congressional members (and their lobbyists and constituencies), lead a military whose culture and command structure you may not understand, protect your relationship with your own party, honor the interests of the voters that elected you, and not break any of the ten kajillion laws ever because everyone is watching all the time.  Oh, and satisfy your own ethical and moral beliefs, and deal with the fact that your hair will turn grey after two years and that everyone will think you’re lazy if you try and take Sundays off or sleep more than six hours a night.

Seem depressing?  That’s the presidency.  And because it’s depressing, the only good reasons to take the job are because you really want the power (maybe to help people, but it’s still power) or because you really want the recognition.  Fred Thompson was right when he said that the process we have for selecting a president produces candidates who favor a strong executive.  People who explicitly state they don’t want to rule the world, like Thompson or Ron Paul, get laughed off the stage — and I’m pretty sure we can’t even trust them to be humble presidents.

One final thought: if you want a quick way to diminish my respect for your political opinions, state clearly that you’re supporting Candidate X because [insert flattering quality that most of the candidates probably have] or you’ll never vote for Party Y because they’re [insert horrendously negative generalization].  If your decisions are based on proveable facts, and those facts don’t apply to any other candidate/party, AND you can actually articulate them when asked, then you can feel confident in this decision-making process.  If you can’t, then as best I can tell you haven’t thought through your decision any better than someone who votes purely based on gender or race.

Maybe you were looking for my opinions about the actual candidates, but I’ve got nothing for the time being.  I still have no idea who I think would make the best president, because I don’t think any of the existing candidates will represent the presidency as I’d like to see it.  I haven’t even been able to make up my mind by counting back from my least favorites!  So I’m a bad person to ask about my specific preferences for the time being, and hopefully I’ll have a better answer soon, or else I’ll stall around until my choices narrow.

Fortunately, the critical error that caused my blog to go down for an entire month was not fatal as I had feared, and the service team was able to repair it without losing any of my information.  That said, it’s unfortunate that my hosting service caused the problem in the first place (due to an error in a software upgrade) and then took a month to repair the problem.  I’ve had virtually no problems with them up to this point, so I’ll wait a bit before making a final call on whether this is a capital offense.

Back to posting actual content soon.