Waterfront developments

Back in 1996, I wrote a City Journal article "The Wasted Waterfront," lamenting that so much of New York City's waterfront was derelict or moribund. It's an ironic sign of how much progress has occurred since then that some people now memorialize those conditions as "Lost Waterfronts."

"We are V.I.P."

In my July column, I predicted:

Bain Capital was just the beginning. Expect the Obama campaign to drive hard at pointing out Romney’s extensive campaign contributions from, and personal associations with, the financial sector. Also, expect such criticisms to largely fall flat.

Certainly, I was right about point 1. Whether I'm right that the criticisms will "largely fall flat" remains to be seen, and it is true that Romney's Hamptons fundraiser made for a rather fat target. Here's Peter Beinart:

“A woman in a blue chiffon dress poked her head out of a black Range Rover here on Sunday afternoon and yelled to an aide to Mitt Romney, ‘Is there a V.I.P. entrance. We are V.I.P.’

Thus began yesterday’s nasty little New York Times story entitled, “Romney Donors Out in Force in Hamptons.” It follows snarky coverage of Romney’s Jet Ski-filled vacation at his multi-million dollar New Hampshire estate. Which follows a flurry of reports suggesting that the Obama campaign’s assault on Romney’s record at Bain Capital is hurting him in key states like Ohio.

Of course, if you have to say you're a VIP, you probably aren't. In any case, expect a lot more stories like that Times piece.

Holiday note

Happy Independence Day. Four years ago, I contributed to a sand sculpture project that didn't quite make the cut. In the last two years, I wrote about national and family history here and here. In the upcoming month, I'll have some coverage of the political scene, including not least a prediction on who'll win the presidential race. As always, thanks to those who stop by here at Quicksilber.

Opening minds

Arnold Kling has an interesting post on "Opening Minds, Closing Minds." Excerpt:

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can 

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author 

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author 

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn't you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn't that sort of pathetic? Here are some more thoughts: 

1. The default is (c). If you are not consciously trying to do (a) or (b), then you will almost surely do (c). 

2. Most of us, most of the time, do (c). 

3. Doing (c) 100 % of the time can earn you fame and fortune. Yes, you get criticized for it by people on the other side, but the positive reinforcement you get probably more than makes up for it. 

4. Try to think of folks who try to have a high proportion of (a) and (b). The first ones that I think of are David Brooks and Tyler Cowen. I wish I could think of more.

Me: One thing I liked about writing for FrumForum, when it was actively publishing, was its overt emphasis on (b) and its notable but more subtle capacity for (a).

Writing in a house

Busy working on my next column. More blogging to come, but not just yet.

Pictured: Herman Melville's house, Lansingburgh, NY. He wrote two of his early novels here.

Presidential race watch

My July column for Research magazine suggests some developments to look for in the presidential race: "What to Expect." Excerpt:

Elizabeth Who?

The Obama campaign is likely to forego a high-visibility association with Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts. Warren’s potential to energize the liberal Democratic base initially would have been attractive to the Obama camp. However, controversy over her past identification as a Native American diminishes the upside of featuring Warren prominently for the president’s campaign.

The Romney campaign, too, might be reluctant to engage on Warren-related matters, as Massachusetts seems to rank low in the former governor’s strategy, both as a place to devote campaign efforts this year and as an area of his record on which to focus.

The Norquist Factor

Conservative activist Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, has had broad success in getting Republican politicians to sign his group’s pledge to oppose any tax hikes (including any closing of loopholes not matched by tax rate reductions). Mitt Romney signed the pledge, as did all the other GOP primary hopefuls except Jon Huntsman. Almost all Republicans in the House, and most in the Senate, have signed it.

The pledge has received some resistance recently, with small but growing numbers of GOP legislative candidates declining to sign it, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dismissing it as a way to “outsource your principles.” Moreover, Norquist may have overreached with statements in recent months suggesting the next GOP president would not set an agenda but rather passively sign bills pushed by the Republican caucus.

Expect Romney to distance himself from Norquist to bolster his appeal to the center. Given Romney’s cautious style, this probably will not involve an overt break (or “Sister Souljah moment” as such repudiations have been known since Bill Clinton criticized a controversial activist in 1992). Rather, look for proxy criticisms of Norquist by Romney supporters; Jeb Bush’s statement may have been a trial run for this effort.

Protean conservatism

Recommended reading: "Real Conservatism," by D.R. Tucker at the Huffington Post. To a large degree, I share D.R.'s frustration with the current state of conservatism. (For both of us, reaction against right-wing dismissal of global warming was a big factor in such disillusionment.) However, I avoid calling some desired set of ideas "real conservatism" as I think there are better and worse forms of conservatism, not a readily definable authentic type versus bogus types. Conservatism long has taken various forms (often simultaneously) and changed frequently--Coolidge's was different from Goldwater's, etc. The protean nature of conservatism is well discussed in The Conservative Century: From Reaction to Revolution, by Gregory L. Schneider, a book I read a couple of years ago.

X-tax book

Review copy received: Progressive Consumption Taxation: The X-Tax Revisited, by Robert Carroll and Alan D. Viard. The X-tax is an idea that's gotten only marginal attention in this election cycle (though Romney advisor Glenn Hubbard has spoken favorably about it). It merits attention, not least as a way to get rid of the income tax. Some more info here.

Commentary on natural gas

I'm in favor of fracking (hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas). I want greater use of natural gas as an alternative to oil and coal. I think "energy independence," better described as "energy security," is an important goal for our nation. Thus I largely agree with this Commentary article: "Energy Independence and Its Enemies," by Abby W. Schachter. And yet....

It has some problems. First there's some sloppy writing and/or editing at the outset:

Fracking makes possible the extraction of oil—natural gas in particular—from shale rock formations thousands of feet underground.

 If that said "fossil fuels—natural gas in particular," it's be just fine. But "natural gas" is not a type of "oil" by any reasonable definition. Now let's get deeper into the article's substance, when Schachter discusses why there isn't bipartisan enthusiasm for fracking:

The answer was recently made clear by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she said the world is suffering from a “climate crisis.” For those, like Clinton, who believe the most pressing issue facing our society is climate change, and that humans are the ones causing the problem, any effort that results in increased consumption of fossil fuels such as natural gas is anathema. Proponents of this view have been working tirelessly to move the United States toward what they call a cleaner energy future by reducing our consumption of and reliance on energies that are harmful to the environment, namely, “dirty” carbon-producing coal and oil.

Read this again: "For those, like Clinton, who believe the most pressing issue facing our society is climate change, and that humans are the ones causing the problem...." Note the casual combination of a debatable position ("the most pressing issue facing our society is climate change") with a statement that's debated only through sheer perverseness ("and that humans are the ones causing the problem"). Whether Hillary Clinton or Pres. Obama actually think climate change is "the most pressing issue" is itself questionable (if that were the administration's view, we'd probably have a controversial climate law now instead of a controversial healthcare law). But the administration's fecklessness in dealing with climate change gets overlooked as the article retreats into hand-waving skepticism that humans have anything to do with the problem. Then there's this:

The opposition to fracking stems from the belief that the method of extracting natural gas from shale formations pollutes the environment and that burning natural gas for energy isn’t as “clean” as using solar or wind power. Clean-energy proponents argue that we should be moving as fast as possible to using nonpolluting, non-carbon-producing energy sources rather than transitioning to a less-dirty alternative to coal and oil.

That natural gas isn't as clean as solar or wind is not just a belief but a fact (even taking into account that solar and wind do have environmental impacts ranging from material disposal to bird killings). Unlike the clean-energy proponents Schachter decries, I think the best is the enemy of the good, and that indeed we should be ramping up natural gas as a less-dirty alternative to coal and oil (while working on developing yet-cleaner energy sources as well). But unlike the conservatives Schachter here speaks to and for, I want more use of natural gas not just because it's an alternative to foreign oil but also because it's a way to restrain carbon emissions and reduce climate risks. The argument for natural gas is weakened, not strengthened, by excluding the climate from things worth considering.

Busy times

Blogging may be light in the near term. Pictured: African penguins, Boulders Penguin Colony, Cape Town, Dec. 2011.

Two questions that are hard to answer

1. What is the actual tax burden on different groups (different income levels, wealth levels) in U.S. society? Looking at the personal income tax gives one result (or set of results). Adding other taxes changes the pictures. The corporate income tax maybe falls largely on the wealthy, who are shareholders, except inasmuch as corporations can pass the taxes on as higher prices that are borne more widely. Property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes all are relatively regressive. (And how should the analysis take indirect effects into account, as when renters pay higher rents to cover property taxes that are directly incidental on the property owners?) It's quite complicated, as well as being politically highly charged.

2. What is the current condition of think tanks, in terms of the size and stability of their funding, who's funding them and the degree to which donors are able to influence or control the output of the organizations? Also, do such conditions vary greatly across the ideological spectrum? Another complicated question, and one that's hard to answer because of the lack of transparency at the think tanks and the lack of anybody who might do an analysis without having some kind of axe to grind.

A few political links

Various items of interest:

--Joel Achenbach on "The Bradbury Space Telescope?" Interesting thoughts on political support for telescopes. Don't miss the embedded NASA Venus video. For a party with a growing reputation for dislike for science, astronomy is an excellent opportunity to prove otherwise.

--Douglas Anthony Cooper on David Frum's Patriots. See my review, as framed by David, here.

--Buzzfeed: "Team Obama Drops the 'Neocon' Bomb," which includes: "The new Obama campaign line: Mitt Romney is basically John Bolton, at least for now." I begin to think left-wing harping about what a right-winger Romney is will end up shoring up his conservative base, while conservative complaints about what a centrist he is will end up reassuring the center. Can a politician be that lucky? I suspect so.

Intrade questions

What are we to make of Intrade's prediction market for "Barack Obama to be re-elected president in 2012" currently showing a 52.5% chance of that, while Intrade's market for "Mitt Romney to be elected president in 2012" currently is at 42.8%? Is there an almost 8% chance Romney won't be the nominee or that a third-party candidate will win (yeah, right)? Do people arbitrage between Intrade markets (and if not, why not)? Could it be a sign of some deeper flaw in Intrade or the whole concept of prediction markets? Perhaps my actuarial readership will weigh in.

Review: Eisenhower in War and Peace

Finished reading: Jean Edward Smith's Eisenhower in War and Peace. 
I would recommend it, and certainly learned a great deal from it. A couple of caveats: there's a lot of emphasis on Ike's relationship with Kay Summersby without acknowledgement of the uncertainties in what exactly that was; the book is such a broad discussion that topics sometimes seem to fly by a bit too quickly; and occasionally Smith doesn't seem greatly familiar with a topic tangential to the Eisenhower story, as when he writes that "Lebanon was nominally an Arab country" but with a large Christian population, as if "Arab" denoted a religion. Despite those minor weaknesses, this book is well worth reading, and its subject is well worth studying, not least as a role model for the next Republican president.

A word on Frum's Patriots

I've just finished David Frum's novel Patriots, which is absorbing, insightful and funny. I might be expected to give it a positive write-up, being a friend and sometime colleague of David's. However, be it noted that if I didn't like the book, I would not hesitate to say so here at Quicksilber, given this blog's fiercely independent tradition of presenting my candid opinions to an indifferent world.

It takes place in an alt-universe America, where the economy is dismal, the military is bogged down fighting insurgents in Mexico, and politics is polarized between "Constitutionalists" and "Nationalists." Walter Schotzke, callow trust-funder, gets sucked into the Constitutionalist movement and encounters fanatical activists, scheming politicos, craven think-tank officials, Machiavellian media moguls and more.

Some people might be irritated by this book, perhaps perceiving unflattering parallels between themselves and certain characters at places like the Constitutionalist Institute and the Wall Street Transcript. Some young readers might respond to the book by hesitating to apply for that congressional internship or op-ed page job for which they were aiming. However, some readers might respond to the nuanced narrative by focusing on its glimmers of hope for American political culture.

I found fascinating the tension between realism and caricature, and the grey areas where it's not clear where one ends and the other begins. It was also quite interesting seeing Schotzke's perspective slowly change, as his experience and sophistication grow. In any event, I laughed out loud. And if I could vote for Sen. Hazen of Rhode Island, last of the moderate Constitutionalists, I would do so.

Manzi's Uncontrolled redux

A few more thoughts now on Jim Manzi’s Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics, and Society. This follows the positive review I gave the book at David Frum’s Daily Beast blog and the guest post I later ran here at Quicksilber by my father-in-law Prof. William S. Carter, a chemist and industrial hygienist, who was rather critical of the book. This discussion perhaps should take place over a pint next time the several interested parties are in the same city, but here goes anyway.

I believe some of the differences between Bill Carter and Jim Manzi reflect tensions between working scientists and the much smaller group of “philosophers of science.” Although Manzi is not a professional philosopher, his book draws heavily upon that academic field, with an emphasis on Kuhn and Popper. Manzi’s statement “In science, theory precedes experiment” reflects a strain of thinking in philosophy of science that experiments are “theory-laden” — that scientists’ collection and interpretation of data is heavily influenced by preconceptions.

How much merit there is to that line of thought I don’t know; taken to an extreme, it could generate the sort of postmodern gibberish deflated by Alan Sokal’s famous hoax. But where Bill dismissed Jim’s statement as “false,” I’m inclined to say “debatable.” (I’ll take the liberty of some first-name usage, though I haven’t met Manzi.) While I understand there is back-and-forth in the philosophy of science about this sort of thing, I think it is fair to say that scientists tend to be unimpressed by such philosophizing; and the philosophers reciprocate by thinking scientists don’t take philosophy seriously enough.

Some of Carter’s criticisms emphasize that Manzi’s discussion would be more thorough if he had addressed things he did not delve into (blinding, confidence levels, etc.). Such criticisms are fair enough, though it’s also true that Jim wrote a pretty dense and wide-ranging book as it is. I would’ve liked to see something on some topics Bill didn’t mention, such as why scientists are confident on matters of evolution and climate change that are not generally addressable by controlled experiments. A good answer, I think, is in philosopher Susan Haack’s analogy of science to a “crossword puzzle” with interlocking lines of evidence. Maybe we can all agree there’s material for a second Manzi book.

Lastly, I note that Bill was unimpressed by what he called Jim’s “political rhetoric” and “libertarian statements.” As someone who’s had a lot of exposure to libertarianism (and growing disagreements with it), I would not be surprised if Manzi’s “liberty as means” and defense of the welfare state get him some negative reviews from uncompromising libertarians. We’ll see. In any case, Uncontrolled is a book that provokes some interesting discussions.

Guest post: A dissenting view on Manzi's Uncontrolled

I recently gave a positive review to Jim Manzi's Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics, and Society at David Frum's Daily Beast blog. I then passed the book on to William S. Carter, Emeritus Professor, Environmental Safety and Health at the University of Findlay, who happens to be my father-in-law. Bill was less impressed by the book; his review is below. —K.S.


Jim Manzi's book Uncontrolled is a bold attempt to apply the scientific experimental model to public policy. To complete his application Mr. Manzi should first provide a more complete description of the scientific method. He fails to define the concept of hypothesis, but proceeds to intersperse the use of hypothesis and theory. The scientific method requires the developing of a hypothesis or several hypotheses and then testing those hypotheses with data. Most often in testing a hypothesis the experimenter describes two hypotheses, an affirmative hypothesis and a null hypothesis. The data collected is compared for the experimental group relative to a control group. Either random selected or otherwise carefully selected cohorts are selected to minimize the potential for bias. The results may demonstrate a difference, determined by a statistically significance test.

When determining whether the data sets are significantly different requires that the experimenter to determine, preferably beforehand, what level of significance is acceptable. A 99% significance level may be preferable to a 95% or 90% since there is a greater confidence in the statement that the outcomes are differences. In some situations, and often in pharmaceutical clinical trials, a 95% confidence levels is considered acceptable to proceed to make a professional judgement.

In Mr. Manzi's discussion he fails to explain the difference between correlation and causality. Typically a single experiment only demonstrates a correlation. Additional data obtained from separate experiments are needed to develop a causal relationship. Mr. Manzi references John Mill and Sir Austin Hill on how to determine likely causality. In fact Hill outlines nine criteria that could be employed to determine whether statistical associations are indeed causal associations. Failing to discuss these important aspects weakens Manzi's argument. Regression analysis is a process of showing multiple relationships between possible independent variables and a single dependent variable. Again no causal relationship can be concluded based on the mathematical calculations, as implied by Manzi. Perhaps Manzi is too quick to jump to the same conclusions that imprudent readers jump to in reviewing well constructed scientific papers.

An example of the conclusion jumping occurs on p. 88 where Manzi discusses studies conducted in Ghana. In reviewing the hypotheses put forward as a result of the study, he concludes they are all false. The data does not appear to refute the null hypothesis and therefore no conclusions should be drawn. Researchers would have to either collect more data to demonstrate a statistical difference or reformulate the affirmative hypothesis. With the possibility of many confounding variables (what Manzi calls high causal density) the possibility of the outcome resulting in affirmation of the affirmative hypothesis becomes less likely.

Again on p.159 Manzi's statement "In science, theory precedes experiment" is false. In science initial data encourages development of hypotheses which then need to be tested. Science is a continuous iterative process of attempting to prove or improve on a hypothesis. When there is a large body of information that can be culled together to develop an over arching concept this information is pulled together to form a theory.

There is a limited discussion of the importance of blinding to limit or attempt to control bias. In clinical trials single blinding occurs when the patient does not know whether she is being treated or has received a control or placebo. In double blind, neither the patient nor the direct experimenter knows which cohorts are being treated. In triple blind experiments not only do the patient , experimenter, but also the person(s) doing the statistics not know who has been treated and who is a control.

When Manzi gets to Chapter 13 he wanders off into another world. It is not clear to me whether he chose to enter a political arena to sell the book or whether the gobbledegook that he writes is written to try to tie his arguments into the latter chapters. Whichever, the chapter seems totally irrelevant and leads to a weakness of his credibility in his final chapter 15 recommending "Sustainable Innovation."

Chapter 15 provides a reasoned set of recommendations to improve public policy. Manzi claims his argument is based on his previous chapters. In fact some of his suggestions seem to be disconnected from previous chapters. He states there is a need for decentralized innovation, however his examples argue for innovation with no justification for decentralization. In fact, he argues for strong oversight by a federal authority similar to the FDA for studying public policy issues such a medical delivery, education and criminal justice. Innovation requires some form of supervision of the studies to coordinate and evaluate the study results. All human studies require an Institutional Review Board so that we do not repeat unethical or illegal tragedies such as the famous Tuskegee syphillis study.

Some of the proposals he suggested have merit. He advocates increasing the number of students pursuing science and math. He recommends automatically issuing H-1B visa to international students graduating with appropriate math and science degrees.

However, others have problems. For instance, his suggestion to privatize schools are structured to benefit the stockholders. How is that an improvement over union contracts benefiting the teachers? Establishing a financial mutually funded institutions where the parents (or students) make the investment and reap the benefits. We need a common knowledge bases for upper level learning (high school or college) or else colleges will spend even more time than they do now in remediation education. Funding at a limited number of research institution will only exacerbate an already existing problem. Federal funding that funnels money to a limited number of "successful " institutions restricting innovative thinking. Many good ideas have sprung from smaller institutions and projects started on a shoe string. We need to be able to foster those innovative ideas with a spreading of federal funding, not shrinking the institutions who are considered to be "eligible."

Overall this book would have greater value if the political rhetoric (libertarian statements) would have been left out. A clearer statement of the scientific method and how it could be applied to public policy could turn this book into a useful and more widely read reference source.

— William S. Carter, Ph. D. CIH

Emeritus Professor Environmental Safety and Health
The University of Findlay
Findlay, OH 45840

Next Congress

My latest article for Research magazine is now online: "The Next Congress," focused on how the elections will play out for committees and legislation involving the financial sector. Opening:

This year’s congressional elections hold considerable potential to reshuffle power on Capitol Hill. Neither the Democratic majority in the Senate nor the Republican majority in the House has a secure grip on control of its respective institution. For the financial sector, the stakes include the future of the Dodd-Frank regulatory framework and the composition of the key committees overseeing financial services industries.

Congress, indeed, is one of the few institutions rivaling Wall Street in unpopularity at present. An April average of polls tracked by the website Real Clear Politics showed job disapproval ratings for Congress at 78% and approval ratings at 14%.

Whole thing here.

Population transfers

I'm fairly pro-immigration, and I think it's an intriguing idea to let states set different standards for attracting immigrants, but what in the world is Mike Bloomberg talking about here?

The report noted that Canada allows its provinces to set different immigration standards to attract the type of employees each region needs. 

The mayor quickly endorsed a similar proposal for US states — and then some. 

“There’s no reason why you have to have a common immigration policy for all of America,” he argued. “You could let each state do it differently. 

“I would argue the federal government should go one step further. They should deliberately force some places that don’t want immigrants to take them, because that’s the only solution for these big, hollowed-out cities where industry has left and is never going to come back unless you get some people to move there.”

Emphasis added. If that's not a recipe for social strife and disintegration, I don't know what is.

Some 1950s semi-nostalgia

This is interesting, both because of what David Frum has to say and because of Joe Posner's creative graphics.



Speaking of the 1950s, I am about two-thirds of the way through Eisenhower in War and Peace, at the point where he's dealing with Quemoy and Matsu. One interesting theme of the book is that, as president, Ike was often at odds with the conservative wing of his party, more so than I would've thought.