Fully Myelinated

Main | Next page »

Thursday December 04, 2008

Bond rating agencies

I've been a bad blogger. Busy time of year. Lots of stuff I've wanted to write about lately, but haven't had the time. The most important, though-- the seemingly mundane (boring) subject of bond-rating agencies. Ever since I first started to understand this giant financial mess thanks to This American Life (still the best explanation), I've been somewhat surprised at how the hugely important role of the bond-rating agencies has been ignored in all this. Basically, various financial intersts were bundling together a lot of low-quality subprime mortgages and then the bond-rating agencies-- whose job it is to assess the safety/reliability of various investments-- was rating them AAA (the best rating) despite the fact that they were built on mortgages made to people who simply could not afford the homes they were buying. Amazing. It is complicated stuff, but the New York Times' Roger Lowenstein (who has a knack for explaining misunderstood, really important issues), lays out the case about as clearly as can be done, here. It is not an easy read, but it is an important one. Rather than take out the good clips or try and summarize it for you, I'm just going to go with Ezra Klein's analogy (which, certainly resonates with me):

As Lowenstein's article makes clear, the ratings agencies failed for many reasons, not least because they were effectively gamed. But there's also evidence that they are bedeviled by a fundamental conflict-of-interest. They are paid by the very banks whose products they rate. If a bank can't get good ratings from one agency, say Moody's, it will leave them for another, like S&P. Moreover, banks only pay if they get a rating they accept. They pay for the delivery of the rating, not the analysis. Profits are dependent, in other words, on giving banks (and other actors) ratings they can live with. It would be like if teachers only got paid when we got a good grade, and we could always go to another instructor if we weren't happy with the first. Some students might still fail in that world, but grade inflation would be rampant.

This whole mess could not have happened without people all througout our financial system making really stupid decisions (obviously, people on Wall Street are way overpaid), but the credit-rating agencies should be one of the fundamental safeguards and they simply are not.

Posted by shgreene ( Dec 04 2008, 11:13:10 PM EST ) Permalink

Monday November 24, 2008

Civic Knowledge

I discovered this latest "Civic Knowledge" quiz via one of my students. I was pleased to get a perfect 33 out of 33 score (average score for "college educators" 55%. I was pretty determined even before answering the questions that any I missed would surely be invalid questions. Some of these definitely had very little to do with civic literacy. As Kevin Drum suggests, is it so bad if Americans don't know what philosophical points of agreement Aristotle, Plato, and Thomas Aquinas shared? He also points out that the kids are alright. All sorts of tests like to make fun of how little our High School students know, but tell us how little ordinary adults know. This one does and the results really are not that pretty regardless of age (age breakdown and fascinating comments over at Drum's link).

I'm going to be bold and enable comments so you can tell me how you did (feel free to be anonymous). Of course, if nobody comments, I'll just get depressed and disable them. [Or so was my intention except for the fact that the new blogging software NCSU installed (after keeping the blogs down for some time and ruining the font in all my old posts) does not seem to want to allow comments for this post, as I designated, but rather the previous post, for which I did not designate comments.]

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 24 2008, 11:19:48 PM EST ) Permalink Comments [5]

Hardware woes

Thought I'd go with two technology/computer posts in a row and get that out of my system for the next year. Most of my work at home is done on a desktop upstairs connected to our main downstairs computer by a wireless network. For the first several months, this computer used to lose the wireless signal all the time and I'd have to patiently sit through a network reset before continuing what I was doing. I chalked this up to electronic interference from cordless phones, microwaves, etc., which I had read so many dire warnings about. Turns out it was none of the above. I simply bought a new wireless network card for this computer and haven't had a network signal dropped since. Frustrating to think how much time was wasted over a malfunctioning part I did not even realize was not working. So, much better, but then for the longest time webpages up here did not want to load in and I would have to reset the browser to get them to work. Again, I figured probably not much I could do about it. Then, my wireless router goes completely dead, I buy a new (cheaper, no less) one and all of a sudden, the internet works perfectly up here. Again, I think of all the time I wasted when I could have just replaced a $30 part. I'm not entirely sure what the moral of this story is, but it feels good to share. And now, back to politics (and urinal technology).

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 24 2008, 08:40:46 PM EST ) Permalink

My email woes

Turns out that I was about the only person left using Eudora for email. I've been using this so long that I cannot remember when I started (presumably sometime in the mid 1990's at Ohio State). I've been using this on borrowed time for quite a while, as Qualcomm stopped making and supporting Eudora. Alas, I finally lost full functionality in my Eudora 6.2 which I should have lost a year ago and didn't. Eudora 7 never worked with NCSU email servers and it turns out that Eudora 8 is not Eudora at all, but Mozilla Thunderbird. So, my obsession the past three days has been to find a suitable replacement for Eudora. Simple, you'd think. But I spend more time on email than anything except web-browsing and it turns out I'm pretty particular with my email software-- unlike the rest of my life ;-). So, I must have tried at least half a dozen email programs this weekend and they all seemed to have some fatal flaw (for my purposes, at least) as compared to Eudora. In the end, I've decided to join the masses and use Thunderbird--largely so I can stop obsessing. But I'm not happy about it.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 24 2008, 08:35:12 PM EST ) Permalink

Thursday November 20, 2008

Obama and change

Kevin Drum made a really good point earlier in the week that I've also been hearing/reading a lot of rumblings on:

CLINTONITES....Just a quick comment on a common meme: Why is Barack Obama surrounding himself with so many Clinton retreads? That's not change we can believe in!

Sure, sure, but look: anybody who's been active in liberal governance for more than eight years is likely to be a Clintonite. It was the only game in town during the 90s. And anybody who's been active less than eight years probably doesn't have the experience to get a top level position. So there's really no way around this. There are some fresh faces around for Obama to tap, but for the most part, when you're staffing highly visible and responsible positions, you want someone who has at least some experience to fall back on. And since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to hold the presidency in the past 28 years, that means someone who served in the Clinton administration.

If you want change (which, let's be honest, basically means a liberal policy agenda) you really need experienced operators who know what they're doing in order to bring about change. Who all these "new" people without Clinton administration experience that Obama should bring it that will actually be able to get things through Congress is a mystery to me. I love the choice of Tom Daschle as HHS Secretary and to push Health care reform. More on my personal connection to Daschle later.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 20 2008, 11:33:53 PM EST ) Permalink

Yuck

I stop blogging for a few days to discover that the Wolfblogs system is down for a couple days for a big update-- the main effect of which seems to be to make all my existing entries look really ugly. Hopefully, new entries won't be so ugly. I guess I'll see in a few minutes. So, keeping with the yuck theme, one entry I meant to write earlier this week was about this fascinating article about no-flow urinals. I must say, I feel quite eco-friendly whenever I use of these and no flushing is required, but it turns out they are not all they are cracked up to be. From the N&O:

Men since Adam have survived without urinals that flush. By the early 1990s, concerns over water shortages and environmental impact spawned a garage industry for urinals that don't use water.
Since then, the devices, which rely on special oil-filled drain traps, have become the rage in eco-conscious communities nationwide, especially in water-worried California and the arid Southwest. They're now fastest-growing segment of the U.S. urinal market, accounting for 250,000 of its 12 million units, thanks largely to powerful advocates...
Still, an inconvenient truth hovers over the no-flush urinal industry. It's that many buyers and one-time fans say that the urinals are icky, tricky and costly to maintain...
The feature in question is the no-flush urinal's trap. It's the size of a coffee mug and locks into the urinal drain. Urine flows under the trap's layer of scented blue oil much as vinegar flows through salad oil. At the same time, the oil blocks release of sewer gases in the drain line.
"They're not a problem if they're maintained properly," said Falcon vice president Daniel Gleiberman, whose products are also sold under the Sloan Valve Co. name. Customers with well-trained, well-managed and low-turnover maintenance staffs tend to agree with Gleiberman.

Alas, apparently things are so pretty when they are not properly maintained. If something goes wrong with the seal, it's not pretty. Just keep flushing.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 20 2008, 11:22:58 PM EST ) Permalink

Friday November 14, 2008

No communion for Obama supporters This really annoys me...

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."

This priest has quite a way with words, too:

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation." (emphasis mine).

I fully understand and sympathize with the Catholic Church's position on abortion. What I hate is when Catholic leaders (e.g., my bishop here in Raleigh), put abortion so far above all other issues. I fully believe that a fetus is a human life, and surely the Catholic church has a legitimate interest and a political role to play in advocating to protect that life. But I think the position of this priest and much Catholic leadership places the interests of these unborn humans above the millions of Americans already living post-birth lives. One of the reasons I am proud to be a Catholic is the tremendous commitment to social justice of the Catholic Church. Things like just wage, concern for the poor, environmental stewardship, etc., materially and profoundly affect the lives of millions of already living people. Heck, most of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching (abortion aside, obviously) could hardly be distinguished from the Democratic party platform. I just do not buy the logic of putting aside all these other principles which just as clearly affect human lives in favor of a single principle. (And not even a whole principle at that-- capital punishment does not exactly support "the life and dignity of the human person"). Not to mention the fact that the policies of the Democratic party are probably much more likely to ameliorate the social circumstances most likely to lead to abortions.

All that aside, I think this article is also an interesting reflection on the fact that the media just loves communion denial stories. Back in 2004, we had the "wafer watch" with John Kerry. There are thousands of priests across America. The pronouncements of a single priest, speaking without authority from his Bishop, simply to not amount to news. When this priest's Bishop makes this argument, okay, it is real news. Until then, the AP should save stories like this for the Greenville News.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 14 2008, 10:52:14 PM EST ) Permalink

Speeding tickets and lawyers Fortunately, it has been about 10 years or so since I last got a speeding ticket. I'm pretty sure, that like Tuesday's ticket (63 in a 45), that one was also for 18 over (53 in a 35, that so should have been a 45). In Ohio, they just let me pay my $100 or so and be done with it. Here in NC, at 18 over, I apparently have no choice but to go to court. Or so I thought. Just 3 days after I got the ticket, I have now received at least a dozen solicitations from lawyers telling me they'll take care of it all for me for just $200 or so. Seems like a pretty good little system they've got. In NC, we have this oddly-named every-three-year forgiveness policy termed "Prayer for Justice Continued." Apparently, you ask for this, almost always get it, and you are out $120 in court costs but no points on your record. For $200, the lawyers will "pay all your costs." So, my guess is for a less than 5 minute conversation with the traffic ADA, they earn $80 or so. Not a bad deal. I am pretty impressed by the efficiency of all the traffic attorneys sending me letters with the details of my case so quickly. I'm planning on being brave and asking for the PJC myself and saving the $80. I'll report back on the matter December 18.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 14 2008, 10:22:58 PM EST ) Permalink

Tuesday November 11, 2008

Emerging Democratic Majority? I think one of the most interesting aspects coming out of the exit polls in last week's election is that they have so thoroughly validated the theory laid out in John Judis and Ruy Texeira's 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority. Basically, they argue that the demographic portions of the electorate that are growing the most are the same ones that are increasingly becoming Democratic. Republicans, in contrast, fare best among the ever shrinking portion of America that is white people in non-professional occupations. One of my favorite aspects of the book is that they actually feature the Raleigh-Durham area as an "ideopolis" which typifies the changes in the electorate. Here's Judis in a TNR piece after the election:

The new Democratic realignment reflects the shift that began decades ago toward a post-industrial economy centered in large urban-suburban metropolitan areas devoted primarily to the production of ideas and services rather than material goods. (In The Emerging Democratic Majority, Ruy Teixeira and I called these places "ideopolises.") Clustered in the regions that have undergone this economic transition are the three main groups that constitute the backbone of the new Democratic majority: professionals (college-educated workers who produce ideas and services); minorities (African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans); and women (particularly working, single, and college-educated women).

As late as the 1950s, professionals were the most Republican of all occupational groupings, but they were also relatively small in number--about 7 percent of the labor force. Today, professionals (who are the brains, so to speak, of the new post-industrial economy) make up 20 percent of the labor force and are a quarter or more of the electorate in many northern and western states. They range from nurses to teachers to TV producers to software programmers to engineers. They began voting Democratic in 1988 and have continued to do so ever since.

Using census data, Teixeira and I calculated that, between 1988 and 2000, professionals voted for the Democratic presidential candidate by an average of 52 to 40 percent. I don't know exactly what percentage of professionals voted for Obama this week because exit polls don't include professionals as a category. Still, as an approximation, I can use a somewhat smaller (and maybe even slightly more conservative) group: people with advanced degrees. Obama won these voters by a whopping 58 to 40 percent. He even won college graduates as a whole, 50 to 48 percent. (It may be the first time that a Democrat has ever accomplished this. In 1996, for instance, Clinton, even while beating Bob Dole handily, failed to carry college graduates.) Moreover, if you look at states Obama carried and compare them to the states that have the highest percentage of people with an advanced degree, you find that he won the top 19 states--all of them, which together account for 234 electoral votes. He also won 21 of the top 24, accounting for 282 electoral votes. McCain, by contrast, won the six states that have the lowest percentage of people with advanced degrees.

As for minorities: Most--with the exception of Cubans, Chinese-Americans, and Vietnamese-Americans--have voted Democratic since the 1930s. But, with the shift of the economy and the liberalization of immigration laws, the number of Latinos and Asian Americans has expanded. Some of the new immigrants are professionals, but others form the working class of the post-industrial economy. They are orderlies, child-care workers, janitors, fast-food cooks, and servers. As late as 1972, minorities accounted for just 10 percent of the electorate. In this election, they made up 26 percent. Blacks, of course, went overwhelmingly for Obama, but he also won Hispanics by 66 to 31 percent and Asians--who as a group used to split their vote between Democrats and Republicans--by 62 to 35 percent.

Women, too, were once disproportionately Republican--in 1960, Richard Nixon won the women's vote. But their voting patterns began to change as they entered the labor force. In 1950, only one-third of women worked; today, 60 percent of women work, making up 46 percent of the total labor force. Over 70 percent of working women have white-collar jobs, and 24 percent work as professionals--compared to 17 percent of men. In 1980, women began disproportionately backing Democrats, and the trend has continued. This year, Obama enjoyed a 13-point edge among women voters and only a one-point edge among men. He carried working women by 21 points. If you add these numbers to the Democrats' advantage among professionals and minorities, that is a good basis for winning elections.

Obviously, one does not want to extrapolate too much from a single election, but the demographic trends are clearly moving in the Democrats' direction. So long as demographic groups continue to align with the parties in roughly the ways they do now, Democrats only stand to gain.

Actually, was just about to post this and came across this article by Salon's Gary Kamiya which is even better. I should be quoting from it, but I don't feel like re-doing the post.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 11 2008, 10:57:27 AM EST ) Permalink

Monday November 10, 2008

Annals of crazy customers I think I'll go for two posts in a row inspired by my wife. Kim always enjoys telling me tales of crazy Snapdragonsbaby.com customers to vent and get things off her chest. I think today's story might be the best. She got a phone message from a customer who was upset because the "Pirate tee" she ordered had a picture of a pirate ship on the front. Apparently, her family does not dress their children in pirate-themed clothing. Oddly enough, this did not stop her from ordering a clothing item clearly labeled "Pirate tee." And for the record, despite the name, the pirate ship could easily be mistaken for any large sailing vessel. Her loss-- Alex wears one of these all the time and it is a great shirt.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 10 2008, 08:40:27 PM EST ) Permalink

Waiting lists for Downs adoptions Kim sent me a really interesting Washington Post article about the fact that there is actually a waiting list for people wanting to adopt babies with Downs Syndrome (this may be the first time Kim has sent me a Post article, rather than vice versa). This is especially noteworthy as most pre-natal diagnoses of Downs end in abortion (though, it should be noted that many people choose not to have this in utero genetic test):

For many parents, a diagnosis of Down syndrome can be overwhelming as they face the likelihood that the child will struggle to live independently and will require intensive medical, financial and social support. Most prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome lead to abortion.

Yet almost 200 families are on a waiting list to adopt a child with Down syndrome in the United States. Others are seeking to adopt such children overseas. Many of those interested in adoption, such as the Curtises, have a child with the genetic condition; some are special-education teachers or motivated by religious beliefs or idealism.

This month, President Bush signed into law a bill meant to help families who confront questions about Down syndrome or other disabilities. It promotes initiatives to give new or expectant parents up-to-date information about the conditions, as well as referrals to support services. It also authorizes the government to help create a national registry to connect birth parents with people who want to adopt a child with Down syndrome.

In 2005, Brian Skotko, a resident physician at Children's Hospital Boston, surveyed more than 1,000 mothers of children with Down syndrome. He found that information mothers got from doctors was often "incomplete, inaccurate or offensive," he said. "Rarely was the option of adoption mentioned" to those diagnosed prenatally, he said.

The article actually leads off with a story about a family who adopted additional Downs kids because they did not want their Downs child to get lonely:

Jonny and Madeleine, the eighth and ninth children in the Curtis family, were born 54 weeks apart but grew up in many ways like twins. Best friends from the beginning, they learned to walk and sound out words together. But Madeleine's development soon outpaced her older brother's.

Looking ahead, Barbara and Tripp Curtis worried that Jonny, who has Down syndrome, would be alone as his siblings grew up and left home. And so they adopted Jesse, Daniel and, finally, Justin. All three have Down syndrome.

Now the four brothers, ages 8 to 16, share a bedroom decorated with posters of SpongeBob SquarePants and a framed picture of Jesus in their sprawling Loudoun County house. They also share a love of the Beatles, the Everly Brothers and Special Olympics basketball.

I know that aspect of the article grabbed attention, as in our own family Evan's development has outpaced Alex's. Safe to say that three kids of any variety is more than enough for the Greene family.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 10 2008, 08:20:54 PM EST ) Permalink

Thursday November 06, 2008

Exit polls Kevin Drum makes a great point about interpreting this years exit polls relative to 2004:

First things first. In 2004, Kerry lost to Bush nationwide by 2.4 percentage points. In 2008, Obama beat McCain by 6.3 percentage points. That's a swing of about 9 points nationwide, which means that any group that also swung by 9 points in Obama's favor was doing nothing except following the national trend.

The interesting question, then, is which groups significantly over-performed or under-performed this 9 point trend. Drum provides the answers:

Income $200,000 or more (+34)
First-time voters (+33)
No high school (+27)
Latinos (+27)
18-29 year olds (+25)
Under $15,000 (+21)
Full-time workers (+19)
Urban (+19)
Non-gun owners (+18)
Non-religious (+16)
Parents with children under 18 (+16)

As for the underperforming groups:

Gay/lesbian (-11)
Last minute voters (-8)
Union members (0)
"Other" religions (0)
Gun owners (+2)
White women (+4)
45-59 year olds (+4)

Among the most notable... Obama really did kick butt with young people. They only went up a percent as a portion of the electorate, but they overwhelmingly supported him. Given Republican rhetoric in recent years, it is also not surprising that Latinos went hugely for Obama. And check out the swing among $200K earners. Nice to see they realize things are more important than their marginal tax rate going up 3%. I read a comment somewhere today referring to wealthier white-collar workers voting against their economic interests, but I think that is a really narrow way of looking at things. Maybe in the short-term their marginal tax rates go up, but long-term, everybody does better with a healthy and robust middle class and less extreme income disparities-- i.e., a Democratic economic program. Given that I'm trying to finish up a book on parenthood and politics, I'm very intrigued to see the huge bump in parents for Obama and looking forward to figuring out what is going on there.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 06 2008, 11:49:24 PM EST ) Permalink

The pinnacle of punditry Well, I've been working my way up, and I have finally reached the apex of political punditry--The New York Times. I spent an hour on the phone yesterday with the reporter talking about exit polls and such. So, needless to say I would have been pretty disappointed had I not made it in the article. The whole article is short and pretty good. Here's my part:

Steven Greene, a political scientist at North Carolina State University, said people had invested so much hope in Mr. Obama that there would inevitably be disappointment. But Mr. Greene predicted that Mr. Obama’s support among young people augured well for the Democrats’ future.

Actually, my great hope was that my name would get mentioned twice, so I would have that oh-so- New York Times, "Mr. Greene..." Mission accomplished.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 06 2008, 09:51:39 AM EST ) Permalink

Wednesday November 05, 2008

Post-Election thoughts Millions of things to say... Wow. I could spend hours blogging my thoughts. Instead, I'll try and compress some of them into a few bullet points.

A Black president. That is so cool. It is simply an amazing, amazing symbolic statement about how far this country has come. America under Bush has done tremendous self-inflicted damage to it's perception around the world and really lost its moral leadership. By electing a Black man, given our nation's history, really does a lot to restore America as a beacon of hope.

Obviously, Obama had a terrific speech last night. I was really struck by McCain's, though. I loved it. I thought, "wow, here's the guy I really liked that I had pretty much forgotten had existed." Here's hoping that's the McCain we see going forward.

My predictions were pretty damn good.

There is no Bradley effect.

I really think the effect of the economic crisis has been overstated. Over at the Monkey Cage, there's a great post that quite clearly shows Obama began gaining before the crisis really hit, and there was no inflection point in the trendline in response to the crisis.

I think the debates were actually an underappreciated factor in Obama's victory. Much long Reagan in 1980, Obama was the largely unknown figure that needed the opportunity to let the American people get comfortable with him. He did.

I was honestly left with a bit of a nagging feeling that despite it all, Obama should have done better in the popular vote. Incredibly appealing candidate with a great campaign who has inspired millions of new voters in a decidedly Democratic year. I cannot help but wonder how many white voters Obama lost due to race. Some interesting numbers... according to exit polls, Kerry won 89% of white Democrats in 2004 while Obama won only 85% of white Democrats in 2008, despite the fact that Obama outdid Kerry in almost every other meaningful category. My race and politics expert friend, the notorious Michael D. Cobb thinks it premature to claim race was a factor in this figures, but for me, Occam's razor suggests that Obama's race lost him a number of white Democratic voters. He won due to 1) more Democratic voters than in '04; 2) a modest advantage among independents; 3) an overwhelming advantage among non-white voters. I'm having lots of fun with the exit poll data, so I'll try to get up some more interesting thoughts based on the data (e.g., the gender gap was way back up this year).

Political Science aside, I am just damn glad that Obama won.

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 05 2008, 09:39:31 PM EST ) Permalink

Monday November 03, 2008

My election predictions I've had a good year of electoral prognostication. Might as well go ahead and put it on the line by making official election-eve predictions. Here goes:
Popular vote: Obama 53; McCain 46 (whatever "Bradley effect" there is will be more than countered by the "cell phone" effect in Obama's favor).
Electoral college: 367 for Obama (Kerry states plus IA, VA, NV, CO, NM, FL, NC, OH, ND and either MO or IN)
Senate: +7 Democrats; Dole goes down in NC
House: I haven't been following this closely at all, but I'll say +26 Dems
Other: I'll predict Bev Perdue just squeaking out a victory for Governor in NC, which she will entirely to Obama's NC ground game.
If you are in NC, look for my sure-to-be provocative and insightful analysis tomorrow night on WUNC-TV
[Somehow, I forgot to mention a bunch of red-to-blue states the first time I did this-- I think I've got them all now]

Posted by shgreene ( Nov 03 2008, 09:43:27 PM EST ) Permalink