I Love Libraries

Library of Congress, Jefferson's Library

I love visiting libraries. When I spent a week in Washington, D.C. my favorite part of the trip was downloading primary sources in the Library of Congress. In Burlington, Vermont. I spent a few hours scouring the stacks. There's just something about a lot of books in one place that I can't resist. However, E-books, those texts you can read from your Kindle or computer are increasingly taking the place of printed books, as far as publishers are concerned.

Business professor Randall Stross wrote a fascinating article in the Times, Publishers vs. Libraries: An E-Book Tug of War (link here). Libraries want the increasingly popular E-books, but major publishers do not want to sell them to the libraries for the same terms they sell printed books. Libraries therefore don't have the most popular titles as E-books. They do, however, have plenty of E-books from smaller publishers, books that are less well known.

I checked the availability of the top ten nonfiction E-book bestsellers as listed by the New York Times Book Review, December 4-10. My county library's performance is in noted in red.

1		STEVE JOBS, by Walter Isaacson. (Simon and Schuster.)
		The county library has no E-book. It does have 82 copies and an audio book. All copies are checked out, and there are 162 holds on the book
2		HEAVEN IS FOR REAL, by Todd Burpo with Lynn Vincent. (Thomas Nelson.)
		The county library has an E-book and print copies.
3		KILLING LINCOLN, by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard. (Holt.)
		The county library has no E-book. It does have 13 copies and an audio book. All copies are checked out, and there are 14 holds on the book.
4		CATHERINE THE GREAT, by Robert K. Massie. (Random House Publishing.)
		The county library has no E-book. It does have 36 copies. All copies are checked out, and there are 74 holds on the book.
5		UNBROKEN, by Laura Hillenbrand. (Random House Publishing.)
		The county library has an E-book and print copies.
6		THE DEVIL IN PEW NUMBER SEVEN, by Rebecca Nichols Alonzo with Bob DeMoss. (Tyndale.)
		The library system does not carry this title at all.
7		THINKING, FAST AND SLOW, by Daniel Kahneman. (Farrar, Straus and Giroux.)
		The county library has no E-book. It does have 37 copies and an audio book. All copies are checked out, and there are 71 holds on the book.
8		DECEMBER 1941, by Craig Shirley. (Thomas Nelson.)
		The library system does not carry this title at all.
9		IN THE GARDEN OF BEASTS, by Erik Larson. (Crown Publishing.)
		The county library has an E-book, audio book, and print copies.
10		BOOMERANG, by Michael Lewis. (W. W. Norton and Company.) The county library has no E-book. It does have 66 copies and six audio books. All copies are checked out, and there are 84 holds on the book.
		I believe our county library system does pretty well in keeping within budget and purchasing and releasing the popular titles. The top ten books the library system did not have turned out to be less important books. A patron may borrow a few of the top E-books immediately and eventually borrow all of the top ten books by placing a hold and waiting three to six weeks. Those that want a book that was a hit a couple of years ago can read it immediately. Feel free to comment. How good a job does your library do in releasing best sellers and E-books?

A Tale of Two Classes: The One Percent and the Occupiers

Despite all the bad press, the one percent is alive and well, buying and building $100 million mega-houses and McMansions in the Silicon Valley area an hour south of San Francisco (see the Bay Citizen link here). The Bay Citizen adds that this manic level of activity in the high end housing market will continue. “These people have essentially infinite money,” exclaims a realtor.

Zynga went public on Friday with a $1 billion stock offering. Facebook is widely expected to file a $10 billion offering early next year.

These stock offerings will create even more multimillionaires in the area. All of this new wealth is from Facebook and the creator of a bunch of inane games--ah, capitalism at its most creative in the United States! I'm sure my life is much better off because of these companies. After all, what wasteful activities would I be doing--playing games with my kids, reading history books, writing, practicing drums, working on lesson planning--if I wasn't reading about the careers and love affairs of my middle-aged high school classmates.

Seriously, I have no criticism of the rich buying stuff. Purchases of goods and services (increase aggregate demand and tax revenues) echo throughout the economy, growing the GDP. The more big purchasers we have, the better. The property taxes paid on these high end properties will also be stupendously large, supporting public services such as police and fire and school districts. A mere five-million dollar shack house in Atherton would create revenues of around $75,000/year in property taxes. You have to be rich just to afford the property taxes on a nice place in California. (Note to people lining up to give me property. Do not give me a mansion. I can't afford the property taxes and would be forced to sell it.)

As the Silicon Valley nouveau riche buy their expensive castles, their nemesis, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement attempted to take over church property (link here). Trinity Church supported the OWS movement with hot drinks and blankets but halted their support when the Occupy movement tried to take over Trinity Church's space, next to a public park.Supporting the mob with hot chocolate may be the Christian thing to do, but letting them use a piece of land worth millions, rent free...well, that is something altogether different.

“O.W.S. protestors call out for social and economic justice; Trinity has been supporting these goals for more than 300 years,” [the Church's rector] Dr. Cooper said in a statement. “We do not, however, believe that erecting a tent city at Duarte Square enhances their mission or ours.”

What? Of course the "occupation" of Duarte Square enhances the "get something for nothing" mission of OWS. It's also a great location, close to Wall Street, the right place to protest against income inequality. However, it seems that even supporters of "social justice" have their limits.

Since OWS members find it increasingly difficult to find a good location to park their sleeping bags, they might consider working against income in equality the old fashioned way--by making money, a lot of it. Unfortunately, working for money takes effort, and they will be increasingly tempted to find ways to usurp the noveau riche's millions instead. In 1932, FDR "pushed through a tax increase on the wealthy that included a hike in the top rate to 63% from 35%." It could happen again. In California, three competing measures to raise taxes will be on the ballot. The California Federation of Teachers' Millionaire's Tax may be the most likely to pass. Additionally, at this writing the OWS movement is planning to disrupt Republican caucuses in Iowa. The OWS movement knows who should be wealthy and who should be blessed with the right to hold political office--certainly not those who receive votes and money from the one percent.

January 30, 2012 Postscript: The West Coast Occupy movement has been thoroughly discredited and now acts as an instrument of violence and anarchy. Even the ultra-leftist San Francisco Chronicle's writes, Occupy Oakland Has Lost Credibility. See the article here. Hopefully OWS will remain focused on inequality.

Moral Flexibility

I enjoyed Heather Havrilesky's short New York Times magazine piece, Creative Cheating (link here).  She reviews the work of  researchers Gino and Ariely, which shows that creative people are more likely to act unethically. Gino says that “creativity makes people more morally flexible.”

You've got to love that euphemism, "morally flexible."  Next time I get caught doing something bad we'll see how well the phrase works for me. "Mike, did you take the printer in the room next to yours and replace your old one with that one?" "Yes, my work is more valuable than the teacher I took it from. You need to be morally flexible."

Creative people have been assuming for a very long time that they live under a different set of rules than those that apply to everybody else. For example, the wonderfully creative King David, writer of the Biblical book of Psalms, was taken to task by the Prophet Nathan for engaging in a questionable relationship with Batsheva (Book of Second Samuel). David, to his credit, admitted wrongdoing.

Painters, musicians, actors, and writers are probably not the best bunch for those who want a monogamous relationship.

How to Spot a Liar

Polygraph

When I was a boy I knew when my kid brother was lying. He would smile ever so slightly, avoiding direct eye contact. If someone had taken the last cookie and my brother denied it, I would always know if he was telling the truth. Now, 45 years later, my brother has learned to hide his nervousness, and I can no longer tell if he is up to some deception.

Humans are poor lie detectors, usually able to spot deception only a little better than by chance. Anne Eisenberg, in the article, Software that Listens for Lies (link here), reviews computer technology that does a much better job at detecting deception.

The old technology, the polygraph machine, does a reasonably good job in detecting physiological stress. The examiner asks for a number of truthful statements and a few lies to get a baseline. Then the real questioning begins. Unfortunately, it is relatively easy to fool the machine by consciously changing one's muscle tension and breathing. More reliable computer programs have come to the rescue. Variations of these programs have been used in the business world for some time. For example, companies that sell travelers checks may run a person's phone call through a software program to determine whether the "victim" really did "lose" the checks.

Eisenberg discusses the research of Hirschberg, Jurafsky, and Fitzpatrick and Bachenko. All of these scientists study language and deception and use the power of computers to key in on subconscious cues.

Hirschberg's research shows that the "person’s speech provides all the cues — loudness, changes in pitch, pauses between words, ums and ahs, nervous laughs and dozens of other tiny signs that can suggest a lie."

“The scientific goal is to understand how our emotions are reflected in our speech,” Dr. Jurafsky said. “The engineering goal is to build better systems that understand these emotions.” 

Similarly, Fitzpatrick and Bachenko "are using computers to automatically spot clusters of words and phrases that may signal deception."

Unfortunately, you and I can't figure out whether someone is lying by looking for a slight smile and avoidant look. We need the computer software. I look forward to the time when this software is available to the general public. Men and women will take their laptops with them on dates. Parents will tell their teenagers to speak into the microphone.  Maybe we all will become a little more honest.

If I Was A North Korean

Starving children, North Korea

North Korea is back in the news after the death of its fat and evil dictator with the bizarre hair-do, Kim Jong-il, replaced by his equally out of shape and militaristic son. The world again tries to understand one of the most repressive places on earth. The simplest measure of whether the leadership of a country allows its citizenry to flourish is whether people are trying to get in or trying to get out. Few people try to smuggle themselves into North Korea, Syria, Gaza, Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, or other assorted hell holes, unless they're trying to help the oppressed and starving people in these places. The United States and North America, Western and Central Europe, Israel, and Australia, by contrast, attempt to keep immigrants out. People want to move and live in these prosperous and free places. I count my blessings. The fortunate circumstance of having American citizenship has given me an incredible number of advantages over most of the seven billion people of this world. For example, let's compare some mundane aspects my life to that of the average North Korean.

I eat three or more meals each day. I have to exercise and watch that I don't gain too many calories. The average North Korean ate tree bark during the last famine, and one third of the population is in danger of starving to death. The United States will withdraw food aid after North Korea's attempted rocket launch, so I am not guilty of hyperbole, unfortunately. (Note--Bloomberg states, "As many as 1 million people starved to death during the 1990s, according to estimates from Marcus Noland and Stephan Haggard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington D.C.)

My life expectancy is greater than that of my parents. The life expectancy in North Korea has decreased during Kim Jong-il's iron-fisted rule.

As a citizen in a federal republic, I have some say over leadership. I'm sad when my party loses in an election. In North Korea you better look sad when one of the obese dictators dies after eating too much breakfast. (Hey, my theory is as good as any. See the link.) Any regime that photoshops pictures of State funerals is not to be trusted with telling the truth.

I enjoy freedom of speech--lots of blogging!
In North Korea there is no freedom and little speech--lots of flogging!

I can drive to Arizona and visit family and take a vacation. Refreshed, I return to the Bay Area.
In North Korea the state will pay for a one way trip to the local prison camp. Dead victims return to the earth in a box.

I turn off the computer when I go to bed.
In North Korea the state turns off the electricity way before bedtime. 

I enjoy California exports of almonds and nuts.
North Korean dictators enjoy exports of arms and nukes.

My kids get a free education.
North Korean kids get a free indoctrination.

America destroys her rockets on the ground--nuclear disarmament
North Korea's rockets blow up after launch--attempted nuclear proliferation.

And on it goes...See the United States' responses to the North Korean leadership succession crisis here and rocketry and nuclear proliferation here.

Goin' to California

I just finished a road trip, taking my parents and my parents' aging dogs from Phoenix, Arizona back home to the San Francisco Bay Area. All of us did surprisingly well, finishing the trip in 13 and a half hours, despite the constant bathroom breaks of the passengers, median age around 80. (I was the youngest by far. The toothless dogs were in their 90s, dog years.) As the car sped through the Mojave desert and up into the West's agricultural heartland we listened to junky hits of the 70s, then better quality stuff, Johnny Cash and Vince Gill, surviving off my mom's egg and tuna and egg and olive sandwiches on rye bread. My mom and I split the driving. This gave me some time to compare the infrastructure of the two states. I noticed a few key differences.

• The interstates (10 and 5) were in good repair in both states, but Arizona's roads were newly paved and in flawless condition.
• Traffic ran smoothly going through the huge freeway into Phoenix. Traffic backed up going through the huge freeway into Los Angeles. 
• Almost all of the California rest stops were closed. All of the Arizona rest stops were open.
• Gasoline is much (15%) cheaper in Arizona. 
• I ran across a lot more roadway cleaned by prisoners in California. To be fair, our trip crossed much more of California than Arizona. But it seemed like we passed a penitentiary every few hours. This was perfect backdrop to the Johnny Cash. (Link here.)

Without looking at the budgetary numbers, I would take a guess that Arizona is in much better financial shape than California. The evidence from my trip is compelling. The New York Times magazine says, "Italy, like California, has let bad governance squander great natural resources." California has been more successful in banning Fois Gras than getting its budget together. The NYT seems to be correct.

Poverty Increasing--Education is the Answer

News from the Census Bureau is a must read. Half the people of this country are in poverty or are approaching poverty. Really? In America, the land of opportunity? Something must be done, but what? The Census Bureau states:

About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure....The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.

So the Bureau has made it easier to be considered poor or near-poor. If you own a home, a car or two, and have heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer you still qualify. If you make $45,000 a year and have four kids you qualify. That's a far cry from the third world. When one realizes what the poor look like in Manilla, Cairo, Nairobi, or Port-au-Prince, all the developing world, really, this report makes you want to laugh (or cry). Those unfortunates would love to be an American poor person. See what a typical American poor person owns here.

Still, the long-term news is not good.

Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000. 

 It has become harder over time to make a good living with just a high school education. The trades (carpentry, plumbing, electrical), energy and, of course, starting your own business, are what still works well for those without a college degree--69 percent of the workforce. The surefire way to expand your earnings potential is to increase your education. (See http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/) Pollster Gallup writes:

Apart from their bank accounts, Gallup finds education to be the greatest difference between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and everyone else. The Gallup analysis reveals that 72% of the wealthiest Americans have a college degree, compared with 31% of those in the lower 99 percentiles. Furthermore, nearly half of those in the wealthiest group have postgraduate education, versus 16% of all others.

For further proof, see the chart below.

 

What Sagging Says to Me

Many high school boys wear their pants a few sizes too big in the waist--so much so that they can't walk without holding up their pants up with one hand.The style is back in the news, as principals ineffectually deal with the problem. I am disgusted by this "style," and let offenders know that I have duct tape in my classroom. If they can't find a belt we can make one from the tape or they can hang out in the office since sagging is a dress code violation.

If this style of wearing pants around your ankles and showing the world your underwear could talk, this is what it would say:

"I'm lazy." I teach all levels of students--unmotivated to middling to Advanced Placement. Saggers are over-represented in the group that receives Ds and Fs. No employer in his right mind would hire one of these slackers.

"I have no respect for anyone but myself. I don't care if people see my (ugly as sin) underwear. All that matters is that I'm as unencumbered by clothes as possible. I don't care about anyone else, really." This ghastly narcissistic attitude seems to be endemic to styles circles right now.

"I'm in jail." According to the Urban Dictionary, this style originated in prison, as a mark of sexual connection to another prisoner. Popular also with rappers and fans of hip-hop culture, sagging suggests an atmosphere of lawlessness and criminality.

Parents: you have control. In addition to monitoring 140 high school students, I have five kids. Not one of them dresses in this abominable way, at least for the time they live with me.

Work a Day for a ...Stick of Butter?

Butter is at the ridiculously high price of $4 per pound on Norwegian shelves when you can find it. Usually you can't. Filling the gap, websites peddle the stuff, a staple for Norwegian Christmas treats for $100 per pound.  What a great example of the foolishness of price ceilings, the extremism of the "buy local" movement, and the need for free trade.

The problem would be solved if imports were allowed in the country. Instead smugglers rule. Norway International Network (see above link) writes:

The butter shortage is expected to continue through the end of the year, and may leave Norwegians re-thinking their protectionist policies aimed at preserving local agriculture and keeping cheaper imports out of Norway. In this case, the policies clearly have backfired, at the height of the Christmas baking season.

 If Norway won't allow imports, perhaps they will allow the market to self-correct. Nope. My guess is "price gouging," also known as letting the price rise until it is at equilibrium with demand, is illegal. The stores are forced to sell butter at an artificially low price (a price ceiling), which results in a shortage, the difference between qD and qS in the price ceiling graphic figure above. Many Norwegians will have to do without their Christmas treats this year. Why would Norwegian farmers put more butter on store shelves (even if they could) if they won't be paid $10 or $20 per pound for their trouble?

Left to its own devices, the market does a much better job of allocating assets, and in the long run, keeping prices as low as possible.

Obama and Theodore Roosevelt (Part II)

Despite bringing up the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt in his Osawatomie, Kansas speech, Obama has little in common with TR. Compare the two on the chart below.

                                                TR                                           BO

Personality	Decisive and passionate	“Doesn’t control the weather” http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Famous Vacations	Bear hunting in Mississippi; lion hunting in Africa; exploring the Amazon	Luxury in Hawaii
Adversity	Biggest influence, his father, died when TR was away at Harvard; lost wife and mother on the same day; went out west to heal and engage in adventures and cattle ranching	A flighty father and a no-good stepfather.
Books Written	A lot of writing on history, ranching, hunting, and politics-- http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/research/biblioworks.htm 1882 The Naval War of 1812 1885 Hunting Trips of a Ranchman 1887 Thomas Hart Benton1888 Essays on Practical Politics Gouverneur Morris Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail 1889- 1896 The Winning of the West, 4 vols.1891 New York 1893 The Wilderness Hunter    1895 Hero Tales from American History, with Henry Cabot Lodge    1897 American Ideals Some American Game1899 The Rough Riders 1900 The Strenuous Life      Oliver Cromwell 1905 Outdoor Pastimes of an American Hunter1907 Good Hunting1909 Outlook Editorials 1910 African and European Addresses  African Game Trails American Problems The New Nationalism 1912 The Conservation of Womanhood and Childhood Realizable Ideals1913 Autobiography History as Literature and Other Essays Progressive Principles Through the Brazilian Wilderness 1914 Life-Histories of African Game Animals, 2 vols., co-author with Edmund Heller1915 America and the World War1916 Fear God and Take Your Own Part  A Book Lover's Holiday in the Open 1917 The Foes of Our Own Household National Strength and International Duty 1918 The Great Adventure	Two books on himself-- 2004 Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance 2008 The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Sports	Rowing, boxing, hiking, hunting	Basketball, golf, collecting Republican's email addresses
Religion	Dutch Reformed. Served as a Sunday school teacher. Loved to preach about morality.	Belonged to (viciously anti-Semitic) Reverend Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Rarely attends church now. Lit a Chanukah menorah two weeks early, so who knows what he believes?

Obama and Theodore Roosevelt

I will introduce this topic, Obama and Theodore Roosevelt, with a December 7, 2011 transcript from Real Clear Politics:

MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, "The Washington post" three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all -- than all eight Republicans combined. I don't want to say that, because if that's the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we've got a much bigger problem.

But I think President Obama, if he were here in the room, the question I would ask him is why are they your number one contributors? Why are you taking this money?

MORGAN: It's fascinating to find out why they're doing it. I'll ask him.

MOORE: What are they expecting in return in the second term from you? Right now, here's what we do know. Goldman Sachs was your number one contributor the 2008 election. And we have not seen anyone from Goldman Sachs go to jail. We have not seen the regulations, Glass/Steagall, put back on to Wall Street now three years after the crash.

Why hasn't that happened? President Obama, we the people need you to take them by the throat and say, damn it, this is the United States of America; you don't steal from the working people of this country. And this is the way it's going to be.
________________________________________________________________________________

Let's think about this Michael Moore exchange. People are just figuring this out now--that Obama and the Democrats prostitute themselves for political donations from investment bankers? It's not (only) the Republicans that are in the back pocket of Wall Street?

What's fitting is that the Michael Moore transcript speaks to the policies of Theodore Roosevelt (TR), so I particularly enjoyed Obama reliving Theodore Roosevelt's famous New Nationalism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. There are plenty of interesting quotes from Obama's speech.

Obama: Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments – wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and pay checks that weren't – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up....Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets – and huge bonuses – made with other people's money on the line.

Not one of these bankers went to jail, by the way. It's too bad that Obama did not read this line from TR's New Nationalism speech: "I believe that the officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law." Instead Obama said:

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. "Our country," he said, "means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy … of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him." Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist – even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

Obama's use of TR was misleading. He did not make two important facts clear. TR had not been president for two years, and he and his Progressive Bull Moose party lost the 1912 election and the party dissolved shortly thereafter. The American people rejected TR's approach in 1912. But, OK, let's look at what TR said and meant in his speech. TR believed in a progressive income tax on those with "big fortunes," not you and me. TR also said (in the New Nationalism speech) that "capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights." That doesn't sound very communist. He says that wages and hours should be reasonable but mentions neither an eight-hour day or a minimum wage. He mentions " national laws to regulate child labor and work for women," but gives no specifics. Perhaps this came out of his campaign at another point, but it was Woodrow Wilson that passed the income tax (promising a top rate of ten percent) and Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal 23 years later that would put many of these ideas into legislation.

Most importantly, TR also said in the speech: "There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."

Obama seems to have glossed over that line too. Real progressives should stop taking donations from groups that work against the society they want. Fake progressives just go after the money.

Racism in Institutions or Institutionalized Racism

The U.S. Department of Justice has changed its guidance on race and admissions policy in school (link here). I've quoted important sections of the DOJ's letter below. My reactions to the new DOJ policy are in blue.

December 2, 2011
Dear Colleague:
     Today, the United States Department of Education (ED) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) are jointly issuing guidance that explains how educational institutions can lawfully pursue voluntary policies to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation

Achieving "diversity" and avoiding "racial isolation" are not enough of a social good to justify usurping the people's individual rights, especially the right of free association implicit in  the First Amendment.   Even the United Nations agrees--article 15.1 of the Rights of the Child recognizes the student's rights to free association. Free association means I, not my educational institution or the federal government, choose my own company.

within the framework of Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and current case law....

All of these laws were made to reinforce individual rights, not affirmative action programs favoring certain racial groups. Ironically, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a reinforcement of the First Amendment, (again) implicitly recognizes the right to free association. According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School, the "government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups." (italics mine)

A color-blind society is the long-term goal, but the DOJ is going in the opposite direction.

Unemployment is Worse than Reported

Part of my job as an AP Macroeconomics teacher is to interpret employment statistics. Unemployment declined from 9 percent to 8.6 percent in November of 2011. Is that a good thing? In this case, no. The government does not count people who have given up and are no longer looking for work. Many gave up last month (more than 300,000 as reported by most media outlets), and that is the major reason why the percent of unemployed decreased.

Here is a quote from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) report: 

In November, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about the same as a year earlier (italics, mine)....  These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. 

I am not a pessimist. We will eventually reach our natural rate of unemployment, around 4.5-5%. But we are not creating enough jobs yet. We need to create around 150,000 jobs just to keep up with natural population growth and keep unemployment from going up.  Both government and private sector jobs need to be part of the mix. According to the  BLS

Economists sometimes refer to the "trend growth rate of employment"—the number of jobs that must be added each month to keep pace with population growth and changing trends in labor force participation. Common "rule-of-thumb" estimates of trend growth currently put the figure at 150,000 jobs per month. This means that over-the-month changes in payroll employment exceeding 150,000 generally are interpreted as strong job growth, while smaller increases are seen as weak job growth.

So what happened in November? The private sector added 140,000 positions in November, but government cut 20,000 positions. Therefore the United States added 120,000 jobs in November, only enough to tread water.  The BLS states:

Government employment continued to trend down in November, with a decline in the U.S. Postal Service (-5,000). Employment in both state government and local government has been trending down since the second half of 2008.

Even if government had cut no jobs, 140,000 is not enough growth to make much of a dent in unemployment figures. The recovery from the Great Recession of 2008 has been atypical. We used to see much more robust growth after a recession, around 300,000 jobs created each month, 1.25 million for a quarter. See http://bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/08/art1full.pdf  So don't pop the champagne corks just yet. The employment news is barely adequate. By the way, the actual rate is probably closer to 11 percent. I don't foresee much improvement without an increase in consumer spending, currently hitting new lows.

Postscript: The December 2011 figures were much better, with around 200,000 jobs created. However, the second quarter 2012 figures were subpar, and it seems, in August of 2012, that we are again averaging around 150,000, not good enough to meaningfully change unemployment. See also Mish's excellent economic blog here.

John Kennedy Revisited

My parents loved Jack Kennedy. In the late 60s I asked about a picture of him, similar to the one above, my mom kept on her desk. She showed me the letter that came with it--a 1963 thank you note from Jackie Kennedy responding to my parents' condolences.

My parents would be pleased to see that Kennedy is back in our consciousness. Chris Mathews' recently released, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, is a best seller (review here). Jacqueline Kennedy is also in print with Historic Conversations (review here). Even Stephen King has contributed to the Kennedy revival with a novel, 11/22/63.

Perhaps the best biography of Kennedy is Robert Dallek's An Unfinished Life (review here). I believe that this book is the standard that all other books on Kennedy should be measured against. Dallek's encyclopedic work incorporates the new information of Kennedy's medical problems as well as objectively analyzing the political struggles of  Kennedy's 35 months in office . He concludes that the Kennedy presidency was unfinished, but had great potential in civil rights, space exploration, outreach to the third world (through the Peace Corps), and a more flexible foreign policy. The American people have consistently admired Kennedy's energy and creativity, giving his presidency much higher marks than the reviews of historians. Newly sworn in President Lyndon Johnson realized many of these Kennedy programs, especially civil rights legislation. Unfortunately, Johnson also deepened our involvement in Vietnam.

Critic Ross Douthat cannot understand why Kennedy was beloved by the American people. In the Enduring Cult of Kennedy he writes about three myths of the Kennedy presidency. Two of these myths are of interest here. Douthat writes:

The first premise is that Kennedy was a very good president, and might have been a great one if he’d lived....In reality, the kindest interpretation of Kennedy’s presidency is that he was a mediocrity whose death left his final grade as “incomplete.” The harsher view would deem him a near disaster — ineffective in domestic policy, evasive on civil rights and a serial blunderer in foreign policy, who barely avoided a nuclear war that his own brinksmanship had pushed us toward. (And the latter judgment doesn’t even take account of the medical problems that arguably made him unfit for the presidency, or the adulteries that eclipsed Bill Clinton’s for sheer recklessness.)

I find this analysis unfair. It is true that most historians do not rank Kennedy with the greatest of presidents. Yet, he was only partially responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, since it was planned by the Eisenhower administration and  his response to the Cuban Missile Crisis was masterful. We now know that any other military response would have led to Armageddon. As stated earlier, Kennedy did make a small amount of progress on civil rights legislation, though the issue was not nearly as important to him as it was to his vice president. The economy recovered from recession after Kennedy's tax cuts. He would have won reelection easily.

Next, Douthat writes: "The second false premise is that Kennedy would have kept us out of Vietnam."

We will never know. Kennedy escalated Eisenhower's policy, but the number of troops (or "advisers") he sent to Vietnam was still small. Kennedy wanted to show the world that communism could be opposed with other means besides the heavy club of nuclear deterrence and massive retaliation. He was willing to use conventional forces instead of taking the world to the brink with nuclear weapons. He also had a healthy distrust of military brass, dating back from his own WWII experiences, Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. He would have been less likely to act like Johnson--a president without military experience and with less confidence in standing up to Kennedy's previous advisers and the Joint Chiefs.

Leafing through Perspectives: Readings on American History in the 20th Century, (ed. Boorstin and Kelly, 1992, Prentice Hall) I was intrigued by "Giap Remembers" (pp.134-136), an excerpt from Stanley Karnow's interview about the Vietnam War. Vietnamese Communist Commander, General Vo Nguyen Giap stated that the communists were prepared to fight

Another twenty years, even a hundred years, as long as it took to win, regardless of cost....One of his aides confided to me that at least a million of their troops perished...

Karnow rationalizes Giap's fanaticism by comparing the Vietnamese carnage to that in World War II. The Vietnamese Communists were no worse than the perpetrators of the Holocaust or Hiroshima he infers. This view is complete nonsense. We labeled the bloodthirsty dictators, Hitler and Stalin, as evil because they and their ideologies did not value human life. We dropped the atomic bomb in order to save American (and Japanese) lives. We could only win the Vietnam war if we were prepared to sacrifice lives like Giap. And we were not.

Since we valued the lives of our soldiers much higher than the communists valued the lives of their cannon fodder, it was a difficult, if not an impossible war to win. Kennedy could not have known this in 1963.

Kennedy was not the best of presidents, but he embodied a can-do optimism and sense of purpose. Communist totalitarianism could be successfully opposed without nuclear war; brotherly love could be shared through attempting to pass civil rights legislation and by the founding of the Peace Corps; and the moon could be explored through a space program. We could use a bit of that optimism and purpose today.