Kevin Drum

Scott Walker Is Committed to Making Your Life "Flexible"

| Mon Sep. 14, 2015 1:26 PM EDT

Scott Walker has released a new plan to empower workers. Paul Waldman has the details, but I'll save you the trouble of reading if you just want the highlights. Here they are:

union bosses and the politicians they puppet....power to the people, not the union  bosses....reduce the power of union bosses....big-government union bosses....big-government union bosses....Individuals should not have to pay union bosses....union bosses a legal monopoly over collective bargaining....mandatory dues to the union artificially high wages to union bosses.

flexibility, choice, and innovation in the enterprise and workplace flexibility....flexibility to join a union or not....protect workplace flexibility....flexibility to balance work and life commitments....repeal any regulation that reduces employee flexibility....protect workplace flexibility.

I think that just about covers it. Walker wants to crush unions and give workers the flexibility to be free of bothersome regulations about stuff like overtime pay, sick leave, parental leave, sexual harassment, and so forth. Can you feel the flexibility? It sounds like nirvana, doesn't it?

But don't worry. Walker's plan will make corporate bosses1 so happy that they'll probably start treating everybody like princes just out of the sheer joy of doing well by their workers. That's how it was before all this unionizing and government regulating took over America. Right?

1That is, the kind that most of us actually work for and have to deal with on a daily basis.

Advertise on

Policy Reporting Is Hard. Also: Boring. And It Has Bad Visuals.

| Mon Sep. 14, 2015 12:25 PM EDT

Matt Yglesias asks why the press seems far more interested in Hillary Clinton's email—a subject of very limited consequence—than in Jeb Bush's absurd tax plan—a subject of potentially huge consequence. He compares it to their similar lack of interest in the details of George Bush's tax plan during the 2000 campaign:

The problem was political reporters had found those details much less interesting than snarking about Al Gore's wooden speaking style and complaining that his "demeanor" was disrespectful during a debate exchange in which Bush repeatedly attacked Gore with bogus math.

According to the conventions prevailing at the time, to offer a view on the merits of a policy controversy would violate the dictates of objective journalism. Harping on the fact that Bush was lying about the consequences of his tax plan was shrill and partisan. Commenting on style cues was okay, though, so the press could lean into various critiques of Gore's outfit.

Fair enough. But in fairness to reporters, there's another difference: one thing generates news every few days, the other doesn't. Trivial or not, Hillary's email problems produce something fresh and reportable periodically. She apologizes. The FBI announces something. We learn that maybe her personal emails can be recovered. Etc.

Conversely, Jeb Bush's tax plan doesn't. Oh, it can generate plenty of analysis and plenty of reports, but that's not news. It's just opinion about what Bush's tax plan will accomplish. You can't keep writing the same story over and over based on nothing more than yet another liberal saying that big tax cuts are stupid and won't do anything to help the economy.

I don't know what the answer is to this. Policy reporting is just a tough nut to crack. It's inherently fairly boring. It requires both time and real expertise to dive into it properly. It produces lousy visuals. And it doesn't change, so after you've reported it once, there are very few hooks to justify reporting it again. If we want the press to write more about policy, we have to figure out how to change those things. Needless to say, I have no idea how we might go about that. I don't think anyone else does either.

That said, click the link anyway for Yglesias' rundown of what it would take for a liberal wish list to match Jeb's $3.4 trillion tax cut. He's right that it's so ridiculous sounding that it would prompt little except mockery even among the press. But propose the same thing in tax cuts that are heavily tilted toward the rich? Then it's just another day at the office.

"What Would Reagan Do?" Is No Longer an Interesting Question

| Mon Sep. 14, 2015 11:24 AM EDT

Several of my regular morning reads are linking to a new CAP report about the rightward drift of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan:

Reagan took positions that are anathema to the leaders of today’s Republican Party—advancing sensible immigration reform, supporting pollution control, curbing nuclear arms, closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, and advocating gun background checks. As president, Reagan passed immigration reform with a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. He also passed a landmark treaty on the climate and raised taxes 11 times. He even negotiated with America’s main adversary, the Soviet Union, signing a treaty with the communist nation to reduce nuclear weapons.

This is fair enough, up to a point. I've written about it myself, and there's no question that the GOP has become far more conservative since Reagan's day.

Still, I think you need to take this with a grain of salt for a couple of reasons. First, Reagan governed in a different era. America was coming off a 15-year period of exceptional liberal progress, so Reagan was dealing with a country that was considerably to the left of today's. Common sense dictates that if you're at the top of a mountain, you spend your time figuring out how to make it down to a reachable base camp, not trying to get to the bottom all at once. But that doesn't mean you don't want to get to the bottom eventually.

Second, as president he had to figure out how to get things done, and he had to do it in the face of a still-Democratic House. Simple obstruction just wasn't an option. Reagan had to negotiate compromises whether he liked it or not.

There's no telling what Reagan would think of today's Republican Party. Maybe he'd be appalled. Or maybe he'd be thrilled that the movement he started had gone so far. Who knows? He was a product of his time, and it makes no more sense to wonder what he'd think of today's GOP than to wonder what FDR would think of a Democratic Party that supports gay marriage and carbon taxes. "What Would Reagan Do?" is just no longer an interesting question.

Your Job Is Safe From the Computers — For Now

| Mon Sep. 14, 2015 12:03 AM EDT

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee try to calm our fears about robots taking all our jobs. Sure, some jobs will disappear, they say, but others will be created:

For example, machines are currently dominating the jobs in routine information processing. "Computer," after all, used to be an actual job title of a person who sat and added long rows of numbers. Now it is, well, an actual computer.

On the other hand, jobs such as data scientist didn't used to exist, but because computers have made enormous data sets analyzable, we now have new jobs for people to interpret these huge pools of information. In the tumult of our economy, even as old tasks get automated away, along with demand for their corresponding skills, the economy continues to create new jobs and industries.

This may not be quite as reassuring as they intended. I figure that "routine information processing" probably still accounts for tens of millions of jobs. "Data scientist," on the other other hand, requires an advanced education and probably accounts for tens of thousands of jobs at best. This trade is going to leave a whole lot of people unemployed.

More generally, though, I'm surprised at the amount of attention given to the question of whether automation is taking away jobs right now. The bulk of the evidence suggests that it's not—or, if it is, it's happening at a very slow rate. But this is an uninteresting question since there's really very little controversy about it. Artificial intelligence doesn't exist yet, so of course it's not taking away any jobs. The question that matters is (a) whether AI will eventually exist, and (b) how many jobs will be left for humans if and when it arrives.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee, for example, say that there are three areas where "humans have a distinct advantage over machines": creative endeavors, social interactions, and physical dexterity. True enough. But there's no reason to think this will last long. The vast bulk of humanity isn't very creative; most of us are surprisingly willing to put up with obviously artificial congeniality; and physical dexterity in robots is already within shouting distance of being good enough for machines to start digging post holes. If we ever create true AI—or even something close—none of these three things will give humans any advantage over digital intelligence. Most likely, homo sapiens will be obsolete within a few decades.

Sigh. It Might Still Be Possible To Recover Hillary Clinton's Deleted Personal Emails.

| Sat Sep. 12, 2015 7:03 PM EDT

Today, the company that manages Hillary Clinton's email server says that although her personal emails were deleted, the server was never "wiped." Thus, it might still be possible to recover the deleted emails.

That's it. That's the news. But somehow the Washington Post managed to occupy three reporters and 1,500 words telling us this. You can skip most of it. Here's the only part that matters:

On Saturday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairmen of the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, respectively, said they would push for the deleted e-mails to be reviewed if they can be recovered.

Gee, no kidding. I'm sure the nation's security hinges on this. And if Hillary's personal emails are successfully recovered, I'm equally sure that a few of the most embarrassing ones will somehow get leaked to friendly reporters.

Hillary Clinton is well aware of what happens when a Republican Congress starts investigating a prominent Democrat. That's why she deleted her personal emails in the first place. The 2015 version of the GOP is apparently bent on proving that nothing has changed since the 90s.

Meanwhile, we will all ignore the fact that Jeb Bush did the exact same thing and nobody seems to care. Funny that.

Jerry Brown Should Sign California's Assisted-Suicide Bill

| Sat Sep. 12, 2015 2:15 PM EDT
Debbie Ziegler holds a photo of her daughter, Brittany Maynard, after a right-to-die measure was approved by the California Assembly.

Back in June, California Gov. Jerry Brown called a special session of the legislature to deal with highway funding and health care financing. That special session is now over, and no agreement was reached on either of those things. But that's no reason to waste a special session, and legislators did manage to pass bills on drone regulation, medical marijuana, climate change, oil spills, a Los Angeles County transit tax, family leave, racial profiling, and several other things.

They also took advantage of the fact that committee assignments are different during special sessions to resurrect an aid-in-dying bill that had failed earlier in the year:

The End of Life Option Act, which passed in the state Assembly Wednesday, would allow patients to seek aid-in-dying options so long as they are given six months or less to live by two doctors, submit a written request and two oral requests at least 15 days apart and possess the mental capacity to make their own health care decisions.

If you pass these hurdles, you'll get a prescription for a lethal dose of sedatives. You can then decide for yourself if and when you ever use them. The California bill, which is modeled on a similar law in Oregon, sunsets after 10 years and includes a requirement that doctors speak to the patient privately. Will these safeguards be enough to persuade Brown to sign it? No one knows:

"You'd need some kind of séance to figure out what he's going to do," says Jack Citrin, director of the Institute of Government Studies at UC Berkeley. "He plays his cards very close to the vest."

....Brown is Catholic, even at one point considering becoming a priest...."He's in an interesting dance with the Catholic Church," says Gar Culbert, a California State University-Los Angeles political science professor. "He wants the church to participate in advocating for policies that are environmentally friendly, so he wants to stay on good terms."

Brown might also feel that the bill's safeguards against abuse still aren't sufficient:

In spite of the bill's provision about coercion, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, said that low-income and underinsured patients would inevitably feel pressure from family members to end their own lives in some cases, when the cost of continued treatment would be astronomical compared with the cost of a few lethal pills.

He pointed to a case in Oregon involving Barbara Wagner, a cancer patient who said that her insurance plan had refused to cover an expensive treatment but did offer to pay for "physician aid in dying."

"As soon as this is introduced, it immediately becomes the cheapest and most expedient way to deal with complicated end-of-life situations," Dr. Kheriaty said. "You're seeing the push for assisted suicide from generally white, upper-middle-class people, who are least likely to be pressured. You're not seeing support from the underinsured and economically marginalized. Those people want access to better health care."

There isn't much to say to people who object to assisted suicide on religious grounds. If the Catholic Church says it's a sin, then it's a sin.

For Catholics, anyway. But that shouldn't affect the rest of us. We should be allowed to decide this on secular grounds. And with the obvious caveat that nothing is ever perfect, the safeguards in this bill are pretty good. Here are a few bullet points:

  • Assisted suicide just isn't very popular, law or no law. In Oregon, prescriptions for lethal drugs have been written for 1,327 people over the past two decades and 859 people have ended up using them. In 2013, lethal drugs were used by only 105 people out of a total of 34,000 who died that year.
  • The Barbara Wagner case cited above is misleading. Yes, her insurance company covered assisted suicide. And yes, it also refused to cover a particularly expensive cancer therapy. But those are simply two separate and unrelated parts of her coverage. The way the sentence is written makes it sound as if someone specifically made a decision to deny the cancer treatment and offer her some lethal drugs instead. That's not at all what happened.
  • There is endless speculation that people will be pressured into dying by greedy heirs who either want to inherit right now or who don't want to see their inheritance drained away on expensive end-of-life treatments. Coercion is a legitimate issue, but California's law goes to considerable lengths to address it. You need two doctors. You have to be within six months of dying. You're required to meet with the doctors in private. And you have to submit multiple requests at least 15 days apart. That said, improper coercion almost certainly happens on occasion. But outside of the movies, there's just no evidence that it happens other than very rarely. It's usually just the opposite, with family members urging further treatment until there's literally nothing left to try.

I want to add an additional, more personal argument. A few years ago a friend's father was dying of cancer. He was a physician himself, and had decided long before to take his own life before he lost the ability to make decisions. But because it was illegal, he had to make sure that his kids couldn't be held even remotely responsible. So he decided not to tell anyone when the time came.

Luckily, a friend talked him out of this at the last minute. He called his kids, and they came out to say goodbye one last time. But it was a close-run thing. If that hadn't happened, his family would never have seen him before he died. They would have heard about it via a phone call from the coroner's office.

That's not how this should have to happen. It's common knowledge that sometimes people who are close to death take their own lives, legal or not. But they shouldn't have to do it earlier than necessary, just because they're afraid they might lose the physical ability to act if they wait a little longer. Nor should they be afraid to have their family around because they want to make sure nobody is held legally responsible for assisting them.

California's bill won't affect very many people. Assisted suicide just isn't a very popular option. But for those who choose that path, a safe and legal alternative is more humane both for them and for their families. Just having the option available makes it more likely that they'll wait until they truly want to die, and that they'll do it surrounded by their loved ones, rather than alone in a bedroom somewhere. I hope Jerry Brown thinks about this while he's deciding whether to sign this bill.

Advertise on

Friday Cat Blogging - 11 September 2015

| Fri Sep. 11, 2015 2:58 PM EDT

Like all cats, Hilbert and Hopper love staring out the window. So much cool stuff: birds, squirrels, rabbits, bugs, butterflies, and invisible pixies. I don't know what had them entranced in this picture, but it was probably a butterfly. We've had several monarchs hatch lately, and they are very attention-grabbing critters. Especially if you're a cat.

The iPad Pro Is Lacking One Thing If It Wants to Play in the Business World

| Fri Sep. 11, 2015 2:52 PM EDT

Apple has been playing catch-up for a while now. The large-screen iPhone 6 was catching up with Samsung (and pretty much every other smartphone maker). The new Apple TV box is catching up with Roku, Chromecast, and others. The Apple watch is catching up with Android watches.1 And now, as Will Oremus points out, the iPad is catching up with Microsoft's Surface Pro:

The iPad Pro’s screen measures 12.9 inches diagonally, making it far bigger than any tablet Apple has made before—but comparable in size as the 12-inch Microsoft Surface Pro 3. It features a split-screen mode for multitasking and is optimized for productivity apps like Microsoft Office. And its two most notable accessories are—what else?—a keyboard cover and a stylus.

Close, but no cigar! Everything Oremus says is true, but if you're going after the business market I'd say that a high-quality docking station is probably the key accessory. Microsoft has a very nice one for the Surface Pro. Apple doesn't.

Maybe it's coming soon, but Apple didn't want to delay the iPad Pro just for that. Or maybe Apple still doesn't really get the business market.

But I'll give Apple this: they sure do know how to make a lightweight device. I assume this is because their ARM processors are more power stingy than even the newest Intel processors, which allows Apple to use smaller batteries. But whatever it is, I'm jealous. It's not like my Surface (non-Pro) is a brick or anything, but shaving another eight ounces off it would sure be nice.

But light or not, the lack of a docking station would prevent me from using the iPad pro as a serious business device. In most homes and offices, you're going to want to connect a keyboard/mouse, network cable, a local printer, and maybe an external hard drive. Plus a bigger monitor if you decide to go that route. Someday all this stuff will be effortlessly wireless, but that day is not today. For now, the only way to make this work conveniently is with a docking station.

1None of this is to say that Apple can't make good money playing catch-up. They can. And stealing features from the competition is practically the definition of the tech industry. Still, they've been going after low-hanging fruit for the past few years. I'm not seeing an awful lot of visionary thinking anymore.

Eat Any Kind of Sugar You Want, Just Don't Eat Too Much of It

| Fri Sep. 11, 2015 1:29 PM EDT

From Susan Raatz, a research nutritionist at the USDA who recently conducted a test of cane sugar, honey, and high-fructose corn syrup:

The marketers “made a big mistake when they called it ‘high-fructose corn syrup,’” said Raatz.

Now, now. Let's not blame the marketers. They had no hand in this debacle. And they did try to rename it "corn sugar" a few years ago, but the FDA turned them down.

Anyway, Raatz concluded that HFCS, honey, and cane sugar all had similar effects on the human body. This should not come as a big surprise, since all three are basically 50-50 mixes of fructose and glucose.

So why is HFCS high fructose? Because it has more fructose than ordinary corn syrup, not because it has more than most other sweeteners. But the damage has been done, and now concerned parents everywhere are making sure to feed their kids only cane sugar or honey, in the misguided belief that they're somehow healthier and more natural.

Sorry. Sugar is sugar. Eat any kind you like. Just don't eat too much of it.

Let's Have More God Talk in This Campaign

| Fri Sep. 11, 2015 1:07 PM EDT

"Liberal Jewish atheist" Paul Waldman thinks we should talk about God more:

The United States has far and away the highest levels of religiosity of any industrialized democracy, and all presidential candidates are expected, at least at some point, to be photographed going to church and testify to their deep and abiding faith in God. As long as that’s the case, we have not just a right but an obligation to ask them specific questions about what they believe and how it would affect their actions in office.

....But journalists are extremely squeamish about getting into those details, no doubt because they’re worried that it will come off sounding like criticism of the candidates’ beliefs instead of a worthwhile exploration of them....We spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to get inside the heads of those who would be president, but when the topic of religion comes up, we take a tentative step forward, then rush back lest we give offense.

This is quite a change from 1960, isn't it?

In any case, I'll toss out an alternative explanation: most mainstream reporters aren't very religious themselves and don't think they can keep up their end of an interview about faith. When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright says "God damn America," that's catnip for the press: it's not really about religion, it's about somebody saying something outrageous and then tallying up the responses. Easy peasy. But a serious discussion about the ins and outs of various faith traditions and how different candidates ended up where they did? It's sort of like talking about the details of handgun design. There's a serious chance of a liberal journalist embarrassing himself badly.

The reason I don't think that mainstream journalists are genuinely worried about religious questions coming off as criticism is because plenty of journalists do ask questions about religious faith. And presidential candidates talk to them. The thing is, these are mostly journalists for religious publications, who have the background to talk about this stuff without sounding ignorant. Mainstream reporters are well aware of this, and well aware that most presidential candidates are happy to talk about it. They're just uneasy about their ability to do the job right.