Religious Freedom

Should a Baptist minister be required to marry a gay couple?  Of course not.  Should an adoption service run by the Catholic church be required to place children in gay households?  Probably not.  Andrew Sullivan asks the obvious followup:

But how far do you go? Should a Catholic caterer, for example, be able to refuse to provide food for a second marriage? My own view is: yes. But then I'm a libertarian in many ways. I see protecting religious freedom in the civil sphere as a core principle. And by exposing such religious prejudice so baldly, and allowing the market to disadvantage the bigoted, we may even help jump-start the conversations that will eventually persuade people that they're wrong.

God knows, if Andrew is OK with this, I suppose I should be.  And I think there's a strong case to be made that in practice this might not be a big deal.  After all, do same-sex couples really want to hire photographers and caterers who make it clear they loathe them?  Probably not.  But then, you might have asked the same thing 50 years ago: do Southern blacks really want to eat at lunch counters where they obviously aren't welcome?  As it turned out, yes.

This has become the latest front in the gay marriage wars, and I'd be careful about ceding too much ground here.  Laws guaranteeing religious freedom are fine as long as they cover actual religious practice.  But once they start covering bog ordinary commercial establishments that don't have even a tenuous connection to a church and want to discriminate merely because they don't like gays — well, that's a line that gets pretty hard to draw pretty fast.   What's worse, in some places it's a line that would essentially take over entire towns.  If a caterer can refuse to sell me a wedding cake just because I'm gay — despite state law that would normally outlaw such discrimination — can a landlord refuse to rent me and my newly married partner an apartment despite fair housing laws saying he has to?

I haven't thought this through in a lot of detail, but I'm uncomfortable extending these "religious freedom" exemptions beyond actual religious establishments.  I'm all for compromise that turns down the volume on the culture wars, but once these laws are in place they run the risk of cementing bigoted practices in place for years or decades longer than they'd otherwise survive.  Count me as a skeptic that, in the long run, this is workable.

Awakening Update

The Sunni Awakening played a major role in the reduction of violence in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, as Sunni tribes that had been fighting the government turned their attention to fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq instead.  So how's that working out?  In Anbar Province, Liz Sly of the LA Times reports that things look pretty hopeful:

"The Awakening is an economic and political entity now, and our strategy is financial and economic," said Abu Risha, who has led the Awakening since his brother's assassination in 2007....Here in Anbar province, birthplace of the Awakening movement, the Sunni Arab paramilitaries who turned their guns on fellow Sunni insurgents have become the government.

....It promises to be quite a transformation for a movement that started out in 2006 as a tribal uprising against the insurgents who had sought to impose a vicious interpretation of Islamic law on the western desert province. Photographs on Abu Risha's wall show his slain brother, Abdul-Sattar, who founded the movement, dressed in robes, slung with bullets and surrounded by Kalashnikov-wielding militiamen.

In Baghdad and Mosul, however, the London Times reports that the news is grim:

A leading member of the Political Council of Iraqi Resistance, which represents six Sunni militant groups, said: “The resistance has now returned to the field and is intensifying its attacks against the enemy. The number of coalition forces killed is on the rise.”

The increase in attacks by such groups, combined with a spate of bombings blamed on Al-Qaeda, has had a chilling effect on the streets of Iraq. More than 370 Iraqi civilians and military — and 80 Iranian pilgrims — lost their lives in April, making it the bloodiest month since last September. On Wednesday, five car bombs exploded in a crowded market in Sadr City, Baghdad, killing 51 people and injuring 76. Three US soldiers were killed on Thursday and two more yesterday when a gunman in Iraqi army uniform opened fire near Mosul.

Broadly speaking, this is the result of a missed opportunity.  The point of the surge was to provide "breathing space" for political reconciliation, but Nouri al-Maliki, for reasons that are ultimately unknowable, either couldn't or wouldn't take advantage of it.  In Anbar, the Sunni tribes acquired political power and the Awakening is still a going concern.  In Baghdad, they were shut out, and violence is on the rise.

It's not clear to me that there's anything the United States can do about this.  It's true that George Bush's open-ended commitment to Iraq probably reduced the pressure on Maliki to make concessions to the Sunnis — after all, why bother if the Americans are going to be around forever to protect you? — but aside from that Petraeus and Crocker and the rest of the Bush team worked pretty hard to press Maliki into coming up with a political settlement that was broadly agreeable to all.  He didn't.  American influence just wasn't enough to make a difference then, and it probably isn't now.  This is still, at root, a political problem, not a military one.  It's up to Maliki to solve it, not the U.S. Army.

If you haven't already, read Russell Shorto's profile of the Dutch social welfare state. He extols the system's virtues—health care, subsidized child care, and not only a month of paid vacation, but a check (8 percent of your annual salary) from the government to pay for that trip to the Swiss Alps—before tugging us back to earth:

Then, too, one downside of a collectivist society, of which the Dutch themselves complain, is that people tend to become slaves to consensus and conformity. I asked a management consultant and a longtime American expat, Buford Alexander, former director of McKinsey & Company in the Netherlands, for his thoughts on this. “If you tell a Dutch person you’re going to raise his taxes by 500 euros and that it will go to help the poor, he’ll say O.K.,” he said. “But if you say he’s going to get a 500-euro tax cut, with the idea that he will give it to the poor, he won’t do it. The Dutch don’t do such things on their own. They believe they should be handled by the system. To an American, that’s a lack of individual initiative.”

Another corollary of collectivist thinking is a cultural tendency not to stand out or excel. “Just be normal” is a national saying, and in an earlier era children were taught, in effect, that “if you were born a dime, you’ll never be a quarter” — the very antithesis of the American ideal of upward mobility.

I read those two paragraphs and immediately thought, "Knowing that, can we really achieve something like universal health care here?" For a second, my answer was "No, we can't." Even a lefty like me shudders at the idea an individual born a dime can't become a quarter, to borrow Shorto's phrase. Most Americans, myself included, believe in an equality of opportunity, but not of outcome. I like the idea that I do not have to be normal; I can take risks and excel.

I've written before about the lunacy of the Texas GOP state platform, but Publius informs me today that it has competition: Oklahoma's may be even worse.  Entertaining details here.

After watching Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger lead Barack Obama and hundreds of thousands of others in singing "This Land Is Your Land" at the pre-inauguration concert at the Lincoln Memorial, I noted that the concert "was a moment of victory in the political cultural war that has gripped the United States since the tumultuous days of the 1960s":

Has Missouri passed a law that outlaws emergency contraception?  Appearances to the contrary, no.

If Goldman Sachs pays back its TARP money, can Tim Geithner put it back into the pot and give it to somebody else?  Geithner's desires to the contrary, apparently not.

Are America's banks actually well capitalized and in good shape?  The Treasury Department's stress testers seem to think so, but appearances can be deceving.  If banks are reducing their capital exposure by clamping down on credit lines even to blue chip customers, then perhaps they're not quite as healthy as they're claiming?

Finally: Are wage cuts a good way to save jobs?  Appearances to the contrary, Paul Krugman says no.

The Black Swan

I finished The Black Swan over the weekend, and although a full review at this late date is kind of pointless, it's an odd enough book to deserve a few notes.

First, the tone: it's intensely annoying.  The problem is that Nassim Nicholas Taleb basically sounds like a crank.  His prose has all the usual markers: everyone else is an idiot (this includes philosophers, economists, historians, journalists, and pretty much all social scientists, among others); he's the only one who truly understands the world as it is; there's a monocausal explanation for this almost universal lack of understanding in others; and there's a tiny cast of other unappreciated geniuses who do get it (Benoit Mandelbrot, Karl Popper, G.L.S. Shackle, Daniel Kahneman, etc.).  It's all sort of Unabomber-like, though with a better sense of humor.

But of course, that's just an esthetic judgment.  What about the content?  Well, here's the funny thing: once I got past the tone I didn't really have a problem with most of it.  Taleb talks about confirmation bias and the narrative fallacy.  Survivor bias and the anthropic principle.  He writes about how humans are hardwired to be bad at estimating risks in the modern world.  He explains how network effects can create large inequalities out of small differences and how randomness is responsible for more of our success than we think.  As it happens, this is all stuff I was already pretty familiar with, which made the book annoying and a bit tedious, but that's obviously not Taleb's fault.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how effective the book would be even for someone who found this stuff new and interesting.  Taleb tends to flit from subject to subject without ever really explaining anything fully enough to make sense, and in the end it's not quite clear what case he wants to make.  Generally speaking, he wants to persuade us that we know less than we think and that forecasting the future is a mug's game because history is primarily governed by huge, unpredictable events that come out of nowhere (black swans).  But this is sort of a banal point: scholars have been arguing about the importance of contingent events vs. broad historical trends forever, and the difficulty of predicting technological breakthroughs is well-trod ground.  Worse, Taleb doesn't add much to what's already been said about it.  Just the opposite, in fact.  In one chapter he cherry picks some inventions here and there to help make his case, but even using his own hand-picked examples he's not very convincing.  We all know that penicillin was discovered by accident, but the computer?  Taleb seems to think it sprang out of nowhere, but that's sure not how I remember it.  It was a big invention and a huge discontinuity, but it was hardly unpredictable and hardly an accident.

The last few chapters are a diatribe against statisticians who are over-devoted to Gaussian distributions, and I don't have the chops to know if he has a point there.  The statisticians I've come across all seem to be keenly aware that there are lots of different kinds of distributions in the world, but maybe that's all shuck and jive.  Maybe they talk a good game and then end up modeling the world using bell curves anyway.  And in the financial world, for which he reserves his primary scorn, I know even less.  Taleb says they obstinately continue to use Gaussian models that flatly don't work and hide known risks, and he probably has a good point.  Certainly recent events are on his side, and Wall Street's almost cultlike reliance on VaR and CAPM and portfolio theory and the Gaussian copula seems to have played a big role in its current collapse.  But who knows?  Maybe it was actually just a gigantic housing bubble and this other stuff is a minor sideshow.  I don't know for sure, and Taleb doesn't provide enough evidence one way or the other for me to make up my mind.

In the end, he doesn't have much advice for us.  He insists that Mandelbrot provides a better mathematical basis for financial modeling, but never tells us how.  He insists that the world is mostly governed by a small number of big events, but never seriously grapples with the arguments for or against.  He insists that he's used his sensitivity toward black swan events as a practical guide to his own trading and investing strategy, but then he sums it up with this: "As I said, if my portfolio is exposed to a market crash, the odds of which I can't compute, all I have to do is buy insurance...."  Really?  That didn't work out so well recently, did it?

(On the other hand, the rest of that sentence reads: "....or get out and invest the amounts I am not willing to ever lose in less risky securities."  That's basically a way of saying that investors should limit their leverage, and he's certainly right about that.)

So I'm not sure what to think.  Taleb makes plenty of good, if rambling, points about the limitations of human nature, but his concrete advice is pretty prosaic.  Stay open to lots of experiences.  Embrace empiricism and let the data lead you without pretending it says things it doesn't.  Keep the possibility of massive losses in mind and don't invest money you can't afford to lose.  If you are going to take risks, invest in things like startup companies, where the risks are plain and open.  I don't really have any argument with most of that, but I'm not sure any of it is really all that remarkable either.

Did I miss the point?  Maybe.  To be honest, I'm really not sure.

From Arlen Specter (D-ish–Penn.), on his newfound party allegiances:

"I did not say I would be a loyal Democrat. I did not say that."

I'm glad we got that straightened out.  I wonder how Joe Sestak's primary challenge is coming along?

Though my girl Amy Poehler did her justice, there's really no need to parody Nancy Grace; nothing's worse than the reality. Except Grace's cluelessness as to her own need for a severe beating. Just watch her here, ripping David Smith's heart out.

He is, of course, the ex-husband of that Susan Smith (she drowned their kids and blamed, of course, a black man). I couldn't make myself watch it twice, but she's determined to know exactly how it felt thinking about his kids strapped into their seat belts so they could drown as lengthily as possible.

What a...witch. And a narcissistic one at that; if she wants to talk about it, then the topic couldn't possibly be a tad inappropriate.

Too bad I have a scruple or two. Otherwise, I'd be helming "Debra Dickerson: Beast From Hell" (whose own crew knows it).

Books on Paper

I got my Kindle in early March and I haven't read a book printed on actual paper since then.  Today, however, Eric Boehlert's Bloggers on the Bus came in the mail, all bound and printed on genuine dead trees.  And it looks definitely worth reading.  But it's going to feel so weird....