Obama Plays Hardball

Today's big news is that the White House announced a bunch of new recess appointments:

Fed up with waiting, President Barack Obama announced Saturday he would bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs....The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

Obama went ahead anyway, while also choosing a second member for the labor board so that four of its five slots will be filled. The board, which referees labor-management disputes, has had a majority of its seats vacant for more than two years, slowing its work and raising questions about the legality of its rulings.

This is pretty fascinating. Years ago, after Republicans filibustered a Carter nominee to the NLRB, the two parties made a deal: the board would have three appointees from the president's party and two from the other party. So after he took office Obama nominated two Democrats and one Republican to fill the NLRB's three vacant seats and got support from a couple of Republicans on the HELP committee for the entire slate. But when it got to the Senate floor John McCain put a hold on Becker, and his nomination — along with the others — died.

Fast forward to today and Obama finally decides to fill the board using recess appointments. But what does he do? He only appoints the two Democrats. This is not what you do if you're trying to make nice. It's what you do if you're playing hardball and you want to send a pointed message to the GOP caucus. You won't act on my nominees? Fine. I'll appoint my guys and then leave it up to you to round up 50 votes in the Senate for yours. Have fun.

Does this mean the postpartisan Obama is finally dying away, overtaken by a newly muscular president willing to duke it out with a Republican Party that he finally realizes has been utterly consumed by its hardcore obstructionist wing? Maybe! Stay tuned.

My Big List O' Books

For the past week or so bloggers have been compiling lists of ten books that have influenced them throughout their lives. I haven't compiled mine yet, but you didn't think I could hold out against doing this forever, did you? So here it is.

I should note: this is not a list of books that I'm recommending. If you want that, see here — though the list is outdated. The key idea in the following list is that these books influenced me for some reason — and not always because of the book's content. Also: they aren't all books. And there are more than ten. And my definition of "influenced" is a little more pedestrian than most people's, I think. There are no big philosophy tomes or anything like that. That said, here they are in the order in which they influenced me:

1962-66: The Oz books, by L. Frank Baum and Ruth Plumly Thompson. We had a complete set of Oz books and my mother read them aloud to us when we were kids. They tended to get more outré and almost science fictiony toward the end of the series, and those were the ones I liked best. (My mother decidedly didn't.) I credit this, more or less, with leading me in the direction of Tom Swift and then science fiction in general.

1967: My Only Great Passion, by Jean and Dale Drum. Although officially my father was a speech professor, he also specialized in film history and criticism, and in the 50s he struck up a correspondence with Carl Th. Dreyer, the great Danish film director (The Passion of Joan of Arc, Ordet). In 1967 he took a one-semester sabbatical and we all trooped over on SAS to live in the town of Køge for seven months while he and my mother did primary research for a biography of Dreyer. This was, by a wide margin, the most exciting thing that ever happened to me as a child.

(As it happens, the book failed to find a publisher after it was written. However, in the late 90s, after my father had died, my mother resurrected it at the urging of the head of the Danish Film Museum, headed to Denmark to do some additional research, and then updated the manuscript and got it published in 2000. If you're looking for a full-length English-language biography of Dreyer, this is pretty much it.)

1969: Adventure Comics #378. The Legion of Superheroes! A Curt Swan/Neal Adams cover! My love affair with comic books was born.

1975: APL: An Interactive Approach, by Leonard Gilman and Allen J. Rose. I still have my dog-eared copy of this book. Aside from a few months in my senior year of high school I never actually used APL for anything, but it was the language that showed me how much fun computer programming could be. That changed my life, and this was the book that taught me.

1979: The Power Broker, by Robert Caro. I probably don't have to say much about this. You know, Pulitzer Prize and all that. But this book not only opened my eyes to the use of political power, but also, I think, inspired my continuing love of really long books. I've never been entirely sure if Caro was fair to Robert Moses, but then, I've never been entirely sure he wasn't either.

1980: The Making of the President 1960, by Theodore White, and Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72, by Hunter S. Thompson. I think these are the two books that really got me interested in politics. I don't know that I'd recommend the former other than for its historical interest, but the latter is great reading regardless of whether or not you care about the 1972 presidential campaign. Hell, it's worth reading just for the scene where Thompson talks football with Richard Nixon.

1982: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes. I warned you that I wasn't necessarily recommending these books, right? In this one, Jaynes assembles evidence to suggest that up until a few thousand years ago humans were essentially all schizophrenic, routinely commanded by voices in our heads. (Thus the origin of all those endless pantheons of gods and goddesses.) However, as the two halves of our brains began to fuse, the voices ended — for most of us — and we became conscious and self-aware in the sense that we are today.

As it happens, virtually no one believes this. On the other hand, no less than Richard Dawkins says, "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." Me too. And even if it is wrong, it's a fascinating example of being wrong — complete with some really compelling explanatory power for the history of our species. It remains fascinating to me to this day. When I briefly took up fiction writing in the early 80s, my first story was based on Jaynes's concept.

1985: Plagues and Peoples, by William McNeill. I think Matt Yglesias had this on his list, and I have it for the same reason: it was my first real introduction to a version of history in which everything you think you know turns out instead to be caused by some vast underlying movement you had never even considered before. In this case, it's the effect of disease pools on the rise and fall of various civilizations. (The Spanish conquest of Mexico is the most famous example.) I think you have to be careful with adopting this kind of attitude toward history wholesale, but in the Great Man vs. Great Movement debate, I'm pretty clearly in the Great Movement camp, and this book is one reason why. It also prompted me to read McNeill's The Rise of the West, which is a very good book.

1998: American Aurora, by Richard Rosenfeld. This is a long book made up almost entirely out of excerpts from political newspapers published around the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts. That makes it sound boring. It's not. (Though it's frustrating at times unless you already have a pretty detailed knowledge of that era.) We've all heard about how politics in the past was actually far more polarizing and belligerent than it is today, and this book really makes that come to life. After you've read it, you won't think of modern politics the same way again.

1999: The Promise of Sleep, by William Dement. I've always slept poorly and I hoped this book, by a famous sleep researcher from Stanford University, would help me figure out why. It didn't. However, it did help me conquer jet lag, and you have no idea what a difference that's made. So listen up. This is one of those cheap and easy pieces of advice that you're often promised but almost never get in life.

A lot of people believe that if you, say, travel to Europe, all you have to do is force yourself to stay up all day on your first day and you'll be OK. You won't be. Here's why: twice a day your body releases stimulants that wake you up. This is (awkwardly) called "clock dependent alerting," and it happens once around 6 am and again around 7 pm or so — though this varies from person to person. So when I travel from California to Paris, even if I stay up all day and get to sleep just fine at midnight, around 4 am I'll wake up. And for the next three hours, no matter how hard I try, I can't get back to sleep. Around 6 or 7 am I can, but by then it's time to wake up. Result: I'm completely wiped out for the rest of the day.

So here's the answer: sleeping pills. Get a good quality prescription sleeping pill and take it when you go to bed even if you don't need it to fall asleep. You don't. You need it to stay asleep. I now take a sleeping pill every night for about a week (plus one on the plane over) when I travel to Europe, and it's like a damn miracle. I literally have no jet lag at all.

(Obviously this depends a lot on where you're traveling to and from. Going from LA to New York, for example, I take a pill because my evening stimulant rush hits around 10 pm and won't let me get to sleep before 1 or 2 am. So in this case, the pill does help me get to sleep rather than keeping me asleep. If you're traveling from the East Coast to Europe, ditto. If you're traveling west, it'll be something else. But the arithmetic is fairly easy to figure out. However, you really can hardly go wrong by just taking a pill an hour before bedtime and not fussing over it.)

(And if you're one of those people who don't care about this because you don't suffer from jet lag? Well, I hate you. Any other questions?)

2002: kausfiles. Whatever else you can say about Mickey, in 2002 I started reading Slate in my free time and it was kausfiles that introduced me to blogging. Three days later I started my own blog, and boy did that change my life.

2002: The Threatening Storm, by Kenneth Pollack. This one is sort of an honorable mention. For a few months in 2002-03 I supported the Iraq war, and that was a really fucking stupid thing to do. This book was one of the big reasons why I did it. So on the theory that learning from your mistakes is important, this book deserves a place on my personal list.

2005: Before the Storm, by Rick Perlstein. This is the best piece of political history I've ever read. I think that's recommendation enough. More here.

My Lunch With Felix

Here's a random assortment of topics from my lunch with Felix Salmon today at Eat Chow in Costa Mesa. He had the shrimp tostada and I had the swordfish, with olives and truffle parmesan fries on the side. Enjoy.

  1. The Spice Station on Sunset Blvd. is awesome. Even if you're not really in the market to buy any spices, you should check it out.
  2. We should all be more worried about the potential of a mass casualty event — an epidemic, a gigantic earthquake, a massive hurricane, etc. — to annihilate the insurance industry and take out the rest of the financial system as a side effect. The AIDS epidemic nearly did it, Felix says, and missed only because most of its victims weren't insured. A really big hurricane hitting Long Island could do it, though.
  3. Lunch with Tyler Cowen is always great. He unerringly picks out the best thing on the menu. (But I wonder: how does Felix know this unless he tries everything else on the menu too?)
  4. The corporate bond market didn't really exist before 1980. This one is actually kind of embarrassing. A little while earlier I had been telling Felix that no matter how much I read about the finance biz, I never really felt like I could acquire even a layman's grasp of it. It's just too damn deep and complex for a nonpractitioner. Then, later, in response to something he said, I sort of shook my head and muttered "fucking fixed income market." He laughed, and I explained that I was still gobsmacked about how the sleepiest, most boring corner of the financial industry had become such a world-devouring monster.

    No, he said, it was a mistake to think of it that way. In fact, the corporate bond market barely even existed before the 70s. It wasn't that the bond market morphed from boring to rocket science, it was that the bond market essentially started up and then just got ever more complex as time went on. Now, that's a pretty basic historical fact, but I really didn't know it. Though, in retrospect, I think I sort of did. But I had forgotten. In any case, the disintermediation of banks and the practice of corporations selling bonds on a large scale directly to institutional investors — as opposed to retail coupon clippers — has really only been around for a few decades. And that led, step by inevitable step, to the towering, tottering creations of the fixed income quants in 2005.

    I probably have some of this wrong. Maybe Felix will see it and point us all to a good brief history of the corporate bond market, the Eurobond market, and the changing tax status over time of debt vs. equity.
  5. You will never get good fish and chips in a restaurant where it's just one item on the menu. You have to go someplace where they serve it in vast quantities and people are queued up outside the door. This has something to do with the cycle time/freshness of the batter.
  6. I should be reading David Merkel and Bond Girl.
  7. Getting Congress and the Fed to impose higher and more rigid capital requirements on big financial institutions is important, but what's even more important is getting an international agreement in place to make sure everyone else does it too. However, there's really no one who does a good job of reporting on this. Largely this is because the discussions are all held behind closed doors, so we only hear about the status of negotiations when someone like Larry Summers or Mervyn King drops hints in a speech. It's like reporting on the intelligence community, except worse.

That's all. Consider this an open thread.

It's been a long week, hasn't it? And with all the gunshots and death threats and growing panic over our imminent slide into tyranny, it's time to chill. So here they are, the world experts on chilling.

And with that, I'm off to meet Felix Salmon for lunch. Have a good weekend, everyone.

From Sen. Orrin Hatch (R–Utah) on why he supported an individual mandate in 1993 but doesn't support it now:

Well, in 1993, we were trying to kill Hillarycare, and I didn't pay any attention to that, because that was part of a bill that I just hadn't centered on.

Well OK then! I guess we can put this right up there with Mitt Romney's increasingly strained explanations for why the individual mandate was a good idea when he implemented it in Massachusetts but not so good when Barack Obama implemented it for everyone.

The New Math

William Brafford on mathematics pedagogy:

I’ve always found it very handy that I have my basic times tables and division tables burned into my brain, and it seems like elementary school is a fine time to do this kind of rote learning.

Division tables? What the heck is that? Miss Jensen only taught us times tables back at Wakeham Elementary School in 1966. Is this some kind of  newfangled invention?

According to a new study of how parties recruit candidates to run for office, women just don't get asked as often as men:

They are less likely than men to be recruited intensely. And they are less likely than men to be recruited by multiple sources....These findings are critically important because women’s recruitment disadvantage depresses their political ambition and ultimately hinders their emergence as candidates.

This comes via John Sides at the Monkey Cage. The chart below shows the basic findings. To be honest, I'm surprised the numbers are as close as they are. I would have expected an even greater disparity.

The rising tide of home foreclosures continues to be one of the biggest potential drags on economic recovery. Here's the latest news on the that front:

The Obama administration on Friday announced broad new initiatives to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing millions of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

....The escalation in aid comes as the administration is under rising pressure from Congress to resolve the foreclosure crisis, which is straining the economy and putting millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes. But the new initiatives could well spur protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble.

For an example of "protests among those who have kept up their payments and are not in trouble," here's a letter reprinted by Tom Brown from a reader who learned about Bank of America's plan to begin forgiving mortgage principal for some delinquent borrowers:

I am writing to inform you that I will never bank with your firm ever again.

Principal forgiveness is an affront to every responsible, non-delinquent borrower in your book of assets....You are rewarding those who bit off more than they could chew, while those who did not take on excess leverage, or who kept their income-to-debt ratios manageable, see no benefit, even as their home equity values have declined....Moral hazard be damned. Count me as one future cashflow stream you will never see again!

Roger that — and I suspect that this is a more common reaction than you'd think. Bailing out Wall Street is bad enough, but bailing out your profligate next-door neighbor is far, far worse.

Of course, so far none of these plans to mitigate foreclosures has worked anyway. This time, however, CAP's Andrew Jakabovics says the administration's plan has a real shot at succeeding:

The big news is that the administration has come up with the first systematic set of policies to address the problem of negative equity (homeowners owing more than their home is worth) by bringing mortgages down to the current value of the properties.

....In what is essentially a modern version of the New Deal’s Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, a borrower who is current on her loan but who owes more on her home than it is currently worth can refinance into an FHA loan for 97 percent of the property’s current value. Incentives will be paid to servicers to allow these borrowers to refinance for less than the outstanding amount. Given the much larger losses lienholders would face if borrowers defaulted, cash in hand may be sufficiently attractive to allow these short-refis to proceed.

....Implementing these changes to HAMP will be difficult, and the issue of second liens remains a challenge, but insofar as the FHA refi program can largely sidestep the issue of servicer capacity, it has significant potential to alleviate the foreclosure crisis.

More at the link.

Just a quick followup to yesterday's post about NAEP reading scores. Over at The Quick and the Ed, Chad Aldeman suggests that reading scores have improved more than I suggested — possibly due to a statistical anomaly called Simpson's Paradox1 that can produce different results for an entire group than it does for all its subgroups. But that's not what's going on here. The main issue is that he's looking at different test scores than I am: he uses the Long Term NAEP for 4th graders to look at progress since the mid-70s, while I used the Main NAEP for 8th graders to look at progress since 2002. The former shows significant progress for all ethnic groups, while the latter is virtually flat for every group except Asians.

Click the link for more. I don't have any special axe to grind about the use of either version of NAEP or about which timeframe is appropriate to look at. It all depends on what you're investigating. But it's worth knowing that different data is out there.

1A simple example is below the fold. I either wrote this myself about a decade ago or else copied it from somewhere else. I'm not sure which.

Last year I wrote a piece for Mother Jones about marijuana legalization. There were lots of obstacles in the way of legalization at the time, so my conclusion was cautious: "Ten years from now, as the flower power generation enters its seventies, you might finally be able to smoke a fully legal, taxed, and regulated joint."

Well, it's been more like ten months since I wrote that, not ten years, but this week an initiative qualified for the November ballot that would legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana use in the state of California. This follows a year of growing acrimony in Los Angeles County over the flourishing of medical pot dispensaries and efforts by local officials to rein them in.

The initiative, sponsored by Richard Lee, who owns several marijuana businesses in Oakland, would legalize possession of up to an ounce of cannabis and cultivation of up to 25 square feet on private property for personal consumption. Beyond that, it would permit local authorities to go further: They'd be allowed to legalize commercial cultivation of larger amounts for sale to anyone over the age of 21.