Kevin Drum

Settlements

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 7:19 PM PST

SETTLEMENTS....Todd Gitlin calls this admission from Aaron David Miller "shocking." The subject is Israeli-Palestinian relations:

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity — including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions — does to the peacemaking process.

It's sort of hard to imagine an equally important topic on the Palestinian side never even being raised with its top leadership, isn't it?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Forthwith

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 5:48 PM PST

FORTHWITH....CQ reports that Nancy Pelosi is planning to limit the ability of Republicans to delay legislation via motions to recommit bills to committee. That would be nice. However, as I recall, Pelosi and Steny Hoyer made noises about doing this a couple of years ago but then backed down. Perhaps they're more serious this time.

In case you're curious — and I don't blame you if you aren't — here's what this is all about. Just before the House holds its final vote on a bill, House rules allow the minority party one last motion to recommit the bill to committee. However, if they opt for just a straight recommit, it's almost certain to get voted down and nothing is accomplished. So instead, they usually move to "recommit with instructions."

This is where it gets complicated. If the motion requires the bill to be returned "forthwith," then it's just a fake recommittal. The bill never leaves the floor, the entire House gets to vote on the amendment immediately, and then the final vote is held.

But if the motion requires the bill to be returned "promptly," then it really goes back to committee. And given the fact that it's already probably been in committee for months, and the calendar is packed full of other stuff, this is likely to mean that the bill dies. So the majority party will almost always want to vote down this kind of recommittal.

(Are you bored already with this parliamentary minutiae? Join the club. When Richard Hudson, chief of staff to Texas Republican Rep. John Carter, left the Hill last year, Politico asked him, "What word or phrase do you never want to hear again once you leave?" His answer: "Should this motion to recommit be 'promptly' or 'forthwith'?")

Anyway. Back to our story. So here's what happens with these recommittals. The minority party proposes an amendment that will make great campaign fodder. On the reauthorization of the AmeriCorps volunteer program last March, for example, Randy Kuhl proposed language requiring criminal background checks on prospective volunteers. If he were genuinely concerned with background checks, he would have accepted "forthwith" language and allowed a vote on his amendment, which probably would have passed. But he didn't. He insisted on "promptly" language instead. Why? Because he knew that the majority would resist delaying the bill by sending it back to committee, and that's what he was really after. He wanted to force them to vote down his motion so that Republicans could all go home and claim that Democrats had voted against background checks on AmeriCorps volunteers.

Dems, of course, would explain that they weren't against background checks at all, and they would have voted for it if the motion had been written differently, and ... and — well, after their constituents had finally roused themselves again after falling into a stupor listening to this, all they'd remember is that....Dems voted against background checks on AmeriCorps volunteers.

So it's all political gamesmanship. And there's a case to be made that, after all, the job of the opposition is to oppose, and if they can find a way to use the rules to delay, obstruct, or embarrass the majority party, then more power to them. It's up to the majority to suck it up and get their agenda passed anyway. However, there's a better case to be made that the unending search for clever parliamentary tactics doesn't need to be allowed to go on without limit. Forcing the majority to vote down popular amendments is an ancient and legitimate political tactic, but the "promptly" gambit is a completely empty scam. Pelosi is on firm ground getting rid of it.

Via Needlenose.

More Movie Musing

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 3:57 PM PST

MORE MOVIE MUSING....Responding to my earlier kvetching about Ron Howard's dramatic liberties in A Beautiful Mind and Frost/Nixon, Sempringham asks:

Were you annoyed with Milos Forman's Amadeus? Or, for that matter, with Shakespeare's Julius Caesar? Fictions, both of them. But if you can get over that ... not awful.

Good question! The Shakespeare chestnut comes up every time someone complains about historical inaccuracies in films, but it's a red herring. Shakespeare deliberately fudged a lot of his history because he was a stooge for the Tudors1, and fudged the rest because Elizabethan audences didn't care as long as they got enough blood and gore. But the fact that Shakespeare was a great Elizabethan dramatist doesn't mean we're also required to celebrate Elizabethan mores in historical accuracy, any more than we're required to celebrate Elizabethan mores in race relations, religious liberty, or criminal justice.

Moving on to Amadeus, the answer is yes, I was annoyed — but not all that much. I've never thought too much about why this is, but my guess is that I become more indulgent of this kind of thing the further back in history it is. Libeling Salieri just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, and having a generation of moviegoers misinformed about him likewise doesn't seem like that big a deal.

But more recent events pose a bigger problem. A correspondent, who shares my view that filmmakers should be free to adapt fiction any way they feel like, tries to analogize this to docudrama:

Even though Frost/Nixon isn't exactly the same thing as adapting literature to film, I think one might make a similar case about adapting history to film. When you translate a story from one context to another, the demands change. I guess I don't have a problem with Howard inventing scenes to flesh out the psychodynamics of the narrative and/or develop his characters ... after all, if you want just the facts ma'am, read the bonafide scholarly historical accounts or get your hands dirty with the primary documents themselves.

....I don't see much ground on which to get all bent out of shape b/c these kinds of stories deviate from the "true" history, unless you go to these sorts of films to see meticulous historical reenactments, and this only makes sense if you think there is some fixed account of History that can be and retold "correctly." The real standard of the film's success ought to be how well it succeeds in conveying its meaning or truth(s) of the Frost/Nixon story.

Leaving aside the whole fraught issue of "truth" vs. truth, I'm still not sure I buy this. Granted, film has its own vocabulary and its own dramatic requirements, and I wouldn't generally have a problem with inventing a few minor scenes to move the story along or deep sixing some detail that doesn't change the main narrative. But A Beautiful Mind didn't do that. It just flat out invented huge chunks of stuff that either never happened or else happened in completely different ways. If, literally, the only thing that matters is (a) mathematician, (b) mental illness, and (c) eventual Nobel Prize, then I guess Howard didn't do anything wrong. But that seems like way too low a bar to me, and based on the reviews and criticisms, it sounds like something similar happened in Frost/Nixon.

So, anyway, I guess that's where I come down. If you're adapting fiction, everything is fair game. Make whatever movie your creative vision tells you to. If you're adapting history, especially recent history, dramatic liberties should be used more sparingly unless the movie is clearly intended to be, say, a visual tone poem (The New World) or a piece of agitprop (JFK) specifically designed to get people arguing.

Aside from that, though, the public wanders around with enough misconceptions about basic facts of recent history already. There's no need to deliberately make things worse, and there are plenty of good stories to tell. If the one you're telling doesn't have enough drama on its own merits, maybe you'd be better off finding a different one.

1Keith G thinks I'm being a wee bit hard on Will here. But see? That's what happens when the rabble gets spoonfed bad (but exciting!) history from its betters.

More on Teaser Blogs

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 12:39 PM PST

MORE ON TEASER BLOGS....Dave Munger responds to my annoyance with "teaser" blogs, which routinely make you click "continue" to read an entire blog post:

This really depends. I mean, if you've got a three-paragraph post, and you're asking people to click through to read one more paragraph, I agree. But what if you've got a post that's 8 or 10 paragraphs long? Or what if you're embedding some bandwidth-heavy content? Most people aren't going to click through, so this can save a lot of bandwidth. Yes, I'm biased, because that's what CogDaily does, but at least you know now why we do it.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with this. My problem is mostly with blogs that do this routinely and for no very good reason. I already mentioned Felix Salmon's blog, and others in the original thread called out Josh Marshall and the Firedoglake crew. Basically, it's a real pain in the butt to have to click "continue" constantly just to finish up a blog post, and there's no question that it reduces my reading of blogs that do this.

But I don't have any problem with doing it for a reason. Occasional long posts, especially ones that have a limited audience, are fine candidates for this treatment. Putting spoilers below the fold is fine. I'm not quite sure what kind of content would be so bandwidth heavy that this would be a good excuse, but I suppose this works too. And doing what CogDaily often does, which is to summarize a new piece of research in enough detail to let you know if you might be interested in reading the gory details, and then putting said details below the fold — that's fine too.

But my plea is to use some discretion here. Actually, use a lot of discretion. 600 words isn't that much, and there's no need to cut a post that long in half. Spoilers are uncommon unless you're running a movie review site. And scrolling past a post you aren't interested in only takes one or two seconds. So please: do this sparingly. The world will be a better place for it.

Quote of the Day - 01.04.09

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 12:18 PM PST

QUOTE OF THE DAY....From Michael Goldfarb, lunatic pit bull and former McCain spokesman, on an Israeli bomb that killed the entire family of a Hamas leader:

The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions.

This comes via a chain of links ending at Matt Yglesias, who says: "To be clear, he's not saying that it's sometimes okay to kill a bad guy's innocent children as part of a military operation directed against the guy. He's saying it's better to kill his children than it would be to avoid killing them."

VaR and the Black Swan

| Sun Jan. 4, 2009 11:05 AM PST

VaR AND THE BLACK SWAN....Joe Nocera has a good piece in the New York Times Magazine today about VaR, the risk model that established a virtual hegemony on Wall Street before the great financial implosion of 2007-08. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan, argues that the fundamental problem with VaR lies not in its technical guts, but in the fact that it's specifically designed to exclude potential catastrophes:

In its most common form, [VaR] measures the boundaries of risk in a portfolio over short durations, assuming a "normal" market. For instance, if you have $50 million of weekly VaR, that means that over the course of the next week, there is a 99 percent chance that your portfolio won't lose more than $50 million.

....VaR is often measured daily and rarely extends beyond a few weeks, and because it is a very short-term measure, it assumes that tomorrow will be more or less like today. Even what's called "historical VaR" — a variation of standard VaR that measures potential portfolio risk a year or two out, only uses the previous few years as its benchmark.

....Yet even faulty historical data isn't Taleb's primary concern. What he cares about, with standard VaR, is not the number that falls within the 99 percent probability. He cares about what happens in the other 1 percent, at the extreme edge of the curve....A good example was a credit-default swap, which is essentially insurance that a company won't default. The gains made from selling credit-default swaps are small and steady — and the chance of ever having to pay off that insurance was assumed to be minuscule. It was outside the 99 percent probability, so it didn't show up in the VaR number. People didn't see the size of those hidden positions lurking in that 1 percent that VaR didn't measure.

Taleb has been making this argument for quite a while, and obviously events have proven him prescient. But I've always had a couple of problems with his critique. First, our current economic crisis isn't really a black swan, is it? Things like this have happened fairly regularly during the past century (and before), on the order of once a decade at least, and maybe more often than that. Pretending that this was a wildly improbable event strikes me as nothing more than a sophisticated version of "nobody could have predicted." After all, if the crash of 2008 really was a one-in-a-hundred (or one-in-a-thousand) event, then it really is true that even reasonable people couldn't have been expected to foresee it.

Second, I've never seen Taleb explain what we should do about this. What's his advice? Here's Nocera: "Taleb likes to say that, as a trader, he has made money only three times in his life — in the crash of 1987, during the dot-com bust more than a decade later and now. But all three times he has made a killing." Fine. He's made money three times in the past two decades. But he knows perfectly well that this doesn't work on a broad scale. Ordinary trading desks have to make daily trades based on evaluation of ordinary risks. That's how global finance gets done. So the question is: given the fact that we need ordinary global finance, and not everyone can just sit around waiting to make a killing on black swans, what should all these ordinary trading desks be doing to protect themselves against possible meteor strikes?

Taleb doesn't seem to say (though maybe he has and I just haven't seen it), but this is what I'd like to hear more about, especially since he seems to have a lot of interesting and perceptive ideas about the behavioral basis of finance and financial crashes. In the meantime, Nocera's article is a good read, even if it doesn't really provide any answers.

UPDATE: Yves Smith pans Nocera's article here. I'm a little puzzled by a lot of what she says, since it strikes me that Nocera wrote at length about topics that she says he ignored, and in no way wound up "defending a failed orthodoxy." But maybe I'm missing something.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Frost/Nixon

| Sat Jan. 3, 2009 8:47 PM PST

FROST/NIXON....Becks went to see Frost/Nixon and wasn't impressed:

The movie is even worse than the play. I felt that it was total bullshit. I don't want to get too spoileriffic, but my main problem was that the movie cultivates an air of a faux documentary, trying to convince the readers that it's well-researched and based on actual events, and then completely invents a pivotal scene that is supposed to explain both Frost and Nixon's motivations. I was pissed enough that this went unmentioned in the movie (my recollection was that it's admitted in the play) but really turned against it upon learning of even more insidious manipulation of events from my fellow moviegoers after the show.

I haven't seen the film either, partly for this reason, and I'm beginning to wonder if Ron Howard is planning to make a habit of this. As I recall, he was praised for the accuracy of Apollo 13, but then he went and made A Beautiful Mind, which bore practically no resemblance to the book at all. Like all of us, I'm pretty used to movies taking dramatic liberties with the truth, but aside from the fact that it depicts a famous mathematician who later became mentally ill, the movie version of A Beautiful Mind might as well have been made on another planet from the one where the book was published. I've been suspicious of everything Howard has made since then, and it sounds like Frost/Nixon is more along the same lines.

Anybody else seen it? What did you think?

The Ownership Society

| Sat Jan. 3, 2009 1:13 PM PST

THE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY....The Washington Post reports that the Bush administration plans to sign an eleventh hour agreement allowing a timber company in Montana to pave roads passing through Forest Service land. Why? Apparently because we're suffering from a housing shortage:

The shift is technical but with large implications....As Plum Creek has moved into the real estate business, paving those roads became a necessary prelude to opening vast tracts of the company's 8 million acres to the vacation homes that are transforming landscapes across the West.

Scenic western Montana, where Plum Creek owns 1.2 million acres, would be most affected, placing fresh burdens on county governments to provide services, and undoing efforts to cluster housing near towns.

Impeccable timing as always from the Bush administration. What better time than now to provide a free gift to the homebuilding industry?

Friday Cat Blogging - 2 January 2009

| Fri Jan. 2, 2009 12:23 PM PST

FRIDAY CATBLOGGING....Here's Inkblot in the pod again. For some reason, he seems to be going through weird phases of being frightened by the pod, followed by phases of adoring the pod. Yesterday he was in one of his adoration phases. Today he's sleeping on the bed, but making sure to keep his distance. I'm really not sure what's going on.

Domino, meanwhile, is obviously annoyed that Marian is explaining something to Professor Marc, who was visiting last night, instead of keeping immobile and providing her with a proper cat bed. Truly, the life of a cat is a hard one.

*Long-Form Journalism

| Fri Jan. 2, 2009 12:06 PM PST

LONG-FORM JOURNALISM....David Brooks today:

Everything becomes a shorter version of itself. Essays become op-eds. Op-eds become blog posts. Blog posts become Twitter tweets. The Sidney Awards stand athwart technology, yelling stop. They are awarded every year to some of the best examples of long-form journalism and thought.

Of the four pieces Brooks chooses to honor, the Lewis and Judis pieces I had already read, and both were good. The Professor X piece I had also already read. I didn't reread it, but I remember thinking at the time that it was more routine gripe than insightful observation. The Caldwell piece was new to me, and it was pretty engaging. Overall, a pretty good bunch of selections.