As you may be aware, a couple of years ago two members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in dark jackets and berets and doing their best to look vaguely menacing. One of them carried a nightstick. They chose to do this in a majority-black precinct that always votes overwhelmingly Democratic, which doesn't seem like especially fertile ground for intimidation of white voters, but they were charged with intimidation anyway. In due course their case came up, they didn't bother defending themselves, judgment was rendered, the Department of Justice got an injunction against the nightstick guy, and then the Obama administration dropped further action. Conservatives went nuts and have since given the NBPP almost endless amounts of publicity, which, as it always is with the NBPP, is what they were after in the first place.

The free publicity continues to this day, with various folks testifying that DOJ dropped the case because Barack Obama refuses to prosecute cases of civil rights violations against white people. In other words, blah blah Kenya blah blah reparations blah blah etc. etc. The usual.

But wait! Today Andrew Breitbart raises the bar even higher for lunatic conservative conspiracy theorizing. The National Chairman of the NBPP is one Malik Shabazz, and in July 2009, just as the NBPP case was reaching a — well, reaching nothing actually. Some Republicans were "demanding answers" at the time, but that's about it. But still, just as these Republicans were demanding answers, "a man named Malik Shabazz visited the exclusive, private residence in the White House"! Breitbart wants an explanation:

The White House has assured the American people that the Malik Shabazz that visited the White House at that time is not the same Malik Shabazz at the center of the New Black Panther story. But, the White House has not provided any information to verify its contention or who this “other” Malik Shabazz is.

We call on the White House to act in the spirit of their transparency policy and provide further information, sufficient to independently verify the identity of the person named Malik Shabazz who visited the White House private residence in July of 2009.

Now, as Breitbart might or might not know, Malcolm X was also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. So it's not as odd as it might seem for there to be more than one African American in the country by that name. And the guy in the White House logs is Malik H. Shabazz, not Malik Zulu Shabazz, the nutcase who heads up the NBPP. And he was there as part of a group tour of the White House along with 310 other people.

But no matter. We want answers! Maybe the middle initial is a feint. Maybe Shabazz broke off from the group and surreptitiously headed over to the Oval Office for a secret meeting. Maybe he and Obama cut a deal to.....do something. That part isn't clear, since the case had already been dropped by then. But something! Maybe plans for a vast wave of white voter intimidation in the midterm elections that Obama promised would get winked at by the authorities. Or a promise that a billion dollars worth of stimulus money would somehow find its way to the party's coffers. Something!

This is what we have to look forward to if Republicans win control of the House in November. I'm sure Darrell Issa has an investigation of the NBPP already teed up and raring to go. Doesn't that sound like fun? Sure it does! If you're not sure, be sure to check out the comments to the Breitbart post.

From Glenn Greenwald, upon hearing that even a guy who makes David Addington look dovish is having second thoughts about President Obama's unilateral declaration of authority in the war on terror:

Having debated him before, I genuinely didn't think it was possible for any President to concoct an assertion of executive power and secrecy that would be excessive and alarming to David Rivkin, but Barack Obama managed to do that, too.

The subject is the administration's claim that it not only has the power to assassinate American citizens without due process, but that its list of targets is a state secret unreviewable by any court. More here.

Via Andrew Sullivan, Jessa Crispin complains about the inescapable pressure to read certain books every year:

Once you get done with the Musts — the Franzens, Mitchells, Vollmanns, Roths, Shteyngarts — and then get through the Booker long list, and the same half-dozen memoirs everyone else is reading this year (crack addiction and face blindness seem incredibly important this year), you have time for maybe two quirky choices, if you are a hardcore reader.

Wait a second. Back up. Face blindness is big in novels this year? Seriously? Are any of them any good? I have a hell of a time recognizing faces, a problem that makes movie viewing a real pain the ass. I spent the entire first half hour of The Prestige, for example, getting Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale mixed up. A different hair color makes someone a new person to me. Photograph the same person from two different angles and I have to stare hard to convince myself that it's not two different people.

(On the other hand, I had a boss once who had supervised one of my coworkers for two years. She came in one day with a different hairstyle and he passed her in the hallway without recognizing her. I don't think I'm quite that bad off.)

Anyway, combine this with my lousy memory for names1 and it makes social occasions pretty onerous affairs. But it might be fun to read a novel where this plays a key part, as long as it's not just an excuse for an extended whining session. Any recommendations?

1And voices. For God's sake, if you ever call me on the phone, identify yourself. I won't recognize your voice if you don't.

Paul Krugman on the recent outbreak of arguments that America's unemployment problem is structural and can't be fixed anytime soon:

Claims that there has been a huge jump in structural unemployment — that is, unemployment that can’t be cured by increasing aggregate demand — are playing a large role in the argument that we should basically do nothing in the face of a terrible economy. No need for the Fed to do more; no need for more fiscal stimulus — hey, it’s all about defective labor markets, and we should work on structural reform, one of these days. And don’t expect improvement for years to come. Structural unemployment is invoked by Fed presidents who want to raise rates, not cut them, by economists who want austerity now now now, and in general by almost everyone in the pain caucus.

....I really don’t think there’s any way to make sense of the fuss about structural unemployment unless you posit that a lot of influential people are looking for reasons not to act. Based on everything we know, this just shouldn’t be an issue. What the economy needs is more demand; provide that, and you’ll be amazed at how many willing, productive workers there are, currently sitting idle.

Italics mine. And yes, of course lots of influential people are looking for reasons not to act. Our economic discourse of the past 30 years has been almost exclusively defined by an endless succession of shiny new arguments from conservatives that provide an intellectual superstructure for policies that favor business interests and the rich. Arguments on trade, arguments on taxes, arguments on unions, arguments on the minimum wage, arguments on financial deregulation, arguments on income inequality, and arguments on environmental rules. Lately, it's mostly been arguments on deficits and unemployment. And always couched in technical terms of capital formation, liquidity, credit allocation, globalization, comparative advantage, crowding out, multipliers, solar forcing levels, Gaussian copulas, labor market rigidities, alternative measures of inflation, deadweight losses, default premia, and hedonic adjustments.

That's for the chattering classes, of course. For the rubes it's socialism and arrogant elites and death panels.

After all, except on rare occasions when their tongues slip, they can hardly come right out and say that what they really care about is making sure that rich people continue to grab an ever bigger share of the economic pie, can they? And the fact that all of their arguments just happen to promote exactly that? Just a coincidence, my friends, just a coincidence.

From James Joyner, responding to complaints that photos in the Republican "Pledge To America" pamphlet are exclusively of white people:

This isn’t strictly true. First off, John Boehner is prominently featured. He’s orange.

Plus it turns out that if you look closely there's a black woman in one of the photos. Diversity!

I spaced this week and forgot to take any new cat pictures. Bad blogger. So instead you get Catblogging Classic™! Hopefully these pictures are old enough that no one remembers seeing them before. (In fact, the tree on the right doesn't even exist anymore.) Anyway, these are from 2007, and they've been fully digitally restored and look better than they did when I first posted them thanks to the magic of Photoshop's sharpening filter. Bask in the nostalgia!

Are the Blue Dogs congenital morons? Wait. Don't answer that. First read this passage about their support for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy:

"People are very imprecise with the way they are talking about it and reporting it," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) said in an interview last week. "The Blue Dogs have not proposed a permanent tax increase for the wealthy, just a temporary plan....They are working to identify offsets in the event that they are doing a one- or two-year extension [for the wealthy], which is totally different from the Republican plan."

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Rep. James Cyburn (D-S.C) the House Majority Whip, confirmed that Blue Dogs are working on a plan to identify specific cuts in government spending as a means of paying for a temporary extension for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Let me get this straight. It's not just that the Blue Dogs are in favor of extending tax cuts for the rich, which is an unpopular policy. They're also in favor of cutting programs over the next two years to pay for it. This is not only a dumb idea economically, but would almost certainly make the tax cuts even more unpopular. What's going to be their next idea? Tax cuts for the rich, funded by spending cuts for everyone else, and while we're at it let's outlaw barbecuing on the 4th of July. Then people will really hate us! Jeebus.

This post is outsourced to regular reader rph3 from the great state of Virginia:

I know you're all left coast and all that, but here we have long had one of the most open festering environmental sores in existence — the Chesapeake Bay and the cleanup efforts that have failed miserably for over 30 years. This is a classic case where Republican declarations that "states should work constructively with the fed to achieve our goals and not have the fed ram down our throats" have predictably resulted in states ignoring the fed and not working at all together. And that has resulted in extreme degradation of the Bay.

Anyway, it's just in EPA blowhard stage, full of threats to maybe get angry and do something — but it's more than anyone has done in 30+ years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092402864.html

I'm sure progressives will loudly promote this bold (and it is bold) action by the Obama administration and give credit where it is due.

But this also has the classic risks of progressive policy — environmental improvement will likely result in increased taxes and will cause a significant backlash. And while I'd like to think people would understand the tradeoff, I .... uh. Yeah right.

Anyway this is change. And it could be dramatic. And it could financially hurt.

Jobs and Divorce

On the list of jobs with the highest divorce rates, physicians and surgeons clock in at 7th from the top. Optometrists rank #505, or 6th from the bottom. Explain.

POSTSCRIPT: Bloggers don't make the list, but "writers and authors" come in at #213. So I guess I'm pretty safe. Certainly much better than the #34 I used to be as a technical writer, but about the same as back when I was a retail manager (#276) or a marketing manager (#204).

Dumb Arguments

Via Megan McArdle, Derek Lowe blogs today about an entire field of pharmaceutical research revolving around PPAR ligands that pretty much went nowhere and cost drug companies a bundle:

Allow me to rant for a bit, because I saw yet another argument the other day that the big drug companies don't do any research, no, it's all done at universities with public funds, at which point Big Pharma just swoops in and makes off with the swag. You know the stuff. Well, I would absolutely love to have the people who hold that view explain the PPAR story to me. I really would. The drug industry poured a huge amount of time and money into both basic and applied research in that area, and they did it for years. No one has to take my word for it — ask any of the academic leaders in the field if GSK or Merck, to name just two companies, managed to make any contributions.

....Honestly, I don't understand where these they-don't-do-any-research folks get off. Look at the patent filings. Look at the open literature. Where on earth do you think all those molecules come from, all those research programs to fill up all those servers? There are whole scientific journals that wouldn't exist if it weren't for a steady stream of failed research projects. Where's it all coming from?

I don't doubt that Derek saw this argument somewhere, and to be honest, I don't even begrudge him the rant. We're all sensitive to dumb arguments in our own areas of expertise, especially if we're really tired of hearing them.

But I'm genuinely curious: is there anyone of any stature who's made this argument? I've never seen it. There are plenty of arguments about the relative size of the contributions of academic and commercial pharmaceutical research, and plenty of arguments about whether, for example, the current patent regime is the best way of incentivizing commercial research. But the basic story seems to be pretty broadly accepted: universities and the government do a lot of basic research and corporations then take that research and do the work necessary to produce actual commercial drugs that attack actual illnesses. It doesn't always work that way (private companies do some basic research too), but I've never seen a serious argument that commercial pharma companies do nothing at all.

Anyway, just curious. I'm not really picking on Derek here, I guess I've just spent too much time lately being annoyed by the amount of time we all spend responding to the dumbest, most extreme forms of arguments, and then this one happened to pop up. But who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine are chock full of editorials telling us that commercial researchers don't actually do anything. If so, I'll stand corrected.

POSTSCRIPT: Of course, in the political world lots of influential people really do make dumb, extreme arguments on a regular basis. And since they're influential, they have to be responded to. But I still wonder if maybe we respond to them too much. Or maybe in the wrong way. Or something.