Blogs | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Emailgate Just Gets Stupider and Stupider <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Well, it turns out the "unrelated case" that led the FBI to more Hillary Clinton emails was an investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting. Because of course it was. It is what we all deserve.</p> <p>But it's even stupider than that. In the past, I've found Pete Williams to be a pretty reliable guy, and here's what he has to say:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">.<a href="">@PeteWilliamsNBC</a>&mdash;In looking at Weiner's laptop, investigators discovered Huma also used the laptop&mdash;which contained some Huma/Hillary emails <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>If Williams is correct, investigators looked at Weiner's laptop and discovered that Weiner's wife&mdash;Clinton aide and all-around conservative boogeyman Huma Abedin&mdash;had also used it. So there are some emails from Abedin to Hillary Clinton on the hard drive. Here's Williams:</p> <blockquote> <p>Now they've got to go get court process to get the right to...take a wider look at these emails and begin that process. You said earlier this <em>probably</em> won't be wrapped up before Election Day? Scratch probably.</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, <em>nobody has even looked at these emails yet.</em> The FBI has to get a court order first. So: are these emails that have already been turned over? Maybe. Are they routine emails about schedules and so forth? Maybe. Nobody, including the FBI, has the slightest idea. But there's certainly no reason to think there are any bombshells here.</p> <p>Needless to say, that didn't stop every news outlet in the country from blaring this at the tops of their front pages. They never learn, do they? <em>Email stories hyped by folks like Jason Chaffetz never pan out.</em> But news orgs get suckered every time anyway. So just to make sure their shame is preserved for posterity, here they are:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_fbi_weiner_clinton_emails.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 5px 10px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 23:07:18 +0000 Kevin Drum 317766 at Friday Cat Blogging - 28 October 2016 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Please let it be over. Please please please. I can't take any more of thi&mdash;</p> <p>Ahem. Shall we do cat blogging a few minutes early? Yes we shall. Here is Hopper doing her very best impression of a concrete rabbit. Not bad!</p> <p>For more on our furry feline companions, check out <a href="" target="_blank">"Good Thing Cats Are Adorable, Because They Get Away With a Lot of Crap."</a> It's an interview with cat enthusiast and science writer Abigail Tucker to discuss her new book, <em>The Lion in the Living Room</em>. The title sort of reminds me of <a href="" target="_blank">this tweet.</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hopper_2016_10_28.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 5px 30px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:00:37 +0000 Kevin Drum 317736 at Emailgate Takes Yet Another Dismal Turn <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I slept badly last night and feel kind of crappy this morning. I was hoping I could just stare at the ceiling for a while and then put up some catblogging and call it a week. But no. Email mania is back. Here's the letter FBI Director Jim Comey sent to a rogue's gallery of committee chairmen this morning regarding its investigation into <a href="" target="_blank">Hillary Clinton's email server:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as assess their importance to our investigation.</p> <p>Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.</p> </blockquote> <p>Translation: We have some emails we got from somewhere. That's all I can tell you. NBC's Pete Williams adds this:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">NEW: NBC's Pete Williams reports that the e-mails Comey announced today were NOT originally withheld by Clinton or campaign.</p> &mdash; Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Pete Williams sources say in course of a separate investigation, FBI came across "a device." found emails there. but emails NOT from HRC</p> &mdash; Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Paul Krugman is PISSED:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Comey needs to provide full info immediately. Otherwise he has clearly made a partisan intervention, betraying his office.</p> &mdash; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Journalist Twitter is full of shock at FBI behavior here. That same shock should make it into news reports; not doing so misleads public</p> &mdash; Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p><a href="" target="_blank">Donald Trump is CHUFFED:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>"We must not let her take her criminal scheme to the Oval Office," Trump said, adding, "I have great respect that the FBI and Department of Justice have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made. Perhaps finally, justice will be done."</p> </blockquote> <p>Wasn't Trump saying just a few weeks ago that the FBI was hopelessly corrupt and couldn't be trusted? I'm pretty sure he did.</p> <p>Bottom line: There are some emails. They aren't from Hillary Clinton. They weren't withheld from the investigation. The case isn't being "reopened." That is all.</p> <p>Speaking for myself, I'm willing to back any bet that anyone wants to make that this whole thing is a complete nothing. Republicans will be lathering away for the next 11 days, but there's no there there.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:53:00 +0000 Kevin Drum 317726 at Weekly Poll Update: Not Much Change From Last Week <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">Sam Wang's meta-margin</a> has Hillary Clinton leading Trump by 4.1 percentage points, down slightly from last week:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_pec_meta_margin_2016_10_28.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 15px 75px;"></p> <p>Wang's current prediction is that Clinton has a 99 percent chance of winning and will rack up 334 electoral votes. He still has the Senate tied, 50-50, but the Democratic meta-margin is down a bit to 1.2 percent and the probability of Democratic control is 76 percent. On the House side, he has Democrats up by about 4 percent, which is not enough for them to win back control. <a href="" target="_blank">Here's Pollster:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_pollster_trump_clinton_2016_10_28.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 15px 7px;"></p> <p>Clinton is 7.3 percentage points ahead of Trump, exactly the same as last week. In the generic House polling, Pollster has Democrats ahead by 4.3 points, down a point from last week.</p> <p>Overall, Trump vs. Clinton has barely moved, but the Democratic lead in congressional races seems to have ticked down a point or so.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:33:13 +0000 Kevin Drum 317707 at Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up! <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Oh FFS:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened</p> &mdash; Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) <a href="">October 28, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Let me guess: someone at the State Department wrote a note to Huma Abedin asking if someone at the Clinton Foundation could loan them a hammer so that Hillary Clinton's latest broken BlackBerry could be smashed. And the kicker: It turned out to be a hammer from Benghazi!</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:16:18 +0000 Kevin Drum 317697 at Donald Trump Lights $10 Million on Fire <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_11_days.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">With only 11 days left in this year's presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has vastly more money in the bank than Donald Trump. It's not even close. So Trump has finally decided to pitch in <a href="" target="_blank">a few dollars of his own money:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Donald Trump, seeking to boost momentum in the last days of the presidential election, wired $10 million of his own money into his presidential campaign Friday morning, two advisers said....Mr. Trump&rsquo;s cash infusion brings his total contributions to his campaign to $66 million....Mr. Trump&rsquo;s latest donation to his cause <strong>still falls $34 million short of the $100 million he has repeatedly said he will give to his campaign</strong>&mdash;a pledge he reiterated as recently as Wednesday.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, I guess he's still got another week to light his final $34 million on fire. In the meantime, consider this: Election Day can fall between November 2 and November 8. This year, just to add to our pain, it falls on the last possible day. If, instead, it fell on November 2, we'd have only four days of hell left. They say that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and I sure hope that's true.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:04:31 +0000 Kevin Drum 317692 at This Video From the Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Is Absolutely Nuts. A Total War Zone. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Last night, a group of activists protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline were met by law enforcement and pipeline security agents, and the situation quickly spiraled out of hand. As <em>Mother Jones</em>' Wes Enzinna <a href="" target="_blank">reported from the scene</a>:</p> <blockquote>An armed security agent employed by the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline was arrested Thursday after he was caught entering the camp of activists protesting near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in southern North Dakota. After a car chase and a standoff during which he allegedly pointed his assault rifle at a local Sioux teenager, the man, apparently an employee of Dakota Access LLC, was arrested and handed over to the FBI.</blockquote> <p>This video by <em>Unicorn Riot</em>, an alternative media source, <a href="" target="_blank">shows the chaos</a>. It looks like an absolute war zone:</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="315" scrolling="no" src=";show_text=0&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="560"></iframe></p> <p>Now go read Wes' <a href="" target="_blank">full story</a>.</p></body></html> Blue Marble Crime and Justice Energy Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:10:15 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 317687 at Chart of the Day: Economy Picks Up Nicely in Q3 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">Real GDP grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in the third quarter.</a> This is a fairly healthy number, driven largely by a big increase in purchases of durable goods (cars, refrigerators, etc.). Purchases of nondurable goods fell, and investment in residential housing also fell, for the second straight quarter. Exports were up considerably.</p> <p>Politically, this is good news for Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump wants this to be a change election, but if inflation is low, unemployment is low, and economic growth is healthy, an awful lot of people are going to think that an extension of the Obama presidency sounds pretty good.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_gdp_q3_2016.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 5px 15px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:19:48 +0000 Kevin Drum 317677 at Health Update <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Short version: I'm fine. Longer version: I just saw my oncologist, and he's pretty satisfied with everything. My M-protein level&mdash;the primary measure of cancerous plasma cells in my bone marrow&mdash;has been sneaking upward for the past few months, but in October it plateaued at the same level as September. Here's a special expanded version of my usual M-protein chart:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_m_protein_2016_10_27.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 30px;"></p> <p>I started out at 4.38 when I was first diagnosed with multiple myeloma, and the initial chemotherapy got that down to about 1.0. The maintenance meds got it down to 0.3, but after we halted the evil dex<sup>1</sup> it drifted up to 0.58. Higher is worse, but as you can tell from the chart, the entire past year has been fairly stable, and the minor ups and downs don't mean a lot. An M-protein level of 0.58 grams is roughly equivalent to a cancer load of about 3-4 percent, and my body can tolerate that basically forever. Eventually my M-protein level will rise above 1.0 or so, and then it will be time to switch to a second-line med.</p> <p>However, my oncologist's satisfaction was mostly based on other stuff that I don't usually write about. There are three types of plasma cells: G, A, and M.<sup>2</sup> My cancer happens to be of the G cells. However, my A-type cells have increased quite a bit over the past few months, and apparently that's an indication that my immune system is returning to normal. So that's good. Also, my Kappa light chains are pretty low, and my Kappa/Lambda ratio is nice and stable.<sup>3</sup> That's also good. Put it all together and I'm in pretty stable shape.</p> <p>However, the med I'm taking now can produce rashes in some people. It turns out I'm one of them. In my case, they're little red dots that showed up on my lower legs last week, then spread to my upper legs, and are now invading my stomach. How far will they go? Beats me. But if they go much further, they'll invade my face and I'll look like I have a permanent case of the measles. Oh well.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>That's dexamethasone, a corticosteroid that helps fight multiple myeloma. However, it has bad long-term side effects, so it can only be used for a few months at a time.</p> <p><sup>2</sup>This is not precisely the right terminology, but it's close enough.</p> <p><sup>3</sup>For the record, I have IgG Kappa light chain multiple myeloma.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:07:04 +0000 Kevin Drum 317647 at Meet America's Most Prolific Patent Troll <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Here's a weird&mdash;and yet totally unsurprising&mdash;story. <a href="" target="_blank">It starts like this:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Martin Kelly Jones, a co-owner of Shipping &amp; Transit, said the tracking of e-commerce packages relates to an idea he came up with in the 1980s to notify families of arriving school buses....Mr. Jones, who lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, said he came up with the idea for a &ldquo;vehicle notification system&rdquo; in 1985 in Atlanta, after seeing a young girl waiting for a school bus on a rainy morning. He later formed a company to develop <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_patent_troll_1.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">technology, involving hardware for buses, that could notify people their bus was arriving.</p> </blockquote> <p>Apparently this idea went nowhere. But that doesn't mean it was a waste of time. Not at all. Jones then started up a company called ArrivalStar, later renamed Shipping &amp; Transit:</p> <blockquote> <p>Claiming patents &ldquo;for providing status messages for cargo, shipments and people,&rdquo; the company or a predecessor have sued dozens of major retailers as well as delivery giants FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc., according to court records. The companies have extracted millions of dollars in payments, said people familiar with the legal actions.</p> <p>....Anthony Dowell, a patent attorney who used to represent ArrivalStar, said he helped it win more than $15 million in license fees between 2009 and 2013 from over 200 parties, including municipalities and providers of shipping services. He said the patents he focused on expired in 2013.</p> </blockquote> <p>The success of this business is unclear. UPS decided to buy a license, and apparently FedEx did too. The Postal Service didn't. Local transportation agencies maybe did and maybe didn't. It's unclear. In any case, S&amp;T is currently focusing all its attention on tiny little companies that don't have the means to fight back:</p> <blockquote> <p>Spokesmen for UPS and the Postal Service said their agreements with ArrivalStar, Shipping &amp; Transit&rsquo;s predecessor, should cover their customers&rsquo; use of technology....[Jones] said using FedEx&rsquo;s or UPS&rsquo;s notification system would cover a shipper, <strong>but it might still need to buy a license if it provided any additional information, such as telling buyers an order has been filled.</strong></p> <p>&ldquo;The second you are using technology beyond what a licensee has, you need a license from us,&rdquo; he said.</p> </blockquote> <p>So if you send notifications telling customers that their orders have been filled, S&amp;T will sue you for $25,000. Why? Because they claim to have patented this idea <em>if it's done via some kind of computer network</em>. In all this time, however, the patent has never been tested in court. It's never been worth anyone's time.</p> <p>This. Is. Ridiculous. If you call your customer on the phone, it's fine. If you send them an email, you'll get sued. It's hard to conceive of anything stupider.</p> <p>Get rid of software patents. All of them. Right now.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:06:32 +0000 Kevin Drum 317622 at Please, Hillary, Stay Out of Syria <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>I basically have one foreign policy present that I'd like for Christmas:</p> <ul><li>Stay out of Syria. No troops. No "advisors." No weapons shipments to "friendly" rebels. No no-fly zones. Nothing. If Putin wants to waste his time there, let him.</li> </ul><p>Syria is a tragedy. If I could wave a magic wand and stop the killing and the refugees and everything else, I'd do it. But there's no magic wand, and there's nothing within reason that the United States can do to influence the outcome of the war. So just stay out. Period. That means you, Hillary.</p> <p>That said, we obviously have an interest in eliminating ISIS, and once they've been driven out of Iraq they'll have to be driven out of Syria too. I don't know what that will involve. Maybe drone attacks, maybe some super-secret special ops missions that everyone knows about. That's fine. But stay out of the civil war. Nothing but catastrophe will come to anyone who insists on getting involved.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:26:18 +0000 Kevin Drum 317602 at The Trump Campaign Is Not Engaged in Voter Suppression <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>My Twitter feed is alive with the news that a "senior official" in the Trump campaign has admitted that they are engaged in voter suppression. <a href="" target="_blank">Let's go to the tape:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. &ldquo;We have three major voter suppression operations under way,&rdquo; says a senior official. They&rsquo;re aimed at three groups Clinton needs <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trump_plan_b.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans. Trump&rsquo;s invocation at the debate of Clinton&rsquo;s WikiLeaks e-mails and support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to turn off Sanders supporters. The parade of women who say they were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton and harassed or threatened by Hillary is meant to undermine her appeal to young women. And her 1996 suggestion that some African American males are &ldquo;super predators&rdquo; is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls&mdash;particularly in Florida.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ahem. For those of you new to American elections, allow me to blogsplain. This is called "negative campaigning." It is designed to make ones opponent look bad, and it has been a feature of every US election since&mdash;well, roughly forever. The fact that a "senior official" calls this voter suppression doesn't mean that it is. It just means that the Trump folks are amateurs who are laughably ignorant about what a "major" operation of any kind actually looks like in a modern presidential campaign.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 15:10:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 317597 at Most Trump Voters Say They Will Peacefully Accept Results of Election <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>There are 12 days left until we go to the polls. Is violence brewing from disappointed Donald Trump supporters? Here are nine quotes from a <em>New York Times</em> story <a href="" target="_blank">that ran this morning:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton&hellip;it could lead to "another Revolutionary War." "<strong>People are going to march on the capitols,</strong>" said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. "They're going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there."</p> <p>&hellip;"<strong>It's not what I'm going to do,</strong> but I'm scared that the country is going to go into a riot," said Roger Pillath.</p> <p>&hellip;"<strong>I'd probably go into a depression,</strong> because life is hard enough for us right now," Ms. Olson, 69, said.</p> <p>&hellip;"Unfortunately, I'm not a man of vigilante violence," said Richard Sabonjohn, 48, of Naples, Fla. "<strong>I'm more of a peaceful person.</strong> But I do think there will be a large <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_12_days.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">amount of people that are terribly upset and may take matters into their own hands."</p> <p>Mr. Swick considers himself a "Bible Christian" and "Thomas Jefferson liberal," <strong>and said he hoped to beat Mrs. Clinton "at the ballot box."</strong> But Mr. Swick, by his own estimation, also owns "north of 30 guns," and he said Mrs. Clinton would have trouble if she tried to confiscate the nation's constitutionally protected weapons.</p> <p>&hellip;"<strong>I am not going to take my weapon to go out into the streets to protest an election I did not win,</strong>" Mr. Weegens said, "but I think that if certain events came about, a person would need to protect themselves, depending on where they lived, when your neighborhood goes up in flames."</p> <p>"<strong>I'd go home and cry for four years,</strong>" said Ken Herrmann, 69, of Punta Gorda, Fla.</p> <p>Kathy Maney, 61, a hairstylist from Fletcher, N.C., used the language of love lost. "<strong>I won't feel hatred or mad or anything like that,</strong> but my heart will be broken," she said.</p> <p>Ms. Sanger added, she will dutifully accept the outcome on Election Day. "<strong>I would absolutely respect the result and support the next president,</strong>" she said. "Pray for the next president, whoever it is."</p> </blockquote> <p>This story ran under the headline "Some Trump Voters Call for Revolution if Clinton Wins." But not a single one of these folks "called" for a revolution or said they'd participate in one. Just the opposite. They said they themselves <em>wouldn't</em> do anything, but were worried that <em>other people</em> might. Even young Mr. Halbrook, who came the closest, only suggested that "people" would participate in "marches on the capitols," which is perfectly legal and not necessarily violent.</p> <p>So why is everyone worried that <em>other people</em> might riot on November 9? Is it because of headlines like "Some Trump Voters Call for Revolution if Clinton Wins"?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:43:20 +0000 Kevin Drum 317592 at A Bit of Late Night Miscellany <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><strong>Miscellaneous thing #1:</strong> NFL viewership is down sharply this year. Is it because of Colin Kaepernick? That's the favorite explanation from conservatives, but today the <em>New York Times</em> <a href=";action=click&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;clickSource=story-heading&amp;module=first-column-region&amp;region=top-news&amp;WT.nav=top-news&amp;_r=0" target="_blank">tells us this:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The two most successful sports leagues in the world, which bring in billions of dollars in revenue, the biggest corporate sponsors and mammoth audiences every game day, are now sharing an altogether different experience: The National Football League and the English Premier League are enduring startling, double-digital declines in television viewership this season.</p> </blockquote> <p>The Premier League is obviously not suffering from a Kaepernick backlash. So why are those two sports behemoths falling on hard times, but not others? It's a chin scratcher. I don't know much about English soccer, but my personal guess about the NFL is that it's just boring this year. I'm not quite sure why, but it seems like even the good teams are kind of mediocre and play like they were carved out by a cookie cutter. I'm a very casual but fairly reliable NFL viewer, but I haven't been bothering to watch very much this year. I just can't work up much interest.</p> <p><strong>Miscellaneous thing #2:</strong> Are you curious about the Mexican border? Here's a nice graphic. We've already doubled the size of the border patrol and fenced off nearly the entire land border&mdash;but although that's reduced illegal immigration, it hasn't stopped it. All that's left is the Rio Grande, which is a very tricky fencing project indeed. Maybe a bigger, tougher fence would work better, but that's hardly a slam dunk.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_border_fence.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>And speaking of borders: have you read Shane Bauer's story about <a href="" target="_blank">going undercover with a border militia?</a> You should!</p> <p><strong>Miscellaneous thing #3:</strong> Is the 2016 election just a taste of things to come? Will a more self-disciplined version of Donald Trump take over the Republican Party in 2020 and win where Trump couldn't? <a href="" target="_blank">Kevin Mahnken says no:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Trump is sui generis. Ted Cruz entered 2016 with a bulletproof anti-establishment resum&eacute;, and look how far he got running as a slightly &ldquo;cooler, more polished&rdquo; alternative....Anyone with the requisite political instincts to win a general election would have to temporize eventually, which would mark him as a career politician. Anyone exotic enough to fully copy the Trump playbook would be vaporized by the institutional weaponry of the Republican Party, which won&rsquo;t be caught sleeping twice in a row.</p> <p>....Very few politicians exert lasting influence on American political parties. The last ones to do so were Lyndon Johnson (who shattered the remnants of the New Deal coalition and inadvertently established the Democrats as a multiethnic alliance in favor of big government and various liberation movements) and Ronald Reagan (who solidified a pact between the Moral Majority and business elites that is only now breaking down). But these were two-term presidents who won massive legislative victories. Trump, who was never selling a governing ethos to begin with, will be a profoundly rejected figure.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree. Trump is unique, and his victory in the primaries this year was a perfect storm sort of fluke. Like Glenn Beck before him, however, he's had his year in the sun and his brand of performance art has already gotten old. He may go on to a TV career, or he may sink into a deep depression and never be heard from again, but it doesn't matter. He's a loser and a laughingstock. At most he'll motivate future candidates to break a bit from party orthodoxy (on support for free trade, for example, or entitlement cuts) but that's it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 05:15:39 +0000 Kevin Drum 317587 at Three Unfortunate Facts About Yemen <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Six years ago I read a <a href="" target="_blank">pair</a> of <a href="" target="_blank">articles</a> about Yemen which predicted that its population would double by 2035; oil revenue would decline to zero by 2017; and the capital city of Sanaa would run out of water by 2015. Today I got curious: How are those forecasts panning out?</p> <p><strong>Population: On target.</strong> Yemen's population has <a href="" target="_blank">increased from 23.6 million to 27.5 million since 2010</a>&mdash;an annual growth rate of 2.58 percent. If this continues, <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_yemen_oil_2010_2016_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">Yemen's population will double by 2037.</p> <p><strong>Oil revenue: On target.</strong> <a href="" target="_blank">Yemen is currently producing a meager 22,000 barrels of oil daily.</a> In fairness, much of this is due not to pumping their fields literally dry, but to infrastructure destruction during the current civil war. They still have proven reserves of about 3 billion barrels, so production could rise again if the war ever ends.</p> <p><strong>Water: On target?</strong> <a href="" target="_blank">Adela Jones of USC writes:</a> "Already, Yemenis allocate up to 30% of their annual income towards water....As early as 2017, Sana&rsquo;a may officially run out of water. Given consumption trends, the rest of the nation may follow."</p> <p>I remain fairly ignorant about Yemen, aside from the fact that it's the site of a brutal proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran&mdash;in Saudi Arabia's view, anyway&mdash;and we've been assisting the Saudis since it started. But Yemen's future looks pretty bleak no matter who wins. What happens when they finally pump the last of the groundwater and there's nothing left?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Oct 2016 04:07:26 +0000 Kevin Drum 317586 at Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Harvard&rsquo;s Institute of Politics has just released its <a href="" target="_blank">latest poll of 18-29 year olds,</a> and reports that Hillary Clinton has a "massive" lead over Donald Trump. Over at the <em>New York Times</em>, however, Yamiche Alcindor says the new poll shows that Clinton has "struggled" with millennials and "will have to convince many young people that they should trust her to grapple with some of the nation&rsquo;s biggest issues." <a href="" target="_blank">Nancy LeTourneau is annoyed:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>That is the power of narrative. Once you buy into the idea that Clinton is having trouble with millennials, it is almost impossible to break out of it. In the back of Alcindor&rsquo;s mind, she has to do better than a 28 point lead to <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_18_29_vote_1996_2016.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">be successful with young people. Who knows how high that bar is?</p> </blockquote> <p>I get the exasperation with this, but the problem is that both the IOP <em>and</em> Alcindor are right. Clinton leads Trump 49-21 percent in the IOP poll, which is indeed a massive lead. At the same time, 49 percent support is less than Democrats usually get from 20-somethings. Like it or not, Clinton is less popular with young voters than any Democrat in the past two decades except for Al Gore. Is this because of the Bernie effect? Because of Clinton herself? Because third-party candidates are getting more attention than usual? That's hard to say. But whatever the reason, Clinton is underperforming with millennials.</p> <p>Now, at this point her underperformance is fairly modest compared to anyone other than Barack Obama. And she still has a couple of weeks to make up ground. It's fair to say that she's a little behind the usual pace for Democrats, but it's not fair to regurgitate the narrative from two or three months ago when she was struggling pretty hard with millennial disaffection. It may not make for a great story, but sometimes the truth is a little bit boring.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 22:15:43 +0000 Kevin Drum 317581 at Republicans Prepare for Armageddon <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_13_days.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">With 13 days left until the end of the campaign, Donald Trump seems to have all but given up. He's mostly promoting his hotels these days and has stopped all big-dollar fundraising. In fact, he seems as if he'd be pretty happy if Republicans lost in an epic wave election, which might make his own loss seem less of a personal humiliation and more a party failure. Given all this, I suppose this means that Republicans are resigned to losing and are probably putting their heads together to figure out how they can work with Hillary Clinton over the next four years in order to accomplish at least&mdash;</p> <p>Eh? <a href="" target="_blank">What's that, Ilya Shapiro?</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The Senate Should Refuse To Confirm All Of Hillary Clinton&rsquo;s Judicial Nominees</p> </blockquote> <p>Um, OK. That's clear enough. Gonna be tough on the federal judiciary, though. Don't big businesses need the courts to stay fully staffed so they can continue suing each other over dumb patent infractions? Maybe not. But anyway, Shapiro is just one guy. This is probably not a common opinion, right?</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">1. Dems will kill filibuster if that's stopping SCOTUS confirmation. 2. SCOTUS works fine with 8. Wd work better w 7 <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) <a href="">October 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>OK, fine: two guys. But surely wiser heads in Congress <a href="" target="_blank">will prevail?</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Jason Chaffetz, the Utah congressman wrapping up his first term atop the powerful House Oversight Committee, unendorsed Donald Trump weeks ago. That freed him up to prepare for something else: spending years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton.</p> <p>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a target-rich environment,&rdquo; the Republican said in an interview in Salt Lake City&rsquo;s suburbs. &ldquo;<strong>Even before we get to Day One, we&rsquo;ve got two years&rsquo; worth of material already lined up. </strong>She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain&rsquo;t good.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Welp, it's sure sounding like the Republican Party has learned nothing and forgotten nothing over the past eight years. If this is how things go, they're planning to double down on total obstruction starting on Day One&mdash;or even before that for Chaffetz. Then in 2020 they'll wonder yet again why they have such a hard time winning the presidency. I wonder if it will ever occur to them that getting nothing done just isn't a winning argument for a majority of Americans?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:58:38 +0000 Kevin Drum 317541 at Health Care Premiums Have Grown 6% Per Year Since 2013 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_premium_increase_2013_2017.jpg" style="margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">I've mentioned before that Obamacare premiums started out too low in their first year, which explains (a) why so many insurers have had trouble making money in the exchanges, and (b) why premiums increased so much this year. But maybe a chart will make this clearer.</p> <p>This is based on data from <a href="" target="_blank"><em>Health Affairs</em></a> last year, updated with the big increase in premiums this year. What it shows fairly clearly is that the cost of individual premiums dropped in 2014 when the Obamacare exchanges started up&mdash;even though Obamacare policies generally provided better coverage. When you factor in the big increase for next year, average premiums will have risen from $4,500 to $5,600 since 2013.</p> <p>That's an annual increase of 6.1 percent, about the same as the average annual increase in employer plans over the past decade.</p> <p>The usual caveats apply. These are averages: some people do better, some do worse. And for people who qualify for Obamacare subsidies, the actual increase in the amount they have to pay is very small. Overall, though, the point here is clear: if premiums had just risen at a steady 6 percent per year, nobody would be bent out of shape. The reason this is hitting so hard is because insurance companies screwed up their projections when Obamacare started up and now they have to make up for it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:33:12 +0000 Kevin Drum 317536 at The Case Against Voting Booth Selfies <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_timberlake_voting_selfie.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Justin Timberlake snapped a selfie in the voting booth yesterday, and lots of people were outraged that apparently there are laws against this. <em>What happened to free speech!?!</em></p> <p>Just for the record, then, there <em>is</em> a reason for selfie bans in voting booths: it prevents vote buying. After all, the only way it makes sense to pay people for their votes is if you have proof that they voted the way you told them to. Back in the day that was no problem, but ever since secret ballots became the norm vote buying has died out. Selfies change all that. If I give you ten bucks to vote for my favorite candidate for mayor, I can withhold payment until you show me a selfie proving that you voted for my guy.</p> <p>How big a deal is this? I don't know. Maybe we should go ahead and allow voting booth selfies. But the ban isn't just a dumb bureaucratic rule. It's a sensible attempt to prevent voter fraud that has very little cost.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:15:14 +0000 Kevin Drum 317526 at In Era of Trump, Competition for Stupidest Man Alive Heats Up <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>In the same category of cluelessness as "Keep the government out of my Medicare," one of my favorite dumb whinges comes from people who complain that the mainstream media isn't covering something&mdash;and then illustrate that "something" by linking to a piece in the <em>New York Times</em>. Stephen Moore, in a brave attempt to keep his title of Stupidest Man Alive in the era of Trump, provides us with this classic of the genre today:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="">@StephenMoore</a> on <a href="">@Varneyco</a> holds up today's <a href="">@washingtonpost</a>,laments that there are no stories about Obamacare premium increases<a href="">@ChuckLane1</a></p> &mdash; Matthew A. Duda (@nnw59) <a href="">October 26, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Every news outlet in America had a big headline about the Obamacare premium increases. It was plastered everywhere and blathered about endlessly on cable news. You could stay unaware of this only by hiding in a nearby fallout shelter like Kimmy Schmidt and not coming out for a week. As for the <em>Washington Post</em>, well:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_wapo_premium_increase.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>In fairness, this is <em>yesterday's</em> edition. The Post actually covered it <em>before</em> anyone else. I guess Moore somehow missed it.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:56:48 +0000 Kevin Drum 317521 at Correction: Obamacare Premiums Are Going Up About 0% For Most People <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Data! You want data! Sure, Obamacare premiums are going up and so are the subsidies. But <em>how much</em> are the subsidies going up? The chart below&mdash;which I want everyone to look at because it was a pain in the ass to create&mdash;shows this for the 15 states with the highest premium increases:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_obamacare_2017_premium_subsidy_increase_top_15.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>As you can see, subsidies are increasing more than premiums in every state&mdash;and by quite a bit. This comparison data is for a 27-year-old with an income of $25,000, and comes from Tables 6 and 12 <a href="" target="_blank">here.</a> (Arizona is literally off the chart: premiums increased 116 percent and subsidies increased 428 percent.) Here's the same chart for the 15 states with the smallest premium increases:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_obamacare_2017_premium_subsidy_increase_bottom_15.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 0px;"></p> <p>There are plenty of caveats here. Premiums and subsidies will be different for different kinds of households. Upper middle-class families don't get any subsidies at all. And this doesn't tell us what the average net increase is, once subsidies are accounted for.</p> <p>However, it gives us a pretty good idea that for a substantial majority of Obamacare users, the net amount they pay for health insurance in 2017 isn't going to be much more than it was this year. For many, in fact, it will be the same. For those who shop around, it's quite likely to be less.</p> <p>Bottom line: if your income is low enough to qualify for a subsidy, there's no need to panic over the Obamacare premium news. The higher premiums will help stabilize the market, and the cost will be covered almost entirely by Uncle Sam. Your pocketbook is safe.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Wed, 26 Oct 2016 03:46:36 +0000 Kevin Drum 317496 at Tweet of the Day: Most Obamacare Users Won't Pay Much More For Coverage Than They Did Last Year <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>This is from a guy who works for a healthcare advocacy group in New Mexico:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Just got off the phone w/ a consumer who was crying bc she couldn't afford a 25% increase. With subsidies, her premium went down 1%. <a href=""></a></p> &mdash; Colin Baillio (@colinb1123) <a href="">October 25, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Getting panicked calls all day about premium hikes. Every person I talked to was shielded by subsidies or on employer plan. <a href="">#headlinesmatter</a></p> &mdash; Colin Baillio (@colinb1123) <a href="">October 25, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script></blockquote> </blockquote> <p>I don't want to minimize the pain that this year's premium hikes are going to cause for a subset of insurance buyers. But the vast majority of low-to-mid-income Obamacare users are eligible for federal subsidies&mdash;and as premiums go up, so do their subsidies. They may end up paying a bit more in 2017 for their health coverage, but probably no more than a few percent.</p> <p>So yes: headlines matter. Or, at the very least, the first few paragraphs of news stories matter. Coverage of this issue should make it clear that the average price people <em>pay</em> will go up much less than 25 percent, and for low-income folks it probably won't go up at all.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:45:32 +0000 Kevin Drum 317481 at Long Haul Truck Drivers Are Scarily Close to Being Put Out of Business <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Last week, a self-driving truck delivered 50,000 cans of Budweiser from Loveland to Colorado Springs. This was obviously meant as a big FU to Coors, since the route "coincidentally" took all this frosty Bud right past Coors headquarters in Golden, Colorado. Most people, however, are interpreting this event as merely technological: it represents the dawn of the era of self-driving trucks. <a href="" target="_blank">Tim Lee comments:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>According to Otto&rsquo;s blog post on the trip, &ldquo;our professional driver was out of the driver&rsquo;s seat for the entire 120-mile journey down I-25, monitoring the self-driving system from the sleeper berth in the back.&rdquo;</p> <p>But this doesn&rsquo;t mean the nation&rsquo;s truck drivers need to start working on their r&eacute;sum&eacute;s. Technology like this may eventually displace human truck drivers, but the tech is <strong>several years away</strong> from causing mass unemployment. The key reason is that Otto&rsquo;s self-driving technology is initially limited to highways. When the truck reaches ordinary city streets, it hands control over to a human driver to handle tricky traffic situations. This means that even after a truck is outfitted with Otto&rsquo;s self-driving technology, it will still need a human driver in the truck.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hmmm. "Several years" sounds ominously near-term, so truck drivers might want to start worrying about their jobs right now. Beyond that, there's a way this could put truckers out of business well before that. Here's how.</p> <p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_cubs_indians_0.jpg" style="margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Pick a route that has a lot of truck traffic. Let's say, Chicago to Cleveland. Outside of each city, you build a big truck depot and dispatch center. In Chicago, teamsters drive the trucks from the city out to the depot. Autopilots drive the trucks to the Cleveland depot, where a driver gets in and takes the truck to its destination. Rinse and repeat. The job of a truck driver is to drive back and forth from destinations in the city out to the depot, which they can do five or six times a day. Trucking firms save a ton of money even though the autopilot is designed for highway driving only.</p> <p>Building the depots would be cheap and easy, since you don't really need much there. It's basically just a dispatch center. You could pretty easily have hundreds of them dotted across the country near all of our biggest cities. The only thing that would stop this from happening is the knowledge that they'll only last a few years before they're put out of business by fully automated trucks that can go from dock to dock with no human intervention. Either way, truck drivers are in big trouble.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:26:41 +0000 Kevin Drum 317476 at Here's My 11-Word, 1-Chart Plan for Fixing Obamacare <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>There's been a lot of talk about "fixing" Obamacare lately. Here's my two-step plan:</p> <ol><li>Increase the subsidy levels.</li> <li>Increase the penalty for not buying insurance.</li> </ol><p>That would pretty much do it. I could add lots of other small-bore things that need some tweaking, but why bother? These two things would do most of the job&mdash;and Republicans will never agree to them. They won't agree to any of the small-bore stuff either. So take your pick. You can support a detailed 11-point plan for Obamacare that will never get passed, or you can support my 11-word plan that will also never get passed.</p> <p>But since we're all lightweight wonks around here, we should take a guess at <em>how much</em> we need to change the subsidy and penalty levels to make everything work. Basically, Obamacare's big problem is that not enough young people are ponying up for insurance. To fix this, we need to get to a point where it's cheaper for young people to buy insurance than it is to pay the penalty. This can be done by either increasing subsidies or increasing the penalty. Here's my swag at what it would take:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_obamacare_penalty_vs_subsidy.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 40px;"></p> <p>You could increase subsidies by 100 percent and leave the penalty alone, or you could increase the penalty 250 percent and leave the subsidies alone. Or you can pick any point in between.</p> <p>In reality, you could probably get by with smaller numbers, since nearly everyone will sign up if the penalty is within shouting distance of the net premium cost. You don't have to literally make the penalty as high as the premium cost. I also assumed silver coverage in this chart, and you can assume lower numbers if you're happy with kids buying bronze coverage.<sup>1</sup></p> <p>Anyway, that's it. This chart is my proposed Obamacare reform. It represents something of an upper bound, and I imagine that someone who has actual working knowledge of all this stuff could do a lot better. Call your congressman today and demand that this chart be made into law.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>I'm not, especially, which is why I went with silver.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:21:00 +0000 Kevin Drum 317431 at We Live in a Gentlemen's C- Universe <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Physicist Eugene Wigner is the author of a famous paper called "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences." <a href="" target="_blank">Brad DeLong comments:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>We are all, potentially, the Friends of Wigner. It has always seemed to me that anyone with the empathy and imagination to think of him or herself as one of the Friends of Wigner is then driven inescapably to either "quantum <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_krona_creation_universe.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #000000; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">mechanics is totally wrong wrong wrong wrong and just predicts well for incomprehensible reasons" <strong>or "many-worlds".</strong> There really are no other alternatives, or at least what alternatives there are are even stranger.</p> </blockquote> <p>Au contraire. I consider quantum mechanics to be evidence that we are all constructs in somebody else's virtual reality. All of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics are easily explainable if the universe is merely a computer-generated world subject to the whims of a programmer.</p> <p>The only question left is <em>why</em> the programmer has created such a world. Whimsy? Amusement? As a test of some sociology theorem? Bad design?</p> <p>Perhaps the last one is most likely. In reality, quantum mechanics is a desperate, ugly patch glued onto a poorly working universe by a stressed freshman at 2 am. Basically, the poor kid waited until the last minute, as freshmen everywhere do, and hadn't really understood much of the text for the required "Plenum Creation and Maintenance" class. The result was a mess that kept falling apart even for small taus of only a few billion years. One thing led to another, and eventually the whole project became a Rube Goldberg monstrosity of black holes, 11 dimensions, wavicles, arbitrary speed-of-light caps on velocity, and observer-induced wave collapse as a last-ditch way of reducing the computing power needed to run it.</p> <p>In the end it received a gentlemen's C- from a sympathetic professor. That's the universe we live in.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:27:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 317416 at