The String Section

From the WSJournal, via NWFlorida Daily News (!)

(AP) - Nobel physicist Wolfgang Pauli didn't suffer fools gladly. Fond of calling colleagues' work "wrong" or "completely wrong," he saved his worst epithet for work so sloppy and speculative it is "not even wrong."

That's how mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University describes string theory. In his book, "Not Even Wrong," published in the U.K. this month and due in the U.S. in September, he calls the theory "a disaster for physics."

A year or two ago, that would have been a fringe opinion, motivated by sour grapes over not sitting at physics' equivalent of the cool kids' table. But now, after two decades in which string theory has been the doyenne of best-seller lists and the dominant paradigm in particle physics, Mr. Woit has company.

"When it comes to extending our knowledge of the laws of nature, we have made no real headway" in 30 years, writes physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, in his book, "The Trouble with Physics," also due in September. "It's called hitting the wall."

ATSRTWT

(nod to SdM, who seems to have lost his mind)

Rent-seeking

My spiffy, splashy new essay on EconLib, about rent-seeking, goes up officially tomorrow.

But, in EXCLUSIVE for M. End readers.....you can read it a day early!

Here is the essay. And I would be interested to know what you think!

Write Your Own Headline

I tried to think of just the right headline for this, but....
So, I am soliciting comments. Help me out, in comments: what should the title for this story be? Winner gets a special mention.

Former Judge Donald D. Thompson, a veteran of 23 years on the bench, is on trial on charges he used a penis pump on himself in the courtroom while sitting in judgment of others....
Thompson's former court reporter, Lisa Foster, wiped away tears as she described tracing an unfamiliar "sh-sh" in the courtroom to her boss. She testified that between 2001 and 2003 she saw Thompson expose himself at least 15 times.
"I was really shocked and I was kind of scared because it was so bizarre," said Foster.
She testified that during a trial in 2002, she heard the pump during the emotional testimony of a murdered toddler's grandfather.
The grandfather "was getting real teary-eyed, and the judge was up there pumping on that pump," she said. "It was sickening."
The allegations came to light after a police officer who was in Thompson's court heard pumping sounds and took photos of the device during a break in the proceedings.
Thompson took the stand in his own defense, saying the device was a gag gift from a longtime friend with whom he had joked about erectile dysfunction. He said he kept the pump under the bench or in his office but didn't use it.
"In 20-20 hindsight, I should have thrown it away," he said....
...Dr. S. Edward Dakil, a urologist called as an expert witness, repeatedly prompted laughter from the jury when discussion turned to the penis pump. Dakil defended use of the device after defense attorney Clark Brewster said it was an out-of-date treatment for erectile dysfunction.
"I still use those," Dakil testified.
Brewster paused.
"Not you, personally?" he asked.
"No," Dakil responded as jurors laughed. "I recommend those as a urologist."

ATSRTWT
(An anony-nod to my main man, who has cause)

The Dish

Spent the last week out at Stanford, for the IHS "Social Change" workshop.

Best ever (I have done the workshop several times, though all previous incarnations have been at UVA-Charlottesville).

Wonderful time. If you are a grad student, sign up next year when the app comes up on the web site.

The highlight: for me, it was a four mile hike with David Schmidz, the best philosopher of classical liberalism we have in the world today. We hiked up around "the Dish" on a fantastic blue-sky-with-breeze-so-can-see-the-bay-and-the-coastal-range-with-fog-and-birds-everywhere. I learned things from David, I saw things, it was great. (He knows a lot about birds, in addition to CL).

(One downside: the dorms at Stanford are the worst place I have stayed in at least 25 years. Incredibly smelly, a unique cocktail of complex noisomeness. It smelled bad, but when they cleaned the thing midweek it appeared to disturb the ghosts of bathrooms past, and then it was much worse. It was offal. Reminds me of a Stanford friend I did NOT see this time. Buy me a beer sometime, and I'll tell you the story of AR and "the bathtub, the cow, and the chainsaw.")

I DID get to see a bunch of other friends. A partial list (if I left you off, I'm sorry!): Clark Durant (Clark showed me the Dish hike first, bless his heart), Chris Nelson, John Nye, Mary Shirley, John Tomasi, Barry Weingast, Terrence Watson, Will Wilkinson, and Paul Zak. And, of course, the inexplicable Nigel Ashford, one of my favorite people. And made a bunch of new friends. (In particular: Courtney, you are a crazy person. I hope the poop soup in the backyard was receded to manageable levels, and that your manly Indiana guy Radley figured out how to get Isabel and Harper walked even in the rain).

Wonderful all around. IHS is doing a great job with this program.

We Don't Get the Smart Ones

A heartwarming story of stupidity and justice (from the SJ Mercury News):

Man arrested after he returns to eatery for items

A San Jose man might have gotten away with not paying at a Denny's restaurant in Campbell, except for the items he left on the table.

Steven Michael Thomas, 19, of San Jose allegedly left the Bascom Avenue eatery without paying a $26 bill. But he was cited for suspicion of defrauding an innkeeper when he apparently returned to retrieve his keys and a traffic ticket with his name on it.

``We don't get the smart ones,'' Campbell police Capt. Russ Patterson said.

Thomas, Patterson said, had eaten at the all-night diner with a group of friends and walked out without paying.

The group returned to drop Thomas off in a back parking lot, probably, Patterson said, so Thomas could retrieve his things.

There are several questions I want to ask:

1. $26? Why would anyone risk a pretty serious misdemeanor charge for $26? You ought at least to get your money's worth. Go someplace nicer than Denny's, if you aren't going to pay.
2. A traffic ticket with his name on it? That probably means a car. Keys...ditto. But apparently he wasn't the driver in this criminal gang of Denny's check stiffers. What did he do, clean out his pockets? Were his jeans so tight he couldn't carry a traffic ticket in his pocket?
3. Why is Thomas the fall guy? After all, the group is responsible, presumably. At least, they are all equally responsible. Did Thomas tell the others he was going to pay, and then just walk out giggling? If so, I can understand how this might have worked:
Thomas, in car, after leaving: "Dadgum it! I forgot my keys, and that traffic ticket I had to take out of my pants because they are too tight."
Other person in car: "We'll just go back and get it. We are white people, and the staff at Denny's is friendly and helpful to white people."
Thomas, thinking quickly: "....um...okay." And then he walks into the Denny's, because he didn't want to admit to his friends that his tight pants had prevented him from bringing his wallet, which was why he didn't pay the bill he promised them he would pay.

Now, this last is JUST a reconstruction. So, we can't be sure. I'm just sayin'.

We Support All Free Speech That We Support

Republicans don't have a Herbert Marcuse to give them cover (however imaginary) for their efforts at repression of spending and speech.
Excerpt from the linked piece:

Republicans, of course, used to be against allowing politicians to decide what's good (legal) and bad (illegal) speech -- because, oddly enough, when politicians have that power, they tend to come to the conclusion that any speech that could cost them their jobs is the bad kind. A president named George H.W. Bush vetoed campaign-finance reform. Speaker Newt Gingrich did everything he could to keep such bills off the House floor in the 1990s, and Majority Leader Trent Lott did the same in the Senate.

But, now, all the Repubs have is this guy.

Or, soon they will. He has 2008 Prez written all over him.

(nod to Anonymous. You know who you are....and so do THEY)

It Just Gets Better...

Remember the Ohio election, with the guy whose kids didn't vote and the election ended in a tie? Well it gets better (or worse) when you see who his opponent is...

Her goal: eliminate drunk driving laws on weekends.

My question: why do people GO ON THAT SHOW? Why, why, why?

(thanks to JP)

A Burr Under Their Saddle

Curious sequence of events....

1. Senator Richard Burr, R-NC, introduces bill on labeling for food products. It may be a good idea, or a bad idea. Federal preemption of states' power, but lots of food is shipped interstate, and having accurate and uniform labels might help both companies and consumers. Consumers know where to look for info, all the info is there, and companies don't have to put different labels on cans or bags depending on which state they are going to send the thing.

2. Raleigh News and Observer delivers its opinion on this activity. "Bad Taste", says the finest paper east of Charlotte.

3. Senator Burr sends a letter to the editor, responding to the editorial.

4. N&O editor Steve Ford edits the letter fairly significantly (my own subjective judgment), but when the letter is printed the standard disclaimer ("Length limits waived to permit a fuller response") is appended. Here is the letter that was published.

Now, separate from the merits, on which reasonable people might differ, the "We waived our usual limits" bit might be taken to imply the letter was NOT edited. This implication is at best...well...implied, since it is not explicit. So, no actual skullduggery. But a little icky.

(Full disclosure: (a) I am not really a fan of the Senator, though I think he is right on this bill. (b) I have written for the N&O pretty often, and have found their editing of my work to be both entirely fair and extremely helpful)

5. Senator Burr buys a full page ad to supply the text of the full letter. If you compare it with the letter the N&O printed, it is (again, IMHO, as in #4 above) significantly different.

My questions:

a. The N&O reserves the right to edit letters for length; fair enough. But why edit the letter for length, but then still put in the "length disclaimer"? Possible answer: because the editing was about content, not length?

b. If you can edit letters' content to suit your own editorial perspective, without informing either the letter writer or the readers that you have done so, then how honest is this whole process?

c. What kind of econo-challenged person would believe that having different labeling standards in every state is a good thing? Why not have 50 state currencies, and let each state decide whether to drive on the left or right? Odd that the N&O has suddenly discovered the "states' rights" cause.

Truly Quirky

One of the great things about blogs is that some of them are TRULY quirky.

So...to the first birthday of UW, by Dr. Nokes: Many happy, and quirky, returns!

Democratic Agenda: 404

You go, Betsy!

Neighbor, Neighbor

Now I was walking down a dusty road
when along came a neighbor of mine.
He saw me walkin' with my head hung down,
he just had to stop and pass the time.
(ZZ Top, "Neighbor, Neighbor")

From the West Bank:

A Haaretz inquiry reveals that the Israel Defense Forces has increased its use of home demolitions during West Bank arrest raids since a ban on the forced entry of Palestinian civilians into homes of barricaded fugitives.

When the High Court of Justice banned the "neighbor procedure" eight months ago, senior Israel Defense Forces officers warned that this would likely endanger soldiers' lives. Haaretz has learned that new arrest procedures are not any more dangerous to soldiers, but that is because the IDF is using more aggressive tactics during the actual operations.

IDF sources say that the ban diminishes the tactical options of the officers. "The result is that very quickly we escalate in means, in other words, we use the bulldozers," one officer says.

In early October 2005, the High Court justices accepted the petition of human rights organizations against the "neighbor procedure." This tactic, employed hundreds of times in the territories during the first intifada, involved forcing the Palestinian neighbors of wanted militants to enter the homes of the barricaded fugitives in an effort to convince them to surrender, and consequently, also bring out information for the army on the conditions inside the home.

This forcing of Palestinian civilians to act as "agents" for the IDF drew intense public criticism, especially when a Palestinian from a village in the northern West Bank was shot and killed by his barricaded neighbor during the application of the "neighbor procedure."

The High Court ban forced the army to adopt new arrest methods, which do not endanger soldiers' lives as military sources had previously warned, says a senior IDF officer serving in the West Bank because "they take no chances. Not one of us will send a soldier to check a home in which it is known that a living, armed fugitive is barricaded, before we have carried out very aggressive action."

Unintended consequences; ick. The Court was clearly right to outlaw the neighbor procedure. And the IDF is sensible to use bulldozers sooner as a result. The Americans would clearly do the same thing. The troops are in an impossible position.

ATSRTWT

(nod to RL)

I don't think they are kidding...

Wow. Quite a site. They MUST be kidding, but still...

Here are the first four FAQs and the answers:

1. Can I get a signed photograph from Leader Kim Jong IL?
Soon the KFA shop will offer such article. (NOTE FROM THE END: THIS MEANS "NO."
2. Can I send a letter to North Korea and get a penpal in North Korea?
You can send the letter if you have an valid address and contact person. We provide no service for penpal friends. (NOTE FROM THE END: THIS ALSO MEANS "NO.")
3. Can I emigrate to North Korea and live in North Korea?
It's possible only in very special situations and having honor/merits. You must send a request letter stating your reasons, together with your complete CV, copy of your passport and certificates to korea@korea-dpr.com (CERTIFICATES?)
4. Can I work in North Korea as a teacher/interpreter/(other)?
No. (NOW, THERE IS A SIMPLE ANSWER)

Thanks! That's all very helpful.

ATSRTWT.

(nod to MWT)

Cheesed Off: Poblanos Onuf

I have been at a conference here in Park City, UT for the past week. Very pleasant. We are staying at The Lodges, which are very nice, and the conference (a combination of works on slavery and American political development, followed in the evening by student presentations and then a dinner that I get to cook for 16 people) is wonderful.

And, we get to spend time with UVA's Professor Peter Onuf, who is such a pleasure to learn from. So, to Liberty Fund, our sponsor: Thankyou, Thankyou, Thankyou!

But, to the real matter: like I said, I cook every night. And I made this one dish that was so easy, and turned out so well, I thought I would put it up here. (It is a vegetarian, though not vegan, dish. And you would have to like cheese a LOT to enjoy this.) The name should be self-explanatory.

POBLANOS ONUF

8 large poblanos, washed, cut in half, deseeded and destemmed
8 ozs Monterrey Jack cheese
1 cup milk
3 large red peppers
bunch of green onions
1 large yellow onion
olive oil
1/2 lb sliced provolone cheese (8 slices or so)
1/2 cup bread crumbs
2 tablespoons chopped cilantro
salt

1. Place poblanos, open side up, in large flat baking pan (if the peppers are two crowded, you may have to use two pans. They need to be separated by a little space). Drizzle with olive oil (should be little puddles of olive oil in cavity of peppers), and sprinkle with salt.
BROIL in oven, watching that you carmelize the edges and sides of the peppers without burning them. Oil should be bubbling, but if it catches on fire that is bad. Remove from broiler.

2. Melt cheese and milk together in large bowl (careful, as it will boil over) in microwave. Cook for three minutes on high, stir, and cook some more until the mixture is fairly smooth.

3. Chop red peppers, green onions, yellow onion, saute in olive oil until they all just start to soften. Don't overcook. Salt the mixture.

4. Pour milk/cheese mixture over onion/pepper mixture, over low heat, and stir until mixed well.

5. Pour onion/pepper/milk/cheese mixture over broiled peppers (make sure peppers/oil have cooled enough that this doesn't splatter!). Fill the cavities of each pepper evenly.

6. Put 1/2 slice of provolone over each 1/2 pepper. Sprinkle with bread crumbs.

7. Cook at 375F in oven for 20 minutes, or until provolone starts to brown and whole mixture is bubbly.

(So, Kathy, there you go. I typed it up!)

To Be Fair

The post below (whose "essential truth", as Dan Rather would put it, I stand behind), may very well give the wrong impression of my wife.

My wife is very, very pretty. She is also smart, top of her class in college and law school, an attorney for the U.S. Treasury Department. She has worked as a litigator for the IRS in bankruptcy court, and as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney.

And, lest you think I pick on her, I should describe an incident where the shoe was on the other foot.

We have a baseball field, as I have written about before, down in Chatham County.

I had built, spending about $100 for materials, and three hours of sweaty time with a drill, saw, or hammer, a "nail drag", for smoothing out the infield. This was actually the second version, because the first was too light and flimsy.

The new version, about 200 pounds of wood, steel, and chain, was ready to go. I backed up the van, and hooked up. My wife was watching. "Do you know what you are doing?" she asked, encouragingly.

Grinding my teeth, I pressed the accelerator. Perhaps a little harder than necessary. As soon as the chain drew up taut, the nails dug into the clay and the whole front crosspiece (three 5 foot 2x10s, with 8 inch nails sticking out) snapped right off like a slingshot. The rest of the assembly splintered, because without the support of the front brace the weight was too much. And the chained/nailed/2x10s flipped up and put a huge bash in the back of the van. It sounded like a cannon. Or so the neighbors assured me later. Inside the van, I was deafened.

I opened the door, looked back at the wreckage.

Then, I looked over at the wife. She has her hands on her knees, and is laughing her head off. "Perfect!" she yelled over to me. "Good job! You should patent that design!"

So...don't be feeling sorry for my wife. She can take care of herself. That's all I'm saying. Feel free to feel sorry for me, however.

The Key to Marriage: Just Remember "Biggus Dickus"

Now, see: I can tell what you are thinking already, and that's just not where I'm going here.

For those who saw Monty Python's "Life of Brian", the Biggus Dickus scene was one of the classic set pieces, often recited in full at high speed by geeks like certain philosophy professors.

There was this one scene....you know the one. Remember this, with Pilate saying Roman names and the guard trying not to laugh?


Here is an excerpt from the script (scene 12):

PILATE: So, your father was a Woman. Who was he?
BRIAN: He was a centurion in the Jerusalem Garrisons.
PILATE: Weally? What was his name? BRIAN: 'Nortius Maximus'.
CENTURION: Ahh, ha ha!
PILATE: Centuwion, do we have anyone of that name in the gawwison?
CENTURION: Well, no, sir.
PILATE: Well, you sound vewy sure. Have you checked?
CENTURION: Well, no, sir. Umm, I think it's a joke, sir,... like, uh, 'Sillius Soddus' or... 'Biggus Dickus', sir. GUARD #4: [chuckling]
PILATE: What's so... funny about 'Biggus Dickus'?
CENTURION: Well, it's a joke name, sir.
PILATE: I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called 'Biggus Dickus'.
GUARD #4: [chuckling]
PILATE: Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.

The fact is, situations like this happen all the time in marriage. Your wife is Pilate (if you don't understand that, you have BIGGUS PROBLEMUS). And you are Guard #4. You must not laugh, or reveal by facial expression that...well, consider two recent examples at the Munger house. (These are both verbatim truth, by the way).

1. My wife: "I saw Eric Clapton is going to be at the RBC Center in October. Do you think the boys (our sons) would like to go? I don't know if they know who Eric Clapton is."

Me: "Well, they like that 'Cream' album a lot. They listen to that all the time."

My wife: "Oh, is Cream playing too?"

WARNING!! WARNING!!
BIGGUSDICKUSALERTBIGGUSDICKUSALERT!!

Fortunately, I was driving, so I had an excuse to check the left mirror. For about 30 seconds. But you can't just leave the question hanging. "Well, Clapton played with Cream, and sang some."

Crisis averted!

The point is that, when you are about to burst out laughing, inappropriately, since it would result in you becoming abstinent for a week or more, just say to yourself, "BIGGUSDICKUSBIGGUSDICKUSBIGGUSDICKUS!!", and you will avoiding having to go to gladiator school.

2. All right, so there's the primary threat averted. But you have to be aware that you aren't out of the woods yet. You have to be on the lookout for the DEADLY TOPPER! Consider what Pilate said next, in the same scene:

PILATE: What about you? Do you find it... wisible... when I say the name...
'Biggus'...
GUARD #3:[chuckle]
PILATE: ...'Dickus'?
GUARD #1 and GUARD #2: [chuckling]
PILATE: He has a wife, you know. You know what she's called? She's called... 'Incontinentia'. 'Incontinentia Buttocks'.
GUARDS: [laughing] (SENT TO GLADIATOR SCHOOL! DOOMED! DON'T LAUGH!)

So, let's illustrate the deadly topper. Another incident (also reported verbatim). Let's see how YOU do.

My wife comes downstairs in the morning, looking tired. Fortunately, I have made the tea. She gets some tea, and sighs, obviously upset. "I hardly slept. I had the worst dream." She looks at me, expectantly.

"I'm sorry; that's tough when you have a scary dream. It's so hard to go back to sleep," I say, smoothly, giving up on reading the paper.

Wife: "Well, I dreamed that I kept going from room to room, looking, looking. I looked in all my closets." (NOTE: not a dream, entirely. She does have three closets in our house.)

"What was wrong?" I asked.

Nearly crying, she said, "I couldn't find that cute little black top I like so much. I kept looking and looking, but I couldn't find it. How could I sleep after a dream like that?"

(BIGGUSDICKUS!BIGGUSDICKUS!BIGGUSDICKUS!STUDY THE PAPER!)

But, again, you have to respond. I am barely under control, but I keep it together.

"That's a bad dream, when you can't find something. It is upsetting. I'm sorry, dear."

She is studying my face intently, fully aware of her Pilatian power in this case. Then, the topper (and I am NOT making this up): "Well, I was also distracted, because I was being chased by a wild boar. I think it killed me."

WAH! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I lose it. And, of course, staying sympathetic through the "I couldn't find the cute black top" tragedy gets you no credit, BECAUSE YOU LAUGHED AT THE "I was killed by wild boar" topper. WATCH OUT FOR THE TOPPER.

And, for the next week, move over nice dog. A mean old dog is moving in.

Queering the Results was Not Specifically Prohibited

On the problems of electronic voting....Where will Alex go to school?

An excerpt:

As for the question at hand -- Where will Alex go to school? -- the will, chutzpah, and bodacious craft of the voting public will be respected. A careful check of the applicable rulebook indicates that queering the results was not specifically prohibited. And by tradition, engineers, hackers and techfolk will assume that in a problem-solving situation of this nature, there is no box out of which they are not expected to climb. The Doonesbury Town Hall thanks all those who took the time and trouble to vote, even those who voted only once.

Ms. Doonesbury will be attending MIT.

(Nod to RL, who after all went to Rochester)

Podcast Bears Fruit: Opportunity Cost is Not An Easy Concept

A note from a loyal listener (actually, a loyal listener to Russ Roberts' terrific PODCASTS, of which I was privileged to do one).

I found your podcast discussion of ticket scalping pretty interesting. I particularly enjoyed the part of the conversation where you two discussed the mystery of gift-giving;, why do people prefer to receive a gift rather than money, even though the standard econ model might lead one to believe that the recipient can be made no worse off by the money, and probably better off?

That particular puzzle reminded me of something that happened to me about a year ago. My Mom had asked me to pick her up and take her to the airport, as she didn't want to pay to leave her car parked at the airport for 3 days. I thought about it and realized that I valued my time more than the cost of parking her car, so I offered to pay for her parking, rather than drive her. I thought that was a perfect solution, though my mom didn't quite agree. She was pretty offended. I started thinking about it, and realized that a lot in life is like that. Most of us think little of asking a friend to help us move, but would never ask a friend for the money to hire a mover (even if our friend would *prefer* to hire a mover, rather than help himself!).

I wonder what's going on in these situations? Steven Pinker has referred to two distinct types of exchange - one refers to impersonal market-type exchanges, and the other refers to familial-type exchanges. I wonder if the conflict is caused by a confusion of the mores that govern each type of exchange?

I love the podcasts...they're the only thing keeping me sane during my long drive from Akron to Cleveland. Thanks!

Sincerely,

Michael Stack

That really is interesting, and very true. My parents had no conception of their time having any value, because it really didn't. Raised in the depression years, ANYTHING they could do to save money was worth it.

But if my time has a value of $50/hour (and it surely does, or more), then it costs me $100 or more to drop off my wife and pick her up at the airport. (She travels quite a bit on business). So, she takes taxis. The accounting costs are higher ($50 for round trip taxi from Munger castle to RDU, compared to nearly zero for the MM shuttle), but the real costs are less.

You just can't help some people.....

From THE HILL, the DC publication

A Foxx in the luxury world
By Jeff Dufour

One of the most egregious examples of abuse that came to light last year during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was displaced people and other victims spending their government-issued debit cards on Louis Vuitton purses and other luxury goods.

And Rep. Virginia Foxx, the grandmotherly freshman Republican from North Carolina, has had enough. Foxx has introduced an amendment, known as the "Louis Vuitton Amendment," to the homeland-security appropriations bill that would specifically restrict that type of misuse of funds.

It reads, quite simply, "None of the funds made available to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in this act may be used to purchase a Louis Vuitton handbag."

Foxx spokeswoman Amy Auth explained that the language is designed to "highlight the abuse that occurred with the debit cards last year so that it doesn't happen again."

A spokeswoman for Louis Vuitton did not return phone calls. Perhaps she's offended that anyone would pay for one of their bags with a debit card. How déclassé!

ATSRTWT

An interesting question, from an economics/libertarian perspective: suppose that a destitute person thinks that an LV handbag is THE most important possession of all, and would spend food money to get said bag. Should the state outlaw this? The debit cards were not food vouchers, but rather are simply subsidized cash.

So, is the problem the LV handbags, or the debit cards themselves? Libertarian minds want to know....

(Nod to JP, who rumor has it wears Louis Vuitton boxers)

Hoax? Or Is the Left Just Phoning It In Now?

Greenpeace's fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown

Before President Bush touched down in Pennsylvania Wednesday to promote his nuclear energy policy, the environmental group Greenpeace was mobilizing.

"This volatile and dangerous source of energy" is no answer to the country's energy needs, shouted a Greenpeace fact sheet decrying the "threat" posed by the Limerick reactors Bush visited.

But a factoid or two later, the Greenpeace authors were stumped while searching for the ideal menacing metaphor.

We present it here exactly as it was written, capital letters and all: "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."

Had Greenpeace been hacked by a nuke-loving Bush fan? Or was this proof of Greenpeace fear-mongering?

The aghast Greenpeace spokesman who issued the memo, Steve Smith, said a colleague was making a joke by inserting the language in a draft that was then mistakenly released.

"Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, I don't even think it's funny," Smith said.

That's their defense? "I don't even think it's funny"? Where's Michael Mooore? It was HIS thesis that scare-mongering is the tactic of the right.

It strikes me that the left is becoming more and more reflexive, and formulaic. They LOVE having GWB as President. They don't have to do anything but feel smug. And every time unemployment goes up, it makes the left happy. It just means the revolution (which the left plans to watch on TV) will come that much sooner.

ATSRTWT

(Nod to JP)

Self-interest is malleable, but the pursuit of it is not

Nice article by Russ Roberts, at EconLib.

Towards the end of the 18th century, England began sending convicts to Australia. The transportation was privately provided but publicly funded. A lot of convicts died along the way, from disease due to overcrowding, poor nutrition and little or no medical treatment. Between 1790 and 1792, 12% of the convicts died, to the dismay of many good-hearted English men and women who thought that banishment to Australia shouldn't be a death sentence. On one ship 37% perished.

How might captains be convinced to take better care of their human cargo?

You might lecture the captains on the cruelty of death, and the clergy from their pulpits did just that. You might increase the funds allotted by the state provided to the captains based on the number of passengers they carried. You might urge the captains to spend more of those funds for the care of their passengers. (Some entrepreneurial captains hoarded food and medicine meant for the convicts and sold them upon arrival in Australia.) You might urge the captains to spend the money more carefully. Shame them into better behavior.

But a different approach was tried. The government decided to pay the captains a bonus for each convict that walked off the boat in Australia alive.

This simple change worked like a charm. Mortality fell to virtually zero. In 1793, on the first three boats making the trip to Australia under the new set of incentives, a single convict died out of 322 transported, an amazing improvement.

I don't think the captains got any more compassionate. They were just as greedy and mean-spirited as before. But under the new regulations, they had an incentive to act as if they were compassionate. The change in incentives aligned the self-interest of the captains with the self-interest of the convicts. Convicts were suddenly more valuable alive than dead. The captains responded to the incentives.

ATSRTWT

Munger's "Fundamental Human Problem": How do we design, or maintain, institutions that make self-interested individual action not inconsistent with the welfare of the community?

Marcuse's rules for journal editors: Speech be free, be it agree with me!!

From the FREAKONOMICS blog (excerpt):

Your editor is deeply distressed by the style of the TSSM. In particular, consider the following incident: Several weeks ago, I encountered a thin-skinned scholar, who was driving in his car as I walked to my own car in a parking lot. Apparently unimpressed by the writings of Miss Manners, this scholar opened his car window, loudly and repeatedly declared strong views about the composition of my head and the phylum in which I should be classified, and rapidly drove his car so close to me that it did, on the third such maneuver, brush against my pants. I wonder still, is this thin-skinned scholar just a talented and kind-hearted stunt-driver with unusual ideas about parking? Or does he reveal true malice, a will to evoke fear and a willingness to use his car to damage a pedestrian? These are questions that I cannot answer. But answers are suggested by his emailed statement (with copies to others) that he would be pleased to see my body lifeless and in pieces. More to the point, these are questions that no editor should have to consider. This thinskinned scholar has wasted great volumes of an editor’s time and effort, reviled the editor in numerous hostile email letters (with copies sent to a variety of others), delayed publication of Sociological Methodology, wasted hours of time by talented and highly-paid lawyers, and badly strained relations between an editor who sought to uphold the principles under which scholarly journals are published, and the ASA executive officer, who sought to save the ASA the expense and trouble of a lawsuit by an enraged scholar.

ATSRTWT

I did have one incident so far as Editor, of Public Choice. I had turned down a paper, with perhaps more of a flourish than was required. I suggested, without sending the paper out for review, that the paper was so far beneath the standards of the journal that no reviewers' time should be wasted. It was just worthless.

Inexplicably (perhaps because the author was cited by someone else, a fecund setting for finding new referees?)(*), three weeks later I asked THIS SAME ABUSED AUTHOR if s/he would review a paper for PUBLIC CHOICE.

Abused author replied, in hurt but humorous terms: "Is there not a contradiction in the claim that my paper was so bad it could not be reviewed, followed by an invitation for me to review the papers of OTHERS? I would be flattered, if I were not simply confused." Yes, well, bother. I apologized, and pledged not to trouble the aggreived amore.

*In which case, NOT inexplicably, since this would be an explicabation.

(thanks to JAR, who is thick-skinned. thank goodness.)