the audacity of government

good morning,

i didn't have time to load my usual podcasts this morning, so i re-listened to the podcast that really got me into this american life, called The Audacity of Government. In case anyone missed it at the time, its worth hearing.

a little bit of a strange time

Today, im a little politically overwhelmed - not that its impeding my ability to absorb new information but more that i feel a little saturated with perspectives and am thus unable to offer any of my own. mostly because ive been inundated with so much press feedback and interpretation of both the bailout saga and the first debate that its a little difficult to express fresh opinions. so in this post, after a few direct thoughts, i'll attempt to highlight a few tangential, yet interesting pieces ive encountered in the last few days.

The Bailout
honestly, im not exactly sure how to react, since responses are all over the place. On one hand, I have come to believe that a bailout is probably necessary - I was roughly convinced of this by a very effective Planey Money podcast, which talked about two very interesting ideas: that the slowing of the economy validates ben bernanke's "financial accelerator" theory, and that the seriousness of the situation is reflected in money market funds "breaking the buck."

So, a bailout is probably helpful. But it has had detractors on two sides. House Republicans oppose what they view as the socialization of America, and Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now articulated a disappointment with the lack of taxpayer and homeowner protection, bankruptcy protection, and ceo income capping. I might be way off here, but it sounds somewhat like Republicans don't want the government getting involved, and Democrats are annoyed that their involvement doesn't seem to be defending taxpayers as much as it should.

The Candidates
How did the candidates react to this? Well, John McCain returned to Washington last week, and attempted to co-opt the bailout proposal that emerged as evidence of his bipartisanship, despite the fact that a proposal had existed before he ever showed up (and temporarily collapsed on his arrival). All weekend, we heard how great John McCain was at bringing Republicans and Democrats together. Yesterday, we saw that that was horseshit, as House GOP members summarily rejected the proposal. So, naturally, after taking credit for encouraging bipartisanship, McCain would recognize his failure to successfully achieve it, right?

Not really - his only response to the failed bill was a hilarious statement in which he blamed Obama for Democratic partisanship. Wow. I loved the analogy (can't remember whose) that compared the hypocrisy of that statement to the guy who murdered his parents, then begged for clemency because "he was an orphan." So, McCain's an idiot, and lets not waste anymore time with that.

(EDIT: This morning, McCain released a statement echoing Obama's FDIC proposal below, so I'll back off of the 'idiot' comment. Of course, he'll probably take credit for this proposal, and I reserve the right to put 'idiot' right back out there when that happens.)

Obama, meanwhile, released a very smart suggestion yesterday, calling for the FDIC limit to be raised to $250,000 in order to protect small businesses. A measured, thoughtful, reasonable response. HOW IS THIS ELECTION CLOSE? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Anyways. The crisis of today raises parallels with the Great Depression and FDR's landmark New Deal legislation. So, should we be looking for Obama to be an FDR-type president? Here are some interesting articles. The first discusses the New Deal and its appropriateness in a modern context. The second discusses a call from progressive Democrats for resurrection of New Deal era legislation. The final one asks how Obama might implement some of FDR's policies. The truth is, though, you're probably not going to see much of this behavior. Obama isn't a proponent of government over-regulation. As has been discussed before, he's a University of Chicago style Democrat, believing largely in the power of markets. I think you will see an increase in government oversight and consumer protection, but other than that, don't expect to see the market in chains. (For the record, I think that this is probably a good thing. So do some dudes from Freakonomics, and they're very smart.)

I guess this stuff isn't as tangential as I thought. Alright, some random other thoughts:

1. Lay off of Bill Clinton, already! Look, Im pretty unashamed with my Clinton homerism, but honestly, why is it the end of the world that his endorsement of Obama is a pragmatic one? There are more than enough people with (justifiable) Obama crushes. I would think that a few people out on the trail whose endorsement seems more subtle and reasoned might play well with independent voters who are sick of over-the-top swooning over his candidacy. Plus, on Meet the Press, you could see him really passionate about his work with the Clinton Global Initiative as he promoted successes in Africa and railed against those who undermined local successes by refusing to look more closely than at the total 'African diaspora.' He's doing honest, important work, and we should cut him some slack.
2. Killer This American Life episode. Called 'Going Big', it talks about people who "take grand, sweeping approaches to solving problems of all sorts." Particularly inspiring is the first story on Geoffrey Canada and the Harlem Children's Zone. I can't wait for next week's piece on the economy.
3. Everyone listens to the Moth podcast, right? I realize not everyone can detach themselves from all social interaction and listen to as many podcasts as I do, but The Moth is once a week for 15 minutes, and is hilarious. Come on, people.
4. Baseball Playoffs!!!!!!! I really need to save this for a separate post, but my beloved Red Sox once again square off with the dreaded Angels! Will we send them to playoff oblivion as we have done en route to our last 2 World Series victories? Alot depends on the health of 3 of our best players: Josh Beckett, J.D. Drew, and Mike Lowell. Yeah. I need a separate post for this. Later.
   

what new podcasts am i listening to?

uh, because as a scientist, i listen to a lot of podcasts. a.lot. i'm also a podcast whore, so i accept any and all recommendations.

tv shows that work as podcasts:
meet the press - getting to see tom brokaw use his political savvy and experience to disembowel everyone across party lines (most recently eviscerating nancy pelosi about offshore drilling waffling and forcing a stammering tim pawlenty to defend sarah palin) is AWESOME.

real time with bill maher - is he a liberal apologist? well, yes. but he isn't the left-wing bill o'reilly. he doesn't invent facts, he's opinionated but insightful, and he's really funny.

economic and political recaps:
the takeaway (thanks young) - can be a little boring because it repeats itself multiple times, but its a nice bipartisan look at the daily news.

random fun podcasts:
the moth - really fun personal anecdotes running much shorter than this american life. by the way, has anyone seen this live in new york? does the podcast cherry pick the one interesting one from like 12 aspiring novelists reading excerpts from their crappy books, or is it worth attending?

ask the naked scientists - because who doesn't like having fun weird science factoids that you can use to confuse people at dinner parties?

By the way, unemployment continues to rise. downer!

playoff basketball!!!

have i not talked about RadioLab yet? Yeah, its awesome. It's sort of a mix of sociology and quantitative science. They take subjects like zoos, leadership, laughter, catchiness of pop songs, and then assemble both anecdotal and research-based observations to help deconvolve these macro phenomena. It's totally fascinating. More factually based than malcolm gladwell, yet pursuing more rewarding topics than steven levitt.

New topic. I love playoff basketball. I love playoff football and baseball too, which I'll talk about when the time comes, but basketball is the first sport I loved. I don't think I'll ever get over the athleticism. The pace is just so much faster than other sports, and the individual athleticism amplified in a cooperative team structure...no other sport gives you more "holy crap did you just see that" moments. And now, a few thoughts on the best player on each team remaining in the playoffs, with nickname in parentheses.

Chauncey Billups, Pistons (Mr. Big Shot): I'm sorry but what exactly is the obsession with this guy? Shoots a terrible percentage, and this whole "mr. big shot"...who has earned their nickname less? He killed them the last 2 years in the playoffs and is basically a corpse now. Forget you.

Lebron James, Cavaliers (King James): Obviously the most overall physically talented, and probably does the most plays that truly stun me. Maybe because he's built like a freaking linebacker. I know its tough for him because he's on a crappy team, but I don't see the playoff assassin in him that I want to. Here's hoping that in game 7 in the first minute he takes it to the hole, eviscerates Rajon Rondo and puts the world on notice.

Kevin Garnett, Celtics (KG/The Big Ticket): I like KG. He's a team player who truly seems to care about winning. I dont think you have to be that guy who takes the big shot (he's clearly tentative) if you do all the little things that help your team win. I think that can still make you great. If he had a true alpha dog on his team, they'd win like 40 championships in a row. Just a fearless guy at the end of the game (like Manu Ginobili).

Kobe Bryant, Lakers (Black Mamba): First of all, GREATEST NICKNAME OF ALL TIME. Who doesn't want to be freakin Black Mamba? And it fits him perfectly. Kobe is one of those weird dudes who grew up in Italy, probably had no peers, came to high school where he was too good for everyone, and went straight to the emerging Laker Dynasty. No wonder he's a recluse. I used to hate him, now I love him. I would love to see a standoff either between him and Lebron (where despite inferior skills at this point he would win just by force of will) or Chris Paul (a guy cut out of his mold at a different position).

Tim Duncan, Spurs (The Big Fundamental): Worst nickname of all time. Almost every basketball fan I'm friends with hates this guy. And now I'm going to sacrifice all of my friends by saying how much I disagree. Yeah, he might be a little boring, but this guy competes. He's not as fast as he used to be, but he still wins by being smarter than everyone else and picking his spots. Anyone notice him dismantling the Suns at the end of every game? I don't care that he doesn't throw down thunderous dunks. Right on with your 8 foot bank shots, big fundamental. Anyone who doesn't think he's the greatest power forward of all time is an idiot and not a real sports fan, and has to be stopped.

Chris Paul, Hornets (CP3, pictured): I'm sorry but that's it???? CP3? for the transcendent player of this year's playoffs? I LOVE this guy. Insanely competitive, but doesn't need to score a million points to do it. The guy took Psych classes in college to try and understand his teammates better. Check out this story if you don't think he's awesome. Plus, in the playoffs, he's taken it to a new, even more insane level. This guy is going to leave Isiah, Stockton, and other awesome point guards in the dust. And with the exception of Deron Williams, there's nobody who can do anything close to guarding him. So he just wreaks havoc on every defense. It's crazy, like watching Barry Sanders on the basketball court. Awesome.

I'd be happy with almost any of these guys matching up in the finals. Maybe not Spurs-Pistons or Spurs-Cavs, but Spurs-Celtics, Cavs-Lakers, Cavs-Hornets, Cavs-Spurs, Celtics-Lakers, Celtics-Hornets....it's all gravy. Playoffs.

quick links

podcasts i like:
the bugle: awesome political humor with john oliver, one of my favorite guys on the daily show
the b.s. report: the sports guy is a homer for boston sports, but his friends are funny (especially JackO)
this american life: yeah, i like this, like everyone.

blogs i like: fire joe morgan, freakonomics blog

today's link: dummies eating blowfish

today's link/thought: stupid gas taxcut im sorry but stupid cuts resulting in nominal savings for consumers to make it seem like you're looking out for the working class is L-A-M-E. its more defensible for a republican like mccain than for clinton, but in all honesty not defensible for either. and clinton's rove-ian campaign ads "calling out" obama for calling support of this cut what it is (a marketing ploy) is even more lame. and, fyi, i actually like hillary, but in this case, i give her 5 groans out of 5.