Watching Obama

Tonight.

Impossible.

It's more likely I'm hallucinating. In a coma somewhere. Trapped in a virtual reality ...

Cannot be real.

Update: Post-Obama speech. Damn, I'm happy. This is one astounding President. I never knew he was so good. I didn't have to know, since the alternative was so bad.

Fabulous picture

november-4-2008.jpg

And now ...

Thank you America.

What lies ahead?

The reform of the GOP. In his very gracious concession speech McCain assigned Palin to engage in the reform of the GOP. I wouldn't choose the same champion, but the key is the "reform" word.

The discovery that Obama is very much like Bill Clinton, but with far more self-discipline. This will come as a relief to intelligent republicans, and no surprise to any democrat who's been paying attention.

Thank you America

I wasn't just indulging in superstition.

I didn't believe this was possible: Barack Obama: 44th President of the USA.

Virginia. Florida. Iowa. Ohio.

Landslide.

Impossible.

Obama. Even I have to be careful not to slip and say "Osama".

Barack Hussein Obama.

Inconceivable.

Thanks men and women.

NPR's iconic picture - election 2008

Next to NPR's 10pm status report from Chicago ...

I can't find a photographer credit.

Used without permission of course.

I am sure McCain will win

I needed to say that.

At least one more time.

Must ... hold on ... to despair...

Must not ... succumb to ... hope ...

Manassas

It wasn't that long ago.

Tired Obama addresses huge Virginia crowd at final campaign rally | World news | guardian.co.uk

... After securing the Democratic nomination in the summer, he chose to begin his presidential election campaign in Bristol, Virginia. At the time, it seemed a quirky choice, with the state apparently solid Republican.

But he is in with more than a chance of taking Virginia today and so made it his last campaign stop with the rally in Manassas, a quiet town now but the scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the civil war.

To take Virginia would be rich in symbolism. Obama acknowledged as much last night when he referred to Richmond, Virginia, as "the capital of the Old Confederacy". He said he found it extraordinary that 100,000 people in the state had come out to see him on a Monday night.

John McCain attracted only 8,000 when he held a rally on the other side of Manassas a fortnight ago. The Republican stood on his tiptoes to wave at the expected crowd at the back, only to find there wasn't any...

I'd forgotten he chose to begin in Virginia. Win or lose, Barack Obama is a wonder.

A concise summary of modern American politics

An impressively concise summary of the past fifty years of American politics, including how the party of Lincoln inherited the Democrats legacy of racism, ends with a summary of the cultural stakes ...

Sasha Abramsky (Guardian.co.uk): The election could end the south's race-based politics

...In the last few days, Pennsylvania - one of only two Democratic states from the 2004 election thought to be within McCain's reach - has been flooded by television ads once again seeking to correlate Obama to the inflammatory preacher Jeremiah Wright. Palin supporters have been filmed holding toy monkeys with Obama signs on them at her rallies. And a miasma of racist rhetoric hangs over much of the campaigning by local Republican party operatives in many southern states...

We'll shortly know whether these tactics worked. If they did, it will be a cultural catastrophe...

... If democracy is simply a competition of ideas varnished by a sense of personal charm evinced by its lead figures, Obama's the next president. But democracy is more than that. Unfortunately, tribalism has a powerful hold on the process. A significant number of people - despite an unprecedented year-long national conversation about race and culture and American identity - still have a gut-check problem with voting for a black man.

If McCain wins, tribalism wins. The southern gamble, that race will always remain central to the nation's political decision-making process, that race will always trump economic common sense, pays off. And the American dream takes a rabbit punch to the kidneys that will take decades to recover from.

If Obama wins, however, taking some southern states and bringing enough new voters to the polls that several Senate seats in the region also go blue, then at long last the possibility of a truly post-racial political system comes one enormous step closer to fruition.

The stakes couldn't possibly be any higher.

But they are higher ...

Goldwater for Obama? Try this endorsement on any conservatives you know.

Know any rational conservatives?

Maybe they're considering writing in a rational republican like Olympia Snowe?

Try this endorsement on them. It's written by a man who was once publisher of the National Review, and who is still an intellectual conservative ...

A Conservative for Obama | D Magazine - Wick Allison

... Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama...

The comments include this amazing gem ..

Your article endorsing Obama found its way to my computer, Wick... and I wanted you to know you have a VERY strong "thumbs up" from three folks you might least expect: my two sisters and me. We are the daughters of Bill Miller who ran for Vice President with Barry Goldwater back in '64. We have all morphed quite independently into feeling, as you do, that the Republican Party in general and George Bush in particular do not represent in any fashion what our dad stood for more than 40 years ago. In fact, we are all HUGE Obama Mamas! I live with my family in Salisbury, NC... my older sister Libby Miller Fitzgerald is in Lynchburg, VA... and our youngest sister Stephanie Miller is in LA where she has a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is seen regularly on Larry King and other TV shows. Thank you for your wise words. I hope there are enough others like you to put Obama over the top. Or we're headed overseas to live!

Mary Miller James

A Goldwater endorsement for Obama? And I thought George Will's endorsement was mind blowing.

Update: See also. It's all part of the Republican enlightenment kit. These are the people who will be able, if McCain loses, to fight for a respectable, reformed, GOP.

The bright side of President Palin

I know that Palin/McCain will win tomorrow and that all of our contributions and my cheery blog posts will have been for naught.

As a perennial optimist I thus prefer to look at the bright side of a McCain victory and the inevitable Dominion of President Palin.

Yes, I'm just a glass half-full kind of guy.

You see, if Obama wins then people like me will feel compelled to try to save the human world. We'll be obliged to think about fraud and our medication supply chain, fraud and our food supply, integrating China into a peaceful world, managing Russia's convulsions, mitigating global climate catastrophe and ecological collapse, tackling global poverty, surviving the end of oil, helping cognitively impaired persons be the best they can be, reducing the growing disability burden of technocentric society, surviving the falling cost of havoc, preserving freedom, responding to the challenge of the Weak and so on and on and on.

We're made that way. We can't help it.

But if McCain/Palin win, well, then we can relax.

We'll know that we'd done everything we could have done. We can lay down our shields honorably. We'll know we tried hard to avert the Dark, even though, really, we knew that the odds were miserable even with great leadership.

Clearly, with President Palin at the helm there will be no point in worrying about humanity's future.

So if McCain/Palin win we can spend more time with our families. Maybe we'll buy some land within my 92nd Airborne buddy's defensive perimeter in Michigan's remote Upper Peninsula. We can take up poetry, painting and heavy drinking, and enjoy the waning days of America and, most likely, all of civilization.

It's something to look forward to. Time off as it were. I'm tempted to vote for McCain myself, but that would be cheating. I can't escape my geas until the final Doom has come. Then it's party time.

So to speak.

AOL users are VERY republican

Fascinating. AOL customers are very republican ...

In Landslide, John McCain Is The President Of AOL

... AOL.com's homepage political poll results are in, and the site's calling a landslide for Republican John McCain. Not only does he carry swing states Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, in the poll, but McCain also scores upset wins in California and Massachusetts...

Fascinating. Someone who still uses AOL today is probably information averse, fairly poor, and really hates change.

Prediction markets are irrational - the McCain penny stock example

Whatever the outcome tomorrow, we've extracted some useful knowledge from the process.

Prediction markets are no more rational than the stock market ...

McCain Is Now A Penny Stock

... John McCain's odds on Intrade drop to 9 cents on the dollar, a new low. (If you put a gun to our head and forced us to bet, we'd actually buy the contract at that level. We think Obama will win, but we certainly wouldn't give someone 10-to-1 odds on that.)...

I think the election is too close to call, but that might reflect my superstitious nature. There's no way, however, that Obama has a 90% certainty of winning.

So we shouldn't expect too much of prediction markets in the future.

Update 11/3/08: Ahh, but for a contrary perspective on those probabilities ...

GOP slime - it must be noted

We'll soon forget the details, so it's useful to have a reminder.

GOP and Democratic slime are not equivalent. The GOP plays in another league, a much nastier league.

If Obama wins, which I still consider unlikely, then the GOP will complain bitterly about "journalistic bias". They'll want to cow what's left of the press and network TV.

It will be good to remember these examples then.

The mission of the publicly held newspaper is ...

What is a newspaper for?

Well, if it's owned by a publicly traded company the newspaper exists to make money for shareholders. It makes this money through advertising revenue and selling papers. It is the fiduciary duty of managers to do whatever sells papers and doesn't break any important laws.

The Washington Post's Deborah Howell believes the best way to sell papers is to keep both "right" and "left" equally pleased, regardless of reality ...

The Post ... Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

... The Washington Post's Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, today wrote a column claiming that one reason that The Post and other papers are losing money is because they are "too liberal"; have had "more favorable stories about Barack Obama than John McCain," and "conservatives are right that they often don't see their views reflected enough in the news pages." To mitigate newspapers' financial problems, Howell decrees: "the imbalance still needs to be corrected." She adds: "Neither the hard-core right nor left will ever be satisfied by Post coverage -- and that's as it should be."

What if the actual facts -- i.e., "reality" -- are consistent with the views of "the hard-core left" and contrary to the views of the "hard-core right"? What if, as has plainly been the case, the conservatives' views are wrong, false, inaccurate? What if the McCain campaign was failing and relying on pure falsehoods and sleazy attacks, and The Post's coverage simply reflected that reality? It doesn't matter. In order to sell more newspapers, according to Howell, The Post's news coverage must shape itself to the Right and ensure that "their views [are] reflected enough in the news pages" ...

... That corrupt formula is, of course, what is now meant by "journalistic balance" -- say what both sides believe and take no position about what is true -- and it is precisely that behavior which propped up this incomparably failed and deceitful presidency for so long...

Alas for the Post, there's little evidence that any print newspaper, regardless of mission, can thrive in today's world ...

The Media Equation - Mourning Old Media’s Decline - NYTimes.com

The news that Google settled two longstanding suits with book authors and publishers over its plans to digitize the world’s great libraries suggests that some level of détente could be reached between old media and new.

If true, it can’t come soon enough for the news business.

It’s been an especially rotten few days for people who type on deadline. On Tuesday, The Christian Science Monitor announced that, after a century, it would cease publishing a weekday paper. Time Inc., the Olympian home of Time magazine, Fortune, People and Sports Illustrated, announced that it was cutting 600 jobs and reorganizing its staff. And Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the country, compounded the grimness by announcing it was laying off 10 percent of its work force — up to 3,000 people...

... The day before, the Tribune Company had declared that it would reduce the newsroom of The Los Angeles Times by 75 more people, leaving it approximately half the size it was just seven years ago...

... two weeks ago, TV Guide, one of the famous brand names in magazines, was sold for one dollar, less than the price of a single copy.

The paradox of all these announcements is that newspapers and magazines do not have an audience problem — newspaper Web sites are a vital source of news, and growing — but they do have a consumer problem...

... For readers, the drastic diminishment of print raises an obvious question: if more people are reading newspapers and magazines, why should we care whether they are printed on paper?

The answer is that paper is not just how news is delivered; it is how it is paid for.

More than 90 percent of the newspaper industry’s revenue still derives from the print product, a legacy technology that attracts fewer consumers and advertisers every single day. A single newspaper ad might cost many thousands of dollars while an online ad might only bring in $20 for each 1,000 customers who see it...

Elsewhere we read that the NYT is running out of cash, and is having trouble borrowing. They need to sell the Boston Globe, but nobody wants to pay for it.

So how will this play out? My best guesses are:

1. We'll see a return of the privately held money-losing newspaper owned by billionaires with an agenda. The NYT may go this route. Depending on the billionaire(s) this may not be a bad thing. Of course if the billionaire is Rupert Murdoch ...
   
2. Publicly held newspapers will slim down and (of course) abandon the print editions. This will (of course) be extremely painful. At the end of the day newspapers will occupy niches including reality based, "balanced" (meaning equal praise regardless of reality like the Washington Post), party-based, and low brow entertainment. The reality based newspaper will be a premium good -- small audience, high cost. Fifteen years ago The Economist owned this space. Today the NYT would be the closest contender, but I think they'll end up being private. I wonder if a new venture will try to emulate the Old Economist.
   

Experts failing - how to get better guidance for economics, health care and everything

Somewhere in my library, I have an older book that compiled all the different ways experts have been wrong over the decades. Now that I've accumulated more personal entropy I have little need of the book; I've lived through cycles of abandoned medical fads endorsed by panels whose "expertise" was exceeded only by their egos.

Today, of course, we're specifically wondering about expert economists. The NYT proposes Groupthink (Wikipedia) as a villain ...

Economic View - Challenging the Crowd in Whispers, Not Shouts - NYTimes.com

... In his classic 1972 book, “Groupthink,” Irving L. Janis, the Yale psychologist, explained how panels of experts could make colossal mistakes. People on these panels, he said, are forever worrying about their personal relevance and effectiveness, and feel that if they deviate too far from the consensus, they will not be given a serious role. They self-censor personal doubts about the emerging group consensus if they cannot express these doubts in a formal way that conforms with apparent assumptions held by the group...

As an expert in having opinions, I'll respond. Groupthink is probably a contributing factor, but it's not the whole story. Happily we know of a fix for the bigger problem. Unhappily, Newt Gingrich blew away one of our best examples.

First some history, then the lessons.

For much of the 20th century medical consensus was achieved the way economics panels work today. A group of "experts", typically involving quite a bit of Harvard, met and pontificated. These groups lacked neither confidence nor ego, but their accuracy left a lot to be desired.

After 80 years or so of this, we evolved something that's now called "evidence based medicine", but had another label in the 80s (sorry, the labels blur together). In the 1980s we even had a federal agency that took an "evidence based" approach to recommendations, one founded in science and reason rather than reputation and ego. It was known then as the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR).

Problem is, the AHCPR's expert panels came up with recommendations that were very different from the old-style "experts". That was bad enough, but these recommendations affected payment. Orthopedic surgeons, in particular, were furious when an AHCPR guideline recommended far less back surgery. Gingrich (remember him) zeroed out funding for the AHCPR (great story in the link).

Yes, even then the Republican War on Reason had begun. Remember that the next time you hear Newt pontificate. For all of his intellect and pride, he began our long fall.

Of course the AHCPR panel was right. Now, fifteen years later, even orthopedic surgeons agree with the original recommendations. As far as I can tell, the IPCC took a similar approach to their recommendations.

So expert panels, done right, can be very effective. They also acquire very powerful enemies, and without a supportive political environment they will be destroyed.

The AHRQ rose from the ashes of the AHCPR, but it was never again so bold. It has largely hued to the conventional approach to "expert panels", though it's clear that the leadership would like to return to the days of reason.

If Obama wins, they will.

So history teaches us that the conventional approach to "expert consensus" is deeply flawed. Maybe it's the groupthink, maybe it's the way the "experts" are chosen, but the AHCPR lesson tells us that there's a better way. There's an approach that combines a rational process with open discussion and a certain measure of humility about what we don't know.

It would be insane to dispense with expert consensus all together. That way lies climate change denialisism, vaccine autism and other triumphs of unreason. We can, however, do far better than the old style of "medical experts" and the current practice of "economics experts".

We can study when expert panels work and when they fail, and codify and continuously improve the best practices. We can develop an empirical and informed science of expertise.

Or we could keep blowing up the world economy, bake the planet too, and leave our children wandering in the rubble.

We do have a choice. Two days from now in fact. Reason, or the dark ages. Pick the one you like ...