Marc Thiessen, as Usual, Gets Things Completely Wrong

I suspect Marc Thiessen's intelligence is no worse than average, but he's certainly not afraid to look stupid:

Politicians and commentators on the left have been publicly flogging Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for daring to talk about poverty in America’s inner cities. The charges have been so vicious and scurrilous (accusing him of using racial “dog-whistles” and language “deliberately crafted to appeal to white racists”) that their only purpose can be to send a message to Ryan and any other Republican who would dare follow his lead: Keep your hands off our issue. Poverty belongs to us. Stay away or we will brand you a racist.

(Insert obligatory Jay Smooth video here.)

Ryan’s attackers worry that if Republicans follow his lead, it will expose the failure of the left’s approach to poverty. For decades, Republicans gave Democrats a near-monopoly in the fight against poverty. And like most monopolies shielded from competition, the Democrat-led war on poverty failed. We have spent trillions of dollars on anti-poverty programs, and today the number of Americans living at or near poverty is higher than it was in 1964.

Yeah.... Ryan's critics are terrified that his war on poverty, and by that I mean policy proposals that would make it even harder to be poor, is going to win him votes from... um... I guess it would be nobody?

Ryan’s attackers are also worried that if Republicans make helping the poor and vulnerable a priority, Democrats can no longer win elections by waging class warfare and painting the GOP as uncaring champions of the wealthy. They want the Republicans to follow the example of Mitt Romney, who declared in 2012, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. . . . We will hear from the Democrat Party [on] the plight of the poor. . . . But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans.”

I cannot recall the last time a Democrat had to "wage class warfare" or "paint the GOP as uncaring about the poor". The GOP hangs that brand on itself. But for somebody as (willfully?) obtuse as Thiessen, perhaps that's a difficult distinction to draw.

Ryan understands that if Republicans abandon the poor to the Democrats, they will hurt the poor — because Democrats have all the wrong answers for the problems of poverty. But they will also hurt themselves. Because no one — in the middle class or any class — wants to support a party that does not care for the most vulnerable among us.

Stuff and nonsense on both fronts. First, however flawed anti-poverty efforts of the past have been, the reason Thiessen can hang most of the responsibility for those programs on the Democrats is that the Republican approach to poverty (including Ryan's approach) hinges on cutting benefits for the poor. For example, the Republican Party is in a tizzy, right now, because their food stamp cuts aren't going to be as deep as they had hoped. Maybe in Thiessen's alternate universe, nothing says "We love the poor" like food stamp cuts.

Second, the Republicans have made something of an art form of distinguishing the "deserving poor" (i.e., poor people who, on the whole, vote for Republicans) from the "undeserving poor" (i.e., poor people who, on the whole, tend to vote for Democrats). A smarter man than Thiessen would admit that Ryan's foul-up was in making too explicit that many of those his party deems "undeserving" fall within a particular demographic,

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

If Thiessen wants the Republican Party to keep making statements like that, let's just say, if his thesis about voter concerns is correct he'll do nothing but harm to his party.

Robert Samuelson Fudges More Numbers

Robert Samuelson is expressing skepticism about the success of the stimulus:

There’s the puzzle: monster stimulus, midget recovery.

How to explain the contrasting stories?

If Samuelson, an economics commentator, actually followed his subject, he would be aware that the stimulus was not so big in relation to the gap it needed to cover. Dean Baker has been addressing this issue for years.

The arithmetic on this is straightforward. With the collapse of the bubble, we suddenly had a huge glut of unsold homes. As a result, housing construction plunged from record highs to 50-year lows. The loss in annual construction demand was more than $600 billion. Similarly, the loss of $8 trillion in housing equity sent consumption plunging. People no longer had equity in their homes against which to borrow, and even the people who did would face considerably tougher lending conditions. The drop in annual consumption was on the order of $500 billion.

The collapse of the bubble in nonresidential real estate cost the economy another $150 billion in annual demand, as did the cutbacks in state and local government spending as a result of lost tax revenue. This brings the loss in annual demand as a result of the collapse of the bubble to $1.4 trillion.

Compared with this loss of private sector demand, the stimulus was about $700 billion, excluding some technical tax fixes that are done every year and have nothing to do with stimulus. Roughly $300 billion of this was for 2009 and another $300 billion for 2010, with the rest of the spending spread over later years.

In other words, we were trying offset a loss of $1.4 trillion in annual demand with a stimulus package of $300 billion a year. Surprise! This was not enough.

It's not as if Dean Baker is alone in his opinion. Paul Krugman seems prescient in describing Samuelson's form of analysis:

So why does everyone — or, to be more accurate, everyone except those who have seriously studied the issue — believe that the stimulus was a failure? Because the U.S. economy continued to perform poorly — not disastrously, but poorly — after the stimulus went into effect.

There’s no mystery about why: America was coping with the legacy of a giant housing bubble. Even now, housing has only partly recovered, while consumers are still held back by the huge debts they ran up during the bubble years. And the stimulus was both too small and too short-lived to overcome that dire legacy.

This is not, by the way, a case of making excuses after the fact. Regular readers know that I was more or less tearing my hair out in early 2009, warning that the Recovery Act was inadequate — and that by falling short, the act would end up discrediting the very idea of stimulus. And so it proved.

But, you know, Samuelson found an economist you've probably never heard of before, and the guy has a position at a brand name university and a blog, so why research any more deeply into the subject? Samuelson's primary argument is that we should live in fear of dire consequences that never materialized, and thus that the government should do nothing more to stimulate the economy. Fortunately for him, the Republican Party is on his side so we're apt to see the painfully slow recovery continue to inch along. If another recession hits soon, Samuelson may discover out that the phrase, "an economy in eclipse," has more significance than as a parting shot taken at those who actually understand the subject.

Robert Samuelson's Fudgy Numbers

You can count on two things from Robert Samuelson: Arguments that any amount of social spending is too much, and arguments that any amount of military spending is too low. I say that while accepting that there may be some social spending programs that Samuelson would maintain at present levels, or perhaps even expand, and some military programs that he might cut, but he's not interested in writing about those issues. In a big picture sense, he dislikes social spending, while depicting military and war spending as easily afforded pocket change.

It thus comes as no surprise that Samuelson is adamantly opposed to the proposed cuts to the Pentagon budget and the size and scope of the U.S. military. Predictably, his outrage is expressed largely in the abstract, and he chooses to completely ignore the issues of waste or of out-dated or redundant weapons programs. Instead he presents dubious arguments and fudges the numbers. It's difficult to believe that he could hold a straight face while writing his opening paragraph:

The crisis in Ukraine reminds us that the future is unpredictable, that wars routinely involve miscalculation and that brute force — boots on the ground, bombs in the air — counts. None of these obvious lessons seems to have made much impression in Washington, where the Obama administration and Congress continue their policy of defunding defense and reducing the United States’ military power.

I would love for Samuelson to explain to his readers how much additional U.S. military spending it would take to deter Russia from acting in what it perceives to be its best interest, and exactly how that spending would have an impact on Putin's decision-making. The issue is not that we can't counter Russia in a conventional war. The issue is that Russia is a nuclear power, and even if a war to liberate Crimea were somehow (magically) contained to that region and did not involve nuclear weapons, the human cost of such a war would be massive. Samuelson is more than smart enough to know that a $400 trillion U.S. military budget would not have deterred Russia. What does it tell us that his opening position suggests otherwise?

Next up, Samuelson whines that as military spending drops, Social Security spending increases. First, as should be obvious to anybody who claims to be a writer on economic issues, the two are not related. It is possible to have both high Social Security spending and high military spending. Second, the funding mechanisms are different. Social Security is designed to be self-funding. But for Republican obstructionism, as cheered on by the "Burn it down" position taken by Beltway pundits such as Samuelson, we would almost certainly have seen a reform bill pass early in Obama's tenure that would have reduced the measure of inflation for future Social Security benefits and balanced the books into the very distant future. Third, if Samuelson can do math, he knows that Social Security and Medicare spending are closely tied to the number of elderly people in our society, and he should have no trouble figuring out that the problem is not so much that the spending is "out of control" as it is that Baby Boomers are reaching retirement age. Fourth, the reasons to maintain Social Security and Medicare have absolutely nothing to do with the reasons our nation might have to modify its defense budget.

Samuelson next claims that there are two reasons why the U.S. has a military: to deter conflicts and to defend national interests. On the issue of deterrence, Samuelson argues that any large military budget cuts "symbolically undermines deterrence." What a wonderfully convenient argument for him: We can never make more than token cuts to the military, as to do so would send the message to the world that they can engage in military conflicts. Perhaps Samuelson is still clinging to the false hope that the end of the Cold War somehow meant an end to war, as it's difficult to find a region in the world where nations seem particularly disinclined to engage in warfare when they believe it's in their best interest. One wonders, what military conflict does Samuelson believe the U.S. is presently deterring (perhaps a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or a North Korean invasion of South Korea?) and why does he imagine that the military cuts will even slightly affect deterrence.

The best examples Samuelson can muster are of China and Iran:

The United States’ military retrenchment won’t make China’s leaders less ambitious globally. (China plans a 12 percent increase in military spending for 2014; at that pace, spending would double in six years.) Nor will it dampen Iran’s aggressiveness and promote a negotiated settlement over its nuclear program. Probably the reverse. Diplomacy often fails unless backed by a credible threat of force.

If the best examples Samuelson can muster are that, if military spending is cut, China may go on an invasion spree and Iran will... do whatever it is that Samuelson imagines that they would do differently... you can see the weakness of his position. When you describe the current military actions taken by China, how can you suggest that those actions would be deterred if only we didn't reduce military spending from current levels? As for the notion that the U.S. would lack credibility to pose a military threat to Iran, post-cuts, that's absurd on its face. It's another assertion that Samuelson can't possibly believe.

Samuelson mentions that China is increasing its military spending by 12%, to support a ridiculous projection that at that rate they could double military spending in six years. His source tells us what such a theoretical doubling would mean:

Although the rise in the defense budget in the past three years has surpassed GDP growth, the share of military spending in China's GDP stood at less than 1.5 percent last year, well below the world average of 3 percent, Yin said, citing statistics.

A report released by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies showed the United States remained the world's biggest defense spender in 2013, with a budget of 600.4 billion U.S. dollars.

Robert Samuelson has been beating the military spending drum for a very long time. Back in 1997, he was complaining that 1996 military spending was a mere 3.6% of GDP. In 2012, by the CIA's measure, military spending was at 4.35% of GDP. While that number may decrease to 2.7% by 2017, a target that was included in the 2013 bipartisan budget deal, U.S. military spending would continue to massively exceed China's expenditure.

Samuelson's drum beating about China also belies his suggestion that military strength is inexorably tied to the percentage of GDP a nation devotes to military spending. He's depicting a nation that spends a mere 1.5% of its GDP on its military as the leading threat to the world military dominance of the United States. That should suggest a few things to Samuelson, including the possibility that the fact that the size of a nation's economy factors complicates the question of how military spending should be measured and that, even in relation to his beloved military spending, the law of diminishing returns comes into play.

Samuelson also glosses over the fact that nations enjoy a carry-over from past military spending. It's not the present level of investment that frees Russia to support Syria, or act military in nations like Georgia, Czechoslovakia and Chechnya. It's the legacy of its superpower status and its nuclear arsenal. Russia may not have the power it once held to project its might into the far reaches of the globe, but it has made clear that it can and will act to defend its perceived interests no matter what the rest of the world may believe. In other words, despite Samuelson's ominous warnings, there's no reason to believe that the proposed budget cuts would devastate the status of the U.S. military as the world's leading military power, or the status of the U.S. as the world's only remaining superpower.

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine raises the prospect that a sizable number of U.S. troops might be stationed in the Baltic nations or Poland. All belong to NATO; all must now feel more threatened by Russia.

While noting that this is fear-mongering of the worst kind, and that Russia understands the difference between acting against a NATO member state and a non-aligned state, once again if that threat is being felt the feeling is occurring at the end of a long run-up in military spending. If current spending levels aren't sufficient to keep nations from being afraid of Russia, then there's really nothing that we can do to make that fear go away.

A question Samuelson doesn't ask, let alone address, is whether it's even our nation's proper role to try to ensure that nations that are not our treaty partners are not in fear of military action by a neighboring nation. Samuelson seems to love the idea of the U.S. as a global policeman, no matter what the price, but I see little sign on whether he's reflected on whether that's an appropriate role for the U.S., or whether other nations should take a greater role in paying for and providing their own regional security. If it's crucial to Europe that the Baltic States never fear Russia, no matter how remote the possibility of actual military action, why should it be the U.S. that foots most or all of the bill for chasing away the bogeyman? And if Samuelson believes the statement he endorses at the end of his column, "the world has gotten no less dangerous, turbulent or in need of American leadership. There is no obvious peace dividend as was the case at the end of the Cold War", why does he imagine that the bogeyman will vanish even if we continue to spend at today's inflated levels?

It should also be noted that Samuelson plays the game that any cuts in military spending must be permanent. He disregards the fact that every time this nation has felt a need to increase military spending, those increases have occurred. The only budget or spending bill that really matters is the one passed by the current Congress, as the next Congress will remain free to institute its own spending priorities. Samuelson, I suspect, is aware of that fact, but he chooses not to acknowledge it because, as with his other omissions, he understands that once people realize that his rending of clothes over future military spending is a performance, and that if the circumstances require Congress will do what it has always done to maintain the military strength of the United States -- increase military spending.

The Senate Embarrasses Itself

Ruth Marcus has this right:

For Republicans to block one of President Obama’s nominees is dog-bites-man non-news. For members of the president’s party to defect is more notable. And for Democrats to worry more about their political hides than a nominee’s fitness for service — as happened in the Senate this week — is simply revolting.

In a sense her claim that the President "fail[ed] to adequately anticipate and defuse the problem" is a truism, but she doesn't suggest what he might have done differently. The Republicans who voted against Debo Adegbile did so because they find it to be politically advantageous to oppose the president, because they prefer a neutered civil rights division, because they are stupid, or some combination thereof, so the President wasn't going to win their votes. The Democrats who joined them did so because they are cowards. They knew the facts, but feared facing a political consequence if they voted based on the facts instead of pandering to factions they feared would vote against them in coming elections. What argument would change that?

How About Taking Responsibility For the Medications You Take

Ruth Marcus seems oblivious to the fact that sedating medications, including Ambien, are frequently abused.

[Kerry] Kennedy may have taken the pill by mistake, they contended, but she ought to have known she was impaired and pulled over.

Excuse me, but maybe they should have tried taking this drug before filing criminal charges. Ambien and other sleeping pills are powerful. You take Ambien, and 15 to 30 minutes later, you begin to zonk out. A toxicologist who testified at Kennedy’s trial — for the prosecution, no less — said that someone under the influence of Ambien could fail to recognize that she was having a problem, or even to remember, later, what happened.

I think we can infer from Marcus's statement that she has taken Ambien, and thus knows how sedating it is. What Marcus probably has not seen is what happens when somebody takes Ambien and deliberately stays awake. The superficial affect is one of significant alcohol intoxication. Why do some people do that? Just as with abuse of common benzodiazepines, ecause they like the way it makes them feel, and some of them use other drugs or alcohol at the same time so that they can enjoy a magnifying effect.

Ambien may be something of an extreme case, given how quickly the sleepiness can come on, but how far would Marcus extend her "Let's assume it was an accident" rationale to other sleep aids? She draws a distinction between "medications with drowsiness as a side effect, [and] the ones whose sole purpose is sedation", but why? Many people take Benadryl to sleep, and sometimes pharmacists recommend it as a non-prescription sleep aid. Many people take opiate and opioid medications for pain, but they can be highly sedating and are commonly abused.

Marcus seems to feel that nobody who drives down a road after taking Ambien should ever face a criminal charge for driving while impaired by drugs, even if they injure or kill somebody. I have no problem working from the perspective that if you are too drugged to drive you shouldn't get behind the wheel, even if you took the wrong medication by accident. When somebody is intoxicated behind the wheel, I don't mind putting the impetus on that person to convince me both that it was a mistake and that they had no reasonable opportunity to recognize the mistake so as to get off the road. Kerry Kennedy was able to convince a jury that she took Ambien by accident, and didn't recognize its effect in time to safely stop her car. Marcus thinks that's too high a price for Kennedy and other Ambien users to pay, but it's not as if either of them are unaware of the dangers of that drug. They are both certainly aware of this case:

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said Friday that he will enter a rehabilitation program after crashing his car on Capitol Hill a day earlier....

He said in a statement Thursday evening that he was apparently disoriented at the time of the crash after taking the prescribed amounts of a sleep aid and an anti-nausea drug.

"I am deeply concerned about my reaction to the medication and my lack of knowledge of the accident that evening. But I do know enough to know that I need to seek expert help," he said Friday....

In his Thursday evening statement, Kennedy said he had returned home after final votes in the House of Representatives around midnight Wednesday and taken the sleep aid Ambien and an anti-nausea drug....

In his comments Friday, Kennedy said, "The recurrence of an addiction problem can be triggered by things that happen in every day life, such as taking a common treatment for a stomach flu.

Assuming she takes Ambien, Marcus, I expect, is very careful with Ambien due to the stories she recounts, including one that put one of her own children in danger. How many stories do we need, and how close to home do they have to hit, before we can reasonably expect people to look at their pills and read their pill bottles before swallowing a sleeping pill then getting behind the wheel of a car?

I won't argue with Marcus that manufacturers could create pill colors and shapes, or package sleep aids in a different manner, and thereby all-but-eliminate the "I was confused" defense. Perhaps at that point Marcus would accept that people intoxicated by Ambien should be subject to prosecution for driving in that condition. But for now, if people have multiple, similar-looking medications, they owe it to themselves and others not to confuse their pills. If people who have serious health conditions requiring them to juggle dozens of medications can keep their pills straight, I think it's reasonable to ask that people with minor medical conditions and two or three prescriptions to do the same, more so when incidents of carelessness will pose serious risk to themselves and others.

Has Thomas Friedman Learned His Lesson?

Or at least, a lesson? That was then (if you're impatient, skip ahead to 2:24):



This is now:

Today, Obama’s critics say he must do “something” about Syria. I get it. Chaos there can come around to bite us. If there is a policy that would fix Syria, or even just stop the killing there, in a way that was self-sustaining, at a cost we could tolerate and not detract from all the things we need to do at home to secure our own future, I’m for it.

But we should have learned some lessons from our recent experience in the Middle East: First, how little we understand about the social and political complexities of the countries there; second, that we can — at considerable cost — stop bad things from happening in these countries but cannot, by ourselves, make good things happen; and third, that when we try to make good things happen we run the risk of assuming the responsibility for solving their problems, a responsibility that truly belongs to them.

Friedman is often cited as an expert on the Middle East, but were that the case it should have been pretty obvious to him that his thesis for a war as a demonstration of "suck on this"-type resolve was deeply flawed. He may be a slow learner, but given his prominence it's very good that he's learning.

Things That Never Happened

Kathleen Parker prevaricates,

When Jindal ran for governor in 2007, opponents frequently noted that his first name is Piyush. Democrats mentioned “Piyush Bobby Jindal” as often as Republicans brought up “Barack Hussein Obama” the following year.

But hey, at least she's not calling President Obama a half-blooded girlie-man, this time around.

Inadequate Funding of Defense Experts

The New York Times has taken note of a 28-year-old case in which the defense, given only $1,000 to hire an expert witness, hired an inadequate expert.

Anyone who has hired a lawyer knows $1,000 doesn’t buy you much. But when Anthony Ray Hinton was on trial for his life in Alabama, that’s the total amount his court-appointed attorney thought he could spend on a key expert witness in firearms evidence. All he could find for that price was an elderly one-eyed man with a degree in civil engineering who was laughed out of court for his inability to answer basic questions.

If you look at the Supreme Court's decision, the reason that additional proceedings have been ordered in the defendant's case is much less the amount of money that was authorized, and much more the fact that the defense lawyer did not know he could seek more money and thus made no attempt to do so:

Operating under the mistaken belief that he could pay no more than $1,000, Hinton’s attorney went looking for an expert witness. According to his postconviction testimony, he made an extensive search for a well-regarded expert, but found only one person who was willing to take the case for the pay he could offer: Andrew Payne. Hinton’s attorney “testified that Payne did not have the expertise he thought he needed and that he did not consider Payne’s testimony to be effective.”...

Hinton’s attorney knew that he needed more funding to present an effective defense, yet he failed to make even the cursory investigation of the state statute providing for defense funding for indigent defendants that would have revealed to him that he could receive reimbursement not just for $1,000 but for “any expenses reasonably incurred.”

This was a capital trial, and the court was not trying to be stingy, authorizing the largest amount it believed was available under state law. But when I read people who have never been involved in indigent expense scoffing at the grant of $1,000 for an expert witness, I have some amazement at the gulf of understanding between what people believe should occur in criminal cases and what typically happens. Note, the attorney fee granted for that capital trial was a mere $1,600. The only way you can represent a client in a capital case -- or any serious felony case -- for that type of compensation is by cutting a lot of corners or by accepting that you'll be investing perhaps hundreds of hours in a case for which you'll ultimately be paid significantly less than minimum wage.

I recall a case I worked in the mid-1990's, where the court granted $1,500 for expert witness fees in an arson case. I commented to another lawyer that the amount was inadequate. He responded, "That's the most I've ever heard of a judge in this county authorizing for an expert." The situation can be at least as dire for defendants who retain counsel, where they will typically have to come up with additional money out-of-pocket to retain an expert. When it comes to expert testimony, between police investigators, crime lab technicians and their own funding for private experts, prosecutors have an enormous advantage.

Fortunately for my client, I found a fire investigation firm that was both highly qualified and willing to take the case, Safety Engineering Laboratories, with testimony provided by Donald J. Hoffman and Michael Kroll, but the $1,500 didn't even cover their out-of-pocket expenses -- they did the right thing, but no expert can devote that type of time and energy into what amounts to pro bono work on a regular basis. I recall also seeing a case in which a lawyer, having been denied adequate funding for certain pretrial work, had taken his claim to the Court of Appeals which had found his claim reasonable and had ordered reimbursement -- but for the time his case and the subsequent appeal were pending, that was money out of the lawyer's own pocket.

Perhaps the environment has changed in recent years, with the increased use of scientific evidence, but given the relatively low funding available for appointed criminal defense work in much of the country I would be surprised if judges are now routinely granting adequate amounts of money for defense experts. The type of funding you see in high profile cases, covered by the media, are anything but the norm.

What Does it Mean to "Win" a War

Master Sgt. Sean Lulofs, USAF (Ret.) argues,

Our nation has not won a war since World War II. I think America is unwilling to win a war.

The United States has won battles and conflicts, but it has not truly won a war which could clearly demonstrate victory as the defeat of the Axis Powers did. The enemy leadership was removed and new types of democratic governments put in place. Their militaries were disassembled and rebuilt so as to no longer pose a threat to other nations. It was clearly defined who won, who lost, and how. Our nation has maintained a presence in those countries since 1945.

Unfortunately, that was the last time when America believed in true victory, as demonstrated by the lack of willpower in wars since.

If the measure of victory is whether the nation you conquer subsequently bends to your will and allows your troops to remain indefinitely on its soil, the logical extension of that argument is that we lost World War I. Some people have tried to distinguish winning a war from winning the subsequent peace, and that interpretation could be applied to World War I, but if we are to apply that definition of victory then the U.S. did win the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, decisively toppling their governments, but got lost in the aftermath. Lufos also shows no understanding of the institutions of government and the predicates of democracy, and how they played a role in the establishment of democratic governments in Germany and Japan. You can't simply imagine them into existence.

The author's understanding of more recent history, unfortunately, is also weak:

The Vietnam War was lost even though we were winning it. We had pushed our enemies back and they were on the verge of defeat. However, due to lack of support for the mission (a.k.a. the troops), the national leaders fled not only the battlefield but their commitment and responsibility to our military. The communists fully took the nation and their evil spread to other countries which fertilized the killing fields due to the vacuum created by the hasty withdrawal.

In fact, Cambodia and Vietnam had centuries of conflict between them, conflict that started long before the region was colonized. The Cambodian government under Lon Nol engaged in ethnic cleansing against ethnic Vietnamese, killing thousands. Subsequent to the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, his government fell to the Khmer Rouge, an organization that was communist, tied to China, and spawned by the People's Army of Vietnam, but which was actively hostile toward Vietnam. The Cambodian genocide was an internal phenomenon, not something inspired by the Vietnamese government. The Khmer Rouge was toppled after they attempted to invade Vietnam and capture the Mekong Delta, a region that Cambodia claimed as its own. While Vietnamese occupation followed, the Vietnamese set out to extirpate the Khmer Rouge. The U.S. government response to the toppling of the genocidal Khmer Rouge by Vietnam, under Ronald Reagan, was to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the official government of Cambodia in exile.

One might also ask, why did communism manage to get such a strong foothold in Southeast Asia? One would then look at the history of colonialism in that region. The Vietnamese refer to the Vietnam War as the American War, not so much to identify the principal opponent, but to distinguish it from the first and second French Wars. We have a tendency to view ourselves as the "good guys" and to be perplexed when those in other nations don't share that perspective, but if you're trying to escape from France's brutal colonialism, the response of the West is perceived as taking France's side, and the only powers willing to help you are communist, guess whose money, arms and support you're going to accept, and guess what impact that has on the leadership and goals of your movement?

Let's posit an alternative end to the war, one in which the U.S. takes the military action necessary to win the war in Vietnam. I'm not sure what Master Sgt. Lulofs believes that would be, perhaps bombing the Red River dams and starving the North into surrender. Does he believe that the conflict would have ended, throughout the region, with no further conflict? Cambodia would have swiftly evolved into a stable democracy under leadership better than Lon Nol, somebody who could not have held onto power as long as he did without U.S. backing? Those who had spent a lifetime fighting for freedom against the French and then the Americans would have emerged, put down their arms, and embraced a new, national government led by Duong Van Minh? To me, it seems pie-in-the-sky. It seems more likely that skepticism of U.S. goals would have persisted, and that we would have seen a subsequent level of conflict that Lufos suggests is evidence of our lack of will to "win".

In terms of the first Gulf War,

The Gulf War was never truly won because, although Saddam Hussein was turned out of Kuwait, his army scorched the earth and left mostly intact. Iraq would remain a threat to coalition forces patrolling the skies over the northern and southern no-fly zones by repeatedly firing upon aircraft. Iraq would also remain a constant threat to its neighbors for the next 12 years through the threat of launching SCUD missiles armed with chemical and biological weapons.

The alternative to the outcome chosen for the first Gulf War, though, is the outcome of the second Gulf War. You either leave the regime intact with enough military strength to perpetuate itself and defend its borders, or you don't and you face the consequences of taking down a government led by an ethnic minority in a region rife with religious, factional and tribal conflicts. The author falls into the same trap, imagining that we can show enough will and resolve to make opposition to occupation, to subjugation, simply fade away. There's no reason to believe that to be realistic.

On Afghanistan, we get myth-making:

Initially, the United States demonstrated the will to win and win decisively. This nation, with a multinational force, exacted a swift and violent response. The enemy and all sympathizers were terrified. Terrorist-supporting nations around the region began to disarm their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs because of the resolve shown to win the war and win decisively. It is a region of the world that only understands strength and force, which is what we showed them.

Okay... so initially the Taliban was terrified. So terrified that they refused to surrender and refused to turn over bin Laden. And "Terrorist-supporting nations around the region began to disarm", by which the author apparently means Libya. And boy, didn't that turn out well. And yes, there's more than a slight undercurrent of bigotry in declaring, in relation to the people of the Middle East and North Africa, "It is a region of the world that only understands strength and force".

The author really likes to blame the U.S. public, particularly those opposed to certain of its wars, as somehow being responsible for the lack of will that prevents the U.S. military from achieving the fantasy victories he believes would otherwise apparently result from every U.S.-led war. Beyond the tired myth of people spitting on military veterans returning from Vietnam, Lufos complains that just when we were on the verge of victory,

However, our country again entered into a campaign to appease the minority of loud and aggressive pacifists. The cowardice of our nation's politicians prevented them from making clearly defined rules of engagement.

I suspect Lufos believes what he is saying, but it's difficult to see how he reconciles his positions with the facts. The anti-war movement was marginalized and ridiculed during the period leading into the war, and predictably public sentiment was firmly behind the war once it began. To the extent that the problems that arose in Iraq can be attributed to the rules of engagement, it seems fair to ask Lufos to explain what new rules of engagement would have created his fantasy victory? Does he imagine an unconstrained military, so free to stack up Iraqi bodies that the opposition simply wilts? Perhaps he does, given his prior suggestion that all the people of the Middle East understand is "strength and force." But that's a recipe for a fragile peace that ends the moment the occupying power lets down its guard, which is pretty much what happened (but with less bloodshed). The author continues,

Years of weak leadership and poor tactical execution created the powder keg in Fallujah in 2004. Because the fools of politics are never students of history, it was doomed to be repeated by another hasty withdrawal of forces from the country. Again, another vacuum was created and it allowed the very same terrorists which were turned from Fallujah to return.

Wait - I thought it was the anti-war movement that caused the problems after the invasion. Now it turns out that it was "weak leadership" and "poor tactical execution"? More than that, we're back to Lufos' odd notion of what it means to win a war. Apparently it means having a host government that is happy to have the U.S. military remain on its soil in perpetuity, and a U.S. military that is willing to police and hold together that state in perpetuity, because otherwise how would it be a failure of the war effort that the Iraqi government wanted us out, and how would it be the job of the U.S. military to hold or re-conquer (and re-conquer, and re-conquer) various regions of Iraq if the Iraqi government and military was not up to the job?

More than that, if all it takes is a government that is willing to be ruthless in its military operations to cow a population into throwing down its arms and acceding to whatever puppet government the occupying power chooses to impose, why did the Soviet Union fail to permanently pacify Afghanistan? Surely Lufos isn't going to blame that, as well, on anti-war sentiments held by the people of Russia.

The author then explains that it's not so much the enemy, but is in fact himself who only respects "strength and force":

If our nation understood enemies in combat can only be defeated with violence of action, we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan and black flags wouldn't be flying over Fallujah. Our nation has fought the Taliban and al Qaeda as if they were sparring in the debate team.

This takes us back to the author's earlier confusion about what victory means in a war against a nation state, and how by his definitions the U.S. "lost" World War I. How does the author believe that we can military compel people to change their minds about what tribe or faction should run their country, about what God wants them to do, about why they should agree to being ruled by a faction that they expect to subjugate their rights and interests instead of supporting a rival faction that they intend to champion those interests? "Kill them all and let God sort them out"?

The author complains also that the people have not acted sufficiently to hold elected leaders responsible for their actions. To the contrary, a strong case can be made that the elections in 2006 and 2008 were heavily influenced by the belief of the American people that the Bush Administration had been misguided to lose track of the war in Afghanistan in order to start a war of choice in Iraq. The consequences of the Bush Administration's (to use Lufos's words) "Years of weak leadership and poor tactical execution" have served to erode the Republican Party's prior status as the party that was stronger on issues of national security. Perhaps Lufos prefers to think of that as the anti-war movement somehow cowing politicians into ending wars that he imagines could somehow be "won", but perhaps the truth is something else: That, even with loosened rules of engagement, greater commitment of resources, and a longer time for military operations, people with eyes considerably clearer than his own don't see they type of victories for which he pines as plausible outcomes.

If Americans truly did "support the troops," they would not only shake our hands as we walked through the airport, they would demand their politicians commit to a swift victory.

Or perhaps they would take the position that if politicians and officers cannot achieve what Lufos and his peers would regard as a victory, they bring them home. It's really easy to play "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" games with military history, but at the end of the day you have to be able to distinguish fantasies of flowers, candy and democracy breaking out all over with the reality that more commonly flows from military intervention. The first Gulf War might not have been the fantasy victory Lufos desires, but it in fact achieved its stated military objectives. When you can't even articulate what a victory would look like, let alone become so nebulous in your conception of a war (e.g., a "Global War on Terror") that you can't even define your enemy, how can you know when you've won?

Soldiers Dying in Vain

Commenting on the story, "Lone Survivor," Jim Gourley takes on the conventional wisdom, that it should never be suggested that a soldier died in vain:

Yes, Marcus. Your friends died in vain. They went selflessly. They fought bravely. They sacrificed nobly. They lived in the best traditions of duty, honor, and country -- hallowed words which dictate what every American can and ought to be. But they died in vain for the exact reason that they went where their country sent them and did what their country told them to do. America failed you because it failed its obligation to those principles. It gives me no pleasure to write these words, because it applies as much to the friends I lost as it does to yours. But it needs to be said, because the sooner we acknowledge it as a country, the more lives we might save....

[General George Casey] excused himself from proposing a time in the future when that might hold true. And just last year Adm. Mike Mullen expressed the idea in the most definitive of terms: "How could it be that in a democracy -- a free society -- men and women may risk their lives to defend that freedom and lose those lives in vain? It cannot be so."

That was a bastardization of the Gettysburg address. His thesis ran contrary to Lincoln's original remarks. In Lincoln's view, the fallen "consecrated [the field of battle] far above our poor power to add or detract," but the domain of their honor went no further than the burial ground. The president stated explicitly that the cause for which they died could only be made worthy by the citizens who survived them. "It is rather for us here to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us ... that these dead shall not have died in vain...."

Throughout history, our nation's greatest leaders have understood on a deeply personal level that however honorably a soldier acquits himself, he can die in vain, and that it is the responsibility of the leaders and citizenry to see to it that they don't. Our country has lost its sense of that responsibility to a horrifying extent. Our generals have lost the capability to succeed and the integrity to admit failure. Our society has lost the courage and energy to hold them accountable. Over the last decade, our top leaders have wasted the lives of our sons, daughters, and comrades with their incompetence and hubris. After each failure, our citizens have failed to hold them accountable, instead underwriting new failed strategies as quickly as their predecessors with our apathy and sense of detachment. And then we use the tired paeans of "never forget" and "honor the fallen" to distract ourselves from our guilt in the affair. When we blithely declare that they did not die in vain, we deface their honor by using it to wipe the blood from our hands.

I can't help but sympathize with Gourley's observation that politicians now employ the notion that it is a terrible thing to suggest that a soldier could die in vain as a shield against valid criticism of their own decision-making, and also of the popular outcry that enables that conduct rather than requiring accountability.

Sorry, No, Pseudo-Conscription is Still a Bad Idea

Dana Milbank has jumped onto the bandwagon of those who think that the cure for "kids these days" is some form of conscription.

As I make my rounds each day in the capital, chronicling our leaders’ plentiful foibles, failings, screw-ups, inanities, outrages and overall dysfunction, I’m often asked if there’s anything that could clean up the mess....

But one change, over time, could reverse the problems that have built up over the past few decades: We should mandate military service for all Americans, men and women alike, when they turn 18. The idea is radical, unlikely and impractical — but it just might work.

But, even if we incorrectly assumed that the military wanted universal conscription, it's not even slightly realistic to have every 18-year-old serve in the military. While Milbank refers to Switzerland, in which "sons of bankers and farmers alike do basic training for several months and then are recalled to service for brief periods", none of the proponents of conscription are suggesting a similar approach. They instead prefer a period of a year or several years in which the young person is forced to participate in some sort of nebulous national work program that may (but probably won't) involve military service.

What we would end up with, at best, is what Milbank describes later in his editorial, based on his notion that "the structure is less important than the service itself",

My former colleague Tom Ricks proposes bringing back the draft in the United States but allowing for a civilian national service option — teaching, providing day care and the like — for those who don’t want to join the military.

Ricks' proposal was bad, as well, but at least he attempted to explain how it might function. The notion is that we are going to fix the nation's problems my making people take people away from their academic studies or jobs for a year or two, and compelling them to work in daycare centers or equivalent vocations? Seriously? And note the disdain for teaching as a profession - it's presented as something a random high school graduate can do, and roughly equivalent to working in a daycare center.

Milbank agrees with my past assessment that the cost of such a program would be huge. "Staggering" might be a better word. But he insists,

But so would the benefits: overcoming growing social inequality without redistributing wealth; making future leaders, unlike today’s “chicken hawks,” disinclined to send troops into combat without good reason; putting young Americans to work and giving them job and technology skills; and, above all, giving these young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country.

There is little reason to believe that Milbank's draft would overcome growing income inequality. The type of job skills that marginal high school graduates (or drop-outs) could develop through such a program would likely leave them qualified for low-paying jobs. Even for those who serve in the military, if you consider the difficulty that many veterans presently have finding employment, why does Milbank believe that those who are conscripted and serve for less time will fare better?

Without redistributing wealth? Sorry, but a program that takes a "huge" amount of government revenue and applies it to a year or two of national service would certainly be "redistributing wealth". There's also more than money at stake. For 18-year-olds who plan to attend college, you're delaying their entry into the workforce by at least a year (assuming the program is only a year long). For 18-year-olds who are employed, you're costing them their jobs. For 17-year-olds who would otherwise have job prospects, you're ensuring that employers won't consider them for anything more than temporary positions. That is, there's a tremendous opportunity cost imposed on the young people who are conscripted into the program - perhaps not wealth redistribution in the classic sense, but nonetheless imposing a genuine financial harm on those drafted into the program.

I'm not clear on why Milbank believes that this service, even if we pretend it could all be military service, will result in fewer military mobilizations. Milbank references "chicken hawks", the term applied to people like Dick Cheney who fastidiously avoided service during their youth but had no compunction about entangling the U.S. in wars. But where's the evidence that veterans, once in office, are any less hawkish than non-veterans? Veterans got us into the Korean War and Vietnam War, the first Iraq War, and any number of lesser conflicts. John McCain is a veteran, yet he's one of the most hawkish members of the Senate.

As for "putting young Americans to work and giving them job and technology skills", how would that work? Yes, the military involves a lot of job and technology skills, but often not the sort of skills that fit well with the modern civilian workplace. It's not clear how many of Milbank's conscripts would achieve similar skill sets, as their terms of service would be shorter. Beyond that, Milbank mentions... teaching and daycare. A young adult can already work in a daycare center straight out of high school, and in some cases before they even graduate. While it might be possible to create a small, focused program that allowed high school graduates to develop cutting edge skills, the sort of blunderbuss approach Milbank favors all-but-ensures that most participants will gain very few skills that would benefit them in a subsequent job, save perhaps at the bottom end of the job market.

Oh yes, and "above all", giving "young Americans a shared sense of patriotism and service to the country". I can't help but think of my uncle who, unlike many of the chicken hawks to whom Milbank alludes, insisted upon joining the military and upon combat duty despite a physical condition that would have allowed him to either avoid service or bide his time behind a desk. If anything, his patriotism was bated by his experiences, and the schisms within his unit made it anything but the sort of happy melting pot that Milbank seems to envision. Milbank's vision seems oddly in line with what you see in Vietnam, where conscripts may find themselves in a civilian uniform, working behind the front desk of an army-owned hotel... or cleaning the rooms. But there's little reason to believe that conscripts assigned to random, menial employment would feel much of a connection with those outside of the daycare center where they work, or that those who obtained more prestigious assignments or ranks would view them as equal. And last I checked, Vietnam's government was not one I envied.

Milbank later adds, "Gun-rights groups would cheer an armed citizenry", but where does that even come from? Milbank cannot seem to maintain a consistent thesis as to whether the conscripts would be performing military service, or whether they would be working in daycare centers. Perhaps he imagines that all conscripts will go through military basic training before being shipped off to work in daycare centers? It's hard to tell what he has in mind.

Milbank notes, "an article published by the libertarian Cato Institute argued that compulsory service 'can be a pillar of freedom,'" but fails to note the inherent tension between "libertarianism" and conscription, or for that matter between freedom and conscription. A libertarian might endorse bringing real meaning to the "unorganized militia", with the government providing broad opportunity for citizens to avail themselves of military training within that context, but let's not pretend that conscription is a libertarian ideal or that a libertarian with his head screwed on correctly would confuse it with "freedom".

I'm not particularly concerned that yet another pundit has endorsed a type of service he personally eschewed as a cure for the nation's ills, although I remain amused by arguments that boil down to, "The best way for young people to develop a set of values similar to my own is by being conscripted into a type of program that I, personally, avoided." There's no chance that universal conscription will become law. However, I do think that much of the hand-wringing about kids these days, and about how to provide better opportunities for young people who have more than their fair share of obstacles to overcome, could be channeled into a voluntary service program, a "bridge year" or two in which participants could be matched with suitable peer groups, and dispatched to communities where they could perform productive work and develop genuine job and leadership skills. But I guess that sort of idea isn't as fun to kick around. Besides, while conscription is something the government would have to impose, for somebody who is positioned to actually generate the necessary money and attention, proposing a "bridge year" program might invite the response, "Great idea, what are you doing to bring it to life?"

Don't Confuse High Stakes Testing With High Expectations

Frank Bruni recently expressed concern, in the usual hackneyed terms, that kids these days are "coddled". Some sports give trophies for participation, or end games early when the difference in score reaches a defined threshold. A middle school near Boston is concerned that kids' feelings might get hurt if they find out that they weren't invited to parties. Some kids get stressed by tests. Bruni complains that "Many kids at all grade levels are Bubble-Wrapped in a culture that praises effort nearly as much as it does accomplishment." As anybody, including Bruni, should know, people like Bruni have been writing this sort of column for generations.

All of Bruni's complaints are to set a context for his criticism of people who object to the high stakes standardized testing model imposed upon the nation's schools. Bruni conflates high stakes standardized tests with "tougher instruction [that should] not be rejected simply because it makes children feel inadequate, and that the impulse to coddle kids not eclipse the imperative to challenge them." While Bruni insists, that Common Core is "a laudable set of guidelines that emphasize analytical thinking over rote memorization", even he admits that "n instances its implementation has been flawed, and its accompanying emphasis on testing certainly warrants debate." Yet here he is, calling those who want to engage in the debate paranoiacs and whiners.

Then there’s the outcry, equally reflective of the times, from adults who assert that kids aren’t enjoying school as much; feel a level of stress that they shouldn’t have to; are being judged too narrowly; and doubt their own mettle.

Aren’t aspects of school supposed to be relatively mirthless? Isn’t stress an acceptable byproduct of reaching higher and digging deeper? Aren’t certain fixed judgments inevitable? And isn’t mettle established through hard work?

I don't mind at all the notion that school should be challenging. But what Bruni is overlooking is how standardized testing has displaced a lot of traditional classroom teaching and learning, or that the insistence that children master skills at earlier ages is not necessarily consistent with the students' cognitive development. After pushing more and more traditional first grade material into kindergarten, we're now hearing proposals to raise the age for kindergarten enrollment. If you end up with a kindergarten full of kids who, under the former system, would largely have been in first grade, what are you actually accomplishing?

Here's something it shouldn't take very long to figure out: When you tell a teacher, "Your ranking as a teacher, your ability to keep your job and the amount you are paid depends on how your students do on a series of standardized tests," the odds are that the teacher is going to devote a great deal of effort and classroom time to improving student performance on the test. Bruni ridicules a parent's complaint that as a result of that sort of focus on testing, his eight year old's class was left with "no room for imagination or play". Does Bruni not understand that children can be challenged academically, yet be encouraged in their imagination? Does Bruni not understand that children need breaks in their lessons during the course of a school day? That children can learn from play activities? It would seem not.

Bruni references David Coleman, "noe of the principal architects of the Common Core" as asserting that he favors self-esteem, but wants to "redefine self-esteem as something achieved through hard work". It's not that self-esteem cannot be derived from hard work, but that's not really what Coleman is talking about. In the schoolyard, self esteem is on the whole negatively correlated with academic performance. Bruni's ridicule of parents who are concerned about their parents feelings is, in a sense, more relevant than Coleman's goal, because Bruni's approach does not involve somehow changing human nature. When Coleman talks about how students "will not enjoy every step of it" but "if it takes them somewhere big and real, they’ll discover a satisfaction that redeems the sweat", he seems to be talking about the end of a very long process. If you don't find a way to let kids learn on an incremental basis that their hard work will be rewarded, you're not going to create an effective learning environment for most kids.

Bruni also references Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy, who has stated, "ile American parents are pulling their kids out of tests because the results make the kids feel bad, parents in other countries are looking at the results and asking themselves how they can help their children do better." But that's not the actual issue. Although certain factions of school reformers like to point to nations that obsess over test scores, holding them out as a model for the nation, it's very clear that we don't have the sort of culture that will cause us to follow the lead of South Korea, with kids leaving school to head over to private academies where they spend additional hours being prepped for tests, and we don't really want to follow the lead of nations that produce kids who are very good at taking tests but not much good at thinking outside the margins of a carefully darkened oval.

If you want good public schools, you don't need to do much. You need to make the profession of teaching sufficiently well respected and remunerated that you attract above average students into the profession, you want to make the task of classroom teaching rewarding, and you want parents who will reinforce the need for their kids to attend school, study and do their homework, behave in class, and achieve academically. When you do that you don't need to obsess over test stores - you can use standardized tests in their traditional manner, to assess individual and group performance with an eye toward improvement, and with no need for teachers to "teach to the test" because the goal is to obtain an accurate assessment as opposed to an artificially inflated score that reflects intensive teaching to the test at the expense of a rich classroom experience.

Ah, but high-stakes standardized testing is so much easier for school administrators and politicians, the ones who have positioned themselves to get prizes for "participation" - a large, steady paycheck with no consequences at all for the failure of schools, teachers or students. And it's so much easier to point to a computer-generated list of scores and pretend that you have objectively evaluated a teacher or school than it is to work hard.

How New York City Views the World

I kid Fred Wilson, but I did see an element of the NYC-centered worldview in his comment,

A smartphone can get you a ride but a car can't get you a date.

I think it's safe to say that Mr. Wilson can afford a car that would be very helpful to his dating life, were he not happily married.

But heck, as removed from the singles scene as I am, maybe we are moving into an era where "Hey, babe, check out the productivity apps on my Galaxy" is an effective pickup line.

Reactions to the Healthcare.gov "Obamacare" Website

I am not particularly sympathetic to the finger-pointing by the healthcare.gov contractors, that HHS should have left more time for testing the website before it went live, because they knew that there was a "drop dead" date by which the website had to go live. When I heard one of the contractors testify that their company didn't warn HHS of the need for a longer testing period, ostensibly because it wasn't their job, I had to roll my eyes. If you think it will take a month or two to integrate your work into website, and you know that the integration must be complete and tested inside of two weeks, it's your job to speak up - and to do so as soon as you realize that there's a problem.

I tried to use the website on day one. The site was clearly overwhelmed. My reaction to that? "I'll try again later." Yes, it would have been nice to get through the initial registration and set up an account, and it would have been nice had HHS anticipated the massive number of people who would try out the site when it went live, but this sort of thing happens.

What I didn't anticipate, when I went back to use the site, was an experience that suggested not only that the programmers didn't care about serve load, but that they built elements of the website that seemed to frequently and unnecessarily load the server. Oh, I'm sure lots of stuff is going on in the background, but when you're simply entering your personal information... why? And why so inefficiently? If the website is overwhelmed, it would make more sense to collect the information without doing all of the back-end data crunching and, when the basic information was collected, tell applicants, "It will take approximately X hours to process your application. We will notify you by email when your application has been processed. If you would like a text message, please enter your email address or cell phone number below."

When I went back to the site, I was able to complete the registration process, but received server error messages telling me to log back in later three times over that relatively short process. To the site's credit, I only lost data one time. One minor annoyance was having to enter the same information several times, with no ability to simply click a "same as last time"-type option to pull in the data already entered. Another was with the editing process. You have to enter SSNs for people who will be part of your application. For security reasons, the SSNs are obfuscated, with the last six numbers replaced by asterisks, when you edit the personal information for any person who is part of your application. But if you don't delete those asterisks and re-enter the SSN you will get an error message. That's the sort of inattention to detail that can make a website less pleasant to use - I wonder what percentage of applicants think that the asterisks reflect the website's retention of the data, such that it doesn't have to be re-entered, only to get that error message. If you have to enter the SSN anyway, don't populate the field with asterisks. Leave it blank, perhaps with an explanation, "For security reasons your SSN is not displayed on this page. Please re-enter the number before you proceed."

Another oddity is the navigation of the various steps of the application process. The site displays the steps you must take, and those you have not yet completed, but there's no "click here to continue" type prompt. You have to guess where to click. It's not that it's difficult to guess, but I've heard from a person who I would have thought would have figured it out and he was stymied.

When available plans are displayed, you can compare plans. You can select as many as you want to compare, but the comparison page only shows three plans at a time. The comparison page is decent, with the plan broken down into areas of coverage with subheadings for the elements of coverage within a given area. The problem is, if you choose the option to delete the plan in the first column, those subheadings go away making it e difficult to compare plans. They do not reappear even if you go to the next page of plans selected for comparison - for the subheadings to reappear you need to restart the comparison process.

Finally, when selecting a plan I received a large warning that the plan did not include dental coverage for minors. It did. The problem suggests that the data about each plan and its components is included in redundant fields, as if the plan can properly display the coverage it provides there is no reason why the verification algorithm would get it wrong.

Mistakes like these aren't just indicative of limited testing by HHS. They are indicative of limited testing by the contractors who developed the UI for the website, and more than that they suggest to me that the programmers were largely indifferent to the user experience. The delays in processing data suggest that programmers were largely, perhaps, completely, indifferent to server load.

I used the online chat service to verify that I could rely upon the plan description despite the warning message. Response time was prompt and the person providing support was professional and efficient.

If I were the programmer responsible for any of the problems on this site, I wouldn't be pointing fingers. I would be apologizing and redoubling my efforts to fix it. With Republican demagoguery on the law and now on the website, it's easy to point fingers but really - based upon the types of problems and issues I experienced, the programmers bear the lion's share of responsibility for the problems with the site they programmed.

If you want to browse basic pricing information for the sites included in healthcare.gov, but don't want to register yet, unofficial information is available courtesy of Stephen P. Morse.

A Fourth Year of Law School?

Cardozo Law Professor Edward Zelinsky is taking some well-deserved ribbing for his suggestion that law school should be expanded to a four year program. Critics of his piece have noted the tension between his argument that law school should be longer and should be more affordable,

The most serious argument against a fourth year of law school is the additional cost it would entail. Legal education is already too expensive. Adding a fourth year would impart even greater urgency to task of controlling the expense of law school, just as there is currently great urgency to the task of controlling the costs of undergraduate education.

As if it makes sense to increase the cost and duration of law school by a third, and only then address the urgent need to make law school more affordable. But I also take issue with this claim,

An ancillary benefit of a fourth year of legal education would, in the short run, be a reduction in the supply of law school graduates.

Let's say that starting in 2014, every new law school student were enrolled in a four-year program instead of a three-year program. In 2017, very few law school students would graduate. In 2018, assuming prospective law school students didn't turn away from the additional burden in droves, the market would return to "business as usual". So there would be a whopping single year in which a shortage of law school graduates would significantly affect the legal job market, which may help lawyers you graduated a year, perhaps two years before, but would be of little help to anybody who graduated earlier and of no help to anybody who graduates later. Still, not to damn his point with faint praise, it's not the weakest of his arguments.

Microsoft... Still Doesn't Get It

A Microsoft executive, Frank Shaw's, attempt to poke Apple has gained some attention,

Note: If you are the TL;DR type, let me cut to the chase. Surface and Surface 2 both include Office, the world’s most popular, most powerful productivity software for free and are priced below both the iPad 2 and iPad Air respectively. Making Apple’s decision to build the price of their less popular and less powerful iWork into their tablets not a very big (or very good) deal.

Since we launched the Surface line of tablets last year, one of the themes we’ve consistently used to talk about them is that they are a terrific blend of productivity and entertainment in one lightweight, affordable package. In fact, we’re confident that they offer the best combination of those capabilities available on the market today.

Wait a second... then why did Shaw just say this?

I have to say, I’m really excited for a 1080p Lumia with a third column on my start screen so I can keep a close eye on more people, more news, more stuff.

That is, if Microsoft's tablets are the best combination of productivity and entertainment on the market, why is Shaw excited about buying a Nokia, even if Microsoft is in the process of acquiring that company? Shaw leaves me with the impression that his blog post is less about touting his company's great product than it is an attempt to promote Windows tablets, generally, by taking digs at Apple. Microsoft was very late to recognize the market for the tablet computer, and continues to withhold Office from competing platforms as it has scrambled to develop its own tablets. On top of that, part of the reason that Microsoft's tablets are "affordable" is that they aren't selling, and as a result prices have been slashed... now twice. I don't want to diminish the Surface as a product, and I suspect that it would have been more successful had it been released two years earlier, but as with the Zune there's a significant price for coming late to market with a product that doesn't capture the imagination of your market.

What strike me most about the piece is how the Surface is, in essence, touted as a laptop. Microsoft, we're told, is the expert in how real people work. Real people want keyboards, trackpads, multiple windows open on their displays, a full version of Office. (Real people also apparently want an obnoxious, in-your-face tile interface shoved in their faces when they boot up a Windows 8 computer, and want touch screens on their portable computers.) And yet real people demonstrate Microsoft's skill in assessing their needs by buying Apple and Android tablets in huge numbers, while largely ignoring the Surface.

If you're typing or editing large documents, are creating spreadsheets, or working with other complex documents, you probably do want a keyboard and mouse or trackpad, but... you probably already have a desktop computer, a portable computer, or both upon which to perform those tasks. If you have a notebook computer that runs Windows, what's the advantage of toting around a Surface tablet with a keyboard cover when you can simply use your computer? The power of Surface has given Windows tablets about 5% of the market, which is enough to keep your toes in the water. Apple has about 5% of the global PC market, so in a sense Microsoft is in good company.

Shaw declares that by offering so much productivity Microsoft is leading the market (from behind)....

And so it’s not surprising that we see other folks now talking about how much “work” you can get done on their devices. Adding watered down productivity apps. Bolting on aftermarket input devices. All in an effort to convince people that their entertainment devices are really work machines.

In that spirit, Apple announced yesterday that they were dropping their fees on their “iWork” suite of apps. Now, since iWork has never gotten much traction, and was already priced like an afterthought, it’s hardly that surprising or significant a move. And it doesn’t change the fact that it’s much harder to get work done on a device that lacks precision input and a desktop for true side-by-side multitasking.

I think Shaw is onto something when he describes how Microsoft is in touch with what people want, if we define "people" as the population that is already predisposed to buy a Surface. The problem is, he is touting solutions that have absolutely nothing to do with how most people use tablet computers. The tablet is largely a product for consumption of media and entertainment, not for productivity. To the extent that you can add on productivity, about 90% of tablet users are going to find all of the power they need (and perhaps more) in the free apps that Apple is offering, and those apps will get better over time.

Perhaps what Shaw is displaying is discomfort at seeing his company's business model increasingly threatened by free software. Sure, the competing software may be less powerful than Office suite, but... free, and good enough for a significant majority of users. It's part of an expectation Microsoft helped create when it launched its browser war against Netscape, and even before that with its controversial bundling practices: the idea that you pay for your computer hardware, and that the software you need for basic functions (an ever-expanding category) should be free. Your Surface tablet runs Windows 8 and Office, but will upgrades to either be free? I doubt that's what Microsoft has in mind.

Apple seems to be taking the position that software is a commodity product that is best used to sell hardware, and by expanding the sphere of what its customers get for free - and how well its products play together - they want to keep customers in the Apple ecosystem. I can see merit in Microsoft's vision of the future, with people having full capacity to do whatever it is that they want to do on whatever device they have with them, but I'm not sure that the vision is compatible with Microsoft's business model - at least not in the mass market. If expensive software upgrades are required for any product running Windows, that cost will quickly undermine Microsoft's claim that its products are more affordable than those that offer free upgrades. Apple's vision of the future seems to be to allow users of its products to transition from one device to another, phone, tablet, computer, Apple TV, while having each device know exactly where you left off on the other. Continue your movie from where you paused, continue editing your document from where you stopped.... That vision seems to be more viable, and is unquestionably consistent with Apple's business model and - despite Mr. Shaw's claims - seems to be more consistent with how people in the mass market are using their devices.

So, when I see Apple drop the price of their struggling, lightweight productivity apps, I don’t see a shot across our bow, I see an attempt to play catch up.

Whereas I see Apple as obviating the need for 90+% of its customers to ever purchase "Office for IOS", should Microsoft ever muster enough courage to release such a product.

I think they, like others, are waking up to the fact that we’ve built a better solution for people everywhere, who are getting things done from anywhere, and who don’t have hard lines between their personal and professional lives. People who want a single, simple, affordable device with the power and flexibility to enhance and support their whole day. :)

I admit it. If I had to choose between doing my professional work, or even blogging, on a tablet or a notebook computer, I would pick the notebook computer as the "single, simple, affordable device with the power and flexibility to enhance and support their whole day". But I don't have to choose, and thus can use my smartphone or tablet for the functions they provides extremely well - basic communication, media consumption, web browsing, simple games, demonstrations, and online reference materials - and switch to my notebook computer (or go to my desk) for more complex tasks. To look at it another way, the fact that I have a Swiss Army knife and thus can sometimes avoid using a more specialized tool doesn't mean I'm going to throw away my saws, knives, screwdrivers and scissors. If your vision of a typical tablet user is somebody typing away on a keyboard using a fully featured windows OS, you're not looking at how people interact with their tablets.

Ed Rogers Is Terrified That Obamacare will Succeed

Ed Rogers, one of the Washington Post's political demagogues blogging in the PostPartisan (get it?) section of their website, blathers about Obamacare:

Since I’m always admonishing others to admit the obvious, I will now make an admission of my own: I’m rooting for Obamacare to fail. And I encourage others to do the same.

If you're familiar with Rogers or his history, that's really all that he needed to say. It would stand as a naked admission of his political bias, and his preference to cause harm to the millions of people who will benefit - and are already benefiting- from the PPACA if it gives advantage to the Republican Party. And if he left it at that, it would be fair to point out that people of Rogers' ilk used to go ballistic over criticism of George W. Bush, pretending that any criticism constituted a near-treasonous (or... should I say treasonish) wish for the nation to fail. But... he can't stop there.

I do not hope the uninsured stay uninsured, but Obamacare is not the solution.

You know what would have been a good follow-up to that claim? A proposed solution. Do you think we got one? Get real. The reason Rogers and his ilk are jumping on the "Glitchgate" bandwagon is because they don't have any ideas.

Obamacare is a harmful policy that will be bad for the country if it is forced upon Americans and the American economy.

You know what would have been a good follow-up to that hyperbolic claim? Any evidence that it is connected to reality. Do you think we got one? Yeah, same answer.

Why would anyone hope it limps into existence and settles like a cancer on the U.S. health-care system?

Wow... people having health insurance is like cancer. Who would have thunk.

The president asked his critics to stop rooting for its failure, but I, for one, refuse to do so.

And there he circles back to my first point, but again he finds himself unable to stop.

Also, the failure of Obamacare would do a lot to expose the false promises of big government programs.

Let's see... the three biggest ticket items are Medicare, a highly popular and effective health insurance program, Social Security, a highly popular and effective program to provide retirement benefits and disability insurance, and the military. Which of these does Rogers believe will be proved to be a "false promise" by a government program that, rather than following the successful lead of Medicare, compels people to buy insurance from private companies?

President Obama has been and always will be an unapologetic promoter of classic liberal activism.

Do you have the first clue what "classic liberal activism" means? If it were a little less polite, it might be a meaningless phrase Rogers picked up from Rush Limbaugh.... Does Hannity use that phrase? Seriously - when I search for the phrase "classic liberal activism" in quotes, Google returns a whopping six results, three of which are the same screed from WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah's gift to reactionary trolls who want to play journalist. Perhaps that's Rogers' source?

Liberals think that Washington knows best and that increasing citizens’ dependency on government is a goal in and of itself.

When the facts fail you, there's nothing like a hollow man argument to save the day. Which liberals hold that belief, Ed? Can you name even one? Didn't think so.

Like all Republicans, I believe we need smaller government.

Straight from the hollow man to the false generalization. History tells us that Republican Presidents like to talk about smaller government, while nonetheless significantly expanding the size, reach and cost of government. Going back to 1982, which presidents have presided over the slowest growth in annualized federal spending? Clinton and Obama, by significant measure. If Republicans believe in smaller government, why do they have such a difficult time voting for politicians who reduce the size of government, implementing policies to reduce the size of government, or applauding the presidents who actually walk that walk? (Which again takes us back to my first point).

Obamacare is the opposite of a smaller, less obtrusive government.

No, as Rogers would figure out if he were to actually think about the issues, it is not. Millions of people are trying to sign up for health insurance through the exchanges because they want insurance. Millions of people went to the exchange site the day it opened for that very reason. Rogers may sit around with his wealthy Republican peers, sniveling about how ordinary people don't really want health insurance, but the fact is that millions of people like the provisions of the PPACA that are already in effect (such as allowing kids to stay on their parents's health insurance until the age of 24) and are eager to finally get health insurance that they can afford or that will cover their pre-existing conditions. In terms of being "smaller", quite obviously the program is designed to minimize the public role. The opposite of that would be single payer.

The failure of Obamacare would discourage and hopefully deter those who think a bigger, more domineering U.S. government is the answer to our problems.

Actually, the lesson would be that we should do the sensible thing, and follow the lead of pretty much any other western democracy - all of which have national health insurance programs of one sort or another that are both popular and largely successful. It is the adherence to "free market" principles that keeps this nation's health insurance costs so high, while providing the average American with less care than they would be able to obtain under a less costly "socialized" model.

And most important, the horrors of this debacle and the collapse of Obamacare would have a chilling effect on politicians who want to promote big government solutions.

And there you get to the real problem - Rogers is cheering for Obamacare to fail because his bladder trembles at the thought that it might succeed. And then governments might do crazy things, like adequately funding public education and fixing roads and bridges.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Dishonest, Irresponsible Demagogue

I see that Jim Inhofe is lying about ObamaCare.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told the radio station WABC on Sunday he may not have been granted his recent emergency quadruple bypass heart surgery if he was insured under Obamacare, BuzzFeed reported.

"You are talking to someone right now who probably wouldn’t be here if we had socialized medicine in America," he said on host Aaron Klein's radio show, referring to Obamacare.

Inhofe, 79, told Klein he discovered he needed immediate heart surgery for clogged arteries after going in for a routine colonoscopy, and that had he been in a country with “socialized medicine like Obama is trying to impose upon America,” the operation might have been unavailable.

As even a half-informed half-wit would know, coronary bypass surgery is performed as a matter of routine in nations with socialized medicine. But more than that... And such a person would likely also realize that, despite irresponsible demagoguery from people like Inhofe, Obamacare involves the purchase of insurance from private insurance companies. Surely Inhofe can still generate enough sparks between his neurons to understand the difference between buying insurance from a private company, even if pursuant to a mandate, and "socialized medicine."

Inhofe has two taxpayer-funded insurance policies. The first is the insurance the taxpayers provide to him through his employment as a U.S. Senator. Second, he is the beneficiary of a truly socialized health insurance plan, the extremely popular program called Medicare. Nothing about his coverage is going to materially change on January 1. He would still have his two taxpayer-funded policies, and with coordination of coverage it was likely the socialized Medicare program that paid for his recent surgery and that would pay for it had his need arisen next year.

You know what? Let's toss ObamaCare out the window, and give everybody exactly what Jim Inhofe enjoys - government paid health insurance on top of government-paid Medicare coverage. Deal?

The (Non-)Political (Non-)Persection of JPMorgan Chase

The Washington Post tells us what some conspiracy theorists have to say about the prosecution of JPMorgan Chase for the London Whale fiasco and for the sins of its acquired companies leading up to the financial crisis:

We’re less impressed by the more backward-looking attack on JPMorgan for allegedly misleading investors about the quality of securities it marketed before the crash. Mr. Dimon reportedly is facing a demand for $11 billion in fines and other payments to settle the case, under threat of a Justice Department criminal investigation. Yet roughly 70 percent of the securities at issue were concocted not by JPMorgan but by two institutions, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, that it acquired in 2008. Among the investors supposedly ripped off were the sophisticated government-sponsored enterprises known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As was inevitable, some say the case is payback for Mr. Dimon’s criticism of Obama adminstration policy.

The editorial continues,

We don’t take that view; nor do we pity JPMorgan, which is still a lucrative business despite its legal woes and which purchased the institutions for their valuable assets mixed in with their massive liabilities. When it bought them, it bought their legal issues, too — known and unknown.

There's an obvious tension between the Editorial Board's whine, "70 percent of the securities at issue were concocted not by JPMorgan but by two institutions, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, that it acquired in 2008" and their subsequent statement, "When [JPMorgan Chase] bought them, it bought their legal issues, too — known and unknown". If they're responsible, then the percentage doesn't matter. Even if you buy into the subsequent "poor little rich boy" argument, "then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. told Mr. Dimon that doing so would help the country by stemming market panic. That gives the case a certain 'no-good-deed-goes-unpunished' quality", the companies' misconduct was not exactly a state secret at that point and potential liabilities were factored into the fire sale prices. Robert Pozen offers another version of the "poor little rich boy" stance, that admits as much,

If JPMorgan had purchased Bear Stearns under "normal" circumstances, JPMorgan's shareholders would have been a reasonable target of the lawsuit. Typically, if one corporation (call it A Corp.) buys another (call it T Corp.), A assumes all of T's former liabilities-its bonds, pension obligations, and, yes, its legal liabilities.

The transfer of legal liability relies on the logic that A could have performed due diligence prior to acquiring T, and reduced its offer price to account for any potential legal liability. Thus, the expected cost of future lawsuits flows through to T's shareholders, as it should in the normal case.

But JPMorgan's acquisition of Bear Stearns was different. JPMorgan purchased Bear Stearns at the behest of top federal officials-who needed JPMorgan to quickly announce a deal in order to quell a potential financial panic. Furthermore, the offer price was effectively set by these federal officials. There was no opportunity for JPMorgan to learn about Bear Stearns' legal liability, nor to adjust its offer price accordingly. Indeed, JP Morgan initially walked away from the acquisition because it did not have enough time for due diligence.

Thus, punishing JPMorgan's shareholders does nothing to align incentives-it merely punishes shareholders for acts in which they are blameless. Even worse, this fine discourages companies from engaging in "white knight" acquisitions at the request of federal regulators. In the future, company executives will demand broad guarantees against losses from the government before taking over any troubled institutions.

The short answer to that is that, while I feel some sympathy for a company that plays white knight and ends up with a worse deal than it anticipated, nobody forced JPMorgan Chase to say "yes". Pozen admits that they understood the risk and chose to go forward with the purchase anyway. As for their being a fixed price and no room to negotiate, clearly there were negotiations - JPMorgan Chase was free to walk away, did so, reconsidered, and came back to close the deal. Further, the facts belie the notion that the government presented JPMorgan Chase with a "take it or leave it" price - they had initially agreed to pay $2/share, and it was the threats of Bear Stearns shareholders to fight the sale that inspired them to raise their offer to $10/share. The total selling price was less than the value of Bear Stearns' Manhattan headquarters - you can't look at the negotiations or the purchase price without recognizing that JPMorgan Chase knew it was taking on potentially massive liabilities.

As for future "white knights" being afraid to step forward, let's be honest: JPMorgan Chase acted because it saw a business opportunity. Pozen and the Washington Post Editorial Board assume that JPMorgan Chase was unaware of the possible downside. I don't attribute that level of incompetence to its negotiators, and have little doubt but that they carefully considered outcomes far worse than the present proposed fines when they agreed to buy Bear Stearns at a stock valuation of 7.5% of its 52 week high.

But more than that, if the Board sincerely does not endorse the view of the conspiracy theorists, the unidentified "some" who "say the case is payback for Mr. Dimon’s criticism of Obama adminstration policy", why did Fred Hiatt and his crew choose to title their editorial, "JPMorgan Chase’s political persecution"? Was Hiatt trying to mislead readers into believing that the Post endorses the stance of the conspiracy theorists? Does he understand what the word "persecution" means? And why are they suggesting that holding JPMorgan Chase responsible for misconduct for which they acknowledge it to have assumed liability imperils the government's reputation for impartiality? How would it be impartial for the government treat JPMorgan Chase more favorably than it would treat another, similarly situated company?

Alas, these are the types of questions that Fred Hiatt's Editorial Board can never seem to find space to answer.