Modern Day Drifter

If you are a very powerful political figure and a potential nominee from your party for a future presidential election, you face more scrutiny in both your public and private affairs than the average citizen.  This can be especially burdensome if you intend to engage in any form of extra-marital sexual liason.  Therefore, the OG and I would like to offer a special edition of our guidelines for adulterers.  Because this one is meant for powerful political figures who need to work extra hard to hide their indiscretions, we shall dub it "The Spitzer Addendum".  We do this because we feel that it is especially important for politicians to be able to engage in sexual indiscretions without having to face the wrath of public opinion.  Because really, who wants them to be sexually frustrated when they are debating the merits of invading other countries?

Number One: Don't take pictures.

Number Two (Spitzer Addendum): Always pay in cash.  If you will be paying for high-end luxury services and will need a lot of cash, arrange for the fee to be distributed in small amounts and to multiple sources.  This avoids the problems associated with hiding large cash transactions from the IRS.

Number Three: If you get caught by the wife, at least have some clothes on under the covers while you're playing cards with the babysitter who's sitting on the bed wearing a g-string.

Number Four (Spitzer Addendum): Conduct all communication about the liason with a public phone.  It's very difficult for criminal investigators to wiretap public phones.  Even if they do, it's impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in both the courts of law and public opinion, that you were the person using that particular phone which, by definition, is available to anyone.

Number Five (Spitzer Addendum): If you intend to use a paid service, and especially if you intend to do so frequently, do not be a memorable client.  You only raise the possibility that you will be remembered by the service staff.  These memories can, in the worst-case-scenario, become testimonies.  However, if you are just a regular customer and only require the most basic services and positions, you dramatically reduce your risk of being fingered.

We hope that these rules are helpful for all out there who wish to explore their sexual veractiy outside of the confines of marriage.  You can expect further updates as other sex scandals come to light.  We are committed to providing the highest level of service for our public figures and look forward to the day when updates to these quidelines are no longer necessary due to the inability of journalists to uncover extra-marital sexual liasons.  Thank you and go fornicate with confidence. 

In an otherwise uninteresting ESPN article about the reaction among Atlantans to Michael Vick's intention to plead guilty to dogfighting charges way back in August (I'm slow; I know), the non-casual reader can find the following statement, posted on a discussion board on the Atlanta Journal Constitution's website: 'This is about race no matter how we put it. White folks can shoot ducks all day, but when you fight pit bull against pit bull it is a crime.'

Is it fair that hunting, a sport that the commenter correctly argues is largely enjoyed by whites, remains legal in this country while dogfighting, a sport that is probably largely supported by blacks (I want data before I will contribute any certainty to the second part, however; I suspect that more whites have gone to jail for dogfighting than blacks), has become a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison?  I don't know.  But every judge, lawyer, and prosecutor–and indeed every citizen who finds meaning in the words 'under the rule of law'–must negotiate compromises between what they think the law should be and what the law actually is.  

But the assertion that Vick's prosecution is ultimately about race qualifies as the textbook definition of a red herring.  In no way does this criticism of the legal system, regardless of its merits, change the fact that dogfighting is illegal, not because of discrimination against blacks, but because an overwhelming majority of the American populace considers this particular blood sport to be barbaric and inhumane and have therefore pushed for its criminalization.

And so the law is of course subject to political pressures.  Anyone who argues that the law is, and should remain, above politics has the cart before the horse.  The law is and must be a political process since our politicians are explicitly charged with crafting a fair number of the laws of this country.  Crafting the law will always be a political process. 

So is Michael Vick a victim?  Of course he is.  He is a victim of every other pressure that is placed upon celebrities in this country, regardless of whether or not they want them.  He is a victim of a culture that finds illicit activities to often be highly lucrative and tempting.  Of course, such an assertion is ludicrous, given that the amount of money he gained through dogfighting would have been dwarfed by his former salary and endorsement deals.  But ultimately, Vick is a victim of a human psyche that cannot let go of the past, that cannot say no to those with whom it has a history, and that ultimately finds it very difficult to sever social ties, even when they lead us back down paths we know we should not travel.

However, that of course does not exonerate him.  Not if we, as a society, want to live 'under the rule of law' at least.  I have every reason to believe that Vick knew what he was doing was illegal, in much the same way that I know I am breaking the law every time I drive too fast.

Having said all of that, however, I'd still like to see my favorite NFL team take a chance on Vick when he is finally released from prison.  Everyone deserves a second chance.  And man is he exciting to watch.

Exactly.  Che Guevara is not a hero but rather a war criminal.  And he looks fucking ridiculous on a bikini.

It is officially time to get rid of the Nobel Peace Prize since it has now lost all of its intended meaning.  Make no mistake, Al Gore and the IPCC have done fantastic work on providing knowledge and creating awareness about some of the threats that the planet faces over the next century.  But in no way have they "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" as stipulated by the will of Alfred Nobel.  In fact, the press release stating the rationale for their selection never mentions peace or the fraternity between nations.  Climate change is an important topic and one that needs to be dealt with, no doubt.  And you could argue that in the future it may pose a threat to international peace.  But as far as actually stopping bloodshed in the here and now, there are far more worthy candidates this year–the monks in Burma who stood up to an oppressive military regime and the Democratic Party of Japan that successfully prevented the former prime minister from revising Japan's constitution to allow for offensive military forces to name only two.

To be completely honest, I would argue that the prize lost its meaning long ago.  One need only look at the list of laureates to see what I mean.  Both Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat are Nobel Peace Prize laureates.  True, at the time of their awards, Arafat hadn't revealed himself to be a bellicose charlatan and the full viciousness of Kissinger's sinister realpolitik had yet to be uncovered, but the fact remains that neither of these men has a legacy that immediately induces one to think of peace.  In addition, last year's laureate also never worked to stop bloodshed unless you make the assumption that access to credit induces people to lay down arms or otherwise embrace their neighbors.  And it very well could.  And yes, I fully supported Yunus's prize last year.  But between the last two prizes going to individuals and groups who have worked on projects that are not directly related to peace and certain notorious individuals marring the list of laureates, I have to argue for the deferral of future prizes until the Nobel Committee can once again accurately identify those groups and individuals who legitimately strive to end or at least reduce the suffering caused by the scourge of violence.

Question of the day: Why, at the dawn of the 21st century, are we still ordering men down gaping scars on the earth's surface to extract a gritty black mass that when pulverized and then touched by fire releases smoke and can make a wheel turn?  Can't we do better than relying on a technology that is currently over 150 years old for most of our electricity needs?  Or if we insist on continuing to use coal, don't we have robots that we can send to extract it?  Or at least have robots dig and augur the tunnels that men go down so that we don't lose anyone else to mine collapses like the one currently plaguing Utah?  Why can't the mining industry make these advancements?  Or why can't we just get rid of the mining industry altogether?  I realize that I have now posed more than just one question of the day, but someone has to ask these questions.  Can't we do better?

A very powerful earthquake in Peru, 7.9 on the Richter scale, killed at least 337 people yesterday.  The exact death toll won't be known for months, but hidden in the death toll, whatever it may finally be, is a telling and extremely important fact that no one ever mentions.  Now of course what follows is callous and offers no solace to those who lost loved ones in this particular earthquake, but I would like to think that it would offer hope for the future.  You see, a probable death toll in the low hundreds should be cause for celebration, not despair.  More than anything, that number reflects just how far Peru, and indeed the world in general, has come in the last few decades. 

In fact, just under four decades ago, in May 1970, an earthquake, also measuring 7.9, struck the Cordillera Blanca in northern Peru and triggered a landslide and avalanche off of Huascarán, the sixth highest mountain in the world.  Sitting at the base of Huascarán was a small town called Yungay.  That town no longer exists as the landslide and avalanche buried the town's 20,000 inhabitants.  Today, when you walk around the area of the disaster, you are quite literally walking on the rooftops of houses, stores, restaurants, and churches.  The only visible relics of the old town are two church steeples that protrude slightly from the earth.

Read that paragraph again.  Just a little over 35 years ago, an earthquake in northern Peru killed 20,000 people.  Yesterday, an earthquake of the same magnitude hit a far more populated area and will likely result in less than a thousand deaths.  Now of course it is difficult to make a direct comparison as the previous earthquake caused an avalanche and landslide.  However, we should not diminish nor ignore the fact that economic growth, development, and human ingenuity have each assisted in reducing the death toll by at least an order of magnitude.  That is phenomenal progress.  And it tells a story that more often than not goes untold.  Whatever the consequences of our explosive economic progress and development, as a species, we have used them to so radically alter our environment and our ability to adapt to that environment that even Mother Nature's worst can only set us back slightly.

It is impossible to understate how important of an observation that is.  Not only does it reduce the death and injury tolls from natural disasters, but it also makes recoveries faster and more efficient.  It reduces the human cost of suffering by increasing the speed with which victims receive assistance.  And, most importantly, it is an observation that must, must, be mentioned in any intelligent debate about global climate change.  Because regardless of whether or not you believe that humans are responsible for the rise in global temperatures, you cannot deny that we can, as a species, due to our nature and recent technological and economic developments, adjust our lifestlyes and continue to alter our environment in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.  Any policy proposal that explicitly aims to reduce temperatures must be weighed against policies that consider ways in which we could adapt to a warmer planet.  If we fail to do that, then we betray not only our planet, but also the logic and intelligence that have allowed our species to develop to this point.

An earthquake struck southern Sakhalin Island this morning, just above the northernmost point of Hokkaido, and therefore Japan.  Before you ask, I'll go ahead and say that I didn't feel anything since it was a good 200 miles away, but I would like to mention a couple of things about Sakhalin Island nevertheless.  First, you can actually see Sakhalin Island from Hokkaido, even though it's at least 25 miles away.  I haven't decided yet, but I might go there for my summer vacation.  In which case I would like to make a humble request to the developer of the 'Where I've been' Facebook application: please allow an option for countries that I've seen but haven't actually been to so that I can add Russia to my map.  Second, even though Sakhalin officially belongs to Russia, the Japanese seem to think it belongs to them.  In fact, I have a Japanese map of the world on the wall in my classroom and while Russia is purple and Japan green, the southern half of Sakhalin Island is actually colored white to point out the fact that it is disputed territory.  So the fact that the international media will report this earthquake as having occurred just off Russian territory will anger the Japanese to no end.  No, really.  There's a permanent exhibit in front of the museum here in Hakodate dedicated to the return of the northern islands, of which I believe Sakhalin is one.  So here's my proposal to the Japanese government: just buy the islands from Russia.  Every knows that Russia is desperate for cash and, well, really anything.  So I'm sure they'd be willing to sell them.  Or, since demographic projections show that Russia will cease to exist in about 50 years, just wait.  Oh, hold on a second.  The same projections argue that Japan will also cease to exist in 50 years.  Well, someone has to blink first.  In the meantime, I'll just sit here and wait for the next earthquake.  That's a much more fun waiting game.

If it weren't so tragic, the unimaginable suffering of Zimbabwe's citizens under the rule of the peer-less despot Robert Mugabe would serve as the perfect natural experiment for a research paper on any one of a number of macroeconomic policy topics.  It's almost as if he didn't get the memo about politicians actually leading their country forward.  He is literally pursuing every single growth-killing policy that economists have thought of in the history of the discipline.  Simultaneously.  And, as mentioned previously, the results are blindingly and tragically obvious.  The effect of price controls on food, water and electricity?  Check.  Shortages and hoarding.  The effect of printing more money for financing municipal projects?  Check.  Hyperinflation.  Seizing and redistributing land based on ethnicity and not on productivity or price?  Check.  Food shortages and starvation.  New words for 'terrible' need to be invented to describe just how terrible of a ruler this man is.  The only saving grace for Zimbabwe is that he's currently 82 years old and will soon be nothing more than a rotting carcass.  That is, if his disastrous policies don't force the people he claims to serve to eat him first.

It appears that over the weekend, while discussing Soviet environmental catastrophes with an Englishman, I committed an error.  Sorry Stephen, but the Soviets didn't dump nuclear waste on the island in the patch of land formerly known as the Aral Sea, but actually tested nuclear and biological weapons on it, which I guess is even worse than just regular nuclear waste.  So living near the dried-up sea sucks even worse than I thought since there has been plenty of time for both nuclear and biological toxins to traverse the land bridge that connects the former island to the mainland around what used to be the world's fourth largest lake.  (Go ahead and laugh at my confusing sentences.  You try to write something about a piece of land that used to be an inland sea and see how well you do with the usage of words like mainland and lake.)  Fortunately, however, the Aral Sea is currently making a comeback in places thanks to the efforts of some highly dedicated environmental engineers and the World Bank.  So not only will the nuclear and biological waste once again hopefully be isolated on the island, but locals might actually have a chance at producing some economic activity.  Now if only they could figure out exactly who owns the damn thing.

Robert Fogel, a well-respected growth and population economist, has predicted that the Chinese economy will grow to $123 trillion by 2040.  Read that again.  That's not a typo, that really is his prediction.  Now I haven't read the paper since I no longer get free access to NBER working papers, so I can't comment on his methodology, but I'm nevertheless skeptical of this number.  Here's why:

1) China's current economic output is around $5 trillion.  The percentage change (growth rate) from last year is 10.3%.

2) Most economists expect China's economic growth to slow over the next decade.  However, I'm going to ignore that and just go with the 10.3% growth rate and assume it for the next 33 years.

3) Based on a model of continuous exponential growth at 10.3%, in this case the simplest and also the theoretical limiting case, China's economic output will double every 6.7 years.

4) Over the next 33 years, then, China's economic output will double 5 times.  So, $5 trillion now, $10 trillion (1), $20 trillion (2), $40 trillion (3), $80 trillion (4), and finally $160 trillion (5).

So that's the limiting case, the absolute maximum that can be attained.  China's economic output in 2040 cannot exceed $160 trillion if current trends hold and the country avoids any and all economic, political, and demographic pressures.  And granted, Fogel's prediction is easily under this theoretical maximum.  But it's still $123 trillion.  Stop and think about what that actually means.  That's more than 10 times the current size of the US economy.  It's more than 3 times the current size of the global economy.  It also represents a per capita standard of living of around $60,000 (yes, I've accounted for population increases also), which is just an unfathomably large number.  I'm not convinced that there are enough resources on the planet to sustain that kind of growth and standard of living.  But maybe there are.  Either way, it will be fun (or nerveracking) to watch, so strap on your seat belts and get ready for the Chinese Century.  It's going to be one hell of a ride.