Category: Wasting your time

[Update: The WSJ reports that you’re now bailing out AIG.]

For years working in Washington, I listened to libertarian tripe about how privacy law would prevent free markets from operating, and how banks should be able to freely trade personal information to assign risk and create new credit products. The “Miracle of Instant Credit” was invoked as a positive force that would allow banks to move smartly into the subprime market and make more Americans homeowners. They won that battle with the 2003 passage of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, which largely superseded state law attempts to rein in the trade of personal information in the financial context. Prior to this, banks also lobbied to remove barriers in place (but weakened) since the 1930s that limited joint ownership of banks, brokerage houses, and insurance companies. Allowing these mergers caused banks to become behemoths that could not be beaten because of their political power.

Frustration with the ideology of the free market radicals, and their blind faith in the market solving problems (if it didn’t solve a problem, the market wasn’t free enough, or the problem wasn’t actually a problem) motivated me to write the Denialist Deck of Cards. These same guys totally missed the housing blowup, or somehow thought they could manage the risk of it. Do you remember the news articles written about mortgages granted to people who didn’t even need to prove their income? Or the huge housing projects being built farther and farther into nowhere?

Well, it’s all coming down on us now. It’s not just the subprime area where the miracle of instant credit fueled the crisis. Prime mortgages, auto loans, and soon, credit card debt will all be in trouble. Meanwhile, the bankers made tons of money and many were just in denial about the crisis. As Credit Slips points out, Lehman Brothers paid out $5.7 BILLION in bonuses in December 2007, overall, compensation was up 9.5% for the year!

I’m happy that the feds taxpayers didn’t bail out Lehman. But other firms are going to fail, and you’re going to be left holding the bag for their denialism and their banal greed. Ultimately, the bailouts may be a good economic decision. But a few years from now when things have changed, let us remember how these people totally abandoned the rhetoric of personal responsibility, free markets, etc, when it was their interests on the line.

It’s been an exciting day here at UC Berkeley. Four helicopters have been buzzing the office since about 8 AM, because the UC decided to erect a scaffold around the lone tree left in order to extricate the tree sitters. I got to watch about 12:00 today. There were probably 400 observers for the final hour, where workers assembled the scaffold and started to pick apart the encampment near the peak of the tree.

Apparently the remaining four tree sitters negotiated with UC officials, and came down voluntarily, which is good, because the risk to personal safety was very high. If the tree sitters were injured, the police would not be found liable, absent unreasonable or abusive behavior (but, a lawsuit would be expensive). If the police were injured by virtue of the sitters’ actions, on the other hand, the tree sitters could be criminally liable. I’m glad it didn’t come to pulling people out of the trees!

Part of the negotiation includes the creation of (you guessed it) a committee to deal with land use issues, but the tree sitters are not immune from criminal or civil prosecution. Charges could be quite serious. The cost to the UC is estimated to be $750,000. And at times, the tree sitters hit workmen and police with bottles and urine and feces.

I imagine the next stop for the tree sitters is the hospital. This protest started in December 2006. While some sitters rotated in and out, access to the tree grove has been limited by police for a long time, meaning that the men removed today from the trees have been up there since at least August 2007. I wonder what health effects one experiences from being outside 24 hours a day, in a tree, in cold, foggy weather! From the looks of the pictures, it’s not good for your hygiene.

Nor was it good for the hygiene of UC-Berkeley. Now that our friends are down from the trees, I hope that they remove the encampment established next to the law school. The ground crew for the tree sitters was large, and they had a more or less permanent presence on Piedmont Ave. Perhaps you were imagining something quaint, like a group of campers. Nope. Here’s a typical example of the type of junk that gets collected by this crowd. You might get an idea of what my school has had to deal with…

The nerve! Carolyn Jones of the Chronicle reports:

In their most recent demand, the tree-sitters said they would come down if the university gives $6 million to environmental and Native American groups, creates a public committee on campus land use and allows protesters to use the stump from the oldest tree in the grove, which protesters dubbed “Grandma,” for a Native American drum.

The university offered to give protesters the stump and allowed them three two-hour meetings with high-ranking campus officials to discuss mitigating the loss of the oak grove, long-term plans for the southeast corner of campus and other related issues.

I generously offer the university my services: I will personally cause the tree sitters to leave the tree for a mere $1 million. Where can I buy a few hungry monkeys…

So, due to circumstances beyond his control, Ed over at Dispatches won’t be able to plan our Michigan party, so we’re going to do it in the Detroit metro area on Saturday, Sept. 20th. I don’t have the place yet, but I’m getting the idea that there are a few definite maybes. Let me know (again if necessary).

Berkeley’s latest political battle may be coming to an end: the UC has won a series of decisions in cases brought by local activist groups seeking to prevent the destruction of grove of trees right next to the law school. UC wants to build a sports facility there for our athletes.

The battle over this grove of trees has created a real circus on campus. At one point, perhaps two dozen people were living in the trees. Some came down voluntarily, and when the UC started plucking them from the trees, one protester known as Dumpster Muffin climbed to the highest tree and shook the platform. She was fearless! That platform is 9 or 10 stories high.

Despite these individuals sacrifices and the underlying cause, I’ve found myself cheering the UC on this issue. Why? It all started when I visited the grove, and found a huge sign hanging from the trees that read “end global capitalism.” Ah. Okay. So, is this about the environment, or it is some larger, hugely naive proxy battle against all development? As this event has unfolded over the past almost two years, it appears to be to be the latter.

Their PR machine quickly started spinning. A tree sitter fell from a tree, and as if it were scripted in advance, they promptly blamed it on the UC! Any action that UC takes to remove the protesters results in invocations of the term “hate crime.” I visited the tree grove a few weeks ago and people were shouting “Guantanamo Berkeley.” There are videos of the police trying to stop food supplies to the tree sitters, and protesters are yelling “fuck you” to the officers’ faces. It’s all a little unreasonable.

Berkeley is different than most campuses, in that we leave large areas of the property unmanicured. We have very limited space at here, and if you look at a map, it becomes clear that the only place we can expand campus is along our eastern border, most of which is covered in trees. In light of the protest, UC has promised to plant three trees (one mature and two saplings) for each of the 45 removed. After that concession was made, I thought it would be reasonable to end the protest. UC is under incredible political pressure to serve more students in more ways, and we need to expand. Planting new trees is an excellent compromise.

But the protest continues, at the cost of $40,000 a day of taxpayers’ money. A huge amount of police resources are diverted to keeping new sitters out of the trees. Earlier this year, the UC’s chief of police wrote an email to Berkeley students (many of whom oppose “hippies in trees”) about the conflict. It’s a thoughtful letter, and I wish all police chiefs were capable of writing such a thing. I was particularly swayed by this passage:

At this point we are all waiting for the court’s ruling on the lawsuits filed against the plans to build a new Student Athlete High Performance Center, a decision that is now expected no later than June. Until then the trees, by court order, cannot be touched. It’s also worth mentioning that if, at the end of the legal process, we are not cleared to begin construction, the University will have to live with the final ruling. Meanwhile, the tree-sitters vow to abide by only those court decisions they agree with.

These people will not compromise. While they invoke “rule of law” when it suits them, they themselves have lost all their lawsuits. This is exactly the type of “mob rule” that critics of democracy warns us of. It’s the same mentality that drives attacks on UC scientists. Once removed from the trees, I wonder what they’ll do next.

We’re still working on a Michigan meetup to celebrate our millionth comment. Ed Brayton, who has to trek over from the west side of the state, has suggested a more central location (not unlike early Michiganders). Rather than SE Mich, there is some interest in Lansing or East Lansing. If forced to trek up there, I’d certainly vote for El Azteco, but if Ed’s willing to plan it, I’m fine with it. If there is considerably more interest for SE Mich rather than EL, please let me or Ed know.

I’m also going to see if I can round up any bloggers who have michigan roots or may be in the area—sort of a mystery guest, as it were.

Keep the email/comments coming.

So the alties hate real medicine. They come over here and bemoan modern medicine’s failure to address behavioral changes that affect health, such as diet and exercise.

Then I write a long post about internists’ duties viz public health and health behaviors, and the gun nuts think I want to disarm them and PRY TEH WEAPON OF GUNZ OUT OF OUR COLD DED HANDZ!!111!222!!!11!

I think of my writing as “reality-based”. I have opinions, and where my opinions intersect with real-world activities, I try to back up my opinions with facts. I don’t (usually) resort to wishful thinking, religion, conspiracy theories, or any deus ex machina to support my assertions.

Am I ever wrong? Frequently—but I think I’m more often right, and I’ve got the facts to prove it. I love the back-and-forth that blogs allow, and dissenting ideas help hone my arguments (and occasionally change my mind).

One pattern I’ve noticed seems to apply to everyone around here—scientists, alties, liberals, conservatives—if I touch on someone’s pet issue, all rationality goes out the window. If a commenter is too emotionally invested in an opinion, well, they’re right and I’m wrong, evidence be damned.

I presume that I’m just as susceptible as anyone to this, which is why I value dissenting comments so much—they keep me honest.

But please people, keep that mind open just enough to consider dissenting ideas (but not enough to let your brains fall out). If you just don’t buy it, fine, but c’mon, at least be introspective.

/rant

Today’s Journal reports on the delicate task of creating a monument to Galileo Galilei at the Vatican. But there’s still some opposition. Check this out from the very end of the article:

On the other side of the barricades, meanwhile, some Roman Catholics think the church has already done more than enough to make up with Galileo.

Atila Sinke Guimarães, a conservative Catholic writer, dismisses the church’s mistreatment of Galileo as a “black legend.”

The scientist, he says, got what he deserved. “The Inquisition was very moderate with him. He wasn’t tortured.”

The new students have arrived at UC-Berkeley, closely pursued by hordes of credit card marketers. Right by my office is a bank that literally has 12 employees out front hawking credit cards and new accounts.

Freshman friends, don’t get your first credit card from the guy on the street offering you a t-shirt or worthless, plastic (likely lead filled) bauble. Be smart about credit. Credit is an incredibly powerful consumer tool, but you must wield it carefully. If you ruin your credit, you will have difficulty in life getting a job (people with bad credit look like embezzlement risks to employers), starting basic utilities (like cable TV), and buying a home. You are not the federal government. You must live within your means. And yes, deficits DO matter!

The most heavily marketed and easiest credit products to adopt are often the worse for you. These are cards with high interest rates and fees packed “to the back” of the card, meaning that the fees are hidden. So, they may have no “annual fee” but if you decide to pay by phone, or if you’re a millisecond late in your payment, expect outrageous penalties.

Remember that the credit cards with your college logo are “affinity cards.” Your college gets a cut from those cards, and unfortunately, this profit motive causes many schools to market less than advantageous cards to their own students.

If you’re going to get a credit card (and you should in order to start building your credit file), educate yourself and shop around. First, you should understand the concept of compound interest. Second, you should understand that if you only make minimum payments, you are at risk of being in debt nearly forever. Bankrate.com has a calculator that will help you understand that minimum payments equals maximum indebtedness.

One of the best guides to acquiring a good credit card is Bankrate.com’s Credit Card Search. Another incredible resource is Consumer Action’s Annual Credit Card Survey. Good luck, and don’t allow the miracle of instant credit to bankrupt you!

Gawker published this gem today.