Uncategorized


A controlled burn of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, May 19

David Brooks has a good column today on the Deepwater Horizon disaster that sums up a significant problem my last post touched on: modern life is made possible by various complicated technological-bureaucratic systems. And these things can go south rather quickly and surprisingly. Part of the problem is that they’re complex, and not managed well. That’s par for the course. But the tricky thing is our collective expectations: we (and often the people running them) expect them to just work, and our expectations are way wrong:

Over the past years, we have seen smart people at Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers, NASA and the C.I.A. make similarly catastrophic risk assessments. As [Malcolm] Gladwell wrote in that 1996 essay, “We have constructed a world in which the potential for high-tech catastrophe is embedded in the fabric of day-to-day life.”

So it seems important, in the months ahead, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make drilling safer, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest.

This is about right. But not exactly. (more…)

NASA photo of oil slick off Louisiana coast

Is there any more beautiful, yet over-exploited, abused and benighted place in America than the Louisiana Gulf coast? Okay, maybe Appalachia. But today we’ve got to give this tragic distinction to the delta, where a massive, growing, seemingly unstoppable oil slick is now impinging on its vast, fragile marshlands.

I’ll never forget my first visits there. Drive out through cypress swamps and pass strip malls you might see anywhere. Then you’ll enter small communities organized along bayous, former Mississippi River tributaries whose banks provide high ground and traditional living space. The people are mostly energy industry workers and fishermen. Hundreds of shrimp boats line the channels. Keep driving, and the homes and seafood shacks finally disappear and there’s nothing but marsh grass and water seemingly going on forever. In winter, especially, the light is pale and gorgeous. (more…)

"Republican Party Elephant" logo

Image via Wikipedia

Over the past couple of months I’ve had a series of email exchanges over health care reform with a friend with a libertarian orientation. He is not a tea partier by any means. But he doesn’t trust the government to do anything right. This point of view certainly has some validity – the federal government screws a lot up. But it makes having a discussion hard. Argue that government actually can do something and you’ll face incredulity and contempt. End of discussion.

On the right there are Tea Partiers who think Stalinism and/or National Socialism are imminent. And there are conservatives with a firmer grounding in reality who think Barack Obama’s policies will lead us all to fiscal ruination – or simply that fiscal ruination is inevitable no matter who is running things.

This is cynicism. And maybe this is an obvious point. But cynicism is an essential and perhaps under-appreciated element in why so many who consider themselves conservative openly profess contempt or hatred for the government, and in the Republican Party’s disengagement from policy and governing.

You know the backstory here. (more…)

Apologies to Harold Ford and Mort Zuckerman.

When it was reported last month that I was thinking of running for the United States Senate from the State of New York, major political figures in both parties lined up to try to force me out of the race. They denounced and insulted me.  My Aston Martin was keyed. My condo lobby was TPed. My children were shunned for a purported surplus of “cooties.” I received calls in the early morning hours asking if I had “Prince Albert in a Can.”

Meanwhile, however, some of the wiser Empire State solons were quietly urging me to run, though discretion demands they remain anonymous. And as I traveled around the great state of New York, my beloved home for these past three and a half weeks, I swiftly came to understand why I places like Schenectady, Utica and Manhattan’s financial district were the likely venues for an appointment between myself and political destiny.

New York’s people are its greatest strength. Without them, according to the book “The World Without Us,” New York State would be just a bunch of buildings, roads and bus terminals that would quickly become overgrown with vegetation. New Yorkers devote their lives to keep that from happening. They are hardworking, industrious, reliable, kind, sensible, patriotic, brave, just and punctual. They love America, their families, their homes, their sprinkler systems and gas grills and smartphones. And they love their state, which has had a lot of songs written about it.

Yet our political leaders remain ensconced in their ivory towers, sipping chablis and eating brie while the rest of us labor long hours in the financial services industry for bonuses a fraction of what they were only a few years ago.

Our political system is broken. Gridlock, partisanship, earmarks, filibusters, Obamacare, Rahm Emanuel, Max Baucus, reconciliation and fake global warming have combined into a perfect storm of political dysfunction that has settled over Washington. New Yorkers have made it abundantly clear they do not want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, yet the Obama administration has remained deaf to their concerns.

Senator Gillibrand, who I am told is descended from prominent New Yorkers including Boss Tweed and Bill “the Butcher” Poole, is according to some an adequate public servant and an above-average bridge partner. But to re-elect her now, at our moment of greatest peril, would be a grave error from which New York would, perhaps, never recover. Let there be no mistake: This is our moment for change.

I believe raising these issues over the last 56 hours has forced Democrats and Republicans alike to do better. And I will continue holding their feet to the fire. But I will not do so as a candidate for senator from New York.

I’ve examined this race in every possible way, and have with great hesitancy come to one fundamental conclusion: were I to run the result would be a brutal and divisive primary election followed by an apocalyptic general election campaign. The vested interests that control our state from their smoke-filled and brandy-soaked back rooms will not relinquish their death-grip on the reins of power without a fight. Such a fight would have significant fallout: weeks of enormous tabloid headlines that would hurt my constituents’ eyes and delicate literary sensibilities.

I realize this announcement will surprise many people who assumed I was running. I reached this decision only in the last few hours, as I considered what a a campaign – even with victory within my grasp and and all its various world-historical implications – would have done to my fellow New Yorkers. Even if I were to prevail upon them to make the necessary sacrifices (and I am certain they would) it would be hard to see how I could devote the necessary time to working in Washington, given my own work and the demands of my young family.

I am not going to stop speaking out on behalf of policies that I think are right — regardless of ideology, party or political expediency. I plan to continue taking this message across our state and across our nation.

Someone asked me why, in my previous post, I wrote that we’d never see a South Africa-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission here in America to sort through the transgressions of the Bush years. Good question!

The country would benefit from such an approach on our response to 9/11. In the weeks and months after those terror attacks, the White House, Defense Department, CIA and other agencies pursued moral and legally questionable actions and policies that are geopolitically and historically significant. They go to the heart of our national identity and place in the 21st century world. I’d include the Iraq war, but for the purposes of this post will focus on U.S. treatment of prisoners. James Fallows says that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report on the “torture memos” used to justify those questionable policies is analogous to John Hersey’s “Hiroshima” and what it did for the atom bomb attacks on Japan. It exposes the terrible tradeoffs we made as a society in the name of security.

We certainly need some truth and reconciliation. The problem is, while everyone would nominally agree that reconciliation is a good idea (see, for example, the rote calls for “bipartisanship”), America remains fundamentally at odds over the “truth” part. Google “torture” and “poll” and you’ll find a bunch of ambiguous results. Americans narrowly approve of torture in some situations. Americans are split over torture investigations. Americans want a torture investigation. A majority of Americans think waterboarding is torture.

Obviously the problem isn’t just this set of issues but the deep political divisions that have nearly paralyzed the government during the Obama administration. There is a not-insignificant minority of Americans and a significant number of politicians and pundits that think “harsh interrogations” of terror suspects are necessary and effective. There’s also a credulous political press who will amplify their objections to any kind of investigation or process that suggests they are in the wrong. Every time Dick Cheney makes an assertion about the effectiveness of “harsh interrogations” – no matter how repetitive or unfounded – it’s news because of the extraordinariness of an ex-vice president criticizing another administration. (Though it grows less extraordinary each time he does it.)

Until there is some kind of political consensus that torture is wrong – some broad agreement on that something went wrong post-9/11 – it’s going to be very hard to get to the bottom of what happened, assign responsibility, and move on. Some leadership would be helpful here, but the Obama administration is determined to do as little as possible on this front – and, more generally, eschews decisive action that might generate significant political pushback from the other side.

On some level, though, this isn’t political at all – it’s just how we roll. America the land of “moving on,” of “closure.” Not real closure but “closure.” The notion that you shouldn’t dwell too long on unpleasant, ambiguous things but turn your face to the sun and keep moving forward. This forward inertia is often a good thing. Not here, though. Ideally, torture should be exposed to the full light of public inquiry and acknowledged, by consensus, as wrong. On a practical level, torture ought to be made politically and bureaucratically radioactive: take away any incentives from future politicians and their appointees to employ these techniques. Instead, though, we’re once again leaving ourselves to the mercy of events and expediency.

I’ve just joined True/Slant, a blogging and journalism platform started earlier this year. I’m still exploring the site myself, but it looks to be an interesting and lively community. You can join and, as on other social media sites, follow the contributors you like, chime in on comments and discussions, et al.

At least for the moment, I’m going to be doing most, but not all, of my blogging over there. I’ll still be posting here, though more intermittently, and continuing to contribute to the HuffPost and Guardian.

Barge sits in Lower 9th Ward, December 2005

Barge sits in Lower 9th Ward, December 2005

The fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is upon us, and New Orleans continues to slowly rebound, with a smaller footprint than before but abundant community spirit. But, alarmingly, its long-term predicament remains unchanged, and the opportunity the nation had to confront it has been mostly squandered.

I refer, of course, to the challenge of protecting the city and surrounding coastlines from hurricanes. Three centuries of experience have proven time after time this is a deadly serious risk. And time after time, various government agencies – from New Orleans’s earliest colonial administrations to the Obama White House – have responded in a haphazard fashion, doing just enough to make people feel safe again, but not enough to prevent the next big disaster.

The Katrina disaster was deeply ironic. Turns out America, the nation that tamed rivers and the continent, won World War II and emerged as the globe’s lone superpower, couldn’t build a floodwall. America, the nation of the mass media and instantaneous communication, couldn’t figure out where the New Orleans Convention Center was, or deliver food and water a few blocks to the thousands of people gathered there. Post-K, there was reason to believe these outrages might force a reassessment of how the nation handles not just emergency response – what you do after disaster strikes – but prevention. The rapidly-eroding Louisiana coast seems like an outlier, but this is deceptive – climate change is going to raise the risks not just for coastlines (higher sea levels and – possibly – stronger storms) but for any area where rapid environmental shifts take place and communities built for yesterday’s conditions suddenly find themselves under water, consumed by fire or afflicted by drought or other problems. New Orleans is, in this sense, an important test case.

But no such reassessment took place. Instead, the same institution that screwed this up the first time – the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was put in charge of the effort to protect New Orleans and the surrounding coastline. This was crazy and irresponsible, and the results were predictable. The Corps is building a $14 billion stopgap levee system, an upgrade to the old one that is certainly better than what was there before, but not nearly enough to protect the city from a Category 5 hurricane storm surge.

The Corps has been studying the options for bigger and better protection, and how to integrate it with efforts to restore the rapidly-eroding marshlands of south Louisiana, for four years. This is an ambitious project, and (in my view) an essential one. It should have been fast-tracked. It should have gotten some stimulus money. Instead it bogged down. . But there’s nobody really calling the shots at the upper levels of government. It’s not a national priority. President Obama says it is, and is creating a task force that may cut through some of the seemingly hopeless skein of red tape. So, we’ll see. But given the fiscal and political pressures on the Obama administration and the severe bureaucratic inertia holding this thing back (which results from basic power arrangements between Congress, the Corps, and successive administrations) I’m skeptical.

This is human nature, you might say, the way government institutions work. We’re always preparing for the last disaster. We don’t anticipate the “black swans.” But that’s no longer an adequate excuse given what’s at stake – not just a unique American city and cultural treasure, but the shape and structure of the American community in an era of change. Do shrug off these challenges – about which we know a great deal – and consign the vulnerable parts of the country to a slow attrition by disaster? Or do we learn from history, and science, and our own mistakes?

Recently, two friends in their forties have died – way too early. Rebecca Lipkin had breast cancer. Bill Cahir was a Marine killed in Afghanistan yesterday. They had little in common except journalism backgrounds, a great vitality and sense of adventure, and a basic graciousness. They have been, and will be, memorialized by people who knew them longer and/or better than I, but I wanted to write a bit about them here.

bill_cahir.jpg.jpgBill Cahir and I worked together at the (now closed) Newhouse News Service for several years. He worked for a Newhouse-owned chain of small papers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (covering, among other things, staunch conservative Rep. Pat Toomey, now a PA Republican Senate candidate). He humorously endured the gentle hazing our colleague Bruce Alpert put newcomers to the bureau through – typically, the assignment of extremely trivial stories by fictional editors. He chatted up my kids when we all found ourselves at the office one weekend, managing to get a full account of their recent school experiences than I ever had.

Post-9/11, he felt a calling and joined the Marine Reserve. He was 34 at the time, a lot older than the usual age for recruitment. Frankly, it seemed kind of crazy to to most of us at the Newhouse bureau (many of us were, of course, both out of shape and wary of authority and the kind of total commitment being a Marine requires). Bill agonized over the decision and all its possible consequences, as Dave Wood recalls here.

But as Bill tells it in this piece, he was persistent and managed to talk his way in. He came from a different world than most other Marines: he was a college-educated professional who chatted with members of Congress every day. He was also, basically, an old man trying to keep up with young men almost half his age. Yet he did. And when he returned to the office between boot camp graduation and his first assignment, the change was remarkable. He was leaner and meaner, of course. But he also was more focused and self-assured; the man damn nearly glowed. He had found what he was looking for and it agreed with him. He worried – a little – that being away from the Marines even for a short while would erode some of that physical and mental edge.

His unique skillset – intelligence, education, life experience, extraordinary focus and determination – is the kind that the U.S. needs in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Bill did two tours in Iraq in a Marine Civil Affairs Group – the people who work with local towns and villages, smoothing the often rocky path for peacekeeping and rebuilding. Bill came back and worked at Newhouse for a while, but it was clear he was moving in a new direction; he left journalism and last year ran for Congress in Pennsylvania, narrowly losing the Democratic primary. Later, it was back to Afghanistan’s Helmand Province where all we know so far is that he was killed by “enemy fire.” He leaves a wife, Rene, who is pregnant with twins.

////

n548824505_8490I met Rebecca Lipkin at the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston – which, as you may remember, was inexplicably given over the religious right, leading to night after night of scorn and invective that would make even Sarah Palin blanch (well, maybe not). I can still hear the College Republicans roaming the vicinity of Astrodome, chanting “Bush-Quayle ’92!” day after day. A friend had recommended I go introduce myself to Rebecca, and I have a clear memory of finding her in the tented warren of media workspaces in the heat. She was a treat – good humored and, in a crazy and frenzied environment, eminently sane. We agreed to meet up later in Washington, where I lived and she was soon to, and we hung out intermittently thereafter. She was very funny and forthright. At a shiva for her, a friend recalled how she had discovered a piece of metal in a deli sandwich, sent them a strongly-worded letter intimating a lawsuit (though she had not actually eaten the sandwich in question) and gotten them to pay up. Her sister, a lawyer, noted that she declined to represent Rebecca in small claims court.

She was extraordinarily good at what she did. Working as a producer for ABC News, she traveled the country during the 1990s, usually working with reporter Carole Simpson. Half the time I called she was on the road. Later, she worked for Nightline, where among other things she recruited Frank McCourt – he of the archetypal miserable Irish childhood – to return to Ireland to document its economic renaissance. She and McCourt died on the same day, July 19. On Facebook, a friend imagined them knocking back pints together somewhere, smiling down on us.

Since 2001, she was a principal architect of Al Jazeera English, based in London, where she joked about writing a book called “A Jew at Al Jazeera.” I regret I never got a chance to visit her there. Rebecca was a good friend: always ready to listen, open to new things. In Washington there’s a power-journalism hierarchy that she was a part of and I was not, which in my experience can sometimes make things awkward – but never did. She helped my wife and me find an apartment in the housing complex where she lived. She hooked me up with other influential journalists when I was promoting my book.

When she came down with inflammatory breast cancer two years ago – one of the rarer and most deadly forms of the disease – she resolved to fight it aggressively, and did so with typical grace and humor, filing a series of video breast cancer diva diaries which are interesting, informative – and, naturally, good TV. She should have been on camera more often.

A Rebecca Lipkin memorial page can be found here.

I don’t like bloggy displays of sentiment, but obviously, life is short – too short sometimes. Cherish it. Give each moment its due.

I’m taking a few days off, so posting will be light to nonexistent until next week. Bye!

I read this Ross Douthat Washington Post piece on my cell phone while stuck in a traffic jam. That may have affected my response to it, but basically, the point seems to be that if ol’ man Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life” had been running the banking industry this past decade, we’d all be a lot better off now. Two points: If Potter were around today, does anyone think he wouldn’t have been all over those unreliable financial instruments that have put us all in such hot water? And Dick Cheney, the closest real-life equivalent to Potter in public life today, has already been functionally in charge of the country for nearly eight years now.

Seriously, the piece is an interesting if not quite coherent elegy for and condemnation of American suburbia. The problem with it is that it links together disparate trends whose only common thread is their unsustainability – and to the degree they are connected, misidentifies the culprit.

Are unsustainable lending policies somehow equivalent to ecologically unsustainable land use policies? Suburbia has been on an ever-expanding arc for the past 60 years, with an ever-expanding carbon and ecological footprint, a trend driven by market forces most economists would consider unremarkable. And for most of that time, the mortgage industry has functioned reasonably well. In other words, when the market “worked” it led us down an unsustainable ecological path. In the mortgage meltdown the markets obviously “didn’t work,” but the ecological damage was already done.

The piece also locates the seeds of the lending crisis in George Bailey’s modest efforts to get people out of tenements and into tract housing in Bedford Falls. But having a reasonable policy that promotes homeownership need not inevitably lead to the wild profligacy of the recent bubble. This type of post-hoc reasoning can be used to condemn, or justify, just about anything.

Douthat is looking to blame government policies encouraging homeownership for various disastrous consequences of suburbanization. But the real problem is in the fetishization of free markets, which don’t account for environmental consequences and are prone to bubbles.

In other words, Potter’s slums might have been more ecologically sustainable than Bailey Park, but I don’t think that’s the message we should take away from our current troubles.

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.