On this day in 1755, Nathan Hale was born. He is know for his death. When he was being hanged by the British as a spy, he said, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” Maybe he didn’t actually say it. But after people die, they become mythical. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” And so of course Nathan Hale said that his only regret was blah blah blah. He was 21 when he was put to death.

Speaking of the Revolutionary War, American painter John Trumbull was born in 1756. He really wasn’t very good. The Russian Romantic poet Alexander Pushkin was born in 1799. Radio pioneer Karl Ferdinand Braun was born in 1850. And scandalous Flowers in the Attic author V. C. Andrews was born in 1923.

Bass/stick player Tony Levin is 67 years old today. The great singer Holly Near is 64. Here she is singing “Gentle Angry People”:

And speaking of lesbians, Sandra Bernhard is 58. The great tennis player Bjorn Borg is 47. Borg allows me to spend a moment talking about how much watching tennis on TV sucks. Borg was known for his heavy top-spinned fore and backhands. But watching tennis on TV, you would never know that they put spins on the ball at all. In other words, 90% of the craft of tennis playing is lost on TV. It’s a great game, but you really have to be there.

But as much as I admire Borg and Near, the day belongs to the great Spanish Baroque painter Diego Velazquez who was born in 1599. He is mostly known for his portraiture, but I prefer his historical and “everyday” painting.

Happy birthday Diego Velazquez!

Brad Plumer presented a fun math problem this morning. But instead of using it to discuss why math makes everything better, he insisted upon discussing policy. Environmental policy, in fact. Now I’m all for that. You can decide for yourself if the article is worth reading from its title, Want to Boost Fuel Economy? Stop Thinking About Miles Per Gallon. It is worth reading! But I will give you the important conclusion: small increases in the mpg of gas hogs are far more important than big increases in the mpg of tiny cars that already have decent fuel economy. In other words, if you are shopping for a hybrid, mpg doesn’t matter that much. But if you are shopping for an SUV, you should pay close attention to minor differences in competing model fuel ratings.

How do we know this? Mathematics! All is revealed in the following puzzle:

Let’s assume that x is the number of miles that Dylan and Sarah each drive in a year. (I’ve already lost you, haven’t I? Pay attention! This is not just interesting; it is fun.) That means that the gallons of gas they each use is given by x divided by the mpg they get. So originally, Dylan uses x/29 gallons of gas per year. With his new car, he uses x/50 gallons. Similarly, Sarah uses x/12 gallons and x/15 gallons. The amount of gas they each save is given by the amount of gas they use with the new car subtracted from the amount they used with the old car:

To figure out who saves more gas, we just divide these two equations. This causes the number of miles (x) to cancel out and we get:

So Sarah will always save 15% more gas than Dylan for her small 3 mpg increase (25%) compared to his large 21 mpg increase (72%). You probably already know why this is: Sarah starts by using a huge amount of gas. In Plumer’s example, he uses 1,000 miles for his x value and finds that while Dylan decreases his gas consumption from 34 to 20, Sarah reduces her consumption from 83 to 67. In other words, she has more gas usage to save. Or think of it this way: imagine you have a car that gets a million miles to the gallon. If you drive 1,000 miles, you would only use 0.001 gallons of fuel. Getting a car with better gas mileage can’t same you more than 0.001 gallons.

So remember this if you are buying an SUV. And if you’re buying an SUV, I certainly hope that you have a very good reason!

David Bernstein wrote a good overview of last night’s Massachusetts Senatorial debate.If you’re interested in the race, I recommend clicking over and reading the whole thing. All I’m interested in here is the way that politics really does make a reasonable discussion impossible.

Current House representative Ed Markey is the favorite in this race. Republican Gabriel Gomez has spent the campaign thus far trying to get traction against Markey. And you can sympathize with Gomez. He is, after all, running in a very liberal state. What’s more, Markey is popular and experienced. So one of Gomez’s complaints is that Markey is an ineffective legislator as proved by the fact that Markey has never gotten his own bill signed into law by the president.

This was discussed at the debate last night. And Markey had a good answer. He has written and sponsored a number of bills that were later integrated into larger bills that became law:

Normally, that would be the end of this discussion. But Gomez doesn’t accept it, claiming that this is some kind of lawyer’s trick. As Bernstein notes, even if that were true, it makes no sense. Gomez only brought up the “you ain’t passed no laws” claim to argue that Markey was ineffective. Clearly getting his bills passed inside a larger bill with someone else’s name on the top is effective.

This is unfortunately the nature of politics. Gomez can concede the point and look like an idiot or not concede the point and look like an idiot. There is no room for him to win by manning up and admitting that the new information means that Markey really has been an effective legislator. Of course, the original idea was wrong. Legislators are successful in a lot of different ways; they don’t need to author legislation. But what is a conservative to do in Massachusetts? He can’t argue about ideology. So the debate is necessarily about technocracy. And even in that way, Republicans are at a distinct disadvantage.

I’m not sure there is a solution for this. I would think that blue state Republicans would liberalize more to become competitive. But they can only go so far before they become Democrats themselves. The process works better with Democrats in red states. Blue state Republicans have the advantage that if they can just get a low-turnout election, they might win. But the problem is more fundamental: we don’t want a real debate about issues. And so Gomez is using the only tools he can.

I’ve been trying to figure something out. How does immigration reform help Republicans? I mean, I understand if Republicans actually embraced it. They could changed their tune and say, “Of course we are for immigration reform. Immigration has made America great. People who risk death to come to America for economic opportunity are exactly the kind of people we want!” But they aren’t doing that. Even the big Republican advocates approach immigration reform as something they do reluctantly. “Okay, we’ll let the evil brown skinned people already here stay—but no more!” Then, as Greg Sargent reported this morning, Republicans in the Gang of Eight are trying to make the immigration “compromise” less “you can stay” and more “protect the border.”

The argument for Republicans embracing immigration reform is that it acts as a kind of political poison, keeping Latino voters focused on this one bad aspect of the Republican Party. But as I was arguing last year after the election, Republicans have much bigger problems with Latinos than the immigration issue. As long as Latinos are poorer than other groups, they will continue to vote for the Democrats in large numbers.

This isn’t all about political tactics. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that Democrats want immigration reform because it will broaden their base of support starting in about 15 years. Similarly, I don’t think that Republicans are against reform because it might hurt them starting in about 15 years. I know some commentators have argued this, but politicians just don’t plan that far ahead. From a tactical standpoint, it is just about constituencies. Latinos are a major Democratic constituency. They are not a major Republican constituency. In fact, a major Republican constituency hates immigration reform.

A better argument in favor of the Republicans supporting reform is not that they want to win the Latino vote; it is just that they want to improve it from the pathetic 27% that Romney received. They remember the halcyon days when Bush won 43%. But I still don’t see how this helps them. If immigration reform passes, those Latinos who really care about the issue will see it as something that the Democrats gave them. Immigration reform could make Latinos even less likely to vote Republican.

In the long run, Latinos will stop being a minority group. They will just be like the Italians or the Irish. And in that case, they will vote as their interests dictate. But even if our immigration laws never get reformed and Latinos still strongly associate with the undocumented community, they will not blame Republicans of that time for the inaction of Republicans now. They will judge the Republicans on the positions that they hold at that later time. So again, I ask: if Republicans are unwilling to appeal to the Latino community in any other way, why should they try to appeal in this one way? Especially when their support is at best grudging and at worse nonexistent.

On this day in 1878, Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa was born. Growing up, I always thought he was like the Mexican Billy the Kid. But if he was any kind of outlaw, it was Robin Hood. I think it’s all about racism. This morning, I was wondering about all of this immigration reform. Why is it that Americans have no problem with the Canadian border, but we want to build an electrical fence on the Mexican border? I know the justification is that Mexico is a poor country so people from there want to come into this country for economic opportunity. But doesn’t that beg the question? If we hadn’t had these racist attitudes, wouldn’t Mexico have by now reached economy parity with us? Regardless, Pancho Villa is rightly a hero is Mexico and he should be here too.

In 1941, monologist Spalding Gray was born. Here he is in Swimming to Cambodia:

The great journalist Bill Moyers is 79 today. He first gained attention as White House Press Secretary in the Johnson administration. But since then, he is one of the few establishment voices on the left who hasn’t been co-opted by the New Democratic movement. The fact that today he is considered some kind of leftist radical by those on the right (and even many on the “left”) is a good indication of just how out of kilter American politics has become.

Musician Laurie Anderson is 66. Here she is doing “Sharkey’s Day“:

The day, however, belongs to the most sinned-against man in modern economics, John Maynard Keynes who was born on this day in 1883. He spent most of the Great Depression with those in power ignoring him. But after that, we learned our lesson! I remember when I took Econ 101, I thought, “That’s great! We will never again have to suffer through a Great Depression.” Oh, silly me. During this crisis, those in power have done everything they possibly could to avoid believing everything we’ve known for the last 70 years about economic recessions.

What is particularly sad about this is that almost the whole of the “Chicago School” and “fresh water” economists did all they could to muddy the water. I particularly think of men like Greg Mankiw who argued against stimulus, who had always accepted the concept before Obama was president. What’s more Mankiw started to become pro-stimulus again as one of Romney’s economic advisers, I assume he was laying the groundwork for the upcoming Romney administration.

What Keynes taught about economics is about as basic as you can get. And there are very few economic situations in which it isn’t appropriate. One of those would be the stagflation of the 1970s. But what we have been suffering through the last five years is exactly the same thing we struggled through for 10 years after the crash of 1929. And mostly we’ve done better than then because of systemic changes in our governance. Now we have Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. So the recession wasn’t as bad. And we did (despite enormous resistance from the right) manage to pass a small stimulus. But otherwise, our response was the same as the response to the Great Depression. We have sinned against Keynes and against our entire nation of people.

Here is Keynes reporting on the good news of the end of the gold standard:

Happy birthday John Maynard Keynes!

According to Wonk Blog, Bill Watson over at the Cato Institute is unhappy that the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that a number of Apple products infringed on Samsung patents. He rightly notes that there is duplication in the patent law system. But I have a problem with this kind of approach to our broken intellectual property (IP) system. And especially with regard to Apple—one of the most egregious patent trolling companies.

I don’t know much about Watson, but I do know Cato. And they are not really for IP law reform. All Watson is arguing for is a limit to “forum shopping” where companies look around for the best place to sue. It’s not even clear to me that such a minor reform would improve things. Depending upon how the law was changed, it might just make a system that is heavily weighted toward big companies even more so.

The bigger issue is that the whole IP system is broken. But in its big policy document (pdf), Cato doesn’t even suggest any fundamental reforms. That’s quite something for a group known for its extreme recommendations. But it is entirely typical of the fake free market philosophy of the libertarian group. It calls for making these laws more friendly to “competition” but never in a way that would upset the flow of corporate profits.

One interesting thing about the article that features Cato’s Mr. Watson is that it is written by Timothy B. Lee. Who used to be at… Cato. If Wonk Blog wants to provide space to discuss this issue, it would be better off allowing Brad Plumer, who understand the the patent system fairly well. Or even better Dean Baker. (Admittedly, given that Baker attacks the Washington Post almost every day as “Fox on 15th Street,” he would not be politically viable choice.) What’s with the Cato boys getting the valuable space?

The article reads more like advocacy than reporting. No alternative points of view are even mentioned. And in the end, it seems that the point of the article is to keep cheap products flowing into the United States from overseas. It likely is the case that we ought to get the ITC out of the patent law business. But I’d like to see an opposing view. Or at least the view of some people who aren’t wedded to the Cato pseudo-free market ideology.

Update (5 Junue 2013)

I just found another article from Lee on patent trolls. He argues that legislation against a very limited definition of “patent troll” is not nearly enough. I agree. However, it would be no less a minor improvement than ending the ITC’s patent cases. Yet that would apparently be a great idea.

On this day back in 1738, King George III was born. You know, the king we Yankees whooped? The crazy King? I don’t know much about him—there aren’t many kings who are worth studying. But I did see The Madness of King George. And I didn’t much like it. But I did like one line from the film. (In truth, I suspect it works better as a play.) When asked who is to say what is normal in a king, Dr. Willis replies, “Who can flourish on such a daily diet of compliance?” I think about that line a whole lot. Here is America we have all kinds of people who are tortured by their celebrity and wealth. I often think that Howie Mandel, for instance, is only screwed up because he can be. If he had my life, he would not have the luxury of his mental illness. But beyond that, it is not good to be surrounded by sycophants. I have had the experience in a small way, and I find it most disquieting. And bad for me. The only thing that stops me from being a total asshole is the fact that I have wonderful friends who tell me very clearly when I am tending in that direction. So I suspect all kings are crazy, but I will allow that most of them manage to stop themselves from rubbing themselves against the lady-in-waiting. Anyway, the prick still managed to live to the age of 81. It’s good to be king.

Actor Dennis Weaver was born in 1924. I most know him from a remarkable made-for-television film Duel. The film is most associated with its director Steven Spielberg. But I think the direction is completely standard—what any director would have done. What’s great about it is its script, which, like so much of everything worth note in the 60s and 70s was written by Richard Matheson. Of course, as far as I know, Matheson never wrote about a cop on a horse.

Freddy Fender was born in 1937. He was a great songwriter, as you can tell from this:

We all like to think that we are that romantic. We aren’t.

Actor Bruce Dern is 77 today. Author Robert Fulghum is 76. I know: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. But I remember driving out to the river with a friend reading the book and finding it quite amusing. Admittedly, I love it when people read out loud. And I laugh rather easily. Oh, leave me alone! The actors Russell Brand and Angelina Jolie are both 38 today.

But reading out loud and laughing easily aren’t my only weaknesses. As regular readers know, I develop crushes rather easily. And they definitely affect how I judge the contestants in the birthday posts. Still, I don’t think that’s what’s going on today, which belongs to the great actor Rosalind Russell who was born on this day in 1907. That’s because she starred in one of my all time favorite movies His Girl Friday. But even without that, she’d probably win for being Auntie Mame. However, she will always be Hildy Johnson to me:

Happy birthday Rosalind Russell!

This morning, Jonathan Chait reported on a feud that is going on in the Republican Party. One one side is the establishment George W. Bush force, represented by Peter Wehner. On the other is the Tea Party force, represented by Laura Ingraham. They’ve been going back and forth at each other. Wehner argues that Bush really was a conservative. And Ingraham argues that he wasn’t.

What’s really interesting is that most of the things that Ingraham complains make Bush not a “true” conservative—the wars, the deficits, the new prescription drug benefit—were things that she supported at the time. This is indicative of what I hate about the Tea Party movement. As long as the Republicans were in charge, no end of “big government” programs were cheered. It is only when the Democrats are in charge that these people have a problem with such “socialism.”

Now somewhat the same can be said about the left, but note: when Obama came into office with overwhelming majorities, he was still very concerned (wrongly) about the deficit. He put forth a small stimulus (wrongly) claiming that if more were needed, he would pass another. That is quite different from the way that Republicans act. What’s more, when a Republican takes the White House, we don’t hear a sudden drumbeat from the liberal base for a balanced budget.

What is the problem with Bush? Why do modern conservatives worship Reagan but not Bush? And not just that. They worship Reagan as a Conservative Hero and, as we see with Laura Ingraham, they claim that Bush is an apostate to the conservative cause. Yet Bush was far more conservative than Reagan.

It could be that Reagan was very successful in pushing conservative policy: he came out with far more conservative policies than he came in with. But that doesn’t really fit, because that is just as true of Bush. And it can’t be that conservatives are angry about all the debt Bush accumulated, because Reagan was much worse. The most plausible reason for the claim that Bush is not conservative comes from the fact that Bush was not successful when he left office.

Bush had two wars that he had failed to “win.” Bush had the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. And relatedly, although probably not in the minds of most conservatives, his administration didn’t lead to a new Republican president. And this all means that the marketing of the Bush administration was simply not as good as the marketing of the Reagan administration.

The problem here is that Bush’s failures have nothing to do with a lack of conservatism. What Ingraham is arguing in effect is that if she doesn’t like the results of a president’s policies, those policies cannot be conservative. That’s a very dangerous position to take. It means that there is no way to disprove the effectiveness of conservative policy. “If it didn’t work, it wasn’t conservative” is the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you!”

This goes far beyond the typical (true) complaint that conservatives have entered a post-fact realm. With Ingraham’s style of thinking, no conservative policy failure even requires looking at the facts. Failure must mean the policy was too liberal. And that is certainly where we find ourselves with the post-Bush Republican Party. I can’t even imagine where another failed conservative president would lead. But we may all find out.

Dylan Matthews presents this morning, The Black/White Marijuana Arrest Gap, in Nine Charts. But why wade through so many charts unless you have some unusual chart mania? His “nine charts” come from a new report from the ACLU, The War on Marijuana in Black and White (pdf). And I’ve taken two of the graphs (figures 10 and 21) and put them together. They paint a very clear picture:

The chart shows that while whites and blacks use cannabis at about the same rate, blacks are 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession. And this chart even underestimates the problem. Blacks between the ages of 18 and 25 are less likely to use cannabis than whites of that age. And all blacks are less likely to have ever used the drug.

Michelle Alexander explains in her exceptional book The New Jim Crow, the drug laws (especially those for cannabis) are a form of social control: a way of keeping young black men especially disenfranchised. When excluding those who are not allowed to vote, black men vote at an extremely high rate. And that is the point: the once great white nation wants to hold on as long as it can.

These disproportionate arrests are not an accident. And they have nothing to do with drugs.

Afterword

I always use the term “cannabis,” because the term “marijuana” is itself a racist term. It was meant to associate cannabis with Mexicans, just as opium had been associated with the Chinese and cocaine with southern blacks.