Real Time With Bill Maher: Counterpoints and Retrospective (7/12/13)

Despite the inclusion of Cornel West (seriously, he is among the lower end of panel guests) in the show and some frequent and loud crosstalk, we had a decent show tonight. There are definitely a lot of issues to address.

Bobby Ghosh: Egypt is ready for democracy, but they need to learn that democracy is more than tyranny of the majority.

Egyptians aren't ready for liberal democracy. Because there are democracies that operate as tyrannies of the majority (Chavez-era Venezuela being the most notable model) that are just as repressive as dictatorships and there are liberal democracies that give the majority candidate and party a right to rule, but also protects minority rights as well. The latter type of democracy is much better than the former. I don't know too much about Egypt, but two revolutions in 2 years seems emblematic of a deeply dysfunctional society. It's not enough just to have elections. So far, the Egyptians aren't doing too well with their experiment in democracy.

Bill Maher: Why is burglary the only option for so many black kids? Why aren't they being given good opportunities for legal socioeconomic advancement?

Societal change is, as a rule, extremely slow. If you look at how segregated black communities are from everywhere else. Combine that with a culture that is not conducive to higher level education and the debilitating effects of well meaning welfare programs, and you get a problem that can fester for a very long time.

The actions needed to change it as fast as humanly possible are also actions that would be completely unacceptable. It requires forcibly relocating millions of families and subsidizing them in an intelligent way. The government obviously can't do any of that. So right now, there's not a lot we can do. The two most helpful things revolve around our legal system and education.

Cornel West has a point on drug convictions and sentencing. Repealing the controlled substances act would keep a lot of black kids and families out of jail. Reforming public education would also help them get the skills needed to be productive members of society. The former can be achieved relatively quickly if there is the political will to do it. The latter will take decades. It will take a very long time to rectify the injustices of racial discrimination in the US. This is something that cannot be fixed by throwing money at it, which seems to be the first idea Americans try when it comes to problem solving.

Cornel West: President Obama is a war criminal, and I say this with love.

It's an idiotic thing to say and it's completely beneath the dignity of an Ivy League professor to say so. You can't be harsh on President Obama and call it tough love and also call him a war criminal. It simply cheapens the term "war criminal". Maher kinda called him out on it by saying that his definition makes just about every modern American President a war criminal.

Governments prosecute war criminals. The President of the United States cannot be prosecuted by the Federal government for war crimes. It's impossible. It would never happen. War criminals are convicted by governments that recently emerged victorious in some terrible struggle. And the kids who become collateral damage from drone strikes simply don't get a voice in our political system.

Almost every American agrees that the President needs to be tough on national security. Almost every American will also agree that to be tough on national security, you gotta kill the bad guys. And Americans, as Matt Lewis said, will tolerate collateral damage especially when it's remote controlled drones doing the dirty work and not American soldiers being put in harm's way.

At the end of the day, the President is charged with serving the public interest of a country of over 300 million people. Of course he will prioritize the safety of Americans over foreigners. Of course that will occasionally result in some foreigners getting killed. That doesn't make him a war criminal. To say otherwise is needlessly inflammatory and either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

Mike Rowe: We have so many job openings available, but kids these days don't want to work blue collar type jobs due to the indoctrination of society telling us that we should all go to college and leave manual labor for Mexicans and Chinese.

This man hit the nail on the head. The reality is that an economy and society as large and complex as ours requires a lot of moving parts. And not everybody can be a reality TV star, PR spokesperson, model, or radio host. We need doctors, engineers, software developers, plumbers, electricians, forklift operators, construction workers, and sewage workers.

And we have shortages of all those professions. It takes a long time and a lot of hard work to be a doctor or engineer. So most kids don't go down that career path. Plumbers, electricians, heavy machinery operators and construction workers get absolutely no respect in the "so what do you do?" phase of a cocktail party, so most kids don't go down those career paths either. That essentially leaves a lot of kids vying to be reality TV contestants, marketing/creative types that barely work, and pretty people jobs. And there are only a finite number of those jobs.

The modern economy doesn't really need entertainment jobs. Those jobs are created with the excess economic productivity generated from jobs that involve or facilitate food production and preparation, construction, health care, defense (like it or not, every society needs a security apparatus), transportation. The wealthier a society is, the more jobs it can afford to create in the entertainment sector. But it cannot rely on the entertainment sector to create wealth. Entertainment is not wealth. It is strictly consumption.*

But, big surprise, everybody wants to go into entertainment. It involves the least amount of real work and the most amount of real compensation. Unfortunately, that compensation is only made possible with the hard work of people working in the real economy. Actors can only get paid millions of dollars when they can show off their craft on a television designed by an engineer, manufactured by a factory worker, shipped by a truck driver, and sold by a sales associate at your local big box store or online.

We have a lot of jobs open in the real economy. You know, the part that addresses the things that humans need to survive. Prospering can only come after surviving. And too many Americans want to prosper before surviving.

Liz Mair: I am wearing a black leather jacket. I am also annoying and inarticulate.

This is not a sexist rant, by the way. If you want to be taken seriously, you probably shouldn't wear a black leather jacket. And it sure doesn't help your cause if you can't also be clear and concise when you make an argument. If she's the kind of political operative that Republicans hire for strategy, it's no wonder they're in such bad shape.

* I appreciate the irony of making this statement even as I draw a paycheck from a large media/entertainment corporation. It's kinda like celebrities ragging about how unimportant their jobs are, except I'm not absurdly rich, of average intelligence, and laden with a host of emotional issues that emanate from childhood.

The Politicization of the News

In the second episode of The Newsroom, Mackenzie McHale revamps the show within the show, News Night With Will McAvoy, and her top priority is news that is political.

If the goal of revamping News Night is to better inform the American public about important issues, the number 1 objective should not be about information that's most relevant to the voting booth. It should be about information that's most relevant to everyday life. And the information that's most relevant to everyday life is money related.

Leave it to a rich, Hollywood liberal to tell his viewers that what matters isn't financial, it's political. Even the financial "expert" on the show, Sloan Sabbath, is focused on financial issues as it relates to politics. Her pet cause has always been the debt ceiling fight. The show never talks about money matters that's relevant to the average household. They only ever talk about the importance of the debt ceiling as it relates to Federal outlays and making Republicans look bad.

Things like the risk free rate (Treasury yields) and how it affects personal finances are never explained. Investment strategy? Nope. The importance of bond markets and how it affects everyday prices? Unh uh. Appropriate savings rates for a comfortable retirement? Nah, let's just talk about how union employees aren't really overpaid (even though they really are, especially when you count their retirement and health benefits).

No. The news should always be about politics and how it should affect your decision come Election Day. This should tell you a lot about the priorities within The Newsroom. And it certainly dispenses any of the boneheaded arguments saying that the show is not a political show. It is a political show. And if you couldn't tell from the opening scene of the first episode, they literally spell it out for you early in the second episode.

That does not mean that the show is not good or not enjoyable. It's a good show and it's enjoyable. But it's a show meant to stir up politics, not to "properly inform" average Americans or show how the news really should be done. News Night With Will McAvoy is not a news show. It's a political show presented as a news show, which is actually pretty subversive when you think about it.

This is the fundamental reason why actual news shows have experienced declining ratings. The average viewer is content with knowing the bare minimum of current events and then going over to their favorite opinion source to get their take on how it really is. Opinions, not information, rule the day when it comes to the "news" channels.

If I asked you to name the most visible personality on CNN, you would name Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper. And their main duty is to report the news. The most visible personality on Fox is Bill O'Reilly, and his show is purely political and opinion based. And MSNBC? It's either Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, or Lawrence O'Donnell (who is the closest approximation to Will McAvoy in real life), and they're all political pundits. Guess which news channel is in the ratings doldrums? CNN.

And it's not like The Newsroom tries to hide this reality. McAvoy's show spikes in the ratings after he gives that speech in the first episode, which is nothing more than a stream-of-consciousness rant of his own political opinions. Opinions are the bread and butter of the news channels. Breaking news is too unreliable to be a mainstay.

I don't know if Aaron Sorkin intentionally meant to mislead his audience or if he's completely unaware of the irony in a show that positions itself as best presenting the news when it's actually just politicizing and editorializing the news. So it's important to remember that, while watching The Newsroom, this isn't a show about facts. It's a show about opinions on facts, which can be shortened to just "opinions".

The Peril of Prosecutorial Discretion

The Obama Administration generated quite a controversy last week when it announced that it would delay the enforcement of the employer mandate requiring companies with at least 50 employees to provide health care to all of their workers for a year.

Republicans immediately denounced the act as political maneuvering for the midterm elections and how it represented a breach in the rule of law. The Wall Street Journal had quite a popular op-ed yesterday about it. The argument is this: the decision to delay enforcement represents a bridge too far when it comes to the selective enforcement of the country's laws.

As a rule, I favor laws that give enforcers and prosecutors as little room for interpretation as possible when it comes to execution and enforcement of them. Because wiggle room results in uncertainty and uneven enforcement. And it also introduces an exceptionally corrupting influence into the government. At the Federal level, this manifests itself most obviously in the revolving door between the private sector and top level bureaucrats in DC. Companies directly lobby bureaucrats for more lenient or preferential treatment from regulators and promise them cushy, high paying jobs in the private sector should they decide to leave public service.

If bureaucrats had less discretionary power, corporations wouldn't bother lobbying them. Likewise, if a President couldn't make good on promises to reward favored constituencies and donors with his extraordinary level of power over the Federal bureaucracy, you'd see political campaign contributions shrivel up as well. This phenomenon is best observed in the low level bureaucracies of emerging markets. Corruption runs rampant because government officials are poorly paid but have extraordinary discretionary power over the private sector.

A government of laws is much more appealing because power is more clearly rooted in the political process rather than the bureaucracy. And it allows for a much more efficient bureaucracy. The IRS is probably the most efficient and effective organ of the Federal government because its duties are clear and allow almost no wiggle room. IRS officials can't selectively enforce the tax laws for favorable treatment. The result? Companies lobby Congress for tax loopholes instead of the IRS. This makes the IRS much more professional and gives it much more legitimacy. And lobbying Congress is a higher profile activity than trying to bribe/cajole an IRS auditor, so the process becomes more transparent.

Although it is perfectly legal for the Administration to delay enforcement of a new law, it represents further deterioration in the competency and legitimacy of the bureaucracy. Right now, we have a dysfunctional political ecosystem and a highly functioning bureaucratic organization. If the latter becomes as dysfunctional as the former, then expect to see economic growth slow substantially as more and more activity is geared towards wealth preservation rather than wealth creation.

America the Great

The opening scene of The Newsroom introduces our protagonist, Will McAvoy, as a jaded and bored news anchor at a Q&A/debate session with a few other media personalities at some university. The scene plays out as follows:

That speech, while simultaneously entertaining and cringe inducing, was loquacious and bordering on stream-of-consciousness: trademark Aaron Sorkin. And it also happened to be a speech about why America is not the greatest country in the world written by a writer who does believe America is the greatest country in the world.

In their heart of hearts, American liberals are just as proud as American conservatives concerning matters such as national greatness. But among the progressive elites of American society, it is a huge faux pas to say it directly, out loud, and be proud about it. Which is why Aaron Sor -- I mean Will McAvoy said all those things. We aren't the greatest, but we were and we can be again if we just did x, y, z. That is acceptable liberal/progressive code for saying "USA! USA! USA!"

David Mamet, quoting some dead old white guy, once wrote that liberalism can be reduced to just two words "and yet...". As in, the United States is the greatest country in the world, and yet we still can't find it within ourselves to offer universal healthcare like every other developed country. For people of a certain means and mindset, society can always be improved and requires a huge, collective effort directed by some central authority to make it so. Some liberals are more cautious than others when it comes to rushing into the breach with a bold new idea or program, but that is the general progressive/liberal point of view.

Conservatives obviously view it differently. They are slightly unnerved by the breakneck pace that modern society changes by, and are nostalgic for some bygone era that is always much worse than how they actually remember it. They are also amazed at how good people in the US have it and want to preserve our extraordinary circumstances even at the expense of innovation and improvement. Because change is uncertain. And it is certain that life in the US is great. Why should we, this group asks, risk destroying the essence of what makes America great for some nebulous, incremental improvement?

In the end, both conservatives and liberals (and most every American in and around those two camps) will always (if not publicly) agree with the following statement: America is the greatest country in the world. Conservatives will follow up with "and let's keep it that way" just like the conservative in the above clip. Liberals will follow up with "and yet we still have so much to improve upon".

The reason why we're the greatest country in the world is pretty simple. Although other countries might do better in certain individual aspects, no other country in the world has us beat when we are considered as a gestalt. Obviously, there is no concrete, objective measure for gauging the comparative greatness of countries. But, like pornography, this goes through a pretty accurate eyeball test. You know it when you see it. And for the past 150 years, no other country can match the overall efforts of the American people when it comes to outsized impact the country has had on science, the economy, world politics, and culture. It's really that simple.

It must be said that all this talk about comparative greatness is nothing more than an exercise in vanity. America being no. 1 isn't going to feed you when you're hungry or get your kids into their first school of choice. But pride is one of those traits that is universal to every culture. And our collective obsession with cataloging, quantifying, analyzing, and comparing greatness, whether it's in sports, history, politics, movies, business, or culture, isn't weird or stupid. It's natural. So say it loud and say it proud, baby. Because America is the greatest country in the world and there's no shame in admitting that.

The Newsroom is Back!

In one week, that is. To commemorate the series, which really got me in the groove of writing for this blog (now over a year old!), I'm going to write a series of essays on topics covered by The Newsroom. The first one will be out on Monday.

On the Inside Looking Around: Or, Why Game of Thrones Is So Compelling

Game of Thrones is one of the most popular shows on TV, and the crown jewel of HBO's premium cable empire. At first glance, it is exceptionally hard to tell why. There are dozens of characters all with vastly different names. There is a huge backstory that is incredibly important to the plot but it's only ever touched upon here and there in the series. And, after the 9th episode, there is no clear cut protagonist. It's a mish-mash of various points of view alternating by 4-7 minute scenes. And yet it's extremely popular. Which begs the question: why? The answer can be boiled down into three words: proximity to power.

The primary reason why television is inundated with cop, lawyer, and doctor shows is because very few people are cops, lawyers, or doctors. And these three professions have outsized importance in daily life. Watching these shows is voyeuristic. The viewer gets to see one area of influence and power at a very personal level. Game of Thrones takes this concept, supercharges it, and then adds an immense amount of drama.

Perhaps the most basic description for Game of Thrones is that it is the story of a group of dynastic families and their struggle to gain and maintain power. And the show is at its best when the scene is just two people talking to each other. But the reason why it's so compelling is because, more often than not, those two characters belong to powerful aristocratic families and their thoughts and actions influence the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions.

After a President leaves office or some great economic calamity passes, there is always a demand for some kind of postmortem analysis, Hollywood style. In another HBO production, Too Big To Fail, it depicted the efforts of former Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson to avert the next Great Depression as financial markets go into freefall in the summer and fall of 2008. Most of the scenes show Paulson in the room with many very powerful policymakers and CEOs. A movie about the effects of the recession affecting some worker don't get made because we can see that in real life. But very few of us ever get to sit in one of those meetings where a handful of people determine the fates of millions.

What makes Game of Thrones different from that kind of voyeurism is that it's removed from reality and history even as it heavily borrows from both. Too Big To Fail was a postmortem. We already knew what happened. When Game of Thrones went through with (SPOILERS) the main character's execution (SPOILERS), it completely upended the audience's expectations for a regular TV series. Suddenly, the stakes were upped in the most dramatic way possible. Anything could happen.

But the apex of GoT's first season wasn't a series of chaotic and unforeseeable events. The narrative concluded in an entirely predictable way if you could observe it outside the lens of a TV show (where audiences have expectations already baked into the pie). You were essentially witnessing history in the making from the best seats in the house. That is what makes Game of Thrones (and the books it's based off of) so remarkable.

The world building is absolutely incredible, and no stone gets left unturned. Every aspect of life is filled in and explained. There is an incredibly deep backstory. Aristocratic families have extensive family trees, official mottoes, and depict people in a very realistic manner. The common people have drinking songs, superstitions, and different accents that distinguish them from highborn characters. Every city has a founding story. Every castle has its own legend.

When the author or the show's creators depict a meal or a family crest or some weapon of historical origin, they're building a world. They're making you invested in the world. And because you're invested, you care what happens next. And what happens next is going to be determined by the decisions and actions of a very small and very powerful group of people. And you're by their side, able to see them in their element at the decisive moment where everything changed. Suddenly, it becomes incredibly easy to understand why so many people love to watch Game of Thrones.

Real Time With Bill Maher: Counterpoints (6/28/13)

Sorry for getting this out late, usually I watch the live viewing and then go from there. But I couldn't do it this weekend. Regardless, we had a decent show, good points to discuss, and some counterpoints to make. So let's get to it.

Anthony Leiserowitz 1: Keystone XL needs to stop because it just makes the problem of CO2 emissions worse.

Again, we have to deal with the reality of economics. If we're not going to transport that heavy crude via pipeline, we're going to do it by rail. And shipping it by train requires a lot more CO2 emissions than shipping by pipeline, which is the most efficient form of logistical distribution we have today.

Bill Maher 1: I think we can all admit that the Obama Administration really is waging a war against coal. But coal miners have the worst jobs in the world. Is working at Home Depot really such a downgrade?

This is essentially the reverse libertarian argument. People naturally resent authority, especially when it messes with their livelihoods. The people who are most affected by the EPA and DOE's crusade against coal are the employees of those coal companies. For other people, our electricity bills will go up about 4-5 cents per kilowatt hour, but for them, they'll lose their current job in a precarious economic climate that cannot guarantee them another.

They've already made the decision that being a coal miner is worth it. When you look at places where coal is being mined, mostly in rural Appalachia where the average person has a living standard that's worse than an inner city youth in Baltimore, you really are disrupting their lives and livelihoods. There's a difference from when market forces drives companies and employees out of business. When the government does it, that's a whole different story.

Anthony Leiserowitz 2: China and India are already doing a better job of fighting climate change than we are.

Such a statement couldn't be further from the truth. Every week, China and India are building 4 new coal plants. Industrializing economies require vast amounts of extremely cheap energy, and coal is the cheapest (besides natural gas, but that is only a very recent state of affairs). China's subsidies for energy research are geared primarily towards their fast breeder reactor program (and other nuclear programs) and a few billion for solar panel manufacturers to capture American subsidies on "green" energy.

In the US, CO2 emissions have gone down largely due to the large scale conversion from coal fired electricity to natural gas powered electricity. China's CO2 emissions continue to grow at double digit percentages per year.

 Dan Neil and Bill Maher: Justice Roberts is essentially saying racism is a non-issue by overturning Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, but voter discrimination is still a huge concern.

The real issue of preclearance is the extraordinary level of Federal control over a state issue (election laws are supposed to be determined by states, specified in the Constitution). Prior Court rulings have made note of this high level of scrutiny but the issue really comes down to how far can the Federal government curtail states' rights by using an issue that is no longer valid?

5 of the states subject to preclearance by the VRA had higher black turnout than white turnout in the most recent election. If the southern states are so irredeemably racist that they still need Federal scrutiny, obviously they aren't doing a good job of translating that racism into actionable voter suppression and perhaps other states might warrant preclearance.

On a related note, when Maher trotted out Posner's quote that John Roberts was essentially making shit up, Horace Cooper shut that down pretty hard with an exceptionally obscure legal case and it made for an awkward scene. But I'm glad that Maher admitted he had a point.

Kristen Soltis (heavy paraphrasing): Gay rights have advanced a rapid clip because the thought leaders and upper middle class live around gays and not around blacks.

Nail on the head. I've always said that I want more gay people living in my neighborhood because they're clean, don't cause crime, and they boost property values. There is a lot of intermingling between the UMC and gays, therefore it's easier to identify and relate with them. The UMC is so sheltered from most black people that it really is just socioeconomic/white guilt driving their support of "black" causes, which is why they haven't advanced nearly as quickly as gay causes.

Adrian Grenier: The war on drugs has to end.

Agreed. It's time to let the pros take over the sale of drugs instead of Mexican drug lords and teenagers on street corners.