Submitted to a Candid World
Archive for
Rice University Moves Towards Merger with Baylor College of Medicine
According to an e-mail sent out today to alumni by Rice’s President, David Leebron, the two universities have signed a memorandum of understanding, which commits neither party to a merger, but lays out the commitment of both.
We are pleased to announce that the governing boards of Rice and BCM this week approved the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that lays out a broad framework for formal negotiations about a possible merger of our two institutions.
President Leebron, the former dean of Columbia Law School, came to Rice with bold plans for expanding the university. While many students met these plans with hostility, I have always believed that Rice can only benefit from controlled growth targeted at increasing the University’s national visibility. A merger with Baylor Medicine would certainly fit that description.
The full e-mail comes below the line…
BREAKING: VICTORY IN TEXAS! Strengths & Weaknesses Down for Day 2!
Texas Freedom Network reports that the Texas State Board of Education rejected a motion to add to the Texas educational standards language that would’ve required teachers to teach the “strenghts & weaknesses” of evolutionary biology, well-understood as code words for creationism.
TFN’s final vote count:
Yes: Bradley, Cargill, Dunbar, Lowe, McLeroy, Mercer, Leo
No: Agosto, Allen, Craig, Hardy, Knight, Miller, Nunez
Because the total was 7-7, this vote just prevents the amendment from succeeding today. It could be reconsidered tomorrow and, of course, creationists always have a few crazy, disingenuous, dishonest tricks up their sleeves: that’s how they roll. The good news about tomorrow, though, is that Board Member Berlanga (a Democrat, expected to be pro-science) was absent today; she’ll be videoconferenced in tomorrow for a final vote.
This momentary victory comes on the heels of an amendment proposed by SB member Craig to allow teachers to discuss “what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” This language is likely a nod to the theory of non-overlapping magisteria (the idea that religion and science like evolution can coexist happily), a way of allowing teachers to discuss what evolution does not discuss (i.e., the purpose, value, or meaning of life), and discuss religion if students want to discuss it. No doubt this amendment was also meant to assuage creationist fears that evolution is an openly atheistic position, bent on affirmatively suppressing religion, by allowing a small, limited venue for discussion of religion. It failed too, 6-8.
You’d think creationists, then, to have been in favor of Craig’s amendment. You’d be wrong. Most spoke out against it, perhaps proving (as if there was any doubt) that their fears of religious “suppression” were mere theatrics.
Stay tuned at TFN for more.
Live Blogging Geithner’s Testimony That — Wait for It — the Financial System Needs Oversight
I admit, I am live blogging this hearing in the hopes Michele Bachmann impresses us with her intellectual prowess. I suspect the non-Bachmann details of this hearing are going to be relatively dull, but the broad strokes will be useful. So without further ado …
10:04 a.m. — The hearing has yet to begin. Michele Bachmann is checking her Blackberry and is holding her head at the appropriate angle so that her hair falls alluringly to one side … like in a shampoo commercial.
10:09 a.m. — Still waiting for the hearing to begin, but the ambient noise in the chamber is interesting. Journalists and photographers and interns and aides are talking and laughing, like normal people.
10:10 a.m. — Here we go. (It’s on CSPAN 3 for people who might be at home with toddlers or colds.)
10:13 a.m. — Barney Frank’s statement: Is there sufficient authority in the federal government to deal with systemic risk? One issue: Do we have authority to use bankruptcy law to “wind down” non-bank institutions? (Hint: AIG) Today, the focus will be on whether we need to increase the authority of some entity or entities in the federal government to restrict excessive leverage? (Hint: AIG) The goal of public policy is to set a fair playing field that protects responsible entities from those irresponsible in the face of innovation of financial products/systems. We need rules to protect from abuse. Innovation is good. Securitization is good. BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS as there were with trusts and the stock market without rules.
10:18 a.m. — Spencer Bachus (R-AL): Discussing AIG’s debt handling with foreign banks vs. domestic banks. Foreign banks received dollar for dollar. AIG is offering domestic banks $0.30 on the dollar. He is concerned. Taxpayer continues to foot the bill for bailouts. Why not administrate orderly liquidation without placing entire financial system at risk and without using taxpayer funding? Taxpayer funding reduces moral hazard and further cements “too big to fail premise.” Which firms qualify for rescue and why? When and what triggers liquidation? Who is going to design this regulation? Wants to look at past actions re: bailouts and identify failed components.
10:24 a.m. — Paul Kanjorski (D-PA): Wants to discuss hedgefunds and private-equity pools, players that are “in the shadows” and operate unregulated. (Sounds good to me.) How will a program to regulate and unwind failed institutions affect the insurance industry, a very large part of the financial-services industry. (Hint: AIG)
10:27 a.m. — Scott Garrett (R-NJ): We need a systemic approach, comprehensive reform, including addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the existing regulatory structure. Mentioning that the Fed is supposed to prevent asset bubbles. (Note to Republicans: Greenspan oversaw the market bubbles that brought us to this point over the last 20 years. Greenspan is a conservative economist and a registered Republican.)
10:30 a.m. — Geithner’s introduction: Comprehensive reform with new rules that must be simpler and easier to enforce. We need a system that can withstand severe shocks. Risk does not respect borders, so regulation has to be strong globally. Wants to concentrate on the substance of reform: (1) system risk, (2) consumer & investor protection … (two more that I missed) … Regulatory structure must assign clear regulatory reponsibilities that can’t be cherry-picked by institutions that might “simply change their charters” to fall under less rigorous regulation. Six elements (1) need to grant single entity authority for overseeing systemic stability (2) need conservative capital requirements for too-big-to-fail institutions (3) leveraged private-investment funds need rules by which to better protect investors … (three more that I missed) …
10:40 a.m. — David Scott (D-GA): Questions about expansion of power … We don’t want to suffocate our economy. Insurance companies are already regulated by the states. How can regulatory reform at federal level not conflict with state laws? Geithner: We want compatibility with state-insurance regulators, similarly with bank regulators. Scott: How do we respond to hedge funds that say they are already regulated? Geithner: Work with SEC to require registration by hedge funds for oversight once they hit “a certain size.” Scott: Where should the power to seize non-bank establishments lie? Treasury? FDIC? Geithner: Treasury will do it, following the FDIC model, including FDIC’s checks and balances, i.e., that FDIC rules require majority agreement among FDIC boards to take action against banks.
10:46 a.m. — Need to make a PB& J sandwich for a certain somone.
10:50 a.m. — Al Green (D-TX): “Too big to fail means right size to regulate.” The “paralysis of analysis” made AIG inevitable. “AIG is a prodigy of long-term capital.” We had it in our power to regulate at beginning of bubble, but were told “long-term capital is an abberation … doesn’t really exist … doesn’t need regulation.”
10:58 a.m. — Keith Ellison (D-MN): Asked about capital requirements for hedge funds. Geithner: Not proposing those. Banks, though, do because their risk is greater. BUT if hedge funds reach a certain size or reach a size to have systemic effect, they need to be registered with the SEC. Ellison: Why not establish an independent regulatory agency? Geithner: No. Treasury wants to use FDIC model, but because Treasury is responsible to taxpayers, oversight must come from them so that taxpayer protection is an active consideration in regulation.
Wherein Eugenie Scott is Aware of My Existence
I posted on her Facebook wall last night to congratulate her on a job well done before the Texas State Board of Education (see audio file soon):
You did a great job! You were the charismatic speaker the pro-science side needed in that hearing. I’m sorry that they didn’t let you speak at the end when that one board member thought she had a “gotcha” moment. Ugh. Anyways, well done!
And she replied!
Ames — I saw in the other post that you were listening. I assumed I ws so far down the line I wouldn’t be called to testify. Then way at the end, each SB member could call one person to testify, sort of as a point of personal privilege. A SB member asked a teacher who advises him, she suggested me, and in 5 minutes, I was on the stand! I hadn’t prepared anything, to my chagrin. But I decided just to hit the talking points, so to speak, though I was sorely tempted to try to respond to some of the awful science you were complaining about.
OMG!!!
If science loses out in Texas, it will not be for lack of good advocates. As Dr. Scott said, “It’s not about the science. It’s about the numbers.”
Dammit, Dammit, Dammit, Dammit! Creationists in Texas
Between my eighteen million meetings today, I’ve managed to catch a few minutes of the live feed from the Texas Board of Education meetings on creationism, evolution, and teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. And boy, did I pick a good time. In between 4:00 and 4:30ish, Casey Luskin himself emerged, to rant angrily into the microphone. There’s good news, and there’s bad news.
Good news, listening to him now, is that he’s an unabashed liar. He’s taken the non-issue of the “tree of life” – a metaphor that Darwin used that now seems to be a little misleading in light of genetic research – as proof that evolution is wrong. No, Mr. Luskin – the diagram is wrong. Evolution is as true as ever, and The New Scientist was just being needlessly inflammatory. This is a textbook example of why real scientists shouldn’t use P.R. slogans that violate Rove’s Law, or invite quote mining – you allow clowns like Luskin to easily twist credible sources to fit his nefarious schemes. He’s even passed out flyers on the patently false claim that teaching the “strengths & weaknesses” of evolution is constitutional. And it’s just downhill from there.
The bad news is he’s good at lying. The scientific testimony today has been factually accurate and complete, but long-winded, somewhat fumbled, and short on rhetorical flourishes. Scientists are fact witnesses – they’re not advocates, and they’re not demagogues like Luskin, but dammit, they’re right! It’s high time we got someone into these hearings who has both truth and oratory on their side. I’m looking at you, NCSE. Don’t let me down.
——
UPDATE #1: Eugenie Scott (NCSE) never fails. I managed to catch her testimony, and hers was the charismatic testimony we needed. One of many excellent quotes (paraphrased): “Texas students don’t deserve junk science.” Well done. Ditto, when asked if evolution actually admits of any “weaknesses” from, say, empty parts in the fossil record (paraphrased): “There’s unknown or unspecified information on gravitation. That’s not necessarily a weakness.”
One board member tried to catch Dr. Scott in a bind: “are you aware that [inhibiting] discussion of religion is unconstitutional [in the public schools] as well?” She gave the right answer (“yes”), but sensing where this particular person was going, started to reply, before being cut off (“we ask the questions here” – yes, they said that to her). The board member was no doubt trying to suggest that it’s unconstitutional to suppress religious discussion in schools, to set up the argument that evolution, unpaired with creationism, is such a suppression.
As Dr. Scott knows – and tried to explain – it’s unconstitutional to suppress religious speech by students. NOT teachers. While teachers should be respectful of religious questions addressed to them – perhaps giving the NOMA dodge – teachers are emphatically supposed to be “suppressed” in discussion of their own religious ideas. Thus, it’s quite proper that teachers not be encouraged by “strenghts & weaknesses” language to teach religion in their classrooms.
Fingers crossed.
UPDATE #2: James F notes a few liveblogs of the feed, to spare yourself the AGONY of listening to it. Will update tomorrow with a link to download the full audio. Without further ado, James F: “There’s no way I can listen to the feed. Bad for my blood pressure. I’ve resorted to the liveblogs posted by TFN (tfnblog.wordpress.com), Josh Rosenau (scienceblogs.com/tfk/), and Steve Schafersman.“
Republican Rhetorical March Covers a Lot of Ground This Week
After the Republican March to Irrelevance
Reason, logic, and intellect need not participate, and believe me, they don’t.
First up, Mike Huckabee. At a fundraising event for an anti-abortion group on Monday, Huckabee equated abortion to slavery, saying:
What are we saying to the generation coming after us when we tell them that it is perfectly OK for one person to own another human being? … I thought we dealt with that 150 years ago when the issue of slavery was finally settled in this country, and we decided that it no longer was a political issue, it wasn’t an issue of geography, it was an issue of morality. That it was either right or it was immoral that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being.
Such lofty rhetoric requires its own category. In the tradition of Godwin’s Law, we are introducing “Huckabee’s Law,” wherein “the person who first makes an unwarranted reference to [slavery] in an argument [over abortion] loses that argument automatically.”
Of course, Huckabee was preaching to the choir, so there was no argument to win.
Second, Bobby Jindal. After Obama’s Tuesday press conference, Jindal told a Republican audience it is acceptable to want Obama to fail if the president’s policies will destroy the very fabric of American values and global dominance. O.K., so the “very fabric” phrasing is mine. According to CNN, Jindal said, “My answer to the question is very simple: ‘Do you want the president to fail?’ It depends on what he is trying to do.”
Well, so far, just about every major proposal from Obama has been met with opposition and foot-stamping tantrums from the Right.
So MY answer to the question is very simple: “Do Republicans want the president to fail?” It depends on if the Republican is eyeing a 2012 nomination or is a sweating, bloviating media king.
Which leads us to Rush Limbaugh. From Huffington Post:
Rush Limbaugh was at it again on Tuesday, “confusing” Barack Obama with Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, and referring to the president as “one angry guy — his wife is angry as well.”
….
Limbaugh went on to “accidentally” refer to Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, as “Barack Ogabe.”
“The standard of living has increased in places where there are basic free markets,” Limbaugh said. “Where there aren’t, of course the standard of living has declined, such as Zimbabwe… now run by Robert Ogabe. Ah — it’s Mugabe. I was confusing him with a well-known Kenyan named Barack Ogabe. This is Robert Mugabe.”
Maybe Mitch McConnell was right when he said conservatives are more fun than liberals. I admit the lunacy is entertaining, as long as the GOP isn’t in power.
Politico’s Coverage of Obama’s Press Conference Shot Through with Bias
To many, allegations of anti-Obama bias at popular politics site “Politico” won’t really come as much of a shock. Bias, however, may not be the right word: “Politico” isn’t so much anti-Obama as infrequently dedicated to a negative, childish kind of “gotcha” politics (recall “Laughtergate” just last week) that doesn’t really do anyone justice. That’s what happens when you hire “National Review” alums.
This tone was well on display earlier, as “Politico” released its take on “what [Obama] meant to say” at his second primetime press conference, complete with a snarky rehash of the old, disingenuous argument that Obama’s tax plan constitutes some hitherto-unseen increase in upper class tax rates:
Obama fluently answered the questions, sometimes at considerable length. But his responses were typically variations on a single-word theme: Whatever. [ . . . . ]
On higher taxes for the affluent
What he said: “It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”
What he meant: Suck it up, rich folks, and welcome to your post-Bush tax code.
More like your pre-Bush tax code. Conservatives don’t get to classify the Bush era, a time of unprecedented and reckless economic hedonism, as the “steady state” for taxes in America, and then lambast any divergence from the norm as neo-socialism. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy were an aberration, not the norm, opposed at the time by non-partisan experts, and justly reviled today for their effects. With due respect to “Politico,” Obama’s hostility to the rich is just as imaginary as his hostility to reporters last night.
Where Conservapedia Went Wrong – From the Inside
Flash - Conservapedia is intolerable. Even for creationists & conservatives. Or so writes Philip J. Rayment, ex-administrator and Australian creationist, in his tell-most web memoir. There he documents the double standards, factual relativism, and bizarrely churlish behavior that have made Conservapedia not just a failure in its own right, but a macrosm of the failures of the American far-right. No governing philosophy so steeped in dogmatism can long survive, or retain its adherents.
To be sure, Philip is an imperfect hero in this little tale. While he’s rightly rejected an organization of theocrats and thugs, Philip is an unapologetic young-earth creationist, with presumably similar opinions on gay rights, etc., etc. But he differs from the organization he left, and indeed the majority of his fellow-travelers, in two significant ways: he has a decent respect for the rest of humanity, and a desire to debate rather than dictate. This, as they say, is not nothing. If opponents we must have, we should hope for such individuals.
Michele Bachmann Was On Fire This Morning!
Not literally. But, boy, did she outdo herself with her questioning of Geithner and Bernanke at the House Financial Services hearing today. Props to Andrew Leonard for posting to his blog. I was too busy writing about boring deficits this morning to watch the hearing, so I missed all the goodness that is Bachmann [Turning in] Overdrive! As excerpted by Leonard:
BACHMANN: What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of ’08?
GEITHNER: Oh, well, the — the Congress legislated in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act a range of very important new authorities.
BACHMANN: Sir, in the Constitution. What — what in the Constitution could you point to to — to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?
GEITHNER: Every action that the Treasury and the Fed and the FDIC is — is — has been using authority granted by this body — by this body, the Congress.
BACHMANN: And by — in the Constitution, what could you point to?
GEITHNER: Under the laws of the land, of course.
The excerpt is from the first couple of minutes of the video, but it is worth it to hang in for the full five minutes to see Bernanke’s facial expressions and to hear Barney Frank tell her when time’s up, time’s up.
You can view the entire hearing (all three hours of it) on CSPAN’s site. The hearing opens with Barney Frank dressing down the Code Pink contingent in the audience, telling them to cool it with their signs.
Get Ready for the GOP’s Greatest Hits Tour, Aught-Nine
Last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report providing preliminary analysis on Obama’s budget proposals. The take-home point: If Obama’s proposed budget were enacted exactly as written in its current general state, government spending would add $9.3 trillion to the national debt from 2010 through 2019. Compare this amount to the $7 trillion in additional debt estimated by the White House, and you have the kindling for a bonfire of GOP outrage against crazed liberal spending. Leading the GOP offensive on the Sunday talkshows was Senator Judd Gregg (NH), which makes sense, considering he is the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. About the CBO’s analysis Gregg said, “The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States.”
Of course, the story is more complicated than what can be explained in a soundbite. Economic forecasts/projections/palm readings must always be considered in the context of the specific assumptions used to build the models. CBO’s baseline model assumes current law remains in effect, which does not mean things stay the same. A “current law” assumption means that policies change as scheduled at the time CBO conducts its analysis. For instance, in its baseline model, CBO revenue estimates do not consider AMT patches, those annual fixes to the tax code that keep the Alternative Minimum Tax from affecting millions of Americans. Hence, CBO’s baseline revenue estimates are often overstated. Also, in its analysis of Obama’s budget, the CBO does not try to project the impacts proposed programs will have on macroeconomic measures like GDP. The CBO does make estimates of the impacts of, for instance, the President’s cap-and-trade program on revenue streams, but allows that the “revenues raised from a cap-and-trade program could be significantly higher or lower depending on how the program is structured.” Further, the CBO does not hesitate to admit how present economic conditions are complicating the already difficult task of building projections over the next decade. Assumptions affect context and seemingly small changes to a growth rate here or there can dramatically change the overall picture.
As long as context is kept in mind, differing viewpoints can come together to effectively debate an overall budget strategy. I read the CBO analysis. I have not carefully read the White House’s budget report, which at this point is relatively general, with more details due in April. Not surprising, the White House believes the CBO’s assumptions underestimate economic recovery. I am sure the White House overestimates same. Also, the President’s budget was presented in late February, likely using January’s economic numbers. The CBO report expends great effort detailing the changes that have taken place since the office presented its own economic report on January 8. I do not doubt the detailed budget proposal the White House presents in April will reflect more recent developments.
Numbers and a mini-experiment after the jump.
