January 28th, 2010

Abstract: Don’t.

Full text:

This is so interesting:

(1) Cell phone use damages driving performance almost to the DUI level.

(2) Laws against using cell phones while driving are effective and reduce cell phone use a lot.

(3) Where this happens, there’s no reduction in accidents!

Toward the end of the story we get what I think is the key to the puzzle: hands-free cell phone gadgets, which are legal (but shouldn’t be) everywhere, because talking on the phone with a hands-free device is just as bad as holding the phone to your ear.  The problem with a cell phone in the car is not dialing and fumbling, which after all take only a small fraction of the time required for a phone conversation (and you can do that at a time of your choice), but mental distraction of a particular kind.   This is surprising because listening to the radio, or chatting with a passenger, are not dangerous; why should chatting with someone on the phone be so risky?

To understand why, consider a couple of other things that are dangerous in cars: very young children and loose pets, which both (i) require your attention unpredictably (ii) with no sense of what’s happening on the road ahead that might be more important, and (iii) you know they might do this at any time.  The radio, in contrast, doesn’t have that psychological grip; you might miss a pearl on All Things Considered if you stop listening for a minute, but you know the radio will not be insulted, nor raise its voice insistently.

The party on the other end of the phone conversation is an adult to whom you psychologically owe attention, but unlike the adult passenger, has no idea of what you are seeing through the windshield.  A passenger will subconsciously stop talking if something untoward or just complicated is unfolding on the road ahead, and will expect you to suspend the conversation similarly, so she causes no important distraction at the critical moments when you need to be driving on all neurons, and you are aware of all this. In contrast, the person on the phone can’t do either of these things, and you are aware of that as well.  When you need to navigate a tricky bit of road, there’s no time to ask someone to be quiet, and telling a peer to shut up for a minute, in any terms, is so rude that it absolutely requires an excuse that makes it take even longer (“can you hold on for a minute? one of the kids is playing with my blunderbuss and I think it’s loaded”).

I’m surprised to see people using cell phones in their cars either way, because from the first time I tried it, I felt quite anxious and impaired, a feeling that didn’t go away when I tried my first bluetooth earpiece while driving.  My psychological solipsism doesn’t prove anything one way or another, but it turns out to have been a valid signal and consistent with the science.  Dear RBC readers, we have unbelievably entertaining and enlightening posts queued up for you far into the future. Don’t miss them by being dead; stay off the phone in your cars!

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 28th, 2010

Tom Udall of New Mexico wants to end the filibuster, and he wants to do it the right way:  by making new Senate rules at the beginning of the next Congress.

Now it’s time to Reinforce Desired Behavior.

If you’re from New Mexico, call his office (505) 346-6791 and give Udall a big  ”attaboy.”

If you’re not from New Mexico, your call won’t mean as much, but you could send an email to his campaign committee <mdixon@tomudall.com> and tell them about the contribution you made via the campaign website.

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2754/t/4682/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=2585

Even $10 would help express your sincerity.  Or you could donate $22 in honor of Rule XXII.  Helping a progressive Democrat hold a New Mexico Senate seat is always a cost-effective use of political funds, but in this case the goal is to make Udall and his people happy that he picked up on this issue, and to allow him to tell his colleagues that he got a good response for doing so.

I’m not generally a fan of the hereditary principle in politics, but I’m willing to make an exception for the Udall clan.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 28th, 2010

In one of the best lines of the night, President Obama described TARP as “about as popular as root canal.”  I think that this is deeply unfair to root canal.

I had one about a year ago, on one of my back teeth.  It really wasn’t a big deal, and it’s not as if my pain threshold is particularly high.  They numb you up and go ahead.  I slept through it, and I only had a local anesthetic.

I was amazed and asked the endodontist whether this represented some new technological advance.  “No,” he said.  “These kinds of numbing agents have been around for years.”  If that’s true, then a lot of dentists who don’t use them have a hell of a lot to answer for.

Idea of the Day: Maybe we should put the bank executives through root canal without the anesthetic?

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 28th, 2010

A reader writes:

I used OFA’s website to find a viewing party near me and found one in Inglewood. This area is about as close to Obama country as you’re going to find outside of Chicago.

About a dozen people gathered at a Caribbean restaurant, my sister and I being the only young people (and only Hispanics).  Prior to the speech, people were discussing their frustrations about the past year, and one attendee summarized it best: “The TEA party people got their message out, but what is our message? Why isn’t the media covering our points of view?” And therein lies OFA’s problem: a lack of coverage as a consequence of having nothing to say.

And I have to tell you, if Obama is gearing up for a fight, these folks are itching for one too. Easily, the loudest applause (and there was plenty) was when Obama said “ ..at the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade.” I pretty much missed the rest of his comments because the cheers of, “that’s right!! Tell ‘em!” and “Yeah, don’t let them forget!” When the camera would pan to the Republicans, many of the attendees delighted in the stern countenances of various congressmen. Low points included the portion on trade, and there was an uncomfortable silence when Obama brought up the issue of immigration. I clapped, and others joined, but clearly that’s an issue that many African Americans have deep reservations about.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 28th, 2010

A reader writes that we’re in an inverted Hans Christian Andersen world, in which all the folks who want to show how sophisticated and worldly they are are pointing fingers at the Emperor’s nakedness, and only a few of us innocent children are capable of seeing, and willing to risk saying, that he’s actually rather elegantly dressed.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 27th, 2010

Mark, you’re creating straw men.  We’re not saying that we don’t support the President; we’re saying that the President has to fight for what he claims to believe in.

You state, correctly, that we all need to get on the phone and tell DiFi to “pass the damn bill.”  But you know what?  Obama needs to do that, too. 

You argued, correctly, that the OFA organization needs to really get energized.  But you know what?  Obama needs to energize it, too.  This is a guy who can fill arenas. 

Where is he? 

There’s an old line about a liberal being someone who won’t take his own side in argument.  If Obama is that kind of liberal, then he will fail.  And Mike and I will be completely justified in being very, very ticked off.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 27th, 2010

Mark, surely you know the nature of a rhetorical question.  And I agree with you that the other side is flat out evil.  But few people are as partisan as we are, at least on an outpatient basis.

I posed the question because it goes to the question of depressing — and betraying — the promises that Obama has made to the country and to the base.  You and I will continue to vote and support Democrats against the Republicans because (to borrow from Nye Bevan) the Republicans are “lower than vermin.”  But for the millions of people who voted for the man, stating that Republicans are evil is not enough.  They won’t show up to the polls.

He has to deliver.  He hasn’t, yet.  I won’t go through the litany again.  But “trust me” or good speeches are simply not good enough anymore.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 27th, 2010

Now it’s Mike O’Hare crying in his beer.

For Christ’s sake, people, get a grip!

This is not about us, and about how betrayed we feel because our actual leaders don’t satisfy our fantasies about how we would behave under pressures we don’t feel and constraints we can’t even see.  This is about whether we can establish Democrats and progressives as the natural party of government.   If Obama’s Presidency works, we win.  If his Presidency fails, we lose.  We shouldn’t back away from Obama for the same reason the Blue Dogs are going to have to man up and pass health care by one vote in the House: the voters will punish us, and them, terribly for failure.

Conservatives were “betrayed” by Ronald Reagan d0zens of times.  Some minded it.  The smart ones understood that being “betrayed” by an effective President who shares your instincts and passions is infinitely better than struggling with a President who is on the other side.  As a reward, they got lots of movement in the (mostly horrible) direction they liked, and inherited a legacy of dominance, including the Conservative Caucus doing business as the Supreme Court majority.  If all Obama does as President is appoint replacements for Scalia and Kennedy, dayyenu*.

Mike’s doubts about whether he can trust Obama reminds me of the scene in The Lion in Winter where Eleanor of Acquitaine says to Henry II that their son Richard Coeur-de-Lion wonders whether Henry’s promises are any good.  Henry replies, “There’s no sense asking if the air’s good when there’s nothing left to breathe.”  It’s way too late for the luxury of doubts about Obama. He’s the only President we have, and our only play – if we truly care about the things and the people we profess to care about – is to back him up.  He’s not like the British PM in Churchill’s favorite rant who can be “pole-axed” if he’s “no good.”  If we turn Obama into another Carter, the causes we care about won’t recover from the damage in our lifetimes.

We’re already “all in” on Obama, and gain nothing by folding.  All we can do is play out the hand, which starts by calling DiFi and demanding that she Pass. The. Damned. Bill. and finding friends in the states and districts of other waverers and asking them to make the same phone calls to their Senators and Representatives.

*  Heb. : “it is sufficient unto us.”

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 27th, 2010

Jonathan wonders why he worked for, and gave to, Barack Obama. John McCain, a compassionate conservative if there ever was one, feels Jonathan’s pain, and answers his question for him:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.

John McCain says that he’s proud of and grateful to the thousands or tens of thousands of gay and lesbian Americans now in uniform, and thinks that while they’re risking their lives for the rest of us they should be forced to remain in the closet.  Knowing that the change is going to be made and that the brass has already signed off on it – else it wouldn’t have been in the SOTU, with the SecDef applauding – McCain decides to make the transition harder rather than easier, merely to f*ck with the man who defeated him a year ago.    And the rest of the Republicans think of McCain as a moderate, a RINO.

We gave to and worked for Obama because – among other reasons – the other side is flat-out evil.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
January 27th, 2010

I have spent the last decade or so trying to understand how I got at the bottom of a stack of leaders that (with a very few bright spots) are either out to lunch, inept, or affirmatively evil.  About a year ago, things started to look up and I was ready for a president who not only had a heart and a head but would govern effectively.  Half a year ago, I got a new dean who is so nearly doing everything right that I left everything on the table, plus an IOU, in a negotiation over teaching last week, so at the beginning of the summer, the bottom and the top of my authority pyramid checked out OK, which is not bad in many ways.  (Actually the mayor and my city councillor are pretty good at what they do; who knows, maybe they read the RBC!).  But everything in between – my senators, congressperson, governor, regents of the university, university president, campus chancellor – is between mediocre and a wasteland, especially the last four, who have simply left me speechless at their complete ignorance of what their jobs are and fecklessness the few times they try to do it, and nothing has changed there. We have a gubernatorial election coming up and I see nothing on that horizon that I don’t fear, loathe, or both. My bitterness about this situation is wide and also deep; I hate not being able to respect people I work for, especially when they also work for me.

I wish I could share Mark’s optimism and put Jonathan’s self-protective caution aside, but until I see results I have to adopt the view that Obama has one or two critical pieces missing, and the next three years are going to be mostly heartbreak, the more so if I let myself fall for his speeches again.  I am not going to let myself be set up for disillusionment again by this one.  Obama has pooched almost everything he’s set himself to – health care, climate, the Massachusetts senate race, Guantanamo, DADT (so far), it goes on and on. A chain of vacillation, days late and dollars short, unnecessary compromises and surrenders.  W dealt him a very bad hand, but the voters gave him an extra draw or two, and all I see out of it is a shrinking stack of chips.

The way politics works is, you have a portfolio of conflicts to engage.  When you pick the first set, you have a certain amount of each of several kinds of power, and you need to figure out a few you can win going away (to demonstrate and increase the power), a few where you can negotiate a good middle-ground outcome, a few you need to leave for later, and a few crapshoots and jump-balls.

And a few you need to visibly leap on with all four feet and your claws out, even if you can’t win, because some things are just right and you ran on some principles. It’s not just a matter of counting wins; substance matters too. So does the payoff structure: some conflicts can have a good non-zero-sum “bipartisan” outcome, negotiation is appropriate, and you can even learn something from the other side that you didn’t know and get a better result than you could alone.  But others have to be fought to the end and won because the other side is wrong in a deep sense and needs to be defeated or because a crappy jerry-built pastiche is actually worse than a clean outcome either way.

Or because their utility function has a big negative coefficient on your success independent of the issue. Especially in the current environment, Obama not only has opponents on issues, but also real enemies, and as the core of the Republican ideology has collapsed intellectually; their record is so visibly, famously, toxic; and the affective tone of legislative process has become so bitter and vengeful (does anyone remember the word comity?), they matter a lot now.

After all that tactical and strategic analysis, you have to actually do the tasks you pick; you don’t have to set out to take Vienna; maybe try for Austerlitz first, but you have to advance on the objectives you do select, stay on the battlefield and be seen to do so, and keep doing it even when the folks on the other side call you very mean names and even shoot at you.

One thing I know I’m not very good at is hiring.  Again and again, outfits I work for have taken on someone who looked to me like a really bad pick, and they succeed splendidly, and I’ve expected wonders from people who didn’t deliver.  I love my colleagues who are good at this for doing it well, just as I love people who are willing to work twelve hours a day running restaurants (a job I know I would fail at almost instantly) so I can have great meals.  It won’t be the first time if I favored the wrong job applicant for Obama’s slot.  Similarly, I have my own ideas of how the issues the administration mishandled should have fallen into the boxes described above, but I’m not expert at that.  I’m happy to be surprised when someone who is picks an order of battle or makes a Gantt chart I wouldn’t have come up with, and succeeds at stuff.  Doing that much better than I can is exactly what I expect from a leader and his or her team.

I don’t know which calls he got most wrong, it’s not my expertise, but I infer from the overall record to date that he just isn’t getting it (or is a deep-down a wuss and backs away too much).  It kills me to say it, but I don’t think Obama has the discrimination to see this whole landscape as it is; and/or, he  just doesn’t like to fight. Not every articulate, well-educated, humane, smart guy does; Obama never looks happier than when everyone loves him, which is a red flag.

Mr. President, once bitten, twice shy, but  I’m way past once, actually gnawed over and badly chewed up in several places.  I loved the speech, but I didn’t vote for you to give speeches; I voted for you to be president and use speeches as one of many ways to actually make the world better.  Salvaging the little I can, I won’t be in despair and a chump both.

Go ahead, make my day: refute all I’ve said here with some accomplishment. I so want to be able to retract it all.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook