Michael Braun's Blog

Email has rapidly become the default channel of communication in many of our professional and personal relationships. This means that individuals who have email addresses are expected to check them regularly and respond in a timely fashion to messages they have received. Though expectations about how fast a response should be sent likely vary by individual, message, and context, the expectation remains: respond, if you have received.

Despite email’s prevalence, however, great differences exist in just how well individuals manage their email accounts. Some communicators handle email with ease, using set methods to deal with email in a timely manner and keep their inbox sorted to avoid getting overwhelmed. But other communicators seem to struggle with the volume of email they receive; they don’t respond for extended periods of time (if at all), fail to internalize key information transmitted over email, and let many emails go unread. Rather than demonize these people for their poor email skills, it is better that we let these people know: Be honest about your email skills.

Information transmitted over email has many advantages. It is easy to send, can contain a lot of textual information thanks to its long form, and can be used to transmit files by attaching them to the message. But email with an unreliable communication partner has overwhelming disadvantages, mainly stemming from the lack of confirmation that the partner has actually read and understood the message. For poor emailers, this fact can lead to many failed interactions. The sender has the expectation that the receiver will pay attention to the message. The receiver who is bad at email, however, cannot be trusted to live up to the those expectations.

Rather than changing our expectations globally (“you can’t trust anyone to read an email!”) or asking the poor emailers to change (“read my emails or we’re done!”), the best thing for the email-inept is to open up about their email use patterns. For example, if a person checks their email infrequently, they should simply admit this. If a person doesn’t like to respond to emails (for whatever reason), then let the sender know. If a person can’t handle the volume of emails, then figure out some other way to communicate with people.

All these solutions would be much more welcome than the delusional receiver who thinks he can handle email but repeatedly fails to see important messages and reply in a timely manner: the job candidate who doesn’t reply to an interview request for several days, the manager who tells employees to email her but never recalls the emails sent when meeting about them, the co-worker who only responds to questions asked in one out of every three emails. For all these people, the task is to recognize their lack of email skills and let people know: I just can’t get the hang of email.

There is likely to be a measure of shame associated with such an admission. After all, the concept of email is not particularly challenging. But by admitting such failure, perhaps the email-inept will work harder to figure out a solution that works for them. If email is overwhelming, then set up a mail application for reading and replying to email. Use Microsoft’s Outlook or Apple’s Mail to construct rules and filters that steer emails into appropriate folders. Put together a pattern of use that makes reading and responding to emails its own task, to be dealt with several times throughout the day. Don’t try to read email on the fly, for example on a smartphone or tablet, if this means that the messages will get lost when switching between devices. And finally, stop sending emails asking for information if the response is likely to get lost or missed.

Whether or not the unskilled email user improves, communication can improve through honesty. When a person admits that he can’t manage his email, or that email is a bad way to contact him, or whatever, senders can make better choices. Of course, senders themselves may be inept at other channels. There are people who never return missed calls, even if a voicemail message is left; who don’t answer their phone, ever; who are constantly distracted or tuned-out when meeting face-to-face; or who always seem to be dodging any attempts at communication. If everyone can be honest about the best way to communicate with them – email, phone, text, face-to-face, etc. – then communication can flourish. Without that self-awareness, another missed email message is bound to drive us skilled emailers to madness.

Wisconsin Republican governor Scott Walker is facing some tough times lately. His regressive legislative agenda has resulted in a very likely recall from office, meaning he will have to run again just to keep his job. And the FBI has been conducting an extensive investigation into the campaign practices of Walker’s aides when he was county executive of Milwaukee. The most recent action in this investigation has been the arrest of Darlene Wink and Kelly Rindfleisch who have now been charged with campaigning on state time. In other words, while being paid by taxpayers to do county work, prosecutors allege that these former employees were actually working for Mr. Walker’s campaign for governor.

A reasonable person might conclude that, while these employees may be guilty, Mr. Walker has done nothing wrong. After all, it is unlikely that he himself was directly supervising how each of these employees spent their time. As long as they got their work done, he should have no reason to think twice about their work. This logical conclusion and response to the allegations is actually what makes Mr. Walker’s campaign’s official response so troubling. They told Wisconsin Public Radio that “the Milwaukee County executive’s office expressed policy was that county employees were not permitted to use county time or resources to conduct any political activity.”

Isn’t that kind of like former president Richard Nixon saying he shouldn’t be implicated in the burglary at the Watergate Hotel because it is against the law to commit burglaries? Or a mob boss saying a hit on a rival wasn’t his doing because everyone knows murder is illegal? The whole reason the FBI is investigating in the first place is because the expressed policy and the law forbid the kind of actions that prosecutors allege Mr. Walker’s employees engaged in. The question now is whether or not Mr. Walker told them to do so or was aware of their behavior.

So why doesn’t the campaign just say that Mr. Walker never told someone to do campaign work while the taxpayers were paying their salary? Or even better, why don’t they say that Mr. Walker expressly forbade that kind of action, because, you know, he’s not stupid enough to think he could get away with it? Those types of responses might actually be reassuring. Simply stating that there was a policy is like saying a homeowner isn’t liable for accidents on her icy sidewalks because she put up a “Careful!” sign.

Maybe Mr. Walker’s campaign is just run by a bunch of idiots. Or maybe, just maybe, they know that this scandal has some real legs. The collection of emails that investigators now hold is likely extensive. It won’t take many correspondence trails to suggest Mr. Walker had knowledge of the ongoing illegal activities. Heck, if he responds to an email in which someone says that they are working half on county business and half on campaign work (as some emails specifically say), then he has knowledge of how employees were spending their time. If he doesn’t stop the action then and there, he’s already done enough to warrant further investigation.

Will Mr. Walker eventually be charged? If his guilt is as plain as his lack-of-denial makes it seem, then I hope he will be. But even if he isn’t, his close connection with some real sleazy behavior should be enough to make Wisconsin voters realize we can’t trust Scott Walker as our governor.

When one looks at movements toward more sustainable living through the use of “green” solutions, there are two general camps. Not necessarily opposed to one another, the two groups are those who advocate “off-the-grid” solutions and those who support more collective living (let’s call them the “tighter-grid” camp). The Off-the-Grid camp favors back-to-the-earth solutions, including growing crops without fertilizer, raising animals in “free range” environments, using natural fibers, and a close integration with nature. The Tighter-Grid camp favors life in large cities, where people live in close proximity in apartments, the use of public transportation, and generally shun the “country life.” It should be obvious that there are overlaps between these two groups, but in terms of philosophy, their approaches to sustainable living could not be more different, and thus it makes sense to contrast the two.

The problem with these two camps is that one is currently winning the sustainability debate in the media, while also failing in many sustainable living tenets, and that’s the Off-the-Gridders. When news reports talk about sustainable living, the prototypical focus is on a family living on their own hobby farm, raising chickens, planting a large vegetable garden, and wearing flannel. Perhaps they have a furnace powered in part by animal waste or a wood burning stove around which they gather each cold winter evening. This is presented as an ideal for sustainable living.

But these media reports ignore the fact that this type of living is fundamentally unsustainable. First, these individuals living off-the-grid have not removed themselves from society. Instead, they must use a lot of energy to get to society: busses must pick up and drop off their kids for school, they have to drive to work each day, and shopping is miles away. Even if their workplaces, stores, and schools are in small towns not too far away, these towns also represent unsustainable living, where most goods must be trucked in regularly.

The Tighter-Gridders are living a vastly more sustainable lifestyle. Small apartments are much easier to heat and cool than houses. Work and school are easy to walk to, and public transportation is widely available. Shopping is conveniently located, and a mass concentration of people means more goods can be transported together, allowing less distance overall. In terms of efficiency, the modern metropolis is vastly superior to small town or country life.

These benefits are not regularly recognized, however. Even academic departments supposedly focused on “green living” miss this distinction. Consider, for example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. This article of theirs discusses how faculty and students of this institution are practicing sustainable living, but it glorifies the Off-the-Gridders. Dr. Jean Bahr, a professor of geosciences and environmental studies, is celebrated because she installed solar panels on the roof of her house and replaced incandescent bulbs with fluorescents. That Dr. Bahr lives in a house, rather than in a more sustainable apartment or condo is not mentioned. Student Sunny Nguyen is celebrated because he “tries to eat as little beef as possible.” The fact that vegetarians somehow manage to eat no beef at all (imagine that!) goes unmentioned.

The worst offender celebrated in the article is Nelson Institute Interim Director Gregg Mitman and his “green cabin” located 50 miles outside of Madison. His 600 foot cabin serves as his family’s “summer getaway” and was built to be “sustainable.” How building a cabin on some land is more sustainable than simply leaving the land undeveloped is not explained. Dr. Mitman can surely recognize that owning two homes is less sustainable than owning one, and that owning a condo is more sustainable than owning any homes at all. But the article doesn’t bother to mention this.

Why not mention it? Because the Off-the-Gridders aren’t interested in making sacrifices to their preferred lifestyle. They act as the Romantics did, celebrating the pastoral life of shepherds. Living in a city is contrary to these dreams, and even though it is more sustainable, city life is shunned in favor of DIY green solutions. Off-the-grid lifestyles are thus more interested in consumerism than anything else. “Going green” opens up a whole new realm of purchases to make, money to spend, and work to do, offering tangible benefits and pleasures. Moving into a small apartment in the middle of a busy city, even though such a move would be highly sustainable, has no such intrinsic pleasure associated with it.

Even worse, the Off-the-Gridders have no interest in producing solutions for world hunger or overpopulation. Commercial agriculture has revolutionized food production and made it possible for many people to get enough food to eat. In cases of mass hunger, the main issue is moving food to the right places at the right times, not an overall world food shortage. The solution to this problem is not to encourage people to grow their own food or shop at farmer’s markets. The solution is to find ways to encourage commercial agriculture techniques around the world. High yield farming is the best way to feed people, and city living is uniquely designed to support high yield farming. It gets people to stop living on arable land and allows for easy distribution of food. This is recognized in the Tighter-Grid camp and woefully, even damnably, ignored by the Off-the-Gridders.

Though the Nelson Institute titles their article “Practicing what we teach,” the examples do everything but. No person can reasonably claim that sustainable living starts by all people building 600 square foot cabins in the wilderness. This model of life is impossible to sustain and would result in massive loss of life the world over. From a Kantian perspective, if the efforts of Dr. Mitman cannot be practiced by all, they are unethical. Ethics and morals demand that the Nelson Institute stop encouraging off-the-grid lifestyles. The sustainability of the planet depends on it.

Yesterday, I discussed the how manuscript review for publication in academic journals is an opaque, confusing, even intimidating process. Authors are seldom given any feedback on the process of review and only hear from the editor once a final judgment is rendered. Reviewers too do not have access to the opinions of other reviewers. And editors learn quickly that the process is complicated and fraught with delays, such that even the best intentioned editors can’t do much to speed up the process of review. Because editors often seem to have the worst job in the whole process, one might wonder why they don’t do more to increase transparency about the review process. In this post, I’ll consider some of the reasons why, and then conclude by discussing how opacity hurts the process overall.

First, editors aren’t more open because it protects them against reasonable claims of bias. An editor has no vested interest in letting the author of a rejected manuscript know that the reviewers were actually quite mixed in their judgments. For example, what to do with a manuscript that splits the decisions of its three reviewers: one says accept, another revise, and a third reject. If the editor’s final decision is reject, then telling the author about how the reviewers didn’t give a particularly clear opinion doesn’t increase confidence in the editor’s leadership.

Second, the secretive process forces authors to accept time delays. Authors have a strong desire to see their work reviewed in a timely manner. But editors, given that the work is not their full-time job, must prioritize and limit the amount of time they spend working for their journal each week. A secretive process prevents authors from suggesting editors spend more time giving judgments to submitted manuscripts, because authors are prevented from knowing information like the rate of submissions that the journal receives.

Third, the process increases the value of accepted manuscripts. If judgments were rendered openly and quickly, authors would be able to rapidly find a journal to publish their work. But because of the time delays, each accepted manuscript comes with a history of extensive revision, long waits, peer review, and ultimate redemption when the work appears in print. This type of effort creates buy-in for the system, something desperately needed if the academic journal, as a medium, can continue. Because online publishing is so easy, many authors can get their work to the academic community without a journal. A more secretive process makes each published work seem of comparatively greater value.

There are definitely advantages, thus, to an opaque review process. But what is gained does not outweigh what is lost. Authors regularly get mixed feedback, suggesting peer-review consensus is hard to come by. Editors don’t make progress on publications for long periods of time, reducing trust in the system. Reviewers seldom get feedback on their own review, making it hard to improve. And the whole process is shrouded in excess formality.

The outstanding question is whether this lack of transparency hurts the potential survival of academic journals. Already some journals are doing away with printed copies and changing to a rolling publication model (when something is accepted, it is published; there is no “in press”). This new model is one step closer to greater openness. Perhaps someday submitted manuscripts could be put online for open review; authors could see detailed feedback prior to an editor’s decision. Or a series of decision rules could be put into place to determine if a manuscript is published, reducing the editor’s role significantly.

Opacity has a lessened place in this age of openness. And journals must adjust to having their policies questioned more frequently. When the process of review is delayed or confusing, authors have a right to demand to know just what is going on. Being more open about the process of review will increase faith in the system, partly because it exposes areas where a clear consensus was not available. Even though opacity may offer some benefits, transparency makes the system stronger, not weaker.

It wasn’t long ago that I wrote in favor of the anonymous review process held as the gold standard for peer review of academic work. In order to reduce the amount of error in the judgments rendered, I suggested that anonymizing reviews worked to make reviewer judgments better. But since September 2011, I have had the pleasure of working as the editorial assistant for an academic journal edited by one of my professors, and this experience has given me a new perspective on this particular process. So while my logic in favor of anonymous review still stands, there is a lot of room for increased transparency in the manuscript review process.

Today, the review process usually works something like this. An author creates an account on a journal’s website and goes through some standard forms in order to submit a manuscript. Once the paper is submitted, the waiting game begins. After some period of time (often quite a long wait), the author receives an email from an editor rendering the journal’s judgment. The author has little recourse after the judgment is rendered, as appeals are rare and the process seldom well-defined. From that decision, thus, the author must move forward; only in the case of an acceptance are the next steps perfectly clear. In short, it’s a confusing process shrouded (somewhat intentionally) in mystery.

This mystery, however, does nothing to increase confidence in the review process. First, because the process is so opaque, communication with journal editors tends to be overly formal, even to the point of reducing the effectiveness of the communication. Authors feel the need to treat editors (and even their lowly assistants) with excessive respect. This suggests that authors feel intimidated by the journal and its omnipotent editor. Second, authors are accustomed to receiving no information about how the review process is proceeding until they receive final judgment from the editor. Only in cases of excessive delays will authors write to inquire about the status of their manuscript. And I suspect, from personal experience, that this is done with a sense of trepidation – “what if I jinx it?!”. If reviews are seen as such fickle things (dictated by the bipolar whims of the editor), then keeping the process secret does nothing to change this reputation.

It is reasonable for authors to have a distrust of the review process because everything is quite murky. And as authors serve as reviewers for manuscripts, no greater clarity is introduced into the process. Reviewers do not regularly receive feedback on their reviews, either from an editor or by being able to see the opinions of other reviewers. Thus a reviewer recommending “acceptance” does not know if other reviewers felt the same way, at least not until the manuscript is actually published. Because the process of submission to review to publication can take up to several years, reviewers may not even recognize the piece when it comes out. Why all the delay? Reviewers aren’t given any more reason for it than authors are.

Working as an editorial assistant gives one a whole new perspective on the process, so much perspective that it is too bad many professors see editorships as highly prestigious yet highly undesirable (too much work!). From an insider’s perspective, it is easy to understand the delays. It takes sometimes several weeks for the editor to deliver a preliminary judgment on a manuscript (should it go out for review?). Next, reviewers can be awfully slow sometimes, missing deadlines by months. But the editor wants to give reviewers leeway (after all, they have more power than the editor in some ways), so reminders to those reviewers may only go out after the initial deadline is missed by three months or more. And reminders often don’t work; initial reviewers will say they are now too busy, or make promises that they don’t keep. Once reviews are in, the editor needs a large amount of time to carefully review the judgments rendered, review the manuscript itself, and then make a final decision to be relayed to the author. If the journal receives a large volume of submissions, this entire process can take massive amounts of time to complete.

Given these constraints, why aren’t editors more open about the entire review process? After all, it seems that being more open about how hard the work is would make for a smoother time for editors and authors. I’ll consider the advantages of an opaque review process tomorrow.

Financial advice celebrity Suze Orman has a new product to offer those people who regularly seek her advice. It’s a prepaid debit card, offered by MasterCard. Individuals using this “Approved Card” simply deposit money into an account linked with the card (but separate from banks) and can then spend that money as they please. For this convenience, they pay only a small monthly fee of $3.00. The card will even issue checks from their accounts for just $1.00 per check. And they can use the card at an ATM, for just $2.00 card fees, plus additional ATM fees. What if they need customer service? Don’t worry – card holders get one free call per month (additional calls cost $2.00 each).

What benefits does Ms. Orman think this card offers? First, according to the website, “There’s one thing absolutely NO OTHER CARD can give you—Suze Orman!”. That’s right, the card is advertised by a women who has your best interests at heart (just as long as they align closely with her best interests). Second, you can’t spend money that you don’t have. Because the card is prepaid, it won’t work if there isn’t enough money in your account. Third, the card separates you from the banking system, though you can deposit money on the card directly from, you guessed it, a bank account.

You know the real problem that this card solves? Ms. Orman isn’t making enough money. Think about it. She is supposed to be an expert at financial management, yet all her money comes from her supposed expertise. If she didn’t release this card, then her whole empire could come crumbling down. Imagine if Ms. Orman wasn’t making a lot of money! It sure would raise questions about her financial advice. After all, her education is in social work and her main work experience (prior to becoming a celebrity) was following a set script as a financial advisor (read: robot) for Merrill Lynch.

Will this card be successful? Who knows. Ms. Orman has powerful friends and as noted by the New York Times today, Oprah’s O magazine was kind enough to let Ms. Orman run content-advertizing not once, but twice in the most recent issue. With that kind of marketing, who knows how many people will fall for Ms. Orman’s trap. But to the buyer – when someone starts telling you about the fees you will pay to use your own money, it’s time to dump that service. Caveat emptor… and caveat emptor Ormana.

The Republicans have held three nominating elections en route to their selection of a presidential candidate for the 2012 election against current president Barack Obama. In Iowa, revised numbers gave Rick Santorum the win. In New Hampshire, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won. And now, most recently, 40% of South Carolina voters selected Newt Gingrich, giving him the win. Three votes and three different winners – it looks like the pundits claiming that the Republican party is fractured are quite right. So what does this all mean for the men still in the race?

Mitt Romney: yes, now is a good time to start panicking. Mr. Romney has treated his campaign thus far as mere formality; his eye has always been on the race against Mr. Obama. But in so doing, Mr. Romney has managed to make himself look quite presumptuous. Before Iowa, he was campaigning in New Hampshire; before New Hampshire, he was in South Carolina; and before South Carolina, he was in Florida. This strategy has worked in only one vote, however. And it’s arguable that extreme negative ads were the only thing that kept Mr. Gingrich from a better finish in Iowa and New Hampshire. With Mr. Romney stumbling, will the money be there to stop support for Mr. Gingrich before Mr. Romney finds himself behind?

Rick Santorum: who will you endorse when you drop out? No one expected Mr. Santorum to win, not even the candidate himself. Now the question is who will he steer his supporters toward when he drops out? Rick Perry may be a good lead to follow for Mr. Santorum. Mr. Perry dropped out before South Carolina and endorsed Mr. Gingrich. That’s not the reason that Mr. Gingrich won, but it certainly didn’t hurt. Mr. Santorum’s choices are between a Mormon, a faith not exactly aligned with his own Roman Catholic beliefs, or Mr. Gingrich, a recent Catholic convert. This information seems to favor Mr. Gingrich.

Ron Paul: do you want to run for President and give Mr. Obama the win? Mr. Paul is not a real contender in this election. He never has been. In fact, by staying so far below the radar, he has escaped national outcry over racist newsletters published in his name. But Mr. Paul continues to draw small numbers of fervent supporters. A third-party run is not outside the realm of possibilities for Mr. Paul. But Mr. Paul would draw more from potential Republican voters than he would from potential Democrats. This could be a decisive factor in giving Mr. Obama the win, especially if the election is very close – think Ralph Nader in 2000.

Newt Gingrich: how long can you sustain this? There’s no doubt that Mr. Gingrich is doing well right now. He has resurrected his campaign from certain death not once but twice! First, his campaign staff all quit because he went on a cruise with his wife. But Mr. Gingrich came back. Second, he lost handily in Iowa and New Hampshire, but now has come back to win South Carolina. But can Mr. Gingrich keep it up? If he can win Florida, then Mr. Gingrich will have a decent chance at sustaining his momentum. Indeed, if past is prologue, no Republican candidate has ever won the nomination without winning South Carolina. But Mr. Gingrich’s organization problems (see first campaign death, above) have him not competing in some key states, including Virginia. Mr. Romney may be able to hold out in the long run.

Barack Obama: one day longer. The longer the nominating race goes, the better chance Mr. Obama has to win. Mr. Romney looks like the most formidable opponent, but his struggles mean good news for Mr. Obama. And with positive economic data continuing, Mr. Obama may have the upper hand when it comes to the general election. So, hold out, Gingrich supporters! One day longer, one day stronger!

Very few presidents are able to campaign on their military expertise. The last president who could lay claim to military leadership experience was Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War 2 and a five-star general. Other presidents must offer reassurances that they will make military decisions only after careful consideration and advice of military leaders.

As for economic expertise, the same thing can be said. Though some past presidents, including George W. Bush, have business degrees, very few (if any) have degrees (let alone advanced degrees) in economics. Bill Clinton did study economics while at Oxford, but he never received a degree in the subject. Yet politicians, especially those currently running for the Republican presidential nomination, seem to emphasize their remove from influence of economists, even going so far as to suggest that Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, had committed treasonous acts. Politicians would do well to treat the advice of economists with the same weight they give to the advice of military leaders.

Politicians listen to the advice of military leaders because A) the topic is of vital national interest, B) they lack experience themselves, and C) they need others (troops and others) to follow and accept their commands. The same thing can be said for economics. The economic policies of the United States can have a direct impact on the health of our economy. Though the Federal Reserve is insulated (wisely) from government intrusion, Congress can pass legislation that can affect the economy. Furthermore, in times of great crisis, Congress can authorize emergency action to help shore up our financial system. Such an event occurred recently, when Congress approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide much needed liquidity to major financial institutions. This action was prompted based on the sound advice of economists, and it ultimately helped reduce the severity of the impending recession. Without such action, the effects of the financial collapse around the world would have been even more severe.

But would Congressional leaders and the president have known such action was desperately and imminently needed without the advice of economists? The answer to this question is unclear. Mr. Bush, president at the time, was no Jeb Bartlett, the president from the television show The West Wing and a Noble Prize winner in economics. Instead, Mr. Bush had to rely on the advice of others who knew much more about the financial system. In these complex matters, deferring to expertise is the wise thing to do.

Deferential treatment toward economists helps make the right decisions about emergency action, and it also helps ensure that banks and other private businesses feel a sense of reassurance about the economic policies of the nation. Consider this possible outcome had Congress not passed the TARP. Ford, or any other large manufacturing company, frequently relies on short-term loans from banks in order to keep their company running. For example, Ford may have been waiting for a return on a major investment overseas; the investment had tapped their cash reserves, leaving them unable to make payroll without a short-term loan. If banks suddenly stop lending because they themselves aren’t sure how much money they have (given foolish investment in various toxic derivatives), then Ford can’t get the money it needs to pay its employees. To avoid having employees work without pay, Ford is forced to shut down all its factories and temporarily lay off all employees. But if the banks are reassured by Congress’s actions and if Ford feels confident that the markets retain liquidity (at least enough for them to squeak by), then the economy can continue mostly normally. Obviously large layoffs did occur, but few as dramatic as the worst case scenarios we can imagine.

Some politicians and candidates might argue that economic consensus is seldom found and that the president needs to show a strong will when it comes to economic matters. This is definitely true. But military consensus may not always occur either, and setting a general priority is different from dictating just how to accomplish the goal. A president can set forth to reduce budget deficits, but he should defer to economic advisors on the best way to achieve the goal. Without this advice, radical cuts can actually stall the economy further; this is exactly what happened in Britain after the election that installed David Cameron as Prime Minister.

Let’s hope that claims of treasonous activities are simply campaign rhetoric. After all, President Obama campaigned to end the war in Iraq but, when elected, proceeded to do so in a very cautious way following the advice of military leaders. Still, even rhetoric can cause problems. Part of the president’s job is to instill confidence about the nation’s course; suggesting that the Federal Reserve is weakening the economy does nothing to encourage recovery, especially when such statements are clearly made without any economic expertise.

Why were so many websites blacked out yesterday? It was in protest to legislation making its way through Congress that would build a blacklist for a variety of actions related to online piracy. The legislation would give the government power to take down websites who are connected to copyright infringements. Broadly defined, this could include even placing a link to a website that sells counterfeit goods or allows file-sharers to connect. So if I placed a link on my website to a torrent site, the government would have legal authority to shut my website down.

Free speech activists and web companies have aligned against the bill. Media companies including record labels and movie studios have aligned in support of it. With this information in mind, Pro Publica gathered information on campaign donations to senators from the entertainment industry and senators’ position on PIPA, the Senate’s version of the legislation described above (called SOPA in the House of Representatives). Perhaps not surprisingly, among the top ten senators receiving the most money from the entertainment industry, only one is on record as opposing the legislation.

Why does this predictable pattern happen? A simplistic explanation is that money buys the vote. These senators know how they need to vote in order to keep that campaign cash rolling in and therefore they vote in their own best interests, which may not be the best interests of the country. If this is true, it means that our elected officials are crooked, even evil. And asking the senators if they are voting in favor because of the money, all would deny that this is the case. That means, if we assume the simplistic explanation is true, that they are all also liars.

But does this cynical explanation actually live up to scrutiny? The answer is no. No elected official gets rich on their government salary, and every single senator is able to make more money out of office than in, by working as a lobbyist, giving speeches, taking positions on corporate boards or in think-tanks. And the money they take from the entertainment industry doesn’t translate to luxuries. It is spent on their campaigns and related efforts. The senators aren’t suffering, of course, and they make well above the nation’s median salary. But it doesn’t make sense for them to change their votes for money because there is little benefit to them in doing so. They could make more money out of government yet they stay in, partly because they are motivated to serve the people, as corny as that might sound.

Is it just a fluke, then, that those senators receiving money from the entertainment industry happen to support legislation favored by the same industry? It quite possibly is, but a more satisfying explanation is that money doesn’t buy votes; instead, it buys time and access. Think about it this way. If someone gives you $50,000 unsolicited and then asks to meet with you for an hour, would you be likely to refuse? Most all of us would be more than happy to meet with such a generous benefactor. The same thing happens with politicians. Campaign donors who give a lot get time to meet with the politician. They also get invited to social events where they can talk with the politician’s staff and others who matter to the politician. That money buys a lot of access.

So what happens during that access? I suspect a lot of general socializing. But when things get down to business, it means the politician gets a pretty convincing and coherent argument about a certain piece of legislation that the donor would like to see passed. There are strong arguments in favor of most anything, and you can bet that the entertainment industry can put together a good presentation in favor of their side. Piracy costs us money, it hurts the economy, it hurts creativity, etc.

This type of argument might not have much effect if the politician heard the other side of the story. The murkiness of the law, the challenges with enforcement, the slippery slope issues, not to mention the entertainment industry’s narrow reading of just what “fair use” means. Hearing both sides might temper the politician’s support. But in this particular case, only one side is organized enough (and wealthy enough) to buy the access needed.

Thus money doesn’t buy a vote but it does guarantee that the politician will get a good argument on just what the donor thinks is good for the country. Hearing only one side of the argument makes the legislation seem completely straight-forward and beneficial. This particular process is likely to be even more extreme when the legislation in question is not deeply partisan and when it is little understood by the politician. If constituents aren’t calling about it, that too will help make the donor’s position seem even more logical and persuasive.

Understanding the problem this way doesn’t make it go away, but it at least offers a starting point for solving the problem. Restricting lobbyists and campaign donations can make a big difference on just what voices the politician hears. Maybe someday the people can talk as loud as the money does.

The recall petitions for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker have been turned in. Recall organizers say they collected over one million signatures, well beyond the 540,000 needed to trigger a recall election. This outcome, should it occur, has been widely expected by people supporting and opposing Mr. Walker, especially after recall organizers reported collecting over half a million signatures in the first month. Mr. Walker himself has never been so arrogant as to suggest that the recall efforts would fail, perhaps because such a statement would have galvanized his opponents.

With a recall on the horizon, Mr. Walker has essentially entered full-time campaign mode, speaking regularly at conservative events and attending multiple fundraisers. There seems little doubt that Mr. Walker will raise more money than whoever his Democratic challenger is. Mr. Walker likely intends to use his money to blanket the airwaves with political advertising, touting his record of balancing Wisconsin’s budget without raising taxes (and instead doing things like gutting public education support while restricting local municipalities’ abilities to raise additional money to offset the cuts). But Mr. Walker’s money for messages actually sends its own message; that is, his money is the message to the Wisconsin people, and that message is that Mr. Walker doesn’t care about Wisconsin.

A recent fundraiser that Mr. Walker attended is particularly egregious and thus illustrative. Mr. Walker attended a fundraiser in New York City hosted by Maurice Greenberg, former head of AIG. Mr. Greenberg resigned from AIG in 2005 after an audit found over $1.7 billion in improper accounting. Civil litigation against Mr. Greenberg stemming from his time at AIG is still pending. A seat at the fundraiser cost $2500 and no doubt Mr. Walker raised a healthy amount for his reelection.

Does Mr. Walker really think that this kind of fundraising will go unnoticed by the citizens of Wisconsin? Considering that about as many people signed petitions to recall Mr. Walker as voted for him in 2010, the citizens from Wisconsin are angry. Anecdotally, I recently heard from a high school teacher of mine that he no longer considers himself a Republican because of Scott Walker.

Mr. Walker may think that the money can purchase ads to drown out the negative publicity, but ultimately he needs to consider just what will get people to the polls. His opposition already has that question partially answered: people will vote just to remove Mr. Walker from office. (The rest of the question requires selecting a formidable opponent to Mr. Walker.) But if Mr. Walker’s ads are forced to defend him against constant attacks and can’t put a positive face on his time in office, then he gives no reason for people to return to the polls and support him again. Certainly, Mr. Walker has some fervent supporters who will show up to vote, but he cannot win, especially with a strangely timed election, when one side is really, really excited to kick him out of the governor’s mansion.

It is in this way that Mr. Walker’s fundraising does him no favors. He will have the money to run ads, but not the credibility to campaign. He will have the public’s ear, but he will never have their heart. He can mount a spirited defense, but never an equally spirited offense. That’s not to say that Mr. Walker is guaranteed to lose, but every dollar raised at scandal-plagued fundraisers means one vote lost for Mr. Walker.

Americans seem increasingly concerned about wealth distribution and the disparities between the rich and poor. The Occupy Wall Street Movement and its associated media coverage have forced the issue into political discussions. Even Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and current GOP presidential candidate, has said he isn’t worried about the rich and their prosperity (though, in the same breath, he went on to say he wanted to cut their taxes). But unanswered in debates about wealth distribution is the question of what level of wealth disparity is acceptable. Can the rich ever have too much money?

I’ve already dealt with this question in a post about the value of greater wealth distribution, namely that it helps everyone get richer because money can flow through the economy more easily. For example, imagine an isolated town of 1000 people, in which just one person controlled 99% of the money in the town. Surely, this person could go about spending money, hiring people to work in her house as servants, fix her cars, care for her lawn, etc. But now imagine that there are two people who control 99% of the money. Suddenly, the number of people who can be employed is double. The same thing holds true in our economy.

But what level of distribution is the right one? What percentage of wealth should be controlled by the richest one percent? Answering in favor of perfect distribution (whereby the top one percent actually do not have any more money than anyone else) is problematic because it suggests a perfect balance between making and losing money. It amounts to someone spending all money he earns on goods and services that do nothing to increase his own wealth. If investments are made, half would turn out successful and half would result in losses. This particular system is virtually impossible to achieve, so government would need to take dramatic action to redistribute the wealth. This system would amount to communism, an economic model that has proven unsustainable on a large scale.

Because the top one percent thus must control more than 1% of wealth, we are left with a debate about how much they should control. Too much causes as many problems as too little, so there must be a happy midpoint. This, it seems to me, is an ideal opportunity for data to speak to the best amount of wealth distribution. And it’s an ideal debating point in the upcoming presidential election.

I encourage both President Barack Obama and the eventual Republican nominee to be specific about this issue. For Mr. Obama, be specific about just what problems are exacerbated when wealth distribution gets too extreme, as many people say it has currently. The top one percent in America control 42% of the wealth. What would be a better, more utilitarian distribution – 35%, 20%, even less? For the Republican candidate, if 42% isn’t too much, then how much is? Should wealth disparities continue to grow, even as the government is forced to borrow to pay its bills, or will it eventually be good to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans? If elected, at what point in time will wealth disparity be a troubling issue for you – when the top one percent control 50% of the money, 75%? When does it start to hurt the economy, and what will you do if it reaches that point?

Having this debate does not stop either side from paying fealty to what “the people” want. Mr. Obama will likely attack the Republican candidate’s economic plans, no matter how well thought-out they are. (Though, please note, I’m not hopeful that the Republicans will have a well thought-out plan, nor that that plan will be supported with actual economic data.) The Republican candidate will likely say that the Mr. Obama’s policies have failed because the unemployment rate is still high and suggest that a Republican president can do a much better job. It is entirely possible that neither side will actually answer the questions above. This will, once again, demonstrate that politicians are stupid about ecomonics and show that those who protest against the Federal Reserve (both Republicans and Democrats) are advocating for a system that is neither efficient nor utilitarian. Economic problems demand economic solutions; let’s hope both sides are willing to embrace economic logic when facing political reality.

A central issue that will be debated in the upcoming presidential election is that of healthcare, specifically President Barack Obama’s efforts to use federal law to secure universal healthcare coverage for all Americans. This piece of legislation is notable for numerous reasons; in the upcoming election, it is particularly notable because it is very similar to legislation signed, in 2006, by then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and someone currently campaigning against healthcare law at the federal level. And thus a reasonable question emerges, does Mr. Romney want healthcare coverage for all Americans?

There are multiple ways that Mr. Romney could answer and still preserve consistency between his political past and present. All answers start with the word “no.” For example, Mr. Romney could answer no and say that only the citizens of Massachusetts and any other similarly motivated states deserve healthcare. But he has to answer no, or his current campaigning makes him look like a hypocrite.

Mr. Romney, however, will not answer no to that question. He can’t answer no because he will look like a villain, even further out of touch with the American people than he already appears to be. Instead, he will hedge his answers with numerous qualifications. Yes, he might say, but that’s up to the states. Or yes, and that’s why my administration will be working to provide incentives to the free market, including establishing risk pools. Or yes, but first we have to get rid of Obama-care.

Unanswered in Mr. Romney’s explanations are just why states haven’t tried to provide healthcare coverage for all their residents. Doesn’t it seem odd that the only state to successfully achieve this lofty, laudable goal was Massachusetts under the leadership of one Willard Mitt Romney? If this goal is really up to the states, then why haven’t more states actually achieved the goal?

Mr. Romney might respond to this by saying that states need incentives in order to take on this problem facing many American citizens. But those incentives are similar to ones already established under Mr. Obama’s healthcare legislation. And all states are likely to find, just like Massachusetts did, that the only way to guarantee healthcare for all is to force everyone to have healthcare for themselves. Specifically, the young and healthy must purchase healthcare. If the federal “incentives” are to actually work to achieve the goal, then the mandate for health insurance will be passed by every state, resulting in exactly the same mandate in Mr. Obama’s healthcare legislation.

The more Mr. Romney attempts to get away from the central question, the more he highlights the reasons why there needs to be federal action on this issue, either in the form of strong incentives or as legislation. If Mr. Romney answers yes to the question, then he is compelled to support the role of the federal government in providing healthcare. His own experience should actually help him understand just what states need to succeed in this goal, given his own efforts to secure healthcare coverage for all people of Massachusetts. If Mr. Romney wants a coherent campaign against Mr. Obama, then let’s hear him proclaim a new, better way to achieve healthcare for all; or, let him answer no and remove all doubt that Mr. Romney is not good candidate for the presidency.

No, repeating the name “Tim Tebow” in the mirror will not cause the specter of an old lady with a knife to appear. If anything, it’s likely to result in having a Christian man appear and shake his finger about abortion. Tim Tebow, for those of you who do not know, is currently the quarterback for the Denver Broncos. Previously, he starred in an anti-abortion ad that aired during the Super Bowl. Mr. Tebow takes his Christian faith very seriously, crediting God each time his arm is able to send a ball successfully down field.

This faith often makes Mr. Tebow a source of ridicule. Saturday Night Live spoofed Mr. Tebow in this skit, in which Jesus Christ himself visits the Bronco’s locker room to tell Mr. Tebow to tone it down a little. Website Gawker entertained a variety of Tebow alternate realities. And sports networks can’t get enough of Mr. Tebow, frequently asking questions about whether Mr. Tebow is bad all the time or bad just sometimes and lucky the rest of the time. Sports website Deadspin notes that ESPN’s SportsCenter used the word “Tebow” 160 times in a single hour. Even NPR got in on the Tebow action with a story yesterday.

Does Mr. Tebow legitimately deserve all this media coverage? Has he done anything to warrant the coverage? His stats certainly don’t suggest that he does; his record is pretty mediocre and next season he will not stand out. So where does the coverage come from? I first heard about Tim Tebow because of his supposed fame. The reporting indicated that lots of people were talking about Tim Tebow. From those types of stories came more stories about the man himself. These begot stories about how everyone was still talking about Mr. Tebow. The end result was confusion: was anyone actually talking about him in the first place?

Mr. Tebow’s fame has been constructed entirely based upon media portrayals of him being famous. Of course, he is more talented at sports than most people are, but he plays on a midlevel team and is just a few more interceptions away from not even being a starting quarterback. So who should Mr. Tebow thank for this fame? Jesus or the media? We’ll see who he thanks when he is benched next season.

The One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative has released their newest product. This time, it’s a tablet computer, priced at just $100 per unit. The tablet is solidly constructed, with decent software and hardware (especially considering its price), and is designed for harsh conditions. For example, the tablet can be charged in a wide variety of ways, including through a hand crank (sold separately), a solar panel, and even using a bicycle properly configured. So aside from the benefits of learning with computers, what else will third world children learn when using their OLPC tablet? Here are a few ideas.

1. Children will learn the extent of Western largesse. Kids need computers; this is clear to the executives at OLPC. But do kids really need, like, iPads and stuff? MacBook Airs and brand new Android handsets? Great DSLRs from Nikon and Canon? OLED televisions? No. Instead, OLPC has constructed a cheap tablet and will be sold for cheap and given to children because it’s the internet that does the teaching, not people and not top of the line hardware. Third world children can probably learn just fine with a $100 tablet, and if they can’t, well, it’s just $100.

2. Children will learn the value of exercise. Turning a hand crank to charge the tablet is a great upper body workout. You have to turn that crank an awful lot just to get a few minutes of power. Clearly, a stationary bicycle is a much more efficient way to get a charge. That’s great, because bicycling provides a good lower body workout. Kids can pedal the bike and turn the crank and they will nearly be working their whole body. The next kind of charger needed is one that works the core. This type of exercise will help kids work up an appetite, something many of them lack; that’s why so many pictures out of Somalia show kids who are really skinny.

3. Children will learn the value of money. In many developing countries, families often spend over 50% of their money on food, while here in the West, it’s much less, 25% or lower. No wonder these families are poor! They are throwing money away buying luxury food items. I’m sure if I spent that much of my income on food, I’d be eating like a king. By providing children with tablet computers, they will demand that their parents get their spending under control. Properly prioritizing expenditures to focus on things that matter, like internet access, and away from wasteful things like caviar and truffles, will bring prosperity to third world countries and help the next generation not be so wasteful.

Without OLPC, these problems would go unsolved. But with tablets in hands, third world children will immediately begin climbing the ladder from self-caused poverty to self-made prosperity. These tablets can replace ineffective teachers, and finally children will be free to learn. OLPC is bringing freedom and knowledge to the third world, one $100 tablet at a time.

Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania and current Republican presidential candidate, has suggested that President Barack Obama is an elitist because Mr. Obama wants more kids to be able to go to college. Mr. Santorum does a rather poor job of representing Mr. Obama’s position on college, suggesting that he wants all people to go to college. Said Mr. Santorum, “Who are you? Who are you to say that every child in America go … I mean the hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you.” Charles Blow on the New York Times wrote an assessment of Mr. Santorum’s claims; it’s worth a brief glance (which, incidentally, is the highest praise I have ever given to one of Mr. Blow’s op-eds).

The real question is not whether or not Mr. Obama is an elitist for suggesting that people should go to college; it’s why someone like Mr. Santorum would sound so negative toward higher education. Mr. Santorum, after all, holds a bachelor’s degree and a law degree from Penn State and an MBA from the University of Pittsburg! This man is highly educated, so why would he cast such aspersions upon suggestion that a college education should be a goal? Does Mr. Santorum not believe that those degrees were worth it? Mr. Santorum could not be where he is today without that education, most likely, and mobility is restricted for many people who have not gone on for further education.

So why trash college? There are two possible reasons. First, college isn’t a closed club anymore. Rates of post-secondary education are higher than they’ve ever been, even with tuition climbing ever higher. Mr. Santorum may have felt special or unique because he was going on to college after high school. But in many schools, especially top performing schools, rates of college attendance are very high. This reduces the amount of achievement someone can claim if their education ends with a BA. Given this, it makes sense to disparage college. It’s no longer the innovative, unique thing to do. This may be why some commentators have now started advocated entrepreneurialism rather than education.

Second, college is rapidly becoming a more popular choice for women than for men. And notice the gender of those who criticize college; they are almost exclusively men. This is another opportunity for people, especially Republican presidential candidates, to differentiate themselves from Democrats. If men are less well-educated than women, then presenting college as not useful helps to promote hegemony and maintain the status quo (in which women should be in the home, or at least making far less than men for the same work). Mr. Santorum clearly supports subservient women, so this fits with his values.

There is some measure of hypocrisy in Mr. Santorum’s statements. He claims, in further text cited by Mr. Blow, that jobs like “auto mechanic” are high paying and good. He is certainly pandering to his base, but there is a reason that Mr. Santorum didn’t himself go for that type of work. If he perceived auto work on the same level as being a lawyer, then why did he choose to go to college in the first place? It is not possible to explain individual choices toward career simply by looking at individual disposition. Our society values education and jobs that require it. The lawyer will always have more cachet than the auto mechanic.

I won’t get into the reasons why a college degree still has value, even if one does want to work as an auto mechanic. Clearly Mr. Santorum isn’t interested in that kind of logic. But a while ago, I did define elitism: the act of disregarding ideas, statements, perceptions, or creations, while ignoring a central truth associated with such. So who is the elitist using this definition, Mr. Obama or Mr. Santorum? Even if Mr. Obama did say he wanted all children to go to college (and for the record, he never has), is he an elitist? He may be disregarding other paths after college, but he certainly isn’t ignoring some central truth. A pro-college elitist statement would be something like, “People who don’t go to college are dumb.” or “There is no reason why someone graduates high school and doesn’t go to college.” Advocating college per se is not elitist.

Denying the value of college and inferring that those who are college educated are elitist (given their desire to tell others to go to college), now that can be considered elitist under the definition above. Mr. Santorum suggests that individuals should do whatever they want with their lives, but he ignores many central truths. First, college may be desired but difficult to afford. Because of this, choosing not to go to college may not be self-determinism, which Mr. Santorum advocates. Second, not getting a college degree does naturally constrain lifestyle. It is more difficult to move up in your job without a college degree, even if entry level positions are regularly filled by individuals with only a high school diploma. And therefore, simply choosing a job like auto mechanic is not the only choice being made. Disparaging college is thus the actual elitist statement. Will this stop Republicans from disparaging college? Only when doing so results in lost votes, in primaries and general elections.