Obsidian Wings

Outing AKMuckraker

by hilzoy

When John McCain nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President, I (along with a whole lot of other non-Alaskans) suddenly developed an interest in Alaskan politics, and one of the best political blogs I found was Mudflats, written by a blogger who went by the name of AKMuckraker. It didn't occur to me to wonder who AKMuckraker was, or why she was anonymous: she didn't purport to have any sort of inside knowledge about the things she wrote about, or claim any special authority; she was just an informed observer. As far as I was concerned, her identity was her business, as were her reasons for keeping it private.

Mike Doogan, a Representative in the Alaska State Legislature, apparently disagrees. He just outed her. AKMuckraker:

"After the initial surprise wore off, it really hit me.  This is an elected State Representative, of my own political party, who has decided that it’s not OK for me to control the information about my identity; that it’s not OK to express my opinion on my own blog without shouting from the rooftops who I am.

If I were to appear, as many of you have, at a political rally and I were to hold up a sign that expressed my opinion, I don’t have to sign my name on the bottom.  And if someone wants to come online and read my diary, they are free to do so.  And if they want to disagree, that’s OK too.

It said in my “About” page that I choose to remain anonymous.  I didn’t tell anyone why.  I might be a state employee.  I might not want my children to get grief at school.  I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am.  My family might not want to talk to me anymore.  I might alienate my best friend.  Maybe I don’t feel like having a brick thrown through my window.  My spouse might work for the Palin administration.  Maybe I’d just rather people not know where I live or where I work.  Or none of those things may be true.  None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my personal circumstances might be.  But that didn’t seem to matter. (...)

I don’t need to remind Mudflats readers that Alaska is in a time of turmoil.  We are facing unknown consequences with an erupting volcano that threatens to wipe out a tank farm on Cook Inlet holding 6 million gallons of oil.  We have critical issues in the legislature, including Alaska’s acceptance or rejection of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus money for education and other critical purposes.  We have a governor who has just chosen an incredibly divisive and extreme right wing idealogue as our new Attorney General.  And there are only three weeks left in the legislative session.  It bothers me quite a bit that instead of focusing all his energy on doing his job, one of our elected representatives would rather spend his time stalking and harrassing a political blogger."

It would bother me too, but not as much as the idea that someone who allegedly represents citizens feels that he has the right to disregard their views about whether or not to share their identities. Whether or not AKMuckraker reveals her name ought to be her decision. No one else has the right to make it for her, any more than they would have the right to publish her medical records or her credit history. 

It might be different had AKMuckraker made some claim to special inside knowledge. I have not read her entire blog, but as far as I can tell, that's not what she does. She follows Alaskan politics the way anyone might, and comments on what she sees. Her identity is irrelevant to her arguments, and anyone who disagrees with her can challenge them on their own terms, without having to discuss who she is.

I speak from experience here. My reasons for blogging under a pseudonym are pretty trivial: while I have never minded the idea that someone reading my posts could figure out who wrote them, I would rather that people, and in particular my students, not be able to google my name and find my collected political opinions. (I learned, to my surprise, that some students do google their professors around the time I started writing for Obsidian Wings.) I have been outed by several people, generally inadvertently; and while I have never minded all that much, I would rather have been able to make that choice for myself.

But it is a luxury to be able not to mind. I do not work in state government. I do not have an abusive ex-husband from whom I am hiding. My reasons for remaining anonymous are, as I said, pretty trivial. I have no idea whether the same can be said for AKMuckraker's. Nor, more importantly, does Mike Doogan. Did he stop to wonder whether she might have an abusive ex-husband, or a stalker? Or whether she has gotten threats because of her blog? (I have, and I'm Little Miss Reasonable.) 

Somehow, I doubt it. If he had stopped to wonder, it might have occurred to him that some people might have very serious reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. But even if AKMuckraker's reasons are as slight as mine -- and if I were Mike Doogan, I'd be hoping that they are -- the fact that he thinks that bloggers should not be anonymous does not mean that he gets to make that choice for others. 

Ominous Canary Songs

by publius

(Cross-posted at WashMonthly. I’m not going to cross-post everything, but wanted to get people’s thoughts here on this).

Count me among the skeptical of Obama's new Afghanistan strategy. What really worries me is what I'll call the "reverse canary" problem. Simply put, the wrong people are too happy.

You're all familiar with the phrase "canary in the coal mine." The idea was that miners would bring canaries down into the mines as warning signals. When the air became toxic, the canaries would be affected first -- thus warning the miners of imminent danger.

With respect to the Afghanistan policy, the problem isn't that the "signaling" canaries are dropping dead. The problem is that they're too happy -- they're chirping with excessive mirth. Specifically, when Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, and the Post editorial board are all excited about the policy.... well, it might be time to get out of the mine.

More substantively, my fear isn't so much with the policy announced yesterday. For the short term, Obama's policy strikes a reasonable balance between the "minimalist" and "maximalist" camps, which are helpfully described by Ilan Goldenberg. I'm ok with giving a "middle ground" strategy of regional diplomacy and reconciliation a chance -- but only for the short term. If things don't go well, then I agree with Goldenberg that we need to change course:

If a middle ground strategy shows little to no progress within the next 12-18 months than it would be wise for Obama and his advisors to reconsider and move to a [minimalist] strategy.... This will be extraordinarily difficult as once you commit to a strategy changing course involves admitting failure and reevaluating -- something American administrations have been historically bad at.

Precisely -- and that's what worries me. This strategy seems extremely susceptible to morphing into an open-ended, long-term commitment without clear objectives. Frankly, I didn't see any exit strategy yesterday. I saw no verifiable metrics for determining whether we're achieving our objectives (and on that -- is the objective to disrupt al Qaeda, or to stabilize the government?). I've heard promises of benchmarks -- but nothing yet. And even assuming concrete benchmarks emerge, it's hard to believe we'll really pack up and leave if they're not met.

Let's be clear -- this is an escalation. It's a reasonable one, for now. But these things tend to snowball. To echo Robert Frost, way leads on to way. And if things deteriorate, or if our allies depart, it's easier to imagine that additional escalation (rather than minimalism) will follow. It's not that I don't believe in the goal -- I'm just skeptical that increased military efforts are capable of achieving these goals.

And that brings me to the canaries. The problem with the neocon foreign policy view is (among other things) its excessive overreliance on military force. Escalation and more force is the answer to most any question. Some sincerely believe in this policy -- others are probably playing out some Freudian drama because they were teased on the playground.

But anyway, for whatever reason, more force is always the answer with them -- and it's almost never the right choice. And that's frankly what worries me about their enthusiasm for Obama's strategy. They recognize not only that it's an escalation, but also how readily the policy lends itself to future escalations.

The past few years have shown us that these people are drawn to failed policies like moths to burning flames. The fact that they are finding this one so attractive should give us pause.

A Head's Up

by publius

I just wanted to let people know that Steve Benen was kind enough to let me guest-post at the Washington Monthly through Monday.  So I'll be there, furthering the Obsidian Wings takeover of the site...

Slow News Friday

by von

That middle-class tax cut President Obama promised during the campaign?  Here begins the walkback:

President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

I predicted a bit ago that "The next set of tax increases [under Obama] -- and they are coming -- will hit the middle class."  I suppose that one could think that the fact that this rollback (1) isn't a tax increase and (2) hasn't actually happened yet will keep me from claiming prescience.  Bah!  Technicalities! 

We could get into a highly complex discussion at this point regarding whether or not this is inevitable based on the fact that the top US tax rate ("all-in," meaning accounting for most deductions and FICA) kicks it at a radically higher income than in virtually any other country, resulting in a higher percentage of the ultimate tax burden being born by a smaller number of folks than elsewhere.  See the OECD Tax Database, Table I.4, the AW multiplier. 

But this is the weekend!  Who wants to talk about taxes?  Let's make like Unfogged, talk about booze, regale each other with tales of homosex,* and send racy letters to the Mineshaft.  Or all three!  ("Dear Mineshaft:  I never thought I'd be writing to you, but here goes.  The other day, Carlos was cleaning my girlfriend's pool and I couldn't help but notice his bulging biceps and very tight Speedo.  Curious, but not at all in a homosexual way, I wandered outside carrying two Mojitos and wearing only a smile....") 

Or whatever is on your mind.  Here's your weekend open thread.

*Is there a worst new word than "homosex"?  "The same sex"?  I mean, what is that? The missionary position every night? 

A Trilli

by Eric Martin

Certain foreign policy objectives pursued by the Russian government over the past decade are beginning to bump up against the basic fiscal reality.  It's quite simple really: long term military deployments are enormously expensive and can crowd out other vital budgetary initiatives.  There is only so much money, attention and other resources to go around, and if military engagements are consuming large portions of each, then there is less left over to address other national interests.  From the New Atlanticist:

After 10 years of armed conflict in breakaway Chechnya, is Russia about to declare victory and pull out?

That seems to be the message coming out of Moscow and Grozny in recent days. State Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov said on March 26 that it is time for Russia to end its effective state of war in the separatist republic, where it has battled rebel forces since 1999.  Gryzlov's comments came one day after Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya's Moscow-backed leader, predicted that a decree ending Russia's "anti-terrorist operation" would be enacted by the end of March.  "We have completely rooted out terrorism and extremism," Kadyrov said. "There are still certain circles of bandits that run around neighboring regions and make their appearance here. But they do not represent any threat for us.  He continued: "We are building a new economic and political life in the republic. The people have already forgotten [the rebels]. That is the main thing."

Analysts say the decision is most likely motivated by financial concerns, as Russia reels from its worst recession in a decade.

Speaking to RFE/RL's North Caucasus Service, Aleksei Malashenko of the Moscow Carnegie Center explained that it will be difficult for Russia to pursue a costly military reform and continue operations in Chechnya in the midst of an economic crisis and low oil prices. "I think financial problems are playing a decisive role," Malashenko said. "There is an economic crisis and we are discussing how to finance the armed forces. I think there is an objective reason for what is happening. The most interesting question is how will this develop."

It's as if Russia forgot some of the central lessons from its Afghan excursion during the 1980s, and are now reacquainting themselves with that scholarship. 

We, on the other hand, would never make such an elementary and obvious mistake.  In Afghanistan.  And Iraq.  Because we're flush with cash right now, and what's another trillion here, a trillion there.

Ugly Loans

by hilzoy

When I read blog posts or comments complaining about people who should have known better than to sign up for mortgages they couldn't afford, I'm always of two minds. On the one hand, I'm quite sure that there are a decent number of people who knowingly gambled on the proposition that housing prices would go up forever. I am not inclined to be particularly sympathetic to such people, especially if they had other options. (People who took this gamble because it was their only way to get a roof over their heads are a different story.)

On the other hand, some people who make these complaints seem to me to underestimate just how complicated and ghastly some of the loans written during the last five years were. Those loans made it very, very hard for borrowers to see exactly what they were getting into. And I can't think of a better way to illustrate this point than to link to this explanation of negative amortization option ARMs by the late Tanta at Calculated Risk. 

It's very long: I pasted it into Word and it clocks in at 15 pages and over 3500 words. But there's not a lot that's superfluous: Tanta was a very clear writer and thinker, and I think she explained this about as well as possible. But option ARMs are very complicated. And if you're tempted to discount the possibility that people could have truly not understood what they were signing up for, I'd encourage you to really try to work through it, the way you might if it were a mortgage you were actually considering taking out.

Tough, isn't it? I note a couple of points. First, the payments, and for that matter the entire structure of the loan, can change unpredictably. There are no tables of payments with this type of loan; it would be difficult to work out what was going to happen to the payments, and when, unless you not only knew how much you would choose to pay every month, but had a copy of the loan document, a pretty serious calculator, decent math skills, and a fair amount of time on your hands. 

Second, it's hard to imagine a person for whom this would be a good type of loan. You'd need to be strapped for cash for the first few months, but thereafter able to pay considerably more than you would have had you taken out a different sort of mortgage. Maybe this would be a good idea if you knew you'd win the lottery six months from now, or were the sole heir of a millionaire who was at death's door. Otherwise, this mortgage might have been designed to get people into a lot of trouble very fast. It's a sort of equity-extracting machine, and it's ugly.

And yet, strange to say, someone created this type of loan, and others adopted and marketed it. Funny thing, that.

Third, this type of mortgage is just plain hard to understand. I had a hard time wrapping my head around its resets and recasts and so on, and I construe texts for a living. Tanta:

"Has your head exploded yet?

But that’s the real point, isn’t it? If your head just exploded, and you’re the kind of person who usually reads CR, just imagine what the kind of person who doesn’t usually read CR makes of all this during some ten-minute spiel by some loan officer."

Fourth, about that loan officer: Tanta notes one case she's heard of in which a loan officer just did not understand this kind of loan, and misrepresented it to her clients. Given how complicated this type of loan is, this cannot be an isolated case. But besides simple misunderstandings, there's also active obfuscation. Here's a story on how Wachovia instructed its employees to sell their option ARMs (also via CR; bear in mind that this is a negative amortization loan, in which the amount you owe can go up):

"So if I'm paying that minimum payment, I'm not actually putting a dent in my principal though right? My principal and interest they're just going to keep climbing up right?" the borrower asks in the video tape. "It's optional," the broker in the video replied.

"What kind of answer is that?" said Brown [a housing advocate, ed.] after watching the video. "The answer would really be 'Yes.' That's the right answer, that to me would be the true clear straightforward truthful simple answer."

Now: one might think that people who take out mortgages should not rely on what their loan officer or mortgage broker says. They should read the documents for themselves, and if they don't understand what they read, they shouldn't take out the mortgage. I am tempted to agree with this. I have taken out a number of mortgages, and I always do read all the documents. My various loan officers have always reacted to this quaint habit of mine with astonishment, the way they might respond if I arrived at their office in a coach and four accompanied by liveried footmen. Some of them indulge my archaic eccentricities with good humor. Others, however, start conspicuously looking at their watches and tapping their fingers as I settle in with the Flood Plain Report, and make it very clear that they do not regard watching me wade through the details of the arbitration provisions as a productive use of their time. It takes a thick skin to keep reading despite that.

Besides, a lot of people find it hard to understand long, dry, complicated legal documents. We might wish this weren't true, but it is. Their only options are to trust someone to summarize a mortgage accurately, or not to take out a mortgage at all. And if the summaries they get are wrong, whether because the loan officers themselves do not understand the mortgages they are selling or because of outright deception, then those people are screwed.

There are quite a few of these loans out there: "According to UBS, gross issuance of securitized OA pools was $18.5 billion in 2004, $128 billion in 2005, and $175 billion in 2006." In the various debates about who is at fault for what, it's worth bearing in mind that some of the people whose mortgages are in trouble took out loans like these, loans that should never have been marketed outside very special circumstances, and that no normal human being should ever have to understand. 

Hilarious, But Dishonest Too

by publius

Like hilzoy, I found the GOP budget bubbles adorably cute.  I was hoping to see more underpants gnomes though.  That's honestly the only real critique I have of this fine product -- the underpants gnomishness is left implicit.  (If any graphically-inclined readers want to take a stab at "gnoming" the bubbles, I'd be happy to post your handiwork).

On a more substantive note, I do think it's fairly revealing that the only specific policy proposal in the entire budget with numbers is a massive tax cut for the rich.  The "plan" proposes establishing two marginal tax rates -- 25% for those who make more than $100,000; 10% for everyone else.  As I'm sure you know, that's a huge benefit for those who are doing pretty well.  Clearly, this is not a party whose sole mission in life is to redistribute income up the ladder.

It's also worth noting that, hilarity aside, it's full of misleading and downright false assertions.  A few of the biggies that I saw was the continuing attempt to pin the market meltdown on the Community Reinvestment Act (of 1977), and Fannie and Freddie.  This article provides probably the best summary I found on why these are simply demonstrably false claims.  (More - here, here, and here).

And there are other goodies too -- like this one (p.5):

Who are the recipients of such largesse? International organizations and foreign aid recipients, including millions for reconstruction in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Labor union bosses participating in a new “green jobs” program. The National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Americorps, Title X Family Planning, and a host of spending programs that will do nothing to help our economy recover. And even community organizers, such as ACORN, performing “neighborhood stabilization.”

Hamas and NPR -- both are recipients of Obama's largesse.

The Republican "Budget"

by hilzoy

I've been trying to figure out what to say about the House Republicans' new "budget". I think it's pretty neat that they decided to use those cute bubbles instead of numbers. Maybe next week they'll present their budget using interpretive dance or little animated jelly beans.

I also like the way they say serious-sounding things like this:

"Republicans believe that future generations should not be burdened by mountains of debt for the misguided choices made by Democrats today. Instead, working families should be able to keep more of what they earn and pass those savings to future generations." (p. 10)

-- and then go on to propose a whole raft of new tax cuts and only one specific spending cut, "ending the bailouts". The whole thing has a sort of Dada quality to it that's almost endearing. But I wasn't sure what level of ridicule could possibly be adequate to it.

Luckily, Nate Silver has the answer:

Via John Cole, a Fark thread has some interesting suggestions:

There are lots more where that came from. Enjoy!

Race and Republican policy

by von

Ross Douthat's recent back-and-forth with Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding crime and race is one of those conversations as likely to generate unwelcome heat as much as needed light.  But, since every good blog is a kitchen with the oven on, let's not concern ourselves with the risks of a little more sweat. 

In Conservatives, Crime Policy, and the Black Vote, Douthat writes the following:

But drop down to ground level for a moment, and consider Ta-Nehisi's response to my post on prison reform. Here we have an issue - the design of our criminal-justice system - that's of burning concern to the African-American community. It's not an easy issue to wrestle with by any stretch: My preferred approach to reform, for instance, would marry a reduced incarceration rate to a substantial increase in the police presence on America's streets, which if implemented clumsily (as most policy shifts are) could mean fewer black men behind bars, but more tragedies like the death of Ta-Nehisi's friend. But it's also an issue where conservatives could embrace policy shifts without compromising their core beliefs - the question of where to strike the "build prisons or hire cops" balance is a practical rather than a philosophical one - and in the process, I think, substantially change the way the Republican Party is perceived in the black community. Also, it would be the right thing to do. 

Although a very bad Republican of late*, this is a subject near to my heart.  I've long wanted a Republican party that reflects the diversity of the places where I shop, eat, work out, and want to send my kids to school.  I want a meeting of Republicans to look like my YMCA on a Saturday afternoon.  Maybe without the pool, but with the same cast of hues. 

We are a loooooong way from that .... as Douthat acknowledges.   Still, I broadly endorse Douthat's solution.  A Republican party that is more practical in its focus, and spends less time on abstract principles, is a Republican party that is going to be more appealing to folks who are not, historically, Republicans.  But here's the rub.  How the hell is the Republican party ever going to know what "practical issues" are killing black kids, sometimes literally, for no reason?  There are virtually no black kids (or adults) in the Republican party.  Who is going to give their perspective?  Michael Steele is many things, but he ain't the spokesman for all the people whose skin is dark.  (That would be Billy Dee Williams.)

The one thing that I've learned from working and arguing with a diverse group of folks is that you can never really put yourself in someone else's shoes.  You can only reduce the other person to a caricature.  I make you a cartoon and you do the same to me.  As a result, it's vital to have different perspectives in the room.  We've made great strides toward being more colorblind, but we ain't yet; experience still matters. 

How are the Republicans going to do that?  I've been thinking about this issue for a long while, and I haven't a clue.  I think it starts with campaigning places Republican candidates don't normally campaign and talking to people Republicans don't generally talk to.  Whatever the right approach, it's going to be a hard slog.  Republicans will never get a policy that stays true to their principles but treats all folks fairly -- the kind of policy Douthat wants -- until all folks have a hand in crafting the policy. 

*I haven't voted for the Republican Presidential candidate in the last two elections, although I've voted for many downticket Republicans.

Donny, You're Out of Your Element

by Eric Martin

Shocked, shocked I tell you:

The Taliban’s widening campaign in southern Afghanistan is made possible in part by direct support from operatives in Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, despite Pakistani government promises to sever ties to militant groups fighting in Afghanistan, according to American government officials.

The support consists of money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders who are gearing up to confront the international force in Afghanistan that will soon include some 17,000 American reinforcements.

Support for the Taliban, as well as other militant groups, is coordinated by operatives inside the shadowy S Wing of Pakistan’s spy service, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the officials said. There is even evidence that ISI operatives meet regularly with Taliban commanders to discuss whether to intensify or scale back violence before the Afghan elections.

Details of the ISI’s continuing ties to militant groups were described by a half-dozen American, Pakistani and other security officials during recent interviews in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. All requested anonymity because they were discussing classified and sensitive intelligence information.

The American officials said proof of the ties between the Taliban and Pakistani spies came from electronic surveillance and trusted informants. The Pakistani officials interviewed said that they had firsthand knowledge of the connections, though they denied that the ties were strengthening the insurgency.

American officials have complained for more than a year about the ISI’s support to groups like the Taliban. But the new details reveal that the spy agency is aiding a broader array of militant networks with more diverse types of support than was previously known — even months after Pakistani officials said that the days of the ISI’s playing a “double game” had ended.

Afghanistan is directly adjacent to Pakistan.  On the other hand, Afghanistan is half a world away from the United States.  Powerful elements in the Pakistani government have long cultivated allies, proxies and influence in Afghanistan - which is viewed as a necessary ally, and strategic redoubt, given its proximity and Pakistan's ongoing conflicts with India. 

After the toppling of the Taliban-led government (which had friendly relations with Pakistan), India has greatly enhanced its presence Afghanistan, developing strong ties to the Karzai government, complete with several million dollars worth of aid. Those same powerful Pakistani elements are not about to abandon their strategic objective of establishing influence in Afghanistan just because the United States is backing other factions, especially given India's evolving position and relations with those US-backed groups. 

Long after we're gone from Afghanistan, Pakistan will still be its neighbor, India will still be Pakistan's regional rival and Pakistan will still be seeking influence in Afghanistan to balance its position with India.  In the meantime, the Pakistani government will make official statements to the effect that no portion of its fragmented structure supports Afghan militants comprising the insurgency, despite the reality of the situation.  

Some factions within Pakistan's government might sincerely want to sever those relations, but they lack the ability to exert control over the totality of Pakistan's government, and pushing too hard in such a direction will leave them vulnerable - both politically and, literally, to assassination.  Expecting them to make such a push mostly at our behest is, in a word, unrealistic.  And so the show will go on. 

The only questions, really, are how much time and money we want to waste deluding ourselves about Pakistan's interests, and whether or not we can figure out a way to placate Pakistan while also convincing its potential proxies to sever ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.  Eliminating, or containing, al-Qaeda's presence should be the overriding goal, not undertaking a massively expensive and time consuming nation building exercise when at the end of the day, the sand castles we erect in a foreign culture on the other side of the globe will likely be washed away by prevailing regional ebbs and flows.